Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The Revolution

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Don Baldwin

unread,
Sep 2, 1994, 3:32:22 PM9/2/94
to
In article <jdurbinC...@netcom.com> jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin)
writes:
>Today, were a revolution to be started on a large scale, CNN would be on
>24 hours a day with reports of skirmishes and battles.

Assuming, of course, that CNN was still on the air. That may be a faulty
assumption: somehow, I don't expect any revolution to be televised.

>A good percentage
>of the populace would probably react in panic, others would see it as an
>opportunity to take advantage of, constitutional principles be damned
>(bad guys stockpile weapons too). The revolution would have to be a
>coast-to-coast phenomenon and everone would want there say about how it
>was to progress and what their part in it would be.

Another good reason for the Feds to back the hell off and make such
events unnecessary.

>If the revolution was widespread enough to actually make a difference, it
>would necessarily disrupt the daily activities of the population,
>including law enforcement, food deliveries, services, etc. Would Joe Q.
>Public head off to the office if he had to deal with Sarajevo like
>crossfire and snipers? Would he start to place blame equally on those who
>made the revolution necessary and those who started the revolution?

I would consider the Feds to be the ones who made the revolution necessary.

I would prefer to avoid a revolution. I want to live quietly, die of
old age and raise little Baldwins. I may not have a choice, however...

Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba.
Then, why do they want to come here?"

-Paul Harvey 8/31/94
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin - Software Engineer - e-mail to: do...@netcom.com


Dan Day

unread,
Sep 2, 1994, 4:42:33 PM9/2/94
to
In article <donbCvI...@netcom.com> do...@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <jdurbinC...@netcom.com> jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin)
>writes:
>>Today, were a revolution to be started on a large scale, CNN would be on
>>24 hours a day with reports of skirmishes and battles.
>
>Assuming, of course, that CNN was still on the air. That may be a faulty
>assumption: somehow, I don't expect any revolution to be televised.

Oh, I do. I would expect CNN to give their usual biased half-truth
coverage, acting as the voluntary unofficial propaganda wing of the feds.

They've never given gun owners a fair shake in the past, what makes
you think they'd start just because a few shots were fired?


--
"Don't tread on me"

C. D. Tavares

unread,
Sep 2, 1994, 11:39:20 PM9/2/94
to
In article <donbCvI...@netcom.com>, do...@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

> >Today, were a revolution to be started on a large scale, CNN would be on
> >24 hours a day with reports of skirmishes and battles.

> Assuming, of course, that CNN was still on the air. That may be a faulty
> assumption: somehow, I don't expect any revolution to be televised.

You will be able to tell which side is winning by whether it is or not.
--

c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
write today for my special Investors' Packet...

Broward Horne

unread,
Sep 3, 1994, 3:48:55 AM9/3/94
to

In a previous article, c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) says:

>> Assuming, of course, that CNN was still on the air. That may be a faulty
>> assumption: somehow, I don't expect any revolution to be televised.
>
>You will be able to tell which side is winning by whether it is or not.


I wouldn't be so sure.

One thing that REALLY bugs the hell out of me is that I don't
know WHAT to trust anymore. I KNOW that the major media is not
covering certain stories in proportion to interest ( 10th Amendment,
etc ). Ergo, they're untrustworthy.

But equally untrustworthy are statements like those from Linda
Thompson, claiming that nukes/Hawk missiles are freely available.

I can't believe that THIS is true. If it IS true, we're in much
deeper trouble than I thought.


--
The REVOLUTION is "Ultimatum Resolution" that dissolves Fed gov't
on-line. E-mail me "10th Amendment Resolution" - The Fed is our SERVANT
for details... "Declaration of Secession" model for YOUR legislators
and more. Find out what's going on...

Jason Durbin

unread,
Sep 3, 1994, 7:43:48 PM9/3/94
to
Dan Day (d...@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com) wrote:

: Oh, I do. I would expect CNN to give their usual biased half-truth


: coverage, acting as the voluntary unofficial propaganda wing of the feds.

: They've never given gun owners a fair shake in the past, what makes
: you think they'd start just because a few shots were fired?

Come on Dan. Let's keep the rhetoric to minimum. You've probably insulted
Pat Buchanan with that article. He probably _thinks_ he's given gun
owners a fair shake.

Jason
--
Jason Durbin jdu...@netcom.com

Gary Frazier

unread,
Sep 3, 1994, 9:23:33 PM9/3/94
to
In <3499p7$r...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:


>In a previous article, c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) says:

>>> Assuming, of course, that CNN was still on the air. That may be a faulty
>>> assumption: somehow, I don't expect any revolution to be televised.
>>
>>You will be able to tell which side is winning by whether it is or not.


> I wouldn't be so sure.

> One thing that REALLY bugs the hell out of me is that I don't
> know WHAT to trust anymore. I KNOW that the major media is not
> covering certain stories in proportion to interest ( 10th Amendment,
> etc ). Ergo, they're untrustworthy.

> But equally untrustworthy are statements like those from Linda
> Thompson, claiming that nukes/Hawk missiles are freely available.

> I can't believe that THIS is true. If it IS true, we're in much
> deeper trouble than I thought.

From reading this thread, it's apparent that few here have lived through
anything close to a revolution.

I was in Korea in '87...perhaps you remember all the video of riots in
the streets. A block away from the demonstrations, life went on as
usual. The picture you saw on your TV is very different from reality. I
understand from discussing this phenomenon with people who observed,
first hand, the '86 revolution in the Phillipines, that the situation was
quite similar there. In the immediate vicinity of the government
buildings, all the activity took place. A few blocks away, it was
business as usual.

There won't be a revolution in this country until enough people are
starving or deprived of their cable. Americans have, for the most part,
demonstrated little revolutionary fervor as the fourth and fifth
amendments have been trashed to fight the "War on Drugs"; they only get
excited when their taxes go up, not when their freedoms are revoked.
Even the gun nuts only get bent out of shape when the 2nd amendment comes
up; they could not possibly care about the 1st amendment rights of
"hippies" and "liberals", and they've demonstrated no concern at all over
the "War on Drugs" as it applies to anything but their right to have as
many deadly toys as their income allows.

If there's going to be a revolution, it must address our combined
public/private governance structure, which includes not only the
"government" as outlined in the Constitution but also Corporate America,
which is a form of government all on its own. We may not have a "planned
economy" in the Soviet sense, but we sure as hell don't have anything
approaching a "free market" economy, either, corporate propaganda to the
contrary.

Dan Day

unread,
Sep 3, 1994, 11:14:49 AM9/3/94
to
In article <donbCvI...@netcom.com> do...@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>
>Assuming, of course, that CNN was still on the air. That may be a faulty
>assumption: somehow, I don't expect any revolution to be televised.

Expect a revolution to be televised, but with the accuracy, depth,
even-handedness, and full access to information of the Waco coverage.
Need I say more?

William Katcher

unread,
Sep 3, 1994, 5:03:15 PM9/3/94
to
In article <34ai8p$o...@news.u.washington.edu>,
McDaniel <mcda...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>> One thing that REALLY bugs the hell out of me is that I don't
>> know WHAT to trust anymore. I KNOW that the major media is not
>> covering certain stories in proportion to interest ( 10th Amendment,
>> etc ). Ergo, they're untrustworthy.
>
>Thats true. Conservative talk radio is my major information source.

Ah, yes. Conservative talk radio...that pinnacle of objective
and always accurate journalism. If all Americans got their information
then we would finally sort out the correct priorities of the
news stories, and absorb ourselves in such important and
accurate (and of course trustworthy) information such as
how Clinton blocked air travel for hours by taking a haircut
on an airplane on the runway ;) And we would all know that we
should begin the revolution next time G Liddy announces that
he's been arrested by the secret service!

Bill

Jason Durbin

unread,
Sep 3, 1994, 5:58:52 PM9/3/94
to
Michael McClary (mcc...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <jdurbinC...@netcom.com>,
: Jason Durbin <jdu...@netcom.com> wrote:

: Yes, the government would claim to suspend certain rights during a
: revolution. See title II of the McCaran Act. (I may have misspelled
: that - I don't have the Act in front of me.)

True, you can look at the situation in two ways:

o the govt wants to stop the media
o the revolutionaries want to stop the media

A third way of looking at the situation is that both will want to control
it for propaganda purposes. Fighting over control of the media would
delay stopping its broadcasts/publication (see previous revolutions for
datapoints).

: CNN is a fixed installation headquartered in Atlanta GA. Its entire
: studio and uplink operation is there and non-portable. It is a licensed
: broadcasting operation. It operates over satellite feeds. The satellites
: are remote-controlled from the ground using command languages and
: encryption systems known to and licensed by the US government. The
: satellite uplinks are also susceptible to jamming or electronic "capture"
: with almost trivial equipment and power levels.

Why were we not able to jam Iraq's popular media if it's so trivial? Or
Cuba, Serbia, the former USSR?

: CNN is therefore totally vulnerable to legal control, pressure, and armed
: or electronic takeover by the government forces.

With a revolution underway, I doubt that any legal pressure will make
much difference to anyone. Of course, armed or electronic takeover might
be possible but why haven't electronic measures been effective in other
situations? In the case of armed takeover, both the rebels and the feds
would be fighting for control giving the media time to broadcast for awhile.

: It is not about to
: disobey government mandates during an "Internal Security Emergency", and
: even if it did it would be off the air or have its programming overridden
: by PSYOPS-spew within minutes.

Again, if the feds have this capability why haven't they used it. Are you
saying they are saving it for US citizens? Anyway, the most I've heard of
the so-called PSYOPS types doing is blasting rock music at Noriega's and
Koresh's bedroom windows.

: All the other US broadcast networks and major print publishers are in
: a similar situation, and most of the US population is out of range of
: foreign broadcast band outlets, except for AM radio from US and Canada
: at night.

Do you really think that SW radios and HAM installations are that
uncommon? Do you think they wouldn't be used?

: To quote a proto-rap song from that period: "The revolution will NOT
: be televised."

If Sarajevo was televised you can bet that any neo-revlution in the US
will be televised and the revolutionists will be spin doctoring as
frantically as the feds. OR do you think the broadcasts from the former
Yugoslavia were only for US consumption. The rest of the world was
listening to and often more intently.

: News of a revolution would reach the heartland via shortwave, home
: satellite systems tuned to foreign stations, ham, cb, pirate broadcast,
: phone/fax, word-of-mouth from travelers, and non-traditional communication
: channels (such as whatever pieces of the net are still up). When was the
: last time you listened >directly< to any such medium other than the net?

Last night. Shortwave. It's a datapoint. So what? What are the actual
figures? However, people aren't stupid. They would be dusting off old
shortwave, hame, cb, equipment pretty fast in the event of a revolution
out of their control.

: >: >A good percentage of the populace would probably react in panic,

: The claimed tendency of the population to panic is highly overrated.
: It's an excuse used by the power structure to suppress news.

You're not facing reality with the above statement. A good portion of the
US population would be hysterical upon discovering a serious revolution was
underway.

: >: >The revolution would have to be a


: >: >coast-to-coast phenomenon and everone would want there say about how it
: >: >was to progress and what their part in it would be.

: Hardly. Resistance movements have historically done very well as
: scattered, uncoordinated, guerilla operations. It's only the suppression
: of them that must be coast-to-coast and coordinated.

Sure, in Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Angola, Peru. They succeeded by
terrorizing the populace into agreeing with them village by village, town
by town, city by city. I hope that any US neo-revolutionaries would hope
to have popular support before beginning their civil war, else I'll
believe that the noble rebels don't really have the best interests of the
people at heart.

: Should they win, THEN questions of coordination arise as the issues
: of what comes afterward are settled. Since hypothetical successful
: revolutionaries against the US Federal Government are likely to be
: convinced that central government is more trouble than it is worth,
: such questions might not come up even then.

And we then descend to anarchy as it's every man for himself. My, that's
reassuring.

: The scenario could well be the "The Former USA" - split, like the
: former USSR, into some approximation of the entities that once joined
: or were annexed to create it; separately searching for new solutions
: to problems that had been paved over (perhaps after being deliberately
: fostered) by the central juggernaut.

Oh, yes. That's what I want. Something comparable to the former Soviet
Union. Man, am I looking forward to that.

: >: >Would Joe Q.


: >: >Public head off to the office if he had to deal with Sarajevo like
: >: >crossfire and snipers?

: Typically, yes. (That's how they did it in Sarajevo, too, when things
: weren't too far gone.) Life goes on under the worst of conditions.
: A typical reaction to unbearable, unavoidable, external stress is to do
: more of whatever you're used to doing.

"Life goes on under the worst of conditions"? That's what the
revolutionaries plan to sell me on? Givemeabreak. I'm not man enough to
tell my kids that their starving/being shot at to for a principle that's
worth more than their puny lives?

: >: >Would he start to place blame equally on those who


: >: >made the revolution necessary and those who started the revolution?

: Some would. If they're not armed they almost don't count. If they
: ARE armed, either they're already part of the power structure's forces
: or it will be nearly as worried about them as it is about the rebels.

"They almost don't count"? Do you hear what your saying? They're
expendable. The end justifies the means. If they're not one of us they're
against us. I'm sorry but I've seen this before. It was ugly then, it'll
be ugly the next time around.

Dan Swartzendruber

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 10:53:13 AM9/4/94
to
In article <CvKzv...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:
>In <3499p7$r...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>
>>In a previous article, c...@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) says:

[deleted]

>There won't be a revolution in this country until enough people are
>starving or deprived of their cable. Americans have, for the most part,
>demonstrated little revolutionary fervor as the fourth and fifth
>amendments have been trashed to fight the "War on Drugs"; they only get
>excited when their taxes go up, not when their freedoms are revoked.
>Even the gun nuts only get bent out of shape when the 2nd amendment comes
>up; they could not possibly care about the 1st amendment rights of
>"hippies" and "liberals", and they've demonstrated no concern at all over
>the "War on Drugs" as it applies to anything but their right to have as
>many deadly toys as their income allows.

Gary, quite a few of us, I suspect, are about as happy at being
called "gun nuts" as homosexuals do being called faggots. It's
an offensive term, especially for those of us who aren't rabid
survivalist head-cases, but who *do* care about our 2nd Amendment
rights being hosed. And, I don't know if you're new here, or are
just being dishonest, but myself, CDT and many other "gun nuts"
have been quite vociferous our displeasure with what's been happening
to the Bill of Rights, all of it; and for you to imply otherwise,
particularly when you use terms such as "gun nut" and "deadly toys",
only calls into question your own intellectual honesty and objectivity.

--

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

Robert Lewis Glendenning

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 12:21:41 PM9/4/94
to
During the next 3 to 5 years, the Supreme Court will rule on a gun
case. This case will have national media attention, and every gun owner,
libertarian and proto-revolutionary will be watching closely.

If they rule by the plain meaning of the Constitution, it will be a
signal that we are moving back to Constitutional rule.

If they rule for the federal government, it will be a signal that
the gov has permanently escaped the Constitution. In this case,
I expect:

1) That every major federal building in the US outside of WDC and
army bases will be burned in the next 48 hours.

2) That the Federal gov's ability to enforce laws will be restricted
by the lack of anybody willing to identify themselves as a federal
employee.

3) That many states will pass resolutions demanding return to
Constitutional gov, and opting out of federal control via the 10th.

4) That the US Congress capitulates by passing a revolution
pledging return to the Constitution, and listing a preliminary set
of laws which they intend to repeal. This list will include all
Federal gun laws.

Note that this is as close to a bloodless revolution as one can
imagine.

In preparation for these events, may I suggest that you learn all
about your local federal buildings?

Lew
--
Lew Glendenning rlgl...@netcom.com
The CONSTITUTION, the WHOLE CONSTITUTION, and NOTHING BUT the CONSTITUTION.

Broward Horne

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 6:02:30 AM9/4/94
to

In a previous article, jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin) says:

>Oh, yes. That's what I want. Something comparable to the former Soviet
>Union. Man, am I looking forward to that.


Your posts make this abundantly clear.

Looks like you're getting your wish. :)

Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 4:03:42 PM9/4/94
to
kat...@panix.com (William Katcher) writes:

>Bill

Bill, I first heard about (and saw the most coverage of) "haricut-gate"
on the national network news - not on "conservative talk shows".

What's important is that people can't depend on ANY ONE source of news.

If they did, we'd all have to put rocket motors under the gas tanks of
our Chevy pickup trucks.

I've found that most people who object to the (conservative/liberal/statist/
whatever) news media is suffering from tunnel vision. People of intellect,
who exert themselves to get news from different sources, are indeed better
informed.


--
============================================================================
deca...@netcom.com Warning: I am a trained professional. No, Really!
Rick N6RCX EMT-A ATP MA Do Not try this yourself - it could get ugly......
Richard A. De Castro - As long as the Government pretends to protect me,
I'll pretend to feel safe - NOT!
-Don't Tread On Me!-
============================================================================

John Schilling

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 4:25:31 PM9/4/94
to
rlgl...@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:

>During the next 3 to 5 years, the Supreme Court will rule on a gun
>case. This case will have national media attention, and every gun owner,
>libertarian and proto-revolutionary will be watching closely.

>If they rule by the plain meaning of the Constitution, it will be a
>signal that we are moving back to Constitutional rule.

>If they rule for the federal government, it will be a signal that
>the gov has permanently escaped the Constitution. In this case,
>I expect:

>1) That every major federal building in the US outside of WDC and
>army bases will be burned in the next 48 hours.

>2) That the Federal gov's ability to enforce laws will be restricted
>by the lack of anybody willing to identify themselves as a federal
>employee.

>3) That many states will pass resolutions demanding return to
>Constitutional gov, and opting out of federal control via the 10th.

>4) That the US Congress capitulates by passing a revolution
>pledging return to the Constitution, and listing a preliminary set
>of laws which they intend to repeal. This list will include all
>Federal gun laws.


This is what you *want* to happen. I doubt that you seriously *expect*
it to happen. Fact is, the only thing that will happen if/when the
Supreme Court endorses gun control is a whole lot of complaining.

If you believe otherwise, you have completely lost touch with the rest
of America. Very few people are willing to start a civil war over the
issue of gun control. Only a tiny fraction of those feel that a Supreme
Court ruling is the appropriate trigger event. The consensus necessary
for the action you describe does not exist.

The idea that State governments will automatically support the rebels,
and that the Feds will immediately give in and repeal all of their nasty
laws, is an absurd fantasy with no resemblance to reality.


The degree of public support necessary to start, much less win, a revolution
does not exist in this country today. If at some point in the future it
does exist, it will be the result of a pattern of oppression by the state
in a wide range of areas, not single-issue opposition to gun control. And
the trigger event will be something much more tangible than a supreme court
ruling on an abstract issue.

--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *

Jason Durbin

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 3:03:34 PM9/4/94
to
Broward Horne (an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:

Couldn't add anything to the discussion except a lie, eh? If this is the
quality of your argument, perhaps it's best you move on to alt.flame.
They might take you more seriously there.

--
Jason Durbin jdu...@netcom.com

Gary Frazier

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 5:25:01 PM9/4/94
to
In <34cn0p$5...@paperboy.osf.org> dsw...@pugsley.osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:


>Gary, quite a few of us, I suspect, are about as happy at being
>called "gun nuts" as homosexuals do being called faggots. It's
>an offensive term, especially for those of us who aren't rabid
>survivalist head-cases, but who *do* care about our 2nd Amendment
>rights being hosed. And, I don't know if you're new here, or are
>just being dishonest, but myself, CDT and many other "gun nuts"
>have been quite vociferous our displeasure with what's been happening
>to the Bill of Rights, all of it; and for you to imply otherwise,
>particularly when you use terms such as "gun nut" and "deadly toys",
>only calls into question your own intellectual honesty and objectivity.

Who's objective? When it comes to whining boys eager to hold on to their
toys, I can't be objective. The NRA is there to insure that arms
manufacturers continue to have a market, and there are enough people in
love with their guns (at the expense of everything else) to make that a
reasonable assertion. The concern for "2nd amendment rights" seems to be
the ONLY concern (never mind that the other amendments have been trashed;
only when toys are in danger does the NRA get consitutionally indignant)
that the gun lobby has. Why else would the NRA fight every effort to
stem the supply of firearms to people on the street?

Sorry, but the concern of the gun lovers is only with their toys. The
rest of the constitution is irrelevant to many of them (note: not to all,
but I'm convinced that those are in a distinct minority).

McDaniel

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 5:49:14 PM9/4/94
to

>kat...@panix.com (William Katcher) writes:

>>Bill


I'd like to add that there is propaganda from all sides. At times
I have been abput to puke who while listening to the propaganda from
the conservative side and simply turned off my radio. I listen to
6 different informative radio programs, read the local liberal rag of a
newspaper and AP/REUTERS on the net. Long ago I watched ABC, NBC, CBS, ITN,
CNN, Mcneil/Lhear, Nightline and some roundtable show on PBS, frget
the name. I learned that 99% of the time they were all dancing to the
same pied piper and ignoring news important to me. Did you notice
how little was reported of the 10th amendment movement, committee of 50,
or even mad dog Linda Thompson on any of the mainstream outlets? They
don't mind wasting hours fo broadcast time on OJ simpson, so whats wrong
with a little news sometime? The fact is they seek to control what you
know, and I don't like that.

Whereas on many of the talk shows (I don't listen to Rush limbauh, so
spare me any stupid jokes please) there are open forums: ANYONE can
call in and talk about anything on mnay of these shows. Try that on
Larry King sometime, and see how fast the screener can hang-up on you.

On shows like his the public is given a false sense of public opinion/mood
as those views aired or not are under his total control. (Rush limbaugh
has that problem too, among others.)


-McDaniel

Views expressed may not necessarily be those of the UofW.

Jason Durbin

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 5:21:29 PM9/4/94
to
McDaniel (mcda...@u.washington.edu) wrote:

: Coverage would be very limited and un-informative in any event. After
: all the country is quite big, reporters few.. and informative reporters
: even fewer still ;) Lets put it this way, you wouldn't be watching CNN.
: You'd be listening to the local radio stations/tv stations. Assuming
: you lived in an area where hostilites were going on. Its one thing to
: watch the gulf war on TV. Quite something else when motar shells
: are exploding in your backyard and there's a tank `innocently' testing its
: range equipment on your wooden house.

I'll assert that I was using CNN as a metaphor for "the media", however,
CNN jumps to mind for its live coverage of revolutions in other countries.

: Just think of what happens during a natural disaster. Do you turn on
: the national news for the latest info? I hope not.

Point taken. My point, though, was that Americans would in fact know what
was going on via some form of media or mass communication. The Bosnian
still had sattelite tv coverage during the worst of the bombings.

: Under your scenario, I would expect the revolutionaries to install
: a law enforcement code of their own. The police would be very reluctant
: to get involved in the war (after stories of police stations on the
: wrong side being shot to hell circulate around), or they might just act
: like the LA cops did during the last riots there and take all their patrols
: off the streets (in a given city.) Then it would be up to the militia (all
: armed citizens) to enforce whatever laws they see fit.

This is the "planning for revolution" that I see as sadly lacking.
[I would expect...] indicates to me that know one really knows what would
be done. Lot's of guessing but no hard plans. Yes, I realize that not
every contingency can be planned for but the obvious ones can be planned for.

: I wouldn't want to be a rapist or cold-blooded killer caught by the
: militia, personally. You'd probably last about the time it takes
: to kneel before the jury o' 6 and say a silent prayer. Afterall,
: food might be scarce in the scenario: maintaing a costly underground
: prison system for POWs might be one thing, for common scum quite
: another. In Ireland the IRA blew the bad guy's kneecaps off (and
: please spare me the stories of the abuses that occured here and
: there.)

Why spare you that argument? I ask you to justify why, in a
fundamentalist constitutional reviolutionary society such abuses should
be overlooked. Was this something in the founding fathers' philosophy
that I overlooked or is it realpolitik? Aren't folks guaranteed a fair
trial even during a constitutional revolution?

: In such an environment, you will find that the vast majority of
: bad guys become either harmless or dead. It would probably be safer
: during a wide scale war then living in your average inner city
: right now.
I find this assertion hard to accept. Call it a gut feeling.

: >Another good reason for the Feds to back the hell off and make such
: >events unnecessary.

: >>If the revolution was widespread enough to actually make a difference,

: Scope of action does not really indicate if a difference will be made
: or not. Just an uprising in one state would make a difference of some
: sort. Witness the IRA's struggle for many many.. many years, now
: likely to be rewarded. The duration matters, perhaps inversely
: proportional to the occurence of rebel military actions ?

A wide scope would be a deterrent to factionalism, regionalism, ethnic
conflicts etc. I would hope also that the US revolutionaries would not
look to the IRA as role models. The IRA's record for unjustified killing is
well documented. Killing the wife of a suspected opponent is not my idea
of a noble cause. Perhaps the IRA was right about the UK occupation, and
they may be" rewarded", but they are no heros.

: >>it


: >>would necessarily disrupt the daily activities of the population,
: >>including law enforcement, food deliveries, services, etc. Would Joe Q.
: >>Public head off to the office if he had to deal with Sarajevo like
: >>crossfire and snipers?

: During the viet-nam war Joe Q. was able to go to his meaningless job
: every day in the major southern cities of that nation. But at night, Joe Q.
: saw his city turn into an R&R spot for the rebels.

Bad example, IMHO. Daily life in Vietnam during the those years was in no
way normal Vietnamese day-to-day life. I'd ask you to provide evidience
that the average Joe Q. Nguyen felt unaffected by the war.

: He can't blame both sides eqully unless he is insane and thinks
: he can fight both sides. His mind will make excuses for one side
: (or agree with it) and he will decide to fight the other. Or he will
: simply do nothing. Again, if we are talking about guerrilla warfare
: (unorthodox warfare) then it is not merely a matter of one army vs.
: another. No doubt both sides would make tremendous efforts towards
: recruiting support from the majority of sheep watching on the side
: lines (propaganda, incentives....) Your question can't be answered with
: a simple yes or no.

I accept that there is no simple yes or no, however, I can disagree that
only an insane person could blame both sides. If both sides were evil or
one were evil and the other stupid and unprepared, blame could be laid
equally. I find it quite discomforting that you use the denigrating term
"sheep" to describe the majority too afraid to participate. Can you
elucidate? I assume I am either an opponent because I question the
revolutionaries or a sheep because I have yet to choose sides and
question both.

: The ballot box had better work in the next _few_ years.

I certainly hope so. You have not reassured me of the alternative.

Jason
--

William Katcher

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 7:47:33 PM9/4/94
to
In article <34dfcq$e...@news.u.washington.edu>,

McDaniel <mcda...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>deca...@netcom.com (Richard A. De Castro) writes:
>
>>kat...@panix.com (William Katcher) writes:
>
>>>In article <34ai8p$o...@news.u.washington.edu>,
>>>McDaniel <mcda...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>Thats true. Conservative talk radio is my major information source.
>
>>>Ah, yes. Conservative talk radio...that pinnacle of objective
>>>and always accurate journalism. If all Americans got their information
>>>then we would finally sort out the correct priorities of the
>>>news stories, and absorb ourselves in such important and
>>>accurate (and of course trustworthy) information such as
>>>how Clinton blocked air travel for hours by taking a haircut
>>>on an airplane on the runway ;) And we would all know that we
>>>should begin the revolution next time G Liddy announces that
>>>he's been arrested by the secret service!
>
>>>Bill
>
>I'd like to add that there is propaganda from all sides. At times
>I have been abput to puke who while listening to the propaganda from
>the conservative side and simply turned off my radio. I listen to
>6 different informative radio programs, read the local liberal rag of a
>newspaper and AP/REUTERS on the net.

I apologize...I misunderstood you. You stated that Conservative
talk radio was your major information source. As long as you
aren't gaining ALL of your information on Conservative radio,
then that is just fine. I agree that TV news is trash, but
I don't think it is fair to say that it is trash because
of a liberal philosophy. I think they are just trying to
make an entertaining show, and unfortunately good entertainment
is not necessarily informative.

I also agree that conservative talk shows are worthwile
to listen to. I would extend that sentiment to liberal talk
shows also, because it is hearing different viewpoints about
different topics that make the shows informative, as opposed
to hearing the political philosophy of the host.

Bill

Mark Hockings.

unread,
Sep 4, 1994, 11:57:19 PM9/4/94
to
John Schilling (schi...@kirk.usc.edu) wrote:


Why wouldn't it happen? When the Crown tried to confiscate the weapons in
1775 a few folks said "NO!" until they were empty. I fail to see why it
could not happen again.

Not everyone supported the first American Revolution. Not everyone will
support the second. The ones who did support it, and would support it, are
the ones who are armed.

Anyone read Heinleins "Starship Troopers"?
Anyone remember the comment about why the "Citizens" were not worried about
the "Taxpayers" complaining? (Citizens voted, Taxpayers did not. Citizens
had served in the armed forces, Taxpayers had not. You could not vote until
after serving a hitch. (you couldn't vote while serving either)
(that is a clue)

I'll post the answer if no one else does.

(I think it is relevevant btw)

--
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| clever. said I'd do a clever one. clever. yep. uh huh. ok. lessee. |
| uh, have you heard the one aboot spotted snakes? |
| naww, I'll save that for the politicos. <GRIN> |

Jason Durbin

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 12:25:59 AM9/5/94
to
Mark Hockings. (hock...@netcom.com) wrote:

: Why wouldn't it happen? When the Crown tried to confiscate the weapons in


: 1775 a few folks said "NO!" until they were empty. I fail to see why it
: could not happen again.

Because it's not the late 1700s with all the baggage that era carried. We
are also not dealing with "the Crown" but a government that, like it or
not, a good portion of the population considers a democracy raather than
a monarchy.

: Not everyone supported the first American Revolution. Not everyone will


: support the second. The ones who did support it, and would support it, are
: the ones who are armed.

In 1994+, the revolutionaries will have to deal with the fact that, while
they are still a minority, those that will not support the revolution are
much greater in number and will probably be much more resistant to change.

I worry when those who claim to have "noble causes" fall back on the
argument that their possession of arms will convince those who are unarmed
as to the righteousness of their causes.

: Anyone read Heinleins "Starship Troopers"?

Yes. The first SF book I read was _Citizen of the Galaxy_ and I worked my
way through the rest until Heinlein went off the deep end with _Stranger
In A Strange Land_.

: Anyone remember the comment about why the "Citizens" were not worried about


: the "Taxpayers" complaining? (Citizens voted, Taxpayers did not. Citizens
: had served in the armed forces, Taxpayers had not. You could not vote until
: after serving a hitch. (you couldn't vote while serving either)
: (that is a clue)

Heinlein had some interesting ideas, but none that I'd risk basing a
nation's future on.

Don Baldwin

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 12:28:09 AM9/5/94
to
In article <jdurbinC...@netcom.com> jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin)
writes:
>: Assuming, of course, that CNN was still on the air. That may be a faulty

>: assumption: somehow, I don't expect any revolution to be televised.
>
>Why would CNN not be on the air? Would certain rights be suspended during
>the revolution? Somehow I expect that unless the revolutionaries are
>organized enough to take over every television/radio station with a
>satellite feed, as well as amateur broadcasters, it's a bit far-fetched
>to think that the news and images won't be available. Remember too that
>broadcasts are available from overseas in the US (think Canada, Mexico,
>UK, etc.).

I expect the revolutionaries would take out most TV stations.

>: Another good reason for the Feds to back the hell off and make such
>: events unnecessary.
>
>That's a different scenario. In the scenario under discussion, the Feds
>have not done what the rebels require and therefore the revolution is
>inevitable.

The government should not be allowed to enforce Unconstitutional laws.
Period.

>: I may not have a choice, however...
>
>Let's hope that some thorough discussion of the intracacies of a real
>revolution will make the other choices apparent to you.

This discussion is all about bottom lines. The government has been
entrusted to enact and enforce laws within Constitutional limits.
They have the bottom line of being able to arrest, prosecute and
punish people and the force necessary to implement those goals.

If the government violates its Constitutional contract, they void their
contract with the people and the people can legitimately rebel. If no
arms are available, the people have no bottom line. They may as well
just accept the fact that the government can bend them over, any time
it wants...

Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Satire is great, but for Nazis you use baseball bats and broken bottles."
- Woody Allen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin - e-mail to: do...@netcom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don Baldwin

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 12:32:20 AM9/5/94
to
In article <3482np$m...@sndsu1.sinet.slb.com> d...@se.houston.geoquest.slb.com

(Dan Day) writes:
>>Assuming, of course, that CNN was still on the air. That may be a faulty
>>assumption: somehow, I don't expect any revolution to be televised.
>
>Oh, I do. I would expect CNN to give their usual biased half-truth
>coverage, acting as the voluntary unofficial propaganda wing of the feds.
>
>They've never given gun owners a fair shake in the past, what makes
>you think they'd start just because a few shots were fired?

Because it's hard to broadcast when your antennae keep getting blown up? :)

Don

Broward Horne

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 12:47:35 AM9/5/94
to

In a previous article, jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin) says:

>Broward Horne (an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>: In a previous article, jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin) says:
>
>: >Oh, yes. That's what I want. Something comparable to the former Soviet
>: >Union. Man, am I looking forward to that.
>
>: Your posts make this abundantly clear.
>: Looks like you're getting your wish. :)
>
>Couldn't add anything to the discussion except a lie, eh? If this is the
>quality of your argument, perhaps it's best you move on to alt.flame.
>They might take you more seriously there.

#1 - I've been reading your posts. Lke I said above... :)

#2 - I don't much care if my argument has "quality". At least
it has some thought and research behind it. :)

#3 - I don't much care if alt.flame takes me seriously. The
American public deserves to be plundered by Uncle Sam.
I'm just glad I woke up that the vast majority of Americans
think along the same lines as yourself. I'm glad a plunderer
rather than a plunderee now. :)


>
>
>--
>Jason Durbin jdu...@netcom.com

Don Baldwin

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 12:42:22 AM9/5/94
to
In article <34dafr$1...@kirk.usc.edu> schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling)
writes:

>This is what you *want* to happen. I doubt that you seriously *expect*
>it to happen. Fact is, the only thing that will happen if/when the
>Supreme Court endorses gun control is a whole lot of complaining.
>
>If you believe otherwise, you have completely lost touch with the rest
>of America. Very few people are willing to start a civil war over the
>issue of gun control. Only a tiny fraction of those feel that a Supreme
>Court ruling is the appropriate trigger event. The consensus necessary
>for the action you describe does not exist.

Probably. However, I believe that an attempt at widespread confiscation
WOULD trigger rebellion.

Don


Don Baldwin

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 12:50:35 AM9/5/94
to
In article <CvMJH...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:
>>Gary, quite a few of us, I suspect, are about as happy at being
>>called "gun nuts" as homosexuals do being called faggots.
>
>Who's objective? When it comes to whining boys eager to hold on to their
>toys, I can't be objective. The NRA is there to insure that arms
>manufacturers continue to have a market, and there are enough people in
>love with their guns (at the expense of everything else) to make that a
>reasonable assertion. The concern for "2nd amendment rights" seems to be
>the ONLY concern (never mind that the other amendments have been trashed;
>only when toys are in danger does the NRA get consitutionally indignant)
>that the gun lobby has. Why else would the NRA fight every effort to
>stem the supply of firearms to people on the street?

The gun lobby is us, Gary. It's not a cadre of evil gun manufacturers
foisting their products on befuddled citizens: it's gun manufacturers
AND the 50% of the population who supports the right to keep and bear
arms.

Stemming the flow of guns to criminals is a laudable step. However, the
selfish and self-righteous gun control lobby rejected that idea several
years ago, as not agressive enough. They want to restrict gun ownership,
period.

>Sorry, but the concern of the gun lovers is only with their toys. The
>rest of the constitution is irrelevant to many of them (note: not to all,
>but I'm convinced that those are in a distinct minority).

And that damn ACLU: all they care about is the first amendment! Selfish
bastards... :)

Don

Broward Horne

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 2:07:57 AM9/5/94
to

In a previous article, do...@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) says:

>In article <34dafr$1...@kirk.usc.edu> schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling)
>writes:
>>This is what you *want* to happen. I doubt that you seriously *expect*
>>it to happen. Fact is, the only thing that will happen if/when the
>>Supreme Court endorses gun control is a whole lot of complaining.


NO. What I *WANT* to happen is for our government to COME
to ITS SENSES. Most available evidence is not promising,
though.

Just how rational is it, for a government to pass a $33
Billion bill that it has NO FUNDING for? It's completely,
totally irrational. It only seems mildly nutty 'cause we've
gotten used to the insanity of $300B budget deficits and
$100B trade deficits.


BTW, did you catch it on Aug. 31? Clinton cuts the federal
payrolls, but he exempts the military. Uh huh. ;)


>>If you believe otherwise, you have completely lost touch with the rest
>>of America. Very few people are willing to start a civil war over the


I submit that YOU, sir, are out of touch. This weekend I ate
dinner in a nearby Chinese restaurant. During my meal, I was
distracted by LOUD and ANGRY ranting from two diners behind me.
I heard the words "REVOLUTION", "MARTIAL LAW", etc, for close
to an hour.

L Last month, while standing in a grocery line, I was likewise
distracted by two angry shoppers behind me, mad as hell about
the original vote on the Crime Bill.


>Probably. However, I believe that an attempt at widespread confiscation
>WOULD trigger rebellion.


I fully expect to at least see a few assasinations. Watch for
them. I believe they'll most likely be senators or congressmen,
and maybe some local state representatives.

--
The REVOLUTION is "Ultimatum Resolution" that dissolves Fed gov't
on-line. E-mail me "10th Amendment Resolution" - The Fed is our SERVANT
for details... "Declaration of Secession" model for YOUR legislators

David Feustel

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 7:01:44 AM9/5/94
to
The government is now attempting to retroactively tax pension plans.
The government wants to tax ALL pension contributions and also to
confiscate 15% of all existing pension fund assets as a retroactive
tax on previous contributions.
--
Dave Feustel N9MYI Internet:<feu...@netcom.com>
219-483-1857 Compuserve:<73532,1747>

The reason President Clinton is sending all rafters back to Cuba is
that the LAST thing he wants in the U.S. is MORE people with a 'Give
Me Liberty or Give Me Death' attitude.

Chris

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 8:36:34 AM9/5/94
to
jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin) writes:

> McDaniel (mcda...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> : During the viet-nam war Joe Q. was able to go to his meaningless job
> : every day in the major southern cities of that nation. But at night, Joe Q

> : saw his city turn into an R&R spot for the rebels.
>
> Bad example, IMHO. Daily life in Vietnam during the those years was in no
> way normal Vietnamese day-to-day life. I'd ask you to provide evidience
> that the average Joe Q. Nguyen felt unaffected by the war.
>

Jason, I am afraid I have to agree with McDaniel on this one. I was there
in 1969 and life in the daytime in the cities and towns was normal for the
area. (I was in the cities of Saigon, Can Tho, My Tho, Long Xuyen, and Sa
Dec). The difference was mainly visual -- barbed wire and guard posts outside
certain buildings and bridges (those weren't even checkpoints -- just guards)
The other difference was prosperity and secondary prosperity generated by
service jobs serving the Americans (maids, guards, workers, prostitutes and
the people where these people spent their wages) But this was actually a
very small percentage of the population even in the cities. The average Joe Q
Nguyen really was pretty apathetic about both parties in the war and did his
best to stay out of the way. I worked in Psywar and our big (mostly
unsucessful) effort was to get the populace interested in the outcome of the
war. The apathy may have been less Oriental fatalism than the true belief
that it didn't matter what happened; life wouldn't improve.
Perhaps your view may be colored by how little of our labors are really
necessary for our survival. We spend the fruits of our labor on computers and
netcom access and other hobbies. In the third world life is a little more
direct -- work or don't eat (and your family too). These "hobbies" also
include our concern with the environment, pollution, endangered species, and
justice.

(no need for infinite crossposting)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
cut...@gloster.via.mind.org (chris) All jobs are easy
to the person who
doesn't have to do them.
Holt's law

Tom Biggs

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 1:29:00 PM9/5/94
to
Newsgroup: alt.politics.org.batf,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns
alt.conspiracy

jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin) wrote:

>McDaniel (mcda...@u.washington.edu) wrote:

I also find myself wondering about a revolution which is supposedly
fought to restore constitutional rights, where due process is dismissed
as unimportant. Yes, I realize that in times of war that some civilized
rules have to go by the wayside. But what is to prevent one of our
glorious heroes from shooting their neighbor because they had an
argument about a barking dog? It would be easy to say after the fact
that the neighbor was a Tory :-) traitor. The definition of "bad guys"
would become whatever was convenient. A *minority* of the militia
movement also believes in the "World banking conspiracy" and may also
believe that the Jewish people are responsible. Since they couldn't lay
their hands on a Rothschild, I suspect the closest Jewish families would
have to suffice.

It is easy in the heat of war to allow emotions to override logic.
And once in this state, it is easy to stay in that mode, even when the
revolution is over. Look at how the French and Russian revolutions
carried on by consuming their early leaders, condemning them as
counter-revolutionaries when they said "OK, the revolution has
succeeded." In their attempt to be moderate, they became branded as
"against the revolution" by the more extreme members who were only
interested in making themselves leaders.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Tom Biggs DoD #1146 tom....@satalink.com
'77 KZ650 "Kawaski"
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the results of folly
is to fill the world with fools"
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
---
ÅŸ SLMR 2.1a ÅŸ By Day, Enlighten; By Night, Endarken.

Tom Biggs

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 1:40:00 PM9/5/94
to
Newsgroup: alt.politics.org.batf,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns
alt.conspiracy

jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin) wrote:

>Mark Hockings. (hock...@netcom.com) wrote:

>: Why wouldn't it happen? When the Crown tried to confiscate the weapons in
>: 1775 a few folks said "NO!" until they were empty. I fail to see why it
>: could not happen again.

>Because it's not the late 1700s with all the baggage that era carried. We
>are also not dealing with "the Crown" but a government that, like it or
>not, a good portion of the population considers a democracy raather than
>a monarchy.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by "baggage" in the sentance
above.

As for 1776, my personal feeling is that more people were upset about
the new taxes imposed by the Crown than anything else. That, and the
high-handed way they were imposed. The fact is those taxes were tiny
compared to what we pay today. I know many people believe this is a
democracy, but haven't you noticed more cynicism today about the actual
amount of input provided by voting? Certainly, I can't think of anyone
who is happy with the amount of taxes they are paying. And many people
are terrified of the IRS. I think if the revolution was truly inspired
by restoring the Constitution, but was sold to the public as being about
cutting taxes in half, you might actually get somewhere.

The question is, would they believe what they saw on TV, or would enough
get out through other channels to light the fire?

>: Not everyone supported the first American Revolution. Not everyone will
>: support the second. The ones who did support it, and would support it, are
>: the ones who are armed.

>In 1994+, the revolutionaries will have to deal with the fact that, while
>they are still a minority, those that will not support the revolution are
>much greater in number and will probably be much more resistant to change.

>I worry when those who claim to have "noble causes" fall back on the
>argument that their possession of arms will convince those who are unarmed
>as to the righteousness of their causes.

No, convince them by saying you'll cut their taxes by 50%. That will
get their attention. But some people are simultaneously proud of being
a superpower, and angry at the tax rates they pay. You cannot get to be
a superpower "on the cheap".

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Tom Biggs DoD #1146 tom....@satalink.com
'77 KZ650 "Kawaski"
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the results of folly
is to fill the world with fools"
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
---

ÅŸ SLMR 2.1a ÅŸ Chastity - most unnatural of the perversions.

Andrew Betz

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 1:59:55 PM9/5/94
to
In article <CvMJH...@efn.org>, Gary Frazier <gfra...@efn.org> wrote:
>Who's objective? When it comes to whining boys eager to hold on to their
>toys, I can't be objective. The NRA is there to insure that arms
>manufacturers continue to have a market, and there are enough people in
>love with their guns (at the expense of everything else) to make that a

this is a variation on hci's claim that "the nra is a front for
weapons manufacturers." frazier is either ignorant of or is
consciously ignoring the fact that the nra has over three million
members. frazier denigrates these people's concern about their
second amendment rights by saying the members are just "[in] love
with their guns (at the expense of everything else)," thus alluding
to some cost/benfit ratio. the implication is that the population
is losing from this cost/benefit ratio, at the expense of a few
nra members. frazier is either ignorant of or is consciously
ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun
uses. frazier's embracing a cost/benefit analysis without
acknowledging that the second amendment provides a deterrent to
tyranny.

>reasonable assertion. The concern for "2nd amendment rights" seems to be
>the ONLY concern (never mind that the other amendments have been trashed;

this is stereotyping at its finest. it is also flat wrong. frazier
prefers to cling to his "bubba with a shotgun" image because he
hasn't come to grips with the possibility of a l(L)ibertarian,
gun-owning, member of the nra. frazier, *i* am a libertarian,
gun-owning member of the nra. i was a member of the aclu for years
and have only quit that organization within the last five years
because our gun rights are under such severe assault i wanted
to concentrate my efforts there. unlike you, *most* nra members
i know abhor the "war on drugs" because of the ensuing dismantling
of the bill of rights.

>only when toys are in danger does the NRA get consitutionally indignant)
>that the gun lobby has. Why else would the NRA fight every effort to
>stem the supply of firearms to people on the street?

quit watching the nbc nightly news and wake up. the nra has
been active in getting concealed carry reform laws passed, about
fighting gun bans at the state and local level, and training
people to use firearms safely for years. you are either
posting a mild flamebait or you don't know what you're talking
about (or both).

>Sorry, but the concern of the gun lovers is only with their toys. The
>rest of the constitution is irrelevant to many of them (note: not to all,
>but I'm convinced that those are in a distinct minority).

this is so incredibly bigoted i can't believe it. as someone who
was concerned about the erosion in our bill or rights long before
i became a firearms enthusiast, i take genuine offense. take your
bigoted tripe elsewhere.

drew
--
al...@gte.com
"The new Gestapo in America." -- Gerry Spence on the BATF

Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 1:58:05 PM9/5/94
to
gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

Who's objective? Certainly not Gary.

Using perjorative terms (gun lovers, boys, toys) certainly doesn't do
anything for your argument.

I suppose that by your standards (such as they are), I would qualify as a
"gun lover". Shows what you know.

I don't love my guns. I love my Country, and the principles (freedom being
first of them), that it was founded on. I do worry about the erosion of
ALL our freedoms. What you seem to be ignorant of is that the Second
Amendment allows the People to have the resources to take control back
of the government that is out of control.

I worry about the loss of all of our rights, under the claim that it's
for our greater good/safety. The loss of the First Amendment rights to
free speach, peaceable assembly and the lack of a state-approved religion,
the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment that was supposed to prevent
unreasonable search and seizures, down the tubes with "asset seizure",
etc. etc.

Most of all, I worry about the usurpation of the Tenth Amendment, which was
supposed to PREVENT the excesses we see today.

I will readily admit I'm not "objective" in my feelings. However I am
"right" in my interpretation of the events of the day.

John Schilling

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 3:17:00 PM9/5/94
to
hock...@netcom.com (Mark Hockings.) writes:

>John Schilling (schi...@kirk.usc.edu) wrote:
>: rlgl...@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:


[scenario for immediate mass uprising following supreme court endorsement
of gun control deleted]


>: This is what you *want* to happen. I doubt that you seriously *expect*
>: it to happen. Fact is, the only thing that will happen if/when the
>: Supreme Court endorses gun control is a whole lot of complaining.

>: If you believe otherwise, you have completely lost touch with the rest
>: of America. Very few people are willing to start a civil war over the
>: issue of gun control. Only a tiny fraction of those feel that a Supreme
>: Court ruling is the appropriate trigger event. The consensus necessary
>: for the action you describe does not exist.


>Why wouldn't it happen? When the Crown tried to confiscate the weapons in
>1775 a few folks said "NO!" until they were empty. I fail to see why it
>could not happen again.


Your abridged version of history fails to mention that there were many, many
reasons for the events of 1775, of which gun control was only one. Check
the Declaration of Independance for details.

And the march on Concord was a much more tangible event than a Supreme Court
decision on an issue.

So your example seems to support my argument (which you seem to have deleted)
that revolution must stem from a pattern of oppression in many areas, and that
it must be triggered by something more than an abstract court ruling.

John Schilling

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 3:19:25 PM9/5/94
to
do...@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:


It would certainly trigger many individual acts of resistance, and a lot
of people on both sides would die in the process. Whether the individual
acts would coalesce into an organized rebellion is questionable.

But it is a lot more likely than a sudden, spontaneous rebellion following
a court decision.

John Schilling

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 3:26:12 PM9/5/94
to
an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>>In article <34dafr$1...@kirk.usc.edu> schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling)
>>writes:

>>>This is what you *want* to happen. I doubt that you seriously *expect*
>>>it to happen. Fact is, the only thing that will happen if/when the
>>>Supreme Court endorses gun control is a whole lot of complaining.

>>>If you believe otherwise, you have completely lost touch with the rest


>>>of America. Very few people are willing to start a civil war over the


> I submit that YOU, sir, are out of touch. This weekend I ate
> dinner in a nearby Chinese restaurant. During my meal, I was
> distracted by LOUD and ANGRY ranting from two diners behind me.
> I heard the words "REVOLUTION", "MARTIAL LAW", etc, for close
> to an hour.

> L Last month, while standing in a grocery line, I was likewise
> distracted by two angry shoppers behind me, mad as hell about
> the original vote on the Crime Bill.


So, out of all the people you encountered in the past months, all the
conversations you were close enough to overhear, you found four people
who were willing to entertaing the thought of revolution. None of those
gave specific information regarding exactly *why* they thought revolution
might be a good idea ("crime bill" covers a lot of ground) or *when*
they thought a revolution should start.

And from this you agree with the prediction for a massive uprising following
a supreme court ruling on a specific subject?

Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 2:17:06 PM9/5/94
to
hock...@netcom.com (Mark Hockings.) writes:

{bandwith conservation mode}


>Anyone read Heinleins "Starship Troopers"?
>Anyone remember the comment about why the "Citizens" were not worried about
>the "Taxpayers" complaining? (Citizens voted, Taxpayers did not. Citizens
>had served in the armed forces, Taxpayers had not. You could not vote until
>after serving a hitch. (you couldn't vote while serving either)
>(that is a clue)

>I'll post the answer if no one else does.

>(I think it is relevevant btw)

For the simplest reason of all. Because it works.

Lets try it now!

Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 2:14:34 PM9/5/94
to
mcda...@u.washington.edu (McDaniel) writes:

>>kat...@panix.com (William Katcher) writes:

>>>Bill


>-McDaniel

You're quite correct. No single source of information is completely
accurate. It is important (if you want a balanced view) to get information
from many different sources - and not all of them mainstream media.

I don't regularly listen to the Rush Limbaugh show, I have to work when it's
on. I do listen to a "best of Rush" show on the weekend, and I watch the
repeat of the TV show. I also balance that out by listening to a very
liberal talk show host, (Bill Press, the Chairman of the California Democratic
Party) who is so biased and one sided that he's not even interested in having
his factual errors corrected on the air (He was making statements about
Huffington's taxes and California tax law that aren't correct, when I told
him that I'm not a Huff supporter but he was wrong anyway, he disconnected
me).

One of the best, worst, and most frustrating news sources is the Internet.
I get more information here that from almost any other source. When I'm
sufficently interested in something, I'll go and dig up the raw or original
source data to see for myself (having access to the UCLA library system is
a good thing).

Another good source for information is the foreign media. Reading the
news from London (not the tabloids), or even Canada, is an eye-opener.
Shortwave radios also provide access to other than the mainstream media,
and can also allow time-shifting of important news sources.

I like to think that perhaps the single most important tool to bring
the United States back to where it should be, via a revolution or not, is
information. If enough people get information, the "revolution" will be
bloodless (such as in the former Soviet Union). If too few people get
informed, the revolution will be bloody, and fail (sucha s Tienamen Square).

Lance Bernard

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 2:54:46 PM9/5/94
to
In article <CvMJH...@efn.org>, Gary Frazier <gfra...@efn.org> wrote:

> Why else would the NRA fight every effort to
>stem the supply of firearms to people on the street?

The problem here is that when the media or politicians refer to the
"guns on the street," what they clearly mean is "those guns privately
owned, i.e., not in the hands of gov't agencies, the military, the
police." The clear & intended message to the average American is that
I, a law-abiding & presumed-innocent-until-proven-guilty citizen, am the
moral equivalent of your average violent felon simply because I own a
gun, and that I should not be allowed to do so. I am not a nut simply
because I find that *enormously* offensive, now, am I?

Gary Frazier

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 5:41:31 PM9/5/94
to

Unfortnately, we live in a country where some people feel that they
simply MUST have a gun, whether they really need it or not. This
situation has led to a set of circumstances where the perception of need
has skyrocketed (self defense based on all the gun-related violence out
in the streets). If we had taken positive steps to get the milita "well
regulated" 40 years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Unfortunately, through a series of social pathologies we've got a domestic
arms race underway, and there seems to be no practical way to put the
genie back into the bottle. So we'll continue to live with a free supply
of weapons to anyone who wants one, for whatever reason (be it admiration
for the craftsmanship, a desire to squeeze off a few rounds at the range
on Friday afternoon, hunting, or knocking over the corner 7-11). Until
we get a handle on this supply problem (and certainly we'll need the
cooperation of the law-abiding gun owner to do this) we're going to
continue to see kids killing kids over schoolyard insults.

The question is, how many relatives of NRA members must be killed by
firearms before something is done?

Gary Frazier

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 5:06:24 PM9/5/94
to

>gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

Did I claim to be on this issue, Richard? You bet your ass I'm not
objective.

>Using perjorative terms (gun lovers, boys, toys) certainly doesn't do
>anything for your argument.

No, it's not going to convert any of the gun advocates, that's for sure.
I don't expect it to. I just want you to realize how some of you are
seen. Perhaps that will lead you to seeing this in a different light.
Perhaps not.

>I suppose that by your standards (such as they are), I would qualify as a
>"gun lover". Shows what you know.

>I don't love my guns. I love my Country, and the principles (freedom being
>first of them), that it was founded on. I do worry about the erosion of
>ALL our freedoms. What you seem to be ignorant of is that the Second
>Amendment allows the People to have the resources to take control back
>of the government that is out of control.

The problem is that the People themselves are out of control. The
domestic Arms race is helping to destroy our social fabric. The
government is, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant and a straw man in this
problem. They've been made virtually powerless to solve it.

I love my Country, too, inspite of the idiots who seem to inhabit it.
I seriously wonder if the time I spent protecting my Country were
worth it, as so many of those people don't appreciate what they were
given. For example, people who prefer to live in armed fear and pretend
that this makes them safe. People who see the world only in terms of their
individual rights, not their responsiblities to the society that provides
them the means to be selfish.

>I worry about the loss of all of our rights, under the claim that it's
>for our greater good/safety. The loss of the First Amendment rights to
>free speach, peaceable assembly and the lack of a state-approved religion,
>the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment that was supposed to prevent
>unreasonable search and seizures, down the tubes with "asset seizure",
>etc. etc.

The Fourth Amendment was lost in the "War on Drugs" which I've never seen
the gun lobby ever object to. Indeed, the NRA has tried to revise it's
image as a "crime fighting" lobby, and the seem to have no problem with
the WoD, except as it gets in the way of the possession of weapons.

>Most of all, I worry about the usurpation of the Tenth Amendment, which was
>supposed to PREVENT the excesses we see today.

Unfortunately, the Tenth can't stop some other changes in our society
outside the realm of government which have had, as an unfortunate side
effect, the excesses we're dealing with.

>I will readily admit I'm not "objective" in my feelings. However I am
>"right" in my interpretation of the events of the day.

And I certainly don't begrude you your right not to be "objective" about
anything at all. I'll agree that you're "right" in your interpretation,
but perhaps not fully correct. This issue is just a subset of a wider
variety of interconnected problems in our society that someday we're
going to have to deal with. Too many contradictions. Too many
loopholes. Too many people, too many problems.

Gary Frazier

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 5:25:20 PM9/5/94
to
In <34fmar$q...@ceylon.gte.com> al...@roger.gte.com (Andrew Betz) writes:

>this is a variation on hci's claim that "the nra is a front for
>weapons manufacturers." frazier is either ignorant of or is
>consciously ignoring the fact that the nra has over three million
>members.

I'm not familiar with HCI, but it doesn't take much to figure out that a
domestic arms race is in the interest of gun manufacturers and dealers.
And when it takes little more than pocket change to become a Federally
licesnced gun dealer, there are a lot of them out there.

>frazier denigrates these people's concern about their
>second amendment rights by saying the members are just "[in] love
>with their guns (at the expense of everything else)," thus alluding
>to some cost/benfit ratio. the implication is that the population
>is losing from this cost/benefit ratio, at the expense of a few
>nra members.

Close, but not precisely what I intended. My point is that some people
are so blinded by their love of firearms that they do not realize that
there are many people out there who take advantage of easy availablity of
firearms to engage in criminal activity. Firearms (by their "standoff"
nature) make crime much safer for the criminal.

>frazier is either ignorant of or is consciously
>ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun
>uses. frazier's embracing a cost/benefit analysis without
>acknowledging that the second amendment provides a deterrent to
>tyranny.

Right, so we can be shot on the street by the 4th Avenue Crips. Sure.

>>reasonable assertion. The concern for "2nd amendment rights" seems to be
>>the ONLY concern (never mind that the other amendments have been trashed;

>this is stereotyping at its finest. it is also flat wrong. frazier
>prefers to cling to his "bubba with a shotgun" image because he
>hasn't come to grips with the possibility of a l(L)ibertarian,
>gun-owning, member of the nra. frazier, *i* am a libertarian,
>gun-owning member of the nra. i was a member of the aclu for years
>and have only quit that organization within the last five years
>because our gun rights are under such severe assault i wanted
>to concentrate my efforts there. unlike you, *most* nra members
>i know abhor the "war on drugs" because of the ensuing dismantling
>of the bill of rights.

No, the NRA wants to get "tough on criminals" and to do so, they'd
happily trash all the protections of Constitution that are provided to
those accused of a crime. All those "technicalities" get in the way of
tossing people in jail.

>>only when toys are in danger does the NRA get consitutionally indignant)
>>that the gun lobby has. Why else would the NRA fight every effort to
>>stem the supply of firearms to people on the street?

>quit watching the nbc nightly news and wake up. the nra has
>been active in getting concealed carry reform laws passed, about
>fighting gun bans at the state and local level, and training
>people to use firearms safely for years. you are either
>posting a mild flamebait or you don't know what you're talking
>about (or both).

That's what I just said. Each of those examples does not negate my
statement that the NRA has fought every effort to stem the supply of
firearms to the streets.

>>Sorry, but the concern of the gun lovers is only with their toys. The
>>rest of the constitution is irrelevant to many of them (note: not to all,
>>but I'm convinced that those are in a distinct minority).

>this is so incredibly bigoted i can't believe it. as someone who
>was concerned about the erosion in our bill or rights long before
>i became a firearms enthusiast, i take genuine offense. take your
>bigoted tripe elsewhere.

Drew, how do you go about convincing myself and others who feel this way
that we're wrong? By demanding that you've got the right to own full
automatics? By insisting that if you wanted to own a howitzer, you
should be able to? By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

There are too many people out there who get their rocks off by firing
their Uzis/MAC-10s/Streetsweepers etc. on full rock and roll.
Gratification is not a justification for the carnage in our streets.
Surely you heard about the kids in Chicago killing each other over the
weekend, haven't you? How many more must die before we call off the arms
race?

I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument. The
government isn't the problem here. The glut of weapons out on the
streets is. Our rights to go about our daily business on the streets of
our cities, our mobility, our sanity, is at risk here. I quite frankly
don't want the right to be armed but to live in constant fear of stray
bullets hitting my home. Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that
through their skulls, this issue will remain unresolved.

Vincent Fox

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 8:04:21 PM9/5/94
to
In <CvoE6...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

*snip*

>No, the NRA wants to get "tough on criminals" and to do so, they'd
>happily trash all the protections of Constitution that are provided to
>those accused of a crime. All those "technicalities" get in the way of
>tossing people in jail.

That's funny, seems like it was Bill Clinton who was championing
how important those Chicago 4th amendment violations were. Can't let
poor people have rights you know, they might get ideas. I don't
know what you mean abou the NRA trashing the Constitution in order
to save their piece of it. Explain please?

*snip*

>I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument. The
>government isn't the problem here. The glut of weapons out on the
>streets is. Our rights to go about our daily business on the streets of
>our cities, our mobility, our sanity, is at risk here. I quite frankly
>don't want the right to be armed but to live in constant fear of stray
>bullets hitting my home. Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that
>through their skulls, this issue will remain unresolved.

Your rhetoric certainly makes it sound like you are living in fear
right now. Pretty vivid language, have you considered seeing someone
about these fears? Nationally crime has been on a slow downward trend
over the past 14 years or so. Perhaps you are panicked by the marked
upsweep in news shows, and in their geometrically increasing coverage
of any violent event, anywhere in the US? People who are panicked by
"crime and guns on the streets" are simply nuts. The US is not awash
in a sea of blood and guns, although that makes good copy.

Heck, we've had 12 people killed in boating accidents just since May
at Lake Lanier. At least people keep some perspective about some forms
of death. I don't live in LA, so I'm unlikely to get caught in Crip
crossfire. I don't boat, so I'm unlikely to get killed in a boating
accident. Get some perspective.

Lastly, like many you seem to view the NRA as an "it". The NRA is made
up of some 3.5 million members, the office in Washington is mostly
a clearinghouse for members to keep informed. *I* am the NRA.

--
Midnight basketball - bread and circuses in the 1990's.

Vincent Fox

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 8:15:06 PM9/5/94
to
In <CvoEx...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

*snip*

>Unfortnately, we live in a country where some people feel that they

>simply MUST have a gun, whether they really need it or not.

You might tell this to your local cop. They are unlikely to ever
have to draw and fire at another human, even over a long career.
So why do they carry them anyway? Because they *might* need them.

>This situation has led to a set of circumstances where the perception of need
>has skyrocketed (self defense based on all the gun-related violence out
>in the streets).

I don't know about you Bubba, but I for one know how to read the FBI
crime reports. Some useful information: crime is not skyrocketing, and
only about 12% of violent crimes involve firearms. There is no sudden
rise in gun-related violence that should frighten the average American.
If there is a wrong *perception* that there is such a problem, the
more direct solution might be censorship of the irresponsible media.
This would clearly be unconstitutional, but let's at least lay the
manufactured "problem" at the feet of the right people.

>If we had taken positive steps to get the milita "well
>regulated" 40 years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Seems to me it's more a failure to learn from our last attempt at
Prohibition. Prohibition Mark II (The War on Some Drugs) has brought
the same kind of criminal violence to our news that the last one did.

>Unfortunately, through a series of social pathologies we've got a domestic
>arms race underway, and there seems to be no practical way to put the
>genie back into the bottle. So we'll continue to live with a free supply
>of weapons to anyone who wants one, for whatever reason (be it admiration
>for the craftsmanship, a desire to squeeze off a few rounds at the range
>on Friday afternoon, hunting, or knocking over the corner 7-11). Until
>we get a handle on this supply problem (and certainly we'll need the
>cooperation of the law-abiding gun owner to do this) we're going to
>continue to see kids killing kids over schoolyard insults.

Like the kid who broke into an old woman's house, caned her senseless,
and then cut her throat? The root problems here seem to relate more to
a marked decrease in the proper parenting of young people. I don't know
about you, but my folks would have never allowed me out at midnight
with friends at a young age, such that midnight basketball would be
such a hot issue.

>The question is, how many relatives of NRA members must be killed by
>firearms before something is done?

Not sure what this question means, could you elucidate?

Note followups to t.p.g.

Lee S Wilfinger

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 8:19:41 PM9/5/94
to
>And when it takes little more than pocket change to become a Federally
>licesnced gun dealer, there are a lot of them out there.

I believe you mean that there are a lot of people out there with
FFL's. (Federal Firearm Licenses). Not all FFL's are for gun dealers;
there are also ones for collectors, and for gunsmiths. I believe. Not
everyone who has an FFL sells firearms. Prior to 1968, FFL's didn't
exist, and people could purchase and ship firearms via mail order.
Nowadays, the only folks who can do this are those with FFL's. And
before you try to claim that this is somehow an "improvement", realize
that guns were more freely available then, and crime rates were lower.

>My point is that some people
>are so blinded by their love of firearms that they do not realize that
>there are many people out there who take advantage of easy availablity of
>firearms to engage in criminal activity. Firearms (by their "standoff"
>nature) make crime much safer for the criminal.

Firearms are tools. They *also* make self-defense much safer for the
victim. They are the most effective tool for self-defense (see "Crime
Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force", by Dr. Gary Kleck,
published in the Feb. 1988 issue of "Social Problems".)

>>frazier is either ignorant of or is consciously
>>ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun
>>uses. frazier's embracing a cost/benefit analysis without
>>acknowledging that the second amendment provides a deterrent to
>>tyranny.
>Right, so we can be shot on the street by the 4th Avenue Crips. Sure.

I see you didn't have anything substantial to come back with. So
you're conceding the point. Private citizens used firearms for
self-defense somewhere between 645,000 and 2.4 *million* times each
year. (Hart Poll of 1981, Mauser Poll of 1990, Field Poll of 1978,
Time/CNN Poll of 1989, additional studies by Dr. Kleck) In the vast
majority of these cases, no shot is even fired.

>No, the NRA wants to get "tough on criminals" and to do so, they'd
>happily trash all the protections of Constitution that are provided to
>those accused of a crime. All those "technicalities" get in the way of
>tossing people in jail.

What Constitutional protections is the NRA trying to do away with?
Please provide some evidence to back up your claim. Cite
*references*. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

>That's what I just said. Each of those examples does not negate my
>statement that the NRA has fought every effort to stem the supply of
>firearms to the streets.

You cannot stem the supply of firearms to the street. All you can do
is block law-abiding citizens from obtaining firearms. Guns are too
easy to smuggle, steal (from the police or military), and *make*.
The technology for "modern" firearms is over a century old.

>Drew, how do you go about convincing myself and others who feel this way
>that we're wrong?

Your mind seems to be closed. We can hope you realize this in time. No
one can convince you of any subject when you're not willing to examine
the issues.

>By demanding that you've got the right to own full automatics?

We do. Check the National Firearms Act of 1934. Full-autos *aren't*
banned; you just need to pay a $200 transfer tax to the BATF, pass a
background check, get fingerprinted, etc.

>By insisting that if you wanted to own a howitzer, you should be able
>to?

We have this right too. It would also be classified as a Destructive
Device under the NFA of 1934, but again, they would be legal to own.

>By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

What reason was there for banning such bullets in the first place?

>There are too many people out there who get their rocks off by firing
>their Uzis/MAC-10s/Streetsweepers etc. on full rock and roll.

Streetsweepers aren't full-auto. Nor are the Uzi pistols or MAC-10's
which are sold to private citizens in the US. Nor are such weapons
easily convertable to full-auto. You don't know much about firearms,
do you? Perhaps you should learn something about the topic?

Since 1934, only one legally owned (paid transfer tax, got background
check, etc.) full-auto has been used in the commission of a crime.
It's a non-issue.

>I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument.

That's your problem.

>Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that through their skulls, this
>issue will remain unresolved.

And the tighter you try to make the restrictions, the more you clamor
for government control, the more resistance you will see, and the more
"gun enthusiasts" you will find. Government rules only by consent of
the people.

Witness the record sales of guns in the last year. None of this would
have happened without government intervention.

-Lee

Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 10:11:16 PM9/5/94
to
gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>In <34fmar$q...@ceylon.gte.com> al...@roger.gte.com (Andrew Betz) writes:

>>this is a variation on hci's claim that "the nra is a front for
>>weapons manufacturers." frazier is either ignorant of or is
>>consciously ignoring the fact that the nra has over three million
>>members.

>I'm not familiar with HCI, but it doesn't take much to figure out that a
>domestic arms race is in the interest of gun manufacturers and dealers.
>And when it takes little more than pocket change to become a Federally
>licesnced gun dealer, there are a lot of them out there.

Gary, if the people didn't want those guns, the dealers wouldn't be there.
It isn't the gun manufacturers that are upset about the attempt to
destroy the BOR, it's there customers. And, if the sum total of the firearms
industry's value was calculated, I don't think it would be a significant
amount in terms of the GDP. (Anyone got those figures?)

>>frazier denigrates these people's concern about their
>>second amendment rights by saying the members are just "[in] love
>>with their guns (at the expense of everything else)," thus alluding
>>to some cost/benfit ratio. the implication is that the population
>>is losing from this cost/benefit ratio, at the expense of a few
>>nra members.

>Close, but not precisely what I intended. My point is that some people
>are so blinded by their love of firearms that they do not realize that
>there are many people out there who take advantage of easy availablity of
>firearms to engage in criminal activity. Firearms (by their "standoff"
>nature) make crime much safer for the criminal.

Having a firearm makes it much safer for the victim. If we could magically
make all firearms go away one day, the criminals would still have knives,
broken bottles, rocks, pipes and baseball bats. Giving firearms to the
(potential) victim helps level the playing field. No matter who's
statistics you believe, firearms help prevent a lot more crime than they
are used in. However, as I said in my earlier post, they are inanimate
objects, and it's the people who are responsible for their actions.

>>frazier is either ignorant of or is consciously
>>ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun
>>uses. frazier's embracing a cost/benefit analysis without
>>acknowledging that the second amendment provides a deterrent to
>>tyranny.

>Right, so we can be shot on the street by the 4th Avenue Crips. Sure.

If the 4th Ave crips are going to assault you, they're going to assault
you. I've been shot, and I've had bones broken, and I've been burned
seriously. I'd rather be shot than burned, and since the 4th Ave crips
(or any gang member or criminal) is basically a coward, rather than
try and assault me with his fists, he'd use a knife, or a molotov
cocktail. A criminal is not made a criminal by a gun, but rather by
extraneous factors. While I agree that removing the economic stimulus
for crime is the actual solution, making it easier for criminals to
commit crime is not a good idea.

I see from your address that your'e on the Eugene freenet. Several years
ago, Oregon became one of the states that has non-discretionary issuance
of CCW's (concealed carry permits). Has the crime rate increased dramatically
because more Oregon citizens are being controlled by their now-legally carried
concealed weapons? If you check, you'll probably find the opposite is true.
It has been in the other states that have non-discretionary CCW's, like
Florida.

Yep. That's what we pay them for. BTW, the NRA has constantly supported
better law enforcement, and a better system for insuring that no criminals
get guns than what we have now.

>>>Sorry, but the concern of the gun lovers is only with their toys. The
>>>rest of the constitution is irrelevant to many of them (note: not to all,
>>>but I'm convinced that those are in a distinct minority).

>>this is so incredibly bigoted i can't believe it. as someone who
>>was concerned about the erosion in our bill or rights long before
>>i became a firearms enthusiast, i take genuine offense. take your
>>bigoted tripe elsewhere.

>Drew, how do you go about convincing myself and others who feel this way
>that we're wrong? By demanding that you've got the right to own full
>automatics? By insisting that if you wanted to own a howitzer, you
>should be able to? By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

Gary, if I have a firearm (any type), and I hurt someone with it, I should
be punished, swiftly, and certainly. The problem we have now is that
criminals (not law abiding citizens) but violent criminals, are not being
punished for their actions.

I agree that the War on Drugs is an abject failure. It has been since it
was started in the Kennedy administration, because in the US, we (the citizens)
don't want to do what would be neccessary to stem the flow of drugs. We don't
want even the excesses we see now with the DEA, ATF, asset forfiture, etc.

I do NOT agree that firearms are a cause of the problem. The cause of the
problem is economic, and it will not be fixed by changing the symptoms.

>There are too many people out there who get their rocks off by firing
>their Uzis/MAC-10s/Streetsweepers etc. on full rock and roll.
>Gratification is not a justification for the carnage in our streets.
>Surely you heard about the kids in Chicago killing each other over the
>weekend, haven't you? How many more must die before we call off the arms
>race?

Again, people who misuse their firearms have broken the compact of citizenship,
and should not be able to have firearms. But, did you know that the ONLY case
of a legally owned machine gun being used illegaly was a (crooked) cop who
performed a "mob hit"? With that (one, although I've heard rumors of one
other, for a TOTAL since 1934 of 2 (two) cases), no legally owned machinegun
(like your Uzi/Mac-10 example) has been used illegally? How many automobiles,
telephones, knives, airplanes, chainsaws, boats, etc have been used illegaly
since 1934?

I've heard about the kids in Chicago. Did you know that it's been illegal
since at least 1968, under federal law, for a person under 18 to have a
firearm? Who gave it to them? (Hint, it was a criminal).

Also, while I hold ALL life precious, the numbers of people being unlawfully
killed each year isn't all that high. Approximately 35K, if memory serves, total deaths from a firearm, approximately 1/2 of those classified as justifiable
(cops shooting bad guys, citizens shooting bad guys, etc) and half of those
left being suicides. Before you get started on the suicide rate, btw, there
is NO evidence ANYWHERE that the lack of access to a firearm will reduce the
number of suicides, they will find other, less leathal ways.

So, once again, why blame an inanimate object? Why not punish those people
who can't control themselves, rather than punishing those who can?

>I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument. The
>government isn't the problem here. The glut of weapons out on the
>streets is. Our rights to go about our daily business on the streets of
>our cities, our mobility, our sanity, is at risk here. I quite frankly
>don't want the right to be armed but to live in constant fear of stray
>bullets hitting my home. Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that
>through their skulls, this issue will remain unresolved

A well-armed society is a polite society. When I travel to Arizona, where
open carry is both legal and common, I do so. I never worry about being
shot there. I do worry about being shot by a criminal, probably under
the effect of some mind-altering substance (legal or not), who doesnt
know how to shoot anything.

Looking at the problem from economic viewpoints, I am convinced that it
would be cheaper to simply take all the criminals, give them a decent
firearm and all the ammo they could shoot, and teach them HOW to shoot.
This would have the advantage of being self-limiting, since they would
eventually reduce the number of criminals through drive-by shootings, and
would give the innocent a chance to not be hit by a stray round. However,
in order to make it fair to the rest of society, until the gang-bangers
killed themselves off, the citizens should have the same ability
to have access to weapons, and the ability to defend themselves.

Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 9:38:33 PM9/5/94
to
gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>>gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

An interesting, but faulty, claim. However, before I list the many, many
reasons WHY your claim (as evidenced in the first two sentances of the 'graph
above) is faulty, would you mind providing some supporting evidence? At this
time, all I'll say is I do not believe in animistic religions, and I don not
believe that inanimate objects can "destroy our social fabric". Only people
can do that, and inanimate objects (with very few exceptions, such as
psychotropic drugs) can affect people.

>I love my Country, too, inspite of the idiots who seem to inhabit it.
>I seriously wonder if the time I spent protecting my Country were
>worth it, as so many of those people don't appreciate what they were
>given. For example, people who prefer to live in armed fear and pretend
>that this makes them safe. People who see the world only in terms of their
>individual rights, not their responsiblities to the society that provides
>them the means to be selfish.

Ah, love America, got to love those idiots. Just need to protect (us) from
ourselves? Do you remember Prohibition, when alcohol was banned to protect
us from ourselves?

I see my responsibility to society as first of all, to be selfish. If I
don't watch out FOR MYSELF, I won't be able to watch out for anyone else.
I will do everything to protect MY rights, and in doing so, will protect
everyone elses rights.

>>I worry about the loss of all of our rights, under the claim that it's
>>for our greater good/safety. The loss of the First Amendment rights to
>>free speach, peaceable assembly and the lack of a state-approved religion,
>>the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment that was supposed to prevent
>>unreasonable search and seizures, down the tubes with "asset seizure",
>>etc. etc.

>The Fourth Amendment was lost in the "War on Drugs" which I've never seen
>the gun lobby ever object to. Indeed, the NRA has tried to revise it's
>image as a "crime fighting" lobby, and the seem to have no problem with
>the WoD, except as it gets in the way of the possession of weapons.

True, the NRA's take on the WOD is biased towards conservative law
enforcement. The NRA is not, however, all of the Gun Owners. And,
the NRA is (slowly) changing it's positions, not because of the
desirability of the WOD, but because of the excesses against the rest
of the BOR that have been perpetrated in the name of drug control.

>>Most of all, I worry about the usurpation of the Tenth Amendment, which was
>>supposed to PREVENT the excesses we see today.

>Unfortunately, the Tenth can't stop some other changes in our society
>outside the realm of government which have had, as an unfortunate side
>effect, the excesses we're dealing with.

Again, an interesting, unsupported claim. Would you care to explain your
statement?

While the Tenth Amendment can't solve everything, I am fairly certain that
the federal government can't solve (practically) anything. Therefore,
reducing the federal government's influence on everyone's life is probably
a good thing. It has (at the least) the attraction of not having been
tried before, at least very recently (in the last 100 years).

I believe that the individual people of the United States (and everywhere
else, for that matter) are responsible for themselves. I do not ask the
government (at any level) to assume that responsibility from me, and in fact
they essentially don't. While the government, in fact, is not responsible
for protecting me, for instance, they reduce the tools and options I am
allowed to defend myself. I don't like that, and I don't like the idea
of any government becoming my parents, responsible for my well being.

I especially don't like a government as inept as the current federal government
to be responsible for anything that impacts my life - it's just not worth
it.

It seems that you feel the solution to all problems is a bigger, better
government. I disagree. I would appreciate the intellectual discussion
of your response to the statements you've made, that I asked for
amplification on.


>>I will readily admit I'm not "objective" in my feelings. However I am
>>"right" in my interpretation of the events of the day.

>And I certainly don't begrude you your right not to be "objective" about
>anything at all. I'll agree that you're "right" in your interpretation,
>but perhaps not fully correct. This issue is just a subset of a wider
>variety of interconnected problems in our society that someday we're
>going to have to deal with. Too many contradictions. Too many
>loopholes. Too many people, too many problems.

Broward Horne

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 10:54:59 PM9/5/94
to

In a previous article, schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling) says:

>an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>
>
>>>In article <34dafr$1...@kirk.usc.edu> schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling)
>>>writes:
>

>> I submit that YOU, sir, are out of touch. This weekend I ate
>> dinner in a nearby Chinese restaurant. During my meal, I was
>> distracted by LOUD and ANGRY ranting from two diners behind me.
>> I heard the words "REVOLUTION", "MARTIAL LAW", etc, for close
>> to an hour.
>
>> L Last month, while standing in a grocery line, I was likewise
>> distracted by two angry shoppers behind me, mad as hell about
>> the original vote on the Crime Bill.
>
>
>So, out of all the people you encountered in the past months, all the
>conversations you were close enough to overhear, you found four people
>who were willing to entertaing the thought of revolution. None of those
>gave specific information regarding exactly *why* they thought revolution
>might be a good idea ("crime bill" covers a lot of ground) or *when*
>they thought a revolution should start.
>
>And from this you agree with the prediction for a massive uprising following
>a supreme court ruling on a specific subject?


Gad, it's just so predicatable. Chum, in the past 18 YEARS,
I didn't find FOUR people advocated revolution. I'm telling YOU
that people are angry.

Since you've decided to be Clinton-headed, I'll tell you what
I heard today...

The militia in one of the western states is putting together
a strategic plan for cutting their state off from the rest of
the U.S. They estimate they'll need manpower of about 10,000
men.

Christ. I really resent having people tell me stuff that I
KNOW isn't true.

Stay in your dreamworld. Kill this thread. Begone, back to
your slumber.

Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 5, 1994, 11:14:49 PM9/5/94
to
gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

Gary, the right to own firearms predates the US Constitution. The
Second Amendment doesn't grant a right, it is supposed to PREVENT the
government from abridging that right. As a matter of fact, the entire
BOR consists of limitations on the government, not the granting of rights
to the people.

Whether I need a gun or not, I have a right to it. Whether I need to
be secure in my person and property, I have a right to it. Whether
or not I want to stand on a street corner and give the world my
view on anything, I have a right to do so.

In other posts, you have complained about the reduction of rights that
people have because of the WOD, etc. Why is the loss of those rights any
more terrible than the loss of the right to keep and bear arms, even if
you, or I, dont' want to?

Why not punish the guilty, rather than the innocent?

Mark Hockings.

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 1:08:04 AM9/6/94
to
John Schilling (schi...@kirk.usc.edu) wrote:
: hock...@netcom.com (Mark Hockings.) writes:

: >John Schilling (schi...@kirk.usc.edu) wrote:
: >: rlgl...@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:


: [scenario for immediate mass uprising following supreme court endorsement
: of gun control deleted]


: >: This is what you *want* to happen. I doubt that you seriously *expect*
: >: it to happen. Fact is, the only thing that will happen if/when the
: >: Supreme Court endorses gun control is a whole lot of complaining.

: >: If you believe otherwise, you have completely lost touch with the rest
: >: of America. Very few people are willing to start a civil war over the
: >: issue of gun control. Only a tiny fraction of those feel that a Supreme
: >: Court ruling is the appropriate trigger event. The consensus necessary
: >: for the action you describe does not exist.


: >Why wouldn't it happen? When the Crown tried to confiscate the weapons in
: >1775 a few folks said "NO!" until they were empty. I fail to see why it
: >could not happen again.


: Your abridged version of history fails to mention that there were many, many
: reasons for the events of 1775, of which gun control was only one. Check
: the Declaration of Independance for details.

I have read it. Repeatedly, and comparing it to what is happening now, and
has been happening for years.

: And the march on Concord was a much more tangible event than a Supreme Court
: decision on an issue.

True. My comment above was also based on the feds actually attempting to
confiscate weapons. (as the crown tried)

: So your example seems to support my argument (which you seem to have deleted)


: that revolution must stem from a pattern of oppression in many areas, and that
: it must be triggered by something more than an abstract court ruling.

The pattern has been going on for decades, and yes, a tangible trigger event
would be needed. Would an SC ruling be such? I honestly don't know.

Mark.
--
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| DON'T TREAD ON ME ! |
|------------ hock...@netcom.com ------------------------|

Mark Hockings.

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 1:20:45 AM9/6/94
to
Gary Frazier (gfra...@efn.org) wrote:

: In <decastroC...@netcom.com> deca...@netcom.com (Richard A. De Castro) writes:

: >gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

: >>In <34cn0p$5...@paperboy.osf.org> dsw...@pugsley.osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:


: The problem is that the People themselves are out of control. The

: domestic Arms race is helping to destroy our social fabric. The
: government is, quite frankly, utterly irrelevant and a straw man in this
: problem. They've been made virtually powerless to solve it.

huh? Why are the people out of control? HOW are they out of control?

: I love my Country, too, inspite of the idiots who seem to inhabit it.

: I seriously wonder if the time I spent protecting my Country were
: worth it, as so many of those people don't appreciate what they were
: given. For example, people who prefer to live in armed fear and pretend
: that this makes them safe. People who see the world only in terms of their
: individual rights, not their responsiblities to the society that provides
: them the means to be selfish.

Your last sentence is a real problem.

1) Individual rights are paramount. All else pales beside them.
2) "responsiblilities to society". hogwash!

What is society? It is made up of individuals. Society provides absolutely
nothing except an excuse for those who would abrogate their rights to
others to rule those who value individual freedom above all else.

Show me a tangible society. Let me touch society. Can't be done.
I can see individuals. I can touch individuals.
There are responibilities that individuals have though when exercising their
rights. All are based on selfishness though.
eg: I have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not going to stand in the
middle of the street and blast away indiscriminately at everything in sight
though. Why? Because I don't want others doing so, if I saw others doing so,
I would shoot them where they stand (self defence) and I expect that if I
were out there others would do the same. Self preservation.


: >I worry about the loss of all of our rights, under the claim that it's


: >for our greater good/safety. The loss of the First Amendment rights to
: >free speach, peaceable assembly and the lack of a state-approved religion,
: >the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment that was supposed to prevent
: >unreasonable search and seizures, down the tubes with "asset seizure",
: >etc. etc.

: The Fourth Amendment was lost in the "War on Drugs" which I've never seen
: the gun lobby ever object to. Indeed, the NRA has tried to revise it's
: image as a "crime fighting" lobby, and the seem to have no problem with
: the WoD, except as it gets in the way of the possession of weapons.

I don't agree with the NRA on that score. WoD=Prohibition. We know how well
Prohibition worked. (also, at least the feds played the game and got the
proper authority to ban booze, unlike the WoD)


: >Most of all, I worry about the usurpation of the Tenth Amendment, which was


: >supposed to PREVENT the excesses we see today.

: Unfortunately, the Tenth can't stop some other changes in our society
: outside the realm of government which have had, as an unfortunate side
: effect, the excesses we're dealing with.

: >I will readily admit I'm not "objective" in my feelings. However I am
: >"right" in my interpretation of the events of the day.

: And I certainly don't begrude you your right not to be "objective" about
: anything at all. I'll agree that you're "right" in your interpretation,
: but perhaps not fully correct. This issue is just a subset of a wider
: variety of interconnected problems in our society that someday we're
: going to have to deal with. Too many contradictions. Too many
: loopholes. Too many people, too many problems.

Less government meddling, less problems. The more the government fiddles the
worse things appear to get. (or am I reading everything wrong here?)
(Maybe this is why I like L. Neil Smith's books so much)

Mark

Rico

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 1:39:32 AM9/6/94
to
: My point is that some people
: are so blinded by their love of firearms that they do not realize that
: there are many people out there who take advantage of easy availablity of
: firearms to engage in criminal activity. Firearms (by their "standoff"
: nature) make crime much safer for the criminal.

: >frazier is either ignorant of or is consciously
: >ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun
: >uses. frazier's embracing a cost/benefit analysis without
: >acknowledging that the second amendment provides a deterrent to
: >tyranny.

: Right, so we can be shot on the street by the 4th Avenue Crips. Sure.

Once again you completely ignore the fact that defensive gun uses
outnumber criminal gun uses. Why won't you address this issue?

Over 99% of privately owned guns in the US have absolutely nothing to do
with being shot by Crips or any other similiar activities.

There are approx. 80 million gun owners with 200 million firearms in the
US. Less than .02 percent of those guns will be used to kill anyone for
any reason, lawful or not.

On the other hand there will be between 600K ( if you ask the FBI ) and
2.5 million (if you ask ACLU lawyer Gary Kleck) uses a year of firearms for
protection of life or property, usually without firing a shot, let alone
killing anyone.


: No, the NRA wants to get "tough on criminals" and to do so, they'd

: happily trash all the protections of Constitution that are provided to
: those accused of a crime. All those "technicalities" get in the way of
: tossing people in jail.

I am an NRA member and have voiced my concern regarding the current
official stance on the WOD. However, I challenge you to list and
document which constitutional "technicalities" the NRA want to trample.

: Why else would the NRA fight every effort to

: >>stem the supply of firearms to people on the street?

This is not true. However the NRA has fought efforts to stop the supply
to most of the citizens who lawfully purchase, possess and use firearms,
which vastly outnumber those who use them for criminal activities.


: Drew, how do you go about convincing myself and others who feel this way

: that we're wrong? By demanding that you've got the right to own full
: automatics? By insisting that if you wanted to own a howitzer, you
: should be able to? By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

What a bunch of crap. Not one gun banned by the "crime" bill was fully
automatic, they were semi-automatic. And by the way, people can still
own a howitzer if they jump through the regulatory hoops necessary to do so.

The NRA fully supports the current laws regulating teflon-coated
bullets. What the NRA opposed was an earlier, poorly written law that
would have banned many common hunting rounds along with the teflon-coated
ones.

: There are too many people out there who get their rocks off by firing

: their Uzis/MAC-10s/Streetsweepers etc. on full rock and roll.
: Gratification is not a justification for the carnage in our streets.
: Surely you heard about the kids in Chicago killing each other over the
: weekend, haven't you? How many more must die before we call off the arms
: race?

Tell us about the weapons used in Chicago. If they were fully automatic,
it is the first such case in many years.

I challenge you to produce and document more than a few cases of fully
automatic weapons being used to kill anyone in this country since such
statistics have been kept. You probably have to go all the way back to
the days of prohibition to find any significant number.

: I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument. The

: government isn't the problem here. The glut of weapons out on the
: streets is. Our rights to go about our daily business on the streets of
: our cities, our mobility, our sanity, is at risk here. I quite frankly
: don't want the right to be armed but to live in constant fear of stray
: bullets hitting my home. Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that
: through their skulls, this issue will remain unresolved.

There is no "glut" of weapons on the street. Most firearms are in the
hands of law abiding citizens.

The problems you speak of are a very localized, urban phenomena and do
not require unconstitutional, draconian and confiscatory laws to deal
with them.

Denying me my "toys" (using your terminology) is not going to make your
family any safer or divert any stray bullets from your home. Those
bullets do not come from me or the NRA. Go after the ones shooting
them. Shoot back if you have to. Bending over and smiling for big
brother is not going to solve your problems. Until you get that through
your skull, you are going to have much bigger problems than stray bullets
to deal with.

Rico


The truth is often extreme, but not any less true because of it.

--
*****************************************************************************
* Words of Profound would go here if I had any. Opinions expressed are my***
* own, but as soon as I figure out how to force everyone to use them I will**
*****************************************************************************

Mark Hockings.

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 1:04:19 AM9/6/94
to
Richard A. De Castro (deca...@netcom.com) wrote:
: hock...@netcom.com (Mark Hockings.) writes:

: {bandwith conservation mode}


: >Anyone read Heinleins "Starship Troopers"?
: >Anyone remember the comment about why the "Citizens" were not worried about
: >the "Taxpayers" complaining? (Citizens voted, Taxpayers did not. Citizens
: >had served in the armed forces, Taxpayers had not. You could not vote until
: >after serving a hitch. (you couldn't vote while serving either)
: >(that is a clue)

: >I'll post the answer if no one else does.

: >(I think it is relevevant btw)

: For the simplest reason of all. Because it works.

: Lets try it now!

Well, of course it worked in the book. The question is: WHY?

(that is the answer I'm looking for)

Mark.

Jonathan Haas

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 1:56:37 AM9/6/94
to
Mark Hockings. <hock...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Richard A. De Castro (deca...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: hock...@netcom.com (Mark Hockings.) writes:
>
>: >Anyone read Heinleins "Starship Troopers"?
>: >Anyone remember the comment about why the "Citizens" were not worried about
>: >the "Taxpayers" complaining? (Citizens voted, Taxpayers did not. Citizens
>: >had served in the armed forces, Taxpayers had not. You could not vote until
>: >after serving a hitch. (you couldn't vote while serving either)
>: >(that is a clue)
>
>: For the simplest reason of all. Because it works.
>
>: Lets try it now!
>
>Well, of course it worked in the book. The question is: WHY?
>(that is the answer I'm looking for)

Heinlein discussed three reasons in his book... btw, this is all from
memory, so I may make an error or two here.

What was the practical reason for continuing their system? The same as
the practical reason for continuing anything... because it *worked*
properly.

Why did the system work properly? Because under it, each voter had proven,
through a term of difficult and arduous service, that he placed the
welfare of the nation ahead of his own.

Why was there no fear of revolution, despite loud and unceasing complaints?
Because people with fighting spirit all entered the Service and earned
franchise. Those who didn't have franchise weren't willing to fight and
die, because otherwise they would simply have joined up for a hitch.

_Starship_Troopers_ illuminates some of Heinlein's very interesting ideas...
I particularly like his views on corporal/capital punishment. Not so sure
I agree with the form of government... I prefer the almost anarchic
government in _The_Moon_Is_A_Harsh_Mistress_.

--
__/\__ Jonathan S. Haas | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\ / posi...@neosoft.com | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_ _\ Finger for PGP 2.3 key | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
\/ Don't Tread On Me | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.

Mark Hockings.

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 1:30:56 AM9/6/94
to
Gary Frazier (gfra...@efn.org) wrote:

: In <34fmar$q...@ceylon.gte.com> al...@roger.gte.com (Andrew Betz) writes:

: >this is a variation on hci's claim that "the nra is a front for
: >weapons manufacturers." frazier is either ignorant of or is
: >consciously ignoring the fact that the nra has over three million
: >members.

: I'm not familiar with HCI, but it doesn't take much to figure out that a
: domestic arms race is in the interest of gun manufacturers and dealers.
: And when it takes little more than pocket change to become a Federally
: licesnced gun dealer, there are a lot of them out there.

so?

: >frazier denigrates these people's concern about their


: >second amendment rights by saying the members are just "[in] love
: >with their guns (at the expense of everything else)," thus alluding
: >to some cost/benfit ratio. the implication is that the population
: >is losing from this cost/benefit ratio, at the expense of a few
: >nra members.

: Close, but not precisely what I intended. My point is that some people
: are so blinded by their love of firearms that they do not realize that
: there are many people out there who take advantage of easy availablity of
: firearms to engage in criminal activity. Firearms (by their "standoff"
: nature) make crime much safer for the criminal.

only because of the restrictions on the law abiding carrying guns.
Have you noticed that the US has the lowest per capita rate of breakins of
occupied homes? (since over half the homes have firearms, badguys don't want
to face the business of a 12ga held by an irate homeowner. Cops take badguys
in, potential victims put them under)


: >frazier is either ignorant of or is consciously


: >ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun
: >uses. frazier's embracing a cost/benefit analysis without
: >acknowledging that the second amendment provides a deterrent to
: >tyranny.

: Right, so we can be shot on the street by the 4th Avenue Crips. Sure.

see my comment above.

: >>reasonable assertion. The concern for "2nd amendment rights" seems to be


: >>the ONLY concern (never mind that the other amendments have been trashed;

: >this is stereotyping at its finest. it is also flat wrong. frazier
: >prefers to cling to his "bubba with a shotgun" image because he
: >hasn't come to grips with the possibility of a l(L)ibertarian,
: >gun-owning, member of the nra. frazier, *i* am a libertarian,
: >gun-owning member of the nra. i was a member of the aclu for years
: >and have only quit that organization within the last five years
: >because our gun rights are under such severe assault i wanted
: >to concentrate my efforts there. unlike you, *most* nra members
: >i know abhor the "war on drugs" because of the ensuing dismantling
: >of the bill of rights.

: No, the NRA wants to get "tough on criminals" and to do so, they'd
: happily trash all the protections of Constitution that are provided to
: those accused of a crime. All those "technicalities" get in the way of
: tossing people in jail.

and the NRA is wrong on that. (I'm a member, but I don't agree with all they
do)

: >>only when toys are in danger does the NRA get consitutionally indignant)


: >>that the gun lobby has. Why else would the NRA fight every effort to
: >>stem the supply of firearms to people on the street?

: >quit watching the nbc nightly news and wake up. the nra has
: >been active in getting concealed carry reform laws passed, about
: >fighting gun bans at the state and local level, and training
: >people to use firearms safely for years. you are either
: >posting a mild flamebait or you don't know what you're talking
: >about (or both).

: That's what I just said. Each of those examples does not negate my
: statement that the NRA has fought every effort to stem the supply of
: firearms to the streets.

you think criminals are worried about carrying a gun? Someone who is willing
to kill you in a state that has capital punishment is NOT going to bother
with piddly-assed laws about legal/illegal guns.

: >>Sorry, but the concern of the gun lovers is only with their toys. The


: >>rest of the constitution is irrelevant to many of them (note: not to all,
: >>but I'm convinced that those are in a distinct minority).

: >this is so incredibly bigoted i can't believe it. as someone who
: >was concerned about the erosion in our bill or rights long before
: >i became a firearms enthusiast, i take genuine offense. take your
: >bigoted tripe elsewhere.

: Drew, how do you go about convincing myself and others who feel this way
: that we're wrong? By demanding that you've got the right to own full
: automatics? By insisting that if you wanted to own a howitzer, you
: should be able to? By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

: There are too many people out there who get their rocks off by firing
: their Uzis/MAC-10s/Streetsweepers etc. on full rock and roll.
: Gratification is not a justification for the carnage in our streets.
: Surely you heard about the kids in Chicago killing each other over the
: weekend, haven't you? How many more must die before we call off the arms
: race?

bogus rhetoric.

: I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument. The


: government isn't the problem here. The glut of weapons out on the
: streets is. Our rights to go about our daily business on the streets of
: our cities, our mobility, our sanity, is at risk here. I quite frankly
: don't want the right to be armed but to live in constant fear of stray
: bullets hitting my home. Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that
: through their skulls, this issue will remain unresolved.

huh? The glut of weapons is not the problem. The problem is the glut of
morons willing to commit murder and mayhem. The tools they select to carry
out such acts are irrelevant. (why are there more morons out there? Because
it is profitable. WoD again)

I could kill more people with a car than a gun.
(hell, if I were so idioticly inclined I could steal an aircraft and really
get spectacular.)

you have swallowed the HCI propaganda hook line and sinker.
Some of us check our food before eating.

John Sabotta

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 2:26:20 AM9/6/94
to
Yes, it's all our fault, isn't it? Sure it is. That's the easy way out
for people like you. The liberals in this country refuse to admit that
their "no guilt" approach to crime and punishment, and their corrosive
welfare system have been a complete, hopeless failure.

Who to blame? Not liberals! Find a scapegoat! It's those redneck,
Neanderthal gun loving reactionaries that are at the bottom of it all.
Why, everybody knows how the NRA has promoted drive-by shooting with
their special programs for street gangs! Everybody knows that it's the
NRA that goes around selling crack, causing unwed pregnacies and inciting
riots! Yes, that's the line to take.

Gee, Gary "40 years ago" practically anybody in the country could order
firearms through the mail, without a background check. Please inform me
why inner-city youth and high-school kids wern't out blasting each other
with $14 dollar Star semi-auto pistols and $50 dollar M1 carbines? Maybe
availability of guns doesn't cause social breakdown - maybe the liberal
social policies of "the last 40 years" did. But who would want to admit
that - that all that "progressive" and "caring" crap - all those Wars on
Poverty and other social engineering - was a hideous mistake.

You are right about one thing - you'll never change my mind. I refuse to
be a scapegoat for liberal stupidity and power hunger. You are also right
in admitting there is no practical way to get all those evil guns back.
So now what? You can't change our minds and you can't force us to hand
our firearms over. Barring a sudden, mystical experience by all gun
owners, it looks like you are s.o.l., pal. Give up!

And if people in the government think that they can force the issue by
consfication, well, then you'll really see "social breakdown." Big time.

JS

(P.S. By the way, don't you know the NRA is affiliated with the Crips?
That's why those free hats you get when you join are blue. It's an
advantageous affiliation because we can get a better interest rate on our
"NRA/Crips" VISA and Master Cards.)


Dan Day

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 2:56:07 AM9/6/94
to
In article <CvoEx...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:
>
>Unfortnately, we live in a country where some people feel that they
>simply MUST have a gun, whether they really need it or not.

Yeah, and a lot of silly people feel the same way about religion
and freedom of speech. What's the world coming to, anyway?
Nobody really *needs* those things, do they?


>Unfortunately, through a series of social pathologies we've got a domestic
>arms race underway, and there seems to be no practical way to put the

The HCI-fans always seem to love that phrase: "arms race". Please
explain it. Flowery language will not be accepted. You must define
what measurable parameters indicate when an "arms race" is underway,
and why that choice of phrase is appropriate. Good luck.


>Until
>we get a handle on this supply problem (and certainly we'll need the
>cooperation of the law-abiding gun owner to do this) we're going to
>continue to see kids killing kids over schoolyard insults.

I see, here you reveal your true agenda. "Getting a handle on this
supply problem". Please expand on this. I note that your whining
about social problems aside, you didn't say anything about getting
a handle on the *demand* problem. No, you just want to cut off
the supply. I can guess what your proposed "solution" would be.

Also please explain your wording which implies that after you
"get a handle" on the supply, you *won't* "continue to see kids killing
kids". Surely you're not saying that anyone who would kill another
over a "schoolyard insult" isn't going to be likely to beat someone
to death with a baseball bat? Even assuming, of course, that "getting
a handle" on the supply would actually inconvenience anyone wanting
to pack a pistol -- tell me how hard it is to buy crack now that we've
"gotten a handle on" the "supply problem".

If you don't fix whatever is causing kids to *want* to kill kids,
banning guns isn't going to help much. If you *do* fix the social
problem, you won't *need* to ban guns.


>The question is, how many relatives of NRA members must be killed by
>firearms before something is done?

Indeed. Dr. Suzanna Gratia's parents were shot to death before her
eyes in the Killeen massacre. She's lobbying the legislatures to
drop the stupid gun control laws which forced her to leave her
pistol in the car that day instead of carrying it into the restaurant
where she could have used it to save her parents and a dozen others.
I wish *more* people would "do something" before it came to that.
Thank you for pointing out the need for more activism of this type.

And how many disarmed civilians must die before the gun-banners get
a clue?
--
"Don't tread on me"

Gary Frazier

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 4:07:17 AM9/6/94
to
In <decastroC...@netcom.com> deca...@netcom.com (Richard A. De Castro) writes:

>Gary, the right to own firearms predates the US Constitution. The
>Second Amendment doesn't grant a right, it is supposed to PREVENT the
>government from abridging that right. As a matter of fact, the entire
>BOR consists of limitations on the government, not the granting of rights
>to the people.

Richard, show me anywhere in this current set of threads ("The Revolution")
where I've advocated the revocation of the second amendment. Or the
confiscation of lawfully owned weapons. I've talked about stemming the
supply. If you're part of a "well regulated militia" you certainly have
a right to bear arms. Do keep in mind that "bearing arms" is
about the military use of weapons, not just having them for shits
and grins. It's time to get the militia regulated.

>Whether I need a gun or not, I have a right to it. Whether I need to
>be secure in my person and property, I have a right to it. Whether
>or not I want to stand on a street corner and give the world my
>view on anything, I have a right to do so.

If you're a member of the well regulated militia, as specified in the second
amendment, no problem.

>In other posts, you have complained about the reduction of rights that
>people have because of the WOD, etc. Why is the loss of those rights any
>more terrible than the loss of the right to keep and bear arms, even if
>you, or I, dont' want to?

My complaint is that many out there who are so concerned about their
second amendment rights seem to be utterly blind to any other amendment.
The concern then seems not to be with the rather abstract concept of
enumerated rights, but with the guns themselves.

>Why not punish the guilty, rather than the innocent?

Why not be proactive and get these deadly instruments under control?

sle...@netcom.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 5:49:39 AM9/6/94
to
Donald R. McGregor (mcg...@crl.com) wrote:
: In article <CvoEx...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:
: :>The question is, how many relatives of NRA members must be killed by
: :>firearms before something is done?

: The question is, how many 80 year old grandmothers need to be
: smashed up by large, healthy criminals before Gary Frazier
: realizes that firearms serve a useful purpose?

The real question is when are people going to realize that making
a gun illegal does not make it any harder to get for those who are
willing to break the law (which includes anyone who is going to use it to
shoot someone)? You can get ant firearm you choose of the street of most
major cities. If you got the cash someone will provide the gun. What
everyone needs to realize is that laws which do nothing except impede on
freedom (such as anti drug laws, gun bans, etc.) are completly useless.
If we were to stop making laws which fill the jails with people convicted
of non-violent crime, we could actually keep the really dangerous people
in jail. The answer is not to ban the gun, it is to free jailspace for
people who are prone to misusing guns.
Besides it is a truelly scary day when the government is the only
entity allowed to have weopons. Personally I want something as least as
powerful as they got. If they come kicking my door in like they did old
Dave Koresh I want to be able to defend myself better than he did.
--

_______________________________________________________________________________
Sleater sle...@netcom.com
"...every once in a while, you can get shown the light in the strangest of
places if you just look at it right..."-- Grateful Dead

Donald R. McGregor

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:26:26 AM9/6/94
to
In article <CvoEx...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:
:>The question is, how many relatives of NRA members must be killed by

:>firearms before something is done?

The question is, how many 80 year old grandmothers need to be


smashed up by large, healthy criminals before Gary Frazier
realizes that firearms serve a useful purpose?

--
Don McGregor | Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
mcg...@crl.com| Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Andrew Betz

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 8:50:47 AM9/6/94
to
In article <CvoE6...@efn.org>, Gary Frazier <gfra...@efn.org> wrote:
>I'm not familiar with HCI, but it doesn't take much to figure out that a
>domestic arms race is in the interest of gun manufacturers and dealers.

"domestic arms race." frazier should at least come clean and tell
us which hci leaflet he pulled that catch phrase from. frazier likes
to use catch phrases like "domestic arms race" without defining
what the phrase means.

>And when it takes little more than pocket change to become a Federally
>licesnced gun dealer, there are a lot of them out there.

it currently costs $200 to become a dealing ffl. pocket change?
perhaps to some, but not to me.

>Close, but not precisely what I intended. My point is that some people
>are so blinded by their love of firearms that they do not realize that
>there are many people out there who take advantage of easy availablity of
>firearms to engage in criminal activity. Firearms (by their "standoff"
>nature) make crime much safer for the criminal.

frazier is now switching to the myth that weapon density is related
(causally related) to weapon crime. the argument is usually framed
as an issue of local gun laws being negated by more lax laws in
nearby states. if frazier cares to argue that weapon density
causes weapon crime, he'll need to simulatenously explain places
like idaho, where the rate of gun ownership is very high and
gun crimes are very, very low. we're listening.

>>frazier is either ignorant of or is consciously
>>ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun
>>uses. frazier's embracing a cost/benefit analysis without
>>acknowledging that the second amendment provides a deterrent to
>>tyranny.
>
>Right, so we can be shot on the street by the 4th Avenue Crips. Sure.

frazier's sarcastic crack does not address the original point.
either he needs to reread the assertion, or he has conceeded the point.

>No, the NRA wants to get "tough on criminals" and to do so, they'd
>happily trash all the protections of Constitution that are provided to
>those accused of a crime. All those "technicalities" get in the way of
>tossing people in jail.

the nra has historically maintained a conservative position with
respect to law enforcement issues. this is changing, however, as
the "war on drugs" abuses mount.

>That's what I just said. Each of those examples does not negate my
>statement that the NRA has fought every effort to stem the supply of
>firearms to the streets.

frazier is again bleating the myth that weapon density is related
to weapon crime. frazier believes that banning or severely restricting
citizen's access to firearms will choke off the supply to criminals.
frazier is either ignorant or or is consciously ignoring the fact
that there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in this
country; the half-life of these weapons is measured in millenia
if they are stored properly. frazier is either ignorant of or
is consciously ignoring the fact that the elasticity of demand for
criminal weapon possession is such that they will pay any price
to obatin such weapons (i.e., "its a cost of doing business");
he has not addressed how his restrictions will even begin to
stop criminals from stealing, smuggling, or simply making their
firearms.

>Drew, how do you go about convincing myself and others who feel this way
>that we're wrong? By demanding that you've got the right to own full

frazier will be convinced, if he is intellectually honest, when
each and every myth he spouts is refuted.

>automatics? By insisting that if you wanted to own a howitzer, you
>should be able to? By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

frazier is unaware that people do in fact have these rights.
possession of these weapons is subject to the national firearms
act of 1934, but is legal.

>There are too many people out there who get their rocks off by firing
>their Uzis/MAC-10s/Streetsweepers etc. on full rock and roll.
>Gratification is not a justification for the carnage in our streets.

yawn. frazier needs to put down his hci flyer.

>Surely you heard about the kids in Chicago killing each other over the
>weekend, haven't you? How many more must die before we call off the arms
>race?

frazier's view that criminals will somehow "see the light" upon
passage of the next gun control law is curious. frazier needs to
explain why he is ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber
offensive gun uses; his position has the curious effect that,
if implemented, it would increase gun violence as more victims
would be disarmed.

>I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument. The
>government isn't the problem here. The glut of weapons out on the

frazier is ignorant of the fact that state-sponsored murder has
claimed over 55 million lives in this century alone. he is unaware
that, at the current rate of about 25,000 homicides a year, it
would take the united states two millenia to match the number
of people killed in government-run genocides this century alone.
frazier likes to feel warm and fuzzy when he tells himself, over
and over, "that it can't happen here."

>streets is. Our rights to go about our daily business on the streets of
>our cities, our mobility, our sanity, is at risk here. I quite frankly
>don't want the right to be armed but to live in constant fear of stray
>bullets hitting my home. Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that
>through their skulls, this issue will remain unresolved.

frazier is obviously willing to trade freedom for security. frazier
is unaware that the police are under no obligation to protect him,
nor can they be held liable for failing to do so. frazier likes to
kid himself that banning guns will make criminals disarm. frazier
has a gun-ban utopia to point to (washington, d.c.), but he refuses
to talk about that ugly little experiment in gun control. why?
because the "d.c. experiment" didn't quite work out the way it
was supposed to...

drew
--
al...@gte.com
"The new Gestapo in America." -- Gerry Spence on the BATF


Mark Hockings.

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 10:09:47 AM9/6/94
to
Jonathan Haas (posi...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!
bingo!

Exactly. Right now the ones who seem to be complaining the most about the
government are the ones who are armed. A lot of those people have also
served in the military. They are the ones who appear to be willing to stand
up and fight for what they believe in.

The anti-gun types would have others do their fight for them. (the gov)
They themselves will not become involved. The vast majority of people
however don't seem to give a damn one way or the other right now. (many of
them are gun owners too) Which way will they go? The armed ones would
probably side with the anti-gov types. (many first time gun buyers are
buying for self protection, and because they want a gun now, before the gov
says they can't get one at all. Would they meekly give up their guns if the
feds told them too? dunno. I seriously doubt the majority of them would)


: _Starship_Troopers_ illuminates some of Heinlein's very interesting ideas...


: I particularly like his views on corporal/capital punishment. Not so sure
: I agree with the form of government... I prefer the almost anarchic
: government in _The_Moon_Is_A_Harsh_Mistress_.

I liked his reasoning behind ST's form of government. If you vote, or are in
policy making positions, you may have to send someone off to get killed. If
you are not willing to risk your own life for those beliefs, by what right
do you send others off to risk theirs? The vote is the ultimate power in
that book. (although I actually prefer the government from say, the Venus
Belt by L. Neil Smith. <g>)

Mark Hockings.

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 10:35:51 AM9/6/94
to
Gary Frazier (gfra...@efn.org) wrote:

: In <decastroC...@netcom.com> deca...@netcom.com (Richard A. De Castro) writes:

: >Gary, the right to own firearms predates the US Constitution. The
: >Second Amendment doesn't grant a right, it is supposed to PREVENT the
: >government from abridging that right. As a matter of fact, the entire
: >BOR consists of limitations on the government, not the granting of rights
: >to the people.

: Richard, show me anywhere in this current set of threads ("The Revolution")
: where I've advocated the revocation of the second amendment. Or the
: confiscation of lawfully owned weapons. I've talked about stemming the
: supply. If you're part of a "well regulated militia" you certainly have
: a right to bear arms. Do keep in mind that "bearing arms" is
: about the military use of weapons, not just having them for shits
: and grins. It's time to get the militia regulated.

"well regulated" meant trained. Not under government regulation.

: >Whether I need a gun or not, I have a right to it. Whether I need to


: >be secure in my person and property, I have a right to it. Whether
: >or not I want to stand on a street corner and give the world my
: >view on anything, I have a right to do so.

: If you're a member of the well regulated militia, as specified in the second
: amendment, no problem.

"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."
(note only 1 (one) comma. Since the Milita mentioned in the second amendment
is the people as a whole (everyone capable of bearing arms) it is the people
themselves who have the right. The first clause just explains ONE reason why
the people should be armed. It isn't the only reason. It also does not limit
the right to just the militia. Check out the corresponding articles in
various State Constitutions and see how they phrase it. Many of them point
out other reasons for people to be armed. Self defence, defence of property
and people are also listed.


: >In other posts, you have complained about the reduction of rights that


: >people have because of the WOD, etc. Why is the loss of those rights any
: >more terrible than the loss of the right to keep and bear arms, even if
: >you, or I, dont' want to?

: My complaint is that many out there who are so concerned about their
: second amendment rights seem to be utterly blind to any other amendment.
: The concern then seems not to be with the rather abstract concept of
: enumerated rights, but with the guns themselves.

: >Why not punish the guilty, rather than the innocent?

: Why not be proactive and get these deadly instruments under control?

An article in the LA times this morning shows that over 100,000 guns are
stole each year. The is a low estimate. One gang was indicted for organizing
the theft of over 1000 guns during the LA riots. (they cleaned out a
gunstore) The bad guys are not worried about regulations. They are
criminals. They will STEAL their weapons. If not from the average person,
then from the police themselves. (yes, the cops lose weapons. So does the
army and natl guard)

Who obeys laws? Law abiding folks. Are these the people who commit murder
and mayhem? no. Then why restrict their ability to purchase, own or carry a
firearm?

Will a criminal obey theses laws? Of course not. They are criminals! By
definition, they break laws.

The solutions is to remove the incentives for crime (ending the WoD is one
way) and the other is to remove them from circulation when they are caught.
The badguys avoid armed citizens, because they stand a greater chance of
being removed from circulation permanently. (as it should be)

Once the violent offender is caught, tried, found guilty, and sentenced, he
should be kept in prison, not released after serving 1/3 of it.
Non violent offenders, well, we have so many of them in prison right now
there is no room for the people who really belong there.

How much more can we say. It isn't the guns. Guns are tools. The problem is
the people who misuse those tools. People who will steal, and kill to get
those tools.

Tighter restrictions on guns will only affect the potential victims. It will
do nothing to deter the criminals. The only thing that deters them is having
their victims armed. As you said, criminals are basically cowards. Cowards
avoid armed confrontation. So, why not arm MORE of the law abiding folks.

If the gov't was REALLY serious about fighting crime, they would have a
program to teach people how to handle firearms safely, how to hit their
target, and when to shoot/not shoot. Once someone passed this course they
should be issued a firearm by the government. (and a nifty little card that
says they passed it etc etc). THAT would reduce crime in a big hurry.

Getting a couple of million armed and trained people on the streets would
give the badguys pause. Maybe the gangs would go back to using fists on
each other and leave the rest of us along. (they'd have to if they wanted to
extend their lifespans)

Think about it.

Gary Frazier

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:56:52 AM9/6/94
to
In <decastroC...@netcom.com> deca...@netcom.com (Richard A. De Castro) writes:

>gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>>In <34fmar$q...@ceylon.gte.com> al...@roger.gte.com (Andrew Betz) writes:

>>>this is a variation on hci's claim that "the nra is a front for
>>>weapons manufacturers." frazier is either ignorant of or is
>>>consciously ignoring the fact that the nra has over three million
>>>members.

>>I'm not familiar with HCI, but it doesn't take much to figure out that a
>>domestic arms race is in the interest of gun manufacturers and dealers.
>>And when it takes little more than pocket change to become a Federally
>>licesnced gun dealer, there are a lot of them out there.

>Gary, if the people didn't want those guns, the dealers wouldn't be there.
>It isn't the gun manufacturers that are upset about the attempt to
>destroy the BOR, it's there customers. And, if the sum total of the firearms
>industry's value was calculated, I don't think it would be a significant
>amount in terms of the GDP. (Anyone got those figures?)

Richard, the problem is we've got dealers who do not care who they're
selling arms to. This is why the supply, distribution, and resale of
firearms needs to be regulated MUCH more vigorously than it is
now. BATF (yeah, I know...the new Geheimne Staatspolizei) can
only scratch the surface of questionable arms trafficking.

>>>frazier denigrates these people's concern about their
>>>second amendment rights by saying the members are just "[in] love
>>>with their guns (at the expense of everything else)," thus alluding
>>>to some cost/benfit ratio. the implication is that the population
>>>is losing from this cost/benefit ratio, at the expense of a few
>>>nra members.

>>Close, but not precisely what I intended. My point is that some people
>>are so blinded by their love of firearms that they do not realize that
>>there are many people out there who take advantage of easy availablity of
>>firearms to engage in criminal activity. Firearms (by their "standoff"
>>nature) make crime much safer for the criminal.

>Having a firearm makes it much safer for the victim. If we could magically
>make all firearms go away one day, the criminals would still have knives,
>broken bottles, rocks, pipes and baseball bats. Giving firearms to the
>(potential) victim helps level the playing field. No matter who's
>statistics you believe, firearms help prevent a lot more crime than they
>are used in. However, as I said in my earlier post, they are inanimate
>objects, and it's the people who are responsible for their actions.

Broken bottles, rocks, pipes, and baseball bats are not as easy and
effective as firearms. Not by a long shot. You can't do a
drive-by with a baseball bat. And firearms DO give you a feeling of
empowerment. Combine that with the feeling of youthful immortality, and
you've got a formidable combination. It's one inanimate object that DOES
have a psychological effect when it's used. Why is it a crime to
"brandish" a firearm if it is a harmless inanimate object?

>>>frazier is either ignorant of or is consciously
>>>ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun
>>>uses. frazier's embracing a cost/benefit analysis without
>>>acknowledging that the second amendment provides a deterrent to
>>>tyranny.

>>Right, so we can be shot on the street by the 4th Avenue Crips. Sure.

>If the 4th Ave crips are going to assault you, they're going to assault
>you. I've been shot, and I've had bones broken, and I've been burned
>seriously. I'd rather be shot than burned, and since the 4th Ave crips
>(or any gang member or criminal) is basically a coward, rather than
>try and assault me with his fists, he'd use a knife, or a molotov
>cocktail. A criminal is not made a criminal by a gun, but rather by
>extraneous factors. While I agree that removing the economic stimulus
>for crime is the actual solution, making it easier for criminals to
>commit crime is not a good idea.

So why do we have so many firearms available? I agree with you that a
criminal is basically a coward. That's why he'll choose a firearm over
any other potential weapon. They're available, they intimidate, they
allow him to threaten others from a distance. They're also good if
you're lazy, and most criminals are. It takes a lot less physical effort
to use a firearm than to use any of the other weapons you cite.

>I see from your address that your'e on the Eugene freenet. Several years
>ago, Oregon became one of the states that has non-discretionary issuance
>of CCW's (concealed carry permits). Has the crime rate increased dramatically
>because more Oregon citizens are being controlled by their now-legally carried
>concealed weapons? If you check, you'll probably find the opposite is true.
>It has been in the other states that have non-discretionary CCW's, like
>Florida.

Richard, in March I moved down to Oregon from Tacoma, WA. Within a week
after I did so the type of violent crime aided by firearms that has
become so typical around Puget Sound seemed to follow me down here. The
local police are inundated with murders and firearms related robberies,
so much that detectives are working double shifts to keep up with all the
stuff that's going down. I'm not familiar with the situation in Portland.

They're doing a shitty job of the latter, because they've undermined
attempts to do so. If BATF could get a handle on the "kitchen table"
problem, that would be a good start. Banning gun shows would help as
well, as anyone can buy a gun at one, no questions asked.

>>>>Sorry, but the concern of the gun lovers is only with their toys. The
>>>>rest of the constitution is irrelevant to many of them (note: not to all,
>>>>but I'm convinced that those are in a distinct minority).

>>>this is so incredibly bigoted i can't believe it. as someone who
>>>was concerned about the erosion in our bill or rights long before
>>>i became a firearms enthusiast, i take genuine offense. take your
>>>bigoted tripe elsewhere.

>>Drew, how do you go about convincing myself and others who feel this way
>>that we're wrong? By demanding that you've got the right to own full
>>automatics? By insisting that if you wanted to own a howitzer, you
>>should be able to? By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

>Gary, if I have a firearm (any type), and I hurt someone with it, I should
>be punished, swiftly, and certainly. The problem we have now is that
>criminals (not law abiding citizens) but violent criminals, are not being
>punished for their actions.

Part of our problem is that we're wasting valuable prison space on dope
dealers. But we're giving the criminals every possible chance to arm
themselves, too. This is not working.

>I agree that the War on Drugs is an abject failure. It has been since it
>was started in the Kennedy administration, because in the US, we (the citizens)
>don't want to do what would be neccessary to stem the flow of drugs. We don't
>want even the excesses we see now with the DEA, ATF, asset forfiture, etc.

>I do NOT agree that firearms are a cause of the problem. The cause of the
>problem is economic, and it will not be fixed by changing the symptoms.

Firearms are NOT a cause; I agree with you there. But they're certainly
contributing to the level of violence; having such a huge supply of them
available isn't smart. They're a symptom that we need to deal with, even
as we deal with the root cause.

>>There are too many people out there who get their rocks off by firing
>>their Uzis/MAC-10s/Streetsweepers etc. on full rock and roll.
>>Gratification is not a justification for the carnage in our streets.
>>Surely you heard about the kids in Chicago killing each other over the
>>weekend, haven't you? How many more must die before we call off the arms
>>race?

>Again, people who misuse their firearms have broken the compact of citizenship,
>and should not be able to have firearms. But, did you know that the ONLY case
>of a legally owned machine gun being used illegaly was a (crooked) cop who
>performed a "mob hit"? With that (one, although I've heard rumors of one
>other, for a TOTAL since 1934 of 2 (two) cases), no legally owned machinegun
>(like your Uzi/Mac-10 example) has been used illegally? How many automobiles,
>telephones, knives, airplanes, chainsaws, boats, etc have been used illegaly
>since 1934?

But, Richard, tut-tutting about those who misuse their firearms after the
fact is pointless. Why don't we at least make an effort to keep these
weapons out of the hands of just anybody? Is it that unreasonable to require
anyone who wants a firearm to be trained beforehand on its safe use and
proper safeguards for storage?

>I've heard about the kids in Chicago. Did you know that it's been illegal
>since at least 1968, under federal law, for a person under 18 to have a
>firearm? Who gave it to them? (Hint, it was a criminal).

Perhaps it was a criminal federally licensed firearms dealer? How will
we ever know? The authorities do not have the resources (by
Congressional fiat, demanded by the NRA) to go after them.

>Also, while I hold ALL life precious, the numbers of people being unlawfully
>killed each year isn't all that high. Approximately 35K, if memory serves, total deaths from a firearm, approximately 1/2 of those classified as justifiable
>(cops shooting bad guys, citizens shooting bad guys, etc) and half of those
>left being suicides. Before you get started on the suicide rate, btw, there
>is NO evidence ANYWHERE that the lack of access to a firearm will reduce the
>number of suicides, they will find other, less leathal ways.

No, but it makes it much easier to do so. It's quicker and easier,
therefore more likely to be used on impulse. And pumping a stomach will
not bring someone back from a head wound.

>So, once again, why blame an inanimate object? Why not punish those people
>who can't control themselves, rather than punishing those who can?

Because in our modern, stressed society, the line between control and
lack of control is very, very thin. Why tempt that lack of control with
a tool that DOES, in fact, empower people and make them bolder than they
would otherwise be? This isn't just any inanimate object. It's an
inanimate object that can give someone a sense of security and power that
they would not have with it. Even the NRA conceeds this point...their entire
"armed citizen" campaign and the gun magazines and manufacturers
marketing campaigns aimed at women play on this very feature of firearms.

>>I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument. The
>>government isn't the problem here. The glut of weapons out on the
>>streets is. Our rights to go about our daily business on the streets of
>>our cities, our mobility, our sanity, is at risk here. I quite frankly
>>don't want the right to be armed but to live in constant fear of stray
>>bullets hitting my home. Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that
>>through their skulls, this issue will remain unresolved

>A well-armed society is a polite society. When I travel to Arizona, where
>open carry is both legal and common, I do so. I never worry about being
>shot there. I do worry about being shot by a criminal, probably under
>the effect of some mind-altering substance (legal or not), who doesnt
>know how to shoot anything.

Right. Just look at Somalia. Well armed, and in utter chaos. Our
society is becoming less and less polite and more and more armed.
Firearms are, by their nature, offensive in orienation. Returning fire
isn't true defense. A kevlar vest is.

>Looking at the problem from economic viewpoints, I am convinced that it
>would be cheaper to simply take all the criminals, give them a decent
>firearm and all the ammo they could shoot, and teach them HOW to shoot.
>This would have the advantage of being self-limiting, since they would
>eventually reduce the number of criminals through drive-by shootings, and
>would give the innocent a chance to not be hit by a stray round. However,
>in order to make it fair to the rest of society, until the gang-bangers
>killed themselves off, the citizens should have the same ability
>to have access to weapons, and the ability to defend themselves.

When you've been hit first, returning fire isn't a defense. It's revenge.
You're also hoping to cause the other guy to duck. Either way, it
doesn't do you any good. The damage has been done and cannot be undone.

Gary Frazier

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 2:48:35 AM9/6/94
to
In <34gbm5$r...@cae.cad.gatech.edu> vin...@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:

>In <CvoE6...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>*snip*

>>No, the NRA wants to get "tough on criminals" and to do so, they'd
>>happily trash all the protections of Constitution that are provided to
>>those accused of a crime. All those "technicalities" get in the way of
>>tossing people in jail.

>That's funny, seems like it was Bill Clinton who was championing
>how important those Chicago 4th amendment violations were. Can't let
>poor people have rights you know, they might get ideas. I don't
>know what you mean abou the NRA trashing the Constitution in order
>to save their piece of it. Explain please?

Who's defending Clinton here? I object to the Administration's current
continuation of Reagan/Bush utter disregard for the 4th amendment. But
since most NRA members >seem< to be white and at least middle class, why
should they be concerned? The NRA's "tough on crime" contains all the
standard "Law and Order" rhetoric that dismisses constitutional
protections for the accused as "technicalities" and impediments to
putting away the "bad guys"...even if the "bad guys" are just having a
toke, which is apparently more serios than theft or rape in this country.

>*snip*

>>I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument. The
>>government isn't the problem here. The glut of weapons out on the
>>streets is. Our rights to go about our daily business on the streets of
>>our cities, our mobility, our sanity, is at risk here. I quite frankly
>>don't want the right to be armed but to live in constant fear of stray
>>bullets hitting my home. Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that
>>through their skulls, this issue will remain unresolved.

>Your rhetoric certainly makes it sound like you are living in fear
>right now. Pretty vivid language, have you considered seeing someone
>about these fears? Nationally crime has been on a slow downward trend
>over the past 14 years or so. Perhaps you are panicked by the marked
>upsweep in news shows, and in their geometrically increasing coverage
>of any violent event, anywhere in the US? People who are panicked by
>"crime and guns on the streets" are simply nuts. The US is not awash
>in a sea of blood and guns, although that makes good copy.

This is utter nonsense. While overall crime rates may be declining,
there is most certainly a tendency for random shootings, drive bys, and
traffic disputes ending in gun play to become more common. Drive bys in
Tacoma, WA are no longer front page news. They happen with such
regularity that they're consigned to the back pages of the second or
third section of the local paper. I don't recall hearing nearly as much
10 years ago about preteens taking guns to school and killing other
kids on the playground over some trivial dispute.

>Heck, we've had 12 people killed in boating accidents just since May
>at Lake Lanier. At least people keep some perspective about some forms
>of death. I don't live in LA, so I'm unlikely to get caught in Crip
>crossfire. I don't boat, so I'm unlikely to get killed in a boating
>accident. Get some perspective.

Hard to think about "perspective" when random violence in major cities is
on the rise. This is in many ways a perception problem; if you live in
an urban area, you hear about these incidents all the time. If you live
in the country, this doesn't seem to be a problem. When people are being
shot at on the freeways, in the middle of a commute, it kinda hits home.
Going to and from work is not an option for most, unlike a sunny
afternoon on the lake.

>Lastly, like many you seem to view the NRA as an "it". The NRA is made
>up of some 3.5 million members, the office in Washington is mostly
>a clearinghouse for members to keep informed. *I* am the NRA.

Then you, sir, are part of the problem right now, not part of the solution.

>--
> Midnight basketball - bread and circuses in the 1990's.

This sort of tag line indicates that you simply do not WANT to understand
the depths of the problem we are facing as a society. We've lost a good
chunk of a generation to anti-social behavior due to short sightedness, a
hallmark of knee-jerk conservatives everywhere. At least a few conservatives
understand the value of "midnight basketball" and other recreational
programs.

Vincent Fox

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 12:25:16 PM9/6/94
to
In <34h0al$8...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> posi...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Jonathan Haas) writes:

[Heinlein, Starship Troopers, voting rights]

>Why did the system work properly? Because under it, each voter had proven,
>through a term of difficult and arduous service, that he placed the
>welfare of the nation ahead of his own.

>Why was there no fear of revolution, despite loud and unceasing complaints?
>Because people with fighting spirit all entered the Service and earned
>franchise. Those who didn't have franchise weren't willing to fight and
>die, because otherwise they would simply have joined up for a hitch.

>_Starship_Troopers_ illuminates some of Heinlein's very interesting ideas...
>I particularly like his views on corporal/capital punishment. Not so sure
>I agree with the form of government... I prefer the almost anarchic
>government in _The_Moon_Is_A_Harsh_Mistress_.

This is patently false about only veterans being allowed to vote. Heinlein
went out of his way on many occasions to try and correct this. I just
finished "Expanded Universe" where he again chides people who didn't
read his book, or only remember what they wanted to.

It is clearly pointed out that "veteran" merely means that the person
served the required few years in some capacity where they did what they
were told. 95+% of these civil service positions did not involve
combat in any way. It is also made clear throughout the book that the
military is still the ugly stepchild then too, "veterans" are not the
only ones allowed the vote because they are worshipped for their
sacrifice and patriotism. Juan's teacher also makes it clear that the
system they have is not there because it's the best system, it's just
the way things happened to end up. Not good or bad, just *is*.

Vincent Fox

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 12:36:02 PM9/6/94
to
In <Cvp49...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>Who's defending Clinton here? I object to the Administration's current
>continuation of Reagan/Bush utter disregard for the 4th amendment. But
>since most NRA members >seem< to be white and at least middle class, why
>should they be concerned? The NRA's "tough on crime" contains all the
>standard "Law and Order" rhetoric that dismisses constitutional
>protections for the accused as "technicalities" and impediments to
>putting away the "bad guys"...even if the "bad guys" are just having a
>toke, which is apparently more serios than theft or rape in this country.

I don't know what you refer to. The closest I can come to what you
describe is the "3-strikes" push, which is intended to apply to
violent felons only. I agree with the intent on such laws, but often
have a problem with how they are written and carried out. Regardless,
the NRA has not been the mover and shaker in the continuing War on
Some Drugs that you seem determined to paint them.

*snip*

>This is utter nonsense. While overall crime rates may be declining,
>there is most certainly a tendency for random shootings, drive bys, and
>traffic disputes ending in gun play to become more common. Drive bys in
>Tacoma, WA are no longer front page news. They happen with such
>regularity that they're consigned to the back pages of the second or
>third section of the local paper. I don't recall hearing nearly as much
>10 years ago about preteens taking guns to school and killing other
>kids on the playground over some trivial dispute.

Perhaps you should go look up ACTUAL CRIME DATA. Generally they are
expressed in occurrencese per 100k population. If you only get raw
occurrences, make sure to divide by census population data for that
year to get the rate. I am wholly uninterested in what you *think* crime
is doing. Maybe you weren't paying attention to the papers 10 years?
Perhaps your fears are based on emotion and mistake perceptions rather
than a realistic assessment of the world around you?

*snip*

Fox>Lastly, like many you seem to view the NRA as an "it". The NRA is made
Fox>up of some 3.5 million members, the office in Washington is mostly
Fox>a clearinghouse for members to keep informed. *I* am the NRA.

>Then you, sir, are part of the problem right now, not part of the solution.

You keep claiming this, yet seem unable/unwilling to demonstrate it.

Note, followups to t.p.g. Clean up those newsgroups lines folks.

McDaniel

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:59:30 PM9/6/94
to
gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>In <34gbm5$r...@cae.cad.gatech.edu> vin...@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:

>>In <CvoE6...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>>*snip*

>>>No, the NRA wants to get "tough on criminals" and to do so, they'd
>>>happily trash all the protections of Constitution that are provided to
>>>those accused of a crime. All those "technicalities" get in the way of
>>>tossing people in jail.

>>That's funny, seems like it was Bill Clinton who was championing
>>how important those Chicago 4th amendment violations were. Can't let
>>poor people have rights you know, they might get ideas. I don't
>>know what you mean abou the NRA trashing the Constitution in order
>>to save their piece of it. Explain please?

>Who's defending Clinton here? I object to the Administration's current
>continuation of Reagan/Bush utter disregard for the 4th amendment. But
>since most NRA members >seem< to be white and at least middle class, why
>should they be concerned?

Yes. There is that perception. On the other hand most police are
white. Most politicans are white. Most presidents are white. . I
could go on and on. At any rate the NRA is not an exclusive country
club for whites and the membership is becomming more diverse (however
slowly.)

> The NRA's "tough on crime" contains all the
>standard "Law and Order" rhetoric that dismisses constitutional
>protections for the accused as "technicalities" and impediments to
>putting away the "bad guys"...even if the "bad guys" are just having a
>toke, which is apparently more serios than theft or rape in this country.

I believe the NRA has taken certain stances so it can keep focused on
protecting the 2nd amendment. It would have more weaknesses from a
political standpoint (and certainly fewer members) if it attempted to
address too many issues at once.

I'll leave any other defenses to those who are members...

[...]


>>of any violent event, anywhere in the US? People who are panicked by
>>"crime and guns on the streets" are simply nuts. The US is not awash
>>in a sea of blood and guns, although that makes good copy.

I agree with that. And where it is awash, it is bad guys killing
bad guys. This isn't to say something should not be done.. but it
is to say that restricting good people (like the crime bill does) makes
no sense.

>This is utter nonsense. While overall crime rates may be declining,
>there is most certainly a tendency for random shootings, drive bys, and
>traffic disputes ending in gun play to become more common. Drive bys in
>Tacoma, WA are no longer front page news. They happen with such
>regularity that they're consigned to the back pages of the second or
>third section of the local paper. I don't recall hearing nearly as much
>10 years ago about preteens taking guns to school and killing other
>kids on the playground over some trivial dispute.

So you believe only what the media tells you? Whoa. Aren't you an
intellectual giant.

Ha. But you forgot one minor factoid! A few years ago in the notorious
hilltop district of Tacoma there was a little shoot-out. For those
who don't know, the hilltop area was a place where innocents were being
killed or shot weekly. There was a crack house and plenty of dealers
there. So a homeowner... decided to videotape the bad guys and give
the evidence to the police. The bad guys shot at him. Big mistake.
He was x-military and came back with several of his buddies, fully
armed.

What followed was a shoot-out from the pages of an old west history book.
Bottom line: less innocents get shot in that area now.

And guess what? The cops had nothing to do with it. Good honest
citizens ran the dealers out of their neighborhood. Unfortunately not
all citizens are armed. So keeping the bad guys out all of the time
is a difficult job.

Just thought i'd bring some reality to your rambling. . .


-McDaniel

Views expressed may not necessarily be those of the UofW.

frank...@sandiegoca.ncr.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 10:50:31 PM9/6/94
to
In article <jdurbinC...@netcom.com> jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin) writes:
>From: jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin)
>Subject: Re: The Revolution
>Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 19:03:34 GMT

>Broward Horne (an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>: In a previous article, jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin) says:

>: >Oh, yes. That's what I want. Something comparable to the former Soviet
>: >Union. Man, am I looking forward to that.

>: Your posts make this abundantly clear.
>: Looks like you're getting your wish. :)
>Couldn't add anything to the discussion except a lie, eh? If this is the
>quality of your argument, perhaps it's best you move on to alt.flame.
>They might take you more seriously there.
>--
>Jason Durbin jdu...@netcom.com

I never thought I'd ever feel it. But... I miss the Soviet Union. It's not
that I liked them, it's that the government couldn't mess around here with the
Soviets to worry about. Guess I found one good thing about the Cold War.

frank...@sandiegoca.ncr.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 10:53:57 PM9/6/94
to
In article <CvMJH...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:
>From: gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier)
>Subject: Re: The Revolution
>Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 21:25:01 GMT

>In <34cn0p$5...@paperboy.osf.org> dsw...@pugsley.osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber)
writes:
>>Gary, quite a few of us, I suspect, are about as happy at being
>>called "gun nuts" as homosexuals do being called faggots. It's
>>an offensive term, especially for those of us who aren't rabid
>>survivalist head-cases, but who *do* care about our 2nd Amendment
>>rights being hosed. And, I don't know if you're new here, or are
>>just being dishonest, but myself, CDT and many other "gun nuts"
>>have been quite vociferous our displeasure with what's been happening
>>to the Bill of Rights, all of it; and for you to imply otherwise,
>>particularly when you use terms such as "gun nut" and "deadly toys",
>>only calls into question your own intellectual honesty and objectivity.

>Who's objective? When it comes to whining boys eager to hold on to their
>toys, I can't be objective. The NRA is there to insure that arms

>manufacturers continue to have a market, and there are enough people in

>love with their guns (at the expense of everything else) to make that a

>reasonable assertion. The concern for "2nd amendment rights" seems to be
>the ONLY concern (never mind that the other amendments have been trashed;

>only when toys are in danger does the NRA get consitutionally indignant)
>that the gun lobby has. Why else would the NRA fight every effort to
>stem the supply of firearms to people on the street?

>Sorry, but the concern of the gun lovers is only with their toys. The

>rest of the constitution is irrelevant to many of them (note: not to all,
>but I'm convinced that those are in a distinct minority).

So says the Auschwitz poster boy.

frank...@sandiegoca.ncr.com

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 10:59:21 PM9/6/94
to
In article <donbCvn...@netcom.com> do...@netcom.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>From: do...@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
>Subject: Re: The Revolution
>Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 04:42:22 GMT

>In article <34dafr$1...@kirk.usc.edu> schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling)
>writes:

>>This is what you *want* to happen. I doubt that you seriously *expect*
>>it to happen. Fact is, the only thing that will happen if/when the
>>Supreme Court endorses gun control is a whole lot of complaining.
>>
>>If you believe otherwise, you have completely lost touch with the rest
>>of America. Very few people are willing to start a civil war over the
>>issue of gun control. Only a tiny fraction of those feel that a Supreme
>>Court ruling is the appropriate trigger event. The consensus necessary
>>for the action you describe does not exist.

Don't know about that. Just a few organized gang members in L.A. lit up the
entire city. These gangs also would like an excuse to shoot some cops. If some
ordinary citizens started a mini-revolution it could soon get out of hand with
gangs jumping in.

You must also remember that many gun owners are ex-military and know how to
light up a city better than gang members.

Dan Swartzendruber

unread,
Sep 7, 1994, 12:25:55 AM9/7/94
to
In article <DOCONNOR.9...@sedona.intel.com> doco...@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor) writes:
>
>dsw...@pugsley.osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>] In article <>, jmcb...@gdwest.gd.com (James T McBride) writes:

>Where did you read that ? Teflons ability to reduce wear on barrels
>is obvious, and encapsualting bulltes could reduce lead dust creation
>ta ranges. But how does a teflon-coated hammer penetrate a windshield
>better than an uncoated one ?

I don't recall. I think it was something from Massad Ayoob. The
problem, if I remember, was that shots with regular handgun loads
were deflected by doors and windshields too often, and for some
reason I don't remember, the teflon helped. I'll see if I can
dig up the reference.

>For penetrating car bodies, you simply use a harder lead alloy, or
>a substance harder than lead, like steel or tungsten.

The point is that these cops didn't necessarily know they were
going to need to pry someone out of a car, so it needed to be a
load you could use all the time.
--

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

UF IFAS CLIMATOLOGY LABORATORY

unread,
Sep 7, 1994, 1:41:10 AM9/7/94
to
In article <hockingsC...@netcom.com>, hock...@netcom.com (Mark Hockings.) writes:
> Gary Frazier (gfra...@efn.org) wrote:
> : In <decastroC...@netcom.com> deca...@netcom.com (Richard A. De Castro) writes:
>
> : >Gary, the right to own firearms predates the US Constitution. The
> : >Second Amendment doesn't grant a right, it is supposed to PREVENT the
> : >government from abridging that right. As a matter of fact, the entire
> : >BOR consists of limitations on the government, not the granting of rights
> : >to the people.

[...]

> If the gov't was REALLY serious about fighting crime, they would have a
> program to teach people how to handle firearms safely, how to hit their
> target, and when to shoot/not shoot. Once someone passed this course they
> should be issued a firearm by the government. (and a nifty little card that
> says they passed it etc etc). THAT would reduce crime in a big hurry.

That sounds an awful lot like... wait, yes, I think it is...
a WELL-REGULATED CITIZEN MILITIA!! Hmmm... Could this have been
the idea behind the second amendment? Nahh... too obvious!


-- Bob
re...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu

Don Baldwin

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 11:19:29 AM9/6/94
to
In article <hockingsC...@netcom.com> hock...@netcom.com (Mark Hockings.)
writes:

>: Why was there no fear of revolution, despite loud and unceasing complaints?
>: Because people with fighting spirit all entered the Service and earned
>: franchise. Those who didn't have franchise weren't willing to fight and
>: die, because otherwise they would simply have joined up for a hitch.

Actually, military service was one type of service which would allow you
to earn the right to vote, in Starship Troopers. The biggest way but
there were alternatives.

> Exactly. Right now the ones who seem to be complaining the most about the
>government are the ones who are armed. A lot of those people have also
>served in the military. They are the ones who appear to be willing to stand
>up and fight for what they believe in.

FYI, while I am a gun owner and wonder whether revolution might be in our
future, I have felt that way for some time. It's just that 2 years ago,
I was wondering whether I would need to stand outside of abortion clinics
with my rifle...or defend myself from a drug raid gone to the wrong
address..,

>I liked his reasoning behind ST's form of government. If you vote, or are in
>policy making positions, you may have to send someone off to get killed. If
>you are not willing to risk your own life for those beliefs, by what right
>do you send others off to risk theirs? The vote is the ultimate power in
>that book. (although I actually prefer the government from say, the Venus
>Belt by L. Neil Smith. <g>)

"Beyond this Horizon" was pretty good, too.

Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Satire is great, but for Nazis you use baseball bats and broken bottles."
- Woody Allen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Baldwin - e-mail to: do...@netcom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 12:14:56 PM9/6/94
to

>>By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

>What reason was there for banning such bullets in the first place?
A
Gary, it's time you started getting some facts, and quit trying to BS
people on t.p.g.

Teflon bullets are a classic strawman. The bullets, produced by only
1 company, were NEVER sold in any quantity, and were ONLY sold to
law enforcment. The gun-grabbers made a big deal out of it, and the ONLY
result was that criminals found out that they should shoot cops in the head,
since they wear bullet proof vests.

The NRA didn't bring the issue up, it was the weasel Schumer, (I believe).

The NRA tried to keep the entire issue quiet, and tried to explain to
the congress the facts of the issue, but it was Congress that endangered
the lives of the police.

A
A
A
A

dd
--
============================================================================
deca...@netcom.com Warning: I am a trained professional. No, Really!
Rick N6RCX EMT-A ATP MA Do Not try this yourself - it could get ugly......
Richard A. De Castro - As long as the Government pretends to protect me,
I'll pretend to feel safe - NOT!
-Don't Tread On Me!-
============================================================================

Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 1:04:50 PM9/6/94
to
gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>In <decastroC...@netcom.com> deca...@netcom.com (Richard A. De Castro) writes:

>>gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>>>In <34fmar$q...@ceylon.gte.com> al...@roger.gte.com (Andrew Betz) writes:

>>>>this is a variation on hci's claim that "the nra is a front for
>>>>weapons manufacturers." frazier is either ignorant of or is
>>>>consciously ignoring the fact that the nra has over three million
>>>>members.

>>>I'm not familiar with HCI, but it doesn't take much to figure out that a
>>>domestic arms race is in the interest of gun manufacturers and dealers.
>>>And when it takes little more than pocket change to become a Federally
>>>licesnced gun dealer, there are a lot of them out there.

>>Gary, if the people didn't want those guns, the dealers wouldn't be there.
>>It isn't the gun manufacturers that are upset about the attempt to
>>destroy the BOR, it's there customers. And, if the sum total of the firearms
>>industry's value was calculated, I don't think it would be a significant
>>amount in terms of the GDP. (Anyone got those figures?)

>Richard, the problem is we've got dealers who do not care who they're
>selling arms to. This is why the supply, distribution, and resale of
>firearms needs to be regulated MUCH more vigorously than it is
>now. BATF (yeah, I know...the new Geheimne Staatspolizei) can
>only scratch the surface of questionable arms trafficking.

The reality of the situation (not your fantasy, the reality) is that there
are practically no licensed gun dealers selling a gun to anyone that is not
legally allowed to have one.

The reality of the situation (not your fantasy) is that criminals don't buy
guns at gunstores. They steal them.

Your idea to control the "supply, distribution,and resale" is truly stupid.
On one hand you complain about the WoD, and the tactics and results of that.
Yet you want the same situation to control firearms, products which litteraly
millions of americans use legally.

For an 18 year old street punk, who has nothing better to do than work
out, the intimidation factor of all of the above is equally high as
firearms, in fact it is higher. The only difference is that the criminals
have to get closer.

You can do a drive-by fire bombing with a molotov cocktail. As I said in
another post, this would probably be the replacement for firearms, should
firearms become unavailable. If firearms give YOU a feeling of empowerment,
then you are too immature to have a firearm, but the only limitation I would
place on you is if you hurt anyone with a firearm, you would be subject to
swift, sure and certain punishement. Firearms do NOT give me anything, they
require me to be much more circumspect in my dealings with others. I

Its also a crime to brandish a knife (or a baseball bat) in a threatening
manner. The reason is that it disturbs the public.

I seriously doubt that you've ever been around firearms, and if you have, it
seems that you have not been educated about them at all. Like a car, or
a chainsaw, you should know how to operate it.

>>>>frazier is either ignorant of or is consciously
>>>>ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses outnumber criminal gun
>>>>uses. frazier's embracing a cost/benefit analysis without
>>>>acknowledging that the second amendment provides a deterrent to
>>>>tyranny.

>>>Right, so we can be shot on the street by the 4th Avenue Crips. Sure.

>>If the 4th Ave crips are going to assault you, they're going to assault
>>you. I've been shot, and I've had bones broken, and I've been burned
>>seriously. I'd rather be shot than burned, and since the 4th Ave crips
>>(or any gang member or criminal) is basically a coward, rather than
>>try and assault me with his fists, he'd use a knife, or a molotov
>>cocktail. A criminal is not made a criminal by a gun, but rather by
>>extraneous factors. While I agree that removing the economic stimulus
>>for crime is the actual solution, making it easier for criminals to
>>commit crime is not a good idea.

>So why do we have so many firearms available? I agree with you that a
>criminal is basically a coward. That's why he'll choose a firearm over
>any other potential weapon. They're available, they intimidate, they
>allow him to threaten others from a distance. They're also good if
>you're lazy, and most criminals are. It takes a lot less physical effort
>to use a firearm than to use any of the other weapons you cite.

That's true. However, if firearms are not available, the coward will
choose another weapon - such as a knife. Effective defense against a
knife-wielding attacker by an unarmed (i.e. not armed with a firearm) victim
is theoretical at best. Even people who have devoted years and years to
the martial arts will probably get hurt in the exchange. This is why
it should be legal for law-abiding citizens (not criminals) to have
firearms - it provides the best defense for the victims.

>>I see from your address that your'e on the Eugene freenet. Several years
>>ago, Oregon became one of the states that has non-discretionary issuance
>>of CCW's (concealed carry permits). Has the crime rate increased dramatically
>>because more Oregon citizens are being controlled by their now-legally carried
>>concealed weapons? If you check, you'll probably find the opposite is true.
>>It has been in the other states that have non-discretionary CCW's, like
>>Florida.

>Richard, in March I moved down to Oregon from Tacoma, WA. Within a week
>after I did so the type of violent crime aided by firearms that has
>become so typical around Puget Sound seemed to follow me down here. The
>local police are inundated with murders and firearms related robberies,
>so much that detectives are working double shifts to keep up with all the
>stuff that's going down. I'm not familiar with the situation in Portland.

So? Washington also has a non-discretionary CCW. How many people who have
been issued CCW's have been the perpetrators of drive by shootings, or any
other crime? (hint, Zero). You seem to miss the basic issue. The problem
is not criminals using guns, the problem is criminals.
l

Evidence? The ATF doesn't have any trouble at all finding FFL holders.
However, if people are illegally selling guns, that's not the fault of
the law-abiding. People cannot buy guns at gun shows no questions asked,
at least not legally. I don't know how the gun shows work in OR or WA, but
the largest gunshow in the US happens here twice a year, and the ATF is
constantly running sting operations, with NO results from the legal dealers.
Yes, you can probably buy a firearm illegally, but at the gunshow, you're
more likely to try and buy one from an ATF agent.

>>>>>Sorry, but the concern of the gun lovers is only with their toys. The
>>>>>rest of the constitution is irrelevant to many of them (note: not to all,
>>>>>but I'm convinced that those are in a distinct minority).

>>>>this is so incredibly bigoted i can't believe it. as someone who
>>>>was concerned about the erosion in our bill or rights long before
>>>>i became a firearms enthusiast, i take genuine offense. take your
>>>>bigoted tripe elsewhere.

>>>Drew, how do you go about convincing myself and others who feel this way
>>>that we're wrong? By demanding that you've got the right to own full
>>>automatics? By insisting that if you wanted to own a howitzer, you
>>>should be able to? By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

>>Gary, if I have a firearm (any type), and I hurt someone with it, I should
>>be punished, swiftly, and certainly. The problem we have now is that
>>criminals (not law abiding citizens) but violent criminals, are not being
>>punished for their actions.

>Part of our problem is that we're wasting valuable prison space on dope
>dealers. But we're giving the criminals every possible chance to arm
>themselves, too. This is not working.

I agree. I don't believe that possession of small amounts should be
a felony, the users should be helped. I believe that dealing should be
against the law. What opportunities are we giving criminals? Please
provide some hard EVIDENCE, not rhetoric.

>>I agree that the War on Drugs is an abject failure. It has been since it
>>was started in the Kennedy administration, because in the US, we (the citizens)
>>don't want to do what would be neccessary to stem the flow of drugs. We don't
>>want even the excesses we see now with the DEA, ATF, asset forfiture, etc.

>>I do NOT agree that firearms are a cause of the problem. The cause of the
>>problem is economic, and it will not be fixed by changing the symptoms.

>Firearms are NOT a cause; I agree with you there. But they're certainly
>contributing to the level of violence; having such a huge supply of them
>available isn't smart. They're a symptom that we need to deal with, even
>as we deal with the root cause.

Then treat the cause, treating the symptoms will not have any affect on
the cause.

>>>There are too many people out there who get their rocks off by firing
>>>their Uzis/MAC-10s/Streetsweepers etc. on full rock and roll.
>>>Gratification is not a justification for the carnage in our streets.
>>>Surely you heard about the kids in Chicago killing each other over the
>>>weekend, haven't you? How many more must die before we call off the arms
>>>race?

>>Again, people who misuse their firearms have broken the compact of citizenship,
>>and should not be able to have firearms. But, did you know that the ONLY case
>>of a legally owned machine gun being used illegaly was a (crooked) cop who
>>performed a "mob hit"? With that (one, although I've heard rumors of one
>>other, for a TOTAL since 1934 of 2 (two) cases), no legally owned machinegun
>>(like your Uzi/Mac-10 example) has been used illegally? How many automobiles,
>>telephones, knives, airplanes, chainsaws, boats, etc have been used illegaly
>>since 1934?

>But, Richard, tut-tutting about those who misuse their firearms after the
>fact is pointless. Why don't we at least make an effort to keep these
>weapons out of the hands of just anybody? Is it that unreasonable to require
>anyone who wants a firearm to be trained beforehand on its safe use and
>proper safeguards for storage?

We do make an effort to keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have
them. Considering how many legally owned full-auto machine guns have been used
in crimes, I'd have to say that we do pretty well.

BTW, every firearms safety program in the US today is based (at least in part)
on the work the NRA has been doing for 100+ years in firearms safety.

>>I've heard about the kids in Chicago. Did you know that it's been illegal
>>since at least 1968, under federal law, for a person under 18 to have a
>>firearm? Who gave it to them? (Hint, it was a criminal).

>Perhaps it was a criminal federally licensed firearms dealer? How will
>we ever know? The authorities do not have the resources (by
>Congressional fiat, demanded by the NRA) to go after them.

We'd know, since the ATF and the gun-grabbers are making a big issue of
tracking "assault weapons". FFL's do not sell to kids, not if they want
to stay out of jail. The ATF and the rest of the government has NO problem
at all running checks on guns used in crime - once again, check your facts.

>>Also, while I hold ALL life precious, the numbers of people being unlawfully
>>killed each year isn't all that high. Approximately 35K, if memory serves, total deaths from a firearm, approximately 1/2 of those classified as justifiable
>>(cops shooting bad guys, citizens shooting bad guys, etc) and half of those
>>left being suicides. Before you get started on the suicide rate, btw, there
>>is NO evidence ANYWHERE that the lack of access to a firearm will reduce the
>>number of suicides, they will find other, less leathal ways.

>No, but it makes it much easier to do so. It's quicker and easier,
>therefore more likely to be used on impulse. And pumping a stomach will
>not bring someone back from a head wound.

Read my 'graph above. There is NO evidence anywhere that the lack of
firearms has any affect at all on the suicide rate (either attempted or
succesful). People who choose firearms to commit suicide are not generally
asking for help, they will find a way to end their life. In Canada, when
the government made handguns scarce, the suicide rate actually went up slightly.
In Japan, where there are NO privately owned firearms, the suicide rate is
higher than the combined suicide/homicide rate in the US.

>>So, once again, why blame an inanimate object? Why not punish those people
>>who can't control themselves, rather than punishing those who can?

>Because in our modern, stressed society, the line between control and
>lack of control is very, very thin. Why tempt that lack of control with
>a tool that DOES, in fact, empower people and make them bolder than they
>would otherwise be? This isn't just any inanimate object. It's an
>inanimate object that can give someone a sense of security and power that
>they would not have with it. Even the NRA conceeds this point...their entire
>"armed citizen" campaign and the gun magazines and manufacturers
>marketing campaigns aimed at women play on this very feature of firearms.

So you're saying that in order to make sure everyone is nice, we should
put Prozac in the water?

Guns do give people a sense of security - thats why people get them.
In order to be secure from the criminals, since the state is not
responsible for protecting you, people want the best protection they can
get. Firearms are used 600,000 to 2.5 million times per year (depending
on who's stats you use) to prevent a crime, usually without firing a shot.

The attempts to educate women to become responsible for their own defense
(since the state is not legally obliged to protect anyone) strikes me as
very reasonable. I want everyone to know how to use a firearm (safely),
and all law-abiding to have them. Once again, Gary, the facts, the
hard statistics, don't support your position. Check the results of
CCW's in Oregon, Washington, and Florida. Guns in the hands of the
law abiding actually REDUCE crime, not increase it.

>>>I don't buy the "we need them to check the government" argument. The
>>>government isn't the problem here. The glut of weapons out on the
>>>streets is. Our rights to go about our daily business on the streets of
>>>our cities, our mobility, our sanity, is at risk here. I quite frankly
>>>don't want the right to be armed but to live in constant fear of stray
>>>bullets hitting my home. Until the NRA and gun enthusiasts get that
>>>through their skulls, this issue will remain unresolved

>>A well-armed society is a polite society. When I travel to Arizona, where
>>open carry is both legal and common, I do so. I never worry about being
>>shot there. I do worry about being shot by a criminal, probably under
>>the effect of some mind-altering substance (legal or not), who doesnt
>>know how to shoot anything.

>Right. Just look at Somalia. Well armed, and in utter chaos. Our
>society is becoming less and less polite and more and more armed.
>Firearms are, by their nature, offensive in orienation. Returning fire
>isn't true defense. A kevlar vest is.

The problem in Somalia is that some people had guns, others didn't.
Returning fire is not a true defense. Neither is a vest, btw. Convincing
the criminals that it would be economically foolish for them to try and
assault someone, since their (might) be a chance that they have a legally
carried, concealed firearm is. That's beent he experience in Florida, where
criminals who were singling out tourists for attack have said the reason
they're going after tourists is that the citizens might have guns.

>>Looking at the problem from economic viewpoints, I am convinced that it
>>would be cheaper to simply take all the criminals, give them a decent
>>firearm and all the ammo they could shoot, and teach them HOW to shoot.
>>This would have the advantage of being self-limiting, since they would
>>eventually reduce the number of criminals through drive-by shootings, and
>>would give the innocent a chance to not be hit by a stray round. However,
>>in order to make it fair to the rest of society, until the gang-bangers
>>killed themselves off, the citizens should have the same ability
>>to have access to weapons, and the ability to defend themselves.

>When you've been hit first, returning fire isn't a defense. It's revenge.
>You're also hoping to cause the other guy to duck. Either way, it
>doesn't do you any good. The damage has been done and cannot be undone

My personal beliefs (and my religon, btw) don't allow me to be a passive
victim. If someone tries to kill me, I will do everything I can to kill
them, if for no other reason than I might survive, if they don't shoot me
again. However, since your comment was based on the collateral damage of
drive-by shootings, I don't plan on being the target of a drive by. I don't
engage in any activity that would put me at risk that way.

Also, using your logic, the police should NEVER have guns, they should
let criminals shoot them, and then just lie down and die. Have you
suggested this to any law enforcement officers?

.

Richard A. De Castro

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 1:17:47 PM9/6/94
to
gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

>In <decastroC...@netcom.com> deca...@netcom.com (Richard A. De Castro) writes:

>>Gary, the right to own firearms predates the US Constitution. The
>>Second Amendment doesn't grant a right, it is supposed to PREVENT the
>>government from abridging that right. As a matter of fact, the entire
>>BOR consists of limitations on the government, not the granting of rights
>>to the people.

>Richard, show me anywhere in this current set of threads ("The Revolution")
>where I've advocated the revocation of the second amendment. Or the
>confiscation of lawfully owned weapons. I've talked about stemming the
>supply. If you're part of a "well regulated militia" you certainly have
>a right to bear arms. Do keep in mind that "bearing arms" is
>about the military use of weapons, not just having them for shits
>and grins. It's time to get the militia regulated.

Regulating the supply of firearms. What part of "...The right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" do you not understand?

The militia (both in the intent of the framers of the Constitution, and
in the letter of the US law (last modified in just 1990, 11 USC 330 and 11 USC 331) says that almost all people in the US (all citizens, and all non-citizens
who have expressed a desire to stay in the US) are members of the unorganized
militia.

Bearing arms means having guns. The Second Amendment, and the Supreme
Court decisions that concern it (especially US v. Miller) say that people
have the right to keep and bear arms, for the use of the Milita for the
defense of the Constitution.
C
And, you might find out what "well regulated" means in terms of the Second.
It doesn't mean controlled, it means effective.
A


>>Whether I need a gun or not, I have a right to it. Whether I need to
>>be secure in my person and property, I have a right to it. Whether
>>or not I want to stand on a street corner and give the world my
>>view on anything, I have a right to do so.

>If you're a member of the well regulated militia, as specified in the second
>amendment, no problem.

Again, all citizens (mostly) are the militia.

>>In other posts, you have complained about the reduction of rights that
>>people have because of the WOD, etc. Why is the loss of those rights any
>>more terrible than the loss of the right to keep and bear arms, even if
>>you, or I, dont' want to?

>My complaint is that many out there who are so concerned about their
>second amendment rights seem to be utterly blind to any other amendment.
>The concern then seems not to be with the rather abstract concept of
>enumerated rights, but with the guns themselves.

What is abstact about ANY of the rights in the Constitution?

>>Why not punish the guilty, rather than the innocent?

>Why not be proactive and get these deadly instruments under control

OK, lets be proactive, and get the criminals under control. Or, are you
suggesting that we do punish the innocent, rather than the guilty?

I truly hope that you continue to read t.p.g. It might not cause you
to change your mind, but I think you will find the arguments and facts
presented are worthy of thought.

?

Travis Corcoran

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 1:32:41 PM9/6/94
to

In article <34cn0p$5...@paperboy.osf.org> dsw...@pugsley.osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:

> Path: kiki.icd.teradyne.com!netcomsv!netcom.com!netcomsv!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!paperboy.osf.org!pugsley.osf.org!dswartz
> From: dsw...@pugsley.osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber)
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.org.batf,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,alt.conspiracy
> Date: 4 Sep 1994 14:53:13 GMT
> Lines: 35
> References: <donbCvI...@netcom.com> <348r58$4...@transfer.stratus.com> <3499p7$r...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <CvKzv...@efn.org>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: pugsley.osf.org
>
> In article <CvKzv...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:
> >In <3499p7$r...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
> >
> >Even the gun nuts only get bent out of shape when the 2nd amendment comes
> >up; they could not possibly care about the 1st amendment rights of
> >"hippies" and "liberals", and they've demonstrated no concern at all over
> >the "War on Drugs" as it applies to anything but their right to have as
> >many deadly toys as their income allows.


>
> Gary, quite a few of us, I suspect, are about as happy at being
> called "gun nuts" as homosexuals do being called faggots. It's
> an offensive term, especially for those of us who aren't
> rabid survivalist head-cases

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So the "nice gays" shouldn't be called faggots, but the bull-dykes can
be called that?

Why the use of "rabid"? And what's wrong with being a survivalist?
By a reasonable definition of the word, everyone who's participating
in this discussion and takes any precautions at all to survive
potential coming "hard times" is a survivalist.

--
TJIC (Travis J.I. Corcoran) TJ...@icd.teradyne.com
opinions(TJIC) != opinions(employer(TJIC))

"Buy a rifle, encrypt your data, and wait for the Revolution!"

John Schilling

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 2:56:39 PM9/6/94
to
an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:

>In a previous article, schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling) says:

>>
>>So, out of all the people you encountered in the past months, all the
>>conversations you were close enough to overhear, you found four people
>>who were willing to entertaing the thought of revolution. None of those
>>gave specific information regarding exactly *why* they thought revolution
>>might be a good idea ("crime bill" covers a lot of ground) or *when*
>>they thought a revolution should start.
>>
>>And from this you agree with the prediction for a massive uprising following
>>a supreme court ruling on a specific subject?


> Gad, it's just so predicatable. Chum, in the past 18 YEARS,
> I didn't find FOUR people advocated revolution. I'm telling YOU
> that people are angry.

> Since you've decided to be Clinton-headed, I'll tell you what
> I heard today...

> The militia in one of the western states is putting together
> a strategic plan for cutting their state off from the rest of
> the U.S. They estimate they'll need manpower of about 10,000
> men.


Could you be a bit more specific? Which state? Who is organizing the
militia therein? And how many of the necessary ten thousand people
have signed up?

And most importantly, what is your source for this information?

All you've really told me is that at least two people have had a bull
session on the subject. Hardly a basis for revolution.


> Christ. I really resent having people tell me stuff that I
> KNOW isn't true.

> Stay in your dreamworld. Kill this thread. Begone, back to
> your slumber.


Sorry, but I'm not the one who is dreaming here. Not that I have anything
against your dream, but it is not reality.


Reality is that there does not exist at this time the popular support
necessary for revolution.

Reality is that, if at some point such support does come to exist, the
resulting revolution will be a lot bloodier than you expect, and that
the results will not be as clear-cut as you expect.

Reality is that, at best, an armed revolution will leave this country
looking like the former Soviet Union. More likely, former Yugoslavia.

This may be better than what the various statists have in mind for us.

But it is not something to look forward to.


--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *

Ross Bagley

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 2:37:50 PM9/6/94
to
In article <jdurbinC...@netcom.com> jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin) writes:

[...snip...]

>: Assuming, of course, that CNN was still on the air. That may be a faulty
>: assumption: somehow, I don't expect any revolution to be televised.
>
>Why would CNN not be on the air?

I suspect that CNN and the four broadcast networks would see that the
revolution was against their aims and would choose to show only a brief
subset of the revolutionary activities, favorable to their political
position (for the current system).

>Would certain rights be suspended during the revolution?

I'm not expecting the government to treat revolutionaries like POW's under
Geneva or like citizens under the Constitution. I doubt the media will
be there to cover the treatment of said prisoners.

>Somehow I expect that unless the revolutionaries are
>organized enough to take over every television/radio station with a
>satellite feed, as well as amateur broadcasters, it's a bit far-fetched
>to think that the news and images won't be available. Remember too that
>broadcasts are available from overseas in the US (think Canada, Mexico,
>UK, etc.).

Broadcast of the revolution in it's entirety is a massive benefit to the
revolutionaries, and something that I only see happening if the revolutionaries
manage to take over the media stations by force. In the beginning at least,
such takings will be short and well-orchestrated. The revolutionaries are
going to need to get in, make their statements, and get out before the police
get there. The media may play edited versions of pre-recorded statements by
revolutionary groups, but I wouldn't count on it.

[...snip...]

>That's one opinion. How about the opinion of the rest of the people under
>siege? I can guarantee you that a significant percentage of the
>population will blame the rebels. Perhaps not more than half but enough
>to start a counter-revolution. Do you have contingency plans for that?

Definitely a possibility. Having the rebels maintain the moral high ground
is one of what I consider to be an essential element of the next revolution.
I would also hope that people in areas where fighting is going on will take
enough time to see who is shooting at what and where the real atrocities
are occuring. When the government clamps down after the revolution begins
(assumptions 1 and 2), I believe that a great deal more people will be
instantly recruited into the militia army.

>: I would prefer to avoid a revolution. I want to live quietly, die of
>: old age and raise little Baldwins.
>
>Bravo. I wish you well

I echo his sentiment and yours. I also want to live quietly without ever
firing a shot in anger. I feel that such will not be the case if I want to
be a free man though.

>: I may not have a choice, however...
>
>Let's hope that some thorough discussion of the intracacies of a real
>revolution will make the other choices apparent to you.

I understand that many choices and alternatives currently exist to a battle
of arms with the government. I see more and more of them disappearing every
day. When they are all exhausted, and arms are the last resort, then you
will find me out there, fighting for my freedoms in the only way that I then
can.

--
Ross Bagley bag...@eli.hc.ti.com DoD#957 '88 CBR600F
The above statements are not the opinion of Texas Instruments.

Ross Bagley

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:17:39 PM9/6/94
to
In article <CvKzv...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

[...snip...]

>I was in Korea in '87...perhaps you remember all the video of riots in
>the streets. A block away from the demonstrations, life went on as
>usual. The picture you saw on your TV is very different from reality. I
>understand from discussing this phenomenon with people who observed,
>first hand, the '86 revolution in the Phillipines, that the situation was
>quite similar there. In the immediate vicinity of the government
>buildings, all the activity took place. A few blocks away, it was
>business as usual.

Quite interesting. I too am of the opinion that the government will
exert it's influence to control the media, and that those who aren't
forced to be involved in the activity will do their best to ignore it.

>There won't be a revolution in this country until enough people are
>starving or deprived of their cable. Americans have, for the most part,
>demonstrated little revolutionary fervor as the fourth and fifth
>amendments have been trashed to fight the "War on Drugs"; they only get
>excited when their taxes go up, not when their freedoms are revoked.


>Even the gun nuts only get bent out of shape when the 2nd amendment comes
>up; they could not possibly care about the 1st amendment rights of
>"hippies" and "liberals", and they've demonstrated no concern at all over
>the "War on Drugs" as it applies to anything but their right to have as
>many deadly toys as their income allows.

*SCREE*, bump, *CRASH*, ssscccrrraaaapppeee...*CRASH*. You have just
heard the sounds of my usually easyriding mind get completely bent out
of shape.

I am a gun-nut. I am proud of that description. I get very bent out of
shape when my 2nd Amendment rights are under attack. I am also very, very
interested when anyone's 1st Amendment rights get suppressed, including
the hippies and the modern liberals. I am INCREDIBLY concerned with the
War on Some Drugs, because I see it as the cause of most of the crime
we see today, and directly responsible for the war on guns. I get
extremely pissed when 4th Amendment rights to lawful search and seizure
get suspended in the name of the Drug War, and I am very concerned about
the religious rights attempts to limit 1st Amendment power and to control
speech offensive to them.

Don't try to pigeon-hole groups like that. There are a great deal of
patriots out there who are concerned with all of the Constitution, and
not just with the 2nd.

I am one.

>If there's going to be a revolution, it must address our combined
>public/private governance structure, which includes not only the
>"government" as outlined in the Constitution but also Corporate America,
>which is a form of government all on its own. We may not have a "planned
>economy" in the Soviet sense, but we sure as hell don't have anything
>approaching a "free market" economy, either, corporate propaganda to the
>contrary.

I understand that we don't have free markets, but the reason we don't
have free markets is that the corporations and certain special interest
groups have used the government to solidify their position in the market
and have thereby unbalanced them (the markets).

The government is the problem. How can a corporation have any control
unless it has the government behind it? It can't.

Ross Bagley

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:22:56 PM9/6/94
to
In article <rlglendeC...@netcom.com> rlgl...@netcom.com (Robert Lewis Glendenning) writes:
>During the next 3 to 5 years, the Supreme Court will rule on a gun
>case. This case will have national media attention, and every gun owner,
>libertarian and proto-revolutionary will be watching closely.
>
>If they rule by the plain meaning of the Constitution, it will be a
>signal that we are moving back to Constitutional rule.
>
>If they rule for the federal government, it will be a signal that
>the gov has permanently escaped the Constitution. In this case,
>I expect:
>
>1) That every major federal building in the US outside of WDC and
>army bases will be burned in the next 48 hours.

It might take a little longer than that. After all, there's going to
be a run on fertilizer like you've never seen, and if it occurs during
the winter then there's not going to be enough to do all of them...

The deisel fuel will be quite available.

[...snip...]

>In preparation for these events, may I suggest that you learn all
>about your local federal buildings?

What, like locations of main structural supports of those buildings? How
about times for work and phone numbers? Perhaps control systems of locks
and security plans? I agree. Learn everything you can.

Donald R. McGregor

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:51:06 PM9/6/94
to
:>>>By opposing the ban on teflon-coated bullets?

:>>What reason was there for banning such bullets in the first place?
:>A
:>Gary, it's time you started getting some facts, and quit trying to BS
:>people on t.p.g.
:>
:>Teflon bullets are a classic strawman. The bullets, produced by only
:>1 company, were NEVER sold in any quantity, and were ONLY sold to
:>law enforcment. The gun-grabbers made a big deal out of it, and the ONLY
:>result was that criminals found out that they should shoot cops in the head,
:>since they wear bullet proof vests.

It didn't help penetrate bullet proof vests, either.

->The following text is from the NRAction newsletter, Volume 4, Issue 5 (May
->1990); it is an interview with one one of the inventors of the KTW bullet,
->and is a subset of a larger article.
->
->We decided to go to the source, to track down the inventor of the original
->"cop-killer" bullet, originally marketed as the "KTW" bullet. We found the
->"K" of "KTW," Dr. Paul Kopsch told us that the bullet was made exclusively
->for police and military use. And had nothing to do with protective vests.
->
->Kopsch: "There were a couple gunfights, police versus criminal, here in
->Lorraine County, [Ohio]. The ordinary .38 Special service bullet would not
->get through the car door. And with any degree of obliquity, it bounced off
->the windshield.[Police] Lieutenant Turcus, Don Ward and I thought maybe we
->could design a bullet which would get through the car door, and get through
->the windshield and get the crook out of the car ...
->
->Kopsch explained that the teflon coating, which a host of media and
->lawmakers alleged was the key to penetrating body armor, served one
->purpose. It helped bullets go through smooth surfaces, like windshields and
->car doors, especially at oblique angles. The former Army medical officer
->likened it to the teflon tip of a walking stick. It simply grabs better.
->
->Kopsch: "Adding a teflon coating to the round added 20% penetration power
->on metal and glass. Critics kept complaining about teflon's ability to
->penetrate body armor. That was nonsense typical of do-gooders. In fact,
->teflon cut down on the round's ability to cut through the nylon or kevlar
->of body armor."
->
->Thus, Kopsch and police officers Turcus and Ward invented the "KTW" round.
->It was designed to be shot by police and military through car doors and
->windshields at criminals, terrorists -- not, as Chief McNamara would have
->people believe -- through ballistic resistant vests worn by police
->officers.
->
->Could the round penetrate such vests? Again, Dr. Kopsch ...
->
->Kopsch: "It'll defeat the ordinary ballistic nylon or Kevlar vest, but as I
->said, the teflon gives away its purpose and detracts from it's ability to
->penetrate body armor. Moreover, no armored police officer has been killed
->by the round, and interestingly enough the man who brought this to national
->attention ws the Honorable Rep. Mario Biaggi, who was in the U.S. House of
->Representatives at the time. When he called attention to the fact that the
->police were wearing bullet-resistant garments, the criminals started to
->shoot for the head. So Biaggi may have gotten quite a few policeman
->killed...
->
->"We never sold [KTW] to the public. Sales were always limited to the police
->and the military. It had been available to the police and military for
->roughly five years before Biaggi started this ...it was a hoax on
->[Biaggi's] part that got him national publicity.
->
->In bumper sticker language, Kopsch's much-maligned invention was a
->cop-saver bullet.

Sean O'Neill

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:27:08 PM9/6/94
to
Personally, I think the only redeeming feature of the crime bill is
that it has no funding. What a stupid bill.

You know, we could save another $30 billion or so a year by
eliminating the worse-than-useless CIA.


Ross Bagley

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:42:21 PM9/6/94
to
In article <34dafr$1...@kirk.usc.edu> schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:

[...the US will fall...snip...]

>This is what you *want* to happen. I doubt that you seriously *expect*
>it to happen. Fact is, the only thing that will happen if/when the
>Supreme Court endorses gun control is a whole lot of complaining.

I dunno. The buildings might very well get blown up/burned down. The
complaining could be a bit more than just words.

>If you believe otherwise, you have completely lost touch with the rest
>of America. Very few people are willing to start a civil war over the
>issue of gun control. Only a tiny fraction of those feel that a Supreme
>Court ruling is the appropriate trigger event. The consensus necessary
>for the action you describe does not exist.

Oh, the consensus is there in the grand scheme. What does not have the
consensus is what the hard trigger is or should be. The Supreme Court
may be a good one.

>The idea that State governments will automatically support the rebels,
>and that the Feds will immediately give in and repeal all of their nasty
>laws, is an absurd fantasy with no resemblance to reality.

Well, since many states have passed the Ultimatum Resolution and the
10th Amendment Resolution, I would say that many would probably have the
attitude of "enemy of my enemy" even if they are not willing to openly
support the activities of the rebels themselves.

>The degree of public support necessary to start, much less win, a revolution
>does not exist in this country today.

Correct.

>If at some point in the future it
>does exist, it will be the result of a pattern of oppression by the state
>in a wide range of areas, not single-issue opposition to gun control. And
>the trigger event will be something much more tangible than a supreme court
>ruling on an abstract issue.

Another WACO style massacre perhaps?

Ross Bagley

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:50:56 PM9/6/94
to
In article <34frck$2...@kirk.usc.edu> schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:

[...snip...]

>So, out of all the people you encountered in the past months, all the
>conversations you were close enough to overhear, you found four people
>who were willing to entertaing the thought of revolution. None of those
>gave specific information regarding exactly *why* they thought revolution
>might be a good idea ("crime bill" covers a lot of ground) or *when*
>they thought a revolution should start.
>
>And from this you agree with the prediction for a massive uprising following

>a supreme court ruling on a specific subject?

The militias are organizing themselves right now. The predations on
freedoms in many areas that you believe (correctly) that are necessary
to have support of a revolution are already well underway and have
become quite entrenched.

You said something to the effect that the war in 1776 was started by
several widely spread attacks on freedoms by the British government and
only set off by the highly antagonistic march to seize weapons at
Concord.

I see us as being very close to the march on Concord, and the actual
trigger being something very similar to the original. The predations
are already here. Most of the Bill of Rights is set aside as
inconvienent by both of the last two Presidents and their parties.

The revolution is almost here. Get your equipment now.

--
Ross Bagley bag...@eli.hc.ti.com DoD#957 '88 CBR600F

Ross Bagley

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:57:27 PM9/6/94
to
In article <CvoEx...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:

[...snip...]

>Unfortnately, we live in a country where some people feel that they
>simply MUST have a gun, whether they really need it or not.

But since everyone NEEDS a gun to keep the government at bay,
then everyone who wants one should be permitted to have one. Same
goes for stinger missiles and anti-tank rockets.

>This
>situation has led to a set of circumstances where the perception of need
>has skyrocketed (self defense based on all the gun-related violence out
>in the streets). If we had taken positive steps to get the milita "well
>regulated" 40 years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

They're practiced in the use of their arms. What more of "well-regulated"
to you want? That's what it meant after all...

>Unfortunately, through a series of social pathologies we've got a domestic
>arms race underway, and there seems to be no practical way to put the
>genie back into the bottle.

Relegalize drugs. The violence in the cities will plummet. The crime
rates have been dropping everywhere but there, and you'll notice that
all of the cities which have gun control laws in place have the highest
crime rates in the country...

>So we'll continue to live with a free supply
>of weapons to anyone who wants one, for whatever reason (be it admiration
>for the craftsmanship, a desire to squeeze off a few rounds at the range
>on Friday afternoon, hunting, or knocking over the corner 7-11).

As soon as he knocks over the 7-11, you lock him up and take his gun away.
Give it to some poor old woman who otherwise wouldn't have one. Do a
double good.

>Until
>we get a handle on this supply problem (and certainly we'll need the
>cooperation of the law-abiding gun owner to do this) we're going to
>continue to see kids killing kids over schoolyard insults.

Only when there's drug money exacerbating the entire situation. Where do
you think those kids get the money or the inclination to buy and carry
guns? From the drug dealers that push drugs to them. Remove that massive
profit potantial, and the gangs are back to bicycle riding bad guys who
have rumbles at the park with their switchblades.

>The question is, how many relatives of NRA members must be killed by
>firearms before something is done?

None. You're just looking at the wrong something. Go after the cause of
the crime for a change.

Larry M. Jordan

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 7:38:09 PM9/6/94
to
In article <34if8j$9...@superb.csc.ti.com> bag...@hc.ti.com (Ross Bagley) writes:
[snip]

>
>I am a gun-nut. I am proud of that description. I get very bent out of
>...

>get suspended in the name of the Drug War, and I am very concerned about
>the religious rights attempts to limit 1st Amendment power and to control
>speech offensive to them.

I'm convinced that the Drug War, as well-intensioned as it may have been,
has proven to be a greater evil to liberties of men. Civil rights cannot
be suspended without cost, tremendous cost. (Gov't gets addicted to the
habitual abuse.)

As a member of the religious right, I'm intrigued by your 'concern'.
It was John Adams who said, "Our Constitution was made for a moral
and religious people. It is wholy inadequate for the government of
any other." So, I seriously doubt the founders had intended to
protect 'pornography', but that I'm sure has been a hot topic of debate.
I don't think you are not in danger of losing your right to peruse Playboy
or Penthouse. However, as a parent I will insist on 'choice' in the
matter--choice for myself and my children to be free from its deleterious
affects. There are many ways to achieve this aim. I prefer the one where
my protected [religious] speech allows me to have influence in the political
arena. We're back.

>
>Don't try to pigeon-hole groups like that. There are a great deal of
>patriots out there who are concerned with all of the Constitution, and
>not just with the 2nd.
>
>I am one.
>

I want to be in that number.

--Larry Jordan

[snip]

I Koch

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 9:00:32 PM9/6/94
to
If there were to be a revoloution, the media would certainly have to be a target as well as any of the other targets listed. There is no doubt about it that all media would be unfriendly to revoloution.

Don Baldwin

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 6:11:15 PM9/6/94
to
In article <jdurbinC...@netcom.com> jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin)
writes:
>Heinlein had some interesting ideas, but none that I'd risk basing a
>nation's future on.

If we don't take some risks in putting the country back on track, we'll
never succeed.

We may not succeed anyway but at least we'll have taken our best shot.

Don

Don Baldwin

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 6:23:36 PM9/6/94
to
In article <Cvp7w...@efn.org> gfra...@efn.org (Gary Frazier) writes:
>>Whether I need a gun or not, I have a right to it. Whether I need to
>>be secure in my person and property, I have a right to it. Whether
>>or not I want to stand on a street corner and give the world my
>>view on anything, I have a right to do so.
>
>If you're a member of the well regulated militia, as specified in the second
>amendment, no problem.

But the 2nd Amendment doesn't say that "members of the militia" have the
right to keep and bear arms. It says "the People" do.

Big difference.

>Why not be proactive and get these deadly instruments under control?

Why do I think you wouldn't agree to support gun controls which would
benefit society, without forcing unreasonable restrictions down gun
owners' throats?

Don

Jason Durbin

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 10:24:46 PM9/6/94
to
Ross Bagley (bag...@hc.ti.com) wrote:
: In article <jdurbinC...@netcom.com> jdu...@netcom.com (Jason
: Durbin) writes:

: >Why would CNN not be on the air?

: I suspect that CNN and the four broadcast networks would see that the
: revolution was against their aims and would choose to show only a brief
: subset of the revolutionary activities, favorable to their political
: position (for the current system).

Since I believe the media has a very narrow agenda, profits, I would
predict that their reportage would lean towards whoever seemed to have
the upper hand at the moment. At the beginning of any revolution, that
would necessarily be the feds since, as far as the media knows, most
people would support the govt. and the rebels' standing would be an
unknown. That might change were the rebels to start gaining palpable
popular support. The media would want to survive just as much as any
citizen and therefore would bend with the trends.

: >Would certain rights be suspended during the revolution?

: I'm not expecting the government to treat revolutionaries like POW's under
: Geneva or like citizens under the Constitution. I doubt the media will
: be there to cover the treatment of said prisoners.

I doubt that. The feds would be quite aware that they need to present
themselves as good guys who would give the rebels fair treatment and fair
trials. Do you assume that in the event of a revolution that the feds
would drop all pretense of believing in the constitution and present
themselves as tyrants? I think they would be very careful _not_ to
alienate the fence sitters and, for that matter, the rest of the
population.

: Broadcast of the revolution in it's entirety is a massive benefit to the


: revolutionaries, and something that I only see happening if the
: revolutionaries
: manage to take over the media stations by force. In the beginning at least,
: such takings will be short and well-orchestrated. The revolutionaries are
: going to need to get in, make their statements, and get out before the police
: get there. The media may play edited versions of pre-recorded statements by
: revolutionary groups, but I wouldn't count on it.

I think that the average reaction of the population will be, "Who are
these nuts? What are they going on about"? The media takeover will need
to be massive and widespread so that people realize that something
serious is really happening and that, yes, perhaps they had better think
about choosing sides. Otherwise, they are going to think that a few nuts
got together and overran a TV/radio station and will soon be tallking to
the cops downtown.

: >That's one opinion. How about the opinion of the rest of the people under


: >siege? I can guarantee you that a significant percentage of the
: >population will blame the rebels. Perhaps not more than half but enough
: >to start a counter-revolution. Do you have contingency plans for that?

: Definitely a possibility. Having the rebels maintain the moral high ground
: is one of what I consider to be an essential element of the next revolution.

Unfortunately, in the several threads this discussion has spread to,
there are a significant number of comments by posters who indicate that
maintaining the moral high ground isn't all that important to them. Loose
canons like these can undermine the good intentions of the noble
participants. Maintaining the moral high ground is also quite difficult
even when dealing with an organized force like the US military. There
will be many who ostensibly are true supporters of the revolution who in
fact have their own agendas. It will be difficult to control them in the
heat of battle spread over 48 states (assuming the Alaska and Hawaii will
be considered too difficult to deal with by the rebels).

: I would also hope that people in areas where fighting is going on will take


: enough time to see who is shooting at what and where the real atrocities

: are occurring. When the government clamps down after the revolution begins


: (assumptions 1 and 2), I believe that a great deal more people will be
: instantly recruited into the militia army.

Also assuming that the government decides to clamp down on the average
citizen and take the negative reaction that would cause. I still feel
that the feds would attempt to usurp the moral high ground by making it
very apparent how fairly they were treating our fellow, but misguided,
citizens.

: I echo his sentiment and yours. I also want to live quietly without ever


: firing a shot in anger.

May you have your wish.

: >Let's hope that some thorough discussion of the intricacies of a real


: >revolution will make the other choices apparent to you.

: I understand that many choices and alternatives currently exist to a battle
: of arms with the government. I see more and more of them disappearing every
: day. When they are all exhausted, and arms are the last resort, then you
: will find me out there, fighting for my freedoms in the only way that I then
: can.

All I ask is that you be judicious in your assessment in what is worth
tearing this country apart and be aware of the tragedy that will occur
should you decide that a revolution is inevitable and that you be be open
enough to understand that all who are skeptical about proposed
revolutions are not necessarily the enemy.

Jason
--
Jason Durbin jdu...@netcom.com

Dennis O'Connor

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 11:31:40 AM9/6/94
to

dsw...@pugsley.osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
] In article <>, jmcb...@gdwest.gd.com (James T McBride) writes:
] > The flap a few years ago about Teflon bullets was a complete hoax. I
] > must admit that at the time I was suckered into believing the hype about
] > protecting police officers from gang members weilding deadly bullets.
] >
] > The truth is the teflon coating on the bullets was there to reduce
] > the lead exposure at shooting ranges, and in an attempt to reduce barrel
] > erosion. There is almost no difference in Kevlar body armor penetration
] > for these rounds as compared to regular blunt-nosed handgun bullets.
]
] Actually, from what I've read, the purpose of the teflon coating was
] to increase the penetration of car bodies and windshields.

Where did you read that ? Teflons ability to reduce wear on barrels
is obvious, and encapsualting bulltes could reduce lead dust creation
ta ranges. But how does a teflon-coated hammer penetrate a windshield
better than an uncoated one ?

For penetrating car bodies, you simply use a harder lead alloy, or


a substance harder than lead, like steel or tungsten.

--
Dennis O'Connor doco...@sedona.intel.com
Intel i960(R) Microprocessor Division Solely responsible for what I do.


Broward Horne

unread,
Sep 7, 1994, 12:41:27 AM9/7/94
to

In a previous article, schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling) says:

>an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>> The militia in one of the western states is putting together
>> a strategic plan for cutting their state off from the rest of
>> the U.S. They estimate they'll need manpower of about 10,000
>> men.
>
>
>Could you be a bit more specific? Which state? Who is organizing the
>militia therein? And how many of the necessary ten thousand people
>have signed up?
>
>And most importantly, what is your source for this information?


John. You have confirmed my suspicions. :)

Let's try a little inductive reasoning here, perhaps it
will help later in the session that you've convinced me to commit
myself to.

Did it possibly occur to you that what I wrote above was
pretty much what I MEANT to write?

Does it seem likely that you could have inferred this from
my phrasing?


>All you've really told me is that at least two people have had a bull
>session on the subject. Hardly a basis for revolution.


Okay. #1 rule in retailing. When ONE customer compliments
you, perhaps 4 or 5 others feel the same. When ONE customer
complains, perhaps 10 or 11 are equally pissed off. Do you
comprehend this?


#2 - I suspect that you, along with Jason Durbin, JRM, and others,
are attempted to maintain your "Reasonable Man" personas for public
consumption, perhaps for vanity. But at some point, the "Reasonable
Man" persona becomes a trap. I would highly suggest that you try
to look at the past four years, as well as historical precedent,
and just dump the "Reasonable Man" look, okay?

#3 - In 1989, I, too, was assaulted with the "Reasonable Man"
persona, in the form of several co-workers; co-workers who laughed
at my belief that Los Angeles was a ticking time-bomb. I first
submit to you the L.A. Riots of 1992. If you believe the riots
were about Rodne King, then I suggest to you that you were not
monitoring your environment closely, as Jeff Cooper suggest. :)

#4 - The riots were, for lack of a better term, a "cascading
action", an event similar to the Crash of '87. Remember this
for later.

#5 - 70 million gun owners exist. Take, oh, even just 1% of
those, 700,000 people. Now of this 700,000, do you honestly believe
that, at a MINIMUM, 5 or 6 do NOT exist who have the training, money,
information and guts to assasinate members of Congress?

#6 - Of the remaining 699,994, do you honestly believe that at least
several DOZEN are not similar to the first 6, except in willingness
to act?

#7 - Of the first 6, do you honestly believe they could NOT
assasinate a couple of dozen Congress members? Do you honestly
believe this would not be covered in the media?

#8 - Of the secondary string of several dozen, do you NOT believe
that assasinations performed by the first 6 will NOT lead them
to join in? A la the "cascading action" mentioned above?

#9 - Do you NOT believe that Congress would move immediately to
confiscate all weapons, and declare martial law?

#10- Under a declaration of martial law, do you not believe that
foreign investors, who are now supplying 70% of the funding for
the federal deficit, would YANK their money immediately?

#11- Do you believe that a government, with its funding gone, could
continue to buoy up the current welfare state?

I'm thankful for Jeff Cooper's mention of post-1929 Spain, and the
ensuing Civil war. Cooper is absolutely right, there are many
similarities. We're a house of cards, waiting for breeze.


>Sorry, but I'm not the one who is dreaming here. Not that I have anything
>against your dream, but it is not reality.


Sigh. If only markets were as easy to second guess as people. :)


>Reality is that there does not exist at this time the popular support
>necessary for revolution.


Have you really given this any thought?


>Reality is that, if at some point such support does come to exist, the
>resulting revolution will be a lot bloodier than you expect, and that
>the results will not be as clear-cut as you expect.


You assume too much about what *I* expect. My goal is to stay
alive, not keep kidding myself that we're not headed for trouble.
--
The REVOLUTION is "Ultimatum Resolution" that dissolves Fed gov't
on-line. E-mail me "10th Amendment Resolution" - The Fed is our SERVANT
for details... "Declaration of Secession" model for YOUR legislators
and more. Find out what's going on...

Broward Horne

unread,
Sep 7, 1994, 1:54:26 AM9/7/94
to

In a previous article, schi...@kirk.usc.edu (John Schilling) says:


Look, John, at least TRY to use your brain. Try removing
that litany of "there's no popular support", if only for FIVE
minutes.

Who's really dreaming here? Look at your own WORDS...


>Sorry, but I'm not the one who is dreaming here. Not that I have anything
>against your dream, but it is not reality.


Yes, yes, so you say. But what are you REALLY thinking?...


>Reality is that, if at some point such support does come to exist, the
>resulting revolution will be a lot bloodier than you expect, and that
>the results will not be as clear-cut as you expect.


Here, LOOK. LOOK at your own WORDS. What you're saying is
"Son, you don't really want this revolution. You don't know
what you're getting into".

What the hell. What the HELL does it matter what *I*, Browrad
Horne, THINK a revolution will be like? What the HELL does this
have to do with whether we're heading towards one? What you're
really saying here is, "Don't think about it, and it won't happen".

Jesus, at least TRY to think.

Look the anti-abortionists. Okay, they're SWORN to uphold life.
How many doctors have been shot so far? How many clinics burned?

Now. Look at the 2nd Amendmenteers. They're SWORN to blow
would-be tyrants away. What, they're going to be MORE law-abiding
than FUNDAMENTALISTS? Greater pacifists?

Why is Uncle Sam talking about TWO types of currency? Huh? DSo
you really know? So he can control the capital flow OUT of the
country. It's been FLYING out since 1990. The ratio of
domestic/foreign funding of the deficit has flipped, from 70/30
in 1990 to 30/70 in 1994. THINK. That means Uncle Sam is rapidly

Clinton is bragging about how fast the deficit is declining. We're
being told that the economy is booming. So. In an election year,
Clinton suddenly decides to cut the 1995 proposed pay raises of
a truly crappy 2.6%, to 1.6%. Why? Ask yourself, Why? Is THIS
internally consistent?

DOD receives a notice to prepare for major weapons cuts, including
the Stealth, etc. But, but, the deficit is going down, right?
We've got to invade Haiti, right? Is THIS consistent? Is IT?

Clinton claims the federal pay raise cut is to "reduce the deficit".
But, but, the military is EXEMPT from this cut. Is THIS consistent?

BATF moves to regulate model rockets? Do you know WHY? Do you?
The IRA was using model rockets against British helicopters, that's
why. Why do they feel the need to do this NOW? IS THIS CONSISTENT?

It's sure consistent with a government that's running scared. With
a government that's wants as many private weapons out of
circulation before the government's funding finally fails.

What do you think foreigners are going to do, when our economy
goes into "recession" again? Think they're going to loan even
MORE money to a government that already printed its way out of
the previous attempted depression in 1990? Think they're going
to loan us TWICE as much as we're already borrowing?


>This may be better than what the various statists have in mind for us.
>
>But it is not something to look forward to.


I don't look forward to it. It bugs the hell out of me that
our government has continued down this path. But to ignore
it is foolish. The signs are there. To bet against them, at
this point, is foolhardy. And you can be sure that's it's
REALLY going to bug the holy HELL out of a LARGE number of
Americans. I wouldn't want to be a congressman.

James T McBride

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 3:16:57 PM9/6/94
to
The flap a few years ago about Teflon bullets was a complete hoax. I
must admit that at the time I was suckered into believing the hype about
protecting police officers from gang members weilding deadly bullets.

The truth is the teflon coating on the bullets was there to reduce
the lead exposure at shooting ranges, and in an attempt to reduce barrel
erosion. There is almost no difference in Kevlar body armor penetration
for these rounds as compared to regular blunt-nosed handgun bullets.

And the truth is, most rifles in hunting calibers provide more than enough
energy to defeat (penetrate) all available body armor, even 'flak jackets'
as worn by SWAT teams (big, bulky, obvious ones).

The BATF had armed itself with the only handgun bullets that could
conceivably be of value in defeating body armor - a conical steel nose
that cuts through the armor like a cookie cutter. Worked in Waco.
Unfortunately for the BATF, their poor fire control resulted in FRIENDLY
casualties. No one knows if the B. Davidians had body armor, or whether
it was defeated by these bullets - Kevlar burns.

FYI

Jim

--
--
The "Assault Weapons" ban is drive-by legislation. The target: Crime;
the victimized innocent bystander: the lawfully armed Citizen.
~*~*~ Tyranny Insurance by Colt's Manufacturing Cos. ~*~*~

Nick Page

unread,
Sep 7, 1994, 10:46:08 AM9/7/94
to
s...@fast.cs.utah.edu (Sean O'Neill) writes:

> You know, we could save another $30 billion or so a year by
> eliminating the worse-than-useless CIA.

You mean like JFK wanted to do?

Dan Swartzendruber

unread,
Sep 6, 1994, 4:54:26 PM9/6/94
to
In article <34if79$c...@gdwest.gd.com>, jmcb...@gdwest.gd.com (James T McBride) writes:
> The flap a few years ago about Teflon bullets was a complete hoax. I
> must admit that at the time I was suckered into believing the hype about
> protecting police officers from gang members weilding deadly bullets.
>
> The truth is the teflon coating on the bullets was there to reduce
> the lead exposure at shooting ranges, and in an attempt to reduce barrel
> erosion. There is almost no difference in Kevlar body armor penetration
> for these rounds as compared to regular blunt-nosed handgun bullets.

Actually, from what I've read, the purpose of the teflon coating was


to increase the penetration of car bodies and windshields.

--

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.

Victor Sletten

unread,
Sep 7, 1994, 1:01:04 PM9/7/94
to
This is what I love about the Internet. Everybody's an expert :)
Guess I'll throw my two cents into the ring...
A friend of a friend who'll remain anonymous got ahold of some teflon
coated .300 magnum bullets. He loaded them up and we went out o see
what they'd do. For comparsion, we fired metal jacket .300's, the teflon
tipped .300's, and normal .22 long rifle shells at a piece of 1/2 inch
thick metal I-beam, with the top of the I facing us. Of course, the .22
rounds just made a circular splat, much like a paintball. The FMJ .300's
pentrated almost all the way through the end of the beam and stuck
there. The teflon tipped penetrated the beam, ricocheted off the long
part of the beam, leaving a groove in the metal, and embedded sideways in
the bottom of the I. This is empirical evidence, no theory. So from my
observations, teflon drastically increase the penetration of .300 magnum
rifle rounds in metal.

--
Victor Sletten
vsle...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
Department of Geology & Geophysics, Yale University

Victor Sletten

unread,
Sep 7, 1994, 1:04:07 PM9/7/94
to
By the way, I think the increased penetration with teflon-tipped rounds
is due to the fact that the bullet is less likely to mushroom upon
impact. Therefore, this would probably be less useful in handgun rounds,
which, I believe, tumble along their trajectory (i.e., the point doesn't
always hit the target first). Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages