On 2020-05-02 3:55 p.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 3:44:51 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. wrote:

> He's got a .22 rifle for target shooting. Nice old piece with a wooden
> stock. He also has a .223 rifle that looks pretty damned military, but
> underneath it isn't much different from his .22 rifle. One trigger pull,
> one bullet. He likes it because his shoulder is wrecked and it doesn't
> have much of a kick.

It is looking military that seems to scare/impress people, Years ago
there were FN C1 rifles available. They were a 7.62mm gas operated semi
automatic with a 20 round magazine. They were prohibited weapons. At the
time there were number of semiautomatic .308 hunting rifles that were
perfectly legal. The only real difference is the flash eliminator and
the magazine capacity. They could have blocked the mags or simply made
smaller ones. Same bullet, same rate of fire, same mag capacity.
>
> He took his deer with a .357 Magnum pistol because he can't shoulder
> a rifle big enough to kill a deer.

You cannot hunt with a hand gun here. Most people can't shot a hand gun
well enough to hit a deer. Not to mention there is no concealed or open
carry here. You can only shoot handguns are approved ranges.


> For the most part, it's not about the gun. It's about the shooter. I'd
> like to see some meaningful laws in this country that would keep guns
> out of the hands of weirdos. A good first step would be to consistently
> enforce the laws that are in place.


We have a pretty good system here. You have to be licensed to own
firearms and to buy ammunition and to be in possession of same. You
have to take a course and get references. That weeds out most of the
weirdos. The incident last week involved a man who apparently had a
mental health issue and who was not licensed to possess firearms.

The government's reaction was to pass by Order in Council (Cabinet),
something that would not have passed in Parliament, a ban on "assault
weapons" even though there was not an assault rifle used in those killings.

On 5/2/2020 11:33 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 2 May 2020 10:29:31 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2020 9:38 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 08:27:36 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "U.S. Janet B." wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>> Oddly enough, I'm okay with el vice-presidente not wearing a mask. That gringo is scary enough without a mask.
>>>>>
>>>>> true enough, but at least your wife and daughters are safe
>>>>> Janet US
>>>>
>>>> Ok, Mrs.Democrat. Now your beloved Biden is accused of being
>>>> a "pussy-grabber" (TM Bruce). He says it's not true.
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe him or do you believe the woman?
>>>> Remember - with this "Me Too" movement, the men are
>>>> automatically considered guilty and lose their jobs.
>>>> No trial necessary.
>>>
>>> That last paragraph shows you up well for the flaming piece of sexist
>>> shit you are.
>>>
>> I, for one, choose to believe whoever is most credible and has the most
>> facts to back up allegations. Investigate and prove it in court (either
>> side, don't care which sex or what party you belong to). I want facts,
>> not unproven accusations flung about in the media.
>>
>> Trump should stop bringing up Hunter Biden and screaming nepotism. He
>> has everyone in his family except for his youngest son (he's not old
>> enough yet) on the friggin' payroll.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm a little angry. I don't find Trump to be at all credible
>> about anything. And despite what Gary and some others would like to
>> believe, I wasn't always a Democrat. I voted Republican for a long
>> time. I changed my mind *years* before Trump ever thought about running
>> for office.
>>
>> My father was a die-hard Republican. I'm pretty darned sure he'd be
>> rolling in his grave if he could see the mockery this man has made of
>> the office.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Amen...
>
Just my opinion but thank you.

Meanwhile, I'l enjoying fantastic weather with the windows open and
watching hummingbirds at the feeder and birds splashing in the bath on
the patio. I'm going to make some Tex-Mex tacos for dinner.

Jill

On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>
>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>
>That's what war is all about.

I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>
>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>
>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>
>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>Not YOUR daughter though.

So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.

On Sat, 2 May 2020 12:16:49 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 1:50:49 PM UTC-4, Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 May 2020 09:45:46 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 12:04:54 PM UTC-4, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> >
>> >> Look, Davey, m'boy, you're a right wing gun toting white guy. You've
>> >> always defended assault weapon ownership
>> >
>> >Could you do me a solid and describe what you mean by "assault weapon"?
>> >Form, function, caliber, whatever you think will help me to understand
>> >which weapons you are talking about.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>> That's what the shooter in Las Vegas used.
>
>The Las Vegas shooter modified his weapons to be able to shoot rapidly,
>although not fully auto. All kinds of rifles can be modified in that
>way. Even pistols can be fitted with a bump stock.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Anything that adds further complication to them having these, or
similar, weapons.

