Gunman shoots up high school cafeteria
Harry Hope
From The Associated Press, 5/21/98:
Shots Fired in Ore. H.S. Cafeteria
SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
officials said.
Details were sketchy, but the shots were fired in the
Thurston High School cafeteria and the shooter was
apparently still at large, said Sgt. Gary Stewart.
``My understanding is there are at least five victims,''
said Kathleen Deacon, vice president of patient care
services at McKenzie Willamette Hospital. ``We're in full
disaster alert.''
Springfield is about 110 miles south of Portland.
Guns "R" Us.
Harry
Guns Kill People.
Harry Hope
riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope) wrote:
>Guns "R" Us.
>Harry
>Guns Kill People.
From The Associated Press:
05/21/98 10:55:35 AM
One reported dead, up to 16 injured in school shooting in
Springfield, Ore., city spokeswoman says.
Salisar
Harry Hope wrote in message <6k1i1j$7...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>From The Associated Press, 5/21/98:
>
>Shots Fired in Ore. H.S. Cafeteria
>
>SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
>school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
>officials said.
>
>Details were sketchy, but the shots were fired in the
>Thurston High School cafeteria and the shooter was
>apparently still at large, said Sgt. Gary Stewart.
>
>``My understanding is there are at least five victims,''
>said Kathleen Deacon, vice president of patient care
>services at McKenzie Willamette Hospital. ``We're in full
>disaster alert.''
>
>Springfield is about 110 miles south of Portland.
>
>
>Guns "R" Us.
>
>Harry
>
>Guns Kill People.
Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started firing?
Amazing.
Richard W. Bates
http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
>
edh...@best.com
Salisar wrote:
>
> Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started firing?
> Amazing.
You probably want to have the 15-year old shooter executed, right?
That's usually how the far right responds to these situations. It's the
shooter's fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it,
loud and clear.
My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
the gun owners were murdered by their son.
Ed Hooks
Bob Sacamano
On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:22:14 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Salisar wrote:
>>
>> Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started firing?
>> Amazing.
>
>You probably want to have the 15-year old shooter executed, right?
You bet.
>That's usually how the far right responds to these situations.
The idea that murderers may be put to death for their actions is a
better deterrent than requiring them to register their firearms.
>It's the shooter's fault.
Who else do you blame? Society?
>Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it, loud and clear.
>
>My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
>happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
>the gun owners were murdered by their son.
That creates a little problem with your suggestion doesn't it. I have
a better idea. How about we hold the criminal criminally liable.
Christopher Morton
On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:22:14 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Salisar wrote:
>>
>> Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started firing?
>> Amazing.
>
>You probably want to have the 15-year old shooter executed, right?
>That's usually how the far right responds to these situations. It's the
>shooter's fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it,
>loud and clear.
If you shoot someone, whose fault BUT yours is it?
Blame an inanimate object. That's usually how primitive animists
respond to these situations.
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Check out:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
Zepp Weasel
On Thu, 21 May 1998 15:44:49 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
wrote:
>From The Associated Press, 5/21/98:
>
>Shots Fired in Ore. H.S. Cafeteria
>
>SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
>school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
>officials said.
>
Never mind what the map says: in a region as sparsely settled as
Southern Oregon/Northern California, 350 miles is "local".
Springfield isn't much different from where I live. Low crime
overall, and dispite more guns per capita than anywhere except the
south, not much gun violence.
So Springfield's been the main topic of conversation where I live most
of the day. Folks are utterly shocked.
Even I posted a message a couple of months ago in the wake of the
Arkansas shootings saying, in effect, "It can't happen here". Lots of
guns, not much gun crime. Folks are responsible, treat their guns as
tools, not at instuments of holy vengeance. I talked about how,
because of the poor economy and backwoods attitudes, there was a lot
of domestic violence in these parts, and even then, not many domestic
shootings.
It can't happen here.
I even had one rightwinger jump on my ass, a character calling himself
"Oregon Bear", who blasted me through most of my message, assuming I
was a big-city type liberal who just wanted to grab everyone's guns.
OB apparently didn't know how to cancel a message, because he shut up
when I got to the surprise ending, where I opined that guns, in and of
themselves weren't the problem.
It can't happen here.
Shootups like we saw in Arkansas were a Southern phenomenon. Folks in
the south fuck their cousins, and it's kinda hard to tell where their
hairline ends and their eyebrows begin, and they like to get likkered
up and shewt one another. Southerners are a bunch of crazy fucks.
Here, people are responsible, and got sense. They have guns for the
same reason they have Labrador retrievers; they are tools, used for
hunting. Oh, we got the loonies who whirl their eyes and go on about
the government, but they're too paranoid to actually threaten anyone.
Mostly they just crouch in their cabins and make meth.
It can't happen here.
Springfield's not different from any other small town in the PNW; the
churches outnumber the bars, and most folks are conservative, and
mistrustful of city people, who want to control their forests and
steal their water. Here, perhaps more than other places, a premium is
placed on teaching the kids self-reliance and self respect. That
includes holding your temper when it won't do any good to lose it, and
respecting the neighbor's rights. They are gun trained, of course.
Most sons bag their first buck by the time they are 15. They know
that guns are only used against people when you are being attacked;
and there aren't many attackers around.
Well, it's happened here.
A lot of people who believed us to be immune from the poison of
gun-worship due to pervasive acquaintence with guns are going to have
to sit down and rethink that now. That includes me.
I don't even feel angry. Just tired. I thought it couldn't happen
here.
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat!
-----------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Holman
In article <3573c0a6....@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
}On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:22:14 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
}
}>Salisar wrote:
}>>
}>> Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started firing?
}>> Amazing.
}>
}>You probably want to have the 15-year old shooter executed, right?
}>That's usually how the far right responds to these situations. It's the
}>shooter's fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it,
}>loud and clear.
}
}If you shoot someone, whose fault BUT yours is it?
}
}Blame an inanimate object. That's usually how primitive animists
}respond to these situations.
}
So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
killings involve guns?
Christopher Morton
>A lot of people who believed us to be immune from the poison of
>gun-worship due to pervasive acquaintence with guns are going to have
>to sit down and rethink that now. That includes me.
"Gun worship" = The absence of a pathological fear or hatred of
firearms.
>I don't even feel angry. Just tired. I thought it couldn't happen
>here.
If you thought that, you didn't think at all.
And as long as they continue to be the fodder of media feeding
frenzies, they will continue.
The kids want attention, and that's EXACTLY what they're getting.
>----------------------------------------------------
>Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
>
>Thank a liberal.
Whom should the Japanese-Americans have thanked for Manzanar and Hart
Mountain?
Christopher Morton
They also involved oxygen and gravity. Were they CAUSED by oxygen and
gravity? Have you ever heard of a shooting taking place in a location
which LACKED oxygen and gravity?
The desire to blame the acts of sapient beings on inanimate objects is
a sign either of a retrograde culture or low intelligence. Correct me
if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you live in the Huon Mountains of
New Guinea. So what's your excuse?
Michael Zarlenga
Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
: school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
: officials said.
: Details were sketchy, but the shots were fired in the
: Thurston High School cafeteria and the shooter was
: apparently still at large, said Sgt. Gary Stewart.
: ``My understanding is there are at least five victims,''
: said Kathleen Deacon, vice president of patient care
: services at McKenzie Willamette Hospital. ``We're in full
: disaster alert.''
: Springfield is about 110 miles south of Portland.
Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
undeterred.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Mitchell Holman
}>}
}>
}> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
}> killings involve guns?
}
}They also involved oxygen and gravity. Were they CAUSED by oxygen and
}gravity? Have you ever heard of a shooting taking place in a location
}which LACKED oxygen and gravity?
Are you entirely sober when you post this stuff?
ZACK SESSIONS
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes:
>Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
>present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
>That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
>undeterred.
Arming school officials wikll only increase the body cvount. We need to
find a way to prevent the kids from brings the guns to school in the first
place. We should not be more aggressive in killing them once they have.
Edward William Clayton
Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
: Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: : SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
: : school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
: : officials said.
: : Details were sketchy, but the shots were fired in the
: : Thurston High School cafeteria and the shooter was
: : apparently still at large, said Sgt. Gary Stewart.
: : ``My understanding is there are at least five victims,''
: : said Kathleen Deacon, vice president of patient care
: : services at McKenzie Willamette Hospital. ``We're in full
: : disaster alert.''
: : Springfield is about 110 miles south of Portland.
: Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
: present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
: That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
: undeterred.
Yeah. It would have been much safer if there had been five or six people
blazing away in a crowded cafeteria full of panicked children.
Ted
: --
Zepp Weasel
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:48:55 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
>Weasel) wrote:
>
>>A lot of people who believed us to be immune from the poison of
>>gun-worship due to pervasive acquaintence with guns are going to have
>>to sit down and rethink that now. That includes me.
>
>"Gun worship" = The absence of a pathological fear or hatred of
>firearms.
Oh, here comes Gun Loon Number One. Gonna tell me how guns are going
to solve all my problems, Snorts?
>
>>I don't even feel angry. Just tired. I thought it couldn't happen
>>here.
>
>If you thought that, you didn't think at all.
>
Nor, apparently, did anyone else in this part of the country. People
pride themselves on responsible gun ownership--a concept lost on a
foaming, obsessive white supremist like you.
>And as long as they continue to be the fodder of media feeding
>frenzies, they will continue.
>
>The kids want attention, and that's EXACTLY what they're getting.
Well, that's true. Friends and crying and praying over them, and
famillies are devestated. Perfect strangers are sending money in
their names and putting bouquets of flowers in the chainlink fence
around the school. What kid would pass up all that attention? And
all they had to do was sit peaceably in a school cafeteria, munching
on shit on a shingle.
>
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
>>
>>Thank a liberal.
>
>Whom should the Japanese-Americans have thanked for Manzanar and Hart
>Mountain?
>
>
>
>---
>Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
>better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
>
>Check out:
>
>http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
>http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
Salisar
Mitchell Holman wrote in message
<696B5952AF6EAD3B.12EA75B1...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>In article <3573c0a6....@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
>}On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:22:14 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>}
>}>Salisar wrote:
>}>>
>}>> Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started
firing?
>}>> Amazing.
>}>
>}>You probably want to have the 15-year old shooter executed, right?
>}>That's usually how the far right responds to these situations. It's the
>}>shooter's fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it,
>}>loud and clear.
>}
>}If you shoot someone, whose fault BUT yours is it?
>}
>}Blame an inanimate object. That's usually how primitive animists
>}respond to these situations.
>}
>
> killings involve guns?
>
So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass killings
involve psychopathic kids?
Michael Zarlenga
ZACK SESSIONS (joe...@katie.vnet.net) wrote:
: >Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
: >present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
: >That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
: >undeterred.
: Arming school officials wikll only increase the body count.
No one's talking about arming school workers, just not
disarming the ones fully qwualified and licensed to carry
a gun outside the confined of the school.
Right now we guarantee, to any and all attackers, that every
single person inside any public school is a helpless, sitting
duck.
We need to
: find a way to prevent the kids from brings the guns to school in the first
: place. We should not be more aggressive in killing them once they have.
I agree, but why must one strategy be exclusive of the other?
Michael Zarlenga
Edward William Clayton (tcla...@umich.edu) wrote:
: : Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
: : present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
: : That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
: : undeterred.
: Yeah. It would have been much safer if there had been five or six people
: blazing away in a crowded cafeteria full of panicked children.
Safer? That would depend on your defintion of "safer."
How safe is it to be a sitting duck? A fish in a barrel?
ZACK SESSIONS
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) writes:
>: Arming school officials wikll only increase the body count.
>No one's talking about arming school workers, just not
>disarming the ones fully qwualified and licensed to carry
>a gun outside the confined of the school.
I heard a report last night about one school system considering arming at
least one on duty teacher. Anyway, I didn'tt mean jst school officials,
anyone authorized top carry a gun still makes my point.
Bob Sacamano
>}>You probably want to have the 15-year old shooter executed, right?
>}>That's usually how the far right responds to these situations. It's the
>}>shooter's fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it,
>}>loud and clear.
>}
>}If you shoot someone, whose fault BUT yours is it?
>}
>}Blame an inanimate object. That's usually how primitive animists
>}respond to these situations.
>}
>
> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
> killings involve guns?
No. Many mass killings involve guns. However, some involve poisoning
and some involve mobs of people attacking other people with machetes
(I probably butchered the spelling). There is one common element in
any killing however. They all involve at least one nut case who
should be in prison or in the chair.
Mitchell Holman
In article <6k424u$m...@examiner.concentric.net>, "Salisar" <sal...@concentric.net> wrote:
}Mitchell Holman wrote in message
}<696B5952AF6EAD3B.12EA75B1...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
}t>...
}>In article <3573c0a6....@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
}>}On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:22:14 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
}>}
}>}>Salisar wrote:
}>}>>
}>}>> Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started
}firing?
}>}>> Amazing.
}>}>
}>}>That's usually how the far right responds to these situations. It's the
}>}>shooter's fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it,
}>}>loud and clear.
}>}
}>}If you shoot someone, whose fault BUT yours is it?
}>}
}>}Blame an inanimate object. That's usually how primitive animists
}>}respond to these situations.
}>}
}>
}> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
}> killings involve guns?
}>
}
}So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass killings
}
Prefer your psychopathic kids to be armed, do you?
Mitchell Holman
"As in previous years, firearms were the weapons used in
7 of every 10 murders committed in the nation."
FBI Uniform Crime Report, p. 17
Mitchell Holman
}
}No one's talking about arming school workers, just not
}disarming the ones fully qwualified and licensed to carry
}a gun outside the confined of the school.
}
}Right now we guarantee, to any and all attackers, that every
}single person inside any public school is a helpless, sitting
}duck.
}
Perhaps Zarlenga failed to notice that none of the
school shooting cases happened in schools protected
by metal detectors, as a growing umber of inner city
schools now are. Unarmed students aren't shooting
anybody.
Mitchell Holman
"I say all guns are good guns. There are no bad guns. I say the
whole nation should be an armed nation. Period."
(NRA President Joe Foss, Time, 1/29/90 p.16)
edh...@best.com
> >My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
> >happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
> >the gun owners were murdered by their son.
>
> That creates a little problem with your suggestion doesn't it. I have
> a better idea. How about we hold the criminal criminally liable.
And if the criminal is, say, 13 years old? 11 years old? Fry em? You
gonna pull the switch? This the kind of country you really want, one
that executes children? Seems to me it's bad enough we already execute
retarded people.
Anyway, the simple answer is to hold gun owners responsible. You own a
gun, you safeguard it. If your gun is used in a crime, YOU go to jail.
You don't want to take that risk, then don't own a gun.
In the Oregon case, the 15 year old boy's weapons were a rifle plus two
hand guns. The rifle was his own property. He stole the hand guns from
daddy. And then murdered him.
Ed Hooks
edh...@best.com
Christopher Morton wrote:
>
> The desire to blame the acts of sapient beings on inanimate objects is
> a sign either of a retrograde culture or low intelligence. Correct me
> if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you live in the Huon Mountains of
> New Guinea. So what's your excuse?
You can teach gun safety to children, but you can't give them maturity,
a sense of their own mortality, good judgement. All of these school
shootings involve children who got guns from under daddy's bed or out of
grandpa's house. And many of the shooters were wearing camaflauge
outfits, an indication that they had been taught to hunt.
Guns are inherently dangerous. If used as directed, they are designed
to kill or injure. When guns were invented, it was not for target
practice. For you to equate guns to, say, toasters or lamps or a
hammer, is just plain head-in-the-sand silly.
I do not advocate a ban on guns. Prohibition is impossible anyway,
doesn't work. The solution is to hold gun owners criminally responsible
for what happens to their weapons.
Ed Hooks
Michael Zarlenga
Mitchell Holman (ta2...@aimail.net) wrote:
: Perhaps Zarlenga failed to notice that none of the
: by metal detectors, as a growing umber of inner city
: schools now are. Unarmed students aren't shooting
: anybody.
I also noticed that none happened in private schools, either.
What conclusion would you draw from that fact, Mitchell?
Harold
On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:22:14 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Salisar wrote:
>>
>> Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started firing?
>> Amazing.
>
>You probably want to have the 15-year old shooter executed, right?
>That's usually how the far right responds to these situations. It's the
>shooter's fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it,
>loud and clear.
>
>My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
>happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
>the gun owners were murdered by their son.
They can be held civilly liable, if they can be proven to have been
negligent in some way.
That is better than criminally liable. If found criminally liable the
victims get nothing but sympathy from the state. Civilly liable and
you can collect damages forever.
Regards, Harold
----
"Sometimes I wish the public were fully informed as to
what the politicans and judges are doing. On the other
hand, would that not unleash anarchy and violence in
the streets?"
--- Thomas Sowell, 1997
Mitchell Holman
In article <3568b259...@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
}On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:22:14 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
}
}>Salisar wrote:
}>>
}>> Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started firing?
}>> Amazing.
}>
}>You probably want to have the 15-year old shooter executed, right?
}>That's usually how the far right responds to these situations. It's the
}>shooter's fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it,
}>loud and clear.
}>
}>My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
}>happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
}>the gun owners were murdered by their son.
}
}They can be held civilly liable, if they can be proven to have been
}negligent in some way.
}
}That is better than criminally liable. If found criminally liable the
}victims get nothing but sympathy from the state. Civilly liable and
}you can collect damages forever.
}
And just how much money do these shooters have
to collect from?
Mitchell Holman
In article <6k4aun$shs$3...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
}Mitchell Holman (ta2...@aimail.net) wrote:
}: Perhaps Zarlenga failed to notice that none of the
}: school shooting cases happened in schools protected
}: by metal detectors, as a growing umber of inner city
}: schools now are. Unarmed students aren't shooting
}: anybody.
}
}I also noticed that none happened in private schools, either.
}
}What conclusion would you draw from that fact, Mitchell?
}
detectors, of course. And yourself?
JC Cooper
edh...@best.com wrote in message <35654B...@best.com>...
>for what happens to their weapons.
>
>Ed Hooks
Ed, Ed, Ed. They have those laws on the books already. Why do they not
enforce them? Criminal Negligence is one. Contributing to the delinquency
(although pretty vague) is another. There are, in reality, too many such
laws and therefore the law enforcement community just throws up their hands
and says huh? Forget the weapons. Do something about the motive.
Quit worrying about me!
The constitution says I
can be as dumb as I wish
to be and I will exercise
that right to its fullest!!!
JC Cooper
Mayor
Gnat Flats, Texas
Michael Zarlenga
Mitchell Holman (ta2...@aimail.net) wrote:
: }: by metal detectors, as a growing umber of inner city
: }: anybody.
: }I also noticed that none happened in private schools, either.
: That public schools could benefit from metal
: detectors, of course. And yourself?
That metal detectors are unneceesary in a real school,
where kids actually learn, rather than just being ware-
housed for 6 hours every day.
Harold
On Fri, 22 May 98 17:41:51 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
wrote:
>In article <3568b259...@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
[deleted]
>}That is better than criminally liable. If found criminally liable the
>}victims get nothing but sympathy from the state. Civilly liable and
>}you can collect damages forever.
>}
>
> And just how much money do these shooters have
> to collect from?
How would I know how much their families have? Do you think I even
worry about it?
Even if they have nothing, they can end up owing half their earnings
for their whole lives. Do you think it is better to put them in jail?
I bet you were a real fan of debtor's prisons.
Regards, Harold
----
"Freedom...refer[s] to a social relationship among people-
namely, the absence of force as a prospective instrument of
decision making. Freedom is reduced whenever a decision is
made under threat of force, whether or not force actually
materializes or is evident in retrospect."
--- Thomas Sowell
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>Mitchell Holman (ta2...@aimail.net) wrote:
>: }: by metal detectors, as a growing umber of inner city
>: }: schools now are. Unarmed students aren't shooting
>: }: anybody.
>: }I also noticed that none happened in private schools, either.
>: That public schools could benefit from metal
>: detectors, of course. And yourself?
>That metal detectors are unneceesary in a real school,
>where kids actually learn, rather than just being ware-
>housed for 6 hours every day.
failed to mention the little fact, that those private schools can
choose only the ones they deem "worthy". Wonder why mikie would omit a
fact like that?
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
__________________________________________________
Let The White Rose enlighten you.
http://prairie.lakes.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
gdy weasel
________________________________________________
Mitchell Holman
In article <3566d19e...@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
}On Fri, 22 May 98 17:41:51 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
}wrote:
}
}>In article <3568b259...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
} Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
}
}[deleted]
}
}>}That is better than criminally liable. If found criminally liable the
}>}victims get nothing but sympathy from the state. Civilly liable and
}>}you can collect damages forever.
}>}
}>
}> And just how much money do these shooters have
}> to collect from?
}
}How would I know how much their families have? Do you think I even
}worry about it?
}
}Even if they have nothing, they can end up owing half their earnings
}for their whole lives. Do you think it is better to put them in jail?
}I bet you were a real fan of debtor's prisons.
Inasmuch as the shooters are not likely to be
pulling down much of an income for the next few
years - if ever - what is the point of suing them?
It is not like they are going to ever have much of
of a career with a conviction for mass murder following
them around, so where are supposed to get the money
to pay a civil judgment?
We are not dealing with OJ here, you know......
Mitchell Holman
"I happen to believe in tithing - the giving of a tenth of your income to charity."
Ronald Reagan 1/19/81. The previous year the Reagans' charitable contributions only
amounted to 1.7%
Mitchell Holman
In article <6k4h36$shs$1...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
}Mitchell Holman (ta2...@aimail.net) wrote:
}: }: by metal detectors, as a growing umber of inner city
}: }: schools now are. Unarmed students aren't shooting
}: }: anybody.
}
}: }I also noticed that none happened in private schools, either.
}
}: That public schools could benefit from metal
}: detectors, of course. And yourself?
}
}That metal detectors are unneceesary in a real school,
}where kids actually learn, rather than just being ware-
}housed for 6 hours every day.
}
So the answer is no, you don't have practice solution
to this problem. You could have just said so in the first
place......
Mike Jones
Zeppo, obviously a thought in that cranium of yours is a very lonely thing
indeed. Yesterday I heard of two teenagers that hanged and then beat the
brains out of a 'friend' when the hanging didn't succeed. Do we now need a
5-day wait on rope and a moratorium on rocks?
There are simply evil and disturbed people in this world. When the general
society cannot agree upon the sanctity of life, how do we teach that
sanctity to successive generations?
These young people today are the most aborted generation in the history of
man. They know they could have as easily been aborted as not. How do you
teach them about their soul in an environment such as this? Where is the
moral authority?
MIke.
--
"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg,1863
edh...@best.com
>> This the kind of country you really want, one
> >that executes children? Seems to me it's bad enough we already execute
> >retarded people.
>
> responsibility?
I do not believe that we have an either/or kind of choice: Either
execute them or send them to live with Ed Hooks. Lock 'em up, by all
means. Study them, teach them, counsel them and, at some point a few
years down the road, try to work them back into society. A 13-year old
shooter simply cannot be a lost cause, even if he has murdered half a
dozen people at school.
>
> >Anyway, the simple answer is to hold gun owners responsible. You own a
> >gun, you safeguard it. If your gun is used in a crime, YOU go to jail.
>
> So then if I'm the VICTIM of a crime, I should be punished? So then
> the cop who had his gun snatched the other day is responsible for his
> own death and that of two others?
