"U.S. Janet B." wrote:
> what I meant by that comment was that Pence righteously will not be
> alone with any female because of religious beliefs. However,
> distancing does not keep him from 'sinning in his mind' or in the
> shower.

You hate Trump but I feel that Pence is even scarier.
We might agree on that one.

"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.

On Sat, 2 May 2020 10:28:43 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2020-05-02 8:58 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 8:28:50 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>
>> However, it's quite unlikely that a man would get to the point of
>> doing what she claims without ever having done something similar
>> to anyone else. It seems unlikely he was overwhelmed by her charms
>> and simply lost his senses. Her case would be more compelling if
>> other credible women came forth to tell a comparable story.
>>
>> I don't give a shit about "me too". People have always been tried in
>> the court of public opinion. Employers have the right to fire anyone
>> for any reason.
>>
>> Would you prefer that sexual predators keep doing their thing?
>
>The Me Too concerns be because it almost seems like too many people want
>to share the spot light of victimization. They can have some sort of
>sexual liaison with someone rich and powerful, or later to be rich and
>powerful, and then, years later, after someone else makes a complaint,
>they all come out of the woodwork to be included.
>
>We has a Me Too issue up here a couple years ago when a CBC radio host
>was accused of assaulting a woman, and then two other women made similar
>accusations. They dumped him in a heart beat and he ended up facing
>charges. I had not problem with that because he was such a smarmy jerk.
>He was acquitted on the charges.
>
> When the crap first hit the fan the guy was quite candid about
>enjoying rough sex. He liked to get physical and hit women, but he
>complained that the acts were consensual.
>
>The cases fell apart when the three women were caught lying repeatedly.
>While one claimed that she was so ****ed off she never saw him again, it
>turned out that she had. They had more dates, more sex, and more rough
>sex, and she sent him emails telling him how much she had enjoyed it.
>That complainant and another swore that they had not discussed the
>incidents and the accused with each other, but the defense checked their
>internet records and found emails between the two of them where they
>discussed the cases and what they had told the cops and the lawyers etc,
>and there were thousands of similar emails.... thousands. Yet they had
>denied discussing it at all.
>
>The third woman claimed to have been so traumatized by the assault that
>she never wanted to see the guy again, could not listen to his show, and
>could not even listen to the show with a new host. She denied that she
>had contacted him, denied emailing him, denied sending photos of herself
>in a very revealing bikini. They had the emails and the photos and
>showed them to her and she still denied it, but then admitted it, but
>explained that she had been trying to lure him to a meeting where she
>would get him to admit what he had done and apologize to her.
>
>The guy was acquitted because the three alleged victims had zero
>credibility. When you give testimony in court and get caught lying you
>lose your credibility and any testimony you give is deemed to worthless.
>This was a case where one women came forward with an accusation (later
>settled privately) and then three more jumped in the bandwagon with
>surprising similar stores, and each one was found to be lying.
>
>The guy lost his job, his career and his reputation and his accusers
>were all found to have been lying.
>

Sure says a lot about what you are like if you think Gomeshi should be
free!

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.

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.

On Sat, 02 May 2020 10:51:39 -0600, U.S. Janet B. >
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.
>
>what I meant by that comment was that Pence righteously will not be
>alone with any female because of religious beliefs. However,
>distancing does not keep him from 'sinning in his mind' or in the
>shower.

It's a joke really, to me it means he is not in charge of himself.

On 2020-05-02 12:45 p.m., 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.

Better yet, she could try to post some statistics to see if they have
ever been a problem in Canada, especially if any incident involved
legally acquired firearms in the hands of licensed owners. Licensed
owners have never been much of a factor in gun crimes here. The problem
with firearms violence is in the realm of criminals using illegal arms.

