Hello Greg,

I did not start this, Bjorn did. I simply responded to his post.
He has been a provocateur many times. He likes to sit there 7687 kilometers
away from the U.S. as he likes to provoke and scrutinize what he thinks he knows about the United States.

Bj”rn has visited the USA, having stayed about a year in Florida.
Mainly serving fried chicken to those fortunate enough to afford it.

I do not know how any red blooded American can stand by and read his trivial
nonsense and not respond in kind. That's All.

They eat fermented herring in Sweden. So what else did you expect?

The United States embraces cultural diversity.
In New York City there are over 800 languages that are spoken.

And yet so many conservateves are calling for an English-only USA.
Why is that? Could it be because conservatives hate anybody who does
not speak English?

The US has always been a multicultural society, and the founding fathers knew it as well as anyone.

Elderly white men who owned property (slaves) and spoke English
- the very same tongue as the King of England.

That's why they wrote E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one)

The Congress named "In God We Trust" the motto of the USA.

in so many places.

What places did the Framers of the Constitution write that phrase?
I could find it nowhere in the US Constitution ...

Back in the 16th century, the US was actually a pioneer in multiculturalism.

In the 16th century, what was later to become the US was founded
as a British colony. Whose subjects spoke only English. The King's
English.

Today, multicultural countries are the norm, rather than the exception.

Vladimir Putin is changing his world into what he calls "historic"
Russia - which includes part of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldava, Kazhakstan,
Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, ... where only Russian is spoken by loyal
subjects.

The problem is that some people in the dominant culture are snowflakes and can't deal with the idea that they are not the only, true, privileged, special real Americans. And like any child who doesn't know how to deal with ideas, they bitch, whine, and cry.

I never thought I'd live to see the day when somebody called
Donald J. Trump a snowflake. Thanks for the laugh.

For Life,
Lee

--
Love! Not hate! Makes America great!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

On 23 Jun 2022, Gregory Deyss said the following...

Bingo. So how is it that conservatives think that applies to every ty of law except gun laws?

Registered Gun Owners are not the ones scratching off serial numbers. Typically they are not the ones in da hood acting like ganster wannabe either.

Gun laws are not the only laws that criminals break. And yet, we still have laws.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Gregory Deyss wrote to Mike Miller <=-

Yeah I wouldn't go that far. Did you ever notice how you can always
talk to a Conservative and have a conversation, but when a Conservative attempts to have a conversation with a Liberal, they either tell that
it is a conspiracy or try another tactic to discredit you. Liberals
used to be the great defenders of listening to a different points of
view. What happened to that?

Because the old Liberals got co-opted out of existance.

The problem here is that too many people think of this as "Right vs. Left" or "Democrat vs. Republican" or "Liberal vs. Conservative" problem.

It's not.

For all of recorded history, there has always been a group of people who want to believe that they are born to rule over everyone else. That they are the "most intelligent, and best suited to make the decisions". In the old world, they were the "nobles" (who, quite often, were not very noble), but the U.S. decided to not go that route and create a "country of equals".

We know how that worked out for a long time.

But the Ignorant Elitists have been working for a long time now to destroy us from the inside and what we see today is the culmination of that effort.

The real strife is between the small group of Ignorant Elitists who have a track record of running anything they get their hands on into the ground, but keep thinking that they are born to rule - and everyone else, especially those who want to stay free.


... You can go home now, I can finish this without you.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

On 24 Jun 2022, Lee Lofaso said the following...

Hello Greg,

And yet so many conservateves are calling for an English-only USA.
Why is that? Could it be because conservatives hate anybody who does
not speak English?

Have you stopped and considered or questioned why people who have migrated to the U.S. from other countries who have chosen to live here in the U.S. choose not to speak English? If a citizen from the United States visits or will in the future to live in that another country, would they be required to speak
the language of their new land? With you being on the left, I am almost
certain this has never occurred to you.

It is almost like not having intelligence, is being celebrated and embraced
by the left, why? So that they can be used of course. Duh.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)

Why do we have any laws at all, if criminals don't obey them?

So that the criminals can be punished for breaking them when they get caught.
There are also some honest people that may find themselves in desperate situations, and having laws discourages them from doing something they would not normally do.

Bingo. So how is it that conservatives think that applies to every type of law except gun laws?

I don't think conservatives do think that. There are already laws on the
books to discourage the second group. We expect the first group, the criminals, to be punished for breaking those laws.

For some reason, they are not. Putting more laws on the books to deter
persons who are already deterred (the honest) and that only punish those
that are abiding by the law is a waste of time and taxpayer money,
especially if the punishment for those that are not honest and not law
abiding is not enforced.

To change your question up a bit, why is it that leftists think that yet another new gun law will be any different?

We were still a country of armed citizens 40-50 years ago, but yet there
did not seem to be the same number of mass shootings. So, if people had
guns and were not shooting each other, why not? Maybe it would be
worthwhile to figure out why and try and fix that?


* SLMR 2.1a * If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Bingo. So how is it that conservatives think that applies to every t
of law except gun laws?

Registered Gun Owners are not the ones scratching off serial numbers. Typically they are not the ones in da hood acting like ganster wannabe either.

Gun laws are not the only laws that criminals break. And yet, we still have laws.

Yes, and more laws that are aimed towards behaviors that are already
covered by laws and which criminals already break will suddenly start preventing criminals from breaking them how?


* SLMR 2.1a * On a clear disk you can seek forever
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Hello Greg,

And yet so many conservateves are calling for an English-only USA.
Why is that? Could it be because conservatives hate anybody who does
not speak English?

Have you stopped and considered or questioned why people who have migrated to the U.S. from other countries who have chosen to live here in the U.S. choose not to speak English?

Being able to speak English proficiently is a requirement for
immigrants to become US citizens. Of course, they also retain the
ability to speak their own native language. Much to the chagrin
of conservatives.

If a citizen from the United States visits or will in the future to live in
that another country, would they be required to speak the language of their
new land?

What for? I have been to many places around the world. Never had
to speak a word of Japanese in Japan. Never had to speak a word of
Spanish in Mexico. Fact is, no matter where you go, everybody in
the world speaks English when an American arrives. Even in places
such as Afghanistan.

With you being on the left, I am almost certain this has never occurred to you.

Even Vladimir Putin speaks perfect English. When he wants to.

It is almost like not having intelligence, is being celebrated and embraced
by the left, why? So that they can be used of course. Duh.

The United States has no official language. Nor should it. Even
though the majority of people in this country speak English, that
is not a reason to force others to do so.

The majority of the population of New Mexico speaks Spanish.
Imagine the nightmare it would be if everything in that state
was in Spanish, rather than the only language to know.

Now imagine what would happen if all those Spanish-speaking people
started making babies in record numbers. That is a very distinct
possibility. Especially since the USSC overturned Roe v Wade.

For Life,
Lee

--
Melts in your mouth, not in your hands

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

On 25 Jun 2022, Lee Lofaso said the following...

Hello Greg,

And yet so many conservateves are calling for an English-only USA.
Why is that? Could it be because conservatives hate anybody who does
not speak English?

Have you stopped and considered or questioned why people who have mig to the U.S. from other countries who have chosen to live here in the choose not to speak English?

Being able to speak English proficiently is a requirement for
immigrants to become US citizens. Of course, they also retain the
ability to speak their own native language. Much to the chagrin
of conservatives.

If a citizen from the United States visits or will in the future to l in
that another country, would they be required to speak the language of their
new land?

What for? I have been to many places around the world. Never had
to speak a word of Japanese in Japan. Never had to speak a word of
Spanish in Mexico. Fact is, no matter where you go, everybody in
the world speaks English when an American arrives. Even in places
such as Afghanistan.

If that is so, then why speak any other language but English in a nation where it is the language of the majority?

For Life,

For Life, yes I agree.
Because Abortion was never about women's health care (sure there are those pregnancies that are far and few where the assessment has been made that the mothers life is at risk.) These should be dealt with by a case-by-case basis, at the state level regardless which-ever the state, that the female resides in. This is where the conversation should start and end.

but it continues by the left as they propagate fear by stoking the embers and fanning the flames. Creating more fear, then in the shortest amount of time, then comes the predicted previously seen anger. We have all seen the animalistic behavior before, just as we have all seen the aftermath of this devastation after a night of rage by these nasty-ass hooligans.