I don't think gun owners are victims. They're simply gun owners. If
they don't safeguard their guns, and the guns wind up being used in a
crime, then they are criminals in my book.
The cop who had his gun snatched was STUPID. The prisoner was not
cuffed behind his back, there was no screen between the front and back
seats. Dumb shit. They do things a little better in California.
> >In the Oregon case, the 15 year old boy's weapons were a rifle plus two
> >hand guns. The rifle was his own property. He stole the hand guns from
> >daddy. And then murdered him.
>
> And the cops let him go after he brought a gun to school.
Yeah, in hindsight they made a mistake. I suppose we'd have to have
been there to understand why they let the kid go. He was released into
his parents' custody, so I read. I don't think there are any automatic
jail sentences for kids caught with guns at school, although there
probably ought to be.
I saw a dufus Republican congressman from Georgia on CNN's "Talk Back
Live" this morning. His bright solution to the school shootings is to
randomly select some teachers at each school and teach them how to use a
gun. This way, he figured, a shooter would not know who among the crowd
might be packing a rod -- but SOMEBODY would be. So if he got up on a
table to take pot shots at his school buddies, the math teacher or
chemistry professor might take him out first.
And the people in Georgia evidently ELECTED this bozo.
Ed Hooks
edh...@best.com
Christopher Morton wrote:
> You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that inanimate objects
> are "alive" and act on their own without human intervention?
I never said inanimate objects are "alive." And I am not absolving
humans from responsibility. The problem here is that children cannot be
expected to exercise good judgement.
Ed Hooks
Mitchell Holman
In article <sodiumy...@world.std.com>, Andrew Hall <ahall-...@world.std.com> wrote:
}>>>>> Mitchell Holman writes:
}
} Mitchell> In article <6k43n2$p90$5...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net
} (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
} >>
} >> No one's talking about arming school workers, just not
} >> disarming the ones fully qwualified and licensed to carry
} >> a gun outside the confined of the school.
} >>
} >> Right now we guarantee, to any and all attackers, that every
} >> single person inside any public school is a helpless, sitting
} >> duck.
} >>
}
} Mitchell> school shooting cases happened in schools protected
} Mitchell> by metal detectors, as a growing umber of inner city
} Mitchell> schools now are. Unarmed students aren't shooting
} Mitchell> anybody.
}
}You seem not to have noticed that the Jonesboro shooting
}was outside the school, after the fire alarm had been
}pulled. Perhaps we should put metal detectors on every
}corner.
}
The case under discussion was in Oregon, remember?
Christopher Morton
On Fri, 22 May 1998 09:49:21 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>> >My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
>> >happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
>> >the gun owners were murdered by their son.
>>
>> That creates a little problem with your suggestion doesn't it. I have
>> a better idea. How about we hold the criminal criminally liable.
>
>And if the criminal is, say, 13 years old? 11 years old? Fry em? You
>gonna pull the switch? This the kind of country you really want, one
>that executes children? Seems to me it's bad enough we already execute
>retarded people.
So, are you willing to have them come live with you and be your
responsibility?
>Anyway, the simple answer is to hold gun owners responsible. You own a
>gun, you safeguard it. If your gun is used in a crime, YOU go to jail.
So then if I'm the VICTIM of a crime, I should be punished? So then
the cop who had his gun snatched the other day is responsible for his
own death and that of two others?
>You don't want to take that risk, then don't own a gun.
I invite you to try to impose that "duty" on me.
>In the Oregon case, the 15 year old boy's weapons were a rifle plus two
>hand guns. The rifle was his own property. He stole the hand guns from
>daddy. And then murdered him.
And the cops let him go after he brought a gun to school.
---
Christopher Morton
On Fri, 22 May 1998 09:54:16 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> The desire to blame the acts of sapient beings on inanimate objects is
>> a sign either of a retrograde culture or low intelligence. Correct me
>> if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you live in the Huon Mountains of
>> New Guinea. So what's your excuse?
>
>You can teach gun safety to children, but you can't give them maturity,
>a sense of their own mortality, good judgement. All of these school
>shootings involve children who got guns from under daddy's bed or out of
>grandpa's house. And many of the shooters were wearing camaflauge
>outfits, an indication that they had been taught to hunt.
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that inanimate objects
are "alive" and act on their own without human intervention?
Do you want to ban hunting... or just camouflage clothing?
>Guns are inherently dangerous. If used as directed, they are designed
So are automobiles, routers and swimming pools.
>to kill or injure. When guns were invented, it was not for target
>practice. For you to equate guns to, say, toasters or lamps or a
>hammer, is just plain head-in-the-sand silly.
All are tools which perform various functions. Do you still believe
that guns are "alive"? Do you feel the same about toasters?
>I do not advocate a ban on guns. Prohibition is impossible anyway,
Somebody will want to try anyway.
>doesn't work. The solution is to hold gun owners criminally responsible
>for what happens to their weapons.
If you lock your car, and I steal it and commit a liquor store robbery
with it as the getaway conveyance, should you be prosecuted.
Tell everyone what your SPECIFIC standards for firearms security are.
If somebody uses a torch to cut my guns out of a gunsafe, should I be
prosecuted?
Christopher Morton
On Fri, 22 May 1998 13:44:24 GMT, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell
Holman) wrote:
>In article <356e1815...@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
>
>}>}
>}>
>}> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
>}> killings involve guns?
>}
>}They also involved oxygen and gravity. Were they CAUSED by oxygen and
>}gravity? Have you ever heard of a shooting taking place in a location
>}which LACKED oxygen and gravity?
>
>
> Are you entirely sober when you post this stuff?
Are you man enough to answer the questions?
Christopher Morton
On Fri, 22 May 98 16:19:46 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
wrote:
>In article <6k43n2$p90$5...@paperboy.ids.net>, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>
>}
>}No one's talking about arming school workers, just not
>}disarming the ones fully qwualified and licensed to carry
>}a gun outside the confined of the school.
>}
>}Right now we guarantee, to any and all attackers, that every
>}single person inside any public school is a helpless, sitting
>}duck.
>}
>
> Perhaps Zarlenga failed to notice that none of the
> school shooting cases happened in schools protected
> by metal detectors, as a growing umber of inner city
> schools now are. Unarmed students aren't shooting
> anybody.
And you propose random metal detector stops in the streets to prevent
shootings like the ones in Arkansas?
Christopher Morton
On Fri, 22 May 1998 14:06:55 GMT, tcla...@umich.edu (Edward William
Clayton) wrote:
>Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
>: Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: : SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
>: : school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
>: : officials said.
>
>: : Details were sketchy, but the shots were fired in the
>: : Thurston High School cafeteria and the shooter was
>: : apparently still at large, said Sgt. Gary Stewart.
>
>: : ``My understanding is there are at least five victims,''
>: : said Kathleen Deacon, vice president of patient care
>: : services at McKenzie Willamette Hospital. ``We're in full
>: : disaster alert.''
>
>: : Springfield is about 110 miles south of Portland.
>
>: Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
>: present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
>
>: That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
>: undeterred.
>
>Yeah. It would have been much safer if there had been five or six people
>blazing away in a crowded cafeteria full of panicked children.
So then you think it's better for the murderers to work in safety?
Do you believe that if a policeman had be present, he should not have
fired at them EITHER?
Christopher Morton
On Fri, 22 May 98 16:15:42 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
wrote:
> Prefer your psychopathic kids to be armed, do you?
Do you prefer psychopathic cops to be armed?
If not, disarm the police FIRST.
Christopher Morton
On Fri, 22 May 1998 12:58:52 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
Weasel) wrote:
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 06:26:46 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 May 1998 00:48:55 GMT, zepphol...@snowcrest.net (Zepp
>>Weasel) wrote:
>>
>>>A lot of people who believed us to be immune from the poison of
>>>gun-worship due to pervasive acquaintence with guns are going to have
>>>to sit down and rethink that now. That includes me.
>>
>>"Gun worship" = The absence of a pathological fear or hatred of
>>firearms.
>
>Oh, here comes Gun Loon Number One. Gonna tell me how guns are going
>to solve all my problems, Snorts?
Here comes hoplophobe number one. Gonna tell me how guns won't solve
ANY of my problems, Zippy?
>>>I don't even feel angry. Just tired. I thought it couldn't happen
>>>here.
>>
>>If you thought that, you didn't think at all.
>>
>Nor, apparently, did anyone else in this part of the country. People
>pride themselves on responsible gun ownership--a concept lost on a
>foaming, obsessive white supremist like you.
Keep pretending you don't believe I'm Black. It places the rest of
your comments in the proper perspective.
>>And as long as they continue to be the fodder of media feeding
>>frenzies, they will continue.
>>
>>The kids want attention, and that's EXACTLY what they're getting.
>
>Well, that's true. Friends and crying and praying over them, and
>famillies are devestated. Perfect strangers are sending money in
>their names and putting bouquets of flowers in the chainlink fence
>around the school. What kid would pass up all that attention? And
>all they had to do was sit peaceably in a school cafeteria, munching
>on shit on a shingle.
Nobody should be surprised that you ignore the PERPETRATORS of these
crimes. They don't matter to you. Your primitive animism drives you
to concentrate on inanimate objects.
>>>Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
>>>
>>>Thank a liberal.
>>
>>Whom should the Japanese-Americans have thanked for Manzanar and Hart
>>Mountain?
You didn't answer my question.
---
Mitchell Holman
In article <3569259b...@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
}On Fri, 22 May 1998 13:44:24 GMT, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell
}Holman) wrote:
}
}>In article <356e1815...@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
}>
}>}>}
}>}>
}>}> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
}>}> killings involve guns?
}>}
}>}They also involved oxygen and gravity. Were they CAUSED by oxygen and
}>}gravity? Have you ever heard of a shooting taking place in a location
}>}which LACKED oxygen and gravity?
}>
}>
}> Are you entirely sober when you post this stuff?
}
}Are you man enough to answer the questions?
}
When you post a serious question, you might just get
serious answer.
Mitchell Holman
"This is the perfect commission. We have a black, a woman, two jews and a cripple"
Reagan Interior Sec. James Watt, displaying the sensitivity that got him fired, 9/21/83
Christopher Morton
On Fri, 22 May 1998 22:10:54 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>>> This the kind of country you really want, one
>> >that executes children? Seems to me it's bad enough we already execute
>> >retarded people.
>>
>> So, are you willing to have them come live with you and be your
>> responsibility?
>
>I do not believe that we have an either/or kind of choice: Either
I figured you wouldn't answer the question.
>execute them or send them to live with Ed Hooks. Lock 'em up, by all
>means. Study them, teach them, counsel them and, at some point a few
>years down the road, try to work them back into society. A 13-year old
>shooter simply cannot be a lost cause, even if he has murdered half a
>dozen people at school.
So, are you willing to have them come live with you and be YOUR
responsibility?
ANYBODY of ANY age who murders a half dozen people ANYWHERE is a "lost
cause"... all the moreso when they planned the act as a quasi-military
operation.
But this is all part of the pattern: INTENSE hatred and animosity for
gun owners who DON'T murder people, accompanied by solicitousness for
those who commit the most horrific crimes... but of course you don't
want them in YOUR neighborhood, nevermind your home.
>> >Anyway, the simple answer is to hold gun owners responsible. You own a
>> >gun, you safeguard it. If your gun is used in a crime, YOU go to jail.
>>
>> So then if I'm the VICTIM of a crime, I should be punished? So then
>> the cop who had his gun snatched the other day is responsible for his
>> own death and that of two others?
>
>I don't think gun owners are victims. They're simply gun owners. If
If somebody STEALS my gun and goes to great effort to do so, I'm NOT
the victim of a theft? You would not prosecute gun THIEVES, only the
VICTIMS of gun theft?
>they don't safeguard their guns, and the guns wind up being used in a
>crime, then they are criminals in my book.
Define "safeguard". Is that in a locked dwelling? Or does it require
$10,000 or more worth of security hardware?
>The cop who had his gun snatched was STUPID. The prisoner was not
>cuffed behind his back, there was no screen between the front and back
>seats. Dumb shit. They do things a little better in California.
You didn't answer my question. If he lived, should he be PROSECUTED?
>> >In the Oregon case, the 15 year old boy's weapons were a rifle plus two
>> >hand guns. The rifle was his own property. He stole the hand guns from
>> >daddy. And then murdered him.
>>
>> And the cops let him go after he brought a gun to school.
>
>Yeah, in hindsight they made a mistake. I suppose we'd have to have
In ANY kind of sight they made a mistake. Do you want to prosecute
THEM?
>been there to understand why they let the kid go. He was released into
>his parents' custody, so I read. I don't think there are any automatic
>jail sentences for kids caught with guns at school, although there
>probably ought to be.
Should John Hinkley have been released to HIS parents' custody?
>I saw a dufus Republican congressman from Georgia on CNN's "Talk Back
>Live" this morning. His bright solution to the school shootings is to
>randomly select some teachers at each school and teach them how to use a
>gun. This way, he figured, a shooter would not know who among the crowd
>might be packing a rod -- but SOMEBODY would be. So if he got up on a
>table to take pot shots at his school buddies, the math teacher or
>chemistry professor might take him out first.
It's what they do in Israel.
It works.
>And the people in Georgia evidently ELECTED this bozo.
And the people of Israel evidently elected the one who thought of it
there. It's saved a lot of kids' lives. Maybe you think that's a BAD
thing.
Christopher Morton
On Sat, 23 May 1998 04:40:00 GMT, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell
Holman) wrote:
>In article <3569259b...@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
>}On Fri, 22 May 1998 13:44:24 GMT, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell
>}Holman) wrote:
>}
>}>In article <356e1815...@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
>}>
>}>}>}
>}>}>
>}>}> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
>}>}> killings involve guns?
>}>}
>}>}They also involved oxygen and gravity. Were they CAUSED by oxygen and
>}>}gravity? Have you ever heard of a shooting taking place in a location
>}>}which LACKED oxygen and gravity?
>}>
>}>
>}> Are you entirely sober when you post this stuff?
>}
>}Are you man enough to answer the questions?
>}
>
> When you post a serious question, you might just get
> serious answer.
Are you man enough to answer the questions?
---
Christopher Morton
On Fri, 22 May 1998 22:14:53 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that inanimate objects
>> are "alive" and act on their own without human intervention?
>
>I never said inanimate objects are "alive." And I am not absolving
>humans from responsibility. The problem here is that children cannot be
>expected to exercise good judgement.
That's funny, I know any number of children, and NONE of THEM has shot
up their classmates.
And let me ask AGAIN, the questions which you for some reason cut out:
1. What are YOUR standards for home firearms security? If somebody
gets my guns by cutting open my gunsafe with a torch, should I be
prosecuted?
2. Should cops who lose their weapons be prosecuted?
3. When the Jonesboro, Arkansas murderers are released, can they come
to YOUR house to stay?
gdy5...@prairie.lakes.com
"Mike Jones" <mdj...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Zeppo, obviously a thought in that cranium of yours is a very lonely thing
>indeed. Yesterday I heard of two teenagers that hanged and then beat the
>brains out of a 'friend' when the hanging didn't succeed. Do we now need a
>5-day wait on rope and a moratorium on rocks?
>There are simply evil and disturbed people in this world. When the general
>society cannot agree upon the sanctity of life, how do we teach that
>sanctity to successive generations?
>These young people today are the most aborted generation in the history of
>man. They know they could have as easily been aborted as not. How do you
>teach them about their soul in an environment such as this? Where is the
>moral authority?
Very good Mike, so you don't want to blame it on guns but instea
want to blame it on the state of society. I don't think you want to go
here but then what the hell. My generation was raised at durning one
of the most progressive and liberal times durning this century, the
60s. Random violence was low, politically all forms of violence was
looked down upon, remember them peaceniks? Now these kids have been
raised in the most regressive decade of the century the 80s, where the
controling politics being spewed forth by the republicons glorified
violent acts and called the instigators of such acts heros.
Politically it didn't matter how you got even agaist your oponents,
the only thing that counted was that you killed em or other wise
destroyed them.
And you wonder why these kids are screwed up? But thanls for
getting to the root of the problem.<grin>
>MIke.
>--
>"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
>government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
>from the earth."
>-- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg,1863
__________________________________________________
Zepp Weasel
On Fri, 22 May 1998 23:13:53 -0500, "Mike Jones" <mdj...@nospam.net>
wrote:
>Zeppo, obviously a thought in that cranium of yours is a very lonely thing
>indeed. Yesterday I heard of two teenagers that hanged and then beat the
>brains out of a 'friend' when the hanging didn't succeed. Do we now need a
>5-day wait on rope and a moratorium on rocks?
I heard about it. How many other people did they put in the hospital
with their rock and rope?
>There are simply evil and disturbed people in this world. When the general
>society cannot agree upon the sanctity of life, how do we teach that
>sanctity to successive generations?
A disturbed 15 year old without a gun is just a kid with problems. It
doesn't result in dozens of people going to the hospital.
>These young people today are the most aborted generation in the history of
>man. They know they could have as easily been aborted as not. How do you
>teach them about their soul in an environment such as this? Where is the
>moral authority?
That's pretty loony tunes, even for you. The kids were wanted. They
didn't get "scraped".
Of course, in the case of this kid and the the ones who tortured that
girl to death, maybe the parents made the wrong choice.
>
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
-----------------------------------------------------
Be good, servile little citizen-employees:
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
When in doubt, call a stoat!
-----------------------------------------------------
Zepp Weasel
>On Fri, 22 May 98 16:15:42 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
>wrote:
>
>> Prefer your psychopathic kids to be armed, do you?
>
>Do you prefer psychopathic cops to be armed?
>
>If not, disarm the police FIRST.
Funny, but I don't hear about too many cops shooting up school
cafeterias, even though the kids aren't in a position to return fire
and thus are easy targets. According to the Snorts world-view, cops
are just waiting for a chance to kill us all.
>
>---
>Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
>better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
>
>Check out:
>
>http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
>http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
----------------------------------------------------
Zepp Weasel
My goodness. 15 new in this thread, and 11 are from Snorts, and 2
from Zarlenga. The NRA whores are in full spin-control mode, aren't
they?
Zepp Weasel
>In article <356e1815...@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
>
>}>}
>}>
>}> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
>}> killings involve guns?
>}
>}They also involved oxygen and gravity. Were they CAUSED by oxygen and
>}gravity? Have you ever heard of a shooting taking place in a location
>}which LACKED oxygen and gravity?
>
>
> Are you entirely sober when you post this stuff?
I think we just identified Snorts' problem: too much gravity, not
enough oxygen. Not NEARLY enough.
Zepp Weasel
On 22 May 1998 10:29:50 EDT, "Salisar" <sal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Mitchell Holman wrote in message
><696B5952AF6EAD3B.12EA75B1...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
>t>...
>>In article <3573c0a6....@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
>>}On Thu, 21 May 1998 16:22:14 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>>}
>>}>Salisar wrote:
>>}>>
>>}>> Really? You mean that gun just jumped up all by itself and started
>firing?
>>}>> Amazing.
>>}>
>>}>You probably want to have the 15-year old shooter executed, right?
>>}>That's usually how the far right responds to these situations. It's the
>>}>shooter's fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Got it,
>>}>loud and clear.
>>}
>>}If you shoot someone, whose fault BUT yours is it?
>>}
>>}Blame an inanimate object. That's usually how primitive animists
>>}respond to these situations.
>>}
>>
>> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
>> killings involve guns?
>>
>
>So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass killings
>involve psychopathic kids?
And what mades them psychopaths? Oh, right--because they shot people.
Are you implying that guns cause psychopathy?
>
>Richard W. Bates
>http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
Zepp Weasel
On Fri, 22 May 1998 19:29:30 GMT, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu
(Harold) wrote:
>On Fri, 22 May 98 17:41:51 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3568b259...@nntp.st.usm.edu>, Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu (Harold) wrote:
>
>[deleted]
>
>>}That is better than criminally liable. If found criminally liable the
>>}victims get nothing but sympathy from the state. Civilly liable and
>>}you can collect damages forever.
>>}
>>
>> And just how much money do these shooters have
>> to collect from?
>
>How would I know how much their families have? Do you think I even
>worry about it?
>
>Even if they have nothing, they can end up owing half their earnings
>for their whole lives. Do you think it is better to put them in jail?
>I bet you were a real fan of debtor's prisons.
In this case, liablility is going to be a real bear. Reports are that
other kids stole the guns and sold them to this Kip kid. Incidently,
the media I'm hearing is telling me the parents didn't own any guns.
>
>Regards, Harold
>----
>"Freedom...refer[s] to a social relationship among people-
>namely, the absence of force as a prospective instrument of
>decision making. Freedom is reduced whenever a decision is
>made under threat of force, whether or not force actually
>materializes or is evident in retrospect."
> --- Thomas Sowell
----------------------------------------------------
Zepp Weasel
On 22 May 1998 14:57:55 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
wrote:
>Edward William Clayton (tcla...@umich.edu) wrote:
>: : Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
>: : present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
>
>: : That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
>: : undeterred.
>
>: Yeah. It would have been much safer if there had been five or six people
>: blazing away in a crowded cafeteria full of panicked children.
>
>Safer? That would depend on your defintion of "safer."
>
>How safe is it to be a sitting duck? A fish in a barrel?
So the kids would still be sitting ducks, only for a half dozen guns
going off instead of one.
Of course, we could have armed then, and then we would have had 400
panicked kids firing at anyone who was shooting. Within 30 seconds,
there wouldn't be a dozen left alive. One kid with a firecracker
could cause hundreds of deaths.
Definitely one of your wiser ideas, Mike.
>
>--
>-- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
----------------------------------------------------
Salisar
edh...@best.com wrote in message <35654A...@best.com>...
>> >My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
>> >happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
>> >the gun owners were murdered by their son.
>>
>> That creates a little problem with your suggestion doesn't it. I have
>> a better idea. How about we hold the criminal criminally liable.
>
>And if the criminal is, say, 13 years old? 11 years old? Fry em? You
>that executes children? Seems to me it's bad enough we already execute
>retarded people.
>
>gun, you safeguard it. If your gun is used in a crime, YOU go to jail.
Are you willing to extend that theory to automobiles ... if your car is
stolen and hits and kills someone, YOU go to jail. Are you that consistent?
I didn't think so.
Richard W. Bates
http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
>
>In the Oregon case, the 15 year old boy's weapons were a rifle plus two
>hand guns. The rifle was his own property. He stole the hand guns from
>daddy. And then murdered him.
>
>Ed Hooks
Milt
Michael Zarlenga wrote:
> Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
> : school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
> : officials said.
>
> : Details were sketchy, but the shots were fired in the
> : Thurston High School cafeteria and the shooter was
> : apparently still at large, said Sgt. Gary Stewart.
>
> : ``My understanding is there are at least five victims,''
> : said Kathleen Deacon, vice president of patient care
> : services at McKenzie Willamette Hospital. ``We're in full
> : disaster alert.''
>
> : Springfield is about 110 miles south of Portland.
>
> Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
> present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
>
> That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
> undeterred.
Of course, if the the armed teacher. official or administrator was the
one going on the rampage, (Adults have shot more kids and held more
hostages at gunpoint in schools to date-- this is a recent
phenomenon...), then who would stop them?
Get real, Michael. Guns don't stop guns; they encourage more guns...
Milt
Christopher Morton
On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:30:48 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 01:26:48 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 May 98 16:15:42 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Prefer your psychopathic kids to be armed, do you?
>>
>>Do you prefer psychopathic cops to be armed?
>>
>>If not, disarm the police FIRST.
>
>Funny, but I don't hear about too many cops shooting up school
>cafeterias, even though the kids aren't in a position to return fire
>and thus are easy targets. According to the Snorts world-view, cops
>are just waiting for a chance to kill us all.
Not all of us. Zepp is White and is pretty safe from the cops. Abner
Louima on the other hand experienced some difficulties.
Zepp won't even TRY to explain why, if cops can't be trusted with
plunger handles, they can be trusted with a monopoly on firearms.
---
"Only a moron would claim that putting the text "[wrong name]"
in place of what the author knows to be the wrong name is a
universally accepted method to indicate editorial comments,
clarifications, etc.." - Shawn "Zyklon-B" Smith
Christopher Morton
On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:37:35 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On Fri, 22 May 1998 13:44:24 GMT, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell
>Holman) wrote:
>
>>In article <356e1815...@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
>>
>>}>}
>>}>
>>}> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
>>}> killings involve guns?
>>}
>>}They also involved oxygen and gravity. Were they CAUSED by oxygen and
>>}gravity? Have you ever heard of a shooting taking place in a location
>>}which LACKED oxygen and gravity?
>>
>>
>> Are you entirely sober when you post this stuff?
>
>I think we just identified Snorts' problem: too much gravity, not
>enough oxygen. Not NEARLY enough.
Are YOU man enough to answer the question?
>----------------------------------------------------
>Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
>
>Thank a liberal.
Whom should the Japanese-Americans have thanked for Manzanar?
Christopher Morton
On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:43:24 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On 22 May 1998 14:57:55 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
>wrote:
>
>>Edward William Clayton (tcla...@umich.edu) wrote:
>>: : Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
>>: : present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
>>
>>: : That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
>>: : undeterred.
>>
>>: Yeah. It would have been much safer if there had been five or six people
>>: blazing away in a crowded cafeteria full of panicked children.
>>
>>Safer? That would depend on your defintion of "safer."
>>
>>How safe is it to be a sitting duck? A fish in a barrel?
>
>So the kids would still be sitting ducks, only for a half dozen guns
>going off instead of one.
So then, if a cop's there, he shouldn't shoot the gunman, EITHER?
Christopher Morton
On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:32:12 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 01:30:44 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 May 1998 14:06:55 GMT, tcla...@umich.edu (Edward William
>>Clayton) wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Zarlenga (zarl...@conan.ids.net) wrote:
>>>: Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>>: : SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
>>>: : school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
>>>: : officials said.
>>>
>>>: : Details were sketchy, but the shots were fired in the
>>>: : Thurston High School cafeteria and the shooter was
>>>: : apparently still at large, said Sgt. Gary Stewart.
>>>
>>>: : ``My understanding is there are at least five victims,''
>>>: : said Kathleen Deacon, vice president of patient care
>>>: : services at McKenzie Willamette Hospital. ``We're in full
>>>: : disaster alert.''
>>>
>>>: : Springfield is about 110 miles south of Portland.
>>>
>>>: Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
>>>: present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
>>>
>>>: That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
>>>: undeterred.
>>>
>>>Yeah. It would have been much safer if there had been five or six people
>>>blazing away in a crowded cafeteria full of panicked children.
>>
>>So then you think it's better for the murderers to work in safety?
>>
>>Do you believe that if a policeman had be present, he should not have
>>fired at them EITHER?
>
>My goodness. 15 new in this thread, and 11 are from Snorts, and 2
>from Zarlenga. The NRA whores are in full spin-control mode, aren't
>they?
So, if a cop's there, he shouldn't shoot the gunman EITHER?
As usual, Zepp the whore for a policestate dodges the question.
Christopher Morton
On Sat, 23 May 1998 14:16:38 -0400, Milt <milt...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>
>
>Michael Zarlenga wrote:
>
>> Harry Hope (riv...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> : SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
>> : school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
>> : officials said.
>>
>> : Details were sketchy, but the shots were fired in the
>> : Thurston High School cafeteria and the shooter was
>> : apparently still at large, said Sgt. Gary Stewart.
>>
>> : ``My understanding is there are at least five victims,''
>> : said Kathleen Deacon, vice president of patient care
>> : services at McKenzie Willamette Hospital. ``We're in full
>> : disaster alert.''
>>
>> : Springfield is about 110 miles south of Portland.
>>
>> Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
>> present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
>>
>> That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
>> undeterred.
>
>Of course, if the the armed teacher. official or administrator was the
>one going on the rampage, (Adults have shot more kids and held more
>hostages at gunpoint in schools to date-- this is a recent
>phenomenon...), then who would stop them?
>
>Get real, Michael. Guns don't stop guns; they encourage more guns...
And if a cop goes on a rampage, who stops him?
Better disarm the cops.
Zepp Weasel
On 23 May 1998 13:03:04 EDT, "Salisar" <Sal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>edh...@best.com wrote in message <35654A...@best.com>...
>>> >My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
>>> >happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
>>> >the gun owners were murdered by their son.
>>>
>>> That creates a little problem with your suggestion doesn't it. I have
>>> a better idea. How about we hold the criminal criminally liable.
>>
>>And if the criminal is, say, 13 years old? 11 years old? Fry em? You
>>gonna pull the switch? This the kind of country you really want, one
>>that executes children? Seems to me it's bad enough we already execute
>>retarded people.
>>
>>Anyway, the simple answer is to hold gun owners responsible. You own a
>>gun, you safeguard it. If your gun is used in a crime, YOU go to jail.
>>You don't want to take that risk, then don't own a gun.
>
>
>Are you willing to extend that theory to automobiles ... if your car is
>stolen and hits and kills someone, YOU go to jail. Are you that consistent?
>I didn't think so.
If you didn't take reasonable precautions (take the key out of the
ignition, lock the door, put a antitheft device on) then you have
liability for any damage done by your car if stolen.
>
>Richard W. Bates
>http://www.concentric.net/~salisar
>
>>
>>In the Oregon case, the 15 year old boy's weapons were a rifle plus two
>>hand guns. The rifle was his own property. He stole the hand guns from
>>daddy. And then murdered him.
>>
>>Ed Hooks
>
>
----------------------------------------------------
Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
Thank a liberal.
edh...@best.com
Christopher Morton wrote:
> ANYBODY of ANY age who murders a half dozen people ANYWHERE is a "lost
> cause"... all the moreso when they planned the act as a quasi-military
> operation.
When the shooter is eleven, twelve or thirteen years old, he is a
CHILD. Children make stupid judgements. That's why we don't let them
drive a car. Give a child a gun, teach him to hunt, teach him gun
safety -- but you can't imbue a child with adult good-judgement or
maturity or a sense of his own mortality.
> But this is all part of the pattern: INTENSE hatred and animosity for
> gun owners who DON'T murder people, accompanied by solicitousness for
> those who commit the most horrific crimes.
Oh, give me a break. I don't have any hatred for gun owners, and I
certainly don't have INTENSE hatred for them. Some of my best friends
are gun owners. I have myself owned guns. All I am saying is that, if
a person chooses to own a gun, that person is, in my view, responsible
for what happens to the gun. I feel very certain that if we start
sending gun owners to jail when their weapons are used in shoot-outs,
other gun owners will get the message and lock up their weapons. It
would have a deterrent effect.
You may not LIKE the idea of having to safeguard your guns, but frankly
I don't give a shit. I'd vote in a heart beat to send your lazy butt
right to the slammer if your gun was used to shoot up my daughter's
school. I would not consider you a victim. You own a gun, you are
potentially part of the problem, not part of the solution. It's your
choice.
Ed Hooks
edh...@best.com
Christopher Morton wrote:
> 1. What are YOUR standards for home firearms security? If somebody
> gets my guns by cutting open my gunsafe with a torch, should I be
> prosecuted?
Reasonable security would be a sturdy gun case. If someone takes a
sledge hammer and breaks into the thing, I would not send you to the
slammer if the gun is used in a shoot out.
My problem is with all the jerks who keep guns in hall closets, under
the bed, that kind of thing. Dumb shits.
>
> 2. Should cops who lose their weapons be prosecuted?
No.
>
> 3. When the Jonesboro, Arkansas murderers are released, can they come
> to YOUR house to stay?
You're really obsessed with my house, aren't you? No, I'm not
interested in having the Arkansas shooters come live with me any more
than I want you to come live with me. Michell Pfeiffer can come live
with me if she wants to.
Ed Hooks
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 06:32:34 GMT, ssh...@SPAMccsi.com (Schutzstaffel
Shawn Smith) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:40:06 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>wrote:
>
>>In this case, liablility is going to be a real bear. Reports are that
>>other kids stole the guns and sold them to this Kip kid. Incidently,
>>the media I'm hearing is telling me the parents didn't own any guns.
>
>It is still that gun violence culture that caused this killing spree.
What caused the internment of the Japanese-Americans, SHAWN?
>It seems to so often start with killing animals then it escalates to
>humans. Most all of these kid killing kid stories have had that
>factor. And ya got Heston and the NRA saying how great it is to get a
>gun and go kill animals. No freaking wonder we got this going on.
So SHAWN, are you a vegetarian or a vegan this week? Where does YOUR
meat come from? Animals that died of natural causes?
>BAN ALL GUNS NOW.
Including those of the cops?
Christopher Morton
On Sat, 23 May 1998 23:27:47 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> ANYBODY of ANY age who murders a half dozen people ANYWHERE is a "lost
>> cause"... all the moreso when they planned the act as a quasi-military
>> operation.
>
>When the shooter is eleven, twelve or thirteen years old, he is a
>CHILD. Children make stupid judgements. That's why we don't let them
Stealing a car is a "stupid". Shooting two dozen innocent people
isn't "stupid". It's EVIL and inimical to a civilized society.
>drive a car. Give a child a gun, teach him to hunt, teach him gun
>safety -- but you can't imbue a child with adult good-judgement or
>maturity or a sense of his own mortality.
Then why haven't ANY of the kids I've known shot two-dozen people, no
matter HOW much exposure they've had to weapons? Even the kids I knew
in school who became drug dealers didn't commit mass murder.
You're attempting to portray Kip Kinkel as the NORM. He might be
where YOU live, but not anywhere I've lived.
>> But this is all part of the pattern: INTENSE hatred and animosity for
>> gun owners who DON'T murder people, accompanied by solicitousness for
>> those who commit the most horrific crimes.
>
>Oh, give me a break. I don't have any hatred for gun owners, and I
>certainly don't have INTENSE hatred for them. Some of my best friends
>are gun owners. I have myself owned guns. All I am saying is that, if
>a person chooses to own a gun, that person is, in my view, responsible
>for what happens to the gun. I feel very certain that if we start
Once again, you want to punish the VICTIM of a gun theft, but you're
nothing but sympathy for somebody who steals those guns and shoots two
dozen people with them.
>sending gun owners to jail when their weapons are used in shoot-outs,
>other gun owners will get the message and lock up their weapons. It
>would have a deterrent effect.
You want to send the VICTIMS of crime to jail, but not the
PERPETRATORS, even when they shoot two dozen people.
>You may not LIKE the idea of having to safeguard your guns, but frankly
>I don't give a shit. I'd vote in a heart beat to send your lazy butt
>right to the slammer if your gun was used to shoot up my daughter's
>school. I would not consider you a victim. You own a gun, you are
>potentially part of the problem, not part of the solution. It's your
>choice.
And I've asked you AT LEAST twice what your STANDARDS for gun storage
are. You won't say.
As to you not giving a shit, the opinions of someone who prefers
murderers to victims of theft, are of marginal concern at best.
Christopher Morton
On Sat, 23 May 1998 23:19:43 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On 23 May 1998 13:03:04 EDT, "Salisar" <Sal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>edh...@best.com wrote in message <35654A...@best.com>...
>>>> >My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
>>>> >happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
>>>> >the gun owners were murdered by their son.
>>>>
>>>> That creates a little problem with your suggestion doesn't it. I have
>>>> a better idea. How about we hold the criminal criminally liable.
>>>
>>>And if the criminal is, say, 13 years old? 11 years old? Fry em? You
>>>gonna pull the switch? This the kind of country you really want, one
>>>that executes children? Seems to me it's bad enough we already execute
>>>retarded people.
>>>
>>>Anyway, the simple answer is to hold gun owners responsible. You own a
>>>gun, you safeguard it. If your gun is used in a crime, YOU go to jail.
>>>You don't want to take that risk, then don't own a gun.
>>
>>
>>Are you willing to extend that theory to automobiles ... if your car is
>>stolen and hits and kills someone, YOU go to jail. Are you that consistent?
>>I didn't think so.
>
>If you didn't take reasonable precautions (take the key out of the
>ignition, lock the door, put a antitheft device on) then you have
>liability for any damage done by your car if stolen.
Which of these would you REQUIRE?
Is it sufficient to take the key and lock the door?
If so, why is it INsufficient to have my guns in a locked dwelling?
Christopher Morton
On Sat, 23 May 1998 23:31:31 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> 1. What are YOUR standards for home firearms security? If somebody
>> gets my guns by cutting open my gunsafe with a torch, should I be
>> prosecuted?
>
>Reasonable security would be a sturdy gun case. If someone takes a
>sledge hammer and breaks into the thing, I would not send you to the
>slammer if the gun is used in a shoot out.
Define "gun case".
Define "sturdy".
Do you own a "gun case" of this nature?
>My problem is with all the jerks who keep guns in hall closets, under
>the bed, that kind of thing. Dumb shits.
I don't have any kids. Kids don't visit my home. What business is it
of yours where in a LOCKED DWELLING I keep my firearms?
>> 2. Should cops who lose their weapons be prosecuted?
>
>No.
Oh ok, I see. Another guy advocating a two tier cast system. If
somebody STEALS my guns from a LOCKED DWELLING, I should be jailed,
but if a cop loses HIS gun, nothing should happen to him.
That's pretty much the way those like you always formulate it.
>> 3. When the Jonesboro, Arkansas murderers are released, can they come
>> to YOUR house to stay?
>
>You're really obsessed with my house, aren't you? No, I'm not
>interested in having the Arkansas shooters come live with me any more
>than I want you to come live with me. Michell Pfeiffer can come live
>with me if she wants to.
So then you want them to be released... just not anywhere where they'd
be a danger to YOU.
You're a hypocrite.
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 06:32:31 GMT, ssh...@SPAMccsi.com (Schutzstaffel
Shawn Smith) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:30:48 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>wrote:
>
>>Funny, but I don't hear about too many cops shooting up school
>>cafeterias, even though the kids aren't in a position to return fire
>>and thus are easy targets. According to the Snorts world-view, cops
>>are just waiting for a chance to kill us all.
>
>In Mort's world up is down, sideways is diagonal, and stupid people
And in Shawn's world, the National Alliance are NOT Holocaust
revisionists and the the "blood libel" ISN'T libel:
On Sat, 16 May 1998 04:49:09 +0200 (MET DST), nob...@REPLAY.COM (Shawn
"Zyklon-B" Smith) wrote:
>>>But Chris Morton has managed to behave even worse than these
>>>scumbags in his treatment of OTHER POSTERS.
>>
>>So let's COMPARE:
>
>Compare how they treat OTHER POSTERS, Chris. Do they seek out other posters
>to libel thousands of times and invade their privacy?
SHAWN SMITH claims that the National Alliance does NOT libel Jews and
Blacks?
Do you consider Jews and Blacks OTHER POSTERS, SHAWN? Or are we
excluded from that category in your own electronic version of the
Nuremberg Laws?
Do you consider the BLOOD LIBEL, "libel"?
If SHAWN believes that the National Alliance does NOT commit libel,
then does that mean that SHAWN believes that Jews really ARE "Christ
Killers"? Does that man that SHAWN believes that Jews really DO
control the media? Does that mean that SHAWN believes that Jews
really DO control the banks? Does that mean that SHAWN believes that
the Jews really WERE the main impetus behind communism? Does that
mean that Shawn agrees with the National Alliance that the Jews
invented the Holocaust?
>
>[ usual lies cut ]
Shawn Smith of Austin, Texas cuts out his own racism and that of David
Dahlman of Seabrook, Texas and Jim Kennemur.
>>OBVIOUSLY believes that it's far WORSE to
>>condemn racism and authoritarianism and to use someone's real name,
>
>When have you ever condemned REAL racism and authoritaianism, Chris?
I just did, SHAWN. So, do you REALLY believe that Jews control the
banks and media?
>All you do is throw around names like Nazi or klansman at people who
>disagree with you about guns. Your accusations bear no resemblance
>to reality.
All you do SHAWN, is to deny that the National Alliance are Holocaust
revisionists and claim that the BLOOD LIBEL isn't really libel at all.
>[ usual lies cut ]
Shawn runs from his own Nazi sympathies... AGAIN. Too bad they're
gaining on him:
======================================================================
On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 05:18:11 +0200 (MET DST), nob...@REPLAY.COM (Shawn
Smith of Austin, Texas) wrote:
>>The National Alliance says the Holocaust never happened.
>
>Where are your quotes, Snorts? You can't put up any quotes, Snorts.
>
>You're a liar!
Yet, see below a quote from the National Alliance:
*************************************************************
On 4 Nov 1997 01:10:24 GMT, ir...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark C.
Craig) wrote:
>
> THIS IS A CROSSFILE
>Dr. Faurisson, as is his style, being the careful scholar and
>meticulous researcher that he is, a man who is scrupulously honest
>with friend and foe alike, will tell you what is known so far.
>The chart above was compiled in December 1995 in response to an ad
>placed by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League in the New York Times.
>This ad asked: What happened to the missing Jews?
>That is precisely what Revisionists ask - a question for which they
>have been hounded, beaten, spat at, vilified, charged, tried and
>jailed and even killed. Why is it "criminal" to want to know why
>the numbers are shrinking and shrinking - like a balloon that has
>been pricked?
>Is it not good news, rather than bad news, that millions didn't die
>at Auschwitz? Is that not reason to rejoice?
************************************************************
That is an EXACT QUOTE, IN CONTEXT of Shawn Smith DENYING that the
neo-Nazis of the National Alliance are Holocaust revisionists.
>You're a one-trick pony, Chris. Don't you wish you had more than one
>neuron to come up with new ideas?
'New ideas", SHAWN? Your "new ideas" haven't been new since before
1933, and were concocted by a demented coprophile in a prison cell.
Please Shawn, don't EVER stop posting.
Nobody damns you the way you do.
Nobody COULD.
edh...@best.com
Christopher Morton wrote:
> Then why haven't ANY of the kids I've known shot two-dozen people, no
> matter HOW much exposure they've had to weapons?
Most kids will not shoot up schools, of course. Most of the kids I know
who handle guns don't shoot up schools either. So what? Gun owners
should still be repsonsible.
Ed Hooks
edh...@best.com
Christopher Morton wrote:
>
> Define "gun case".
>
> Define "sturdy".
>
> Do you own a "gun case" of this nature?
I do not own a gun, nor do I have a case to keep one in. I can't be
scientific about it right now, but I think you know what I mean when I
refer to a stufry gun case. I'm not talking about a bank vault, just
something that keeps the guns behind lock and key, with a thick glass
cabinet or a wood/metal cabinet.
>
> >My problem is with all the jerks who keep guns in hall closets, under
> >the bed, that kind of thing. Dumb shits.
>
> I don't have any kids. Kids don't visit my home. What business is it
> of yours where in a LOCKED DWELLING I keep my firearms?
It's up to you where you keep your guns. However, if your gun is broken
into, and your gun is taken from under your bed and used in a killing,
I'd like to see you go to jail.
>
> >> 2. Should cops who lose their weapons be prosecuted?
> >
> >No.
>
> Oh ok, I see. Another guy advocating a two tier cast system. If
> somebody STEALS my guns from a LOCKED DWELLING, I should be jailed,
> but if a cop loses HIS gun, nothing should happen to him.
Right.
> So then you want them to be released... just not anywhere where they'd
> be a danger to YOU.
>
> You're a hypocrite.
I'm not a hypocrite, and it is okay with me if they are released near
me. I said I didn't want them to LIVE with me. No extra beds. Excpet
for Michelle Pfeiffer.<g>
Ed Hooks
Prichard
edh...@best.com wrote:
>
> Christopher Morton wrote:
> >
> > Define "gun case".
> >
> > Define "sturdy".
> >
> > Do you own a "gun case" of this nature?
>
> I do not own a gun, nor do I have a case to keep one in. I can't be
> scientific about it right now, but I think you know what I mean when I
> refer to a stufry gun case. I'm not talking about a bank vault, just
> something that keeps the guns behind lock and key, with a thick glass
> cabinet or a wood/metal cabinet.
> >
> > >My problem is with all the jerks who keep guns in hall closets, under
> > >the bed, that kind of thing. Dumb shits.
> >
> > I don't have any kids. Kids don't visit my home. What business is it
> > of yours where in a LOCKED DWELLING I keep my firearms?
>
> It's up to you where you keep your guns. However, if your gun is broken
> into, and your gun is taken from under your bed and used in a killing,
> I'd like to see you go to jail.
And the same for someone who has their car stolen and kills someone with
it? And same for someone who siphons a gallon of gas out of you car and
burns someone to death with it (or steals a container of gas out of your
garage,etc.)? Right?
> >
> > >> 2. Should cops who lose their weapons be prosecuted?
> > >
> > >No.
> >
> > Oh ok, I see. Another guy advocating a two tier cast system. If
> > somebody STEALS my guns from a LOCKED DWELLING, I should be jailed,
> > but if a cop loses HIS gun, nothing should happen to him.
>
> Right.
>
> > So then you want them to be released... just not anywhere where they'd
> > be a danger to YOU.
> >
> > You're a hypocrite.
>
> I'm not a hypocrite, and it is okay with me if they are released near
> me. I said I didn't want them to LIVE with me. No extra beds. Excpet
> for Michelle Pfeiffer.<g>
>
> Ed Hooks
--
'Over here, over there, everywhere, today, tomorrow, always: Bad men
there are. Hate you they do. Kill you they will. Watch out you
better!'
Zepp Weasel
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:30:48 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 1998 01:26:48 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>>Morton) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 May 98 16:15:42 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Prefer your psychopathic kids to be armed, do you?
>>>
>>>Do you prefer psychopathic cops to be armed?
>>>
>>>If not, disarm the police FIRST.
>>
>>Funny, but I don't hear about too many cops shooting up school
>>cafeterias, even though the kids aren't in a position to return fire
>>and thus are easy targets. According to the Snorts world-view, cops
>>are just waiting for a chance to kill us all.
>
>Not all of us. Zepp is White and is pretty safe from the cops. Abner
>Louima on the other hand experienced some difficulties.
>
>Zepp won't even TRY to explain why, if cops can't be trusted with
>plunger handles, they can be trusted with a monopoly on firearms.
Not surprising, since I don't feel any obligation to defend opinions
that are not mine. But then, you gotta shoot strawmen, don't you?
Zepp Weasel
>So, if a cop's there, he shouldn't shoot the gunman EITHER?
>
>As usual, Zepp the whore for a policestate dodges the question.
Just saw that post, and answered it, two minutes earlier. You aren't
turning into a Ding Dong O'Dell on us here, are you?
Zepp Weasel
On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:34:27 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
Morton) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:37:35 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 May 1998 13:44:24 GMT, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell
>>Holman) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <356e1815...@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
>>>
>>>}>}
>>>}>
>>>}> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
>>>}> killings involve guns?
