In article <351C9DBC.287DA...@geocities.com>, Papa Jack
<papa_j
...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Papa Jack remarks:
> Here we go again! Bruce, you can be so reasonable and intelligent,
> and then you turn around and blow away your credibility with raving
> propaganda like this.
Perhaps. I was VERY angry when I wrote this, and probably should not have
posted it.
> Why are you posting an article advocating gun controls in the
> most emotional and violent way on TALK.ABORTION???
Just a community thing. Why do you post articles on Bill Clinton and
Monica Lewinsky here? Much the same: community.
> What does the
> Arkansas tragedy have to do with abortion?
Nothing. But if you search usenet, you'll see more than a few people
stating that it is 'the availability of abortion and its lack of respect
for human life that directly led to this tragedy.' As you might expect,
that made me even angrier. My post was actually begun in response to one
of those posts.
> You remind me of those
> who tried to blame Rush Limbough for the Oklahoma City bombing.
Equally ludicrous.
> You and I disagree on the gun control issues, but that has NOTHING
> to do with abortion. Your efforts to assert some connection or
> association exists is raw sleaze. Sorry Ol Sod, but that's the
> way I see it.
And I. I do have concerns that the open and free availanility of guns,
combined with some sick desire by these children to be in a gang led to
this.
> It does get so tiresome to watch liberals like Bruce jump up and
> try to gain political advantage whenever we have a national tragedy.
> It is so damn hypocritical.
Nah, no advantage. Just a vent. Have you never vented against anything?>
> =====================================================================
> Bruce Forest wrote:
> > Hey all..
> > The Arkansas story of the past few days has made me physically
> > ill. Apparently, 11 year old Andrew Golden was a practiced
> > marksman whose father was a gun enthusiast and NRA member, and
> > he taught his son how to shoot from the age of six.
> > There are people here that wail about aborting pinhead sized
> > embryos, calling it a 'crime against humanity.'
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack comments:
> Yep, I firmly believe that small human beings should have the same
> rights as bigger human beings.
Fine. I know that.
> =====================================================================
> > Bruce Forest wrote:
> > And yet, already the gun lobby is telling people that this massacre
> > 'had nothing to do with guns.'
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack comments:
> Can you cite a source, Bruce, or are you just pulling this whole
> set of ranting propaganda out of your posterior?
No, actually there was a story on the Excite Reuters feed stating that.
I'll see if they archived it. I should have included the cite.
> And, is there anything wrong with the NRA pointing out that the
> tragedy had far more to do with the mental health problems of
> two adolescents than it did with the fact that the families
> owned guns.
Absolutely true. But if they had no access to the almost dozen guns they
had when they were arrested this simply would not have happened.
> Remember there are millions of gun owners who never
> hurt anyone or otherwise misuse their guns.
Indeed. But guns are only designed for one thing: to kill. Nothing else.
Sure they're used for target and skeet shooting, but they are designed to
kill, and that is their main use. They are not necessary for private
citizens to own, imo.
> Look how many are killed by motor vehicles. Should we ban them?
No, because the primary function of a car is transportation, not killing.
> =====================================================================
> > Bruce Forest wrote:
> > This is the same group of people that give huge sums of money
> > to fight abortion.
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack comments:
> T H A T I S A C R U D E L I E. You have absolutely no
> evidence except your blatant bigotry against anyone who lives
> south of New York.
I have no bigotry against Southerners: but there is a disproportionate
number of firearms owners in Southern states, combined with a very lax
attitude among some Southerners, such as the casual carrying of weapons
on gun racks in trucks. Have you ever seen a gunshot wound?
Also, there is a much larger antiabortionist mentality in the primarily
conservative South and Midwest. Do the two go together? Maybe.
> =====================================================================
> > Bruce Forest wrote:
> > It's sick, and anyone who opposes abortion and owns a gun,...
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack comments:
> Bruce I strongly oppose abortion and I own three guns (pistol,
> rifle, and shotgun). I see no relationship whatsoever between
> a person's stand on abortion and gun ownership. You are trying
> to create a FALSE association here that is totally illogical.
No assocation at all..actually to me it's contradictory. How can you claim
to be 'prolife' (not the label, the philosophy) and yet go out and kill
things?
> Please explain the nexus between owning guns and opposing
> abortions. It sounds very illogical to me.
Me too. One would think that someone 'prolife' would oppose killing of any
kind. I don't get it.
> =====================================================================
> > Bruce Forest wrote:
> > ...or does not actively fight for total criminalization of firearms
> > ownership by civilians is a murdering pig, plain and simple.
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack comments:
> No, Bruce, I am NOT a murdering pig. I have never in my life
> killed anyone -- but I did carry a gun often for over 20+ years
> as a police officer.
Indeed, and I apologize for that comment. I was, as I said, furious at
that time.
> I know of no reason to actively fight against what is guaranteed
> by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:
> Amendment II:
> 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.
That could be argued. In the primarily agrarian society in the mid-1700's
a gun was how you put food on the table and protected yourself. They were
as central to daily life as phones are to us. One could argue that the
same necessity does not exist now. What other purpose is there in owning a
gun but to kill things?
And Amendments have been repealed all over the place. Entry in the
Constitution, or approval by the SC does not confer permanence, as
antiabortionists are trying to point out. ;-)
> _The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court_, edited by Kermit L. Hall,
> has an article discussing the 2nd Amendment on pages 763 - 764. The
> article ends:
> ...the Court has not fully embraced the collective
> rights theory, perhaps because history gives little
> support for that view and because the individual
> rights interpretation enjoys considerable public
> support. Widespread firearms ownership, coupled
> with strong demands for stricter gun controls ensure
> that the debate over the 'Second Amendment will remain
> lively.
Which is what we're doing.
> I just finished reading the book _Liberty_ by Thomas Fleming which
> gives repeated detailed descriptions from a wide variety of primary
> sources of the role of the militia in the Revolutionary War. There
> is no question in my mind that the Founding Fathers meant the
> 2nd Amendment to mean that it was unconstitutional for people like
> you, Bruce, to try to infringe on the right of the people to keep
> and bear Arms.
As you said, the debate is lively. I disagree, since I don't think that
the FF planned on children carrying guns, metal detectors in school
entrances, accidental killings of children by unprotected guns, and drive
by shootings. I don't feel that society can handle guns anymore.
> Now, you have every right to try to change that, but in my opinion
> you would need to get a new amendment to the Constitution approved
> -- like the 21st Amendment was needed to repeal the 18th Amendment.
> Emotional tirades on talk.abortion just won't do it.
Much like repealing RvW? ;-)
> =====================================================================
> > Bruce Forest wrote:
> > The heroic English teacher that was killed shielding her students
> > from the bullets was pregnant. Those guns not only murdered child-
> > ren, but performed an abortion.
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack comments:
> Yes, this was a terrible tragedy. I am absolutely sure, Bruce,
> that none of the PARs or PLs on talk.abortion enjoyed seeing
> boys commit such senseless acts.
Agreed. But people who defend the parents of the killers, saying 'well, it
was ok for them to have all those guns around; they should have taught
their sons better.' Teaching them to kill things at age 6? That's nuts,
I'm sorry.
> They were very confused young-
> sters to say the least.
At the very least. Probably highly disturbed. Imo, the parents should be
in jail right now. How did an 11 and a 13 year old get all those weapons?
> But, I don't know enough about the facts
> to understand why they did what they did -- and neither do you,
> Bruce. But, we do resent the fact that you cast yourself ON THE
> SIDE OF THE HEROIC TEACHER, implying that your opponents are
> somehow against her.
No, I meant only to show an irony. Chances are high that in a small
Southern town that most people are antiabortion. And yet, there were
dozens of guns available to allow these kids to kill the teacher and her
baby.
> We also had a middle school student in a small Texas town who used
> a knife to slice himself and several teachers just a couple of days
> later. Should we ban the manufacture of knives?
No, since the primary purpose of knives is as a cutting tool, not to kill.
For what other purpose are guns designed? Not used, DESIGNED. they are
killing tools, nothing more. If there was a surgical tool designed for the
sole and specific use of killing fetuses, you can be sure antiabortionists
would be trying to ban it.
> =====================================================================
> > Bruce Forest wrote:
> > I know some antiabortionists here are from Texas and other states
> > in the South where guns are fine, kids are encouraged to kill
> > things often and with great glee, and yet abortion is looked at
> > as 'murder.'
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack comments:
> Notice the bigotry Bruce shows toward anyone who resides South of
> NY. He KNOWS how THEY are. I seriously doubt that Bruce has
> ever been to Texas, but that doesn't stop him from making such
> stupid sweeping generalizations.
Actually, I thought I mentioned that I spent six months in Talehquah, OK a
few years back, and made frequent trips to Dallas. Nice place, great
roads, but too many people with gun racks for my tender Connecticut ass.
> I taught my three sons to hunt in much the same way my Dad taught
> me to hunt -- with great emphasis on safety and with respect for
> good sportsmanship. That included teaching them very strict
> lessons about the respect for life. The only creatures they
> were allowed to shoot at were those we would eat or those which
> were dangerous (i.e., rattlesnakes).
Fine, great, and expected. But some people are not as responsible,
wouldn't you agree? These kids got hold of a dozen loaded weapons. How is
the father not responsible for this tragedy?
> Now believe it or not, Bruce, my sons turned out quite well.
> They are adults and parents and hold responsible jobs. Oh,
> yes, they are teaching their sons to hunt the same way I taught
> them. One has two daughters, but we'll have to see if they
> are interested.
Well, in the absence of eliminating guns (which I know is unlikely) the
training people like you gives their children need to be ubiquitous, and
maybe licensing laws need to be more stringent. SOMETHING. We can't let
kids get hold of loaded weapons.
> =====================================================================
> > Bruce Forest wrote:
> > If those people can sleep tonight, they are the personification
> > of evil,
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack comments:
> Bruce, get control man, you are making a total fool of yourself.
> I am NOT the personification of evil. I am not a perfect human
> being, but I am not evil. The fact that I legally and responsibly
> own three guns has nothing whatsoever to do with my morality.
> You know that, but you still post this sort of trash. This is
> why so few people take you serious any more.
I would debate that. I highly doubt that 'few people take me seriously'
here after the big bipartisan show of support after the recent 'Robyn'
incident. I just don't post as frequently anymore due to work commitments.
Hey, if you didn't take me seriously, you wouldn't have responded so
completely. ;-)
But again, I did go way overboard in my anger, and I totally apologize for
my accusations and hastily made statements. Gun owners in general are
certainly not responsible for these deaths.
But I do think this horrific tragedy shows that guns are just way too
available. One kid, who pretended to be a member of the 'Bloods' gang
walked around the day before saying he had 'a lot of killing to do.'
People must have known his father was a gun enthusiast. And NO ONE said
anything?
People want strict protections on the internet, with many proposing strong
controls to stop kids seeing a naked breast or bottom. Yet many of these
same conservative people will not accept any similar controls on guns.
That bothers me enormously.
As for the relation to the abortion issue, it merely suprises me that
there are people like yourself who are strictly antiabortion, yet own
weapons and support the death penalty. That puts a judgemental spin on
things: some killing is ok, but some killing is not. It all depends on the
circumstances: killing a convicted murderer is fine, but killing a fetus
isn't. That merely says to me that you need to judge each killing
personally to accept its validity. That infers that you are free to judge.
And that's my problem.
Similarly, I dislike guns intensely, I support abortion rights, and I
support the death penalty in exceptional cases, like multiple murders,
child, or cop killers. But my rationale is that I don't view early fetuses
as 'people,' and therefore see more congruence in my position. The big
dichotomy between antiabortionists and prochoicers is because we don't
think an embryo is a person, and we have data which supports that view.
You do think an embryo is a person, and have data to support your view.
The issue will never be 'resolved.'
But the reason for the anger in this argument is this disparity: if you
are like me, you find the contradiction of guns/death penalty vs 'sanctity
of life' infuriating. If you are antiabortion, you find the refusal of
people like me to accept that 'an embryo is a BABY' equally infuriating.
We aren't even arguing about the same thing, are we?
Anyway, I apologize again.
--
Remove 'funky' to mail me.
'Caution: cape does not enable wearer to fly.'
-actual Batman costume tag
|