Even the President has to say, "keep it peaceful."
Like these people need to be guided and told in advance not to lose your mind?

But Biden did NOTHING with these protesters that went on outside of Justice's homes. Could it be that this pansy_ass administration is afraid that this group of protesters will become emboldened and grow more violent or that one of these uneducated clowns do something stupid that will cause other morons from the same cast to join in?

Abortion was NEVER protected under the U.S. Constitution. I guess it is safe
to conclude that it has finally been determined what a Woman is, but only
after the left's ever-growing reluctance to define the gender.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
* Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)

By promoting anti-gun laws, Democrats/rinos are appealing to the idio who are under that spell.

I think that the Dems/RINOs are doing the "squeeky wheel gets the
grease". They hear from a very small, but loud, group and are not bothering to find out what the majority actually think.

That's a good way to describe it. They didn't care about abortion either,
until that wheel started squeaking. But all they did about it was sqawk about it for a couple weeks, until their idiot followers absorbed the narrative, but now they've returned to the nest.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

Gregory Deyss wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-

It's because most people who own guns are responsible gun owners, ya
know hard working people who are contributing members of society.
I am sure you would not know anything about that though.

No. Ignorant Elitists can't comprehend the idea of a hardworking, contributing member of society - except as the "lower class" that they are born to rule over.


... Microwave Hint#3: Make a hole in the turtle's shell first
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

I believe it, but now we're gonna raise the age from 18 to 21 for purchasing
assault weapons, during a time when 70 year olds are doing mass shoot in
churches with single shot pistols, because Matthew Mcconaughey knows

Unfortunately, not even that baby step of raising the legal age from
18 to 21 for assault weapons will be mandated. Such a sad state of
affairs this country's refusal to take any serious steps towards
real gun control. More mass shootings to come, endorsed by the NRA
and Republican politicians ...

It's not good enough. People don't want to be shot at by single shot pistols any more than they want to be shot at by automatics.

It also makes no difference if they're being shot at by 18 year olds or 70
year olds; it hurts either way.

Get serious! Find ways to protect people instead of just finding ways to
disarm people.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

On 06-21-22 18:59, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: Ar-15 <=-

Unfortunately, not even that baby step of raising the legal age from
18 to 21 for assault weapons will be mandated. Such a sad state of
affairs this country's refusal to take any serious steps towards
real gun control. More mass shootings to come, endorsed by the NRA
and Republican politicians ...

It's not good enough. People don't want to be shot at by single shot pistols any more than they want to be shot at by automatics.

I would much rather be shot by a single shot pistol than an AR-15. With
the former I have a decent chance of survival, especially if the shooter
is not a marksman who can hit the head or center mass. With the AR-15,
it hardly matters where the first bullet hits you. The remaining
bullets spray all over and when they hit, they explode to do maximum
damage. That is why the childred at that Texas school could not be
identified by normal means -- their heads had been turned into chopped
meat.
Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked in Silver Spring, Maryland. 02:35:34, 26 Jun 2022
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

It's not good enough. People don't want to be shot at by single shot pistols any more than they want to be shot at by automatics.

I would much rather be shot by a single shot pistol than an AR-15. With

Thanks for that explanation, I get what you mean, but gun laws aren't going to give people that choice. As much as Democrats would love to have the power, they can not control what kind of guns are already in circulation.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

I would much rather be shot by a single shot pistol than an AR-15. With
the former I have a decent chance of survival, especially if the shooter
is not a marksman who can hit the head or center mass. With the AR-15,
it hardly matters where the first bullet hits you. The remaining
bullets spray all over and when they hit, they explode to do maximum
damage. That is why the childred at that Texas school could not be identified by normal means -- their heads had been turned into chopped
meat.

While single-shot pistols don't likely have that kind of ammo, part of what
you are describing is not a function of the weapon but the ammunition. The type of ammo a gun is loaded with determines whether or not it expands or "explodes" when/before it reaches a target, not the weapon that fired it.

The AR-15 can be loaded with such ammo, but it is not required to be.

Also, the civilain AR-15 is (supposed to be) a semi-automatic rifle and
they can fire different calibre ammunition based on their configuration.

What you are describing would be a fully-automatic rifle, which IIRC the military model AR-15 could be configured as. I don't know what he had but, since it was supposedly acquired legally, it is possible it was altered in
a way that might not be legal, or he somehow purchased legally a former military weapon.


* SLMR 2.1a * Optimist: A Yugo owner with a trailer hitch!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Mike Powell wrote to JEFF THIELE <=-

To change your question up a bit, why is it that leftists think that
yet another new gun law will be any different?

Because the Ignorant Elitists will never admit that their policies are failures. Therefore they must double down on their failed policies. To do otherwise would imply that their policies are failures.

So if their policies aren't having the effect that they had hoped, they obviously need more of the same policies - that failed.

We were still a country of armed citizens 40-50 years ago, but yet
there did not seem to be the same number of mass shootings. So, if
people had guns and were not shooting each other, why not? Maybe it
would be worthwhile to figure out why and try and fix that?

But that would require work, research and, **gasp** they might find out that their Narrative is false.


... How did I get round from eating square meals?
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Dale Shipp <=-

Thanks for that explanation, I get what you mean, but gun laws aren't going to give people that choice. As much as Democrats would love to
have the power, they can not control what kind of guns are already in circulation.

Hence the push, in the People's Socialist Utopia of California right now, to require people to "get insurance" for all their guns. A sneaky way of gun registration, which is the first step to gun confiscation.


... The world is coming to an end. Please log off properly.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Ron L. wrote to Mike Powell <=-

We were still a country of armed citizens 40-50 years ago, but yet
there did not seem to be the same number of mass shootings. So, if
people had guns and were not shooting each other, why not? Maybe it
would be worthwhile to figure out why and try and fix that?

But that would require work, research and, **gasp** they might find out that their Narrative is false.

I graduated high school in 1985. As late as the late 70's, it was nothing
to have a gun in the 'gun rack' on a pickup truck in the school parking
lot. I carried a pocket knife every day for most of my life, including to school. Never shot or stabbed a single person...

We also had the 10 Commandments on the wall and the Gideons would bring
bibles to the 5th grade class once a year. We didn't have 'a moment of
silence' at the beginning of the day, and we didn't have a prayer led
by the teacher, but morals were taught and you were expected to respect yourself and each other.

We also had ZERO school shootings that I remember...




... You're so vain - I bet you think this tagline's about you...
--- MultiMail/Mac v0.52
* Origin: Omicron Theta (1:116/18)

Thanks for that explanation, I get what you mean, but gun laws aren't going to give people that choice. As much as Democrats would love to have the power, they can not control what kind of guns are already in circulation.

Hence the push, in the People's Socialist Utopia of California right
now, to require people to "get insurance" for all their guns. A sneaky way of gun registration, which is the first step to gun confiscation.

It sounds like they're trying to appeal to dummies. "Look at what we're
doing to keep you safe!"

I'd like to know what they plan on doing about illegal gun sales, 3D-printed guns, stolen guns, and guns that can walk accross the border.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

On 06-26-22 12:08, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Ar-15 <=-

It's not good enough. People don't want to be shot at by single shot pistols any more than they want to be shot at by automatics.

I would much rather be shot by a single shot pistol than an AR-15. With

Thanks for that explanation, I get what you mean, but gun laws aren't going to give people that choice. As much as Democrats would love to
have the power, they can not control what kind of guns are already in circulation.

True, but it would take time, if civilian possesion of AR-15s were
outlawed now, then they would eventually not be in the public sector.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked in Silver Spring, Maryland. 00:55:59, 27 Jun 2022
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

On 06-26-22 13:26, Ron L. <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: Ar-15 <=-

Thanks for that explanation, I get what you mean, but gun laws aren't going to give people that choice. As much as Democrats would love to
have the power, they can not control what kind of guns are already in circulation.

Hence the push, in the People's Socialist Utopia of California right
now, to require people to "get insurance" for all their guns. A sneaky way of gun registration, which is the first step to gun confiscation.

States require insurance to drive a car. Why not insurance to have a
gun.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked in Silver Spring, Maryland. 01:04:07, 27 Jun 2022
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Mike Powell wrote to JEFF THIELE <=-

To change your question up a bit, why is it that leftists think that
yet another new gun law will be any different?

Because the Ignorant Elitists will never admit that their policies are failures. Therefore they must double down on their failed policies. To do otherwise would imply that their policies are failures.

I am hoping he will eventually answer that question, but I am not expecting
an admission that previous policies failed (unless the blame is pointed completely at someone else).


* SLMR 2.1a * Are you a Klingon, or is that a turtle on your head?
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

States require insurance to drive a car. Why not insurance to have a
gun.

Owning a car is not a hot political topic. Owning a gun is. Data
aggregation companies ("big data") would then have access to your
information regarding gun ownership, just like they currently do your car
and home ownership.

Soon, potential employers (some of whom we know are not at all shy about
their politics), loan approvers, and all sorts of other folks would have
access to that information.

I am already not super happy that "big data" has the info that they do have
on each one of us, so being able to profile someone based on gun ownership
does not give me any warm fuzzies.


* SLMR 2.1a * Thesaurus: prehistoric reptile with a great vocabulary.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Mike Powell wrote to DALE SHIPP <=-

What you are describing would be a fully-automatic rifle, which IIRC
the military model AR-15 could be configured as. I don't know what he
had but, since it was supposedly acquired legally, it is possible it
was altered in a way that might not be legal, or he somehow purchased legally a former military weapon.

I'm pretty sure that making an AR-15 fully automatic would be a felony.

There's been a automatic rifle ban for many years. The only ones available
are restricted, made before 1968 and very expensive.

Semi-automatic weapons range from AR-15s to hunting rifles to pistols. Most
of the "assault weapon" bans have dealt with magazine size and specific brands, which make lots of loopholes. At the end of the day, they all can shoot rounds as quickly as you could pull the trigger - and can cause the
kind of pain and suffering we see all too often.

I'd like to see all of the removeable magazine guns off the streets, but
allow semi-automatic with a limited internal magazine, as a semi-automatic rifle that's manually fed into an internal magazine still has a use in hunting. I don't need to be able to shoot 60 rounds in 10 seconds using 3 20-round magazines to hunt, but being able to shoot 6 rounds at a time
before manually reloading seems like an effective compromise.

Then again, we fought a world war and a half with bolt-action, manually-fed rifles.















... Look closely at the most embarrassing details and amplify them
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Mike Powell wrote to DALE SHIPP <=-

What you are describing would be a fully-automatic rifle, which IIRC
the military model AR-15 could be configured as. I don't know what he had but, since it was supposedly acquired legally, it is possible it
was altered in a way that might not be legal, or he somehow purchased legally a former military weapon.

I'm pretty sure that making an AR-15 fully automatic would be a felony.

That is sort of where I was going but didn't want to say for sure because I
am not 100% certain. Maybe it is not in Texas, but I think it is all over
the US.

Semi-automatic weapons range from AR-15s to hunting rifles to pistols. Most of the "assault weapon" bans have dealt with magazine size and specific brands, which make lots of loopholes. At the end of the day, they all can shoot rounds as quickly as you could pull the trigger - and can cause the kind of pain and suffering we see all too often.

I don't question that, and they all can fire as fast as you can pull. I
was only questioning if it was really a full-automatic. If it was "legally purchased," which the press says it was, then it was illegally modified
after the fact, making it no longer a legal firearm, or it was not full-auto.

I'd like to see all of the removeable magazine guns off the streets, but allow semi-automatic with a limited internal magazine, as a semi-automatic rifle that's manually fed into an internal magazine still has a use in hunting. I don't need to be able to shoot 60 rounds in 10 seconds using 3 20-round magazines to hunt, but being able to shoot 6 rounds at a time
before manually reloading seems like an effective compromise.

Then again, we fought a world war and a half with bolt-action, manually-fed rifles.

Which only works if the person you are trying to defend yourself against is using the same kind of weapon, and has not illegally modified it.
Otherwise, you might just as well be trying to fight them with nothing. If they are the ones breaking the law to begin with, I would not trust them to
not modify their gun.


* SLMR 2.1a * One good turn gets all the blankets.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)