On Sat, 02 May 2020 15:48:09 -0400, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Sat, 2 May 2020 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 3:03:41 PM UTC-4, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 May 2020 09:45:46 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 12:04:54 PM UTC-4, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Look, Davey, m'boy, you're a right wing gun toting white guy. You've
>>> >> always defended assault weapon ownership
>>> >
>>> >Could you do me a solid and describe what you mean by "assault weapon"?
>>> >Form, function, caliber, whatever you think will help me to understand
>>> >which weapons you are talking about.
>>> >
>>> >Thanks,
>>> >
>>> >Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>> You know exactly what I am talking about. No need to BS.
>>
>>No, I don't. Is it a semi-automatic rifle? Fully automatic? Bolt action?
>>.22 caliber? .223? .308? .338?
>>10-round magazine? 30 rounds? More than 30 rounds?
>>
>>Cindy Hamilton
>
>You want state by state definitions and common terminology, go diddle
>yourself silly finding them. You know exactly what I implied but
>you're trying to be cute...not as cute as when you spend your morning
>arguing with a mentally ill man

Nail on head!

On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>
>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>
>>That's what war is all about.
>
>I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>
>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>
>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>
>>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>Not YOUR daughter though.
>
>So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.

All men are?

On Sat, 02 May 2020 13:44:43 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
wrote:

>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:37:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>>graham wrote:
>>>
>>> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.
>>
>>I've got a nifty hunting knife.
>
>The current gun thing really puzzles me. I grew up with relatives and
>their offspring going hunting in the fall. Nobody had more than one
>or two long guns. They hiked to spots and checked the area out for
>potential game, came back in the fall and first day of hunting was
>Thanksgiving day. If they each got their deer they were done for the
>season except meeting their quota for duck and goose. Everybody knew
>the safe way to handle a gun. Everyone and their male offspring
>was/would be in the military. To this day back home, nobody has any
>of the military styled assault weapons. I just don't get it at all.
>War and killing people is a gruesome, painful thing. I can't imagine
>fantasizing and playing war. I'm thankful I never had to because I
>know I would kill to protect my own and I would suffer for it
>afterwards.
>Janet US

My eldest SIL is a hunter but just as you say, hunting season opens,
he's out, got his deer and he's back until next year. All his guns
very secure in a built in locked down contraption in the basement. Not
out on display where they can be stolen. I think he has 2 shotguns.

On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:57:43 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 May 2020 13:44:43 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:37:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>>graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.
>>>
>>>I've got a nifty hunting knife.
>>
>>The current gun thing really puzzles me. I grew up with relatives and
>>their offspring going hunting in the fall. Nobody had more than one
>>or two long guns. They hiked to spots and checked the area out for
>>potential game, came back in the fall and first day of hunting was
>>Thanksgiving day. If they each got their deer they were done for the
>>season except meeting their quota for duck and goose. Everybody knew
>>the safe way to handle a gun. Everyone and their male offspring
>>was/would be in the military. To this day back home, nobody has any
>>of the military styled assault weapons. I just don't get it at all.
>>War and killing people is a gruesome, painful thing. I can't imagine
>>fantasizing and playing war. I'm thankful I never had to because I
>>know I would kill to protect my own and I would suffer for it
>>afterwards.
>>Janet US
>
>My eldest SIL is a hunter but just as you say, hunting season opens,
>he's out, got his deer and he's back until next year. All his guns
>very secure in a built in locked down contraption in the basement. Not
>out on display where they can be stolen. I think he has 2 shotguns.

He's still a barbarian.

On 2020-05-02 5:47 p.m., Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>
>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>
>> That's what war is all about.
>
> I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
> military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>
>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>
>> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>
>> Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>> support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>> also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>> Not YOUR daughter though.
>
> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>

So you won't mind if veterans for benefits would be restricted to those
who are actually in combat? If it is a matter of equality and we
expected everyone to have equal opportunity, then we should expect equal
involvement and equal responsibility. If women want to go into the
armed forces and expect promotion on a par with their male comrades,
they should be equally prepared for combat.

On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:55:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>
>>>That's what war is all about.
>>
>>I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>>military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>
>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>
>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>
>>>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>>Not YOUR daughter though.
>>
>>So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>
>All men are?

