What happens to a dis-armed populace.

Lee Bell wrote:
>>So how come they only set 1 car ablaze in Germany?
>
>
> Maybe the Muslims remember what the Germans did when they got pissed off at
> the Jews.
>
> Lee
>
>

As said: this has nothing to do with religion

--
Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message
news:b4763$43717573$18d64cf6$13479@KNOLOGY.NET...

>> Seeds grow on pot plants, at least if you're not careful. A single pot
>> plant can grow in months and yield thousands of seeds. A single seed is
>> several millimeters in diameter. Are you seriously comparing something
> that
>> grows wild (they don't call it "weed" for nothing), can propagate without
>> any human intervention, and is extremely tiny, to something man-made,
>> big,
>> and heavy like a gun? I guess you are. That's silly.
>
> Its accurate, and illustrates the underlying principle

Well, no.

Gun: BIG; pot seed: small

Gun: manmade; pot seed: grows naturally

Gun: difficult to smuggle up the ass; pot seed: you can swallow hundreds,
shit them out the next day, and they'll still grow.

Big difference.

> Banning something, does not prevent folks who want an item, from getting
> it.

Well, no.

Marijuana might be banned, but it's only a $100 fine here in California and
many other states. A carpool violation will run you $300. I got one of
those for exiting a carpool lane over a double-yellow line because the
carpool lane was going slower than the rest of the traffic. Even though I
had the requisite number of people in my car, it was still considered a
carpool lane violation. That makes me three times the criminal as a pot
possessor.

Obviously if you seriously want to ban something, you make the penalty quite
a bit stiffer.

For instance, the penalty for civilian possession of an atomic bomb are
pretty stiff. How many cases have you heard of recently where people have
been arrested for possession of atomic bombs?

Make gun possession a real crime and most people won't want to do the time.

> Consider it an act of civil disobedience. After all, the civil rights
> workers were also considered "criminals" by the established government.

The only ones who will break the law are the ones who would become criminals
in the first place, and they're better off locked up. The rest of them only
own guns because they're afraid to be unarmed. They'll be just as afraid of
going to prison.

Civil disobedience cannot include owning guns because guns aren't civil.

Froggy wrote:

> Greg Mossman a écrit :
>
>
>>"Joe English" <joeenglish@isperhome.com> wrote in message
>>news:b8aa7$43714d50$ce504822$16804@allthenewsgro ups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>You'd be dead too, Joe. Is that how you'd want it?
>>>
>>>don't count it, but I rather be dead helping someone than hiding and
>>>letting someone die - COUNT ON IT
>>
>>But she's an old lady, probably not much time left in this world anyway.
>>You're a young brilliant guy with an incredible future ahead of him, might
>>even discover the cure for genital herpes or be the first to dive to the
>>bottom of the Marianas Trench on open-circuit SCUBA. Why would you
>>sacrifice your life for a dried up old hag you didn't even know especially
>>when it's highly likely she'd still get killed along with you?
>
>
> And in Joe's scenario, she probably did not feel that her own life was
> so valuable anyway, since she choose not to carry.
>
> Why would Joe have to sacrify his perfectly good life because of her
> negligence?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Froggy
>
Ridiculous, and a big part of the problem

Froggy wrote:

> Lee Bell wrote:
>
>>"Froggy" wrote
>>
>>
>>>And in Joe's scenario, she probably did not feel that her own life was
>>>so valuable anyway, since she choose not to carry.
>>
>>>Why would Joe have to sacrify his perfectly good life because of her
>>>negligence?
>>
>>Because not doing so results in exactly the kind of problem France is
>>presently experiencing.
>
>
> Actually it would most likely result in violence moving to the next
> level
>
>
>>Because if nobody does, it might be someone in his family next.
>>Because, if a society is to remain free, somebody has to.
>
>
> So far we have managed to remain relatively free, without having to
> shoot each others nearly as much as you guys routinely do.
>
>
>>Because he recognizes that it is not just somebody else's responsibility,
>>it's his too.
>
>
> But you would agree that it is primarily the victim's responsibility to
> protect herself.
>
> I thought this was one of the mantra of pro-gun types.
>
> If she did not even take the basic step of arming herself, why should
> he risk his life?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Froggy
>
I think you missed the answer that was posted by Lee, I don't think the
violence would have escalated, it may have stopped right there.

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:GNlcf.539$rN2.535@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Maybe the Muslims remember what the Germans did when they got pissed off
at
> the Jews.

Ooooohhh... You're goooooood... I must be getting slow in my old age...
That's a comment worthy of my political incorrectness...

Joe English wrote:
> Froggy wrote:
>
> >
> > But you would agree that it is primarily the victim's responsibility to
> > protect herself.
> >
> > I thought this was one of the mantra of pro-gun types.
> >
> > If she did not even take the basic step of arming herself, why should
> > he risk his life?
> >
> >
> I think you missed the answer that was posted by Lee, I don't think the
> violence would have escalated, it may have stopped right there.

I noticed Lee's response but I wanted you to take the bait as well...


Cheers,

Froggy

"Greg Mossman" wrote in message news:11n3vich91m1k6a@corp.supernews.com...
> Marijuana might be banned, but it's only a $100 fine here in California
and
> many other states. A carpool violation will run you $300. I got one of
> those for exiting a carpool lane over a double-yellow line because the
> carpool lane was going slower than the rest of the traffic. Even though I
> had the requisite number of people in my car, it was still considered a
> carpool lane violation. That makes me three times the criminal as a pot
> possessor.
>
> Obviously if you seriously want to ban something, you make the penalty
quite
> a bit stiffer.

Since there are so many potheads in CA, they can get away with charging less
and still make their monetary quota...

> Make gun possession a real crime and most people won't want to do the
time.

Or they would just shoot the cops who tried to inforce the unconstitutional
laws... That works for me...

Joe English wrote:
> Froggy wrote:
>
>> Greg Mossman a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> "Joe English" <joeenglish@isperhome.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b8aa7$43714d50$ce504822$16804@allthenewsgroup s.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You'd be dead too, Joe. Is that how you'd want it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> don't count it, but I rather be dead helping someone than hiding and
>>>> letting someone die - COUNT ON IT
>>>
>>>
>>> But she's an old lady, probably not much time left in this world anyway.
>>> You're a young brilliant guy with an incredible future ahead of him,
>>> might
>>> even discover the cure for genital herpes or be the first to dive to the
>>> bottom of the Marianas Trench on open-circuit SCUBA. Why would you
>>> sacrifice your life for a dried up old hag you didn't even know
>>> especially
>>> when it's highly likely she'd still get killed along with you?
>>
>>
>>
>> And in Joe's scenario, she probably did not feel that her own life was
>> so valuable anyway, since she choose not to carry.
>>
>> Why would Joe have to sacrify his perfectly good life because of her
>> negligence?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Froggy
>>
> Ridiculous, and a big part of the problem

Why don't you answer his question then?

--
Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

>>
> I think you missed the answer that was posted by Lee, I don't think the
> violence would have escalated, it may have stopped right there.

Did it stop the violence in LA?
--
Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

"Grumman-581" <grumman581@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wNncf.83346$GQ.15398@tornado.texas.rr.com...

> Or they would just shoot the cops who tried to inforce the
unconstitutional
> laws... That works for me...

Imagine that;

A lawyer wanting to write more worthless laws.