By: Paul Nixon Re: Did you know! * Originally By: RIC DUNCAN * Originally To: ALL * Origin
By: Paul Nixon
Re: Did you know!
* Originally By: RIC DUNCAN
* Originally To: ALL
* Originally Re: Did you know!
* Original Date: 15 Jan 96 21:28
* Original Area: PRMLITIA
* Forwarded by : Blue Wave/386 v2.21
While cruising the Internet the other day I found this lovely
anti-gun, anti-milita page. Reposted without permission....read
it and steam!!! Of course the opinions below ARE DEFINITELY NOT
MINE!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-begin-
CENTURION CHRONICLES PRESENTS From The University of Southern
California Pro-Gun Control FAQ - Version 1.5
Lets hope I get more support this time, or this is my LAST post. Even
squeekier! Newer and more improved! Lasts longer than the pink bunny!
Guaranteed, or your money back! Batteries not included. "Fingers
don't
kill, bullets do."
Purpose of this FAQ
This FAQ serves to inform the readers about the tactics used by
pro-gun
posters in their debates with pro-gun control advocates. It also
provides a starting point for pro-gun control posters.
Index.
A. Frequently Asked Questions.
B. Pro-Gun and Pro-Gun Control advocates... Who are they?
C. Debating tactics used by Pro-Gun advocates in their posts.
D. The 2nd Amendment argument.
E. Self defense.
F. Counters to common Anti-Gun Control arguments.
G. Facts that will blow your brains out.
H. Followup readings.
I. Interesting Posts from the Net.
J. Pro-Gun mentality.
K. Why pro-gun posters are always insulting, instead of debating.
L. Stories Pro-Gunners don't want you to read...
1. If everyone had guns...
2. Guns to attain respect...
3. Guns to attain power...
M. Q&A Pro-Gunners don't want you to read...
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Why do all the pro-gun posters resort to insults rather than
debate
the real issues?
A: Because they know they are on the losing end of an argument. It is
the last resort they use: try to intimidate the anti-gun posters away.
They are afraid of the truth. Just look at the posts and you will find
that pro-gun posters are the ones using personal insults, rather than
debate the issues.
Section K. provides a more comprehensive analysis.
Q: What are the only arguments pro-gun advocates use over and over
again to counter pro-gun control advocates?
A: 2nd amendment, and self-defense. These are the main arguments they
refer to constantly.
Read section D and section E. You will find that their cause is one
against the advancement of society. A cause that is destined for
failure, one destined to place our society back into the past.
Q: What happened to the original structure of this FAQ?
A: Well, its a long story, I decided to put controversial stuff
at the end following WARNING labels in case people do not have the
intelligence to attain insight into the issues from stories and other
methods.
Pro-Gun and Pro-Gun Control advocates... Who are they?
Gun manufacturers.
Ammunition manufacturers.
People with a psychological attachment to guns.
NRA - National Rifle Association. Politicians who receive major funding
from NRA.
White supremacists. People joining "militias" with derranged fears of U.N.
takeover of the U.S.
Pro-smoking advocates... Who are they?
Cigarette manufacturers.
Tobacco importers/planters.
People with a psychological attachment to nicotine.
Politicians who receive major funding from cigarette manufacturers.
Pro-Gun control advocates... Who are they?
Families that want a safe street that they can walk on. People and
families who have been victims of "gun wounds" (including death)
Pro-Smoking ban advocates... Who are they? Families that want a
safe place away from smoke. People and families who have been victims
of "smoke cancer" (including death)
Debating tactics used by Pro-Gun advocates in their posts.
After posting here for a while, I have summarized that major tactics
used by the pro-gun posters in their debates...
1) They resort to insults. This is a given. Expect an onslaught of
insults expecially when you have provided information in which
they cannot refute, and is especially damaging to their cause.
They are trying to drive you out rather than debate with you.
2) Twisting words around so they are out of context. Examples:
"Switzerland is an example of a country that has a low homicide
rate, but everyone has guns." Reality: In switzerland once you use
a gun when not in war, you go to prison. Use a gun for
self-defense,
you go to prison. The reason why they have guns in most households
is because they have a low population, and everyone (who is able
to serve) is by law part of the military. In addition, the guns
and ammunitions are locked up separately in all households. It is
illegal to use your guns unless its part of a military exercise or
when the country is in war.