On 2020-05-02 12:06 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 12:04:50 -0400, Boron Elgar

>> Yeah...all those drug dealers with assault weapons who drive around
>> with the black mamas in pink Cadillacs collecting welfare right? I
>> mean, I am sure that is what you really have in mind.
>>>
>
> Oh...don't forget to go to church Sunday morning.
>
Church??? Is that another one of the characteristics I am supposed to
share with all the other legally licensed and law abiding gun owners
here. You are even stupider that I thought. It's funny to see you
trying to belittle my sexuality, considering that between your looks and
you personality you couldn't get ****ed on a Saturday night in a bar
full of drunken seamen.

On 2020-05-02 12:48 p.m., Gary wrote:
> Boring Elgar wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> And your response causes you to lose face and shows
> just how biased you are. So you believe
> women no matter what they claim? It must be true?
> Every single claim?
>
> I have no doubt that many claims are true but not so
> many that we have seen in the past few years.
> I suspect that many are also just vindictive women
> finally going after revenge for being jilted.

It's easier for Moron to make a personal attack than to deal with the
facts. I provided a good example of a high profile case of three women
trying to get in on the Me Too movement and when their case got to court
the guy was acquitted because they were found to be lying about just
about everything regarding the case.


Maybe we should have raised the issue of Anthony Bourdain's partner Asia
Argento who was one of the founder's of Me Too and was busy gaining fame
for having been assaulted by Harvey Winestein, and it turned out she was
also in the process of settling an assault case laid against her by an
underage actor.

On 2020-05-02 1:26 p.m., 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.
>

High capacity clips here were already illegal.


> 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.

Maybe you just shouldn't be in their living space if their presence
scares you. I have been on canoe trips where we paddled several days to
the more remote areas. Bears are only interested in your food. Put it in
a bag and hang it from a tree.

On 2020-05-02 1:47 p.m., Lucretia Borgia wrote:
> On Sat, 2 May 2020 10:28:43 -0400, Dave Smith

>> The guy lost his job, his career and his reputation and his accusers
>> were all found to have been lying.
>>
>
> Sure says a lot about what you are like if you think Gomeshi should be
> free!
>

It sure says a lot about you inability to read of you think I said he
should be free. Maybe if I do a short summary it won't exceed your
attention span. A woman complained. Three more jumped in the band wagon
and made similar accusations. He admitted the rough sex and said it
was consensual.... evidenced by subsequent dates with similar low level
violence and emails saying how much they had enjoyed it. All three were
caught in a web of lies and lost their credibility.

I never liked the guy. I was glad to see him get fired. I was especially
glad because his radio persona was Mr. PC all inclusive CBC diversity,
and he was caught in the hypocrisy.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> Biden was called out early in his campaign (as a result of the Me Too
> movement) for innocently touching women on their shoulders at press
> conferences.

Yeah...for beloved Biden, he only innocently touched women
on their shoulders. Do I see a double standard here?

On 2020-05-02 9:34 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:

> The same guy fired his Attorney General because she refused to pressure
> an independent prosecutor to allow a DPA for a company that was being
> prosecuted on corruption charges. She told him quite clearly that it is
> improper to allow a DPA in that case, that it was improper for her to
> pressure the independent prosecutor and improper for him to pressure
> her. So he fired her. When she went public and there was so much proof
> he could no longer deny it he finally admitted that he had done wrong
> and said that he took full responsibility which, in his mind, appears to
> mean he can no longer deny it so he will fess up but not face consequences.
>
He wasn't wrong! She was, and she had an agenda! Look up Eddie
Greenspan's commentary on the case in the G&M. That's the Toronto Globe
and Mail, not a RW PostMedia paper!

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.

> 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.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2020-05-02 12:06 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 May 2020 12:04:50 -0400, Boron Elgar
>
> >> Yeah...all those drug dealers with assault weapons who drive around
> >> with the black mamas in pink Cadillacs collecting welfare right? I
> >> mean, I am sure that is what you really have in mind.
> >>>
> >
> > Oh...don't forget to go to church Sunday morning.
> >
> Church??? Is that another one of the characteristics I am supposed to
> share with all the other legally licensed and law abiding gun owners
> here. You are even stupider that I thought. It's funny to see you
> trying to belittle my sexuality, considering that between your looks and
> you personality you couldn't get ****ed on a Saturday night in a bar
> full of drunken seamen.

