XPost: sci.electronics.repair, 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.sport   
   .football.pro.sd-chargers   
   XPost: rec.audio.car   
   From: trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au   
      
   On 4/19/2013 5:36 PM, Don Kelly wrote:   
   > On 18/04/2013 8:36 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:   
   >> On 4/17/2013 10:19 AM, Mark Zacharias wrote:   
   >>> "Stephen Springer"  wrote in message   
   >>> news:kkkm4t$imv$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>> In Europe, where out of a population of around 500 million (compared   
   >>>> to the USA, of 300 million), there are around only 2,000 gun homicides   
   >>>> per year (compared to the USA with around 12,000 gun homicides - per   
   >>>> the DOJ). There are very strict gun control laws. In France, for   
   >>>> example, there's a max purchase rate of one gun per month, with an   
   >>>> upper limit of (if I recall correctly) of 5 guns. BEFORE you even are   
   >>>> allowed to own a gun, you are CAREFULLY screened for mental illness   
   >>>> AND have to take a 6 month long certification class and test, with an   
   >>>> annual re-test and registration. No surprise- only the dedicated gun   
   >>>> enthusiasts sign-up, keeping the number of guns in the public low, and   
   >>>> gun violence low.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's what I support- this makes certain that mental illness is   
   >>>> screened for, and excellent training required. Who's on board?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> BTW: The same week that Sandyhook happened, in China, a man entered a   
   >>>> school with a knife, and injured 22 kids. Guess what? They're all   
   >>>> alive.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So the jew-bastard is basically saying it's better to shank school   
   >>>> children and not light them up.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> What part of, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?   
   >>   
   >> **What part of "....well regulated militia..." do you not understand.   
   >>   
   >> Face it, the 2nd Amendment was written:   
   >>   
   >> * At a time when reload times were measured in MINUTES, not milliseconds.   
   >> * At a time when accuracy of muzzle-loading weapons was inferior to a   
   >> bow and arrow.   
   >> * At a time when dangerous animals roamed free.   
   >> * At a time when a vicious colonial power ruled America.   
   >> * At a time when angry indigenous people roamed free.   
   >> * At a time when refrigeration was unheard of.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> BTW I never understood anti-semitism. I've heard the stories, I know the   
   >>> history, I just don't really get it.   
   >>>   
   >>> The poster who referenced "kike" in the subject is a moron.   
   >>   
   >> **Of course. Equally as moronic as those who defend the NRA and their   
   >> gutless politicians they have in their pocket.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > Thank you- some common sense coming out. (the vicious colonial power   
   > excepted-the Mel Gibson movie is not a historically valid reference).   
   > In a later time- prior to and after the war of 1812 fiasco- it was   
   > expected that "Canadians" were to carry and use arms in defense of their   
   > country.An obligation -not a right. It was always noted that, as a   
   > frontier country, that there would be a need to have arms and training   
   > in the use of these arms for defense was required (and the need for   
   > providing fresh meat was also rather important).   
   > What I don't understand is the need for an assault weapon for defense   
   > dragging it out from under the pillow to shoot at the horde of home   
   > invaders (or late returning children) who are after one's virtue ( if   
   > their intention was otherwise they would solve this problem earlier)- or   
   > for hunting (instant hamburger?). The term "assault" comes to mind.   
   > These weapons are not intended for defense but are intended to throw a   
   > lot of bullets in the assumed direction of an enemy. If someone innocent   
   > gets in the way it is "collateral damage".   
   > A gun registry may be of limited or no use. The banning of  weapons that   
   > can spray a theater or school with bullets can help and doesn't infringe   
   > on a right to bear arms. This wouldn't affect the responsible gun owners   
   > but could reduce the availability of such weapons to the kooks.   
   > I am not a US citizen and as such, all I can do is stand by in dismay at   
   > what some; in a country I respect and whose people I have met and lived   
   > with ( as well as claim as relatives) who are warm, helpful, friendly,   
   > supportive of strangers and just good neighbors; have this gun fetish   
   > based on ??   
   >   
   >   
   > Don   
   >   
      
   **The US's problem is that the NRA has subverted their political system.   
   A miniscule 4 million members of the NRA, effectively dictate gun   
   control laws (and other, related laws) in the US. The NRA acts first and   
   formost in the interests of the firearms industry. They have no interest   
   in public safety. Their sole interests lie in pushing firearms and   
   ammunition sales accross the US. Any politician who stands up to the NRA   
   will cop a vicious, expensive and extended campaign of denigration.   
   Since the NRA is not, officially, a political organisation (although it   
   operates within the political sphere), it is exempt from many of the   
   constraints that political organisations must operate within.   
      
   That US citizens seem to accept this evil organisation within their   
   midst, is difficult to understand. Many Americans appear to have been   
   comprehensively brainwashed. Perhaps it is their education system? I   
   don't know. Either way, one day the bulk of the US population will 'wake   
   up and smell the coffee' and the NRA will be brought to it's knees.   
      
   --   
   Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)