City of Brotherly Love

[PornoDoggy]

Killing brings toll to 346 for 2005

By CATHERINE LUCEY

Violence struck again yesterday not far from where an 18-year-old single dad was gunned down 11 days ago.

A young man was killed and another critically wounded in separate shootings, just blocks from the site where Terrell Pough, a dad and high-school senior, was slain at Wayne Avenue near Coulter Street in Germantown.

Police said yesterday that the three incidents were not linked.

"There's no connection between the jobs that we're aware of," said Lt. Philip Riehl of the Homicide Division.

Gunshots flew just before 1 p.m. on Wayne Avenue near Dalkeith Street in the Nicetown section, police said.

A young man was found in the street with a wound to the stomach. The unidentified male had been struck down with a shotgun, police said.

He was taken to Temple University Hospital, where he was in critical condition last night.

Shortly after, at 1:54 p.m., police were notified that a body was lying in a weedy area near Roberts and Wissahickon avenues, in Germantown.

A man in his 20s was found there with a gunshot wound to the head.

He was pronounced dead at the scene. He was not identified yesterday.

Police were not sure if he had been shot at that location.

No arrests have been made in the incidents.

Investigations into the shootings continued last night.

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/13272789.htm

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

"There's no connection between the jobs that we're aware of," said Lt. Philip Riehl of the Homicide Division.

"The jobs"????

Frightening choice of words.

[Anthony]

I KNEW I HAD A REASON WHY I WANTED TO BRING MY GUNS TO PHILLY!!!

Not that it mattered, since my Philly connection flaked out on me.

[DrGuile]

[In Canada, in 2003], the national homicide rate fell 7% last year to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported to police, 34 fewer than in 2002. A major factor was a large decrease in both British Columbia and Quebec.


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728a.htm

[TheEnforcer]

Damn.. that's a lot of murders....

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by DrGuile

[In Canada, in 2003], the national homicide rate fell 7% last year to its lowest level in over 35 years. A total of 548 homicides were reported to police, 34 fewer than in 2002. A major factor was a large decrease in both British Columbia and Quebec.


http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040728/d040728a.htm

That's because I was in California in 2003.

[DrGuile]

I think it's hilarious, in a very sad way, that it's a close call to see who will get the most murder, the city of Philadelphia, or Canada.

Go Philly! You can do it!

[Evil Chris]

It's that damn 2nd Amendment.

[Anthony]

2nd amendment is what makes us great.

Why we will never be invaded. too many guns.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/

Interesting reading.

[Evil Chris]

Anthony, more power to you but I'll never be sold on the gun issue.
It's controlled by a powerful lobby and seemingly always will be.

Meanwhile a brainwashed public keeps buying firearms just because the 2nd amendment says they can.... so they do. Americans are incredibly fervent about their right to bear arms. I just think it's ridiculous.

[PornoDoggy]

This isn't really a 2nd ammendment issue; or better stated, the "guns" issue is low on the list of contributing factors.

All politics is local. Until the affected communities change from "get these gang bangers off the street except my [son/husband/brother/nephew/neightbor/baby's daddy"] to "get these gang bangers off the street, regardless", ain't nothing going to change.

Cops and other politicians are to blame too. When I say cops, however, I'm not talking about the grunt in the squad car doing his thing regardless of where they send him. I'm aiming at the the brass worrying about the next promotion or a run for city council who is deploying the grunt.

There are also economic and racial issues that come into play before the whole issue of guns comes in.

That being said ... "Why we will never be invaded. too many guns." should be accompanied by Minibon pointing at the sky shouting "De Plane! De Plane!"

The danger of being invaded by Genghis Kahn, his brother Don, and the whole damned mongol herd is probably lessened by the number of guns in the hands of the public, but that doesn't seem likely anytime soon (baring a beer shortage in Canada).

[MorganGrayson]

Pssst...PD...it's "Mongol horde."

Unless the Mongols have elected to send their sheep in after us...which in certain parts of our nation could provide sufficient distraction for us to be well and truly invaded.