3) Deletion and selective deletion of posts and quotes. This is what
they do to you... One of their favorite tricks is to delete parts
of your posts that is particulary damaging to their cause. They will
find small parts of your posts, find a small phrase, and attempt to
counter it. Usually it is a phrase that is inclusive of a paragraph,
and the paragraph provides the support of that phrase. This is what
they do for themselves... Another tactic is the quoting of phrases
and excluding the relevant parts. An example is for them to quote
from another source like "...the right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed", and leave the "..." unquoted.
In this case, The "..." specifically places those rights within
a militia.
The 2nd amendment argument. Don't get brainwashed by the false 2nd
amendment interpretation pro-gun advocates keep reusing over and over
again. The military and the national guard are the "militias" stated
in the 2nd amendment. In 1948, the lower courts ruled that the right
to keep and bear arms is a collective right, NOT an individual right.
Since then, the Supreme Court has SUPPORTED this judgement. They have
REFUSED to hear or overturn this decision. People do NOT have a right
to keep and bear arms, they have a right to keep and bear arms IN THE
MILITIA. New York and Washington DC are two examples of places
that restrict individuals from bearing and keeping arms. If the 2nd
amendment definition of RKBA is an individual right, then NY and DC
would have violated the 2nd amendment. In fact, it has not. No court
has ever ruled that NY and DC's gun ban were unconstitutional, and
thus, RKBA is a collective right. Do NOT get brainwashed by
pro-gunner's false interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Its a
collective right, NOT an individual right.
In addition, we are not in the monarchy stage of kings and queens. We
vote and impeach, not use guns to solve problems. Many pro-gun
advocates think they can solve the world's problems all by themselves
by firing their guns at people they don't like. This is a delusion.
After advancing to the point of using our brains and our pens to vote,
they want to retreat to using brute-force. There are no "wild indians."
This is not the old cowboy times where everyone needs to carry guns to
walk the streets. We don't want to return to those times. We want to
advance into the future, not retreat into the past. Someone said "An
armed society is a polite society." This is false. An armed society
is a society of fear. A society of women and children staying at home
afraid of leaving the house because of the possibility of getting shot
by criminals and drive-by shooters.
Self-defense- A popular argument pro-gunners will say over and over
again is that they need guns "to protect themselves from criminals."
Don't fall for this trap. The more you arm society with lethal weapons,
the more fatalities you will have. You don't fight fire with fire.
We are an advanced society, we can create tools for self-defense
WITHOUT killing. There are pepper-sprays, mace, stun-guns, sirens,
flashes, martial arts, and many MANY other ways. Putting more guns
available to the public will cause more accidental deaths, more
homicide deaths. Read section E for facts. Don't be clouded by duck
speak these pro-gunners use to confuse you. Remember they are supported
by institutions out to make a profit off of the loss of human life...
Institutions out to make profit from instruments of death.. Instruments
with a primary purpose of putting a speeding bullet through flesh.
Don't be a fool. Do NOT arm society full of these weapons of death.
Many pro-gunners will start writing stories about guns detering
criminals. If they do, look at the following cases...
1) You have a gun, criminal does not. Criminal scared away. Guess
what? Criminal will come back with a gun next time.
2) You don't have a gun, criminal does. Criminal shoots you if you
don't do what he says.
3) Both have a gun. You both have a shootout. Good luck dodging
bullets.
What does this mean? We want to control guns. Limit it to where it is
safe, in the shooting range and hunting ground, or outright ban them.
Remember... a simple pull of a trigger will kill. You want to control
instruments of death. Similar to the government keeping atomic bombs
away from common citizens. We can invent other ways for self-defense.
Do you think a robber can rob a bank without a gun? Do you think a
drive- by shooter can kill you from 2 miles away without a gun?
Increase the number of guns in distribution, you increase the ease of
criminals obtaining guns. Increase the ease of criminals obtaining
guns, you increase the homicide rate.
Counters to common Anti-Gun Control arguments
*Automobiles/Swimming pools also kill people, should I outlaw them as
well?
The primary purpose of an automobile is transportation.
The primary purpose of a swimming pool is recreation.
The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.
The primary purpose of a nuclear bomb is to kill.
Why do you think nuclear bombs are not in citizen's hands or
authority?
Facts that will blow your brains out.
