From: White Spirit on 14 May 2010 06:10
On 14/05/2010 05:17, Dragos wrote:
>>> Hardly the actions of a reasoned mind.
> Right, responding to a threat real or otherwise with a little
> background is unreasonable. While I am quite sure I can handle any of
> the typical morons who would send me such a threat, Why not give them
> a heads up about the possible consequences? Seems only fair....
It doesn't surprise me that you would justify it to yourself in this
way. It is the typical action of someone who is desperately trying to
prove their self to a complete stranger and doesn't want to admit their
The chances are that the original threat was someone messing around but,
having responded to it in the way you have, if someone really wanted to
do you harm they would now know to prepare accordingly.
Violence begets violence.
> yes the UK FINALLY repaid their loan ("exorbitantly" given at 2% for
> FIFTY YEARS) Five years late.... And they were more than happy to take
> the money.
The ammo and other materials were sold at an exorbitant price. Rampant
> So, claiming 4 big black guys who looked like they were in a gang is
> racist? Because he mentioned black?
How does someone look like they're in a gang? Unless you know what to
look for, you have no idea what a gang member looks like, and he
obviously had no such idea. He saw some black people in a group and
assumed that they were members of a gang - prejudice typical of a racist.
> So is he also a sizist since he
> mentioned they were big?
No. Physical size is relevant, unlike the colour of their skin.
> You are quite a piece of work, calling
> someone a racist based on one comment.
If the comment hadn't made it clear, I would have no reason to make such
>(which probably was hitting the
> nail on the head)
In other words, you're racist as well.
> He called it like he saw it, nothing more. He
> didn't call them any derogatory names based on their skin color. You
> however have attempted to brand him a racist.
You don't have to call people names to be racist. It's enough to make
negative judgements about them based on stereotypes.
> I hope you love living
> where you do, and if anyone ever attempts to do you harm, I hope you
> are able to defend yourself with your frying pan or whatever.
Our society seems a lot less violent than the fantasy world you live in.
> intruders or would-be assailants get bullets... I take no chances with
> the security of my family.
Normal people aren't itching to kill someone they perceive to have done
> You should do some research on the gun laws here, I bet you have no
> clue how it works.
You'd be wrong.
> I also suggest anyone in this country that would
> seek to do a law abiding second amendment exerciser harm, do some
> research on the so-called castle doctrine and the fact that(at least
> in this state) one has NO DUTY TO RETREAT if they are being assaulted
> or reasonably believe they or a third party are about to be assaulted.
Things are a bit more progressive here. People who adopt a course of
action that escalates violence take their share of the blame.
From: Groepaz on 15 May 2010 20:59
Brandon Staggs wrote:
> There's no getting around this fact: since the widespread adoption of
> right-to-carry in the USA, violent crime has been decreasing, not
> increasing. Say whatever you like -- you simply can't get around the
> fact that personal liberties regarding firearms do not *increase*
but you probably dont have a link to some respectable source to back up this
"fact" either eh? too bad :(
A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
From: Groepaz on 15 May 2010 21:15
> "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message
>> Dragos wrote:
>>> So I get this pretty funny email regarding the show:
>>> from Anonymous <cripto(a)ecn.org>
>>> to mgladson(a)gmail.com
>>> date Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:10 PM
>>> subject C4 commodore show
>>> mailed-by ecn.org
>>> hide details 6:10 PM (3 hours ago)
>>> Hey ASSWIPE, if you show your insolant tard face at the show this
>>> year it'll end up broken hard.
>>> Clearly a wordsmith and spelling wizard! Also, apparently clueless as
>>> to what a would-be assailant would be up against....
>>> Enjoy, and yes I have a permit and Yes I carry 100% of the time.....
>> Real men don't need guns..
> Real men own guns.
Real men have one right down in their pants and don't need any other at all.
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular
expressions." Now they have two problems.
From: Brandon Staggs on 15 May 2010 23:27
"Groepaz" wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 02:59:09 +0200:
> Brandon Staggs wrote:
>> There's no getting around this fact: since the widespread adoption of
>> right-to-carry in the USA, violent crime has been decreasing, not
>> increasing. Say whatever you like -- you simply can't get around the
>> fact that personal liberties regarding firearms do not *increase*
> but you probably dont have a link to some respectable source to back up this
> "fact" either eh? too bad :(
What, violent crime rates? Are you seriously disputing that they're
on the decline in the USA?
From: Dragos on 16 May 2010 13:52
hmmm, other countries with higher violent crime rates than the US?