I'll bet you Popeye would do her.

On 2020-05-02 1:50 p.m., 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.


That's bullshit and demonstrates the level of ignorance about the
Canadian gun control regulations that is typical of the people who are
opposed to firearms. They can be used for hunting and they can be used
for target shooting. There was always a limit on magazine capacity.
Automatic weapons were already prohibited.



>
> 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.


Well look at that... another pseudo psychologist. Sometimes men lose
their hair before they can afford a Maserati. Maybe you could explain
how shooting has become so popular with women.

On 2020-05-02 9:47 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2020-05-02 10:23 a.m., graham wrote:
>> On 2020-05-01 7:29 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2020-05-01 8:48 p.m., graham wrote:
>>>> On 2020-04-30 11:41 p.m., Leo wrote:
>>>>> On 2020 Apr 30, , graham wrote
>>>>> (in article >):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell us, what is there to admire in this moronic POTUS?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hows that sap that runs your tiny population country doing? Hes a
>>>>> dandy with a pedigree, Ill give him that. What were his other
>>>>> qualifications? Did you vote for him? If so, why?
>>>>>
>>>>> leo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> He's widely respected by other world leaders and at least he has the
>>>> guts to introduce sensible gun controls.
>>>
>>> I trust that you aren't referring to his latest knee jerk reaction to
>>> the guy who went on a rampage that including killing a cop and
>>> stealing her gun to shoot more people. The firearms he banned today
>>> have not posed a problem to anyone.Â* Meanwhile, he has opened up the
>>> prison doors and released scores of violent offenders.
>>
>> https://postimg.cc/VrhpCKpy
>>
>
>
> Ahh... the old pseudo intellectual association of fire arms and penis
> size. That ranks up there with the irony of people assuming that all
> cops are racists.
>
The legislation should also have included an absolute ban on hand guns.
And before you spit out your coffee, don't bother spouting that NRA crap
that "it won't stop criminals" etc.
That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.

graham wrote:
>
> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.

I've got a nifty hunting knife.

On 2020-05-02 2:29 p.m., graham wrote:
> On 2020-05-02 9:34 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> The same guy fired his Attorney General because she refused to
>> pressure an independent prosecutor to allow a DPA for a company that
>> was being prosecuted on corruption charges. She told him quite clearly
>> that it is improper to allow a DPA in that case, that it was improper
>> for her to pressure the independent prosecutor and improper for him to
>> pressure her. So he fired her. When she went public and there was so
>> much proof he could no longer deny it he finally admitted that he had
>> done wrong and said that he took full responsibility which, in his
>> mind, appears to mean he can no longer deny it so he will fess up but
>> not face consequences.
>>
> He wasn't wrong! She was, and she had an agenda! Look up Eddie
> Greenspan's commentary on the case in the G&M. That's the Toronto Globe
> and Mail, not a RW PostMedia paper!


That is a defense lawyer trying to justify plea bargains. Isn't he the
same Brian Greenspan who represented some Liberal candidates who were
charged with bribery? How appropriate that he should be trying to
justify the PM trying to intervene in a bribery and corruption trial.


Not everyone agrees with the argument the pro Liberal pro Trudeau lawyer
made.



https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/11783

https://lailayuile.com/2019/04/18/sn...m-and-now-you/

On 2020-05-02 2:29 p.m., graham wrote:
> On 2020-05-02 9:34 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> The same guy fired his Attorney General because she refused to
>> pressure an independent prosecutor to allow a DPA for a company that
>> was being prosecuted on corruption charges. She told him quite clearly
>> that it is improper to allow a DPA in that case, that it was improper
>> for her to pressure the independent prosecutor and improper for him to
>> pressure her. So he fired her. When she went public and there was so
>> much proof he could no longer deny it he finally admitted that he had
>> done wrong and said that he took full responsibility which, in his
>> mind, appears to mean he can no longer deny it so he will fess up but
>> not face consequences.
>>
> He wasn't wrong! She was, and she had an agenda! Look up Eddie
> Greenspan's commentary on the case in the G&M. That's the Toronto Globe
> and Mail, not a RW PostMedia paper!



