Pro-gun is the REAL pro-death.
Papa Jack
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.
Why are you posting an article advocating gun controls in the
most emotional and violent way on TALK.ABORTION??? What does the
Arkansas tragedy have to do with abortion? You remind me of those
who tried to blame Rush Limbough for the Oklahoma City bombing.
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.
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.
=====================================================================
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.
=====================================================================
> 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?
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. Remember there are millions of gun owners who never
hurt anyone or otherwise misuse their guns.
Look how many are killed by motor vehicles. Should we ban them?
=====================================================================
> 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.
=====================================================================
> 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.
Please explain the nexus between owning guns and opposing
abortions. It sounds very illogical to me.
=====================================================================
> 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.
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.
_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.
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.
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.
=====================================================================
> 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. They were very confused young-
sters to say the least. 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.
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?
=====================================================================
> 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.
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).
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.
=====================================================================
> 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.
=====================================================================
> Bruce Forest wrote:
> ...and I will spend the rest of my life denouncing such people.
> Fuck all of you.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Have at it little boy. You will accomplish nothing except making
a fool of yourself as you have here.
=====================================================================
> Bruce Forest wrote:
> I hope that something equally evil happens to you, and as you s
> tand over the grave of your own child, I want you to watch
> others justify it as these murderers are trying to do right now.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack comments:
This splits it, Bruce. You talk about spiteful -- YOU ARE VERY EVIL
TO WRITE SUCH A HORRIBLE THING.
I remember a few months ago you went totally bananas over some idiot
who indicated you would probably abuse your daughter. You want to
sue him, and force everyone on talk.abortion to fully support you.
That went on for weeks and you ranted and made wild threats at
everyone.
But, now you can wish DEATH to the CHILDREN of the millions of
Americans for no other reason than that they own a gun? That is
simply grotesque.
I think you need to sober up and offer an apology to all the many
readers who you offended with this wild-eyed raving.
--
{ Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
Bruce Forest
In article <351C9DBC...@geocities.com>, Papa Jack
<papa...@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
Sarah Terzo
Bruce Forest (br...@funkynassau.cv.net) wrote:
: In article <351C9DBC...@geocities.com>, Papa Jack
: <papa...@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.
Understandable. The tragedy would stir up anyone who has any compassion at
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.
Yes, and its possible to have a concern for both.
: > =====================================================================
: > > Bruce Forest wrote:
: > > And yet, already the gun lobby is telling people that this massacre
: > > 'had nothing to do with guns.'
: >
: > =====================================================================
: >
: > 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.
Bruce's point is valid here. Guns exist to destroy and kill. We know
there are unstable people in this world- why allow them to have access to
such potentially deadly weapons?
: 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.
My point exactly. Lets look at the two options- #1. guns are available.
Good, upstanding moral people are able to enjoy themselves by shooting at
targets. However, a number of people every year will die from gun
violence.
Option #2. Guns are illegal. People who shoot at targets or hunt have to
find a new hobby. People who are killed by guns in option #1 get to live.
Let's see. Losing lives vs. changing hobbies. I think we all know which
option is more pro-life
: 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?
: >
: > =====================================================================
: > > Bruce Forest wrote:
: > > It's sick, and anyone who opposes abortion and owns a gun,...
: >
: > =====================================================================
: 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.
Well, having said that I support gun control anyway, I can still point out
that many people own guns to
a. hunt animals
b. defend themselves against crime (handgun in a drawer next to the bed or
in car to shoot potential rapist, etc.)
I personally wouldn't shoot a person in self-defense, but I think its a
little beyond my rights to forbid anyone else from defending themselves.
I'm pro-life, but I never said that anyone had to give up their own life
completely in order to not harm another in cases where the other cannot be
stopped by less violent means- which is why I've never been against
abortions done because of a serious physical danger to the woman. I think,
of course, that the doctor should save both if possible, but it is beyond
my rights to tell a woman that she must die to give birth to her fetus.
Just like it is beyond my rights to say that someone must allow themselves
to be raped and murdered rather than shoot their attacker. Yes, I know
that I'm now soundling like I'm against gun control. Personally I've heard
that guns as self-defense tend only to escolate violence....I hate
guns...I would never own one...I don't think anyone should own one...but
the self-defense argument does bother me a little.
As for killing animals? Personally I think its immoral to hunt unless you
are starving. But I can see how a person could value human life above
animal life. After all, you value the life of a baby but not the life of a
fetus and probably don't see yourself as a hypocrite. You just don't put a
developing fetus in the same category as a born, breathing baby.
: 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?
This is also a good point.
st
el_c...@juno.com
In article <bruce-28039...@10.6.219.130>,
br...@funkynassau.cv.net (Bruce Forest) wrote:
> 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.
The children in this Arkansas incident did not kill because of any sick(?)
desire to be in a gang. They killed because a female had the unmitgated gall
to dump one of them. Some 1/4 to 1/3 of all murders in America are due to a
man hunting down and killing a woman who had the nerve to leave him. The
condition that set up these murders was the Pro-Life attitude that women
belong to men and must obey men in all cases. They preach that man must
follow Jesus in everything, "not my will, but thine will be done." They also
preach that a woman is to look to man as man looks to Jesus -- i.e. not her
will, but his. This was just a violent outburst of the control mentality that
Pro-Choice people are constantly fighting. You cannot fight the control
mentality by imposing controls.
I have used this incident as an example of why you must be careful in
selecting your friends.
...
> 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.
Those guns were stolen.
> > 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.
In your opinion. Guns are designed to deliver a packet of energy to a distant
target. Originally to kill, just as sex was originally designed to procreate.
They are used mostly for other purposes -- their main use is no longer
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.
I am an NRA Life Member. Neither I nor any other NRA member that I personally
know has ever given a penny to any anti-abortion cause.
...
> > > 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?
Brucie Brucie... You KNOW that Pro-Life has nothing to do with being prolife!
Why make such a deal out of it? I am staunchly Pro-Choice and I own ten guns.
> > 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.
One would think that someone 'prochoice' would oppose trying to take the
choice to own or not own firearms away from otherwise law-abiding citizens.
I do get it, however. We are human and thus not consistent in our attitudes.
As soon as we stray from the abortion issue we all switch sides and team up
with our 'enemies' against our 'friends.'
Just as the anti-abortionists have not shown me any substantial reason to
oppose abortion, the anti-gunners have not shown me any substantial reason to
oppose private gun ownership. Like the anti-abortionists, they sieze upon the
exceptions and loudly wave them about while ignoring any and all arguments
against their viewpoint.
...
> 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.
It is still how we protect ourselves. The LAPD has publically stated that it
is NOT their job to protect the public. Each citizen must provide for their
own protection, or hope that they never meet a criminal. Your choice.
...
> What other purpose is there in owning a gun but to kill things?
In the vast majority of gun use no killing is involved. The vast majority of
killing does not involve killing of human beings. Because you cannot accept
another purpose does not mean other purposed do not legitimately exist.
...
> > 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. ;-)
You ARE taken seriously -- and your apology for your outburst reinforces the
respect. Both guns and abortion bring out lively discussions. I find it most
unfortunate that the Republicans have forced me to choose between my guns and
my daughters' liberty.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Melanie
Sarah Terzo wrote in message <6fji33$231@simba>...
Actually, I have heard it said that an armed citizenry was a tyrant's worst
nightmare. That might be another reason for allowing citizens to own guns.
I would add that the kids STOLE the guns which were locked. They
could have obtained them another way had guns not been available via family.
A determined adult can kill an awful lot of people with a knife. If
children were raised and trained around guns, my guess is that there would
be fewer accidental deaths. Those two boys didn't shoot each other
accidentally, I noticed. I also might add that the crime rate in that
particular part of the country is very low and incidents such as the one
that just took place are quite rare.
The Arkansas incident is indeed a tragedy all the way around. I can't look
at the photos of the girls and not cry. No amount of legislation will bring
them back or stop someone really determined from harming others later. I
wish it could.
--Melanie
John Savard
br...@funkynassau.cv.net (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>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.
I figured that your post was made in a moment of anger, so I held back
from an easy cheap shot; noting that you said that any pro-lifer who
opposes abolishing all private gun ownership is "murdering" while
someone who is pro-choice and has that same view (say, Ray Fischer)
you apparently have no problem with.
I've already posted a defense of some private gun ownership, with
better controls, though, than exist in some U.S. states, so I won't
repeat that.
That you are "bothered enormously" by conservatives being, well,
conservative seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the
conservative world view. Conservatives are not incomprehensible alien
monsters.
They're people who want safety for themselves and their families just
like you do. But a conservative might well, under some circumstances,
decide that buying a gun would be a better alternative for providing
security for himself and his family than supporting an increase in the
mill rate to hire more police officers.
What kind of reasoning could lead someone to such a conclusion? After
all, the hazard from accidental death caused by guns in the home is
quite high.
A gun, like a fire extinguisher, qualifies as a capital expenditure
rather than an operating cost.
A gun serves its owner. Police officers might pursue government
priorities, like stamping out tax evasion or moonshine distillation,
while neglecting protecting families against violence.
It boils down to a matter of trust.
A conservative trusts the family down the road which is like his own.
He trusts his own children and spouse not to do anything irresponsible
with a gun in the house.
He does not trust every stranger who wanders through town. He doesn't
trust politicians and bureaucrats, particularly not if they're in
Washington.
That isn't an insane orientation. It is a sensible starting point,
even if it should be tempered by reason. Untempered, it can lead to
the only law being lynch law - tempered, one can recognize that the
police are the best way to deal with most crime. They cannot, however,
respond fast enough to prevent every murder, or every rape.
Two conditions need to be met, therefore, for people to voluntarily
accept being unarmed:
- the chance of being a victim of a serious assault must be
astronomically low, and
- the government must demonstrate a sincere will to punish those who
perpetrate such crimes.
That means, among other things:
Constitutional rights are there to prevent innocent people from being
convicted of crimes they did not commit. Period.
If the government turns loose rapists and murderers that it has found,
and which it has securely in its grasp, it is demonstrating that it
doesn't care about the safety of your wife and children. That is how
it looks from a simplistic viewpoint, and that viewpoint sees far more
danger to the freedom of Americans from a government that is remote
from their wishes, and has a bureaucracy with a spiraling growth, and
which takes an ever-larger portion of the country's wealth in taxes
than from a government that gives criminals no more than they deserve.
John Savard