We need to ban all handguns in America NOW

On 26 Apr 2007 06:36:02 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:

Is it hard for you to face the fact that because people like you fight
so hard to let everyone and anyone who wants a gun have one, that
there are people like Cho happily going on shooting sprees ending the
lives of innocent people?

Freedom is very well understood to have risks.
It has been my observation that those who would remove other peoples'
freedoms really want control, not a reduction of risks.
While it may sound cold and harsh, the fact is that people die; *ALL*
of them. We can argue about *how* they die, but we can't stop them
from dying.
We can stop them from being free; but this will not stop them from
dying.
A gun ban will not ban guns, anymore than a drug ban bans drugs. It
will disarm law-abiding people, but it can not, by its very nature,
disarm those who want to violate the law. The idea that a person who
wants to commit murder will worry about violating a gun ban is just
stupid.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday compared herself
to the famed escaped slave Harriet Tubman
who fought to help fellow slaves escape the
South through the underground railroad. Who
is she kidding? Hillary Clinton has never
taken the subway in her life.

On 26 Apr 2007 01:12:47 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:

On Apr 25, 11:42 am, " wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:

How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

= Any gun control delivers guns to criminals and creates helpless
= victoms.
= An Armed society is a polite society
= Gun control has historicaly increased violent crime.
= What does work is a large and well eductated police force.

Non sense, the correct way of implementing gun control would take guns
out of the hands of criminals. If it is done right, the bad guys lose
and the people who are responsible with their guns win.

I have yet to see anyone describe a gun ban done right; are you going
to be the first? If so, the DOJ really, *REALLY* want to hear about
this. Please, enlighten us.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday compared herself
to the famed escaped slave Harriet Tubman
who fought to help fellow slaves escape the
South through the underground railroad. Who
is she kidding? Hillary Clinton has never
taken the subway in her life.

On 26 Apr 2007 06:31:42 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:25 am, "Hertz_Donut" wrote:
"Bushzilla" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Apr 25, 11:42 am, " wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:

How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

= Any gun control delivers guns to criminals and creates helpless
= victoms.
= An Armed society is a polite society
= Gun control has historicaly increased violent crime.
= What does work is a large and well eductated police force.

Non sense, the correct way of implementing gun control would take guns
out of the hands of criminals. If it is done right, the bad guys lose
and the people who are responsible with their guns win.

Typical liberal response. One problem with your theory...most criminals do
= not acquire their guns legally. How are you going to keep guns out
of
= "criminal" hands when the criminals don't obey laws in the first
place?

Your might wish to take off the rose-colored glasses for this one....

Honu

Ok, fair question, not impossible though, listen let's first agree to
not be ridiculous, will there STILL be some guns out there no matter
what we do? of course there will, I have always also held that there
will be a random nut that goes postal and shoots up a school or post
office. The idea here is to curb it best we can, we are not doing that
now. So how do we get them out of the hands of criminals? make the
Federal offense and jail time a much more serious deterrent by upping
the anti, as in triple the jail time, make a big noise about the new
law and offer the people with illegal weapons registration, an
anonymous program where they can turn them in and reign it all in by a
set date. After that anyone found with a gun they should not have goes
to jail and pays serious fines and additionally a good number of these
assholes get caught, with, their illegal guns on their person. It
gives the authorities alot more power over them, keeps them off the
street and makes it much less appealing to have an illegal weapon. I
think that would do quite alot in fact to cut the number of gun crimes
and deaths as well as make our country much safer. Now notice I did
not say at all here, that legal and responsible gun owners should have
their weapons taken away. Why is you ****ing people get all bent out
of shape the minute anyone wants to just make it harder for criminals
to get guns, you gun nuts committing alot of crimes are you? why all
the guilt? You take the gun, then you lock the nut job up for a very
long time for possessing an illegal weapon and the rest of us get to
live in peace, enough of this tip toeing around bull****, good people
are dying here for your convenience.

