An addition to Trevor Tosspot's Porky List

[Gray Ghost]

John - Melb <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:72ba1659-16c1-4bf8-a26d-fbcff568ded1@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

On Jun 30, 7:45 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
I will provide you with, yet another, opportunity to respond to my
comments and questions. Or will you, like many gun owners, scurry away
and hide from me?

SNIP> Inane ranting lovingly removed

ROFLMAO

Excuse me Trevor, how many times have you, run away and failed to
answer questions put to you?

The question about pinfires above is but the most recent example.

Trevor has huffed and puffed and blown himself down. Since he won't define
"safe, sane" gun laws, further exchanges seem sorta pointless.

--
Always remember:

Bull Connor was a Democrat!

 

[Trevor Wilson]

I will provide you with, yet another, opportunity to respond to my comments
and questions. Or will you, like many gun owners, scurry away and hide from
me?

I suspect the latter. You're a big, brave man when you have a gun, but you
are a coward when you have to answer the hard quesations. SOP.

"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C333361FA65Wereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...

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


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


John - Melb <mcnamara_john@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?
* 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"?

Your "facts" and assumptions

are grossly flawed, your desire for government to dictate your life is
well
known and your inability to be truthful or back up your assertion is well
documented.

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

I would sooner argue with Weasel

**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.

You're an idiot. Get used to it.

**This, coming from one who cannot answer simple questions, is rich.

I look forward to seeing the answers to these questions.

**Still waiting.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Scout]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3A12m.4871$6A3.1257@newsfe20.iad...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@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
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?
**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person
is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing
a
background check.
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.

Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful when
telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance: If
criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say, gun
shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu causing
the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that some
criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know this from
the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be large (though
it could well be huge), it has been significant in recent times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand
gun sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.
I disagree, several years ago I missed out on a really good deal because
the NICS was down and neither I nor the dealer were local to the area, nor
too each other and it would have been more expense and trouble than it was
worth to arrange a meeting at another time.

**Please describe your injury/s in full. Take all the sapce you need. Do so
in this space:

-----

Already stated. Is there something you missed?

-----

Now, I will describe the injuries suffered by some people who WERE affected
by lax gun control laws in the US:

Irrelevent. You stated most clearly that NO ONE had been harmed. I have.
You lied.

These deaths and injuries were the result of weak gun control laws,

Proof please to support your claim.

as they
pertain to the sale of guns in private situations.

Really? I seem to recall that involved a CRIMINAL OFFENSE and an ILLEGAL
TRANSFER.

.....or do you suppose criminals engaged in illegal transfers aren't
going to do so because they haven't preformed a background check?

BS Trevor. You are certainly talking out of your ass.

Suddenly, the loss of a
"good deal" pales into insignificance.

I accept your admission I was harmed, and your claim that no one has
been or would be is a falsehood.

So please define this assertion of yours that "no one is hurt", because
it's BS. Nor have I seen ANY evidence to show that such background checks
in the 18 states that mandate them has done ANYTHING to control criminal
access to guns or reduced the number of criminals with guns.

**Please describe the nature of your injuries. How do tjhose injuries relate
to the 34 listed above. Are those injuries more or less severe?

I accept your admission I was injuried. The severity isn't the issue.

As such, it's my belief that you're talking through your ass and claiming
all sorts of fantasy results which can't been shown to exist anyplace it's
been implemented.

**I just 34 inluries which can be DIRECTLY attributed to lax gun control
laws in the US.

Really? I seem to recall they committed something like 34 felonies
before they fired the first shot. I'm sure that one more law would have
stopped them cold, particularly the part involving the illegal private
transfer of guns.

Yea, no criminal would illegally transfer a gun in violation of the law.

Are you stoned, Trevor, or simply stupid?

 

[Scout]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@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

Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?

**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing a
background check.

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


Okay, slang for "an insane person". As mentioned in an earlier
message, people who are adjudicated as potentially harmful to
themselves or others due to a psychological disease are already barred
from firearm ownership. Looks like there is no need for new laws here
either.

