I thought there were only nice people to the north

On Dec 11, 8:06 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Mike from Ottawa wrote
>
> > "Personal defence?" The victims were junkies and prostitutes . . .
>
> The right to defense does not stop with the victim. It extends to those that
> might, if allowed, have protected them too. Nobody suggested arming
> elementary, middle or high school students so they could protect themselves,
> but it was suggested that just one responsibly and legally armed teacher
> might have put a quick stop to the serial killings that occasionally happen
> in our schools and have happened in schools around the world. In my country,
> we value the lives of all citizens, even junkies and prostitutes. Apparently
> they don't count in yours.
>
> The point, however, one that you very obviously chose to ignore, is that the
> basis for promoting a disarmed public, according to John, is that there is
> no need for personal defense. He doesn't live in a world where the threat of
> death or serious injury is a problem. He's clearly and demonstrably wrong.
>
> > Anyway, I find it very odd that some of you Merkans take pleasure in
> > some really terrible tragedies here.
>
> No pleasure at all. We Mercans take no pleasure in tragedies anywhere. We
> warned you that the problem was escalating. We warned you that it would only
> get worse. We warned you that your blind insistance that there is no risk
> was not right and that, sooner or later, it would catch up with you. We
> advised you then, that, when the stuff hit the fan, it would be your fault
> for ignoring all the warnings, all the evidence and all the history that
> proves that only those that are willing and prepared to defend their lives,
> property and rights, could expect to retain them.
>
> Don't blame us when we point out that we were right and you were wrong.
>
> > These women were mothers and daughters, and they are missed by their
> > families.
>
> Yes they were. The next ones, and the next ones will be too. It's about time
> you guys got your heads out of the sand and recognized what we've been
> saying from the start. You are at risk. Your families, mothers,
> grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers, children, junkies and prostitutes or
> businessmen and housewives are all at risk. Not only can the police not
> protect you, it's not even their job to protect you. It's each citizen's job
> to protect themselves, their way of life, and those around them. It's a
> really good idea to ensure you retain the means to do so when it's your turn
> to do your part.
>
> It's even more important to quit trying to deny my right to do the same and
> that's what John has been doing for years..
>
> Lee

So 'splain this one Lucy. I am continually told that no one is trying
to force guns on us non-gun types throats, but how else is one to
interpret this latest post of yours. Certainly it's couched in concern
for my safety, but isn't it a sales pitch for more guns?

JF

JOF wrote:

> So 'splain this one Lucy. I am continually told that no one is trying
> to force guns on us non-gun types throats, but how else is one to
> interpret this latest post of yours. Certainly it's couched in concern
> for my safety, but isn't it a sales pitch for more guns?
>
> JF

I would say that it is a sales pitch for choice.
--
“TANSTAAFL”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f4d778b-3809-4636-bef4-e8d897dd45ef@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 8:06 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Mike from Ottawa wrote
> >
> > > "Personal defence?" The victims were junkies and prostitutes . . .
> >
> > The right to defense does not stop with the victim. It extends to those
that
> > might, if allowed, have protected them too. Nobody suggested arming
> > elementary, middle or high school students so they could protect
themselves,
> > but it was suggested that just one responsibly and legally armed teacher
> > might have put a quick stop to the serial killings that occasionally
happen
> > in our schools and have happened in schools around the world. In my
country,
> > we value the lives of all citizens, even junkies and prostitutes.
Apparently
> > they don't count in yours.
> >
> > The point, however, one that you very obviously chose to ignore, is that
the
> > basis for promoting a disarmed public, according to John, is that there
is
> > no need for personal defense. He doesn't live in a world where the
threat of
> > death or serious injury is a problem. He's clearly and demonstrably
wrong.
> >
> > > Anyway, I find it very odd that some of you Merkans take pleasure in
> > > some really terrible tragedies here.
> >
> > No pleasure at all. We Mercans take no pleasure in tragedies anywhere.
We
> > warned you that the problem was escalating. We warned you that it would
only
> > get worse. We warned you that your blind insistance that there is no
risk
> > was not right and that, sooner or later, it would catch up with you. We
> > advised you then, that, when the stuff hit the fan, it would be your
fault
> > for ignoring all the warnings, all the evidence and all the history that
> > proves that only those that are willing and prepared to defend their
lives,
> > property and rights, could expect to retain them.
> >
> > Don't blame us when we point out that we were right and you were wrong.
> >
> > > These women were mothers and daughters, and they are missed by their
> > > families.
> >
> > Yes they were. The next ones, and the next ones will be too. It's about
time
> > you guys got your heads out of the sand and recognized what we've been
> > saying from the start. You are at risk. Your families, mothers,
> > grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers, children, junkies and prostitutes
or
> > businessmen and housewives are all at risk. Not only can the police not
> > protect you, it's not even their job to protect you. It's each citizen's
job
> > to protect themselves, their way of life, and those around them. It's a
> > really good idea to ensure you retain the means to do so when it's your
turn
> > to do your part.
> >
> > It's even more important to quit trying to deny my right to do the same
and
> > that's what John has been doing for years..
> >
> > Lee
>
> So 'splain this one Lucy. I am continually told that no one is trying
> to force guns on us non-gun types throats, but how else is one to
> interpret this latest post of yours. Certainly it's couched in concern
> for my safety, but isn't it a sales pitch for more guns?
>
> JF

I don't presume to speak for Lee, but my interpretation is that he wants you
to have the opportunity to carry firearms, not the directive to.

On Dec 11, 11:37 am, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gamil.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3f4d778b-3809-4636-bef4-e8d897dd45ef@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 8:06 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Mike from Ottawa wrote
>
> > > > "Personal defence?" The victims were junkies and prostitutes . . .
>
> > > The right to defense does not stop with the victim. It extends to those
> that
> > > might, if allowed, have protected them too. Nobody suggested arming
> > > elementary, middle or high school students so they could protect
> themselves,
> > > but it was suggested that just one responsibly and legally armed teacher
> > > might have put a quick stop to the serial killings that occasionally
> happen
> > > in our schools and have happened in schools around the world. In my
> country,
> > > we value the lives of all citizens, even junkies and prostitutes.
> Apparently
> > > they don't count in yours.
>
> > > The point, however, one that you very obviously chose to ignore, is that
> the
> > > basis for promoting a disarmed public, according to John, is that there
> is
> > > no need for personal defense. He doesn't live in a world where the
> threat of
> > > death or serious injury is a problem. He's clearly and demonstrably
> wrong.
>
> > > > Anyway, I find it very odd that some of you Merkans take pleasure in
> > > > some really terrible tragedies here.
>
> > > No pleasure at all. We Mercans take no pleasure in tragedies anywhere.
> We
> > > warned you that the problem was escalating. We warned you that it would
> only
> > > get worse. We warned you that your blind insistance that there is no
> risk
> > > was not right and that, sooner or later, it would catch up with you. We
> > > advised you then, that, when the stuff hit the fan, it would be your
> fault
> > > for ignoring all the warnings, all the evidence and all the history that
> > > proves that only those that are willing and prepared to defend their
> lives,
> > > property and rights, could expect to retain them.
>
> > > Don't blame us when we point out that we were right and you were wrong.
>
> > > > These women were mothers and daughters, and they are missed by their
> > > > families.
>
> > > Yes they were. The next ones, and the next ones will be too. It's about
> time
> > > you guys got your heads out of the sand and recognized what we've been
> > > saying from the start. You are at risk. Your families, mothers,
> > > grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers, children, junkies and prostitutes
> or
> > > businessmen and housewives are all at risk. Not only can the police not
> > > protect you, it's not even their job to protect you. It's each citizen's
> job
> > > to protect themselves, their way of life, and those around them. It's a
> > > really good idea to ensure you retain the means to do so when it's your
> turn
> > > to do your part.
>
> > > It's even more important to quit trying to deny my right to do the same
> and
> > > that's what John has been doing for years..
>
> > > Lee
>
> > So 'splain this one Lucy. I am continually told that no one is trying
> > to force guns on us non-gun types throats, but how else is one to
> > interpret this latest post of yours. Certainly it's couched in concern
> > for my safety, but isn't it a sales pitch for more guns?
>
> > JF
>
> I don't presume to speak for Lee, but my interpretation is that he wants you
> to have the opportunity to carry firearms, not the directive to.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted

Of course. I guess the tone of the writing just gives an illusion of
coercion.

JF

On Dec 11, 11:37 am, "Chris Guynn" <chris.gu...@gamil.com> wrote:
> "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3f4d778b-3809-4636-bef4-e8d897dd45ef@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 8:06 am, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Mike from Ottawa wrote
>
> > > > "Personal defence?" The victims were junkies and prostitutes . . .
>
> > > The right to defense does not stop with the victim. It extends to those
> that
> > > might, if allowed, have protected them too. Nobody suggested arming
> > > elementary, middle or high school students so they could protect
> themselves,
> > > but it was suggested that just one responsibly and legally armed teacher
> > > might have put a quick stop to the serial killings that occasionally
> happen
> > > in our schools and have happened in schools around the world. In my
> country,
> > > we value the lives of all citizens, even junkies and prostitutes.
> Apparently
> > > they don't count in yours.
>
> > > The point, however, one that you very obviously chose to ignore, is that
> the
> > > basis for promoting a disarmed public, according to John, is that there
> is
> > > no need for personal defense. He doesn't live in a world where the
> threat of
> > > death or serious injury is a problem. He's clearly and demonstrably
> wrong.
>
> > > > Anyway, I find it very odd that some of you Merkans take pleasure in
> > > > some really terrible tragedies here.
>
> > > No pleasure at all. We Mercans take no pleasure in tragedies anywhere.
> We
> > > warned you that the problem was escalating. We warned you that it would
> only
> > > get worse. We warned you that your blind insistance that there is no
> risk
> > > was not right and that, sooner or later, it would catch up with you. We
> > > advised you then, that, when the stuff hit the fan, it would be your
> fault
> > > for ignoring all the warnings, all the evidence and all the history that
> > > proves that only those that are willing and prepared to defend their
> lives,
> > > property and rights, could expect to retain them.
>
> > > Don't blame us when we point out that we were right and you were wrong.
>
> > > > These women were mothers and daughters, and they are missed by their
> > > > families.
>
> > > Yes they were. The next ones, and the next ones will be too. It's about
> time
> > > you guys got your heads out of the sand and recognized what we've been
> > > saying from the start. You are at risk. Your families, mothers,
> > > grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers, children, junkies and prostitutes
> or
> > > businessmen and housewives are all at risk. Not only can the police not
> > > protect you, it's not even their job to protect you. It's each citizen's
> job
> > > to protect themselves, their way of life, and those around them. It's a
> > > really good idea to ensure you retain the means to do so when it's your
> turn
> > > to do your part.
>
> > > It's even more important to quit trying to deny my right to do the same
> and
> > > that's what John has been doing for years..
>
> > > Lee
>
> > So 'splain this one Lucy. I am continually told that no one is trying
> > to force guns on us non-gun types throats, but how else is one to
> > interpret this latest post of yours. Certainly it's couched in concern
> > for my safety, but isn't it a sales pitch for more guns?
>
> > JF
>
> I don't presume to speak for Lee, but my interpretation is that he wants you
> to have the opportunity to carry firearms, not the directive to.

If, as some here claim, JOF has no right to tell Americans what to do,
what gives Lee or any other American the right to tell Canadians what
they should do? If John's government, which is democratically elected,
as far as I know, has decided to restrict his opportunity to carry
firearms, and John is okay with that, what business is it of Lee's, a
resident of Florida who pays no taxes in Canada and has no say and no
vote there?

gc

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:20:03 -0600, dazed and confuzzed
<dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote:

>JOF wrote:
>
>> So 'splain this one Lucy. I am continually told that no one is trying
>> to force guns on us non-gun types throats, but how else is one to
>> interpret this latest post of yours. Certainly it's couched in concern
>> for my safety, but isn't it a sales pitch for more guns?
>>
>> JF
>
>I would say that it is a sales pitch for choice.

Choose guns or die?

JF

"Rod" <log_dog@verizonnet.addthedot> wrote in message
news:475d3e30.63181078@news.verizon.net...
> Who would have thought it.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

If only the pigs had Barretts 82A1/M107q, AK47s or RPGs this would never had
happened

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:V2w7j.26028$mb.4900@bignews9.bellsouth.net:

> chilly wrote
>
>> Do you know of any churches up here in Canuk land that have armed
>> security guards?
>
> Interesting question. Obviously I don't know the answer as stated.
>
> Here, the answer is yes. Many churches down here, and even more
> synagogues, hire police to help with both pedestrian and vehicular
> traffic control. For the visibly Jewish people in my area, it seems
> to be mostly pedestrians. Apparently their beliefs preclude driving to
> their religious services. The uniformed police providing the service
> are armed. Further, I guarantee that there are plain clothes policemen
> that are armed while attending.

Why?

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:CXv7j.26021$mb.14285@bignews9.bellsouth.net:

> Mike from Ottawa wrote
>
>> "Personal defence?" The victims were junkies and prostitutes . . .
>
> The right to defense does not stop with the victim. It extends to
> those that might, if allowed, have protected them too.

Who might that be? Law-abiding citizens normally dobn't socialize with
prostitutes and junkies...so who's left? Their pimps and dealers?

Nobody
> suggested arming elementary, middle or high school students so they
> could protect themselves, but it was suggested that just one
> responsibly and legally armed teacher might have put a quick stop to
> the serial killings that occasionally happen in our schools and have
> happened in schools around the world. In my country, we value the
> lives of all citizens, even junkies and prostitutes. Apparently they
> don't count in yours.
>

<snip>

"JOF" <jofrancis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f4f4025-2d1c-4a17-82d0-2d99475b1e44@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 1:56 am, "chilly" <slar...@shaw.canada> wrote:
>> "Mike from Ottawa" <mev at tikaCANOE dot ca> wrote in
>> messagenews:oabsl3tuea67a62t1gltuq3dcapevt0578@4ax .com...
>>
>> > On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:17:49 -0800 (PST), Greg Mossman
>> > <moss...@qnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >On Dec 10, 10:07 pm, Mike from Ottawa <mev at tikaCANOE dot ca> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Even if a junkie had a gun, would she be able to use it efficiently?
>> > >> I
>> > >> somehow doubt it.
>>
>> > >Of course they'd use it efficiently, either to trade for drugs or to
>> > >mug people to buy drugs or to steal drugs. Guns have many uses.
>>
>> > True. I suppose the most important thing is that they also have the
>> > right to defend themselves, even if they use it most often for theft.
>>
>> Do you know of any churches up here in Canuk land that have armed
>> security
>> guards?
>
> I know a minister who hunts and fishes. Does that count?

but he only needs to catch only one to feed the whole congregation