Oh,,,, I forgot to mention what happened when SNC Lavelin finally had to
go to court on the corruption charges...

Former SNC-Lavalin executive Sami Bebawi was sentenced to 8.5 years in
jail and the company was fined $280 Million.


But sure.... Trudeau was right. They should have just gone with the DPA
and give them a little slap on the wrist. I just can't figure why, if
Brian Greespan was right, that Trudeau was within his rights to pressure
the AG to pressure the prosecutor, why he denied it for so long. He
denied the meetings. He denied the comments. He denied the pressure....
but later admitted it all.

On 2020-05-02 2:30 p.m., Gary wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-05-02 12:06 p.m., Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 May 2020 12:04:50 -0400, Boron Elgar
>>
>>>> Yeah...all those drug dealers with assault weapons who drive around
>>>> with the black mamas in pink Cadillacs collecting welfare right? I
>>>> mean, I am sure that is what you really have in mind.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh...don't forget to go to church Sunday morning.
>>>
>> Church??? Is that another one of the characteristics I am supposed to
>> share with all the other legally licensed and law abiding gun owners
>> here. You are even stupider that I thought. It's funny to see you
>> trying to belittle my sexuality, considering that between your looks and
>> you personality you couldn't get ****ed on a Saturday night in a bar
>> full of drunken seamen.
>
> I'll bet you Popeye would do her.
>

I don't think there is enough Crystal Palace on the planet to help her
get laid.

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.

I am not anti-gun, in general- not at all. Been there, done that,
don't bother any more.

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

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

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


snip
>
>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.

Yes, I did and yes she would of her own belief

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.

from the accounts that I have read, a bear doesn't give you all that
much room to get the barrel up to fire.. That's why bear spray comes
in a holster with a trigger

On 2020-05-02 2:36 p.m., graham wrote:
> On 2020-05-02 9:47 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Ahh... the old pseudo intellectual association of fire arms and penis
>> size. That ranks up there with the irony of people assuming that all
>> cops are racists.
>>
> The legislation should also have included an absolute ban on hand guns.
> And before you spit out your coffee, don't bother spouting that NRA crap
> that "it won't stop criminals" etc.
> That guy in Nova Scotia only became a criminal when he used the guns.


That guy had no PAL. He was not entitled to be in possession of any
firearm. Yet... he had at least one when he shot the Mountie. He then
stole her sidearm. For those who think that only military and police
should be able to carry hand guns, half of the killings in the worst
mass killing in Nova Scotia were committed with a cop's gun. We have
been told for years by the anti gun ground that people should not be
able to have hand guns because they might be stolen and used by
criminals. Well.... apparently it can happen and in this case it was a
cop's gun, so maybe they should not be able to carry them either.

Why is it always the RCMP that end up getting shot in these situations?
Are they that badly trained or just completely incompetent? You may
recall a situation out in Alberta a few years back. That was in the good
old days when we had that useless long gun registry. The guy in that
situation was a violent offender who should have been in jail. He was on
a weapons prohibition so he was not allowed to possess any guns at all.
So one by one, the horsie cops show up at his farm and, one by one they
get shot by a gun who, they were told had no firearms.... no PAL
therefore no guns.

I have to ask what harm it does anyone for sport shooters like myself,
to shoot holes in paper targets? I have never advocated either open or
concealed carry. Canadian law does not allow you to shoot people. In the
rare case that it has happened, even the guys who were acquitted went
through legal hell.

On 2020-05-02 3:03 p.m., Moron 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.
>
> I am not anti-gun, in general- not at all. Been there, done that,
> don't bother any more.
>

In other words... you don't know and won't answer.
It is a legitimate question in this thread.

On 2020-05-02 3:16 p.m., 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.


That was in the US. Canada already had reasonable gun control
regulations. The anti "assault rifle" rhetoric is basically about those
nasty looking things that look like soldiers would use them. I trained
as a weapons in the reserves and had may share of showing the stuff that
was state of the art back then. I prefer not to blow my money on
expensive ammunition if I have to pay for it myself.

This was a reaction to a mass shooting that did not even involve assault
rifles or anything close to one. There was however one prohibited
firearm that had been used. That was the Mounties gun, a model of
handgun is classified as prohibited because of the short barrel.

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

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 from the midwest, but I bet you'll get
figure that out, too. And not as cute as a bunch of guns in a house
with someone who is on the kind of pain meds your husband is on..

As I said, don't play bullshitter with me.

..

On 5/2/2020 2:29 PM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> Biden was called out early in his campaign (as a result of the Me Too
>> movement) for innocently touching women on their shoulders at press
>> conferences.
>
> Yeah...for beloved Biden, he only innocently touched women
> on their shoulders. Do I see a double standard here?
>
No, you only see what you want to see. You're not a woman. Ask your
daughter if she ever had a male boss lean over her shoulder at her desk.
Was he looking down her blouse? Or was he merely leaning over to look
at the paper or computer screen on her desk?

Doesn't matter what you say about Biden, Trump is still an idiot.

Jill

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

On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 3:48:13 PM UTC-4, 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 from the midwest, but I bet you'll get
> figure that out, too. And not as cute as a bunch of guns in a house
> with someone who is on the kind of pain meds your husband is on..
>
> As I said, don't play bullshitter with me.
>
> .

Fine. You don't respect my honest desire for information, so be it.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sat, 2 May 2020 06:00:18 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 2, 2020 at 8:29:41 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>> Never needed any official to
>> tell me how to act either.
>
>But some people do. I want the government to protect me from other people's
>bad decisions. That's what it's there for.

That's exactly it. Us RFC people are intelligent enough to take our
own decisions based on the information. But the bloody riffraff!

On Sat, 02 May 2020 09:23:34 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>>
>> >"U.S. Janet B." wrote:
>> >> the farmers aren't going to vote for rump or any GOP if the farmer can
>> >> see his produce rotting in the field or on the tree.
>> >
>> >I will say one thing. You are certainly steady in your hatred
>> >of everything Trump.
>>
>> Just as you are steady in defending him against all odds.
>
>OK Bruce...here's the deal.
>
>John here often posts dumb shit and he is constantly picked
>on and bullied to no end. Even when he posts normal things,
>he's always critisized here. At this point, he is
>damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
>And you stick up for him because of the constant bullying.
>I agree too.
>
>Same for me with Trump. Not our best President and he often
>says dumb shit but this insane constant bullying is not
>right. He's also damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
>
>You defend John against the bullying yet you join the
>wolf pack against Trump. Respond with your niftiest retort
>but you ARE a bully just like those you don't like.
>Your way is not necessarily the right way.

When you become a high profile politician, you'll have defenders and
detractors. It's part of the job. Not to mention the fact that Trump
probably doesn't read RFC

On Sat, 02 May 2020 12:49:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Boring Elgar wrote to Dave:
>> Oh...don't forget to go to church Sunday morning.
>
>Do you have issues with people that go to church too?
>Life is not all about YOU and what you believe.

It's the hypocrisy.

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

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.

Weinstein went to trial and is now in jail. Anything wrong with that?

On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:29:42 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> Biden was called out early in his campaign (as a result of the Me Too
>> movement) for innocently touching women on their shoulders at press
>> conferences.
>
>Yeah...for beloved Biden, he only innocently touched women
>on their shoulders. Do I see a double standard here?

I see one with you.

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