**See above.


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.

It is certainly possible to trample individual rights by amending the
Constitution.

**Indeed. It is also possible to alter the Constitution to reflect the
reality of modern society too. The US Constitution was written a few hundred
years ago. Things have changed. Fortunately, the US Constitution was
concieved as a document which could be changed to reflect changes in
society.

.....and once the 2nd Amendment is repealed then you will have an
argument. Until then the gun control laws you suggest are by your OWN
stated standards unsuitable for acceptance since they fail to comply
with the Constitutional requirements.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Mjy2m.40$K24.16@newsfe19.iad...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3A12m.4871$6A3.1257@newsfe20.iad...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@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
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?
**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a
person is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell
a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first
performing a
background check.
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.

Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful
when telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance:
If criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say,
gun shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu
causing the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that
some criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know
this from the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be
large (though it could well be huge), it has been significant in recent
times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand
gun sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.
I disagree, several years ago I missed out on a really good deal because
the NICS was down and neither I nor the dealer were local to the area,
nor too each other and it would have been more expense and trouble than
it was worth to arrange a meeting at another time.

**Please describe your injury/s in full. Take all the sapce you need. Do
so in this space:

-----

Already stated. Is there something you missed?

**I'm still waiting for a complete list of your injuries suffered due to
your perceived problems with US gun control laws. Your lack of response will
be accepted as an admission that you have not suffered any injury. IOW: You
have not suffered at all.

-----

Now, I will describe the injuries suffered by some people who WERE
affected by lax gun control laws in the US:

Irrelevent.

**Well, yes, it is relevant. Poor gun control laws can be directly
attributed to the deaths and injuries listed.

You stated most clearly that NO ONE had been harmed. I have.

**Then list your injuries. An inability to list even one injury will be an
admission that you have lied about your injuries.

You lied.

**Then list you injuries.

These deaths and injuries were the result of weak gun control laws,

Proof please to support your claim.

**The deaths and injuries were the result of two shooters at Columbine High
School. Those shooters obtained the guns they used to kill people, by
purchasing from a friend.

as they pertain to the sale of guns in private situations.

Really?

**Yes, really.

I seem to recall that involved a CRIMINAL OFFENSE and an ILLEGAL

TRANSFER.

**Points:
1) Such a transfer could not have taken place, if US gun control laws
worked.
2) No person was punished for any alleged offence.

....or do you suppose criminals engaged in illegal transfers aren't going
to do so because they haven't preformed a background check?

**People who purchase gun legally (like the ones purchased for the Columbine
shooters) cannot transfer ownership to another person without first dealing
through proper channels in places where gun control laws are sane and strong
(like Australia). In the US, where gun control laws are weak and
ineffective, such transfers are common. As was evidenced by the Columbine
shootings.

BS Trevor. You are certainly talking out of your ass.

**Then YOU explain how the Columbine shooters could have obtained the guns
in Australia. Please outline the PRECISE steps, places, people and costs
involved.

Suddenly, the loss of a "good deal" pales into insignificance.

I accept your admission I was harmed, and your claim that no one has been
or would be is a falsehood.

**You failed to list any injury. You were not harmed in any way, shape or
form. You inbaility to understand plain English is duly noted.

I will repeat:

You were not harmed in any way. If you have further problems in
understanding these simple words, get someone to explain them to you.

So please define this assertion of yours that "no one is hurt", because
it's BS. Nor have I seen ANY evidence to show that such background
checks in the 18 states that mandate them has done ANYTHING to control
criminal access to guns or reduced the number of criminals with guns.

**Please describe the nature of your injuries. How do tjhose injuries
relate to the 34 listed above. Are those injuries more or less severe?

I accept your admission I was injuried. The severity isn't the issue.