This has all been tried before in the war on drugs. EVERY BIT OF IT!
That worked well, didn't it?
Like I said, no one has come up with a way to actually ban something
yet.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday compared herself
to the famed escaped slave Harriet Tubman
who fought to help fellow slaves escape the
South through the underground railroad. Who
is she kidding? Hillary Clinton has never
taken the subway in her life.

"Bushzilla" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Apr 26, 4:25 am, "Hertz_Donut" wrote:
"Bushzilla" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Apr 25, 11:42 am, " wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:

How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We
have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

= Any gun control delivers guns to criminals and creates helpless
= victoms.
= An Armed society is a polite society
= Gun control has historicaly increased violent crime.
= What does work is a large and well eductated police force.

Non sense, the correct way of implementing gun control would take guns
out of the hands of criminals. If it is done right, the bad guys lose
and the people who are responsible with their guns win.

Typical liberal response. One problem with your theory...most criminals
do
= not acquire their guns legally. How are you going to keep guns out
of
= "criminal" hands when the criminals don't obey laws in the first
place?

Your might wish to take off the rose-colored glasses for this one....

Honu

Ok, fair question, not impossible though, listen let's first agree to
not be ridiculous, will there STILL be some guns out there no matter
what we do? of course there will, I have always also held that there
will be a random nut that goes postal and shoots up a school or post
office. The idea here is to curb it best we can, we are not doing that
now. So how do we get them out of the hands of criminals? make the
Federal offense and jail time a much more serious deterrent by upping
the anti, as in triple the jail time, make a big noise about the new
law and offer the people with illegal weapons registration, an
anonymous program where they can turn them in and reign it all in by a
set date. After that anyone found with a gun they should not have goes
to jail and pays serious fines and additionally a good number of these
assholes get caught, with, their illegal guns on their person. It
gives the authorities alot more power over them, keeps them off the
street and makes it much less appealing to have an illegal weapon. I
think that would do quite alot in fact to cut the number of gun crimes
and deaths as well as make our country much safer. Now notice I did
not say at all here, that legal and responsible gun owners should have
their weapons taken away. Why is you ****ing people get all bent out
of shape the minute anyone wants to just make it harder for criminals
to get guns, you gun nuts committing alot of crimes are you? why all
the guilt? You take the gun, then you lock the nut job up for a very
long time for possessing an illegal weapon and the rest of us get to
live in peace, enough of this tip toeing around bull****, good people
are dying here for your convenience.


So, I am supposed to give up one of my constitutional rights because someone
maybe sometime somewhere decide to use a gun during a crime? That would be
foolish on several levels. By giving up my right to bear arms, I am making
myself even more likely to be a victim of crime...whether that crime
involves a gun or not. It would be foolish to let the fear of the chance of
a gun crime make it possible to take guns out of the hands of responsible,
stable adult human beings.

More people are killed by automobiles in this country than are killed by
guns.

I agree that I wish there were some way to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals and mass murderers, but giving up my right to protect myself is
not the way to do it.

In addition, given the propensity of the legal system to favor the rights of
criminals over the rights of victims, I think it would be absurd to forfeit
our second amendment rights.

Honu

"Bushzilla" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 26, 4:31 am, "Hertz_Donut" wrote:
"Bushzilla" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Apr 25, 9:39 am, alohacyberian wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:53 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"

wrote:
In
ooglegroups.com,
G.I.
Cho sprach forth the following:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are
neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things
worse
for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater
confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

= Cho was crazy, he could of just as easily poured rat poison in a
water
= cooler. Guns are not the problem, just the instrument of
= communication. Cho had an end, the means were many, he chose guns.

Non sense, guns make it all to easy to kill large numbers of people
instantly. Poison in a water cooler might kill a few people but I
would think it would be pretty obvious and raise a red flag that the
water was tainted when the first one who drank from it suddenly keeled
over. There is a big difference in 32 dead and just 1 or 2. Depending
on the poison, poisoning can often be reversed if the victim is
treated quickly, not to mention your taste buds would tell you the
water was poisoned and you would likely spit it out rather than
swallow it. On the other hand, it is kind of hard to recover or save
someone from three bullets in their head however.. Gun control is not
just about taking firearms away from everyone, and our weak gun
control in America is why Cho was able to easily buy guns in the first
place, because though he was deemed psychologically unstable, he was
not considered unstable -enough- by weak gun laws that did nothing to
protect his classmates from him obtaining the guns and a large number
of bullets and extra clips.

