'Know Your Rights' emblem
Nick Ver Steegh
exactly, The Clash were going for with the 'Know Your Rights' crest (the one
with the book with the revolver cutout and "The Future is Unwritten" on it).
I get the gist of the text and the (good) song, but, if you don't know
anything about The Clash, it almost looks like an NRA* pitch. What's up
with the pistol? Is it just a generic political statement?
* National Rifle Association: the US gun nuts.
dmc
were a know your emblems kind a band
dmc
HP
"dmc" <co...@versioncity.com> wrote in message
news:ap9tj7$m6l$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
thekman
Unwritten", but the
fact that it is written in blood. ;)
Kirk
"Nick Ver Steegh" <nickve...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:yyZt9.91373$%d2.33923@sccrnsc01...
Adam
the 'Future is Unwritten' crest on the cover. The pages were, of course,
blank.
"Nick Ver Steegh" <nickve...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:yyZt9.91373$%d2.33923@sccrnsc01...
Johnpgovol
HP
"Adam" <ahea...@NOSPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:zxUu9.1357$h_4....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> There was a cool promo item for this single- It was a paperback book with
> the 'Future is Unwritten' crest on the cover. The pages were, of course,
> blank.
Mine had 4 stickers. Only remember the Future is unwritten, and one of the
others which hat a recordplayer with a "Let that raga drop" banner
underneath.
thekman
Interactive on Muchmusic last night. At one point when they were talking to
the band, one of the cameras zoomed in on Chris Shifflett's left forearm,
where
prominently displayed is, of course, a tattoo of the Know Your Rights logo.
Kirk
"Nick Ver Steegh" <nickve...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:yyZt9.91373$%d2.33923@sccrnsc01...
Jon K.
<nickve...@attbi.com> wrote:
I bought a pin from a headshop in 1987 if that logo and still wear it on
my jacket.
I love that pin.
Jon K.
SteveSatch
guns though?
___
I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd....
Shieldwolf336
>guns though?
i suggest you watch a film called "Bowling for Columbine"
dmc
"SteveSatch" <steve...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021103234409...@mb-fz.aol.com...
> I don't think it has anything to do with the NRA. What do you have
against
> guns though?
i thought americans didn't do irony
dmc
SteveSatch
>>
Rather than suggest I view propaganda I'm asking you directly what you have
against guns. I assume you can articulate you thoughts.
Shieldwolf336
>against guns. I assume you can articulate you thoughts.
>___
let's see -- they make it far too easy to kill people, giving the US the
highest murder rate in the world. i really have nothing against guns, I own a
Sig and a browning and 3 over/under 12 gauges, but i do have problems with the
NRA stance, as they are against any type of safety issue. hell, they came out
AGAINST Michigan's very open concealed weapons permit law because it required
gun safety training. (they eventually endorsed it, although with a caveat about
the training)
we need to make it much harder to get guns
>I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd....
of what?
Nick Ver Steegh
First off, I don't hate all guns or gun owners, as the vast majority seem to
be sane, responsible Individuals. The only problem I have is that modern
firearms are so easy to use that even middle school kids can cause
massacres. All you do is point in the general direction of a crowed of
people and start pulling the trigger. Guns easily become cheap, impersonal
ways to kill people. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather not die
because I was standing in the wrong spot at some drive by shooting. Guns
need to be carefully regulated to prevent these kinds of things.
SteveSatch
highest murder rate in the world.>>
That's a spurious relationship and you know it. If you're going to claim the
number of guns or the access to guns causes the highest murder rate in the
world I'm going to ask you to cite your source. All criminologists studying
the firearms issue reject simple comparisons
of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid
conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation's
collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial,
religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to
compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by "gun control"
proponents. 1
Only one scholar, attorney David Kopel, has attempted to evaluate the
impact of "gun control" on crime in several foreign countries. In his
book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the
gun controls of other democracies?, named a 1992 Book of the Year by the
American Society of Criminology, Kopel examined numerous nations with
varying gun laws, and concluded: "Contrary to the claims of the American
gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low
crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations." He noted that Israel
and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gun ownership, have crime
rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he
stated: "Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America.
Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with
many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America.
Foreign gun control...postulates an authoritarian philosophy of
government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian
American ethos." 2
America's high crime rates can be attributed to revolving-door justice.
In a typical year in the U.S., there are 8.1 million serious crimes like
homicide, assault, and burglary. Only 724,000 adults are arrested and
fewer still (193,000) are convicted. Less than 150,000 are sentenced to
prison, with 36,000 serving less than a year (U.S. News and World
Report, July 31, 1989). A 1987 National Institute of Justice study found
that the average felon released due to prison overcrowding commits
upwards of 187 crimes per year, costing society approximately $430,000.
Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes
and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported
robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in
conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed.
Nonetheless, England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms
as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing
procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200%
during the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S.
Part of Japan's low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its
criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and
fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States.
Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay
"home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95%
and trial conviction rate is over 99.9% . The Tokyo Bar Association has
said that the Japanese police routinely "...engage in torture or illegal
treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured
and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts
have still accepted their confessions." Neither the powers and secrecy
of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to
most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount
of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in
order to appear more efficient and worthy of the respect the citizens
have for the police.
Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese
citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their
descendants in the United States where the murder rate for
Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in
Japan itself.
If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect
European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those
countries, but crime rates are similar in European countries with high
or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and
Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany.
Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more
similar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as
rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But
the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those
of European countries.
1 Wright, et al., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America
(N.Y.: Aldine, 1983).
2 Kopel, "The Samurai, The Mountie, and the
Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?"
(Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 431-32.
<<i really have nothing against guns, I own a
Sig and a browning and 3 over/under 12 gauges, but i do have problems with the
NRA stance, as they are against any type of safety issue. hell, they came out
AGAINST Michigan's very open concealed weapons permit law because it required
gun safety training. (they eventually endorsed it, although with a caveat about
the training)>
Please cite your source that says why they came out against it is because it
required training. The NRA has done more for firearms safety and training in
the U.S. than anyone else.
<we need to make it much harder to get guns>
For who? The unwashed masses? Self defense is a right. It's not a privilege
to be granted at the whim of the government. I aint no freaking subject. I am
a free man. the government's power comes FROM me. In your opinion then who
has the right to own them and who doesn't?
___
SteveSatch
movies. Modern firearms are so easy to use? They were harder to use in the
past? If you think gun make it too easy to "cause massacres" remember the
Oklahoma city bombing was a truck filled with fertilizer. You can try to ban
guns all you want, but crazy people are going to kill people regardless. Not
only that, but criminals, by definition, break the law. you make it harder to
get guns and it doesn't have any effect on the criminals. It only effects how
many law abiding citizens own guns. The work of scholars Gary Kleck and John
Lott have proven that guns inthe hands of law abiding ciizens LOWERS
crime.....Are you saying guns are too accurate or too inaccurate? Please tell
me how you would regulate guns to prevent drive by shootings? I say we should
regulate criminals a bit more. That's never the liberals answer though is it?
Ban the inanimate object right?
Shieldwolf336
>the firearms issue reject simple comparisons
>of violent crime among foreign countries.
that is a spurious statement. yes, there is a HUGE cultural element in
American gun crime (which is the true topic of Moore's film, go watch it before
you criticize it as "propoganda"), but it is not "revolving door justice" as
FBI stats point out quite clearly - gun violence has risen most in states with
the toughest gun-related criminal penalties. Switzerland and Israel have high
gun ownership, true, BUT the training and legalities of gun ownership are much
stiffer, and the swiss militia is essentially the entire population. Vigilanty
justice has always been glorified in the US. the wealth differential in the US
is also much higher, the educational level lower than either israel or
switzerland
on to the "revolving door justice" issue. If the NRA and other right-wing
groups are so concerned about crime, why is it that they are so virulently
opposed to "ballistic fingerprinting"?
Shieldwolf336
>Lott have proven that guns inthe hands of law abiding ciizens LOWERS
>crime
ahhh...the guy from florida state. he had a rather large grant from the NRA,
and his methodology has been called into question (he failed to control for
things like affluence, pop. density, etc.).
remember, i'm saying this as a gun owner who hates the NRA. i haven't heard of
Lott
ReggaeFire
That's simply not true. By the statistics I found in 20 seconds of google
searching, the US didn't even land in the top 10 of murder rates in the world.
Countries with (much) higher murder rates included South Africa (75.3 per
100,000), Brazil (19.04), Mexico (17.58), and Taiwan (8.12).
SteveSatch
NRA,>>
No he didn't.
<and his methodology has been called into question>
By whom? Cite your source.
<i haven't heard of
Lott >>
I'm not surprised. University of Chicago. Huge study. Proved more gun
laws/less guns equals more crime.
SteveSatch
American gun crime (which is the true topic of Moore's film, go watch it before
you criticize it as "propoganda"), but it is not "revolving door justice" as
FBI stats point out quite clearly - gun violence has risen most in states with
the toughest gun-related criminal penalties. Switzerland and Israel have high
gun ownership, true, BUT the training and legalities of gun ownership are much
stiffer, and the swiss militia is essentially the entire population. Vigilanty
justice has always been glorified in the US. the wealth differential in the US
is also much higher, the educational level lower than either israel or
switzerland>
So you *claim* it's the training in other countries that results in lower
crime. I claim it's the culture.
<<on to the "revolving door justice" issue. If the NRA and other right-wing
groups are so concerned about crime, why is it that they are so virulently
opposed to "ballistic fingerprinting"? >>
because 1) it wouldn't work. It's super easy to change a barrel and 2) it's
unconstitutional. There's over 20,000 gun laws in this country already and you
think one more going to help? If you want lower violence I feel three things
would help 1) gun safety and education. No one does more for this than the
NRA. 2) Easier access to guns for non criminals. If you don't believe it's
true you haven't see the evidence. Read John Lott. 3) Criminal control.
They are the problem and not the guns. Guns stop 2.5 million crimes a year.
dmc
that'll make paul happy
dmc
thekman
Oh great, now you've gone and got Satch fired up about guns again. It's been
a few years since the last AMC firearms debate. ;)
Kirk
SteveSatch
a few years since the last AMC firearms debate. ;)
>>
I've had time to reload
SteveSatch
really want to take money away from things that work to reduce crime and waste
it on things that don't? read on:
In the DOJ scientific study, computer bullet sample database matching failed
38 - 62 percent of the time, depending on the type of gun tested. And the DOJ
study does not address problems caused by normal wear, so the real-world
failure rate can be expected to be much higher. Further, the report warned that
problems of matching would soar dramatically if more guns were tested. The
study's verdict: "Computer-matching systems do not provide conclusive results .
. . potential candidates [for a match must] be manually reviewed." In
California, annual firearm sales exceed 250,000. It is estimated that, working
24 hours a day, seven days a week, it would take approximately nine years to
completely process the information from just one year's sales using a single
imaging system. A single ballistic imaging system costs about $600,000, not
including the operational funding required for personnel and maintenance.
The California report also warned that "firearms that generate markings on
cartridge casings can change with use and can also be readily altered by the
users." A ballistic "fingerprint" is actually less like a human fingerprint
than it is like the tread on a car tire, Brand-new tires are essentially
identical, so new-tire tracks at crime scenes leave investigators with limited
information. Unless there happens to be a particular imperfection, only the
brand and model of the tire can be identified. Likewise, when a bullet is fired
from a new gun, investigators can typically identify only the type of
ammunition and the type of gun. As with tires, over time friction causes the
barrel to wear. The greatest friction on a gun occurs when the gun is first
fired -- and that dramatically reduces the usefulness of recording the gun's
ballistic fingerprint when it is newly purchased. Moreover, barrels can be
easily changed. And scratching part of the inside of a barrel with a nail file
would alter the bullet's path down the barrel and thus change the markings. So
would putting toothpaste on a bullet before firing it. Ballistic fingerprinting
faces other serious difficulties as well.
So far only Maryland and New York have started recording the ballistic
fingerprints of all new handguns sold. California's proposal would dwarf those
states' efforts. While Maryland's program technically started in January 2001,
the cost of implementing the program made it unprofitable for gun makers to
sell handguns in the state for the first six months of that year. The state
government faced a $1.1 million start-up cost and another $750,000-a-year
operating cost. New York's program began in March 2001, with a state start-up
expenditure of about $4.5 million. (No estimates are available yet on New
York's annual cost.) and what was the specific benefit? Almost zero. The
programs have not helped solve a single violent crime in either state. They
have so far been used only to identify two handguns stolen from a Maryland gun
shop.
Martin McGranaghan
> << Oh great, now you've gone and got Satch fired up about guns again. It's
been
> a few years since the last AMC firearms debate. ;)
> >>
>
>
> I've had time to reload
I've not been following this. Have you called anyone a commie yet or do I
get to be the first?
SteveSatch
get to be the first >>
While commies do like to disarm their peasants so there's no resistance, no one
as of yet in this small thread has admitted to being a commie. Maybe they're
just embarrassed.
Nick Ver Steegh
> You seem to know very little about guns. You've seen a few too many
Hollywood
> movies.
Not reciently. I do listen to the BBC and read the newspaper.
> Modern firearms are so easy to use? They were harder to use in the
> past? If you think gun make it too easy to "cause massacres" remember the
> Oklahoma city bombing was a truck filled with fertilizer.
And Colombine was implemented with...guns. Like 341,831 crimes commited
with firearms in 2000, which result in meny more deaths then fertlizer ever
does.
Also you can use fertilizer to fertilize things; many guns are manufactured
specifically to kill people.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon
"Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns"
> You can try to ban
> guns all you want, but crazy people are going to kill people regardless.
Never said they wouldn't. I'm not too worried about the crazy ones, just
normal
people who make bad decisions.
> Not only that, but criminals, by definition, break the law. If you make
it harder to
> get guns and it doesn't have any effect on the criminals. It only effects
how
> many law abiding citizens own guns. The work of scholars Gary Kleck and
John
> Lott have proven that guns in the hands of law abiding ciizens LOWERS
> crime.....Are you saying guns are too accurate or too inaccurate? Please
tell
> me how you would regulate guns to prevent drive by shootings?
That's going out on a limb. Any peer review?
Here's a few by a statistican:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/dgu/
> I say we should regulate criminals a bit more. That's never the liberals
answer
> though is it? Ban the inanimate object right?
And it's always easy to blame the "criminals". Nether guns nor criminals
are totally
to blame for violent crime. We need to work to _prevent_ crime, not just
respond
with fiery vengeance when it happens. I long for a day when gun control
isn't needed
too, but I don't think that this is that day. You have obviously put some
good thought
into the issue and have your own opinion on the subject. At this point it
just looks
like we will have to agree to disagree, as (in my experience) Usenet rarely
changes
anyone's position on issues like these and just disintegrates into long
flamewars.
Nick Ver Steegh
> << I've not been following this. Have you called anyone a commie yet or
do I
> get to be the first >>
>
>
> While commies do like to disarm their peasants so there's no resistance,
no one
> as of yet in this small thread has admitted to being a commie. Maybe
they're
> just embarrassed.
No one should be embarrassed to have an opinion, especially if it's their
own.
Nick Ver Steegh
> << ahhh...the guy from florida state. he had a rather large grant from
the
> NRA,>>
>
> No he didn't.
>
> <and his methodology has been called into question>
>
> By whom? Cite your source.
>
> <i haven't heard of
> Lott >>
>
> I'm not surprised. University of Chicago. Huge study. Proved more gun
> laws/less guns equals more crime.
Showed. Studies of this nature never PROVE anything. Remember that this is
an experiment that must be repeated before it can be taken seriously. This
is not a mathematical proof, where there is no question of the result. This
is more like an approximation of pi: you can't ever know all the digits.
100 studies that show that guns don't (or do) prevent violent crime will
never PROVE it.
Nick Ver Steegh
How do you decide who is a criminal?
> true you haven't see the evidence. Read John Lott. 3) Criminal control.
> They are the problem and not the guns. Guns stop 2.5 million crimes a
year.
Chapter and verse, please.
Shieldwolf336
result of our culture -- and changing our attitudes is more important than
banning guns. of course, i hope we all realize that the reason we have the
second amendment is to preserve our right to violently overthrow the federal
government. no one would say we have the right to bear cruise missles in this
day and age
dmc
dmc
....
Eugene M.
I
>get to be the first >>
>
>
>While commies do like to disarm their peasants so there's no resistance, no
one
>as of yet in this small thread has admitted to being a commie. Maybe
they're
>just embarrassed.
My Little Red Book (the Quotations of Chairman Mao Zedong) says:
'Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power grows out of the
barrel of a gun."'
["Problems of Strategy in China's Revolution-
ary War" (December 1936), Selected Works,
Vol. I, p. 224.]
And from Lenin's State and Revolution:
"But the subordination must be to the armed vanguard of all the exploited
and toiling people, i.e., to the proletariat."
...
"In France, Engels observes, the workers emerged with arms from every
revolution; 'therefore, the disarming of the workers was the first
commandment for the bourgeois, who were at the helm of the state. Hence,
after every revolution won by the workers, a new struggle, ending with the
defeat of the workers.'"
...
"Naturally, the exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a
highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress
the exploiters even with a very simple 'machine', almost without a
'machine', without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the
armed people (such as the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, we
would remark, running ahead)."
...
"But, in the first place, no special machine, no special apparatus of
suppression is needed for this; this will be done by the armed people
itself, as simply and as readily as any crowd of civilized people, even in
modern society, interferes to put a stop to a scuffle or to prevent a woman
from being assaulted."
---
So, in conclusion, obviously Communism (Marxism-Leninism) in theory is
against the disarming of the populace, i.e., the efforts of the anti-gun
bourgeoisie.
So, essentially, the NRA is run by a bunch of commies.
- Gene, who has far too many Communist works to fall under the evil
imperialist paper tiger capitalist roader running dog bourgeois fascist pigs
**pant pant** radar. (/That's/ a lot of epithet)
Shieldwolf336
>So, in conclusion, obviously Communism (Marxism-Leninism) in theory is
>against the disarming of the populace, i.e., the efforts of the anti-gun
>bourgeoisie.
>So, essentially, the NRA is run by a bunch of commies.
the problem is that all the guns in the hands of all the people will never be
able to gain control with the absolute stranglehold the government has over the
means of extreme violence
HP
"Hey!!! look to China!! 1,3 zillion ppl cant be wrong, huh???"
GBAD
"Shieldwolf336" <shield...@aol.comsphagnum> wrote in message
news:20021120181044...@mb-dd.aol.com...
SteveSatch
>against the disarming of the populace, i.
That might very well be how they get their power, but let's look at what
happens after their little revolution. The people get fucked. You know that.
They keep their guns and the unwashed masses have no rights.