**List your injuries. Your inability to list your injuries is an admission
that you were not harmed.

As such, it's my belief that you're talking through your ass and
claiming all sorts of fantasy results which can't been shown to exist
anyplace it's been implemented.

**I just 34 inluries which can be DIRECTLY attributed to lax gun control
laws in the US.

Really?

**You snipped them. I'll re-list them, if you wish.

I seem to recall they committed something like 34 felonies

before they fired the first shot. I'm sure that one more law would have
stopped them cold, particularly the part involving the illegal private
transfer of guns.

**Then YOU explain how the Columbine shooters could have obtained the guns
in Australia. Please outline the PRECISE steps, places, people and costs
involved.

Yea, no criminal would illegally transfer a gun in violation of the law.

Are you stoned, Trevor, or simply stupid?

**Just waiting for you to list your injuries. Here is a list of injuries
which you snipped, due to your utterly callous nature:

1. Rachel Scott, age 17, killed by shots to the head, torso, and leg on a
grassy area next to the West Entrance of the school.
2. Richard Castaldo, age 17, shot in the arm, chest, back and abdomen on the
same grassy area.
3. Daniel Rohrbough, age 15, killed by a shot to the chest on the West
Staircase.
4. Sean Graves, age 15, shot in the back, foot and abdomen on the West
Staircase.
5. Lance Kirklin, age 16, shot with wounds to the leg, neck and jaw on the
West Staircase.
6. Michael Johnson, age 15, escaped from the grassy knoll with wounds to his
face, arm and leg.
7. Mark Taylor, age 16, shot in the chest, arms and leg on the grassy knoll.
8. Anne-Marie Hochhalter, age 17, shot in the chest, arm, abdomen, back, and
left leg near the cafeteria's entrance.
9. Brian Anderson, age 16, injured near the West Entrance by flying glass.
10. Patti Nielson, age 35, hit in the shoulder by shrapnel near the West
Entrance.
11. Stephanie Munson, age 16, shot in the ankle inside the North Hallway.
12. Dave Sanders, age 47, died of blood loss after being shot in the neck
and back inside the South Hallway.
13. Evan Todd, age 15, sustained minor injuries from the splintering of a
desk he was hiding under.
14. Kyle Velasquez, age 16, killed by gunshot wounds to the head and back.
15. Patrick Ireland, age 17, shot in the arm, leg, head, and foot.
16. Daniel Steepleton, age, 17, shot in the thigh.
17. Makai Hall, 18, shot in the knee.
18. Steven Curnow, age 14, killed by a shot to the neck.
19. Kacey Ruegsegger, age 17, shot in the hand, arm and shoulder.
20. Cassie Bernall, age 17, killed by a shot to the head.
21. Isaiah Shoels, age 18, killed by a shot to the chest.
22. Matthew Kechter, age 16, killed by a shot to the chest.
23. Lisa Kreutz, age 18, shot in the shoulder, hand and arms and thigh.
24. Valeen Schnurr, age 18, injured with wounds to the chest, arms and
abdomen.
25. Mark Kintgen, age 17, shot in the head and shoulder.
26. Lauren Townsend, age 18, killed by multiple gunshot wounds to the head,
chest and lower body.
27. Nicole Nowlen, age 16, shot in the abdomen.
28. John Tomlin, age 16, killed by multiple shots to the head and neck.
29. Kelly Fleming, age 16, killed by a shot to the back.
30. Jeanna Park, age 18, shot in the knee, shoulder and foot.
31. Daniel Mauser, age 15, killed by a shot to the face.
32. Jennifer Doyle, age 17, shot in the hand, leg and shoulder.
33. Austin Eubanks, age 17, shot in the head and knee.
34. Corey DePooter, age 17, killed by shots to the chest and neck.


Balance these injuries against your alleged "injury" which you allegedly
suffered.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Scout]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Mjy2m.40$K24.16@newsfe19.iad...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3A12m.4871$6A3.1257@newsfe20.iad...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@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
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?
**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a
person is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell
a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first
performing a
background check.
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.

Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful
when telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance:
If criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say,
gun shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu
causing the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that
some criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know
this from the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be
large (though it could well be huge), it has been significant in recent
times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand
gun sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.
I disagree, several years ago I missed out on a really good deal because
the NICS was down and neither I nor the dealer were local to the area,
nor too each other and it would have been more expense and trouble than
it was worth to arrange a meeting at another time.
**Please describe your injury/s in full. Take all the sapce you need. Do
so in this space:

-----
Already stated. Is there something you missed?

**I'm still waiting for a complete list of your injuries suffered due to
your perceived problems with US gun control laws. Your lack of response will
be accepted as an admission that you have not suffered any injury. IOW: You
have not suffered at all.

Financial. Mental Anguish. Physical Stress.

There. Happy.

You said, no one is injuried by such laws. I have shown they are.

-----

Now, I will describe the injuries suffered by some people who WERE
affected by lax gun control laws in the US:
Irrelevent.

**Well, yes, it is relevant. Poor gun control laws can be directly
attributed to the deaths and injuries listed.

Yep, but NOT relevant to your claim that no one is injured by such laws.

You stated most clearly that NO ONE had been harmed. I have.

**Then list your injuries. An inability to list even one injury will be an
admission that you have lied about your injuries.

Financial. Mental Anguish. Physical Stress.

You lied.

**Then list you injuries.

I already have, but since you need them spoon fed to you I have listed
them in small bite sized pieces just for you.

These deaths and injuries were the result of weak gun control laws,
Proof please to support your claim.

**The deaths and injuries were the result of two shooters at Columbine High
School. Those shooters obtained the guns they used to kill people, by
purchasing from a friend.

Which under the law was a strawsale and TOTALLY ILLEGAL.

I'm sure that a friend knowing that the transaction was illegal would
have suddenly refused simply because they were also suppose to run a
background check.

How many laws have to be violated?

IT WAS ALREADY ILLEGAL AND THEY ALL KNEW IT.

Explain how this law would suddenly have made them decide to obey the
law when they were already engaged in ignoring the law.

as they pertain to the sale of guns in private situations.
Really?

**Yes, really.

I seem to recall that involved a CRIMINAL OFFENSE and an ILLEGAL
TRANSFER.

**Points:
1) Such a transfer could not have taken place, if US gun control laws
worked.

And you have shown that background checks work?

I think not.

I simply accept your admission that what they did was illegal and one
more law wouldn't have changed ANYTHING.

2) No person was punished for any alleged offence.

Yep, which sort of makes gun control laws pretty useless since they are
regularly not prosecuted. Oh, but adding one more will suddenly change
EVERYTHING. Right Trevor?

....or do you suppose criminals engaged in illegal transfers aren't going
to do so because they haven't preformed a background check?

**People who purchase gun legally (like the ones purchased for the Columbine
shooters) cannot transfer ownership to another person without first dealing
through proper channels in places where gun control laws are sane and strong
(like Australia).

Really? So the guy making machine guns in his basement went through the
proper channels when he sold his machine guns to criminals?

In the US, where gun control laws are weak and
ineffective, such transfers are common. As was evidenced by the Columbine
shootings.

Like criminals don't illegally transfer firearms in Australia. You
really are engaged in dishonesty here.

BS Trevor. You are certainly talking out of your ass.

**Then YOU explain how the Columbine shooters could have obtained the guns
in Australia.

Simple. The same way they did here. ILLEGALLY.

The law doesn't apply when it is IGNORED. The law doesn't work when the
people BREAK the law. The law doesn't stop CRIMINALS.

After all, you would seem to have us believe that because Australia has
gun control laws there is absolutely NO gun crime. After all, criminals
would NEVER break the law in Australia. Right?

Please outline the PRECISE steps, places, people and costs
involved.

I'll take Trevor cite tactic #3.

Suddenly, the loss of a "good deal" pales into insignificance.
I accept your admission I was harmed, and your claim that no one has been
or would be is a falsehood.

**You failed to list any injury. You were not harmed in any way, shape or
form. You inbaility to understand plain English is duly noted.

I will repeat:

You were not harmed in any way.

At the very least it cost me money since I had to pay a much higher
price later.

Gee, that's harm. Specifically financial harm. You claimed such doesn't
occur. It did. You lied.

If you have further problems in
understanding these simple words, get someone to explain them to you.


So please define this assertion of yours that "no one is hurt", because
it's BS. Nor have I seen ANY evidence to show that such background
checks in the 18 states that mandate them has done ANYTHING to control
criminal access to guns or reduced the number of criminals with guns.
**Please describe the nature of your injuries. How do tjhose injuries
relate to the 34 listed above. Are those injuries more or less severe?
I accept your admission I was injuried. The severity isn't the issue.

**List your injuries. Your inability to list your injuries is an admission
that you were not harmed.

As such, it's my belief that you're talking through your ass and
claiming all sorts of fantasy results which can't been shown to exist
anyplace it's been implemented.
**I just 34 inluries which can be DIRECTLY attributed to lax gun control
laws in the US.
Really?

**You snipped them. I'll re-list them, if you wish.

I seem to recall they committed something like 34 felonies
before they fired the first shot. I'm sure that one more law would have
stopped them cold, particularly the part involving the illegal private
transfer of guns.

**Then YOU explain how the Columbine shooters could have obtained the guns
in Australia. Please outline the PRECISE steps, places, people and costs
involved.

Simple THEY BREAK THE FUCKING LAW.

Doesn't matter if they are in the USA or Australia.

They do whatever it is they want by BREAKING THE LAW.

Oh, that's right, Australia doesn't have criminals because in Australia
everyone always obeys the law.

If they don't then, you know how they could do that in Australia.

And blow your specifics out your ass Trevor. You ask for standards of
evidence you refuse to apply to your own cites. So it doesn't hold water
with me.

 

[F Murtz]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3A12m.4871$6A3.1257@newsfe20.iad...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@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
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?
**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person
is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing
a
background check.
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.

Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful when
telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance: If
criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say, gun
shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu causing
the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that some
criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know this from
the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be large (though
it could well be huge), it has been significant in recent times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand
gun sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.
I disagree, several years ago I missed out on a really good deal because
the NICS was down and neither I nor the dealer were local to the area, nor
too each other and it would have been more expense and trouble than it was
worth to arrange a meeting at another time.

**Please describe your injury/s in full. Take all the sapce you need. Do so
in this space:

-----



-----

Now, I will describe the injuries suffered by some people who WERE affected
by lax gun control laws in the US:

1. Rachel Scott, age 17, killed by shots to the head, torso, and leg on a
grassy area next to the West Entrance of the school.
2. Richard Castaldo, age 17, shot in the arm, chest, back and abdomen on the
same grassy area.
3. Daniel Rohrbough, age 15, killed by a shot to the chest on the West
Staircase.
4. Sean Graves, age 15, shot in the back, foot and abdomen on the West
Staircase.
5. Lance Kirklin, age 16, shot with wounds to the leg, neck and jaw on the
West Staircase.
6. Michael Johnson, age 15, escaped from the grassy knoll with wounds to his
face, arm and leg.
7. Mark Taylor, age 16, shot in the chest, arms and leg on the grassy knoll.
8. Anne-Marie Hochhalter, age 17, shot in the chest, arm, abdomen, back, and
left leg near the cafeteria's entrance.
9. Brian Anderson, age 16, injured near the West Entrance by flying glass.
10. Patti Nielson, age 35, hit in the shoulder by shrapnel near the West
Entrance.
11. Stephanie Munson, age 16, shot in the ankle inside the North Hallway.
12. Dave Sanders, age 47, died of blood loss after being shot in the neck
and back inside the South Hallway.
13. Evan Todd, age 15, sustained minor injuries from the splintering of a
desk he was hiding under.
14. Kyle Velasquez, age 16, killed by gunshot wounds to the head and back.
15. Patrick Ireland, age 17, shot in the arm, leg, head, and foot.
16. Daniel Steepleton, age, 17, shot in the thigh.
17. Makai Hall, 18, shot in the knee.
18. Steven Curnow, age 14, killed by a shot to the neck.
19. Kacey Ruegsegger, age 17, shot in the hand, arm and shoulder.
20. Cassie Bernall, age 17, killed by a shot to the head.
21. Isaiah Shoels, age 18, killed by a shot to the chest.
22. Matthew Kechter, age 16, killed by a shot to the chest.
23. Lisa Kreutz, age 18, shot in the shoulder, hand and arms and thigh.
24. Valeen Schnurr, age 18, injured with wounds to the chest, arms and
abdomen.
25. Mark Kintgen, age 17, shot in the head and shoulder.
26. Lauren Townsend, age 18, killed by multiple gunshot wounds to the head,
chest and lower body.
27. Nicole Nowlen, age 16, shot in the abdomen.
28. John Tomlin, age 16, killed by multiple shots to the head and neck.
29. Kelly Fleming, age 16, killed by a shot to the back.
30. Jeanna Park, age 18, shot in the knee, shoulder and foot.
31. Daniel Mauser, age 15, killed by a shot to the face.
32. Jennifer Doyle, age 17, shot in the hand, leg and shoulder.
33. Austin Eubanks, age 17, shot in the head and knee.
34. Corey DePooter, age 17, killed by shots to the chest and neck.

These deaths and injuries were the result of weak gun control laws, as they
pertain to the sale of guns in private situations. Suddenly, the loss of a
"good deal" pales into insignificance.


So please define this assertion of yours that "no one is hurt", because
it's BS. Nor have I seen ANY evidence to show that such background checks
in the 18 states that mandate them has done ANYTHING to control criminal
access to guns or reduced the number of criminals with guns.

**Please describe the nature of your injuries. How do tjhose injuries relate
to the 34 listed above. Are those injuries more or less severe?

As such, it's my belief that you're talking through your ass and claiming
all sorts of fantasy results which can't been shown to exist anyplace it's
been implemented.

**I just 34 inluries which can be DIRECTLY attributed to lax gun control
laws in the US.

So. before we require a lot of background checks, why don't you first show
us that they actually have a demonstrated, verifiable benefit.

**I've just shown what happens when you have poor gun control laws. Here in
Australia, when the gun control laws were changed, there was a dramatic and
sustained fall in mass murders via the use of firearms. Coincidence?
Perhaps. Still, it's been nearly 13 years since those laws were enacted and
there have been no mass murders via firearms.

Has not reduced mass murders, just mass murders by firearms.

Oh, and tell me again why we shouldn't simply issue special ID to
prohibited individuals so that a background check consists simply of
looking at their government issued photo ID???

**People change.

 

[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...........- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Have you checked the times on those posts yet Trevor?

 

[Scout]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3A12m.4871$6A3.1257@newsfe20.iad...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:c158628b-25c2-46ff-8db5-5a67b42fc469@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 4:43 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message

news:8531e48b-0390-4790-a147-2293aff694e5@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:03 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

r_c_br...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:eab1e64a-2c17-4f2b-884a-4e0a70fcf673@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 11:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
r_c_br...@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
Okay, I'll assume "a person guilty or convicted of a crime". As
mentioned in an earlier message, ex-felons are generally barred from
firearm ownership, so there is no need for new laws in that case.
Your definition would include misdemeanor offenses, is that correct?
**Depends. Any violent offence should be enough to ensure that a person
is
never allowed to own a firearm. However, the problem with US firearms
laws
(as they exist in many jurisdictions), is that it is possible to sell a
second hand firearm to a criminal, without the seller first performing
a
background check.
Are you referring to sales between private parties?

**Yep.

For example, if I
owned any firearms, I could sell one to a friend or relative without
the background check, right?

**Depending on the jurisdiction, yes.

Interesting. Do you know how large (or small) of a problem it is when
someone sells a firearm to a friend or relative?

**The precise size is unknown, as criminals tend not to be truthful when
telling the authorities where they obtain firearms. For instance: If
criminals told police that they obtained their guns from, oh, say, gun
shows, then that would cause a huge crack-down on gun shows, thsu causing
the criminals' source of guns to dry up. However, we know that some
criminals do buy their guns from friends and relatives. We know this from
the Columbine Massacre. So, although the problem may not be large (though
it could well be huge), it has been significant in recent times.

More crucially, however, employing the same restrictions on second hand
gun sales, as applied to new gun sales, hurts no one, except criminals.
I disagree, several years ago I missed out on a really good deal because
the NICS was down and neither I nor the dealer were local to the area, nor
too each other and it would have been more expense and trouble than it was
worth to arrange a meeting at another time.

**Please describe your injury/s in full. Take all the sapce you need. Do so
in this space:

-----



-----

Asked before and answer. Did you not bother to read the answers I've
already given, or are you so fucking stupid that you forgot them already????

<snip irrelevent list>

Oh, and if you want a list of people that have been physically injured
due to restration you can start with all the victims of violent crime in
DC and Chicago because of those cities registration requirement.

 

[Scout]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Now, I will describe the injuries suffered by some people who WERE affected
by lax gun control laws in the US:

Please note the injuries suffered were the result of ILLEGAL firearms
activity and NOTHING concerning the criminals guns from their access,
possession or use was legal. Yet, Trevor claims that all this illegal
activity was the fault of the laws despite it already being illegal and
that one more law would have changed EVERYTHING.

Of course, Trevor won't explain exactly how this law would have changed
anything since the criminals themselves didn't buy the guns they used.
But, hey, just because his proposed 'solution' would have done nothing
to change this event, naturally Trevor feels justified in using the
blood of these victims to advance a political agenda which would NOT
HAVE ALTERED ANYTHING.

You, Trevor, are scum.

 

[Scout]

John - Melb wrote:

On Jul 7, 2:28 am, Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net
wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Now, I will describe the injuries suffered by some people who WERE affected
by lax gun control laws in the US:
Please note the injuries suffered were the result of ILLEGAL firearms
activity and NOTHING concerning the criminals guns from their access,
possession or use was legal. Yet, Trevor claims that all this illegal
activity was the fault of the laws despite it already being illegal and
that one more law would have changed EVERYTHING.

Of course, Trevor won't explain exactly how this law would have changed
anything since the criminals themselves didn't buy the guns they used.
But, hey, just because his proposed 'solution' would have done nothing
to change this event, naturally Trevor feels justified in using the
blood of these victims to advance a political agenda which would NOT
HAVE ALTERED ANYTHING.

You, Trevor, are scum.

And you've only just noticed?

No, just pointing it out clearly for the lurkers.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jul 7, 2:28 am, Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
Now, I will describe the injuries suffered by some people who WERE affected
by lax gun control laws in the US:

Please note the injuries suffered were the result of ILLEGAL firearms
activity and NOTHING concerning the criminals guns from their access,
possession or use was legal. Yet, Trevor claims that all this illegal
activity was the fault of the laws despite it already being illegal and
that one more law would have changed EVERYTHING.

Of course, Trevor won't explain exactly how this law would have changed
anything since the criminals themselves didn't buy the guns they used.
But, hey, just because his proposed 'solution' would have done nothing
to change this event, naturally Trevor feels justified in using the
blood of these victims to advance a political agenda which would NOT
HAVE ALTERED ANYTHING.

You, Trevor, are scum.

And you've only just noticed?

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:28:58 -0400, Scout wrote:

You, Trevor, are scum.

Without scum, we would all be dead. Typical Wanker, slept through Science
class.




--

Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.