 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / April 2007Virginia Tech Memorial Photos
Hello to all R.P.D, 35mm, and SLR contributors, Everyone has something to say about this tragedy, but eventually, words begin to all run together until they lose some of their meaning. Sometimes a photo can express a thought or sentiment far more clearly, so this is my initial contribution, and I hope you'll share yours (read below): http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/77343740/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/77343743/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/77343744/original http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/77343746/original These will not all be my photos, but photos by others as well. Three of these shots were taken by my dad. **If you have an appropriate photo you'd like posted here, send a reduced version (about 800 pixels in the long dimension or so, about 100-200kb) to the e-mail address noted in the gallery description, and I'll do my best to post it. Here's another version of my e-mail: mjmorgan(the number TWO)at cox.net. :) They don't have to be perfect photos, or even close to perfect. -Maybe just an you think fits in some way, however minor. Please name the file using your first name and I'll leave that under each photo. Or...if you don't want your name there, name it something else. Just send something. You never know what impact little things may have, so give it a go... Take care, and I hope to hear from you. -Mark  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Here's a direct link to the gallery: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/virginia_tech_memorial SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >Everyone has something to say about this tragedy, but eventually, words >begin to all run together until they lose some of their meaning. Just remember folks, the more guns - the safer everyone is. That's why the United States is the safest and most secure country in the world today. If I had a vote it would be for mandatory arming of all citizens at all times, with criminalisation of those who are not packing. I bet the American Rifle Association would back this one, they're about as powerful as the Jewish lobby so this idea could definitely fly. Just think, if every student was packing this massacre would never have happened dontcha think? and why o why are there not ammunition dispensing machines on campus, they have condom machines don't they? just what the hell is wrong with the world today, bullets save lives not just condoms! There's only one thing you lot can do at a time like this - buy more guns and ammo, it's the only answer. Are you with me Bill ? ;-) > Hello to all R.P.D, 35mm, and SLR contributors, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > -Mark > >Everyone has something to say about this tragedy, but eventually, words > >begin to all run together until they lose some of their meaning. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > There's only one thing you lot can do at a time like this - buy more guns > and ammo, it's the only answer. Are you with me Bill ? Yeah, right....Whenever some maniac shoots somebody, the libs want to come to my house and take away my gun(s).....Makes a lot of sense, if you're an idiot.......... > Yeah, right....Whenever some maniac shoots somebody, the libs want to come > to my house and take away my gun(s).....Makes a lot of sense, if you're an > idiot.......... Maybe you can explain, why there is more of this type of gun crime in the USA than in the rest of the world combined? >> >Everyone has something to say about this tragedy, but eventually, words >> >begin to all run together until they lose some of their meaning. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to my house and take away my gun(s).....Makes a lot of sense, if you're an > idiot.......... >> Yeah, right....Whenever some maniac shoots somebody, the libs want to >> come to my house and take away my gun(s).....Makes a lot of sense, if >> you're an idiot.......... > > Maybe you can explain, why there is more of this type of gun crime in the > USA than in the rest of the world combined? Ok.....I'll play your silly game. Sure, we've got lots of guns. They have been legal here for around 400 years. That's why there is a "lot of gun crime" here. But that has nothing to do with an individual's right to defend him/her self against personal attack by some stranger, whether that stranger is armed with a gun or not. If you are a hundred pound woman, or a 70+ year old person, then it doesn't matter whether your attacker has a gun or not. You are at the mercy of any 20 year old who decides to rape or steal from you. So, our forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, decided to give us the right to "keep and bear arms", and most of the American population believes that this is a good thing. If you disagree with this, that's fine. You may come here and choose to not keep and bear anything other than your passport. but I choose to keep and bear adequate protection against the crazies that exist in the population. The police can not, and do not protect the people against crime. That is not their function. What they can do is investigate crimes after the fact, and bring the perpetrators to justice. But the crime has to be committed first. If you go to the police and tell them that you believe some crime is about to be committed they will sympathize with you, but they will tell you that they can do nothing about it. If you want to protect yourself from crimes against your person, you have to do it yourself, and in a land that is fraught with drug addicts and other crazies roaming the streets, this means that you either have to take your chances, or you can pack some heat. - I choose to do the latter, and I firmly believe that it is a wise thing to allow people to do this. If it results in a lot of people being accidentally killed and/or injured by accident with the things, well, that is not my concern. No one has ever been killed or accidentally injured by any gun I have ever had in my possession, and I don't intend to give up my right to protect myself because there are some idiots out there who own guns and don't know how to use them properly or keep them away from their children, or take proper care of them. - I am not an ant in a colony, and I don't intend to live by the rules of ants in colonies. I am a human being, and I am not responsible for the craziness of other human beings......IOW, your statistics about gun accidents and injuries are not my concern.....Maybe it's just the Darwin principal doing its job of improving the overall IQ of the population.....Frankly, I don't care. I just know that I have carried a gun almost all of my adult life, and I have never had to worry about where I went, day or night because of it. I can walk into a group of crazies and drug addicts and thugs with my head held high, and look them all in the eye. - It's called confidence, and my attitude tells them exactly why I don't have to worry about them. They melt away before me, and for a good reason. This land is my oyster, and I have always had the right to travel it from Florida to Washington without fear. I believe that everyone should have that right, and furthermore, our constitution guarantees that that right (which it assumes exists naturally) will not be abridged. If the people want to change that, the document itself gives them a way to do that, but until they do, I will carry my gun whenever and wherever I can. > Ok.....I'll play your silly game. > Sure, we've got lots of guns. They have been legal here for around 400 > years. That's why there is a "lot of gun crime" here. > But that has nothing to do with an individual's right to defend him/her > self against personal attack by some stranger, whether that stranger is > armed with a gun or not. Guns will not solve the problems of a violent society, only social change will. >>> Yeah, right....Whenever some maniac shoots somebody, the libs want to >>> come to my house and take away my gun(s).....Makes a lot of sense, if [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > them a way to do that, but until they do, I will carry my gun whenever and > wherever I can. > > Yeah, right....Whenever some maniac shoots somebody, the libs want to come > > to my house and take away my gun(s).....Makes a lot of sense, if you're an > > idiot.......... > > Maybe you can explain, why there is more of this type of gun crime in the > USA than in the rest of the world combined? I don't think it is gun laws or lack of them. Look at some countries that have significantly more arms than the US, Switzerland for example. Political assassination happens where there are almost no guns, Japan this week. There are traditions of violently solving disagreements that would be difficult to change in the US. And this week a plain nutcase. w.. --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/iraq/main2697982.shtml > And this week a plain nutcase. It's strange your caricature of the assailant, the European media has been portraying him as a bullied isolated minority, apparently based on the writing in the note he left behind. I suppose the US media will write this up as another "bad apple" and continue on business as usual. >> > Yeah, right....Whenever some maniac shoots somebody, the libs want to >> > come [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > --------------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/iraq/main2697982.shtml > > And this week a plain nutcase. > > It's strange your caricature of the assailant, the European media has been > portraying him as a bullied isolated minority, apparently based on the > writing in the note he left behind. I suppose the US media will write this > up as another "bad apple" and continue on business as usual. Joseph, there will be a lot of misstatements about this tragedy. One of them would be that the young man was "a plain nut case." And there is no indication, so far, that he is being dismissed as "another 'bad apple'" either. A minority? Yes, Koreans are a minority here in the U.S., but one that is highly respected for their work ethic and focus on educating their children. Isolated? Yes, but it appears to be self inflicted. People (class mates) eventually avoided him because he was unfriendly and uncommunicative. Several attempts were made (by Lucinda Roy, co-director of the creative writing program) to help him with whatever was troubling him, but to no avail. The options for intervention are very limited in a situation like this. Bullied? There is no objective evidence, that I have seen, that this was the case. Subjectively, he probably did feel this way. He needed counseling, but it was not to be. If either the American or European media try to oversimplify in order to satisfy the short attention spans of their audiences, they both will have gotten it wrong. HFL SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address > If either the American or European media try to oversimplify in order to > satisfy the short attention spans of their audiences, they both will > have gotten it wrong. This is true, but why is it do you think- these things happen so regularly in America ? It's only been six months since the Amish school shootings. Are attention spans / memories that short? Also you never mentioned that the assailant, a S.Korean student easily and legally obtained the weapons to carry out his attack, are you not concerned about this aspect? >> > And this week a plain nutcase. >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > HFL >> If either the American or European media try to oversimplify in order to >> satisfy the short attention spans of their audiences, they both will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > legally obtained the weapons to carry out his attack, > are you not concerned about this aspect? What concerns me is the fact that not one of those other students was carrying a gun to defend themselves.....In any "normal" society (that hadn't been screwed up by liberals) there would have been several other armed students, and our crazy guy wouldn't have been able to kill more than one or two people without being blown away himself. The same thing applies to those poor slobs on the 9/11 flights.....Some reasonable percentage of them should have been armed. - The people have no one to blame but themselves....They have let the liberal nuts take away their constitutional rights, and now they are too stupid to even know where to put the blame for their problems........ > What concerns me is the fact that not one of those other students was > carrying a gun to defend themselves..... Good idea. I hear those Spring Breaks can be pretty dangerous. I recommend carrying a dozen beer in the hand opposite the shoulder holster. It helps to keep the spine straight. http://tinyurl.com/3ab6mo mike <Arguments snipped> Here's a direct link to the small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/virginia_tech_memorial SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > What concerns me is the fact that not one of those other students was > carrying a gun to defend themselves.....In any "normal" society (that > hadn't been screwed up by liberals) there would have been several other > armed students, and our crazy guy wouldn't have been able to kill more > than one or two people without being blown away himself. Your response is so predictable. If you refer back to my mock pro-gun post earlier in the thread you will see a striking similarity with the opinions of some so called American "conservatives" in response to some articles in the European press see here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,477882,00.html These ones are particularly priceless and so cliché: "The real problem is that none of these students or teachers had a personal weapon," writes Rick Geiger of Rochester, New York. "More guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens would have helped prevent this slaughter," writes Charles Edwards. "This is exactly what happens when there is gun control." "I am a pro-gun American who works for a university," writes Carl Black. "I am of the opinion that if a gun toting, law abiding citizen had been around, this individual would not have killed all these people because he would have been shot earlier in his rampage." "Those Europeans are so evolved," writes John Wolfington of Philadelphia. "Why should we listen to people who joyously embraced totalitarianism and waged two world wars? "It is unfortunate that the reporting from Europe always seeks to blame the US and its policies for the acts of individuals and always ends the blame before Europe can be implicated," writes Jeff Patterson. "The primary gun used in this situation was a Glock from Austria." Whatever about regime change, it's time for mentality change, the 1700's are over. None of you have focused on the fact that a South Korean non-American born individual carried out this attack. A man living in the USA since 1992 that had become acclimatised to your culture, but in all the news reports scant attention is paid to this large detail. There is no real analysis of the culture that allows these massacres to repeat themselves regularly, the focus is merely on blame. My point is, culture is supposed to evolve over time, educated societies realise where and how they are going wrong and correct as necessary, this doesn't seem to be happening with American culture. >>> If either the American or European media try to oversimplify in order to >>> satisfy the short attention spans of their audiences, they both will [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > constitutional rights, and now they are too stupid to even know where to > put the blame for their problems........ >> What concerns me is the fact that not one of those other students was >> carrying a gun to defend themselves.....In any "normal" society (that [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > they are going wrong and correct as necessary, this doesn't seem to be > happening with American culture. So what are you saying? - That he did it because he was Korean? - I can't buy that, because I have known and worked with many Koreans, and they aren't any more (or less) crazy than anyone else. Or that it was because he was displaced from his native culture? - I can't buy that either, for the same reason.....Like 1/3 of the physicists I worked with at SLAC were displaced foreigners....They all got along fine in the American cultural environment. This guy was just a nut case....No more, and no less. There is no single reason to explain how he got that way. There are many hundreds of people like that who manage to get through life without hurting anyone. Many of them don't even hurt themselves. but, occasionally one does. I don't know of any way to prevent it. Life is dangerous. Live with it. > > If either the American or European media try to oversimplify in order to > > satisfy the short attention spans of their audiences, they both will [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > > HFL This is true, but why is it do you think- these things happen so regularly in America ? It's only been six months since the Amish school shootings. Are attention spans / memories that short? Also you never mentioned that the assailant, a S.Korean student easily and legally obtained the weapons to carry out his attack, are you not concerned about this aspect? Ah, where to begin. And only one year since the Columbine shootings and others in post offices and business offices around the country at various times over the years. Very sad, indeed. I guess one cannot avoid a discussion of the American "gun culture." It's part of our history. Order was maintained in the early years of the wild west partly by carrying a six shooter. Remnants of that mentality remain with us. In addition, the founding fathers wrote the second amendment to the constitution (right to bear arms) in very ambiguous language. Subsequent rulings by the courts have suggested that the intent of the framers was to restrict this right to militias. But many individuals, and many states, do not accept that interpretation. Also, the powerful National Rifle Association puts in its sights any lawmaker who would introduce more stringent gun control. Even the very liberal Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, the basic law of the land on handgun ownership, sticks in their craw. In fact, most states have added restrictions to the GCA, some very severe; New York and Massachusetts are examples. In contrast, Vermont has no state-imposed gun control. A resident (free of felony conviction) can buy a handgun at will and he is free to carry it concealed or in the open. Which brings us to Virginia and your last question. Virginia adds some very weak restrictions to the GCA. A resident may purchase a handgun at will but is restricted to "only" one gun purchase per month. In addition, the resident can apply for a permit for concealed carry and the local authority "must issue" barring a felony conviction. Pretty weak indeed. The Korean student only had to prove residency to get a gun. That's how he purchased the Glock 9 mm; how he obtained the .22 caliber semi auto has not been revealed. The direct answer to your question is, yes, I am very concerned. Short of a change in the constitution (and that ain't gonna happen) we definitely need better gun control. I am in favor, at the minimum, of registering and tracking the sale of every handgun throughout its existence. In my view this would go a long way to solving the illegal trafficing of guns in this country. (See william Graham for a contrasting opinion.) I am also one who is not afraid that black helicopters representing the UN-directed New World Order will swoop down and take away our precious guns (or, for that matter, our precious bodily fluids.) But, in the end, I have no answers. HFL SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address >> > If either the American or European media try to oversimplify in order >> > to [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > But many individuals, and many states, do not accept that > interpretation. And where is, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ambiguous? Seems pretty straight foward to me. People are not equal to army, and "arms" are weapons that can be carried around on ones person. The sentence is straightfoward and very easy to understand, unless you are a character from Orwells "1984". Now, if you think that the writers of the constitution saddled up their horses and rode several hundred miles in order to write that only the army could carry guns, or they had a lot of trouble knowing the difference between "people" and "soldiers" then I suggest that you are the one with a problem, and you should go back to school and study English....... If, on the other hand, you don't like the amendment, and wish to change it, then the Constitution itself outlines the method by which that may be done. It has been done many times in the past, and it can be done again in the future. The method works, and is perfectly legal. > Also, the powerful National Rifle Association puts in its sights any > lawmaker who would introduce more stringent gun control. Even the very [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > HFL > >> > If either the American or European media try to oversimplify in order > >> > to [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > > > > HFL "And where is, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ambiguous?" Actually, Sister Mary Margaret would have slapped my wrist with a ruler for writing a sentence like that. HFL SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address > "And where is, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the > protection of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear > arms shall not be infringed" ambiguous?" > > Actually, Sister Mary Margaret would have slapped my wrist with a ruler > for writing a sentence like that. Twice if you wrote it with your left hand. The lefties were whacked with a ruler if they persisted in their abnormalities. The Sisters always claimed the act was 'for their own good', supposedly sparing the little felons from a lifetime of exclusion, ridicule and derision. outcast mike II "Harry Lockwood" <hlockwood@verizon.net> wrote in message news:hlockwood->> The direct answer to your question is, yes, I am very concerned. Short >> > of a change in the constitution (and that ain't gonna happen) we >> > definitely need better gun control. I am in favor, at the minimum, of >> > registering and tracking the sale of every handgun throughout its >> > existence. In my view this would go a long way to solving the illegal >> > trafficing of guns in this country. (See william Graham for a >> > contrasting opinion.) As long as honest citizens can keep and bear arms, I don't care how many records of guns you keep. But in an atmosphere like the one that has developed during my lifetime here in the US, people like me and the NRA have to fight against gun controllers every chance we get, because their ultimate aim is to get rid of the second amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms by whatever means they can. Misinterpreting the second amendment wording is only one method they will use to accomplish their ultimate aim of taking my rights away from me. Do you really think I would vote for having to register all my guns? - Only an idiot would do that, knowing that accounting for them is the first step before confiscation of them. In the animal world, the biggest bear in the forest is king....He gets whatever he wants....The most food, the most females, the best cave, and any thing else. In a civilized society, the human being who works the hardest, and who is the smartest gets more of whatever is available, and not just whoever is the biggest and strongest. I am a human being. I don't want the biggest and strongest to steal my stuff. The gun is the equalizer that keeps this from happening. - If you can show me any other