FACT: In the most recent study, States that relaxed gun-control laws
had an INCREASE in number of homicides. (Yes, in Florida too)
FACT: More people died from criminal use of guns than in the civil
war.
FACT: Every day four people die from accidental (just accidents) firing
of guns. A tool used primarily to kill. A tool to send a speeding
bullet through someone. Regulate this weapon where it belongs... In the
shooting range and hunting grounds.
FACT: In U.S. homicides, more people are killed by guns than any other
method (including knives, and knives are more available). Think long
and hard about this.
FACT: U.S. Homicide rate is HIGHEST among the TOP first world
countries: this includes Japan, England, France, and Germany.
FACT: Japan, England, France, and Germany have strict gun-control laws:
banned!
FACT: U.S. has the HIGHEST sustained homicide rate in the WORLD.
Followup Readings:
"In Our Defense: The Bill Of Rights in Action", by Ellen Alderman
and Caroline Kennedy.
"Guns, Crime, and Freedom", by Wayne LaPierre, $24.95, from Liberty
Lobby, 1-800-522-6292
REGARDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT: The United States was founded on an
18th century principle known as the "Right to Revolution." As the
Declaration of Independence states: "But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their
future security." Now, the founding fathers believed very much in
the right to revolution, having just finished a revolutionary war, and
believed that the right to revolution could be preserved only if the
people had the ability to exercise it. Hence their desire that the
people be armed. [As an aside, let me note that the opening engagements
of the Revolutionary War, at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775,
were fought when British troops marched to Concord to seize arms and
ammunition illegally stockpiled by the colonists. The Minutemen were
criminals as far as the British were concerned.]
Thus the Second Amendment. To understand the Second Amendment, it is
necessary to remember that (1) It was written by men learned in the
law, (2) Every word counts, and (3) It restricted action only by the
FEDERAL government, not by the states. (The fact that the Bill of
Rights applied originally only to action by the FEDERAL government is
often overlooked by persons who have not studied constitutional law;
many of its provisions have now been made applicable to the states via
the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.)
Now, the Constitution in Article I specifically authorizes Congress to
raise armies and arm and discipline the militia. Thus, the purpose of
the second amendment cannot logically be to ensure that the FEDERAL
government can arm the militia, because that right is already granted
to the FEDERAL government elsewhere in the Constitution.
Nor can the purpose of the second amendment be merely to ensure that
the STATES have the right to maintain militia, because if that were the
case, it would have been sufficient to say "The right of the several
states to maintain militia shall not be infringed."
So why is the second amendment phrased, "A well-regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free STATE, the right of the PEOPLE to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?"
The fairly obvious answer -- one which, by the way, is agreed on by all
serious constitutional scholars -- is that the second amendment was
written to ensure that the people would be armed so that they could
resist, individually or as a STATE militia, the possible tyranny of the
FEDERAL government. This is the only reasonable construction that can
be placed on the amendment, and it is supported by abundant historical
evidence. The second amendment is the enforcement clause for the Right
to Revolution, to which our country owes its origin.
(As an aside, the founding fathers looked for inspiration to the common
law of England before the passing of the first statute. The Anglo-Saxon
militia, called the Fyrd, consisted of all able-bodied men; and it was
the Fyrd that the founding fathers had in mind when they spoke of a
militia.)
As noted above, the second amendment resticed action solely by the
FEDERAL government, and the degree to which it is applicable to the
states by reason of the 14th amendment, if at all, is unclear. AT
present, it seems that the states are free to restrict firearms
ownership as they please. The FEDERAL government, on the other hand, is
not. Thus, it is perfectly legal to own a machine gun under federal
law, so long as the appropriate application for transfer is made and
the transfer tax is paid; states may, if they wish, forbid such weapons
entirely. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled directly on
the central issues of the 2nd amendment.
[Note: The last ruling of the supreme court that dealt with 2nd
amendment issues was in 1938, U.S. Vs Miller. In that ruling, Miller
could not carry a sawed-off shotgun across state-lines, and the reason
was "The shotgun has no legitimate use as a weapon in a militia."
Thus, this implies that the Supreme Court sided with the collective
definition of the right to keep and bear arms in the MILITIA. In
addition, as noted in the above post, States (like NY) have a right to
control guns within their borders, so the 2nd amendment really dealt
with collective entities (militias), and not individuals.]
[Note: "militias" with links to white supremacists]
At AOL.COM - Militias. Just one more example of Aryan paranoia and
ignorance. I recently had a chance to see the leader of the Michigan
Militia spew the following quote from his lips:
"You must be prepared to stike quickly to protect your area."
Protect your area from what? These idiots would form a long line at
K-Mart if they were selling Surface to Air Missles (SAM) there.
According to them, they would need this to protect their area against
intruders. Only God knows who these intruders are that they are
speaking of.
It seems that there is no end to the Aryan unwarranted paranoia. It is
also no surprise that these militia groups are linked to other moronic
clans like Aryan Nation, Skinheads, and White Nationalist.
These people oppose everything from taxes to toilet paper. These groups
want to protect themselves by ridding America of blacks, Jews, and
minorities. It is their claim that they will be safer that way. My
question is who will protect them from themselves. Militia ignorance
appears to be the militias most supreme enemy. This whole attitude and
the recent developments in Oklahoma City are a synopsis of the complete
mental numbness that exists in white supremacists, white nationalist,
Nazis, Aryan Nation, and the rest of the dick in the hand clans of loose
minded caucasians. They call themselves making this a better nation.
They condemn the bombing of the Federal building on camera but they are
firing their AK-47's in agreement in their secret meetings.
They want Civil War but what they need is medication. It is
unbelievable that these groups point their fingers at minorities as the
source of the nations problems. It is so obvious that these off
centered delusionists are the fabrics that threaten our existence and
the very freedom that they claim to be in pursuit of. Basically, it
can be traced back to what causes most social problems........lack of
education. It is low mental power that leads these morons to being hand
held by one guy who has some *ucked up Budweiser induced views. They
walk around behind one guy (like Koresh) with their tongues out and
their fists up their asses waiting for commands. Aryan extremist please
tell America what your problem is. We want to help. For now you are
examples of why Abortion is currently legal. You are all Abortion
fugitives as well as the World's biggest cowards.
THIS NOTE WAS FROM AN AMERICAN [Note: Another opinion on modern
"militias"]
These militia freaks are true fascists. They say they are protecting
constitutional rights... BS! They would like to take the
constitution and wipe their butts with it. These people are just an
extremists off-shoot of the GOP who BTW are planning to replace the
bill of rights with some ass-backwards biblical law! They hide behind
patriotism and christianity, but all they really are is a bunch of gun
toting, closet homo, hillbilly, NAZIS! These people are a danger to
national security. They should all be stuffed in a warehouse and gassed
with zyklon-b. That should give them a taste of the kind of ultra-REICH
politics they believe in.
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
Below requires intelligence to obtain insight into the gun issues.
Do not read if you are unable to be impartial in your judgement of this
FAQ after reading these controversial material... If you can't handle
them, take them as humor only. You have been warned...
Pro-Gun mentality If we were to examine the population in detail,
we can conclude that the majority of pro-gun advocates can be grouped
into two categories. First there are the people from the Vietnam war
era. From these, we can ascertain that the majority of them were
psychologically attached to their gun-piece during the war. Their
life in the military depended on a gun. This is the major uniqueness
separating the first category from the second.
From here on, the second category (the rest) share the same mental
makeup as this first category, and this can be simplified to a concept
of dependence. This attachment can be related to the Freudian concept
of penis-ego. It has come to a point that their id and ego became
overwhelmingly dependent on a gun, similar to a phallic symbol denoting
dominance and self-identity.
This extention of the inner self through an instrument of death is very
addicting. After a few rounds of firing, a person gets a delusion that
they are achieving a higher "power", a higher self- sufficiency. Their
ego and existence is thus expressed through this notion of being an
aggressive being with no equal. Soon, this psychological attachment
wears off, and the person needs some sort of reassurance. So they go
back to those shooting ranges and fire more shots. Soon, they become so
attached, they feel a need to carry a gun with them all the time,
waiting... waiting for the opportunity for their ego to rise to the
occassion, an occassion to prove their dominance by firing their gun
and demonstrate this reserved power of aggression. It is this addictive
reliance on a gun for self-sufficiency and identity that is the driving
force for many pro-gun advocates. They feel they will be stripped of
their power whenever the gun is restricted from their immediate
possession. Their id and ego is dependent on this instrument of death.
It is their self-extension, to take it away is to make them less
"full."
This is why, when given facts of the detrimental effects of guns, these
pro-gun advocates feel personally insulted, because to them having a
gun is a self-identity. No matter how you phrase it, they will take it
personally, and attack you on a personal level. In essense, they are
like brute-force animals, unable to detach their egos from their gun.
Unable to reason with truth. To them it is like a religion, a cult, or
a need. No matter what you throw at them, they will call you a
"sinner", or a "fascist", etc. A church milks its members for free work
and money. They take advantage from those brainwashed into their
crusade. Similarly, the NRA can be described as an entity using the
membership fees and propaganda to help the gun manufacturers in
continuing their crusade to sell these instruments of death. Not unlike
how the cigarette companies are taking advantage of the populace....
Making profit on the loss of human life.
Why pro-gun posters are always insulting, instead of debating.
When confronted with logic that is against the existentialism of ones
psychological makeup, a person breaks down into a state known, in
simplified phrase, as "incoherent servitude to aggressiveness and an
overt tendency to attack." This logic of which we are speaking of
deals with the issue of gun control. After being bombarded again and
again, through their primary external sensory organs, with information
against their mental addiction to guns, pro-gun advocates are unable
to sustain their id, their ego. A seek then ensues... the primative
instinct to strike back supresses all other types of reason and logic.
From here we can analyze behavior exhibited by the majority of the
pro-gun posters...This behavior is simply one of aggression, a simplied
form of immaturity in situations of discomfort.
The typical post by the pro-gun advocates have a main agenda in
justifying existence. To accomplish this task, they confront those
providing information that might damage this sad existence, with
kindergarden insults. In addition, they are usually followed up with
chitchat of like kind. A major problem with this mentality is that they
are unable to heal from within. An inability to understand
themselves.
Rather than confront their own weakness, they try to destroy those
helping them. Again, a simple form of animal instinct, one that is
indicative of a brute-force mentality.
There are many types of character analysis that can be placed on the
population. Those that fall under this brute-force category have an
aggressively wired predisposition to attack and dominate. Reason is
secondary to physical confrontation. Since the internet provides no way
for physical dominance, a typical pro-gun advocate will use insults as
a substitute. Some are so enfatuated, and so unable to supress this
anger, they resort to all available means. Anything to satisfy a
release of hate. A hate as a substitute of an inability to accept what
in reality is an internal problem.... That guns are part of their
existentialism.
STORY 1: If everyone had guns...
Case A: Everyone allowed to carry guns. Two people in a bar start
arguing. One starts insulting the mother of the other. The other
tells him to say sorry, "or else." The first says *uck you. The
second threatens again, "or else". The first says your mother again.
The second reaches in his holster, and brings out a gun. The first
hurries and shoots. Bullets are exchanged between the two. Three
innocents die inside. These two arguers DIE. Their families have no
more father. The kids grow up in poverty. In their exchanges of
bullets, 4 travel out of the bar, fly 65 feet across the streets.
One hits a little baby right inbetween the eyes. DEATH. Blood gushes
out and mother cries. One hits a guy running home, finding out he
just won the lottery. One hits a policemen trying to control traffic.
One hits a little girl right in the eyeball, shattering it, blood
flows down the face of that little girl. She dies 3 days later.
Mother of that girl vows never to walk outside of her home anymore.
Case B: Guns outlawed. Two people in a bar start arguing. One starts
insulting the mother of the other. The other tell him to say sorry,
"or else." The first says *uck you. The second threatens again,
"or else". The first says your mother again. The second starts
swinging a fist at the other. They start fighting. Bouncer comes
and breaks them up and sends them out. Both are arrested, and
sent home to their families. Another day passes. Happy happy.
STORY 2: Guns to attain respect...
A: Son B: Father
A: Dad, I want to shoot guns.
B: Why, son?
A: Well, I don't know, I just like to be Dirty Harry. You know,
shoot people, and be so cool. So powerful. Make people fear me.
B: That is not true son. The main reason is because you want respect.
You don't need guns to get respect. Our society is past that stage. We
use education, not might. Intelligence, not brute force. Understanding,
not hate. Peace, not war. We vote and impeach, not kill and murder. We
need not take bows and arrows to hunt for food. We are cultivated now.
We can grow our own food.
A: But why are guns still legal then?
