An addition to Trevor Tosspot's Porky List

[John - Melb]

On Jun 24, 8:17 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:94e28834-cb74-4eda-a1fb-4cf9da5ef7d2@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

**Which laws would they be? Cite them.

Here you go Trevor, since you're too stupid or too lazy to find the
discussion

-----------------------------------------------------
From Melbourne Herald Sun
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----
Firearms legal loophole helps Victorian criminals
May 05, 2009 12:00am
ANGLE grinders and a legal loophole are helping violent criminals
beat
Victoria's most serious firearms charge.

A court ruling from two years ago is enabling them to stave off
charges of being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered
firearm.

In the 2007 case, a court ruled a man charged with that offence be
cleared because the weapon's identifying numbers had been removed.

He was able to successfully argue it could not be established the
Glock semi-automatic pistol at the centre of the case was
unregistered. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 15 years.

It is designed to deter people on the prohibited list from carrying
firearms.

The Herald Sun believes other successful defences against the charge
using the same argument have been mounted since the 2007 decision.

Prosecution of a violent Melbourne criminal on the charge was
withdrawn this year because the gun could not be identified.

A spokesman for Police Minister Bob Cameron said the Government was
talking to Victoria Police.

 

[r_c_brown@hushmail.com]

On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:



"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps you'd care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that you know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong. Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit. Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing.  Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

Exceptions might include ex-criminals.  Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times.  Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed.  The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again. Now please answer my question.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[r_c_brown@hushmail.com]

On Jun 24, 6:38 am, Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com....
**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit. Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing.  Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

And most, if not all, of what you propose as good, strong, sane gun
control laws do not meet our Constitutional standards, nor do they have
general agreement.

Given that even you admit they need to meed such criteria, why exactly
should anyone give your gun control proposals which lack these even
momentary consideration, much less serious consideration?

Er, I haven't proposed any gun control laws. That was Mr. Wilson,
writing in a general and vague sort of way.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:



"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong. Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit. Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again.

**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of mine.

Now please answer my question.


**Re-read my question.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 24, 10:34 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:18 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:





"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:665071a8-85f6-4eb8-889b-945135234ffc@u9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 6:22 am, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in
awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

Failure by Trevor to make any attempt to actually answer the questions
put to him is noted.

Why am I not surprised.

**Good one, idiot. I pop inside for my evening meal and you give me 11
minutes to answer your idiotic rants.

Sheesh!

Check the times again fool...........-

Have you checked the times on those two posts yet Trevor Tosspot?

Or is that just another question you refuse to answer?

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:94e28834-cb74-4eda-a1fb-4cf9da5ef7d2@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in
awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

**It's not an opinion, when it's a fact.


So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

**90% of Australians.

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

**Which laws would they be? Cite them.


Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

**They sure are. Can a gun manufactured before WWI kill humans?

I wonder, could you please tell me how many people have been killed
recently with pinfire cartridges?

Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

**Yep.


* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

**If the shoe fits.

 

[keithr]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a3f668f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**That was my point. In the US, a used, cheap handgun sells for as little
as US$50.00, through legal channels. Here in Australia, they are MUCH
more expensive. This restricts the number of handguns in the hands of low
level criminals. It does not eliminate ALL guns from the hands of ALL
criminals.
Even in the US, a $50 gun is likely to be more dangerous to the firer than
the firee.

**Perhaps. Nonetheless, cheap handguns are responsible for a very large
number of homicides in the US each year. I would certainly not stand at the
wrong end of such a gun. Would you?


I wouldn't stand near it at any angle. I knew a guy who nearly lost his

hand when a cheap pistol blew up in it.

 

[APR]

Nuf said Trevor???, or can't you understand that comments by yourself are
not beyond reproach?? You seem to have a grievance with any
issue/activity/whatever that doesn't meet YOUR criteria.

Trevor, freedom of speech doesn't give unfettered right to malice and
slander. Common decency and ethics, or moral accountability, would prompt
most people to maintain certain standards in their communications with
others.

 

[r_c_brown@hushmail.com]

On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:



r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong. Again..

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit. Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Good. Please provide your definitions.

Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again.

**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of mine.

How do you propose to change the Constitution to "reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology"?

Look at it from another direction: if I think that the Constitution
already does "reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology", and apparently you do not, what needs to change?

Please be specific, as you are fond of writing.

  Now please answer my question.

**Re-read my question.

I did; you still haven't answered.

--
Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 26, 1:18 pm, "APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote:

Nuf said Trevor???, or can't you understand that comments by yourself are
not beyond reproach?? You seem to have a grievance with any
issue/activity/whatever that doesn't meet YOUR criteria.

Trevor, freedom of speech doesn't give unfettered right to malice and
slander. Common decency and ethics, or moral accountability, would prompt
most people to maintain certain standards in their communications with
others.

You're kidding right, you're attempting to reason with Trevor Tosspot?

For those who don't remember, or don't know, Ardeet brokered a "peace
deal" between
Tosspot and your's truely some time ago, Tosspot lasted two posts
before returning to
his usual "bluff, bluster and bullshit"

He shovels out noting but contempt and lies, and desereves nothing but
contempt and scorn in return.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:



r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:

John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.

Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.

I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.

Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder

Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.

**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.

Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.

Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart to
take
a
shot?

**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that you
know
no one who fears guns.

Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.

**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.

Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong. Again.

**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.

This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit.
Here
are
the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.

**Indeed.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.

**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.

As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.

Good. Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter

See #2.

Exceptions might include ex-criminals. Ex-felons are generally barred
from firearm ownership, so I'm thinking more of misdemeanor offenses
wherein the person has served their time.

Another exception might be "nutters", since the term is unclear.
People who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to themselves or
others due to a psychological disease - what I am currently assuming
you mean by "nutter" - are already barred from firearm ownership.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been
done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the
progress
of
technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?

The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Amendments have been
proposed thousands of times, and failed. The Constitution was set up
to be amendable, but not easily.

What sort of amendment did you have in mind when you asked your
question?

**Read my question again.

Okay, I read it again.

**Then please explain how I can answer your question, in light of mine.

How do you propose to change the Constitution to "reflect common
sense, logic and the progress of technology"?

**That is not for me to say, nor do. I am not a US citizen. Only US citizens
may propose such actions.


Look at it from another direction: if I think that the Constitution
already does "reflect common sense, logic and the progress of
technology", and apparently you do not, what needs to change?

**Again: That is not for me to say. I am not a US citizen.


Please be specific, as you are fond of writing.

Now please answer my question.

**Re-read my question.

I did; you still haven't answered.


**Again: Re-read my question.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"APR" <I_Don't_Want@Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4a41f47f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:7ab46hF1uritgU1@mid.individual.net...

**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.


I am very suprised Trevor.

**Why?

Why would you fire a gun given the vitriol you

have spat out here regarding gun use and ownership.

**What "vitriol" would that be? Be VERY precise in your answer and cite my
PRECISE words. DO NOT PARAPHRASE nor project your own opinions. Cite my
words.

You using a gun brings

feelings of extreme cynicism, why would a wanker like you even pick up a
gun. You are lucky you didn't seriously hurt yourself

**Why? What makes you imagine that I am unaware of the risks of using a gun?
Again, be precise in your answer.

**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.

Trevor, I know far more people who are prepared to express their concern
at the level of violence being seen on the streets of a night time, such
that they don't willingly go out after dark.

**Fair enough. There are some places in my city that I would not walk in at
night. That is just common sense. I am wondering about this alleged fear of
guns.

This has nothing to do with guns but

more to do with a lack of enforced law and order. Why don't you start
wheeling this barrow.

**Because the claims were:

* That there are people who are afraid of guns.
* That I am afraid of guns.