The proliferation of guns in the US has nothing to do with the 2nd ammendment, or even the first part, which is the only part anyone ever reads.

If it's possible for an entire nation to be mentally ill, we've made it. Canada is up to its fine tush in guns but they seem to lack the desire to settle every single dispute with one.

People have had the ability to kill other people since the first cavedude bounced a rock off another cavedude's skull. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" has been seen by some to be a smart ass retort by the "gun freaks," but it's true none-the-less. Or more precisely "Americans kill people." I was raised to believe life was sacred and that was part of the "American fabric." The fabric unraveled a long time ago.

[Dravyk]

Hey, stop picking on Philly!

... Or we'll come the hell over, torture your paperboy, burn your house down, and then start getting evil on your ass.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

Canada is up to its fine tush in guns but they seem to lack the desire to settle every single dispute with one.

Rifles...

hand guns are tough to get legally.

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

Rifles...

hand guns are tough to get legally.

I do believe it's possible to kill another human with a rifle. The difficulties with a rifle my explain a certain percentage of the difference in gun murders between Canada and the US, but not the rather extreme one that's showing.

I also think the Canadian hunters would also have knives. Do you have a correspondingly high number of stabbings in Canada?

Or does some wierd thing happen at the border that makes Canadians just not want to kill each other as much as happens down here?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

This isn't really a 2nd ammendment issue; or better stated, the "guns" issue is low on the list of contributing factors.

All politics is local. Until the affected communities change from "get these gang bangers off the street except my [son/husband/brother/nephew/neightbor/baby's daddy"] to "get these gang bangers off the street, regardless", ain't nothing going to change.

Cops and other politicians are to blame too. When I say cops, however, I'm not talking about the grunt in the squad car doing his thing regardless of where they send him. I'm aiming at the the brass worrying about the next promotion or a run for city council who is deploying the grunt.

There are also economic and racial issues that come into play before the whole issue of guns comes in.

That being said ... "Why we will never be invaded. too many guns." should be accompanied by Minibon pointing at the sky shouting "De Plane! De Plane!"

The danger of being invaded by Genghis Kahn, his brother Don, and the whole damned mongol herd is probably lessened by the number of guns in the hands of the public, but that doesn't seem likely anytime soon (baring a beer shortage in Canada).

So... Are you saying that countries the US has been at war with did not consider US ARMED citizens as a deterrant?

Prepare to get owned.

[Anthony]

Love reading this site... This is of course, a future enemy, not an old one who wants us disarmed.

Surprise! Communist Chinese Support U.S. Gun Control
by Larry Pratt
Taken from: http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws0105.htm

And now -- as they used to say on the old "Monty Python" TV show -- something completely different. The Information Office of Communist China's State Council has issued a report -- U.S. Human Rights Record 2000 -- criticizing human rights in America.

That's right. The country where Communism has killed an estimated 100 million people, the country whose leader Mao Tse-tung was once listed in the Guinness Book Of Records as history's greatest mass murderer, is complaining about human rights in our country.

And -- surprise! -- one of the things the Red Chinese don't like about our country is that many of our citizens keep and bear arms. In a section about the ways in which our freedoms are supposedly in jeopardy, it is said: "The United States, the only country where carrying a private weapon is a constitutional right, is a society ridden with violence.... The excessive number of privately owned guns has resulted in countless gun-related assaults, resulting in tragedy for many innocent people."

OK. So, what is there to say about this breath-taking hypocrisy on the part of the Chinese Communists regarding human rights? Well, the first thing is that, ironically -- unlike the Liberal gun-grabbers in our country -- the Red Chinese at least acknowledge that private America citizens do have a Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

But, of course, their report says nothing at all about the fact that as many as 2,500,000 of us, annually, use guns in self-defense to protect our lives, the lives of our family and friends, and our property.
Why was this information omitted?
This report doesn't say.

So, we contacted the Communist Chinese Embassy in Washington DC to ask why, and other questions. Here's the way our interview went with Yuan Yuan Zhang, press spokesman for the Red Chinese government:

Q: Is there a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for private citizens in your country?

A: Certainly not.

Q: Is it illegal in your country for private citizens to keep and bear arms?

A: It is not -- one has to get a permit to carry weapons. Of course some people carry weapons because of their official duties such as policemen or soldiers.

At this point, Zhang tells how four or five years ago in suburban Peking some private people had guns to shoot pheasants and rabbits. But, "later on the government asked them to surrender their weapons, actually purchased back their weapons," he says, laughing. "Purchased back"?! Strange phraseology here since the government never owned these guns.

Q: So, why were these guns confiscated by your government?

A: Well, sometimes you had a weapon in your closet and then someone stole it and that may uhhhh, you know, cause some trouble.... Sometimes people just make their own rifles from makeshift shops and turn out some kind of very primitive type of gun.

Q: And what happens if a person does this, if a person has a gun but no government permit?

A: That's a crime. That's a big crime.

Q: Does a big crime mean a fine and jail?

A: Yes! It would be dealt with in accordance with the criminal code.

Zhang explains that his government bans the private ownership of guns to ensure "the social tranquility and safety and security of the population." This is why they "confiscate or buy-back" weapons possessed by private persons.

Q: Why does your report make no mention of the fact that as many as 2,500,000 Americans use guns every year in self-defense?

A: I have a sense we are going to have a very long conversation. I have to go. I have a lunch engagement in three minutes.

Q: Are you aware that millions of Americans use guns in self-defense every year?

A: Yes. I am aware of that. I've been in this country for many years. I know people use guns principally to defend themselves. But even very decent citizens who have guns at home may sometimes find that their weapons have been put to, you know, very wrong use -- good things in the wrong hands, you know.

Q: And sometimes people in the government who have guns put them to wrong use, too. Did you know that?

A: (After long pause) Of course I know that. Sure.

But, Zhang adds: "We are not challenging the Constitutional right in the U.S. We're just presenting the basic facts. Yours is the only country in the world that the Constitution allows its citizens to carry guns."

Q: But, why does your report leave out the basic fact that many, many times more Americans use guns for good things, like self-defense, than use guns for bad things?

A: [Our report] is not intended to be a very, very exhaustive study of gun issues. It is just a short article trying to tell people the human rights situation in the United States. It is not perfect. We may be wrong about this gun-related matter. But we see this as one of the areas in which we think the American peoples' human rights are in jeopardy because of this excessive ownership of guns.

Q: Are you aware that America won its freedom and independence because, among other things, many of our private citizens had guns? Do you know this?

A: Of course I know that. And you know Chairman Mao's famous quotation?

Q: Yes. He said that political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

A: We needed guns to fight back the Japanese invaders. We have 100 million men in our militias with guns.

Q: But, your point about Chairman Mao's quotation is very interesting. He said what he said when he was a private citizen and not a member of the government, right?

A: Right.

Q: So, under your present laws, Chairman Mao would not have been allowed to have guns!

A: I'm trying to figure out your point.


Mao Tse-Tung favored guns in people's hands until he took over the Chinese government.

End of interview.

In their book Lethal Laws (Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, 1994) -- which is about how "gun control" has been the key to genocide in many countries throughout history -- authors Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman and Alan M. Rice note that just as in Nazi Germany "gun control" was the key to Mao Tse-tung's genocide especially during the so-called "Great Leap Forward" (1957-60). At this time, "the government's imposition of policies that promoted massive rural starvation plainly depended on its monopoly of armed force."

Communist China's first "gun control" law was enacted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on October 22, 1957. Article 9 barred the unauthorized making, purchasing, possession, repair, or use of firearms or ammunition "in contravention of safety provisions."

On September 2, 1983, the Second Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Sixth National People's Congress approved a law titled "On Severely Punishing Criminals Who Gravely Endanger Public Security of the Society." This law stated:

(1) The following criminals who gravely endanger public security of the society may be punished more heavily than the severest punishment currently stipulated in the Criminal Law, and may be punished by the death penalty.

And who might some of these "criminals" be who deserve death? Among those listed in this law: "A person who illegally makes, trades, transports, steals or purloins weapons, ammunition or explosives in a particularly serious way or with serious consequences."

But, of course, what really endangers the security and freedom of a people is when the only ones who are legally allowed to keep and bear arms are those who work for the State. This way lies true tyranny. We must hope and pray this never happens in America.

[Sabby]

We are now at 34 murders here this year. I guess thats not bad for a population of almost 1 mill ?

Its all the young people...

There were two 17 year old boys killed here last weekend and now the 19 year old girl. (I think she was the only one who was shot though - I think the other 2 were beaten to death). I wish I could talk about the case but I really do not want to be number 35.

The other 2 murders are unrelated as far as I know.


Sabby

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

Pssst...PD...it's "Mongol horde."

See here, Ms Smartydrawers ... it's Mongol horde when it's just Genghis; when his brother Don accompanies, it's the whole damned mongol herd.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by Anthony

So... Are you saying that countries the US has been at war with did not consider US ARMED citizens as a deterrant?

Prepare to get owned.

Since the Mexican-American War in 1846? Nope.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Since the Mexican-American War in 1846? Nope.

WWII

Do a google search, plenty of instances where Japanese were quoted why they would not invade due to the prevalence of weapons in the U.S.A.

It took to long for you to answer, and I'm going to bed now.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I KNEW I HAD A REASON WHY I WANTED TO BRING MY GUNS TO PHILLY!!!

Not that it mattered, since my Philly connection flaked out on me.

Damn Ant... I dont know whether you scare the fuck outta me or whether I want you to come here and be my bodyguard. LOL.


Sabby

[PornoDoggy]

Oh, gimme a fucking break.

There are many, many reasons that the Japanese did not invade the United States, and the level at which our citizens are armed ranked somewhere below "not enough domestic rice, sake, and sushi production."

The Imperial Army and the Navy couldn't even agree on a war plan, so they changed the focus of their efforts three different times in the 6 months following Pearl Harbor. At no time was there any serious discussion of mounting an invasion of the United States, and the problem wasn't guns in the hands of the citizens - it was oil and shipping.

And seriously - whoever the fuck this Larry Pratt is with the "Gun Owners Association", he needs to back away from the crack pipe.

"Why does your report make no mention of the fact that as many as 2,500,000 Americans use guns every year in self-defense?"

The only possible way that figure can be correct is if you include people defending themselves from Daffy, Bugs, and Bambi.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Oh, gimme a fucking break.

There are many, many reasons that the Japanese did not invade the United States, and the level at which our citizens are armed ranked somewhere below "not enough domestic rice, sake, and sushi production."

The Imperial Army and the Navy couldn't even agree on a war plan, so they changed the focus of their efforts three different times in the 6 months following Pearl Harbor. At no time was there any serious discussion of mounting an invasion of the United States, and the problem wasn't guns in the hands of the citizens - it was oil and shipping.

And seriously - whoever the fuck this Larry Pratt is with the "Gun Owners Association", he needs to back away from the crack pipe.

"Why does your report make no mention of the fact that as many as 2,500,000 Americans use guns every year in self-defense?"

The only possible way that figure can be correct is if you include people defending themselves from Daffy, Bugs, and Bambi.

No serious discussion, eh? I guess that's why I can look up quotes from japanese general's about armed U.S. citizens, but can't seem to find any of your revision of history.

I've seen your type before. Anti gun lobby, until the niggas all break up and start rioting, like they did in California, eh?

Then you bitches complain about the wait period. LOL

[Osiris]

I like guns for hunting(not that I do this anymore) and for self-defense purposes only. But I also think there are less lethal ways of defending yourself.

In my opinion, if a person has to use a gun to "defend" themselves from getting the shit kicked out of them by an unarmed, pissed off person. Then that person is a fucking pussy.

However, if that person is being approached by a large group of people, which is common with the blacks in the south, they can't seem to fight without their backup being around, then pull a gun and shoot their asses.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Osiris

In my opinion, if a person has to use a gun to "defend" themselves from getting the shit kicked out of them by an unarmed, pissed off person. Then that person is a fucking pussy.

.

So, using your logic... A pissed off unarmed person is not a threat? How do you know they are unarmed? How do you know how far they are willing to go?

I want to live in your world, in my world you use every possible legal way to win anything.

[Trev]

Originally Posted by Anthony

in my world you use every possible legal way to win anything.

[Evil Chris]

Originally Posted by Anthony

So, using your logic... A pissed off unarmed person is not a threat? How do you know they are unarmed? How do you know how far they are willing to go?

I want to live in your world, in my world you use every possible legal way to win anything.

This post = perfect example of a society living in fear.

[Evil Chris]

Originally Posted by Trev

Get a fucking grip on yourself Trev.

[Trev]

Originally Posted by Evil Chris

Get a fucking grip on yourself Trev.

I think it's a pearl. Sue me

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Evil Chris

This post = perfect example of a society living in fear.

No different from 100 years ago, or 200 years ago.

I prepare for the worst, hoping for the best.

I teach my children this. This is the world we live in.

I guess you forgot about how many Canadians were killed during Sept 11.

[Nickatilynx]

I has to....

I know Oprano hates facts and common sense , but...

An armed Civilian Militia has not actually worked that well defending against invasion in the last 100 years at all.

Secondly to defend against an invader , I'd suggest rifles , not handguns .

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

I has to....

I know Oprano hates facts and common sense , but...

An armed Civilian Militia has not actually worked that well defending against invasion in the last 100 years at all.

Secondly to defend against an invader , I'd suggest rifles , not handguns .

I agree on the handguns, it's secondary. I have 3 rifles, all Bushmaster AR 15s, 2 at .223 (5.56) and 1 at .308 (7.62)

I can hit a silver dollar at 100 yards with any of them.

No one's invaded the US to find out.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I agree on the handguns, it's secondary. I have 3 rifles, all Bushmaster AR 15s, 2 at .223 (5.56) and 1 at .308 (7.62)

I can hit a silver dollar at 100 yards with any of them.

No one's invaded the US to find out.

No invaded the US?

Sorry again to fight sirty and use facts but...

I believe a bunch of Canadians ( looking for Beer ,eh) came blasting through and set fire to your capital , despite your right to bear arms.

[Newton]

Originally Posted by Anthony

How do you know how far they are willing to go?

Truth is you don't know .. standing in a crowded bar, you accidently spill someones drink, and they are all over you like rash. They just keep pounding and pounding on you until you are down and then stomping on your head with boot .. its too late by this time. You have no idea how unbalanced the person is.

I may be in Engliand and everything thinks .. oh what a quaint place to live, I just love your accents .. get over it .. This is a nasty, vicious, evil place and its a great place to grow up and learn the ropes.

I agree with Ant in that you don't know how far they are willing to go, so you have to make that decision to do whatever it takes to stop them.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

No invaded the US?

Sorry again to fight sirty and use facts but...

I believe a bunch of Canadians ( looking for Beer ,eh) came blasting through and set fire to your capital , despite your right to bear arms.

Actually, it was the British, a superior force at that time with regulars from Canadian Territories, the bulk being British forces. From a wonderful page about the white house burnings...

"Even though Washington had no strategic significance for the British military, the commander in chief of the North American station, Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, had it in mind to give the Americans "a complete drubbing." It would avenge the excesses of Americans who had plundered and burned public and private buildings the year before in York (modern Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada. Above all, seizing the capital would humiliate and demoralize Americans and, as a bonus, might even lead to the disintegration of the United States."

Tsk tsk, so the US burnt down Toronto first, eh? I guess, tit for tat.

Well, it seems that burning down the White House didn't have that effect. As both the UK and the US signed the "Treaty of Ghent" and have been the best of Pals since then.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by Newton

Truth is you don't know .. standing in a crowded bar, you accidently spill someones drink, and they are all over you like rash. They just keep pounding and pounding on you until you are down and then stomping on your head with boot .. its too late by this time. You have no idea how unbalanced the person is.

I may be in Engliand and everything thinks .. oh what a quaint place to live, I just love your accents .. get over it .. This is a nasty, vicious, evil place and its a great place to grow up and learn the ropes.

I agree with Ant in that you don't know how far they are willing to go, so you have to make that decision to do whatever it takes to stop them.

The UK on a day to day steet fight level is far more dangerous.

There is a far higher chance of getting into a row in England. But a less likely chance of being shot.

I rarely see an actual brawl in Vancouver. In England it was virtually a daily occurance.

When I came to North America it was actually a marked difference.

People in North America would talk to you in most leary terms and then be surprised if they got a smack in the mouth.

But Newton a scrawny assed mofo like you I'm sure learned to talk your way out of it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

The UK on a day to day steet fight level is far more dangerous.

There is a far higher chance of getting into a row in England. But a less likely chance of being shot.

I rarely see an actual brawl in Vancouver. In England it was virtually a daily occurance.

When I came to North America it was actually a marked difference.

People in North America would talk to you in most leary terms and then be surprised if they got a smack in the mouth.

But Newton a scrawny assed mofo like you I'm sure learned to talk your way out of it.

The few times I've been in a brawl or seen one seems to always connect to Nick.

Hrmmmm, I'm beginning to think Nick is bad luck!

Seriously, you've haven't lived till Nick throws his Rolex Presidential at you to hold while he takes a guy down to the ground and beats on him. It's quite entertaining!

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Actually, it was the British, a superior force at that time with regulars from Canadian Territories, the bulk being British forces. From a wonderful page about the white house burnings...

"Even though Washington had no strategic significance for the British military, the commander in chief of the North American station, Admiral Sir Alexander Cochrane, had it in mind to give the Americans "a complete drubbing." It would avenge the excesses of Americans who had plundered and burned public and private buildings the year before in York (modern Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada. Above all, seizing the capital would humiliate and demoralize Americans and, as a bonus, might even lead to the disintegration of the United States."

Tsk tsk, so the US burnt down Toronto first, eh? I guess, tit for tat.

Well, it seems that burning down the White House didn't have that effect. As both the UK and the US signed the "Treaty of Ghent" and have been the best of Pals since then.

So the United States were invaded. ( You mentioned in your previous post it had never had been)

And your armed Militia were unsuccessful at defending against it.

The rest was verbage to divert attention from the FACT that your entire ..

""The US has never been invaded / Because of our Armed Militia which would save us from Invasion"" argument , was in fact total ass

LOL

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by Anthony

No serious discussion, eh? I guess that's why I can look up quotes from japanese general's about armed U.S. citizens, but can't seem to find any of your revision of history.

I've seen your type before. Anti gun lobby, until the niggas all break up and start rioting, like they did in California, eh?

Then you bitches complain about the wait period. LOL

Okay, let me make something clear here - the comment about "not enough domestic rice, sake, and sushi production" was an attempt at humor.

I've been reading about "my daddy's war" since before the '65 Watts riot, my friend, and I don't recall seeing that "fact" referenced even as anecdotal material.

I'm open to new information from reliable sources. Since you don't want to post one, I can only infer that you obtained it from a source like the one claiming 2.5 million Americans use guns every year in self-defense.

You are perfectly correct about one thing - I am "anti-gun lobby." If you don't understand the distinction between being anti gun and anti gun lobby, well, mores’ the pity.

We have no niggas around here to riot, by the way (unless you count the Amish, and you can hear the horses coming from some distance off).

The knuckle-dragging, three natural (green) teeth, my daddy is my also my uncle and my relationship with my sister-cousin is nunaurebidnez, Mom ain't spelt rite on my jailhouse tattoo, meth-dealing white pride nation wide sub humanoid species is far and away more prevalent round these parts.

And if they get uppity, assuming I am vulnerable during some waiting period would be a less than stellar tactical decision.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The few times I've been in a brawl or seen one seems to always connect to Nick.

Hrmmmm, I'm beginning to think Nick is bad luck!

Seriously, you've haven't lived till Nick throws his Rolex Presidential at you to hold while he takes a guy down to the ground and beats on him. It's quite entertaining!

He sucker punched me!!!

I had no choice but to fight from the ground!!! LOL

PLUS he was aiming at you.

;-)))


Oh come on....you love a row too!

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

So the United States were invaded. ( You mentioned in your previous post it had never had been)

And your armed Militia were unsuccessful at defending against it.

The rest was verbage to divert attention from the FACT that your entire ..

""The US has never been invaded / Because of our Armed Militia which would save us from Invasion"" argument , was in fact total ass

LOL

As I so eloquently told you in icq, you are quite correct sir, and that I forgot about the war of 1812.

It was still the British, and we burned Toronto down first.

So there. Nyah, nyah, nnnyyyahhhhh!

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I guess you forgot about how many Canadians were killed during Sept 11.

Okay, if you got something in your inventory that would be effective against commercial airliners, I'm going to start getting really, really worried.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Okay, if you got something in your inventory that would be effective against commercial airliners, I'm going to start getting really, really worried.

I cannot help that your linear thinking excludes you from seeing the fact that after Sept 11, no one is safe.

Please think outside of the lines, it's freeing.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I cannot help that your linear thinking excludes you from seeing the fact that after Sept 11, no one is safe.

Please think outside of the lines, it's freeing.

I disagree 911 proved Americans weren't safe.

After the British And US invaded Iraq its shown that no one is safe.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Newton

Truth is you don't know .. standing in a crowded bar, you accidently spill someones drink, and they are all over you like rash. They just keep pounding and pounding on you until you are down and then stomping on your head with boot .. its too late by this time. You have no idea how unbalanced the person is.

I may be in Engliand and everything thinks .. oh what a quaint place to live, I just love your accents .. get over it .. This is a nasty, vicious, evil place and its a great place to grow up and learn the ropes.

I agree with Ant in that you don't know how far they are willing to go, so you have to make that decision to do whatever it takes to stop them.

Amen brother, amen.

Also to build up on what Nick said, it's always the wiry scrappers you gotta worry about! Don't let Nick's teasing get to you, I've been called a fat fucking bastard not worth a burnt cigarette butt in a row.

He only says that when he loves me.

[Dravyk]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I cannot help that your linear thinking excludes you from seeing the fact that after Sept 11, no one is safe.

And you thought we were safe before 911?

How soon they forget the WTC parking garage bombing.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

I disagree 911 proved Americans weren't safe.

After the British And US invaded Iraq its shown that no one is safe.

9/11 didn't just kill Americans.

There were alot more countries other than yanks and the brits.

Though, the everyone shoot at the same time theory doesn't seem to work when the US or UK is involved.

[Newton]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

The UK on a day to day steet fight level is far more dangerous.

There is a far higher chance of getting into a row in England. But a less likely chance of being shot.

I rarely see an actual brawl in Vancouver. In England it was virtually a daily occurance.

When I came to North America it was actually a marked difference.

People in North America would talk to you in most leary terms and then be surprised if they got a smack in the mouth.

But Newton a scrawny assed mofo like you I'm sure learned to talk your way out of it.

Its a dangerous place chap and I am happy with a babycham and to sit in the corner. Talking your way out of it is sometimes not an option, but I will try as I don't have the stature to go around offending people as you say.

I am looking forward to seeing the marked difference there

[DrGuile]

I feel safe...

It's a fun feeling, you should try it...

If I cut someone off on the highway, Im not even worried about getting shot... wierd eh?

From the stats I posted earlier, my hometown, Sherbrooke, has not had an homicide in 2003 and 2004... the city is roughly 100,000 people....

I dont think it's about guns or no guns, it's about mentality...