B: Well, son, there are god damn idiots out there that played with guns
and find it so fun to shoot those bullets. So they make up all these
reasons to keep their guns. They don't realize that we can regulate
and control it in the shooting range and hunting grounds and let them
satisfy their (or our) hobby.
A: Why are you cursing dad?
B: Well son, I'm just foul-mouthed like many gun-owners. I am orry.
A: Are all gun-owners foul-mouthed?
B: Yes, they curse at those that they don't like. Similar to shooting
people they don't like. In addition, they are stupid, fat, and ugly.
A: Really?
B: Yes. They have very big bellies from drinking too much beer and
eating too much junk food.
A: But Dirty Harry is skinny.
B: Trust me, do you want to be stupid, fat, and ugly?
A: No.
B: Then don't treat guns as toys. Grow up and be a contributor to
society, an educator, rather than a brute-force animal. Use
reason, not force. Understanding, not hate. All of a sudden a stray
bullet from a drive-by shooter breaks through the window, and hits the
son right through the heart, killing him instantly. The dad cries out
in sorrow and pain.
STORY 3: Guns to attain power...
A: Gun-happy person
B: person
A: Hey man, I just love playing with guns... I mean, I feel so powerful.
B: Why do you need a tool to feel powerful?
A: Well, you know, makes me feel like Rambo, I can just pull a trigger,
and BOOM, kill someone.
B: So you want people to fear you?
A: Yeah. It's also easier to rob banks with them. It's also easier to
get the money off of another person. You know... simple pull of a trigger.
B: But why? Why not vent your ego-complex somewhere else like sports?
Must you carry a weapon of killing? I mean, if you want it as a hobby,
then do it where it is safe like in a shooting range. Why are you
advocating we retreat to those cowboy times, where everyone carries a
gun just to walk the streets?
A: I like a showdown, where I can prove my toughness. Shoot people.
B: You are basically acting out your instinctive drive of aggression.
Like a brute-force animal. Do you know what separates us
from most animals? We have higher mental ability. We reason better.
If we can use our brains and our pens, rather than through
brute force and aggression, then we are no better than monkeys.
A: I don't care, I want to be able to carry it around in the streets so
I can find a chance to show off my shooting ability and kill people.
I'm basically looking for trouble, looking for a chance
to show my aggression. Shooting range is dull, I want real
action... I want to kill people. That is why I want to carry guns
with me all the time.
B: With this kind of attitude, I'm sure you will find it...Why don't
you just carry some other types of self-defense items, why guns?
A: Look, I told you already. Guns kill. More excitement. More
satisfaction... loud noise, bloody results... like hollywood.
B: This is a sad...
A: Trying to insult me?
B: No, trying to help you.
A: Damn idiot.. you are trying to insult me...!?!?!?!
The gun-happy person then takes out a gun, aims it at the other person...
A: Take back that statement... what do you mean you feel sorry for me?!?!
B: I was only kidding... please put down that gun...please...
A: Liar, I will teach you a lesson...
(Music from movie _The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly_ plays in
the background) The gun-happy person then steps back, and retracing
the imagery of Clint Eastwood, spins his gun in a circle, and shoots
three times. Shot one: BOOM, right through the heart of the
other person. Blood pours out by the gallons, changing the color of
the ground red. Shot two: BOOM, right through the face. Bones shatter,
brain and blood mesh together and squirt everywhere. Shot three: BOOM,
right across the stomach. Intestine and kidney explode... Blood flows
everywhere. Later, police storm in, and find that Billy has just
shot his brother. Mother receives news, and cries out in pain and
suffering.
Original Q&A pro-gun posters don't want you to read...
Q: Is it true that pro-gun posters are ugly, fat, lazy, and beer-
swilling?
A: Yes, three people have admitted to it. In essence, its as true as
it can be.
Q: Do pro-gun posters have a hard time getting women?
A: Yes, just look in the advertising sections in the back of gun
magazines. (hint: tons of ads for information on buying wives from
overseas.)
Q: If they do get women, are they usually ugly?
A: Yes. One of the posters likes hairy women. He indicated his desire
for women's skin to be like that of a Kiwi fruit. (hairy).
Other Articles By A Trojan of the University of
Southern California
=====================================================================
Note by cross-poster:
I have a number of comments I'd like to make on the above, but time
is against me...I have to go help my wife depilate her back...
... "fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank