|
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:13:43 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
Are rifles weapons, numbnuts?
Tell you what, would you rather face me when I'm armed with
only my feet and hands, or when I have an FN LAR Para loaded
and pointed at you?
How would you know the difference between a Machine gun and your hand?
You can't tell the difference between that which was subject to the Assault
Weapons Ban of 1994, and anything used in a criminal attack.
SOD is an assault weapon. And can't tell the difference between a
machine gun and his toeses.
For SOD to be legal in California, we're going to have to remove the
bayonet lug, flash hider and the folding stock. it won't change him in any
serious manner. Oh, and remove the pistol grip. He won't notice that
either.
But don't worry, I'm sure an exception can be made ... oh, sorry,
you'll have to be placed unloaded in a locked case in the trunk of the car.
Can't have assault weapons riding around loose in the front of automobiles
with ordinary human beings. The wind is bad for them.
--
pyotr filipivich
Most journalists these days couldn't investigate a missing chocolate cake
at a pre-school without a Democrat office holder telling them what to look for,
where, and what significance it all has.
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:13:43 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
Why the @$#* would you compare Firearms to Automobiles?
Wasn't me. But then, you have displayed a willingness to lie about
firearms (and arms in general), so what does it matter?
Are you daft?
If you'd close the window, the whistling sound would subside.
based on cosmetic features, like the
amount of chrome,or the number of speakers, or even the color,
because "Everybody Knows(c)" that those are the features of
street racers.
Yet it wouldn't stop you from buying a car that goes just
as fast as the banned models, would it?
I suppose you would feel just as happy to have a car painted "baby poop
yellow" if you couldn't have the color you wanted?
I suppose the idea that getting a substitute for what you wanted is
sufficient to your needs. It wasn't what you wanted, but you'll be very
pleased to be allowed one which isn't the color, style or has the features
you wanted.
You must be fun for the waiters: they can bring you what ever they want
to get rid of, tell you they're out, and you'll take it. And like it.
Sheesh.
Who cares what you'll answer, you're going to try and confuse the
differences between your head and a machine gun, again.
Why do you insist on talking about cars?
Cause some sods can't tell the difference. If you weren't intent on
lying about what was and wasn't legal under the "Assault Weapon Ban", you
might have been able to notice this was a question raised by one of your
fellow idiots who felt that guns were unregulated as compared to
automobiles. He was wrong, as are you.
--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level. LtCol Grossman.
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:13:43 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
Machine guns are assault weapons.
Not according to the law. That's the part of the discussion which you
seem unable to understand. The fact that SOD deliberately continues to try
and confuse this demonstrates his lack of moral character. But hey, if he
wants to join such models of integrity as Dan Rather, or the head of the
MMM who shot someone for looking like the guy she thought attacked her son,
go right ahead.
SOD has been told repeatedly that machine guns are not "Assault
Weapons", and for purposes of that law, sticks, rocks, baseball bats, nor
his head qualify. But being a shill of an antigun_nut_, he continues
attempting to confuse the two. The difference between him and the man who
claims his dog has five legs because he calls the "tail" a leg is ..
minimal.
--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:13:43 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
Ever been shot with a dog's tail?
Didn't think so.
Are you now trying to say that something _isn't_ an assault weapon? Do
try and,well, be consistent is a bit of a stretch. You can't tell the
difference between your face and a gun, so confusing a tail for a leg
shouldn't be that difficult for you.
How about we talk about cars some more before we digress into
discussig household pets, eh?
Naw, we're talking about your obstinate refusal to stop lying about
what was and wasn't covered by the a "assault weapon ban" of 1994. It is
you who feels that if you call a "tail" a "leg" long enough people who can
tell the difference might take you serious. But you seem to be un able to
tell what an analogy is, so your confusion is understandable. You are a
confused individual who either lies from ignorance, or because you like to.
toodles
--
pyotr filipivich
"We don't support "guns" ... the term "gun" gets in the way of
what is really being talked about here - we want choice in
personal security devices." Ann Coulter
|
| |
| |
pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O.
Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote back on Fri, 17 Sep 2004
23:13:43 -0600 in talk.politics.guns :
How would you know the difference between a Machine gun and
your hand?
You can't tell the difference between that which was
subject to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and anything
used in a criminal attack.
SOD is an assault weapon. And can't tell the difference
between a
machine gun and his toeses.
For SOD to be legal in California, we're going to have to
remove the bayonet lug, flash hider and the folding stock.
it won't change him in any serious manner. Oh, and remove
the pistol grip. He won't notice that either.
But don't worry, I'm sure an exception can be made ... oh,
sorry,
you'll have to be placed unloaded in a locked case in the
trunk of the car. Can't have assault weapons riding around
loose in the front of automobiles with ordinary human
beings. The wind is bad for them.
Peter, if you're the best pro-gunnie they got arguing their position,
then it won't be long before firearms are banned completely.
You truly are a blithering idiot.
Maybe it's your lack of command of English as a language?
|
| |
| |
pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O.
Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote back on Fri, 17 Sep 2004
23:13:43 -0600 in talk.politics.guns :
Not according to the law.
Try logic and common sense instead.
That's the part of the
discussion which you seem unable to understand. The fact
that SOD deliberately continues to try and confuse this
demonstrates his lack of moral character. But hey, if he
wants to join such models of integrity as Dan Rather, or
the head of the MMM who shot someone for looking like the
guy she thought attacked her son, go right ahead.
SOD has been told repeatedly that machine guns are not
"Assault Weapons",
And Peter has been told repeatedly that they are.
and for purposes of that law, sticks, rocks,
baseball bats, nor his head qualify. But being a shill of
an antigun_nut_, he continues attempting to confuse the
two. The difference between him and the man who claims his
dog has five legs because he calls the "tail" a leg is ..
minimal.
So now you want to talk about household pets instead of
cars?
When will you actually be discussing firearms?
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:54:47 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
John A. Stovall wrote:
So how many of the 30,000 dead Iraqi civilains attacked your
home, Johnny?
I see you can't deal with distinctions. And what good are 30,000 live
Iraqi civilians? If you let a dictator run your country and take no
steps to remove him, you get what fate deals out. Life is a #@&@
.
*****************************************************
Chance proposes. Death disposes.
"African Genesis"
Robert Ardrey
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:54:47 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
Assault weapons are meant for killing, any attempt to show
utility in hunting,
trap shooting, or home defense is just pathetic. Anyways,
let them loose,
they're Bush's only economic development program.
So how many of the 30,000 dead Iraqi civilains attacked your
home, Johnny?
Once again, SOD mistakes a machine gun for an "assault weapon". What
military operations have to do with self defense, only he knows.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next Months Panel: Suicide - getting it right the first time.
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote back on Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:10:09 -0700 in
talk.politics.guns :
the ownership of machine guns (they fall under a class III firearms license
which requires, among other things, proof of an actual need for them). The
Firearms Act of 1986 shored up the gaps in the 1934 law.
The firearms Act of 1986 basically forbid the manufacture of *new*
machine guns to be sold in the civilian market. The market is still
full of pre-1986 machine guns for sale......although at very steep
prices due the limitation of numbers.
However the penalty for getting caught with one could be rather steep.
Probably a lot heavier than Miller and Layton faced in 1938.
Cost of doing business. :-) Discretion applies both ways.
Besides, if the government doesn't know,then the government doesn't
know, non?
==
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:01:00 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Translation: Petey can't debate the facts, so he runs home to mommy.
LOL. SOD is still in denial that he can't tell the difference between
a machine gun and his face, so all he has is hand waving.
Face it SOD, you're the one who has nothing to back up your assertion
"ALL Firearms are "Assault Weapons" except semantic dishonesty. WHen this
is pointed out, you do the equivalent of yelling "Its Elvis!" and hoping to
make an escape. Wrong folk icon, btw.
Not to mention you are easily distracted. From what I'm learning about
dealing with the ADHD, maybe you should turn up on a second radio or TV.
Tune it to CBS, that way you won't have to be concerned about accidental
exposure to "Real Facts" as opposed to "good facts".
--
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:19:47 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
Really? Like whom, exactly?
Like the U$$A that stated they would use them in First Strike?
Or like the U$$A that actually did, and is the ONLY country to
ever use them, in a Nuclear attack on not one but two civilian population
centers, killing 100,000+ innocent civilians, women and children in the
process.
I realize that for such a stalwart leftist like yourself. Real Facts
get in the way of Goodfacts, and the DemSoc Bellyfeel version of History,
but there was this small minor detail behind those uses call World War 2.
(Or more better known in some circles as "The Great Patriotic War.")
Seems like EVERY other country in the world would legitimately
want/need WMD/NUKES as defense against such an amoral criminal
rogue state as the U$$A.
Ah, the wacked out leftist finally claws his way gibbering to the
surface. Poor SOD, so concerned about the threat of the United States,
which despite a humongous arsenal of war gasses (146,000 tons at the end of
WW2, and those were the old fashioned ones, not the New and Improved Tabin,
Sarin, CycloSarin, Nitrogen Mustard, VX GX and other products of "better
living through Chemistry") hasn't used them, despite what CNN lied in 1998
about their use in Nam.
As I wrote last week in response to another lustrous:
However the US does have WMD, Does this allow other countries to invade the
US?
But of course.
But first, we have to use them on our own citizens. [I'm not saying
abuse of Riot Control gases, like Waco, I'm talking about indiscriminate
use of war gasses on civilian populations. A real "field test".] Then we
have to invade our neighbors, twice, lose the last one to a UN coalition,
and as part of the cease fire accord, agreed to document the destruction of
our chemical weapons stocks, and have UN personal verify that we have done
so.
Then, after twelve years of non compliance with the cease fire accords,
including attacks on those enforcing said accords, and ignoring a dozen or
more UN resolutions warning us for the last time, if you can find some one
who isn't doing business with us to lead the attack, have at it.
But in the mean time, eat a bug.
====
Still stands. Especially the last sentence. Go eat a bug old SOD.
--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level. LtCol Grossman.
|
| |
| |
pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote back on Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:10:09 -0700 in
talk.politics.guns :
the ownership of machine guns (they fall under a class III firearms license
which requires, among other things, proof of an actual need for them). The
Firearms Act of 1986 shored up the gaps in the 1934 law.
The firearms Act of 1986 basically forbid the manufacture of *new*
machine guns to be sold in the civilian market. The market is still
full of pre-1986 machine guns for sale......although at very steep
prices due the limitation of numbers.
And the Black Market is still open for business. Paperwork not
required, and NO SALES TAX!
Cost of doing business. :-) Discretion applies both ways.
Besides, if the government doesn't know,then the government doesn't
know, non?
Oui... :)
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show "S. O. Damocles"
<so@damocl.es> wrote back on Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:24:14 -0600 in
talk.politics.guns :
pyotr filipivich wrote:
It ain't a lie, you blithering ignoramus.
So you can point out that M-16s are covered by the Assault Weapons ban?
Or are you going to say that they aren't firearms? You've got a logical
contradiction to deal with there, boyo.
Have fun SOD, you repeat lies, but you don't know why the are lies.
As if to repeat something N+1 times will make it means
something different than what it said the first N times.
As if Peeetor denies something N+1 times it will mean
something different than what it said the first N times.
So, SOD can point to the part of the legislation which defines "assault
weapons" and show how it covers machine guns? or is he going to continue
to deny that the bill has nothing to do with machine guns?
SOD still can't get over the fact that since 1994, "Assault
Weapons" has nothing to do with machine guns,
Never said it did, numbnuts.
That's your strawman. How many times you gonna knock it down?
How many times are you going to egregiously assert "all firearms are
assault weapons"? Or are you going to now assert that machine guns aren't
firearms?
There he goes again, like most gunnies, wants to talk about
anything but firearms.
LOL. Poor SOD, reading comprehension is still not his strong point.
For him every word has only one meaning, which can't be changed. The old
"House cat" means the same as "cat house" thing. (Now poor SOD is going to
be confused, and think I'm talking about house pets. Again. I'm not, but
he seems unable to understand abstractions like "analogy".)
Get back to us when your English improves, immigrant.
Ah, here comes the latent bigotry of the left. "He has a "funny" name,
must be foreigner." This from someone who munges his address so that it
spells out "his" name.
Snerk. Poor SOD doesn't recognize Newspeak. It's an artificial
language which also has only one meaning per word. No matter which way you
assemble the sub components, the sentence only can mean one thing. "All Men
are Equal" in Newspeak translates to OldSpeak (normal English) as "all
males are physically identical."
For a loose translation, I said that SOD is a true believer in the
DemocratSocialist[Liberal] line, and repeats without question the party
line. Not being one to question authority (not even in his thoughts), SOD
believes in his gut (without distracting second [criminal] thoughts), and
repeats uncritically "Machine guns are Assault weapons". SOD feels this in
his gut [bellyfeel], and accuses anyone who differs [uses the "old"
meanings] of thoughtcrime, and 'quacking' out what is obviously wrong.
[Duckspeak and Blackwhite are "good" when used about "us", bad when used
about Them(tm).]
Orwell's 1984 wasn't about "Big Brother" but about control of the
future by control of the present providing control of the past.
SOD is repeating what has been demonstrated to be false.
Peetor is denying what has been demonstrated to be true.
Aren't you the one who says that all firearms are assault weapons? or
are you now saying that machine guns aren't firearms, or weapons?
I'd ask you to make up your mind, but that seems to obviously be not in
your job description.
toodles
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.
|
| |
| |
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show thomandpam@yahoo.com.au
(Thom) wrote back on Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:10:48 GMT in talk.politics.guns :
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:29:19 GMT, pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote: Lets give it the Reno/Feinstein litmus test 1. Looks mean and nasty 2. makes a loud noise 3. Seen in Rambo and Arnie movies 4. can take a lot of bullets THOM
Police Departments. Thus consecrated, they can't be EvilGunz(tm) unless in
the profane hands of the unanointed.
--
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:13:50 GMT, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show thomandpam@yahoo.com.au
(Thom) wrote back on Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:10:48 GMT in talk.politics.guns :
But M-16s are GOVERNMENT rifles, owned and operated by the Military and
Police Departments. Thus consecrated, they can't be EvilGunz(tm) unless in
the profane hands of the unanointed.
I've always been annoyed at the fact government agencies think they
don't have to follow the law. I don't see why my local police don't
have to pay the $200 transfer tax just like everybody else.
THOM
--
pyotr filipivich
This is a .22 caliber derringer, one of the smallest, lightest handguns
ever made. It's over a hundred years old and might not even penetrate your
skull if I miss your eye socket. So you have to ask yourself just one
question: "Do I feel lucky?" - Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Lady Foole
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:13:50 GMT, pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Police Departments. Thus consecrated, they can't be EvilGunz(tm) unless
in
the profane hands of the unanointed.
I've always been annoyed at the fact government agencies think they
don't have to follow the law. I don't see why my local police don't
have to pay the $200 transfer tax just like everybody else.
Err... in the end, wouldn't it just be more admin, since they would
effectively be paying it to themselves (by way of the federal government via
federal funds for law enforcement and anti-terrorism).
|
| |
| |
|
