Guns
david crockett
up. I have to read on one client but post on another. I believe The Happy
Squid posted that he likes a gun to protect his house. I am for ownership
of guns etc etc and I feel they should never be banned but If someone was
breaking into my house I would not shoot them until they tried to harm me.
I believe (as it was explained to me by a teacher) that you have to be in
danger before you can shoot people like that in self defense. He gave
several examples of where people shot thieves that were breaking in through
the window(shot them while theye were still in/out of the window and the
crook sued and won a shitload of money . He also showed us a guy who had
rigged up a shotgun to blast his backdorr if anyone tried to break in from
that direction. Someone did and got shot but did not die and they won a
bunch of money because they guy was not in danger so he had no right to do
something like that. So if you have a gun to protect yourself be careful
how you use it because the laws in this country are so screwed up they end
up hurting the people they are supposed to protect.
someone also brought up Singapore and while it may be safe have you ever
seen all the laws they have. Metalicca played a show there and you know
how musicians spit to clear their mouth's etc Metalicca had to exit the
stage and spit in a bucket or else if they would have spit on stage they
would have been arrested on the spot. i believe Singapore also had cameras
everywhere so it was sorta like 1984 with Big Brother watching everywhere!!
Also on a side not doesn't it seem sometimes that , while those books(1984
and Brave New World) have the same result with different methods, our
society is a blending of both books. With all the DNA endcoding as well as
cloning, (growing ears, or noses out of other stuff a,d with all the High
Tech security, cameras in town squares, cameras that can fit on the tips of
ball point pens. It seems to me that we are becoming a Brave New World
were we can pick our genes/sex/hair etc and we are being supervised at the
same time. Its only a matter of time before we all have bar codes on our
heads
david
--
reply to me here please Pearl_J...@juno.com
for trading to http://listen.to/WMA
for a listing of fans near you go to the database
http://welcome.to/PJFANS
Nailzberg
>heads
A buddy of mine got one tatooed on his forearm so he wouldn't have to wait in
line later when it becomes government policy.
Nailzberg
"One cannot conceive anything so strange and so implausible that it has not
already been said by one philosopher or another." - Rene Decartes
JettKarma
<snip>
>someone also brought up Singapore and while it may be safe have you ever
>seen all the laws they have. Metalicca played a show there and you know
>how musicians spit to clear their mouth's etc Metalicca had to exit the
>stage and spit in a bucket or else if they would have spit on stage they
>would have been arrested on the spot. i believe Singapore also had cameras
>everywhere so it was sorta like 1984 with Big Brother watching everywhere!!
>
>Also on a side not doesn't it seem sometimes that , while those books(1984
>and Brave New World) have the same result with different methods, our
>society is a blending of both books. With all the DNA endcoding as well as
>cloning, (growing ears, or noses out of other stuff a,d with all the High
>Tech security, cameras in town squares, cameras that can fit on the tips of
>ball point pens. It seems to me that we are becoming a Brave New World
>were we can pick our genes/sex/hair etc and we are being supervised at the
>same time. Its only a matter of time before we all have bar codes on our
>heads
>david
*************************************************
Our senator is going to be pushing school security, which is not
altogether a bad thing, I suppose. He is talking metal detectors to
protect against guns being brought into school. Well, okay. Not that
I'm sure that this kind of thing will be overly effective (how are you
going to catch the kid with a gun that comes in through a window
instead of the special metal-detecting portal?)...but, if it stands a
chance of reducing risks, what the heck. I suppose I might be for it,
depending on everything.
But, he's also talking about self-expiring id badges. Okay, depending
on everything. And tracking id bracelets? And drug-sniffing labs on
a chip???? Wait a minute. These are kids we're talking about here,
and there are certain rights to privacy that average Americans have
the right to enjoy. Are we talking school here, aren't we...or are we
talking jail and house arrest situations? And, never mind the trust
issues involved between students and teachers that will be trampled.
I assume the chemical labs on a chip are meant to catch young drug
takers. And then what?? Should they then be expelled from school?
Arrested??? This is helping kids??? Helping them what--ruin their
lives forever and good???? Smoking a joint behind the gym isn't too
bright, but smoking a kid's chances for success by punishing him for
indulging in a little weed seems to me to be the apex of stupidity.
People do a lot of things when they're 17 that are not too horribly
indicative of anything except the fact that they're 17. :)
And what about the costs of such things as bracelets and self-expiring
IDs, metal detectors, and their maintenance, etc.? The school systems
are strapped for cash as it is [and our brilliant governor is pushing
vouchers on top of it all--he says taking money away from public
schools and giving it to private (by and large, religious) schools
will make the public schools more competitive...what universe is *he*
from??]. So now, instead of buying those updated science books,
schools will spend what few bucks they have (left) on tracking
bracelets and calibrating their metal detectors??? I suppose this is
supposed to make the quality of education offered by our public
schools better, as well.
Big Brother is well on his way to making it to a school near you.
Don't you feel safer?
--Jett
MrorM
>But, he's also talking about self-expiring id badges. Okay, depending
>on everything. And tracking id bracelets? And drug-sniffing labs on
>a chip????
christ and buddha and hagbard celine!
~~that's goddamn awful. I recently saw, well, it wasn't that recent a news
show where they implanted a chip into a dog, so in case it ran away or got lost
the owners could track it down.
This bothered me as i just hate the idea of a chip that could track
anything/one down like that. It would seem as if the next step would be to
have the chips in kids so they could be tracked down.
What utter crap. As an individual, you never want to start tossing away your
privacy and your freedom and your right to do whatever you want to yourself.
First off, smoking a joint is nothing. It should not even be a crime, but
that's an argument for another time.
Jett, if i may be so bold, what state are you referring to here?
ahh! that's a terrible idea and i hope the people of your state machine gun
it down, stomp on the pieces, douse them in gasoline and disintigrate them with
killbots.
okay.....
m
+he |-|appy squ!d
david crockett proclaimed--
> I cannot respond to different message because my news clients are screwed
> up. I have to read on one client but post on another. I believe The
Happy
> Squid posted that he likes a gun to protect his house. I am for
ownership
> of guns etc etc and I feel they should never be banned but If someone was
> breaking into my house I would not shoot them until they tried to harm me.
> I believe (as it was explained to me by a teacher) that you have to be in
> danger before you can shoot people like that in self defense. He gave
> several examples of where people shot thieves that were breaking in
through
> the window(shot them while theye were still in/out of the window and the
> crook sued and won a shitload of money . He also showed us a guy who had
> rigged up a shotgun to blast his backdorr if anyone tried to break in from
> that direction. Someone did and got shot but did not die and they won a
> bunch of money because they guy was not in danger so he had no right to do
> something like that. So if you have a gun to protect yourself be careful
> how you use it because the laws in this country are so screwed up they
end
> up hurting the people they are supposed to protect.
Okay, some fuckpole breaks into my house and I'm supposed to wait until he
tries to hurt me before I can cap his ass? Yeah right! If I wait for him
to harm me and then call the police like I'm supposed to, I'd be dead about
fifteen minutes before they show up. Fuck that law, I'm not going to worry
about that one. I'll take my chances with criminal charges when it comes to
protecting me and those I love.
> Also on a side not doesn't it seem sometimes that , while those
books(1984
> and Brave New World) have the same result with different methods, our
> society is a blending of both books. With all the DNA endcoding as well
as
> cloning, (growing ears, or noses out of other stuff a,d with all the
High
> Tech security, cameras in town squares, cameras that can fit on the tips
of
> ball point pens. It seems to me that we are becoming a Brave New World
> were we can pick our genes/sex/hair etc and we are being supervised at
the
> same time. Its only a matter of time before we all have bar codes on our
> heads
> david
I'm reading Brave New World for my English class and parts of it are really
scaring the shit out of me b/c there's so much of that stuff which we do
today. It's really weird to think that this book was written way back in
the 1920's...
--
Seize The Day,
the happy squid
to reply via e-mail: the_hap...@hotmail.com
~ visit the happy squid's website ~
http://members.xoom.com/outpour/squid
(¯`·._ end of transmission _.·´¯)
John Drago
I just started !!
As far as the guy who rigged up the shotgun to his backdoor, that is
MANHUNTING, very illegal in most states. Basically, the "good guys" should
be able to get into your house at any time (w/ a warrant or probable cause)
and not have to worry about booby traps !!
-=john=-
+he |-|appy squ!d <the_happy_squid@hotmail_NO_SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:2coV2.1229$6Q5.2...@typhoon01.swbell.net...
Nailzberg
>tries to hurt me before I can cap his ass? Yeah right!
The case with the shotgun hook-up was a completely different situation. I
thought the home-owner wasn't home, therefore self-defense could not be
applied. To justify deadly force there has to be a percieved threat of bodily
harm to yourself or others. A similar incident happened a couple years ago in
a suburb of Chicago, where a bar-owner pissed about his bar being robbed while
no one was there, set up a nice booby trap. One morning, police found a guy
resembling a fried chicken outside a window to the bar. The window lit the
intruder up like the Fourth of July. And the owner of the window and the bar
it was part of, was found guilty of murder.
If some guy breaks into your house while you aren't home, there is no threat of
harm. But if you are home, tell him/her to getthe hell out. Burglers don't
like houses with people in them. Any intruder who hears you and doesn't leave,
isn't a burgler, they are a percieved threat, and then you can cap him.
A gun isn't a good defense unless you are trained to use it, ans store it
properly. It's the people that buy guns for defense and keep them under their
pillow are the reason for accidental shootings and most the arguements for gun
control. I personally would grab my fire-ax before a gun if someone broke into
my pad. The guns are
A. locked
B. 50 ft from the ammo
C. not intimidating enough.
The axe is
A. Big and noticable
B. Reminicent of the Shining.
C. One glimmer of moonlight off a freshly polished fire axe makes people think
of getting fucked up.
And it makes Kevlar look like tissue paper.
JettKarma
******************************************************
Ahem....disintegrate them with killbots? (Visions of fembots,
baybee!) Ain't that kinda Big Brothery high-tech itself? Machine
guns? Ain't that kinda what might be getting us into this god awful
mess in the first place?
I know you're kidding, but I thought I'd give you a hard time.
Actually, what I'm hoping is that the people of my state have enough
brains to realize what a boondoggle this whole "security" scenario
really might be. A couple of test schools in the area (NM) have
instituted security measures and have seen a reduction in property
crimes and false fire alarms. I don't know what that means, though.
Does it mean they had two false fire alarms before the measures were
taken and now they've had only one? You know, you have to look at
this stuff with a rather critical eye. Supposedly, it's also been
effective against violent crime; but, again, what exactly does this
mean? Did someone once get beat up in the rec room before, and now
since the security cameras move in, no one's been beaten up in the rec
room (ignoring the fact that before that one incident, nothing had
happened there, either)? Twain wasn't far wrong when he lumped lies,
damned lies, and statistics all in one cozy group. :)
I agree that, you should never toss away your privacy and your
freedom. People, however, I think have been raised to unquestioningly
accept practically everything we are told is for our own good from
authority figures--whether it is or not, and no matter what else we're
sacrificing and how much bigger and more important that may be than
the immediate warm fuzzy we get from losing control over our own
destiny and our own freedom of action/speech.
The older I get, the more convinced I am that we are rather a
brainwashed lot. Then again, I feel that there is no human society
about which you could not say the same. If Soviet realism was used to
get people to buy into the glories of self-sacrifice and hard work for
the greater glory of communism, capitalist realism (i.e., advertising)
has certainly acculturated us, as a whole, into accepting paranoia as
a lifestyle in which there is always a *product* that can save us from
everything from disgusting crawling insects in our homes, our own
revolting body odors, our unsightly fat, or our dangerous
society...never mind that these "good for us" products contain/ed DDT,
hexachlorophene, cyclamates, or the whole-scale trashing of our
constitutional rights. The "answer" has often been far worse than the
"problem" itself.
As to the joint/pot issue, speaking as a private citizen, I don't see
what the big deal about marijuana is. I no longer smoke marijuana...I
haven't for years and years. This was my own personal decision given
the fact that I simply didn't enjoy marijuana and thought it was
pretty stupid to keep using a drug that did nothing positive for me.
That said, I would no more want to see a kid (or adult for that
matter) given a hard time for smoking a joint than I would for
drinking a beer. Harassing kids for this kind of behavior is just
plain stupid, and a horrible waste of young potential. I'm not saying
that if a kid obviously has a giant drug problem, we should just let
him "run along"; but, I'm saying intervening in mild substance use, in
my opinion, is more harmful than good when carried out by "the
authorities" that be.
Almost everyone I knew in high school at least tried pot, and most of
them smoked somewhat more often than to 'try' it. In college, there
was only one person we were acquainted with who didn't smoke pot.
Yet, we have all grown up to hold responsible and relatively
responsible jobs. We're nurses, attorneys, geologists,
journalists...Christ!...even a doctor!! As a matter of fact, the two
of us who decided early on that pot wasn't for us are the biggest
"fuck ups" of the bunch, not having cracked any professional echelons
whatsoever. (Of course, that 6-year mom hiatus might have had
something to do with it.... <g>. At least, so I like to flatter
myself. <g>)
Anyway the point of this whole long, convoluted pot story is *not* to
say that everyone should smoke a lot of pot to achieve their
professional goals (if that should be the skewed moral you're tempted
to take away & put in your pipe <g>). The point is that if they had
caught us all and kicked us out of school or arrested us or forced us
to undergo mandatory drug counseling...I wonder what kinds of negative
fallout there would have been from it that would have haunted us for
the rest of our lives. I can't help but think it would have been very
deterimental--far more detrimental than a joint ever was.
--Jett
John Drago
convicted of any type of drug offense is immediately disqualified from all
Federal Financial Aid, and I believe most other also. But convicted
murderers, rapists, theifs, they can get all they want. This is SCREWED UP,
I knew many art/ english type people in High School that were BRILLIANT, but
liked the occasional weed or acid. Are these people therefore going to be a
waste to our public Higher Education system ?!?! I knew a kid who smoked
grass _at least_ once a day.....4.0 in college, Dean's list, everything !!
But if he ever got caught, he would lose all his aid, and be forced to leave
school.
-=john=-
JettKarma <mstr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37298090...@news.earthlink.net...
JettKarma
*****************************************
Legally, one can use force only equal to the threat. You can use
deadly force only when you have good reason to believe your *life* is
in *immediate* danger (or the lives of others in your immediate
proximity are in danger). Therefore, rigging up a shotgun to maim or
kill someone who might want to steal from you, or who might just want
to see what your armoire looks like, is indefensible.
--Jett
blues02
mstr...@earthlink.net wrote:
But I am not going to fuck around and fist fight the guy in my kitchen. If I
pull the gun and tell him to stop, even if he is unarmed, and he charges me I
am going to shoot to kill.
> Legally, one can use force only equal to the threat. You can use
> deadly force only when you have good reason to believe your *life* is
> in *immediate* danger (or the lives of others in your immediate
> proximity are in danger). Therefore, rigging up a shotgun to maim or
> kill someone who might want to steal from you, or who might just want
> to see what your armoire looks like, is indefensible.
>
> --Jett
>
>
--
"Don't need a helmet, got a hard, hard head" E.V.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The Spiderman
>*****************************************
>Legally, one can use force only equal to the threat. You can use
>deadly force only when you have good reason to believe your *life* is
>in *immediate* danger (or the lives of others in your immediate
>proximity are in danger). Therefore, rigging up a shotgun to maim or
>kill someone who might want to steal from you, or who might just want
>to see what your armoire looks like, is indefensible.
Agreed, but who is to determine whether your life is in danger? I
remember a few years ago now (I think in Adelaide) an old man was
being burgled and he shot the burglar and killed him. I think he was
charged with manslaughter (if not murder). I forget how the case
turned out (it was quite a while ago), but this old guy obviously
thought he was in danger, and defended himself.
I have no problem with people using all the force neccessary to defend
what is theirs.
--
"...the spiderman is always hungry."
Peace .o0( Spidey )0o.
Chris Myers
<the_happy_squid@hotmail_NO_SPAM.com> wrote:
>He gave several examples of where people shot thieves that were >breaking in
>through
>> the window(shot them while theye were still in/out of the window and the
>> crook sued and won a shitload of money . He also showed us a guy who had
>> rigged up a shotgun to blast his backdorr if anyone tried to break in from
>> that direction. Someone did and got shot but did not die and they won a
>> bunch of money because they guy was not in danger so he had no right to do
>> something like that. So if you have a gun to protect yourself be careful
>> how you use it because the laws in this country are so screwed up they
>end
>> up hurting the people they are supposed to protect.
>
>
>Okay, some fuckpole breaks into my house and I'm supposed to wait until he
>tries to hurt me before I can cap his ass? Yeah right! If I wait for him
>to harm me and then call the police like I'm supposed to, I'd be dead about
>fifteen minutes before they show up. Fuck that law, I'm not going to worry
>about that one. I'll take my chances with criminal charges when it comes to
>protecting me and those I love.
>
Moral of this story, Shoot to kill not to maim, and iff hes half in,
half out, drag him all the way in and then call the cops.
Flame on!
chris
Chris Myers
>If some guy breaks into your house while you aren't home, there is no threat of
>harm. But if you are home, tell him/her to getthe hell out. Burglers don't
>like houses with people in them. Any intruder who hears you and doesn't leave,
>isn't a burgler, they are a percieved threat, and then you can cap him.
do you raelly expect me to believe a cap gun will do anything?????
Chris
Chris Myers
Spiderman) wrote:
>Agreed, but who is to determine whether your life is in danger? I
>remember a few years ago now (I think in Adelaide) an old man was
>being burgled and he shot the burglar and killed him. I think he was
>charged with manslaughter (if not murder). I forget how the case
>turned out (it was quite a while ago), but this old guy obviously
>thought he was in danger, and defended himself.
>
>I have no problem with people using all the force neccessary to defend
>what is theirs.
did that old guy listen to KMFDM??? if he did he should be accused of
murder, they makeyou want to kill...
flame on
chris
Chris Myers
wrote:
>The Higher Education Act of 1998 (what a pun-like name) states that anyone
>convicted of any type of drug offense is immediately disqualified from all
>Federal Financial Aid, and I believe most other also. But convicted
>murderers, rapists, theifs, they can get all they want. This is SCREWED UP,
>I knew many art/ english type people in High School that were BRILLIANT, but
>liked the occasional weed or acid. Are these people therefore going to be a
>waste to our public Higher Education system ?!?! I knew a kid who smoked
>grass _at least_ once a day.....4.0 in college, Dean's list, everything !!
>But if he ever got caught, he would lose all his aid, and be forced to leave
>school.
Moral ofthe story, steal lie and kill, just say no to drugs because
tha are bad.
flame on
Chris!?
Nailzberg
>pull the gun and tell him to stop, even if he is unarmed, and he charges me I
>am going to shoot to kill.
If he's a thief, he'll leave when he hears you. Basically the only home
intruder that will attack you when they see you is a junkie looking for
something they can pawn , and they'll charge you immedieatly cause they're
fucked up indivduals. The problem with junkis is you have to put about 8
rounds in them before they go down, becuase the actual trauma from one hit is
very survivable, and when someone is all juiced up, you need some seriou
firepower. May I suggest the H&K G11 caseless rifle. But do I really need it,
you ask? What would I ever need a 50 round capacity for? Let me tell you ,
you may come up with a thousand reasons you may need a gun, but the reason's
you CAN'T think of, make the G11 a must-have.
Nailzberg
(Should've been a car salesman.)
+he |-|appy squ!d
Chris Myers wrote
> >
> Moral of this story, Shoot to kill not to maim, and iff hes half in,
> half out, drag him all the way in and then call the cops.
>
> Flame on!
> chris
Works for me. "Dead men tell no tales"...
John Drago
Chris Myers <cmy...@mwci.net> wrote in message
news:372fedf7...@News.mwci.net...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 22:41:36 -0400, "John Drago" <drag...@osu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >The Higher Education Act of 1998 (what a pun-like name) states that
anyone
> >convicted of any type of drug offense is immediately disqualified from
all
> >Federal Financial Aid, and I believe most other also. But convicted
> >murderers, rapists, theifs, they can get all they want. This is SCREWED
UP,
> >I knew many art/ english type people in High School that were BRILLIANT,
but
> >liked the occasional weed or acid. Are these people therefore going to
be a
> >waste to our public Higher Education system ?!?! I knew a kid who smoked
> >grass _at least_ once a day.....4.0 in college, Dean's list, everything
!!
> >But if he ever got caught, he would lose all his aid, and be forced to
leave
> >school.
>
John Drago
It's been too many times that I spoke my mind to you
It's been too many times that I caught all the flak for you
Apathetic crap is all I can find in you
I dont want no part in this
I dont feel the need to score
Burnt all bridges
Closed my heart
I dont want to be a part
No more
Dosvidanija Ciao Adieu
Hasta la vista I'm on my way
Goodbye Sayonara
Auf nimmerwiedershen
Over and out
And down the drain
It's been too many times that I raised my voice at you
It's been too many times that I walked the line with you
It's been too many times that I've had no choice but you
Hypocritical swine I have had it this time Thank you !
Chris Myers <cmy...@mwci.net> wrote in message
news:3731eee4...@News.mwci.net...
JettKarma
>The Higher Education Act of 1998 (what a pun-like name) states that anyone
>convicted of any type of drug offense is immediately disqualified from all
>Federal Financial Aid, and I believe most other also. But convicted
>murderers, rapists, theifs, they can get all they want. This is SCREWED UP,
>I knew many art/ english type people in High School that were BRILLIANT, but
>liked the occasional weed or acid. Are these people therefore going to be a
>waste to our public Higher Education system ?!?! I knew a kid who smoked
>grass _at least_ once a day.....4.0 in college, Dean's list, everything !!
>But if he ever got caught, he would lose all his aid, and be forced to leave
>school.
>
>-=john=-
>
*******************************************
Really! That IS incredibly fucked!!
--Jett