= Is it hard to type with so much bull**** swimming in your head?

Honu

Is it hard for you to face the fact that because people like you fight
so hard to let everyone and anyone who wants a gun have one, that
there are people like Cho happily going on shooting sprees ending the
lives of innocent people?



It is hard for you to understand that all the bans and legislation in the
world will not keep guns out of the hands of those that wish to do harm with
them?

Honu

Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute wrote:
In message , Bill Funk
sprach forth the following:

Otherwise, we would lock people up for,
evidently, being "loners", or for writing "frightening" poems. (This
would lock up most IT people and college boys, BTW).


Nice stereotypes... you taking over for Imus?

Are you representing the ACLU?

Is this what it's come down to? The idea that you can't make fun
of *anyone*, be it jokingly or not, without repercussions?

Simply, pathetic.

--
Notan

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but alohacyberian
wrote on 25 Apr 2007 06:39:23 -0700 in
misc.survivalism :
On Apr 19, 7:53 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:
In ooglegroups.com, G.I.
Cho sprach forth the following:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

Cho was crazy, he could of just as easily poured rat poison in a water
cooler. Guns are not the problem, just the instrument of
communication. Cho had an end, the means were many, he chose guns.

No doubt because he knew, that guns would get him the air time he
deserved. Pouring rat poison just doesn't have the graphical elements to
reach the big time: national network "news."

Cho also took a lesson from modern contemporary culture, and video
blogged evidence of his psychosis. Sent a copy to NBC. Because they (the
media) have claimed for decades to be the only ones to have Real Authority
to judge what is criminal, insane or immoral. And NBC splashed Cho's name,
visage and ranting as far as they could (always with the NBC logo), in
large part because NBC and it's decision makers are no longer capable of
realistically understanding or making any moral evaluations. "It bled, it
lead."

And the head of NBC doesn't understand why the crack whores and used
car salesmen told him to go stand somewhere else. Like next to the
Democrat caucus.

--
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but "
wrote on 25 Apr 2007 08:42:56 -0700 in misc.survivalism
:
On Apr 18, 9:17 pm, "G.I. Cho" wrote:
How many more tragedies is it going to take before we wake up? We have
a serious gun problem in this country and it's time to take a stand.
Let the farmers and hunters keep the rifles and shotguns. Get rid of
the pistols and the assault rifles unless you want to go over and
fight in Iraq.

Any gun control delivers guns to criminals and creates helpless
victoms.
An Armed society is a polite society
Gun control has historicaly increased violent crime.
What does work is a large and well eductated police force.

What works even better is a well educated citizenry. But expecting the
police to stop all crime is a fantasy, and an abrogation of ones own
responsibilities.

"The king, though benevolent, at times is oft remiss in his assurances
of retributive justice."

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
The two oldest cliches in the book are "The Good Old Days were
better." and "After all, these are Modern TImes."

On Apr 26, 10:25 am, "RM v2.0" wrote:
control in America is why Cho was able to easily buy guns in the first
place, because though he was deemed psychologically unstable, he was
not considered unstable -enough- by weak gun laws that did nothing to
protect his classmates from him obtaining the guns and a large number
of bullets and extra clips.

= Magazines, not clips.

I know the difference, the stories I have read had him buying empty -
clips- on ebay which of course load quickly into a magazine on many
firearms, let's not get too anal here and lose the point, the point is
what is important, he bought what he needed all too easily.

On Apr 26, 12:00 pm, Bill Funk wrote:
On 26 Apr 2007 01:27:52 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:



On Apr 25, 9:39 am, alohacyberian wrote:
On Apr 19, 7:53 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"

wrote:
In ooglegroups.com, G.I.
Cho sprach forth the following:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for
the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage
than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

= Cho was crazy, he could of just as easily poured rat poison in a
water
= cooler. Guns are not the problem, just the instrument of
= communication. Cho had an end, the means were many, he chose guns.

Non sense, guns make it all to easy to kill large numbers of people
instantly. Poison in a water cooler might kill a few people but I
would think it would be pretty obvious and raise a red flag that the
water was tainted when the first one who drank from it suddenly keeled
over.

= Rat poison (the type mentioned here) does not cause people to
= suddently keel over.
= And the diagnosis of the cause of internal bleeding would likely
take
= a while, as rat poisoning of people occurs very seldom.

Is it tasteless? unless you talking about Tahllium or maybe Warfarin
which both were once used in rat poison and are no longer readily
available or legal, there is maybe tetramethylenedisulfotetramine
which is tasteless and still legal in China? I don't know, but these
are not everyday substances that can be bought over a counter at your
local 'Rat Poison Store' but you can easly walk into a Gun Store on
the other hand and buy somthing that can instantly kill some just by
aiming it and pulling a little lever with your finger.

There is a big difference in 32 dead and just 1 or 2. Depending
on the poison, poisoning can often be reversed if the victim is
treated quickly, not to mention your taste buds would tell you the
water was poisoned and you would likely spit it out rather than
swallow it. On the other hand, it is kind of hard to recover or save
someone from three bullets in their head however.. Gun control is not
just about taking firearms away from everyone, and our weak gun
control in America is why Cho was able to easily buy guns in the first
place, because though he was deemed psychologically unstable, he was
not considered unstable -enough- by weak gun laws that did nothing to
protect his classmates from him obtaining the guns and a large number
of bullets and extra clips.

= It's not the gun laws that are weak; note that they already disallow
= someone from buying if they have been committed for mental problems.

...and in Cho's case, he was determined mentally unstable, just not
committed to an institution, so there you are, the gun laws are too
weak or he would have been flagged from buying his murder weapons. A
Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to
himself because of mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment
for him, according to court documents, but because the current gun
laws do not consider someone deemed mentally unstable by the court,
unstable enough to buy a gun, you get 32 aspiring young innocent dead
students at Virginia Tech, no big deal right? why should we do
anything more, he would have poisoned them anyway? please..

= Instead, it's the extreme difficulty in getting people committed, a
= not-unreasonable policy. Otherwise, we would lock people up for,
= evidently, being "loners", or for writing "frightening" poems. (This
= would lock up most IT people and college boys, BTW).

A Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to
himself because of mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment
for him, according to court documents..


= It sounds really, really good to make more laws; the problem is that
= laws do not prevent crime, they define crime. That's the main reason
= we have a Legislative Branch of Government (the one that makes
laws),
= and a Judicial Branch (the one that enforces the laws); the two
= functions are very different.

A Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to
himself because of mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment
for him, according to court documents, the law was too weak or it that
judges ruling would have actually carried some significant weight..

= But laws that are unenforceable are useless (or worse than useless;
= they often take up valuable resources, and ruin lives for nothing;
see
= our current war on drugs),

well that is just it, if you pass laws that are actually effective,
not like what we have now that are ineffectivce, you go from
unenforcable to enforcable, as in --- a Virginia judge in December
2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to himself because of mental
illness" and ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to court
documents, but under our current laws this was not enouigh to legally
ban Cho from buying as many guns and as much ammo as he pleased..

= and laws that try to control behaviour have
= been abundantly demonstrated to be unenforceable.
= I don't have the answer, and I don't see anyone else who does, but I
= can see what *doesn't* work, and a gun ban is included in that.

I do, take this serious problem more seriously so that gun owners who
are good about being responsible with their guns get to keep them, and
assholes like Cho don't even ever get to buy them let alone use them
on someone.



--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Hillary Clinton on Tuesday compared herself
to the famed escaped slave Harriet Tubman
who fought to help fellow slaves escape the
South through the underground railroad. Who
is she kidding? Hillary Clinton has never
taken the subway in her life.