way to keep this from happening, then be my guest.....I am all ears......... > "Harry Lockwood" <hlockwood@verizon.net> wrote in message news:hlockwood->> > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > this from happening. - If you can show me any other way to keep this from > happening, then be my guest.....I am all ears......... Your posts make it clear that you will not be convinced by *any* argument that favors more gun control. So, I would not even try. But here's a question for you: who is the "them" that want to confiscate guns once they are registered? Please be as specific as possible; go beyond the "liberal agenda" mantra. Name names; name organizations. It's important to get this information out into the light of day. Maybe these groups have other plans that will curtail our freedoms. We need to know. Here's another question for you. You have publicly admitted (foolishly, I believe) to illegally owning and trading handguns. Can you give us any assurance that none of these illegally owned/traded guns have fallen into the hands of criminals, rather than "honest citizens" and patriots such as yourself? HFL SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address >> "Harry Lockwood" <hlockwood@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:hlockwood->> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > HFL I don't know why Democrats and Liberals want to eliminate all guns from the hands of honest people. They seem to think that making it harder to obtain guns will put fewer of them in the hands of criminals, but in my experience, it is the honest citizens who end up with fewer guns when the laws make it harder to obtain them. The famous saying, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" comes into play here. Us gun owners have the NRA working for us. There are liberal anti gun organizations, but I don't know exactly who they are. They come up with laws like the "Brady" law, that keeps guns, or certain types of guns away from the public. (or, at least, the law obeying public) All I know is, I never met a liberal Democrat who believes in the sanctity of the 2nd amendment. To a man, they all want to eliminate it, or insist in corrupting its meaning in some way. I also know that there are places, (like New York City) where the 2nd amendment rights of the people have been blatantly trashed. In NYC, even owning and/or keeping a gun in your own home is against the law....This is clearly unconstitutional, but the courts seem to allow the authorities to get away with it. As to the second question, can I guarantee that no gun I have ever illegally bought or sold has gotten into the hands of criminals, the answer is No. I can't. Nor should I have to make such a guarantee. Can you guarantee me than no legally obtained gun has ever been used in a crime? - Of course you can't. What other people use to commit crimes is not my concern. Can you guarantee me that no person has ever used a gun to protect themselves from another person who intended to kill them with a knife or with their bare hands? - Of course you can't do that either. A gun is a tool. It's purpose is to kill people. I insist that the constitution gives me the right to keep and carry this tool for my own protection. I make no other claim that this, and the fact that many municipalities across this nation have abridged my right to keep and bear this tool in direct violation of the second amendment to the Constitution. > >> "Harry Lockwood" <hlockwood@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> news:hlockwood->> [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > municipalities across this nation have abridged my right to keep and bear > this tool in direct violation of the second amendment to the Constitution. O.K. William. Over and out. HFL SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address > I guarantee that no gun I have ever illegally > bought or sold has gotten into the hands of criminals If you don't respect the law why should the other criminals? > If you don't respect the law why should the other criminals? Unfortunately Bill Graham is just another classic American hypocrite, he cries to high heaven about his legal 2nd amendment right to bear arms, castigating those who might try to limit this right, while at the same time having no qualms about trading arms illegally. Claiming to be libertarian does nothing to hide double standard hypocrisy. >> I guarantee that no gun I have ever illegally >> bought or sold has gotten into the hands of criminals > > If you don't respect the law why should the other criminals? > > If you don't respect the law why should the other criminals? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > If you don't respect the law why should the other criminals? Umm, Joseph, what should I read into "just another classic American hypocrite..."? Does that need to be rephrased? HFL SignatureChange hlockwood to hflockwood in email address > Umm, Joseph, what should I read into "just another classic > American hypocrite..."? Does that need to be rephrased? There seems to be a large swath of the American public who have no problem at with double standard hypocrisy, especially in politics. Is that clearer? >> > If you don't respect the law why should the other criminals? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > HFL >> If you don't respect the law why should the other criminals? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time having no qualms about trading arms illegally. Claiming to be > libertarian does nothing to hide double standard hypocrisy. It is not, "trading arms illegally" when the law itself is illegal....If you read the constitution, you will see that laws made that are against the constitution are themselves illegal. The constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So, any law that restricts that right is an infringement of that right, and is itself illegal. I intentionally break laws that are in violation of my constitutional rights. I believe that all good citizens should do this. If the people allow their government to violate their constitutional rights, they will lose those rights, and it will be their own fault. > It is not, "trading arms illegally" when the law itself is illegal.... Would you go into court with this argument? how do you think you'd fair? >>> If you don't respect the law why should the other criminals? >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the people allow their government to violate their constitutional rights, > they will lose those rights, and it will be their own fault. >> It is not, "trading arms illegally" when the law itself is illegal.... > > Would you go into court with this argument? how do you think you'd fair? Not voluntarily, I wouldn't. But, if I ever have to shoot somebody in order to protect my own life, and I can't get away afterward, then I will be forced to, "go into court with this argument." How well I'd fair depends on the jury I would get. Some juries have been very understanding when given cases like this here in the US,,,,Others have not been so understanding....Generally, they accept the "self defense" argument, but come down hard on the "offender" for carrying a concealed weapon......IOW, they say, "Yes, it's a good thing you had it with you or you would be dead right now, but it is still against the law, so we have to punish you for carrying it." Basically, this is what the New York jury did to Bernie Goetz for shooting those 4 guys on the subway in NYC. They accepted his self defense, defense, but prosecuted him for carrying without a license........ Needless to say, this would not deter me from carrying. It's better for me to be alive, and facing prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon without a license, or even for murder, than it would be for me to be dead and have someone else facing those two charges. One learns to do what one has to do in order to win the game........I am already way ahead, since my carrying has saved my life a couple of times already, and I have never been busted for carrying without a license...... <Arguments snipped> Here's a direct link to the small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/virginia_tech_memorial SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> And this week a plain nutcase. > > It's strange your caricature of the assailant, the European media has been > portraying him as a bullied isolated minority, apparently based on the > writing in the note he left behind. I suppose the US media will write this > up as another "bad apple" and continue on business as usual. And here is what the world would be like if liberalism ever succeeds in completely dominating our society...... http://www.aclu.org/pizza/ > And here is what the world would be like if liberalism ever succeeds in > completely dominating our society...... > http://www.aclu.org/pizza/ I thought it was liberals that messed with your money and conservatives with privacy and freedom. w.. >> And here is what the world would be like if liberalism ever succeeds in >> completely dominating our society...... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > w.. Read the text of Hillary's health plan and think again. It's the liberals that want us to be a colony of ants. They are the socialists. Have you ever known a true liberal that owned a share of stock? They believe that if you have money, you must have stolen it from somebody, so it's the business of the state to steal it back from you and give it to the poor, and it's the liberals who will decide who is poor and who is not. They never saw a tax they didn't like, or a rich man they didn't hate, or a property owner they didn't hate either. Especially one who is a, "landlord". - To a liberal, that's the lowest form of life of all....The landlords....If you own enough property to rent some of it out to others, then you have to be a thief....... > Read the text of Hillary's health plan and think again. It's the liberals > that want us to be a colony of ants. They are the socialists. Have you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > landlords....If you own enough property to rent some of it out to others, > then you have to be a thief....... Paranoid much? >> Read the text of Hillary's health plan and think again. It's the liberals >> that want us to be a colony of ants. They are the socialists. Have you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Paranoid much? If talking to dozens of liberals over the course of my life, and drawing conclusions about the way they think from all those conversations is being, "paranoid", then yes.....I am paranoid. > And here is what the world would be like if liberalism ever succeeds in > completely dominating our society...... > http://www.aclu.org/pizza/ Did we miss something here? The page distinctly says: ======================= The Bush Administration's policies, coupled with invasive new technologies, could eliminate your right to privacy completely. Please help us protect our privacy rights and prevent the Total Surveillance Society. ======================= Is Bush a pawn of the Liberal Hordes? mike <Arguments snipped> Here's a direct link to the small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/virginia_tech_memorial SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> Everyone has something to say about this tragedy, but eventually, >>> words begin to all run together until they lose some of their [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > come to my house and take away my gun(s).....Makes a lot of sense, if > you're an idiot.......... OK. Here's the new rule: :) If you're gonna keep twisting this completely non-contentious OP into yet another endless rant session (with which I'm well-aquainted, of course)...you have to send me a picture to post, first. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson <Arguments snipped> Here's a direct link to the small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/markuson/virginia_tech_memorial SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.