We need to ban all handguns in America NOW

In article . com,
Bushzilla wrote:

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.

No, they were magazines, not clips. This is just a garden-variety case
of firearms ignorance.

Yes, I know what "clips" are. I have some "stripper clips" which can
load AR-15 magazines fairly quickly. I have them, but never use them.
These clips are almost always associated with rifle rounds, often older
rifles, and rarely if ever used for handgun magazines. I guarantee that
Cho was using magazines with his Glock 19, and not using stripper clips
to load the magazines.

As for your "important" point, he bought what he was legally entitled
to buy. Period.

Anyone who thinks otherwise needs killing.


--Tim May

On Apr 26, 1:17 pm, "Hertz_Donut" wrote:
"Bushzilla" wrote in message

ps.com...



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

roups.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?

No of course not, not my point.

= That would be
= foolish on several levels.

yes it would be.

= 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.

yes I agree..

= 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.

agree again, still not my point though..


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

accidents happen, murder is no accident and there are not too many
peoiple using cars as weapons..

= 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.

Of course there are ways, but if we don't get a dialogue going and
figure this out there will inevitably be alot more dead innocent
people as a result than there needs to be.


= 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.

I think we can agree this would be a bad way to handle it, of course,
my ideology is to turn it against them, turn the tables so they are on
the short of the deal and it much less appealing to be caught with an
illegal firearm.



Honu

Notan wrote:
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.

Please explain exactly how one bans unregistered handguns.



This is how...

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

On Apr 26, 1:18 pm, "Hertz_Donut" wrote:
"Bushzilla" wrote in message

oups.com...



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

roups.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

Yes it is hard, because less guns in the wrong hands means less dead
people, absolutely, and to make that happen we need to give the men in
blue and the courts a bigger stick to beat the possessors of illegal
weapons with, and that is done through tougher legislation. Stricter
laws for who can own a gun help too. If someone is deemed 'mentally
unstable' where for example "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.."
is this someone we should allow to walk right into a gun stiore and
arm themselves? no, of course not. It take just a few smart and needed
changes in the gun laws though to prevent the Cho's of the world from
such an easy purchase.

In article .com,
Bushzilla wrote:


Of course there are ways, but if we don't get a dialogue going and
figure this out there will inevitably be alot more dead innocent
people as a result than there needs to be.

There is no basis for "dialog" and nothing to "figure out."

Sometimes people take hammers or machetes and start killing people.
This is called "running amok," and has been happening for a lot longer
than either Cho or Lizzie Borden.


Talk to other blissninnies all you like. Call it "dialog" if you wish.

But those who try to crack down on my firearms rights will find me
taking my assault rifles to a very crowded public place and liqudating
60 liberals.

**** gun grabbers dead. **** Congress. Nuke Washington, D.C.

Allah willing, soon.


--Tim May

On Apr 27, 12:16 am, Tim May wrote:
In article . com,

Bushzilla wrote:
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.

= No, they were magazines, not clips. This is just a garden-variety
case
= of firearms ignorance.

Well you can blame the whore media for that one, I just read they were
clips, sounded like he was loading his mags with extra clips to as you
stae below do it quickly, however neither you or I know for usre, does
it really matter that much? whatever he actually purchased and used it
aided him in quickly burying 32 innocent people, again that is the
main point, it was too easy for a man who 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, was able to effortlessly and quickly buy what he needed to
do the shooting. I mean think about it this way, certain classes of
fireworks are banned in some states because they are considered too
dangerous, but anyone with simple I.D. and no record can buy as many
guns and bullets as they want.

= Yes, I know what "clips" are. I have some "stripper clips" which can
= load AR-15 magazines fairly quickly. I have them, but never use
them.
= These clips are almost always associated with rifle rounds, often
olde
= rifles, and rarely if ever used for handgun magazines. I guarantee
that
= Cho was using magazines with his Glock 19, and not using stripper
clips
= to load the magazines.

see above..

= As for your "important" point, he bought what he was legally
entitled
= to buy. Period.

exactly, and that is the problem, because, 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, and Cho was still legally entitled to buy them, we
need better laws so this does not happen anymore..

= Anyone who thinks otherwise needs killing.

don't be an egotystical asshole..


--Tim May

In article .com,
Bushzilla wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:16 am, Tim May wrote:
In article . com,

Bushzilla wrote:
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.

= No, they were magazines, not clips. This is just a garden-variety
case
= of firearms ignorance.

Well you can blame the whore media for that one, I just read they were
clips, sounded like he was loading his mags with extra clips to as you
stae below do it quickly, however neither you or I know for usre, does
it really matter that much?

Accuracy always matters. Not that I care when the press calls magazines
"clips."

But when you attempted to display your knowledge and explained that
clips really do exist and that this is what Cho was likely using, I
call "bull****."

I've owned a Glock 17 for 20 years. It takes magazines that hold about
16-18 rounds. (The name "17" does not refer to the magazine capacity.
In fact, the Glock 19 is a smaller piece and holds fewer rounds in its
standard magazine, though it can use the longer Glock 17 mags, even
30-round extra-long mags.)