Can't you read? "as with men, some are not combat minded'

On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:58:19 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:57:43 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 13:44:43 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:37:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>>graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.
>>>>
>>>>I've got a nifty hunting knife.
>>>
>>>The current gun thing really puzzles me. I grew up with relatives and
>>>their offspring going hunting in the fall. Nobody had more than one
>>>or two long guns. They hiked to spots and checked the area out for
>>>potential game, came back in the fall and first day of hunting was
>>>Thanksgiving day. If they each got their deer they were done for the
>>>season except meeting their quota for duck and goose. Everybody knew
>>>the safe way to handle a gun. Everyone and their male offspring
>>>was/would be in the military. To this day back home, nobody has any
>>>of the military styled assault weapons. I just don't get it at all.
>>>War and killing people is a gruesome, painful thing. I can't imagine
>>>fantasizing and playing war. I'm thankful I never had to because I
>>>know I would kill to protect my own and I would suffer for it
>>>afterwards.
>>>Janet US
>>
>>My eldest SIL is a hunter but just as you say, hunting season opens,
>>he's out, got his deer and he's back until next year. All his guns
>>very secure in a built in locked down contraption in the basement. Not
>>out on display where they can be stolen. I think he has 2 shotguns.
>
>He's still a barbarian.

But a very nice, kind man, my daughter is lucky.

On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:50:28 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:55:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>>
>>>>That's what war is all about.
>>>
>>>I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>>>military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>>
>>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>>
>>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>>
>>>>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>>>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>>>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>>>Not YOUR daughter though.
>>>
>>>So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>
>>All men are?
>
>Can't you read? "as with men, some are not combat minded'

So if I had been Canadian or American and drafted and said "Sorry, I'm
not combat minded", I wouldn't have to fight?

On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:51:45 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:58:19 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:57:43 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 13:44:43 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:37:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>graham wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've got a nifty hunting knife.
>>>>
>>>>The current gun thing really puzzles me. I grew up with relatives and
>>>>their offspring going hunting in the fall. Nobody had more than one
>>>>or two long guns. They hiked to spots and checked the area out for
>>>>potential game, came back in the fall and first day of hunting was
>>>>Thanksgiving day. If they each got their deer they were done for the
>>>>season except meeting their quota for duck and goose. Everybody knew
>>>>the safe way to handle a gun. Everyone and their male offspring
>>>>was/would be in the military. To this day back home, nobody has any
>>>>of the military styled assault weapons. I just don't get it at all.
>>>>War and killing people is a gruesome, painful thing. I can't imagine
>>>>fantasizing and playing war. I'm thankful I never had to because I
>>>>know I would kill to protect my own and I would suffer for it
>>>>afterwards.
>>>>Janet US
>>>
>>>My eldest SIL is a hunter but just as you say, hunting season opens,
>>>he's out, got his deer and he's back until next year. All his guns
>>>very secure in a built in locked down contraption in the basement. Not
>>>out on display where they can be stolen. I think he has 2 shotguns.
>>
>>He's still a barbarian.
>
>But a very nice, kind man, my daughter is lucky.

She must be a barbarian too. Birds of a feather.

