XPost: alt.conspiracy.new-world-order, alt.thebird.copwatch, alt.conspiracy
XPost: alt.law-enforcement, can.talk.guns, ab.general
XPost: bc.general, van.general
From: klunk@theothershoe.org
"MP" wrote in message
news:46c22d77$0$28802$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>> lol... apparently that went over your head... wutta maroon...
>
> The original post went over your head you imbecile. You didn't offer an
> argument only a anti gun knee jerk name calling reaction. You obviously
> don't get it. Let me clue you in. Read this again you fucking retard.
well... it's about time you actually got around to making an effort to
address the arguments posited... as pitiful as that effort actually turned
out to be, at least you attempted to engage your brain and work it a bit...
>> Heard on the news this am that a cop in Ontario was killed by a vehicle.
>> This begs the questions:
>>
>> - - was the vehicle registered?
>
> probably
> (HELLO, that's the point)
so, you support gun registration programs
>> - - was the driver licensed?
>
> likely
> (Again HELLO, that's the point again.)
and you support licensing programs for guns
>> - - was the vehicle stolen from the rightful owner and if so, is he/she
>> facing
>
> only if the owner was complicit in the crime -
> (Of course..Owner of a gun is complicit if his or her gun was stolen then
> used in a crime.)
that's not true if the owner had reported their gun stolen.. but, that's not
really the point of his musing is it?...
>> charges for improper storage?
>
> define that-
> (Duh.. Were there any additional criminal charges filed if the car wasn't
> locked in a container with a steering wheel lock on and the fuel locked in
> a different container? You obviously don't know gun laws.)
lol... you obviously have a hard-on for comparing apples and oranges... but,
let's go with this one for a bit... with a simple question - Can you conceal
your car on your person?
>> - - will there be a huge funeral procession for the fallen Officer as
>> there
>> would be had he been shot?
>
> why wouldn't there be?
> (How about because he wasn't killed in the line of duty)
what does that have to do with the issue of guns versus cars?
>> - - will there be an immediate call for increased controls and more
>> stringent
>> regulations for first time drivers?
>
> why would there be?...
> (Because there is every year with guns and it was a crime with another
> dangerous weapon, a car.)
cars are already far more regulated than guns... and cars are designed for
and serve other purposes than killing or target practice... if you idiots
truly wish to point to cars as an example of inconsistently applied
regulations, then you should be calling for all guns to be strictly
regulated AND outfitted with rfid chips to enable gps tracking...
>> - - will the Opposition parties oppose increased penalties for such
>> crimes as
>> a deterrent?
>
> why would there be an increase in penalties for a crime that's only ever
> happened once?
> (Once? It happens all of the time.)
and yet, you've not provided any cite for your bullshit claim...
>> - - will the perpetrator be out on bail pending a court date?
>
> maybe, maybe not... follow the case instead of spouting speculative
> stupidity...(Illogical, you're missing the point)
what's illogical is your fomenting stupidity over a non sequitur... bail is
set by a judge using criteria deemed applicable to individual cases...
whether guns or cars or toy bats are involved, idiot... your stupidity
shines very clearly with this one...
>> - -does he/she have a string of such offences for which he/she has never
>> served time other than house arrest?
>
> maybe, maybe not... follow the case instead of spouting speculative
> stupidity......(Blah blah blah)
and so, you resort to your native tongue of stupidity instead of
acknowledging the pathetic ignorance demonstrated by the original poster...
>> - - if the perpetrator is a recent immigrant from a Third World country,
>> will
>> he/she be put on the next plane following trial and punishment?
>
>>maybe, maybe not... follow the case instead of spouting speculative
>>stupidity......(Blah blah blah)
more of your own brand of blatant stupidity...
>>> - - will there be an immediate 'refugee claimant' hue and cry to prevent
>>> this?
>
>>maybe, maybe not... follow the case instead of spouting speculative
>>stupidity......(Blah blah blah)
and still nothing remotely resembling intelligent thought...
>
>>> Only in Canada, you say? .... pity .....
>
>>yes... it certainly is a pity that gun freaks haven't the slightest clue
>>not only how idiotic they sound when they whine like hypocritical
>>children... but also how pitifully disconnected from reality they prove
>>themselves to be when grasping at straws...
>
> What a stupid response. Not even close to getting it. Do you see how
> idiotic you sound. Read it again you fucking retard.
lol... take a pill idiot... and read your own stupidity when you've calmed
down... perhaps, you might be lucky enough to be embarassed with yourself...
> Also what you are confused about is that most gun freaks aren't criminals
> and most criminals are not gun freaks.
> In fact, most gun freaks are upstanding citizens and protectors of whining
> little shits like you who think they know it all and like putting down
> anybody who doesn't think like them just to feel self important. I'm all
> for gun regulations if they make sense but I can't stand idiots like you.
> If you don't get it now then your either retarded, a druggie, or a kid.
no... not all gun freaks are criminals... most are merely irrational freaks
like yourself whom seem to be insistent in the irrational belief that guns
somehow should be granted special status for their ownership...
btw fuckhead, pkb.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