Cho was no crazier than I am. And as a felon, I have never registered
the firearms and assault weapons I acquired many years ago at gun
shows. (A requirement that I report my possessions to Big Brother is a
requirement that I incriminate myself. Forbidden by the Fifth
Amendment. And, no, like all other constitutional rights, it does not
depend on a judge deciding I am crazy or a danger to myself and
others.)

My constitutional right to own firearms. Not some judge's right to
decide that I am "irrational' or "scary."


--Tim May

On Apr 24, 12:21 pm, Gunner wrote:
On 24 Apr 2007 06:17:46 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:



On Apr 24, 5:21 am, Gunner wrote:
On 24 Apr 2007 01:16:19 -0700, Bushzilla wrote:

This *sounds* real good; just like saying anyone posessing cocaine
will be immediately arrested. The problems are determining who is in
posession, and in having the wherewithall to effectthe arrests.

You try the stupid argument that because a ban on guns cannot prevent
ALL guns then it cannot prevent ANY guns.

= And it will make what difference? Other than ****ing off armed
= individuals?

So you are saying all armed individuals will be ****ed, and that is
what matters more, that it is better to allow people to have guns and
kill each other than it is to do something to secure our safety that
****es them off.. this is your argument for why guns should not be
banned? anyone with such a mentality a this should never have been
trusted to own a firearm in the first place..

= If you try to take away the means of protection used by armed
= individuals, in violation of the guarantees of the 2nd
Amendment..yes
= indeed they will be ****ed off. YOu will be violating their civil
rights
= in the worst possible way.

Listen whiner, the Second Amendment that you are twisting to fit your
needs was not written to guarantee your "right" to personally own
guns. It clearly states it was to arm a well organized militia, and
that is all, it does not mean anything more, stop making it out to be
more than it is so you have an excuse. Again, because you are ****ing
too stupid to read and comprehend, you are placing some angry people
who have to make a sacrifice to save lives, above the security and
safety of innocent people like the students at VT and the rest of the
civilized peaceful population.

Sorry buffoon..but it was written to EXACTLY guarantee the individual
right to keep and bear arms. And the Supreme Court of the United States
has So Ruled at least 35 times. Btw buffoon..the term is "well
regulated" which according to the usage of the time the Constitution was
written..means "trained and in good working order" You also seem to be
missing that little comma that separates the verbage..and establishes
the second half as a stand alone.."the right of the People to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed"

Btw..if you are older than 17 and in the US..you are ALREADY in the
milita.

Your ignorance of the subject is astounding for someone who pukes up
their stupidity on Usenet.



= Heads up cupcake..

cupcake? I suppose being a gun owner makes YOU a man? LOL yeah ok
you sissy, hiding behind a gun because you are too much of a pussy to
grow up and act like an adult and join the civilized world.

Snicker..here is another fine example of the neurotic Libtard somehow
equating firearms with "steel penis" and manhood. Have you no shame?
Seek out a mental health professional immediately. Perhaps after half a
lifetime of theropy..you can resume normalicy.



= if you wanted to :secure your safety..you would be
= hiding in your basement and would not be on the roadways or out in
= public, gun free zones or not.

Tell you what sissy hiding behind your gun pretending to be a real
man, you do that, I'll continue to support and work toward a civilized
culture putting people who own guns that should not, in jail where
they belong, It is time for serious gun control reform.

Thank you very much for further demonstrating the mental illness you and
your kind so pitiably demonstrate. Bravo Sir! Bravo indeed! Well
done!



= Hence its simply your fear of weapons that is so obviously puking
from
= your lips.

Awwww I touched a nerve, don't pop a vein now weirdo.

Snicker....I think "I" hit a nerve....snicker...



= It should further be noted that you would demand that cops be
= disarmed, as they shoot innocent individuals at 20x the rate that
CCW
= holders do.

No actually the worst thing we could do is disarm the police, they
should be the ones who have the guns so they can continue to protect
the population from weirdos like you.

So you want police to continue to shoot innocent people? Your slavish
appeal to authority is noted. It fits with your demonstrated neurotic
world view. You evidently need a strong father figure in your life. Did
your dad abandon you as an infant?



= Its gratifying to see that someone as neurotic as you are, has no
= interest in owning a gun. Its likely you would suddenly run amok and
= shoot up a preschool, after massacring your entire family.

My my you have some very demented fantasies, see a shrink soon, you
really should, and I think deep down inside you know you should.

Chuckle..Ive been through all the tests..and have passed with a clean
bill of mental health. It was part of several job requirements Ive had
over the years. And of course I pass the FBI, and state and local
requirements to allow me to to carry a concealed weapon daily.

Im quite sure we cannot say the same about you. Which means the system
works nicely.



= Its because of deranged nut cases like you..I carry a concealed
weapon
= every day, all nice and legally.

Let's see weirdo, I feel we should stiffen our gun laws to protect us
from people who have sick fantasies of "shooting children and their
entire family", excuse me but those are YOUR words, not mine, and you
call me deranged? yeah ok, I don't think anyone need to look much
further to see who the deranged freak is here..

I can recognize the mentally ill, and you indeed fit the description.
And yes..you would be a danger to your family and society at large. No
matter how you try to spin and deny it.



= "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional
maturity."
= Sigmund Freud ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis)

Sure whatever Dr Weirdo, again you twist the truth to make your point
fit your sordid argument. Wishing to see guns removed from the hands
of deranged people, like you, does not constitute a fear of weapons. I
just don't want to see any more shootings like what happened at
Virgina Tech, of course you probably can't wait for another one
because it quite obviously is the only thing that gets you off..

Further demonstration of your mental health issues. Fascinating how you
can rationalize your mental state so easily.



= So whats your next move? Banning printing presses, radios and other
= informational media? After all..if you are so willing to gut the
= Constituion to allay your neurotic fears..its obvious you will try
to
= ban the 1st Amendment as well, because someone may say something
nasty
= about you.

Actually freedom of speech IS clearly protected by the Constitution,
unlike gun ownership, so no.

Again you are utterly and provably wrong. Seems you are not doing very
well here. But then..the mentally ill seldom do.



= Fascinating how you totalitarian head cases seem to pop out of the
= woodwork with such regularity.

It's called America, douchebag, that's why assholes like you are
allowed to live here, unfortunately for the rest of us.

= Yes, it IS America. And Americans tolerate the mensnip snip


what are you doing on the computer? you psychiatrist has been looking
for you, you missed your appointment again..

"Tim May" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Bushzilla wrote:

On Apr 27, 12:16 am, Tim May wrote:
In article . com,

Bushzilla wrote:
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.

= No, they were magazines, not clips. This is just a garden-variety
case
= of firearms ignorance.

Well you can blame the whore media for that one, I just read they were
clips, sounded like he was loading his mags with extra clips to as you
stae below do it quickly, however neither you or I know for usre, does
it really matter that much?

Accuracy always matters. Not that I care when the press calls magazines
"clips."

But when you attempted to display your knowledge and explained that
clips really do exist and that this is what Cho was likely using, I
call "bull****."

I've owned a Glock 17 for 20 years. It takes magazines that hold about
16-18 rounds. (The name "17" does not refer to the magazine capacity.
In fact, the Glock 19 is a smaller piece and holds fewer rounds in its
standard magazine, though it can use the longer Glock 17 mags, even
30-round extra-long mags.)

Cho was no crazier than I am.

Then you did not see his rant on tape, and if you are as loonie tunes as he
is, you are a threat to society.


And as a felon, I have never registered
the firearms and assault weapons I acquired many years ago at gun
shows. (A requirement that I report my possessions to Big Brother is a
requirement that I incriminate myself. Forbidden by the Fifth
Amendment. And, no, like all other constitutional rights, it does not
depend on a judge deciding I am crazy or a danger to myself and
others.)

The ramblings of a typical liberal ignorati...



My constitutional right to own firearms. Not some judge's right to
decide that I am "irrational' or "scary."

Your post shows your disregard for laws, for conventions and for society.
You are irrational, and your post would make any rational person view you as
"scary".

I can only hope that you are incarcerated before you become the next mass
murderer...


Honu

On Apr 27, 12:49 am, Tim May wrote:
In article .com,



Bushzilla wrote:
On Apr 27, 12:16 am, Tim May wrote:
In article . com,

Bushzilla wrote:
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.

= No, they were magazines, not clips. This is just a garden-variety
case
= of firearms ignorance.

Well you can blame the whore media for that one, I just read they were
clips, sounded like he was loading his mags with extra clips to as you
stae below do it quickly, however neither you or I know for usre, does
it really matter that much?

= Accuracy always matters. Not that I care when the press calls
magazines
= "clips."

= But when you attempted to display your knowledge and explained that
= clips really do exist and that this is what Cho was likely using, I
= call "bull****."

Show me where I said 'this is what Cho was likely using'

= I've owned a Glock 17 for 20 years. It takes magazines that hold
about
= 16-18 rounds. (The name "17" does not refer to the magazine
capacity.
= In fact, the Glock 19 is a smaller piece and holds fewer rounds in
its
= standard magazine, though it can use the longer Glock 17 mags, even
= 30-round extra-long mags.)

am I supposed to be impressed?

= Cho was no crazier than I am. And as a felon, I have never
registered
= the firearms and assault weapons I acquired many years ago at gun
= shows. (A requirement that I report my possessions to Big Brother is
a
= requirement that I incriminate myself. Forbidden by the Fifth
= Amendment. And, no, like all other constitutional rights, it does
not
= depend on a judge deciding I am crazy or a danger to myself and
= others.)

= My constitutional right to own firearms. Not some judge's right to
= decide that I am "irrational' or "scary."

I see, so you believe a judges opinion means nothing, it is no small
wonder how you ended up a felon..

When a judge determines someone is 'mentally unstable' it is usually
for a good reason, and being mentally unstable is not a good benchmark
to use to allow someone to purchase a deadly weapon, clips, magazines,
ammo or bullets.

--Tim May