Sheldon Martin wrote:
> On Sat, 2 May 2020 12:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 3:44:51 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:37:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.
>>>>
>>>> I've got a nifty hunting knife.
>>>
>>> The current gun thing really puzzles me. I grew up with relatives and
>>> their offspring going hunting in the fall. Nobody had more than one
>>> or two long guns. They hiked to spots and checked the area out for
>>> potential game, came back in the fall and first day of hunting was
>>> Thanksgiving day. If they each got their deer they were done for the
>>> season except meeting their quota for duck and goose. Everybody knew
>>> the safe way to handle a gun. Everyone and their male offspring
>>> was/would be in the military. To this day back home, nobody has any
>>> of the military styled assault weapons. I just don't get it at all.
>>> War and killing people is a gruesome, painful thing. I can't imagine
>>> fantasizing and playing war. I'm thankful I never had to because I
>>> know I would kill to protect my own and I would suffer for it
>>> afterwards.
>>> Janet US
>>
>> My husband has an unreasonable number of guns. He likes having stuff.
>> (We also have an unreasonable amount of art glass for the same reason.)
>> Don't get me started on the three bandsaws.
>>
>> He's got a .22 rifle for target shooting. Nice old piece with a wooden
>> stock. He also has a .223 rifle that looks pretty damned military, but
>> underneath it isn't much different from his .22 rifle. One trigger pull,
>> one bullet. He likes it because his shoulder is wrecked and it doesn't
>> have much of a kick.
>>
>> He took his deer with a .357 Magnum pistol because he can't shoulder
>> a rifle big enough to kill a deer.
>
> Then he knows absolutely nothing about firearms, nor do you... a 12ga.
> loaded with buck shot has less than half the kick of a .357 magnum
> pistol... what else does he have you hoodwinked about? There's likely
> not a damned thing wrong with his shoulder other than that's his alibi
> for ED because he can no longer get it up... his 'shooting' problem is
> urological. Have him make appointment with a urologist and you buy a
> new bra wardrobe... your ancient washed out $3.99 white cotton Playtex
> bras won't do it.
>
>> For the most part, it's not about the gun. It's about the shooter. I'd
>> like to see some meaningful laws in this country that would keep guns
>> out of the hands of weirdos. A good first step would be to consistently
>> enforce the laws that are in place.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton

Listen to Popeye ... he has a 5 inch gun, and it's always hard.

Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 13:26:24 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>> "U.S. Janet B." wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll bet you I could hit a target if I had a gun with 30 rounds of
>>> auto-fire. . . even if the target was moving.
>>
>> lol Very true. Even a bad aim with a burst of 30 rounds
>> is hard to miss a target.
>>
>> I wouldn't mind carrying an auto with a clip while hiking
>> in bear country though. See an angry bear charging and
>> you would wish you had all ammo and the kitchen sink.
>
> Americans having a friendly discussion about what interests them the
> most
>

Yes. It's much more sane to discuss ass sniffing with a dutch man.

"Did you smell kuth's ass today?"

"Oh yes, and it was absolutely heavenly, especially after he farted!"

"I agree and I hear Druce also planted a big wet kiss on kuth's
rectum!"

"Yes, but lets move on and talk about bitching biddies with mean,
nasty killfiles."

Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>
>>> That's what war is all about.
>>
>> I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>> military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>
>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>
>>> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>
>>> Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>> support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>> also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>> Not YOUR daughter though.
>>
>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>
> All men are?
>

Well, some just serve slop on tin plates, like Popeye did 50 years ago.

Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:50:28 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:55:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what war is all about.
>>>>
>>>> I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>>>> military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>>>> support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>>>> also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>>>> Not YOUR daughter though.
>>>>
>>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>
>>> All men are?
>>
>> Can't you read? "as with men, some are not combat minded'
>
> So if I had been Canadian or American and drafted and said "Sorry, I'm
> not combat minded", I wouldn't have to fight?
>

Exactly! They would have simply assigned you a butt licking
masseuse job in a R&R homo camp.

Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:57:43 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 13:44:43 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:37:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.
>>>>
>>>> I've got a nifty hunting knife.
>>>
>>> The current gun thing really puzzles me. I grew up with relatives and
>>> their offspring going hunting in the fall. Nobody had more than one
>>> or two long guns. They hiked to spots and checked the area out for
>>> potential game, came back in the fall and first day of hunting was
>>> Thanksgiving day. If they each got their deer they were done for the
>>> season except meeting their quota for duck and goose. Everybody knew
>>> the safe way to handle a gun. Everyone and their male offspring
>>> was/would be in the military. To this day back home, nobody has any
>>> of the military styled assault weapons. I just don't get it at all.
>>> War and killing people is a gruesome, painful thing. I can't imagine
>>> fantasizing and playing war. I'm thankful I never had to because I
>>> know I would kill to protect my own and I would suffer for it
>>> afterwards.
>>> Janet US
>>
>> My eldest SIL is a hunter but just as you say, hunting season opens,
>> he's out, got his deer and he's back until next year. All his guns
>> very secure in a built in locked down contraption in the basement. Not
>> out on display where they can be stolen. I think he has 2 shotguns.
>
> He's still a barbarian.
>

And you are still an ass-sniffer.

Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:51:45 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:58:19 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:57:43 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 13:44:43 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:37:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> graham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've got a nifty hunting knife.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current gun thing really puzzles me. I grew up with relatives and
>>>>> their offspring going hunting in the fall. Nobody had more than one
>>>>> or two long guns. They hiked to spots and checked the area out for
>>>>> potential game, came back in the fall and first day of hunting was
>>>>> Thanksgiving day. If they each got their deer they were done for the
>>>>> season except meeting their quota for duck and goose. Everybody knew
>>>>> the safe way to handle a gun. Everyone and their male offspring
>>>>> was/would be in the military. To this day back home, nobody has any
>>>>> of the military styled assault weapons. I just don't get it at all.
>>>>> War and killing people is a gruesome, painful thing. I can't imagine
>>>>> fantasizing and playing war. I'm thankful I never had to because I
>>>>> know I would kill to protect my own and I would suffer for it
>>>>> afterwards.
>>>>> Janet US
>>>>
>>>> My eldest SIL is a hunter but just as you say, hunting season opens,
>>>> he's out, got his deer and he's back until next year. All his guns
>>>> very secure in a built in locked down contraption in the basement. Not
>>>> out on display where they can be stolen. I think he has 2 shotguns.
>>>
>>> He's still a barbarian.
>>
>> But a very nice, kind man, my daughter is lucky.
>
> She must be a barbarian too. Birds of a feather.
>

Woohoo! You get to sniff two asses!

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 3:44:51 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:37:05 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
> >graham wrote:
> >>
> >> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.
> >
> >I've got a nifty hunting knife.
>
> The current gun thing really puzzles me. I grew up with relatives and
> their offspring going hunting in the fall. Nobody had more than one
> or two long guns. They hiked to spots and checked the area out for
> potential game, came back in the fall and first day of hunting was
> Thanksgiving day. If they each got their deer they were done for the
> season except meeting their quota for duck and goose. Everybody knew
> the safe way to handle a gun. Everyone and their male offspring
> was/would be in the military. To this day back home, nobody has any
> of the military styled assault weapons. I just don't get it at all.
> War and killing people is a gruesome, painful thing. I can't imagine
> fantasizing and playing war. I'm thankful I never had to because I
> know I would kill to protect my own and I would suffer for it
> afterwards.
> Janet US

My husband has an unreasonable number of guns. He likes having stuff.
(We also have an unreasonable amount of art glass for the same reason.)
Don't get me started on the three bandsaws.

He's got a .22 rifle for target shooting. Nice old piece with a wooden
stock. He also has a .223 rifle that looks pretty damned military, but
underneath it isn't much different from his .22 rifle. One trigger pull,
one bullet. He likes it because his shoulder is wrecked and it doesn't
have much of a kick.

He took his deer with a .357 Magnum pistol because he can't shoulder
a rifle big enough to kill a deer.

For the most part, it's not about the gun. It's about the shooter. I'd
like to see some meaningful laws in this country that would keep guns
out of the hands of weirdos. A good first step would be to consistently
enforce the laws that are in place.

Cindy Hamilton

===

We have very strict laws. We have a lot of guns but D. was in the military
for many years.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2020-05-02 3:55 p.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 3:44:51 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>
> > He's got a .22 rifle for target shooting. Nice old piece with a wooden
> > stock. He also has a .223 rifle that looks pretty damned military, but
> > underneath it isn't much different from his .22 rifle. One trigger pull,
> > one bullet. He likes it because his shoulder is wrecked and it doesn't
> > have much of a kick.
>
> It is looking military that seems to scare/impress people, Years ago
> there were FN C1 rifles available. They were a 7.62mm gas operated semi
> automatic with a 20 round magazine. They were prohibited weapons. At the
> time there were number of semiautomatic .308 hunting rifles that were
> perfectly legal. The only real difference is the flash eliminator and
> the magazine capacity. They could have blocked the mags or simply made
> smaller ones. Same bullet, same rate of fire, same mag capacity.
> >
> > He took his deer with a .357 Magnum pistol because he can't shoulder
> > a rifle big enough to kill a deer.
>
> You cannot hunt with a hand gun here. Most people can't shot a hand gun
> well enough to hit a deer. Not to mention there is no concealed or open
> carry here. You can only shoot handguns are approved ranges.

It's legal in Michigan, but you're required to use a handgun with enough
stopping power for a clean kill. He got his deer in one shot in the
first 15 minutes of opening day. He's quite a good shot.

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 5:01:02 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2020-05-02 3:55 p.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 3:44:51 PM UTC-4, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>
> > He's got a .22 rifle for target shooting. Nice old piece with a wooden
> > stock. He also has a .223 rifle that looks pretty damned military, but
> > underneath it isn't much different from his .22 rifle. One trigger
> > pull,
> > one bullet. He likes it because his shoulder is wrecked and it doesn't
> > have much of a kick.
>
> It is looking military that seems to scare/impress people, Years ago
> there were FN C1 rifles available. They were a 7.62mm gas operated semi
> automatic with a 20 round magazine. They were prohibited weapons. At the
> time there were number of semiautomatic .308 hunting rifles that were
> perfectly legal. The only real difference is the flash eliminator and
> the magazine capacity. They could have blocked the mags or simply made
> smaller ones. Same bullet, same rate of fire, same mag capacity.
> >
> > He took his deer with a .357 Magnum pistol because he can't shoulder
> > a rifle big enough to kill a deer.
>
> You cannot hunt with a hand gun here. Most people can't shot a hand gun
> well enough to hit a deer. Not to mention there is no concealed or open
> carry here. You can only shoot handguns are approved ranges.

It's legal in Michigan, but you're required to use a handgun with enough
stopping power for a clean kill. He got his deer in one shot in the
first 15 minutes of opening day. He's quite a good shot.

Cindy Hamilton

=====

Handguns are not legal here any more. Air pistols but not firearms.



--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sun, 03 May 2020 10:31:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:50:28 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:55:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's what war is all about.
>>>>
>>>>I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>>>>military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>>>
>>>>>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>>>>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>>>>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>>>>Not YOUR daughter though.
>>>>
>>>>So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>>combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>>fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>
>>>All men are?
>>
>>Can't you read? "as with men, some are not combat minded'
>
>So if I had been Canadian or American and drafted and said "Sorry, I'm
>not combat minded", I wouldn't have to fight?

There are other jobs even in times of war. Sending someone in to
combat who is not able to handle it is a liability.

During WWII there were many pacifists who offered themselves for other
jobs, just as dangerous to themselves. One of my fathers friends
offered his body in the rushed search for a med for malaria which was
creating problems in Burma etc. Whatever it was they tested on him,
did not work and he spent the rest of his life lying in a bed. My
father would visit him when in the UK and felt he had served as well.
In some ways he felt he had given more than those who went or died.

On Sun, 03 May 2020 08:08:21 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 May 2020 10:31:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:50:28 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:55:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's what war is all about.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>>>>>military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>>>>>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>>>>>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>>>>>Not YOUR daughter though.
>>>>>
>>>>>So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>>>combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>>>fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>
>>>>All men are?
>>>
>>>Can't you read? "as with men, some are not combat minded'
>>
>>So if I had been Canadian or American and drafted and said "Sorry, I'm
>>not combat minded", I wouldn't have to fight?
>
>There are other jobs even in times of war. Sending someone in to
>combat who is not able to handle it is a liability.

So can we agree that women and men who don't want combat should
equally not have to go into combat? Or do you make a distinction?

On Sun, 03 May 2020 21:13:56 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Sun, 03 May 2020 08:08:21 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 10:31:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:50:28 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:55:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>>>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's what war is all about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>>>>>>military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>>>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>>>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>>>>>>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>>>>>>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>>>>>>Not YOUR daughter though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>>>>combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>>>>fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>>
>>>>>All men are?
>>>>
>>>>Can't you read? "as with men, some are not combat minded'
>>>
>>>So if I had been Canadian or American and drafted and said "Sorry, I'm
>>>not combat minded", I wouldn't have to fight?
>>
>>There are other jobs even in times of war. Sending someone in to
>>combat who is not able to handle it is a liability.
>
>So can we agree that women and men who don't want combat should
>equally not have to go into combat? Or do you make a distinction?

ffs - where did I say that?

jmcquown wrote:
>
> My father was a die-hard Republican. I'm pretty darned sure he'd be
> rolling in his grave if he could see the mockery this man has made of
> the office.

"Jane, you ignorant slut!" (old SNL quote)

Yes, you grew up as daddy's little princess girl but you have
no clue about your father's beliefs. Please don't disrespect
his memory like that.

He was a Marine Corp officer and their Commander in Chief is
top dog. That changes every 4-8 years or so but Marines
are loyal regardless who is chosen. Same as your daddy.

If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
salute to him. (To your dismay)

This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.

Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
Commander in Chief of all the US military.

Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.

Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>
> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.

Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
that often means combat for most.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

> > > He took his deer with a .357 Magnum pistol

> He got his deer in one shot in the
> first 15 minutes of opening day. He's quite a good shot.

That *is* impressive to me. One shot, one kill with
a handgun. Please do tell him I said so.

On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>
>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>
> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
> Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
> that often means combat for most.
>


Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age, it
should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want it,
but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary purpose of
the military, they should be assigned there too.

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
> > Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> >>
> >> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
> >> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
> >> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
> >
> > Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
> > Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
> > that often means combat for most.
> >
>
>
> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age, it
> should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want it,
> but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary purpose of
> the military, they should be assigned there too.

I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are engaging in combat situations. They have been for years. They get killed and maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other red-blooded American boy in combat. I mean, this ain't the friggin' 60's!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyBmCASoJ64

On Sun, 03 May 2020 13:34:35 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>
>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>
>Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
>Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
>that often means combat for most.

I was merely trying to answer his silly post, yes women should be
equal in this day and age but that said, not everyone is suitable for
the front, male or female.

On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
>>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight
>>>> in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to
>>>> actually fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>
>>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get drafted
>>> and you lose all choices and during a draft that often means
>>> combat for most.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age,
>> it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
>> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want
>> it, but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary
>> purpose of the military, they should be assigned there too.
>
> I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are engaging in
> combat situations. They have been for years. They get killed and
> maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other red-blooded American boy in
> combat. I mean, this ain't the friggin' 60's!
>

Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US. It is
2020 and they should be 50-50.

On 2020-05-03 2:45 p.m., Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> On Sun, 03 May 2020 13:34:35 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>
>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>> combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>> fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>
>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs.
>> Get drafted and you lose all choices and during a draft
>> that often means combat for most.
>
> I was merely trying to answer his silly post, yes women should be
> equal in this day and age but that said, not everyone is suitable for
> the front, male or female.
>


If they are not suitable for the front they should not be in the armed
forces. There appears to be too many people in the armed forces these
days that aren't prepared for the role they are supposed to be trained
for. The number of people being diagnosed or self diagnosed with PTSD
is astoundingly high these days.

I knew lots of men who had served overseas for several years during WWII
and came back and pursued successful careers. Nowadays we send a unit
over for a short deployment and they come back with PTSD, and some of
them never saw combat.

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:47:41 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
> >>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight
> >>>> in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to
> >>>> actually fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
> >>>
> >>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get drafted
> >>> and you lose all choices and during a draft that often means
> >>> combat for most.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age,
> >> it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
> >> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want
> >> it, but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary
> >> purpose of the military, they should be assigned there too.
> >
> > I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are engaging in
> > combat situations. They have been for years. They get killed and
> > maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other red-blooded American boy in
> > combat. I mean, this ain't the friggin' 60's!
> >
>
> Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US. It is
> 2020 and they should be 50-50.

I suppose we should do something about that but it's not something that keeps me up at night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVn2HSHW1aI

On Sun, 03 May 2020 12:36:54 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 May 2020 21:13:56 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 08:08:21 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 10:31:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:50:28 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:55:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>>>>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's what war is all about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>>>>>>>military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>>>>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>>>>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>>>>>>>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>>>>>>>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>>>>>>>Not YOUR daughter though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>>>>>combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>>>>>fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All men are?
>>>>>
>>>>>Can't you read? "as with men, some are not combat minded'
>>>>
>>>>So if I had been Canadian or American and drafted and said "Sorry, I'm
>>>>not combat minded", I wouldn't have to fight?
>>>
>>>There are other jobs even in times of war. Sending someone in to
>>>combat who is not able to handle it is a liability.
>>
>>So can we agree that women and men who don't want combat should
>>equally not have to go into combat? Or do you make a distinction?
>
>ffs - where did I say that?

I didn't say what you said, I asked a question.

On Sun, 03 May 2020 13:32:13 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> My father was a die-hard Republican. I'm pretty darned sure he'd be
>> rolling in his grave if he could see the mockery this man has made of
>> the office.
>
>"Jane, you ignorant slut!" (old SNL quote)
>
>Yes, you grew up as daddy's little princess girl but you have
>no clue about your father's beliefs. Please don't disrespect
>his memory like that.

She has every right to say what she said.

>He was a Marine Corp officer and their Commander in Chief is
>top dog. That changes every 4-8 years or so but Marines
>are loyal regardless who is chosen. Same as your daddy.
>
>If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
>roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
>salute to him. (To your dismay)
>
>This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
>it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.
>
>Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
>Commander in Chief of all the US military.
>
>Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.

How's that right arm going, Gary? Still twitchin'?

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
> >
> > My father was a die-hard Republican. I'm pretty darned sure he'd be
> > rolling in his grave if he could see the mockery this man has made of
> > the office.
>
> "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (old SNL quote)
>
> Yes, you grew up as daddy's little princess girl but you have
> no clue about your father's beliefs. Please don't disrespect
> his memory like that.
>
> He was a Marine Corp officer and their Commander in Chief is
> top dog. That changes every 4-8 years or so but Marines
> are loyal regardless who is chosen. Same as your daddy.
>
> If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
> roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
> salute to him. (To your dismay)
>
> This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
> it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.
>
> Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
> Commander in Chief of all the US military.
>
> Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.

You should have heard my Marine father-in-law talk about Bill Clinton.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 2:47:41 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2020-05-03 2:24 p.m., dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 8:13:19 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2020-05-03 1:34 p.m., Gary wrote:
> >>> Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight
> >>>> in combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to
> >>>> actually fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
> >>>
> >>> Join the military and you might get a choice of jobs. Get drafted
> >>> and you lose all choices and during a draft that often means
> >>> combat for most.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Given the equal rights and equal opportunity of this day and age,
> >> it should not be a right to fight in combat. It should be an equal
> >> obligation. They want equal access at all levels..... if they want
> >> it, but few are interested in combat. Since combat is the primary
> >> purpose of the military, they should be assigned there too.
> >
> > I wouldn't worry about that too much. American women are engaging in
> > combat situations. They have been for years. They get killed and
> > maimed and PTSD'ed just like any other red-blooded American boy in
> > combat. I mean, this ain't the friggin' 60's!
> >
>
> Women make up only 1.7% of combat infantry positions in the US. It is
> 2020 and they should be 50-50.

Or perhaps a percentage reflecting the relative numbers of men and women
in the service. The Army is 14% women. Why should the ratio of combat
infantry positions be 50-50?

Cindy Hamilton

On Sun, 3 May 2020 12:56:30 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>>
>> "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (old SNL quote)
>>
>> Yes, you grew up as daddy's little princess girl but you have
>> no clue about your father's beliefs. Please don't disrespect
>> his memory like that.
>>
>> He was a Marine Corp officer and their Commander in Chief is
>> top dog. That changes every 4-8 years or so but Marines
>> are loyal regardless who is chosen. Same as your daddy.
>>
>> If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
>> roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
>> salute to him. (To your dismay)
>>
>> This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
>> it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.
>>
>> Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
>> Commander in Chief of all the US military.
>>
>> Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.
>
>You should have heard my Marine father-in-law talk about Bill Clinton.

He didn't kiss Clinton's ass Gary-style? The shame!

On 5/3/2020 3:56 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 1:33:26 PM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> My father was a die-hard Republican. I'm pretty darned sure he'd be
>>> rolling in his grave if he could see the mockery this man has made of
>>> the office.
>>
>> "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (old SNL quote)
>>
>> Yes, you grew up as daddy's little princess girl but you have
>> no clue about your father's beliefs. Please don't disrespect
>> his memory like that.
>>
>> He was a Marine Corp officer and their Commander in Chief is
>> top dog. That changes every 4-8 years or so but Marines
>> are loyal regardless who is chosen. Same as your daddy.
>>
>> If Trump walked to his grave right now, your father wouldn't
>> roll over in his grave (if possible), he would give a crisp
>> salute to him. (To your dismay)
>>
>> This is what all Marines are trained to do and they do
>> it. Active, retired or even dead marines. "Semper Fi" always.
>>
>> Personal opinions aside, they respect the title:
>> Commander in Chief of all the US military.
>>
>> Like it or not, that's what Trump is right now.
>
> You should have heard my Marine father-in-law talk about Bill Clinton.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
And my father about that "ignorant peanut farmer" (Jimmy Carter).

Jill