WHY I WANT GUN CONTROL!!!

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSTopNews/horses_nov13-cp.html

Monday, November 13, 2000

RCMP probes shooting of horses

ST. PAUL, Alta. (CP) -- RCMP are investigating what appears to be a shocking display of animal cruelty after several horses were randomly shot on the weekend.

Horse breeder Ken Nielsen said five of his horses were shot in the legs on Saturday.

He said it is one Remembrance Day he will "remember forever."

"My neighbour informed me that five of my horses were lying on the ground and in pain when I returned from a horse auction held in Fort Saskatchewan on the weekend," Nielsen said Sunday night.

When he raced over to the isolated parcel of land where he keeps his horses, he found five geldings lying on the grass, writhing in pain.

"It's the hardest thing to experience, when you see a horse trying to come to you, falling down, when it hears your familiar voice," he said.

"I've raised these horses right since birth, so it's really tough to handle. My wife, Barbara, is pretty shocked.

"We don't know why anybody would do something so terrible. Who could be so cruel to animals? I'm devastated."

Bev Lorenz of Lloydminster purchased a horse from Nielsen at the weekend auction.

She was informed about the shootings when she went to pick up her horse at Nielsen's farm in the St. Paul area northeast of Edmonton.

"There are some sick, sick, sick people out there," said Lorenz, sobbing uncontrollably.

Four of the five horses had to be destroyed.

-- Edmonton Sun.

(end of article)

Before you rush to say "but this was done by the criminal element," it could just as easily have been done by the so-called "legitimate" gun owner living nearby.

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), November 13, 2000

Answers

Maybe, but most of the rest of us 80 million responsible firearms owners don't do or condone such acts.

-- Flash (nazflash@northlink.com), November 13, 2000.

Everybody has a right to own a gun, and responsible owners should have no problem registering them in their name.

-- (rights @ have. responsibilities), November 14, 2000.

rights@have.responsibilities,

Are you new here, or are you just afraid to use your normal handle?

Everybody does indeed have a right to own a gun to defend against tyranny. Responsible owners would be fools to give the tyrants a list of who to come after.


As far as the horse shooting tragedy, I would guess that it was perpetrated by some rabid anti-gun nuts who would stop at nothing to try and do away with all guns.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

Registering my ass! Registration has always precluded confiscation! Whatmanner of moron are you?

-- Anonymous (guns@home.now), November 14, 2000.

Just out of idle curiosity, how does registration of firearms actually prevent occasional misuse by the criminal element? It's well established that where honest citizens have the right to keep and bear arms that crime rates are far below those areas where same is restricted.

-- Wonderin (about@lots.of.things), November 14, 2000.

"Just out of idle curiosity, how does registration of firearms actually prevent occasional misuse by the criminal element?"

Very simple actually. When police are called to the scene of a crime or a shooting in self-defense, they can do one of 3 things...

1. If the gun was justifiably used in self-defense, and it is registered, it will be returned to the owner.

2. If the gun is not registered it will be confiscated and destroyed.

3. If the gun is registered but stolen, it can be returned to the owner, provided he takes precautions to prevent it being stolen again.

You need to think long-term. Eventually, and of course this will take many years, but EVENTUALLY, nearly all illegal guns will have been destroyed, and what remains will be owned by responsible owners. It will be so difficult for anyone who is not responsible to get a gun that crime will be reduced to historical lows.

Although it will probably take decades before all unregisterd guns are destroyed, it will eventually make this country a safer place for your children! See how that works? It isn't rocket science, not magic, not deception, it is nothing to be afraid of.

-- (presto@problem.solved), November 14, 2000.

"Who determines who should have guns?"

I do.

I can have mine,they can have theirs and we'll watch out for ya if you have any trouble and the police are too busy to come right over : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 14, 2000.

"Just out of idle curiosity, what happens once all of the guns are registered"?

Very simple actually. The jackbooted government thugs take their list of gun owners and go to the first house on that list. At the first house, they demand that Mr. Jones give them his gun, for the "good of the children", of course. Mr. Jones complies.

They then go next door to Mr. Smith's house, and demand the same. Mr. Smith doesn't comply, and he says that his gun was stolen. They proceed to ransack Mr. Smith's house until they find his gun. Since Mr. Smith lied to the government agents, they rough him up on his front lawn for all of his neighbors to see, and then they put him in a van so that they can cart him off to prison, or worse.

Next they go to Mr. Brown's house. Mr. Brown also tells them that his gun was stolen, but his gone really was stolen. They proceed to ransack Mr. Brown's house, and when they can't find Mr. Brown's stolen gun, they become very angry. They beat Mr. Brown for all of his neighbors to see. When Mr. Brown tells them again and again that the gun was stolen, they bring Mr. Brown's son out on the front lawn and threaten to shoot him if Mr. Brown doesn't tell them where the gun is. Since the gun really was stolen, Mr. Brown has no idea where it is, and he pleads with the government agents to spare his son. They laugh at him, and then they shoot his son.

With these ruthless tactics, very few guns manage to be kept from the hands of the government agents. Once the guns are confiscated, the government agents have almost full control to do as they please to the people.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

With these ruthless tactics, very few guns manage to be kept from the hands of the government agents. Once the guns are confiscated, the government agents have almost full control to do as they please to the people.

OH MY GOD! They could turn this nation into another Australia or England! Maybe another Japan! IT'S ARMAGEDDDON I TELL YOU! Quick, blow up some more governement buildings to convince them to give up taking our precious guns!!!!!!

-- Sarcastic One (sarcastic@sarcasm.com), November 14, 2000.

And there is the key...they are just that..precious guns. You may not understand, but there are millions who consider their guns just that. It is a precious right. The one thing that keeps me on even ground with anyone who would want to come into my home and cause my family harm.

I can only assume that anyone who thinks a gun isn't precious has never been in a position of needing one yet.

The great equalizer.

-- !! (#@%.!), November 14, 2000.

"OH MY GOD! They could turn this nation into another Australia or England! Maybe another Japan!"

Or maybe a WACO or a Ruby Ridge. When Clinton's Jackbooted Government Thugs appear at your door, what will you do?

Remember Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Saddam Hussein, and a long list of others believe(d) in gun control.

For those that think that it can't happen here, take a serious look at what has been going on here since the Clinton co-presidency took office almost 8 years ago.

-- Hacker2 (H2@liberty.or.death), November 14, 2000.

Remember Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Saddam Hussein, and a long list of others believe(d) in gun control.

Including Ghandi, Churchill, Thatcher, Carter, and Mother Theresa. What's your point?

For those that think that it can't happen here, take a serious look at what has been going on here since the Clinton co-presidency took office almost 8 years ago.

So... you're saying that gun control leads to a strong economy?

-- Sarcastic One (sarcastic@sarcasm.com), November 14, 2000.

Migod--don't any of you gun lovers care about horses? Or, at least, about animals that are tortured? I cannot believe the blitheness with which you have skipped right over the details of the article. It is quite likely that the man who owned the horses had guns. What the hell good did they do him?

And, J, I've been around a lot longer than you have.

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), November 14, 2000.

Please ignore J, he is a paranoid liar and sinner, full of hatred for his fellow man. He thinks that I wrote the Bible, and that those words give him the right to judge others.

-- God (I.didn't@write.the.Bible), November 14, 2000.

viewer,

If you look closely at my first post on this thread, you will see that I was addressing someone who posted under the fleeting handle of, rights@have.responsibilities, not you.

Do not confuse blitheness with a self preserving hardened facade. In this deteriorated world in which we live, stories like the one you posted are all too common. To let each story of this type sink into one's soul is quite actually a masochistic endeavor. These things will eat you alive if you let them.

As far as the horse owner having guns, I can't say. As far as what good they did him if he had them, the answer is obviously, no good at all. However, what good did the RCMP do this man or his horses? Or, more importantly, what good would a gun have done if the man had been home during the attack?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

If you read the "Florida Will Not Extend" thread, you'll find that J also believes that the bombing of Oklahoma City Federal Building and the Atlanta Olympic Park were justified acts of war.

-- Sarcastic One (sarcastic@sarcasm.one), November 14, 2000.

"These things will eat you alive if you let them."

And apparently, you are a shining example of that. J, just kind of curious here, but do you ever see any good in the world or is everything paranoia about "jackbooted government thugs" and "societal deterioration" and "lack of morality" and "killing"?

Just an FYI here but everyone doesn't see the world as you do. That doesn't make either/or right or wrong.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 14, 2000.

J apparently sees all kinds of good in the Oklahoma City bombing.

-- Sarcastic One (sarcastic@sarcasm.com), November 14, 2000.

Patricia,

I see vast amounts of not only the good in the world, but of the truly wonderful in the world.

I mean no offense here, but I come here mostly for debate, not to share my inner self with complete (although I do feel as if I know some of you) strangers. What debate is there in discussing the beauty of a field full of wildflowers?

God has truly poured out His blessings into my life. I have a beautiful wife and beautiful children, and what you see as paranoia is actually just a determination that my children and grandchildren will have the same, nay, more freedoms than I have right now.

I realize that most do not see the world as I do. Much in life is not black and white, but gray. However, the one thing that I, as an American, know to be true is that if you ignore the Constitution, as many on the left do in regards to the Second Amendment, then this great nation will eventually crumble.

ps Don't you ever see me use that little : ) doohickey?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

FWIW, J, I have no doubt that an equal number "on the right" do exactly the same to the Constitution. It's not indigenous to one group or another.

I'm not saying that one has to "bare one's soul", and I suppose I do understand your reasoning for "being here" on this board, but it just struck me when you made that statement above, that you appeared to be an excellent example of what you were saying.

And sorry, I've not noticed the little "smiley face". My "selective reading", perhaps?!?!

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 14, 2000.

J,

Why don't you exercise your second amendment rights and blow your brains out! By doing this you would allow the rest of us to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with one less paranoid conspiracy theory nut running loose.

Just a thought!

P.S.

:)

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), November 14, 2000.

Ah, a fine example of the radical left. They advocate jail time for saying things that aren't politically correct, but they have no problem with exercising their First Amendment rights to suggest that someone on the right should blow their brains out. Here is some First Amendment freedom from me to you:

Jack Booted Thug is a COWARD.

A modern civil war between the right and the left would be over in a matter of days, because pansy cowards like Jack Booted Thug are unable to even load a gun, much less shoot one.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), November 14, 2000.

But J, he added a :)

According to J's Guide to Netiquette, doesn't that make everything all right?

-- Sarcastic One (sarcastic@sarcasm.com), November 14, 2000.

J,

How dare you insult me like that! I have never been called anything so low in my life. Radical left indeed. You, you .... DENNIS!

If you will note my post is just a thought. Simply a thought, not a government order or something I am going to force down your throat. I never cease to be amazed at the way you paranoid freaks shout about your constitutional rights to high heaven but if any one expresses an idea contrary to your beliefs you will either shout them down or plant a bomb to blow them up. You neo-Nazi wannabe.

I will not take this lying down. My honor demands satisfation. As the offended party I choose AK-47's at dawn!

Uhhhhhhh, can I borrow one of yours?

P.S.

You will load it for me, won't you?

P.P.S.

: )

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), November 14, 2000.