We need to ban all handguns in America NOW

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:40:36 GMT, "Stuart"
wrote:


No the police and militia are trained and have legislative authority.


On which planet?

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:59:57 GMT, "pjp"
wrote:

It's really simple to solve.

Make the manufacturers liable for their products.

They are. Strict warranty laws apply.

Now are you going to make Morris and Jaguar liable for hiway deaths?

In fact, stop manufacturing the product sounds better.

What do we do with all those guns made by companies long out of
business. In fact..Ive a number of British made firearms, not limited to
Webley and so forth. Now what?


Oh that's right, you yanks are so keen on money being above all else and
that'd hurt business so it's never considered.

What does money have with the right to protect oneself from criminals or
crazies?

You self-righteous hypocrites deserve the turmoil is my opinion.

Self rightious? My irony meter just burst into flames at your post read
aloud.

Laugh laugh laugh

Gunner



"G.I. Cho" wrote in message
roups.com...
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.



"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:54:42 -0700, nick c wrote:

London? How did the assailant acquire a gun months after the gun ban
and confiscation took place?

Since that time, would you assert that no one else in the UK has been
killed by an assailant who used a gun?

Ditto the mayor of Nagasaki.

Grinning

Food for thought:

If the British government doesn't trust its citizenry to have firearms
and act responsibly and sensible, should others follow the example of
the British government and not trust British citizens to act
responsibly and sensible.

Seems to me, the UK government wouldn't hesitate to arm its citizenry
if an invasion were thought to be the intent of another nation.
Churchill said he would arm every able bodied person if an invasion
were to take place. I guess that's the way some governments are. Arm
the people with all sorts of arms when necessary and trust them to
fight and if necessary die protect the seat of government, then disarm
them when the danger passes 'cause the people can't be trusted with arms.


http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign-gun-control.htm

some fascinating links..pay particular attention to the British ones....

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:24:26 -0700, "Billzz"
wrote:

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
. net...

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
...
In message , nick c sprach
forth the following:

If the British government doesn't trust its citizenry to have firearms
and act responsibly and sensible, should others follow the example of
the British government and not trust British citizens to act
responsibly and sensible.

Well, when an entire nation cannot produce a reliable car or a tasty
food,
one can't place such high expectations thereupon.

Don't forget warm beer...Oh yea, Lucas makes refrigerators.

Yes, as we Jaguar owners used to say, "Lucas, the Prince of Darkness."

And yet I have owned a 1957 XK-140 Jaguar (raced at Laguna Seca) and a 1962
E-Type Jaguar, and whatever their shortcomings they are worth many times
their purchase price. My 1957 Jaguar cost me $800.00 and my 1962 Jaguar
cost me 2000.00, and they are in the 20,000 to 60,000 dollar range today.
So they must have done something right. I sure do wish I had them back.
They were a really big pain in the butt to maintain, but they were a really
big kick in the butt to drive.



Ive got a pair of XK-E's available if you are interested. One is stone
original in British Racing green, the other needs minimal restoration
work, such as some rechroming and so forth.

Located in Santa Ana, California.

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On 19 Apr 2007 14:40:11 -0700, It's Americans OR Democrats
wrote:

On Apr 19, 1:08 pm, Education_Is_Important
wrote:
On 19 Apr 2007 09:25:56 -0700, Rich wrote:



On Apr 19, 12:17 am, "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.

40 years ago, some idiot liberal psychiatrists decided the best way to
expedite the treatment of loonies was to "intergrate" them into
society. The loonies were turfed from the insane asylums (it used to
be relatively easy to have someone confined) and crime SOARED. You
now see the results of this, people who are CLEARLY out of their minds
are allowed to live in society and the results are predictable. Time
to stop blaming "objects" for crimes and START blaming people.
To start with, all homeless people should be institutionalized. All
those determined to be a danger to themselves or the public should be
locked up.

Rich:
Some of what you have to say is accurate and clearly supported
by Psychological Studies and information currently in the databases of
the Criminal Justice System and Criminology.
In so far as it being "Time to stop blaming "objects" and
START blaming People" is concerned - that too appear to be an accurate
outflow of logic and reason. However, in "most people's minds" - they
DON'T WANT TO BLAME the person - they want to blame the object -
because they feel - if the object wasn't there - the criminal act
would not have occurred [a classic example of faulty/circular logic].
What they don't realize is the fact that if the "object" hadn't been
there - "some other object" - equally or more devastating - probably
would have been used - and quite possibly have resulted in greater or
more devastating losses of life and property.
The one part of your posting I tend to take exception to is
the "...all homeless people should be institutionalized." inference.
I suggest that you may wish to amend your "blanket reference" to the
homeless.
Granted, there are a NUMBER of the homeless who should be
institutionalized - because of Mental Disease/Disorders, Drugs and/or
Alcohol ingestion, and other equally devastating problems. However,
NOW DAYS - there are numerous people who are "homeless" and living on
the streets due to Circumstances beyond their control and the GREED of
others. Not just men, but women, children, and infants - forced out
onto the streets because of the way the economy is, because of BACK
STABBING Co-workers, because of SUPERVISORS who take umbrage at
someone who is more intelligent, experienced, or trained than they are
and end up forcing a situation on the employee - because of jealousy.
There are any number of reasons for a person/family to be unemployed
and "homeless." Not just because of a Mental, Drug, or Alcohol
problem. So, you may wish to qualify/quantify your suggestion
regarding the "HOMELESS" and the fact that you think that they need to
be "institutionalized."

90% or more of the homeless population are mentally ill and need to be
treated and it's a bit difficult unless they are institutionalized.
The cost of institutionalizing them would be cheaper than dealing with
the crimes they commit.

Yet the Left and the ACLU will fight this tooth and nail.

They would rather have a person living in delusions in a cardboard box
and slowly dying, than having that person forced into treatment and
turned into a useful citizen.

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:21:33 -0400, Cynicor
wrote:


However, we've had bigger problems with the mentally ill homeless ever
since Reagan slashed funding for their care.

http://mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publi.../homelessness/
http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/fact11.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...618/cover.html


Indeed Reagan slashed funding..and good for him as well!

And here is why

“In January 1967, Ronald W. Reagan, the newly elected California
governor, ordered all state agencies to eliminate 10 percent of what he
characterized as ‘fat’ from their budgets. More specifically, he
insisted that state hospitals and institutions for the retarded cut
their budgets by $17 million. This cut, Reagan insisted, would
eliminate 3,700 state jobs, close fourteen state-operated outpatient
clinics, and begin a process of community-based care, with communities
taking greater responsibility for the guardianship of their ‘mental
patients.’ Angered by reaction to his proposals, Reagan remarked that
state hospitals (and prisons) constituted the ‘biggest hotel chain in
the state.’

“Nine months later, Niels Erik Bank-Mikkelsen, the director of the
Danish national services for mental retardation, visited the Sonoma
State Hospital, a large institution for the retarded in California.
Even before Reagan’s proposed cuts had fully taken effect,
Bank-Mikkelsen found conditions in the institution dreadful. He told a
reporter: ‘I couldn’t believe my eyes. It was worse than any
institution I have seen in visits to a dozen foreign countries. . . .
In our country, we would not be allowed to treat cattle like that.’ What
he had found were wards of naked adults sleeping on cement floors often
in their own excrement or wandering in open dayrooms. Not uncommon were
‘head bangers.’ Many residents were heavily medicated, existing in a
pharmacological daze, a daze exacerbated by the constant shouting and
screaming around them. In its defense, the California commissioner of
health and welfare insisted that the state’s treatment of the retarded
was ‘the most advanced in the nation.’ Bank-Mikkelsen feared he might be
right.” (256)

Now, let’s be clear about one thing: Reagan did not create those
conditions. In fact, you could argue that under such conditions,
policies of “de-institutionalization” and “community-based care” are
thoroughly humane-- but then, you’d have to argue that Reagan actually
provided the resources for humane de-institutionalization and
community-based care, and you shouldn’t try, because you’d hurt yourself
with the strain. No, the only thing Reagan is liable for here is that
brutal and quite gratuitous crack likening the state’s prisons and
mental hospitals to a “hotel chain"-- and the insistence that the “fat”
in the state mental health budget had to go.

That was almost 40 years ago-- but then again, it was a few years after
New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s 1965 attack on the inhuman
conditions of the Rome and Willowbrook State Schools. Draw from this
what lessons you will, and let’s hope we all learn to do better by those
with cognitive and developmental disabilities from here on in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura's_Law


"I don't want to abolish government.
I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can
drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
-- Grover Norquist

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 23:24:26 -0700, "Billzz"
wrote:

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
.net...

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
...
In message , nick c sprach
forth the following:

If the British government doesn't trust its citizenry to have firearms
and act responsibly and sensible, should others follow the example of
the British government and not trust British citizens to act
responsibly and sensible.

Well, when an entire nation cannot produce a reliable car or a tasty
food,
one can't place such high expectations thereupon.

Don't forget warm beer...Oh yea, Lucas makes refrigerators.

Yes, as we Jaguar owners used to say, "Lucas, the Prince of Darkness."

And yet I have owned a 1957 XK-140 Jaguar (raced at Laguna Seca) and a
1962
E-Type Jaguar, and whatever their shortcomings they are worth many times
their purchase price. My 1957 Jaguar cost me $800.00 and my 1962 Jaguar
cost me 2000.00, and they are in the 20,000 to 60,000 dollar range today.
So they must have done something right. I sure do wish I had them back.
They were a really big pain in the butt to maintain, but they were a
really
big kick in the butt to drive.



Ive got a pair of XK-E's available if you are interested. One is stone
original in British Racing green, the other needs minimal restoration
work, such as some rechroming and so forth.

Located in Santa Ana, California.

Gunner


Hey, Col. (ret'd) Billzz ... I'd go for the British Racing Green. I've seen
that colour of Jag.

And if *you* don't want it, my birthday is in August.

- nilita, a grrrrl can dream ...%)

In article ,
Dan wrote:

Harold Burton wrote:
In article , Dan
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:43:39 -0500, "What Me Worry?"
wrote:

"Hertz_Donut" wrote in message
...
"Neil Ellwood" wrote in message
news On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:22:24 -0600, 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.

Sentencing everyone who is convicted of having one to 30 years
imprisonment with hard labour and basic food only would lessen the
problem in a few years - of course no country would have the courage
to
do this.

Wow...just when I thought that idiocy had reached it's limit...
You're not in favor of jailing criminals?
Owning a gun is not a crime.
It can be.


How are you going to pay for the thousands of prisons that would need
to
be built? How are you going to pay for the cost of keeping each gun
law
breaker for 30 years?
Why are you soft on gun crime?

Owning a gun is not a crime.


It can be.


So can being a leftard.

Your point?


What part of "being a leftard" didn't you understand?

La N wrote:
"Billzz" wrote in message
...
Yes, as we Jaguar owners used to say, "Lucas, the Prince of Darkness."

And yet I have owned a 1957 XK-140 Jaguar (raced at Laguna Seca) and a
1962 E-Type Jaguar, and whatever their shortcomings they are worth many
times their purchase price. My 1957 Jaguar cost me $800.00 and my 1962
Jaguar cost me 2000.00, and they are in the 20,000 to 60,000 dollar range
today. So they must have done something right. I sure do wish I had them
back. They were a really big pain in the butt to maintain, but they were a
really big kick in the butt to drive.


Well, while I'm driving my Chevy to the levee ..... for me the Jags are
about the most esthetically pleasing .... (nice hood ornaments)

- nilita


I still love the old Jag XKE. I loved the form of that car, but
couldn't possibly get in one. I hear one got written up for speeding
while sitting unoccupied in a parking space... They just LOOKED like
they were moving FAST!

Tankfixer wrote:
In article ,
mumbled
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.

And how this relates to digital photography...

Because after they ban guns they intend to come after users of digital
cameras.

On the ground that a few people use them to commit crimes therfore all
must be banned.


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
Oh yes, and knives, chains, and baseball bats! Ever seen a gang member
without them? Ban them all!
Sigh.