THAT is the topic under discussion. Walking around dangerous neighbourhoods
at night is a whole different matter. It is also based on some degree of
hard evidence. Some areas of most large cities are 'no go' zones for many
people for a variety of reasons. Should it be that way? Certainly not. It
would be much better that large cities are like Tokyo. I've wandered all
over Tokyo at all sorts of odd hours and never felt any fear in doing so.

**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?

Trevor, it is just that your type seem to believe that total control is
the only way to go.

**Bullshit. Sane gun control is just that: Sane.

What do you say about those people who want to use guns for

sports/recreational shooting.

**I have no objection to anyone (in Australia) using guns for legal
recreational purposes. EXCEPT duck shooting. I personally object to that. I
have no problem with target shooting. I have no problem with vermin
elimination (in fact, I vigorously encourage it - it is a shame that the
blood thirsty psychopaths who shoot ducks, do not turn their weapons towards
feral pigs, cats, foxes, cane toads and dogs). PROVIDED those gun owners
obey the relevant laws in doing so and in weapons storage.

Note that the majority of sports/recreational

shooters use their guns on private farm properties where irresponsible use
will result in them being ejected with no chance of returning in the
future.

**I am well aware of that.

**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you fail
to do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit.
Here are the questions:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

Nothing, however, there is an issue with what nutters consider to be
"good, strong, sane gun control laws" and what really might be good,
strong and sane gun control laws.

**Examine the gun control laws in the US, for an example of insane,
haphazard and weak gun control laws.

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have unfettered access to firearms?

No I don't, however, there are a mass of other issues that I believe
should be preferentially addressed by control authorities and are not
being addressed appropriately, viz, law and order re general violence on
the streets..

**What violence on our streets? Australia has approximately similar levels
of street violence as most other Western, develpoed Democratic nations.
Which is not to say, that we should not try to reduce that violence. We
should. Severe restrictions on alcohol trading would go a long way to
solving many of these problems. As would getting tough on bikie gangs and
other groups. I have zero problem with VERY tough penalties on ANY violent
crime.

* Why do you feel that altering the US Constitution (which has been done
many times in the past) to reflect common sense, logic and the progress
of technology represents a "trashing of the Constitution"?


Why is it that your interpretation of what constitutes "common sense,
logic and the progress of technology" is the penultimate interpretation.

**Who said it was? Let me set out the scenario for you:


When the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution was framed, the folllowing was
extant:

* Dangerous slaves needed to be kept in check (Thomas Jefferson owned more
than 200 slaves). Guns were vital for this task.
* Dangerous and very pissed off natives roamed the countryside. Guns were
essential for the genocide of many US Indian tribes.
* Dangerous animals roamed free. (We, here in Australia, quickly forget that
there have essentially never been any seriously dangerous animals in our
nations. Except for the odd snake, of course).
* Refrigeration was non-existent. Fresh meat had to be killed close to where
it was consumed.
* The firing rate of firearms could be measured in MINUTES, not
milliseconds.
* The cost of a typical firearm easily exceeded six months of average wages.
* Rifling was VERY rare and accuracy was generally very poor.
* Guns were hardly compact (if the equipment necessary for reloading was
also taken into account)
* The nation had no army, as such.
* The nation was ruled by a vicious, colonial power.

OTOH, Now:

* There are no slaves.
* The natives are not quite as angry.
* Dangerous animals are pretty much restricted to national parks and some
very remote areas.
* Not only do we have refrigeration, but we have efficient, fast
refrigerated transport.
* The firing rate of some firearms can be measured in milliseconds. Even low
end guns can be reloaded in a couple of seconds.
* Rifling is very common and accuracy is quite good.
* Modern firearms can be compact, high power, carry many rounds and are
accurate.
* The US has the most powerful fighting force on the planet.
* The US is a completely independent nation.

One can only speculate if the US Founding Fathers may well have altered
their view on the 2dn Amendment, if they knew what is known today.

**Just answer the questions, else risk being targetting as a fool. You're
(apparently) making a case for lax, incoherent, poorly policed gun
control laws. You need to answer the above questions, if you are to make
a case for such an experiment.


No Trevor, There are many scenarios that can result in a person being
targetted as a fool. Not answering quewstions from a fool is not
necessarily one of them

**Incorrect. However, you are entitled to your opinion.

**Still waiting.
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Not wasting my time waiting for a non-event..

**Nor am I. Idiots don't like answering the hard questions.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Blinky Bill]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ae965ab-0708-4203-b09c-ab6d66b467dc@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:18 pm, "APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote:

Nuf said Trevor???, or can't you understand that comments by yourself are
not beyond reproach?? You seem to have a grievance with any
issue/activity/whatever that doesn't meet YOUR criteria.

Trevor, freedom of speech doesn't give unfettered right to malice and
slander. Common decency and ethics, or moral accountability, would prompt
most people to maintain certain standards in their communications with
others.

You're kidding right, you're attempting to reason with Trevor Tosspot?
=====================================================
It can't be as futile as attempting to reason with you - every time your
lies or hypocrisy are exposed you snip the whole post and run for cover by
inserting an irrelevant comment.



For those who don't remember, or don't know, Ardeet brokered a "peace
deal" between
Tosspot and your's truely some time ago, Tosspot lasted two posts
before returning to
his usual "bluff, bluster and bullshit"

He shovels out noting but contempt and lies, and desereves nothing but
contempt and scorn in return.
======================================================
But don't forget your lies, piggy-shitcan, as well as your own "bluff,
bluster and bullshit" and vitriol.

Here are just a few.

"I do have friends that are gay" .... "Unlike you cock-head, I don't
classify
people on the basis of their sexual orientation"

LMAO No further comment necessary.





"I've never met a gun owner who claims to be able to
diagnose a medical condition over the internet, that interesting
belief appears solely the domain of the anti-gun zealot."

Despite the fact that dozens of web-sites tout the services of on-line
doctors.





"South Australia finished their buyback in Dec 96, all other states had
completed the buy-back process by mid 97."

Despite the fact that even the SSAA says it ended on September 30 1997

http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/1997/1997-08-26_thanks-participants-firearms-buyback.html





"... in the period immediately folowing the buy-back, there was a
significant
increase in the criminal misuse of firearms."

But piggy-shitcan can't provide evidence of this - he provided evidence of
what happened DURING the buyback





- there is a letter from Tim Fischer on the SSAA web site.

But piggy-shitcan couldn't find this letter on the SSAA web-site.





- the FBI web site doesn't show UCR figures.

Trivially easy to prove this claim is a lie.





- the results of a professionally conducted survey become "tainted"
because they are cited by somebody that piggy-shitcan disagrees with.

Despite many requests for elaboration on this puzzling and revolutionary
theory of polling statistics, piggy-shitcan was never able to explain the
nature of this "tainting" or even when it occurred.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 24, 10:34 pm, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:18 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:





"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:665071a8-85f6-4eb8-889b-945135234ffc@u9g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 6:22 am, John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 23, 2:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?

and

**Projection, projection, projection. Try to cite some facts once in
awhile,
rather than projecting your opinions.

This'll be good, Trevor tells another that he shouldn't project an
opinion, at the same time expecting that other post to answer a
question based on Trevor's opoinion?

So tell us Trevor, who says Australian's gun laws are "good, stong or
sane"?

Are laws which allow criminals charged with illegal possession of an
automatic pistol to "get off" if the serial number is ground of the
weapon "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which place an antique pinfire, for which ammunition hasn't
been commercially available since before the First World War, under
the same class of licence as a modern handgun "good, strong or sane"?

Are laws which base the security required for ammunition storage not
on the damage that could be caused if that ammuntion was stolen, but
on the class of licence the ammunition is held under, whereby,
ammuntion held on one type of licence is subject to greater storage
requirements than identical ammuntion held on a different type of
licence, "good, strong and sane"?

* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?

That depends on who's defining "criminals, drunks, drug addicts and
nutters", you've previously described me as all four.

Failure by Trevor to make any attempt to actually answer the questions
put to him is noted.

Why am I not surprised.

**Good one, idiot. I pop inside for my evening meal and you give me 11
minutes to answer your idiotic rants.

Sheesh!

Check the times again fool...........-

Have you checked the times yet Trevor?

 

[Scout]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b79bf11-eac1-4190-9edc-d2c2715cb0b4@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 24, 4:13 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:7765e123-cdf0-465b-89d3-318fb32a2a65@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 23, 5:45 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:



r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3d498e1-5309-4c6f-a2e9-453c1b60cc13@d38g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 22, 9:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:7aanffF1smtq5U1@mid.individual.net:
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C32B2A694790Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
"fritz" <fr...@address.com> wrote in
news:h1ora1$djm$00$1@news.t-online.com:
John - Melb <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaf35a3b-8ec1-45d4-a716-35ac3a1b2fe6@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com..
.
I note Trevor failed to provide any evidence to support his
assertion
that dealers are posing as private citizens to sell guns to
criminals
at gun shows, without the necessary background checks, despite
being
provided with evidence that this activity is illegal.
Clearly, Trevor has some evidence that this is going on.
I guess this shows exactly the sort of person Trevor is, he has
evidence of a crime being committed, but fails to report that
criminal
activity to the relevant authorities, despite the threat this
criminal
activity poses to public safety, because the continuance of this
criminal activity allows Trevor to ride his favourite political
hobby-
horse on Usenet.
Gun-lover = one who has a truly pathetic personal disorder
Gun hater - a person who has a fear of inanimate objects and
retarded
sexual and emotional maturity and a indicator of Hoplophobia.
**I know of no person who "hates" inanimate objects. Perhaps you'd
care
to cite some verifiable examples. I won'
t hold my breath.
Clearly you fear them and fear leds to hate.
**Projection. For the record: I have fired guns. I do not fear them.
Hoplophobia (n.): The irrational fear of weapons, correctly
described
by
Freud as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".
**Repeating a lie, does not make it truth. Whilst I'm certain there
are
some people who do fear weapons, I can't say I've ever met anyone
who
does. OTOH, I know a goodly number of people who do fear a nutter
who
is
holding a gun at them. Perhaps you could cite some people who fear
weapons. I won't hold my breath.
Nope that's your forte. How;s your buddy that can stop his hjeart to
take
a
shot?
**Inability to respond rationally, duly noted. SOP. I accept that you
know
no one who fears guns.
Hoplophobia, like
homophobia, is a displacement symptom; hoplophobes fear their own
"forbidden" feelings and urges to commit violence.
**Bollocks. This is projection, based on a flawed descriptor.
Constatnly projecting what others they don't know would do and the
raging
threats by antis on this group would seem to prove you wrong. Again.
**Nope. You cited the flawed descriptor and then went on to project
your
own
opinions, based on that flawed descriptor.
This would be
harmless, except that they project these feelings onto others. The
sequelae of this neurosis include irrational and dangerous
behaviors
such as passing "gun-control" laws and trashing the Constitution.
**What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws? Do you
feel
that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should have
unfettered
access to firearms? Why do you feel that altering the US
Constitution
(which has been done many times in the past) to reflect common
sense,
logic and the progress of technology represents a "trashing of the
Constitution"?
Trevor I'm not going down this raod with you.
**I'll allow you another opportunity to answer the questions. If you
fail
to
do so, then we will all know, full well, that you are full of shit.
Here
are
the questions:
* What is wrong with good, strong, sane gun control laws?
Nothing. Of course, what constitutes those laws needs to meet
Constitutional standards and general agreement.
**Indeed.
* Do you feel that criminals, drunks, drug addicts and nutters should
have
unfettered access to firearms?
None of these groups - with a couple of possible exceptions - have
unfettered access to firearms now.
**Untrue. In many US jurisdictions, drug addicts, drunks, nutters AND
criminals are able to purchase second hand guns with ease.
As I mentioned, it depends on the definitions of "criminal" and
"nutter".

**Those definitions are not difficult to quantify.


Good. Please provide your definitions.

I'll go one better:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criminal

And to make things clear.

Criminal = a person guilty or convicted of a crime.

So much for innocent until proven guilty. According to Tosspot EVERYONE
is a criminal whether convicted or not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nutter

See #2.

Insane according to whom? You?

After all, you've called people nutters simply for failing to agree to
your politics or political agenda.


I will just note under the application of those as written and applied
by Trevor. Everyone is a criminal and anyone who disagrees with Trevor
is a nutter.

So why exactly would any sane person accept your setting the rules?

 

[Blinky Bill]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:70ae3872-6475-4994-8f7f-39edb3812786@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 8:44 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:0ae965ab-0708-4203-b09c-ab6d66b467dc@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:18 pm, "APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote:

Nuf said Trevor???, or can't you understand that comments by yourself
are
not beyond reproach?? You seem to have a grievance with any
issue/activity/whatever that doesn't meet YOUR criteria.

Trevor, freedom of speech doesn't give unfettered right to malice and
slander. Common decency and ethics, or moral accountability, would
prompt
most people to maintain certain standards in their communications with
others.

You're kidding right, you're attempting to reason with Trevor Tosspot?
=====================================================
It can't be as futile as attempting to reason with you - every time your
lies or hypocrisy are exposed you snip the whole post and run for cover by
inserting an irrelevant comment.

For those who don't remember, or don't know, Ardeet brokered a "peace
deal" between
Tosspot and your's truely some time ago, Tosspot lasted two posts
before returning to
his usual "bluff, bluster and bullshit"

He shovels out noting but contempt and lies, and desereves nothing but
contempt and scorn in return.
======================================================
But don't forget your lies, piggy-shitcan, as well as your own "bluff,
bluster and bullshit" and vitriol.

Here are just a few.

"I do have friends that are gay" .... "Unlike you cock-head, I don't
classify
people on the basis of their sexual orientation"

LMAO No further comment necessary.

"I've never met a gun owner who claims to be able to
diagnose a medical condition over the internet, that interesting
belief appears solely the domain of the anti-gun zealot."

Despite the fact that dozens of web-sites tout the services of on-line
doctors.

"South Australia finished their buyback in Dec 96, all other states had
completed the buy-back process by mid 97."

Despite the fact that even the SSAA says it ended on September 30 1997

http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/1997/1997-08-26_thanks-participants-f...

"... in the period immediately folowing the buy-back, there was a
significant
increase in the criminal misuse of firearms."

But piggy-shitcan can't provide evidence of this - he provided evidence of
what happened DURING the buyback

- there is a letter from Tim Fischer on the SSAA web site.

But piggy-shitcan couldn't find this letter on the SSAA web-site.

- the FBI web site doesn't show UCR figures.

Trivially easy to prove this claim is a lie.

- the results of a professionally conducted survey become "tainted"
because they are cited by somebody that piggy-shitcan disagrees with.

Despite many requests for elaboration on this puzzling and revolutionary
theory of polling statistics, piggy-shitcan was never able to explain the
nature of this "tainting" or even when it occurred.

But you forget sock-puppet, I play by Trevor's rules.
===================================================
That's your usual childish excuse - "But mum, he did it first" - pathetic.
But if you claim you are "playing by his rules", then we can regard you the
same way you regard him.

"He shovels out noting but contempt and lies..." - an accurate assessment
of your rantings.

"..and desereves nothing but contempt and scorn in return." That's a pretty
good assessment of how people should view your whining. Grow up.

 

[Blinky Bill]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:70c1f924-d117-4c71-bf68-080d58a8a1ad@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**Nor am I. Idiots don't like answering the hard questions.

So then, Trevor, is by his own admission, an idiot.

Tell us again about your friend who can STOP his heart.
==========================================
Tell us again about how you don't classify people according to their sexual
preference ... but describe them as gay LMAO

 

[Gray Ghost]

John - Melb <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:78363a71-66d0-4d25-aed1-10dc0a1888b2@g15g2000pra.googlegroups.com:

On Jun 26, 10:25 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

Tell us again about how you don't classify people according to their
sexual preference ... but describe them as gay LMAO

The friends I was refering to in my post describe themselves as "gay"

It is my impression that "gay" is considered the acceptable term when
referring to those who prefer thier own gender.

Blinky Bill is an empty sock, smelly, dirty, crusty with holes in the wrong
places. He is a near perfect example of the idiot contrarian on this
newsgroup. Stupid, vulgar, worthless.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 26, 8:44 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0ae965ab-0708-4203-b09c-ab6d66b467dc@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:18 pm, "APR" <I_Don't_Want_Spam@no_spam.com> wrote:

Nuf said Trevor???, or can't you understand that comments by yourself are
not beyond reproach?? You seem to have a grievance with any
issue/activity/whatever that doesn't meet YOUR criteria.

Trevor, freedom of speech doesn't give unfettered right to malice and
slander. Common decency and ethics, or moral accountability, would prompt
most people to maintain certain standards in their communications with
others.

You're kidding right, you're attempting to reason with Trevor Tosspot?
====================================================> It can't be as futile as attempting to reason with you - every time your
lies or hypocrisy are exposed you snip the whole post and run for cover by
inserting an irrelevant comment.

For those who don't remember, or don't know, Ardeet brokered a "peace
deal" between
Tosspot and your's truely some time ago, Tosspot lasted two posts
before returning to
his usual "bluff, bluster and bullshit"

He shovels out noting but contempt and lies, and desereves nothing but
contempt and scorn in return.
=====================================================> But don't forget your lies, piggy-shitcan, as well as your own "bluff,
bluster and bullshit" and vitriol.

Here are just a few.

"I do have friends that are gay" .... "Unlike you cock-head, I don't
classify
people on the basis of their sexual orientation"

LMAO No further comment necessary.

"I've never met a gun owner who claims to be able to
diagnose a medical condition over the internet, that interesting
belief appears solely the domain of the anti-gun zealot."

Despite the fact that dozens of web-sites tout the services of on-line
doctors.

"South Australia finished their buyback in Dec 96, all other states had
completed the buy-back process by mid 97."

Despite the fact that even the SSAA says it ended on September 30 1997

http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/1997/1997-08-26_thanks-participants-f...

"... in the period immediately folowing the buy-back, there was a
significant
increase in the criminal misuse of firearms."

But piggy-shitcan can't provide evidence of this - he provided evidence of
what happened DURING the buyback

- there is a letter from Tim Fischer on the SSAA web site.

But piggy-shitcan couldn't find this letter on the SSAA web-site.

- the FBI web site doesn't show UCR figures.

Trivially easy to prove this claim is a lie.

- the results of a professionally conducted survey become "tainted"
 because they are cited by somebody that piggy-shitcan disagrees with.

Despite many requests for elaboration on this puzzling and revolutionary
theory of polling statistics, piggy-shitcan was never able to explain the
nature of this "tainting" or even when it occurred.

But you forget sock-puppet, I play by Trevor's rules.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 26, 4:32 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**Nor am I. Idiots don't like answering the hard questions.

So then, Trevor, is by his own admission, an idiot.

Tell us again about your friend who can STOP his heart.