>>>}
>>>}They also involved oxygen and gravity. Were they CAUSED by oxygen and
>>>}gravity? Have you ever heard of a shooting taking place in a location
>>>}which LACKED oxygen and gravity?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you entirely sober when you post this stuff?
>>
>>I think we just identified Snorts' problem: too much gravity, not
>>enough oxygen. Not NEARLY enough.
>
>Are YOU man enough to answer the question?
It's a fucking silly question, Snorts.
All the shootings involved White kids. Do you think that only Black
folk should be trusted with guns as a result of that?
>
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>Not dead, in jail, or a slave?
>>
>>Thank a liberal.
>
>Whom should the Japanese-Americans have thanked for Manzanar?
>
>---
>"Only a moron would claim that putting the text "[wrong name]"
>in place of what the author knows to be the wrong name is a
>universally accepted method to indicate editorial comments,
>clarifications, etc.." - Shawn "Zyklon-B" Smith
----------------------------------------------------
Zepp Weasel
On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:37:20 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
Morton) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:43:24 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>wrote:
>
>>On 22 May 1998 14:57:55 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Edward William Clayton (tcla...@umich.edu) wrote:
>>>: : Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
>>>: : present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
>>>
>>>: : That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
>>>: : undeterred.
>>>
>>>: Yeah. It would have been much safer if there had been five or six people
>>>: blazing away in a crowded cafeteria full of panicked children.
>>>
>>>Safer? That would depend on your defintion of "safer."
>>>
>>>How safe is it to be a sitting duck? A fish in a barrel?
>>
>>So the kids would still be sitting ducks, only for a half dozen guns
>>going off instead of one.
>
>So then, if a cop's there, he shouldn't shoot the gunman, EITHER?
In a room full of panicked high school students? Where'd you learn to
shoot, anyway? From watching Schwartzenegger movies?
>
>---
Zepp Weasel
On Sun, 24 May 1998 13:17:30 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
Morton) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 23:19:43 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>wrote:
>
>>On 23 May 1998 13:03:04 EDT, "Salisar" <Sal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>>edh...@best.com wrote in message <35654A...@best.com>...
>>>>> >My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
>>>>> >happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
>>>>> >the gun owners were murdered by their son.
>>>>>
>>>>> That creates a little problem with your suggestion doesn't it. I have
>>>>> a better idea. How about we hold the criminal criminally liable.
>>>>
>>>>And if the criminal is, say, 13 years old? 11 years old? Fry em? You
>>>>gonna pull the switch? This the kind of country you really want, one
>>>>that executes children? Seems to me it's bad enough we already execute
>>>>retarded people.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, the simple answer is to hold gun owners responsible. You own a
>>>>gun, you safeguard it. If your gun is used in a crime, YOU go to jail.
>>>>You don't want to take that risk, then don't own a gun.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you willing to extend that theory to automobiles ... if your car is
>>>stolen and hits and kills someone, YOU go to jail. Are you that consistent?
>>>I didn't think so.
>>
>>If you didn't take reasonable precautions (take the key out of the
>>ignition, lock the door, put a antitheft device on) then you have
>>liability for any damage done by your car if stolen.
>
>Which of these would you REQUIRE?
>
>Is it sufficient to take the key and lock the door?
>
>If so, why is it INsufficient to have my guns in a locked dwelling?
>
With guns, there's a higher level of liability. If someone steals
your gun, you pretty much have to assume that the weapon would be used
in a crime. This means that you have a higher obligation to prevent
theft than a car owner.
With a car, I would say taking the key, locking it, and setting the
alarm would be adequate to avoid liability.
With a gun, I would maintain the same level of precaution, except I
wouldn't have a gun case with glass windows in it. (And in fact my
gun is VERY securely locked up, along with some of our deadlier sharp
pointy objects).
Michael Zarlenga
Zepp Weasel (ze...@snowcrest.net) wrote:
: >So then, if a cop's there, he shouldn't shoot the gunman, EITHER?
: In a room full of panicked high school students? Where'd you learn to
: shoot, anyway? From watching Schwartzenegger movies?
You didn't answer the question.
Michael Zarlenga
Prichard (spri...@leaco.net) wrote:
: > It's up to you where you keep your guns. However, if your gun is broken
: > into, and your gun is taken from under your bed and used in a killing,
: > I'd like to see you go to jail.
: And the same for someone who has their car stolen and kills someone with
: it? And same for someone who siphons a gallon of gas out of you car and
: burns someone to death with it (or steals a container of gas out of your
: garage,etc.) Right?
No, of course not. You see, the two-faced hypocrites proposing
these new laws want to exclude themselves from this new, height-
ened, UNREASONABLE level of personal liability (if it WAS reason-
able, then they wouldn't have a problem with applying their new
standard for personal liability to cars and knives and OTHER po-
tential weapons).
This law isn't for THEM, it's only for gunowners.
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 09:02:31 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>> Define "gun case".
>>
>> Define "sturdy".
>>
>> Do you own a "gun case" of this nature?
>
>I do not own a gun, nor do I have a case to keep one in. I can't be
>scientific about it right now, but I think you know what I mean when I
>refer to a stufry gun case. I'm not talking about a bank vault, just
Nobody knows what you mean until you say what you mean. You were
ambiguous. Ambiguous laws are invalid. If you want to hold people to
a legal standard, the standard better be specific enough to hold up in
court.
>something that keeps the guns behind lock and key, with a thick glass
>cabinet or a wood/metal cabinet.
The grandfather in the Jonesboro shootings kept his guns in a locked
wooden case. They broke into it.
I guess you WOULDN'T prosecute him.
>> >My problem is with all the jerks who keep guns in hall closets, under
>> >the bed, that kind of thing. Dumb shits.
>>
>> I don't have any kids. Kids don't visit my home. What business is it
>> of yours where in a LOCKED DWELLING I keep my firearms?
>
>It's up to you where you keep your guns. However, if your gun is broken
>into, and your gun is taken from under your bed and used in a killing,
>I'd like to see you go to jail.
So then a locked dwelling isn't secure? Sorry, it isn't going to
happen.
Would you require everyone to lock their cars with Denver boots too?
>> >> 2. Should cops who lose their weapons be prosecuted?
>> >
>> >No.
>>
>> Oh ok, I see. Another guy advocating a two tier cast system. If
>> somebody STEALS my guns from a LOCKED DWELLING, I should be jailed,
>> but if a cop loses HIS gun, nothing should happen to him.
>
>Right.
That's fascism. I refuse to live under fascism.
>> So then you want them to be released... just not anywhere where they'd
>> be a danger to YOU.
>>
>> You're a hypocrite.
>
>I'm not a hypocrite, and it is okay with me if they are released near
>me. I said I didn't want them to LIVE with me. No extra beds. Excpet
>for Michelle Pfeiffer.<g>
How about next door? Is next door ok?
Keep in mind, they'll probably be allowed legally to own guns again.
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 08:58:33 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> Then why haven't ANY of the kids I've known shot two-dozen people, no
>> matter HOW much exposure they've had to weapons?
>
>Most kids will not shoot up schools, of course. Most of the kids I know
>who handle guns don't shoot up schools either. So what? Gun owners
>should still be repsonsible.
Keeping my guns in a locked dwelling is responsible.
I think you should be jailed if somebody steals your car and uses it
in a crime. You should have to use the Club and a Denver boot, and
nobody who doesn't own a garage should be allowed to own a car.
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 20:37:50 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:34:27 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:37:35 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 May 1998 13:44:24 GMT, ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell
>>>Holman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <356e1815...@enews.newsguy.com>, cm...@nwohio.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>}>}
>>>>}>
>>>>}> So, it is just a coincidence that all the recent school mass
>>>>}> killings involve guns?
>>>>}
>>>>}They also involved oxygen and gravity. Were they CAUSED by oxygen and
>>>>}gravity? Have you ever heard of a shooting taking place in a location
>>>>}which LACKED oxygen and gravity?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you entirely sober when you post this stuff?
>>>
>>>I think we just identified Snorts' problem: too much gravity, not
>>>enough oxygen. Not NEARLY enough.
>>
>>Are YOU man enough to answer the question?
>
>It's a fucking silly question, Snorts.
Are you man enough to answer it?
>All the shootings involved White kids. Do you think that only Black
>folk should be trusted with guns as a result of that?
I think that a case could be made for taking guns away from White
cops, but given my disdain and contempt for any racial discrimination,
rather cops in general... certainly one that's no less plausible than
Shawn's claim that the only way to protect Black teenagers is to give
those White cops a monopoly on the means of armed force. If they
can't be trusted with aluminum flashlights and mop handles, why should
they be trusted with guns?
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 20:34:37 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:36:32 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:30:48 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 May 1998 01:26:48 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>>>Morton) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 22 May 98 16:15:42 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Prefer your psychopathic kids to be armed, do you?
>>>>
>>>>Do you prefer psychopathic cops to be armed?
>>>>
>>>>If not, disarm the police FIRST.
>>>
>>>Funny, but I don't hear about too many cops shooting up school
>>>cafeterias, even though the kids aren't in a position to return fire
>>>and thus are easy targets. According to the Snorts world-view, cops
>>>are just waiting for a chance to kill us all.
>>
>>Not all of us. Zepp is White and is pretty safe from the cops. Abner
>>Louima on the other hand experienced some difficulties.
>>
>>Zepp won't even TRY to explain why, if cops can't be trusted with
>>plunger handles, they can be trusted with a monopoly on firearms.
>
>Not surprising, since I don't feel any obligation to defend opinions
>that are not mine. But then, you gotta shoot strawmen, don't you?
Can cops be trusted with a monopoly on the means of armed force?
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 20:33:09 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:38:25 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>
>
>>So, if a cop's there, he shouldn't shoot the gunman EITHER?
>>
>>As usual, Zepp the whore for a policestate dodges the question.
>
>Just saw that post, and answered it, two minutes earlier. You aren't
>turning into a Ding Dong O'Dell on us here, are you?
What's the answer? Should the cops shoot at him or not?
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 20:31:54 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:37:20 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:43:24 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 22 May 1998 14:57:55 GMT, zarl...@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Edward William Clayton (tcla...@umich.edu) wrote:
>>>>: : Good thing not one teacher, official or adminsitrator
>>>>: : present in that cafeteria at the time was armed.
>>>>
>>>>: : That allowed the student to run rampant for 5 minutes,
>>>>: : undeterred.
>>>>
>>>>: Yeah. It would have been much safer if there had been five or six people
>>>>: blazing away in a crowded cafeteria full of panicked children.
>>>>
>>>>Safer? That would depend on your defintion of "safer."
>>>>
>>>>How safe is it to be a sitting duck? A fish in a barrel?
>>>
>>>So the kids would still be sitting ducks, only for a half dozen guns
>>>going off instead of one.
>>
>>So then, if a cop's there, he shouldn't shoot the gunman, EITHER?
>
>In a room full of panicked high school students? Where'd you learn to
>shoot, anyway? From watching Schwartzenegger movies?
So the cop should stand around and let him continue to shoot?
Where'd you learn to shoot?
Neville Chamberlain?
Or that Congresswoman who voted against the declaration of war against
Japan?
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 20:30:15 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 13:17:30 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>Morton) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 1998 23:19:43 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 23 May 1998 13:03:04 EDT, "Salisar" <Sal...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>edh...@best.com wrote in message <35654A...@best.com>...
>>>>>> >My suggestion is that gun OWNERS be held criminally liable for what
>>>>>> >happens to their weapons. However, in the Oregon case, it appears that
>>>>>> >the gun owners were murdered by their son.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That creates a little problem with your suggestion doesn't it. I have
>>>>>> a better idea. How about we hold the criminal criminally liable.
>>>>>
>>>>>And if the criminal is, say, 13 years old? 11 years old? Fry em? You
>>>>>gonna pull the switch? This the kind of country you really want, one
>>>>>that executes children? Seems to me it's bad enough we already execute
>>>>>retarded people.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, the simple answer is to hold gun owners responsible. You own a
>>>>>gun, you safeguard it. If your gun is used in a crime, YOU go to jail.
>>>>>You don't want to take that risk, then don't own a gun.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you willing to extend that theory to automobiles ... if your car is
>>>>stolen and hits and kills someone, YOU go to jail. Are you that consistent?
>>>>I didn't think so.
>>>
>>>If you didn't take reasonable precautions (take the key out of the
>>>ignition, lock the door, put a antitheft device on) then you have
>>>liability for any damage done by your car if stolen.
>>
>>Which of these would you REQUIRE?
>>
>>Is it sufficient to take the key and lock the door?
>>
>>If so, why is it INsufficient to have my guns in a locked dwelling?
>>
>With guns, there's a higher level of liability. If someone steals
Says YOU. I don't recognize any such higher level of liability. Nor
in most cases does the law.
>your gun, you pretty much have to assume that the weapon would be used
>in a crime. This means that you have a higher obligation to prevent
>theft than a car owner.
Stolen cars are frequently used in crimes. You're not making your
case very well.
>With a car, I would say taking the key, locking it, and setting the
>alarm would be adequate to avoid liability.
Would you REQUIRE people to have alarms?
>With a gun, I would maintain the same level of precaution, except I
>wouldn't have a gun case with glass windows in it. (And in fact my
>gun is VERY securely locked up, along with some of our deadlier sharp
>pointy objects).
Would you REQUIRE people to have gun safes?
edh...@best.com
Christopher Morton wrote:
> Keeping my guns in a locked dwelling is responsible.
Not in my book, it isn't. That kid in Oregon was expelled from school
because he had a pistol in his locker. A STOLEN pistol, taken from
somebody-other-than-his-parent's house. Probably some dip like you, who
had the gun in his bedside table or some place stupid like that.
>
> I think you should be jailed if somebody steals your car and uses it
> in a crime. You should have to use the Club and a Denver boot, and
> nobody who doesn't own a garage should be allowed to own a car.
Nah. A car is not a gun. Different set of rules.
Ed Hooks
edh...@best.com
Christopher Morton wrote:
> The grandfather in the Jonesboro shootings kept his guns in a locked
> wooden case. They broke into it.
I saw the grandfather interviewed on television, and he said his guns
were NOT secured. The boy's father had his guns in a locked case, and
the boys even tried to break in with a blow torch and failed. That's
why they went to granddaddy's house.
His bony stupid irresponsible butt should be in jail at this moment.
> Would you require everyone to lock their cars with Denver boots too?
You keep insisting that a car is a gun. A gun is a weapon, designed to
kill and or injure a living thing. When guns were invented, nobody was
thinking about target practice and tin cans. And if cars are used as
they were designed to be used, they will not kill anybody. Guns are
SUPPOSED to kill.
> That's fascism. I refuse to live under fascism.
Well, you sure better switch parties.<g>
> How about next door? Is next door ok?
Yeah. Next door is fine.
Ed Hooks
Bill Bonde
them up. Then someone points out that the same rule should apply to cars
just to be consistent and non hypocritical and you claim that 'a car is
not a gun' and that there are a 'different set of rules.'.
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 22:47:31 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> The grandfather in the Jonesboro shootings kept his guns in a locked
>> wooden case. They broke into it.
>
>I saw the grandfather interviewed on television, and he said his guns
>were NOT secured. The boy's father had his guns in a locked case, and
>the boys even tried to break in with a blow torch and failed. That's
>why they went to granddaddy's house.
When did you see him interviewed and where?
I heard exactly the opposite.
>His bony stupid irresponsible butt should be in jail at this moment.
For being the VICTIM of a BURGLARY of a LOCKED DWELLING.
Yep, you'll do anything to absolve the PERPETRATOR.
>> Would you require everyone to lock their cars with Denver boots too?
>
>You keep insisting that a car is a gun. A gun is a weapon, designed to
I keep insisting that a car is dangerous. Don't believe me? Lie down
in front of the gate at NASA Lewis Research Center at 3:00pm on a
Friday.
>kill and or injure a living thing. When guns were invented, nobody was
>thinking about target practice and tin cans. And if cars are used as
>they were designed to be used, they will not kill anybody. Guns are
>SUPPOSED to kill.
That's funny, none of my guns has killed anybody since I purchased
them. Are they defective? Should I sell them and get new guns that
WILL kill people? Or is it me? Am I misusing my guns by not killing
anyone with them?
Don't pretend you care about fatalities and injuries, since cars kill
and injure more. You just care about guns. If cars killed 1,000,000
a year you wouldn't care.
>> That's fascism. I refuse to live under fascism.
>
>Well, you sure better switch parties.<g>
Really? To which party do I belong?
>> How about next door? Is next door ok?
>
>Yeah. Next door is fine.
Maybe they'll show you their gun collections when they get out....
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
Check out:
http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
Christopher Morton
On Sun, 24 May 1998 22:31:50 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>Christopher Morton wrote:
>
>> Keeping my guns in a locked dwelling is responsible.
>
>Not in my book, it isn't. That kid in Oregon was expelled from school
I could give a damn about your book. It sounds too much like the
"Turner Diaries".
>because he had a pistol in his locker. A STOLEN pistol, taken from
>somebody-other-than-his-parent's house. Probably some dip like you, who
>had the gun in his bedside table or some place stupid like that.
And yet again, a fascist like you blames the VICTIM of a crime rather
than the PERPETRATOR of another.
>> I think you should be jailed if somebody steals your car and uses it
>> in a crime. You should have to use the Club and a Denver boot, and
>> nobody who doesn't own a garage should be allowed to own a car.
>
>Nah. A car is not a gun. Different set of rules.
Why? Because you say so. Don't tell me, you're a creationist too....
F. Prefect
On Thu, 21 May 1998 15:44:49 GMT, riv...@ix.netcom.com (Harry Hope)
wrote:
>From The Associated Press, 5/21/98:
>
>Shots Fired in Ore. H.S. Cafeteria
>
>SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Shots were fired today in a high
>school cafeteria and at least five people were wounded,
>officials said.
>
>Details were sketchy, but the shots were fired in the
>Thurston High School cafeteria and the shooter was
>apparently still at large, said Sgt. Gary Stewart.
>
>``My understanding is there are at least five victims,''
>said Kathleen Deacon, vice president of patient care
>services at McKenzie Willamette Hospital. ``We're in full
>disaster alert.''
>
>Springfield is about 110 miles south of Portland.
>
>
>Guns "R" Us.
>
>Harry
>
>Guns Kill People.
51 rounds fired, and the gun supporters continue to advocate the
legalization of weapons with large magazine capacities. At the rate
these indiscriminate school shootings are occurring the pro-gunners
are going to have to work overtime.
F. Prefect
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as being a bad move.....
Douglas Adams
Zepp Weasel
On Sun, 24 May 1998 23:03:16 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
Morton) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 20:34:37 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:36:32 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>>Morton) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 23 May 1998 13:30:48 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp Weasel)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 May 1998 01:26:48 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
>>>>Morton) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 22 May 98 16:15:42 GMT, ta2...@aimail.net (Mitchell Holman)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Prefer your psychopathic kids to be armed, do you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you prefer psychopathic cops to be armed?
>>>>>
>>>>>If not, disarm the police FIRST.
>>>>
>>>>Funny, but I don't hear about too many cops shooting up school
>>>>cafeterias, even though the kids aren't in a position to return fire
>>>>and thus are easy targets. According to the Snorts world-view, cops
>>>>are just waiting for a chance to kill us all.
>>>
>>>Not all of us. Zepp is White and is pretty safe from the cops. Abner
>>>Louima on the other hand experienced some difficulties.
>>>
>>>Zepp won't even TRY to explain why, if cops can't be trusted with
>>>plunger handles, they can be trusted with a monopoly on firearms.
>>
>>Not surprising, since I don't feel any obligation to defend opinions
>>that are not mine. But then, you gotta shoot strawmen, don't you?
>
>Can cops be trusted with a monopoly on the means of armed force?
Beats me. Since I'm not the one demanding such a situation, go bark
up another tree.
>
>---
>"Only a moron would claim that putting the text "[wrong name]"
>in place of what the author knows to be the wrong name is a
>universally accepted method to indicate editorial comments,
>clarifications, etc.." - Shawn "Zyklon-B" Smith
----------------------------------------------------
Mike Jones
Usenet court fool Zeppo sez:"Not dead, in jail, or a slave?Thank a liberal."
Incorrect! It should be:
Not dead, unfairly incarcerated for your political beliefs, or a slave?
Thank a GUN!!!
MIke.
--
"That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth."
-- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg,1863
Zepp Weasel wrote in message <356979f1...@news.snowcrest.net>...
edh...@best.com
Christopher Morton wrote:
> When did you see him interviewed and where?
>
> I heard exactly the opposite.
In the aftermath of the shootings, Gandpa was on camera quite a lot. In
one interview, when he was standing outdoors somewhere, he was asked if
his guns were "secured", and he answered "not really", or "no." He
continued by saying how awful he felt about the whole thing, knowing his
very own firearms were used in the killings.
> I keep insisting that a car is dangerous. Don't believe me? Lie down
> in front of the gate at NASA Lewis Research Center at 3:00pm on a
> Friday.
It doesn't matter that cars are dangerous. It doesn't matter that more
people statistically get killed in cars than with guns. People get
killed with ladders, too, and by falling out of trees. None of that
matters. We're talking about guns, what their purpose is.
You say that none of your guns have been used to kill anybody. That's
swell, and it's because you have not taken an interest in pointing them
at person and pulling the trigger. But if you had a prowler, you might
very well use the gun to kill someone. That is why you have it in the
first place, right? Because it is inherently dangerous? You're not
keeping a cork gun by your bed are you?
A gun is designed to do harm. It has nothing whatever to do with cars.
Because a gun is designed to do harm, owners should be held to a higher
standard of safeguarding.
Ed Hooks
Zepp Weasel
On Mon, 25 May 1998 09:33:09 GMT, cm...@nwohio.com (Christopher
Morton) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 22:47:31 +0000, edh...@best.com wrote:
>
>>Christopher Morton wrote:
>>
>>> The grandfather in the Jonesboro shootings kept his guns in a locked
>>> wooden case. They broke into it.
>>
>>I saw the grandfather interviewed on television, and he said his guns
>>were NOT secured. The boy's father had his guns in a locked case, and
>>the boys even tried to break in with a blow torch and failed. That's
>>why they went to granddaddy's house.
>
>When did you see him interviewed and where?
I saw what was probably the same interview, on CNN, the day after the
shooting. Ed has it right.
>
>I heard exactly the opposite.
>
Then you heard wrong. The local sherriff details the boys' own story
of how they broke in by jimmying the single latch on a basement
window, and simply went up and scooped away what they could carry.
Nothing was locked up. Many of the guns were loaded. Boxes of ammo
were near each weapon.
>>His bony stupid irresponsible butt should be in jail at this moment.
>
>For being the VICTIM of a BURGLARY of a LOCKED DWELLING.
He won't go to jail (although it was criminal negligence). But he'll
lose everything in the civil suits that are sure to come. If the
accounts are accurate, then that's what he deserves.
>
>Yep, you'll do anything to absolve the PERPETRATOR.
No, the kids should stay in jail for life.
>
>>> Would you require everyone to lock their cars with Denver boots too?
>>
>>You keep insisting that a car is a gun. A gun is a weapon, designed to
>
>I keep insisting that a car is dangerous. Don't believe me? Lie down
>in front of the gate at NASA Lewis Research Center at 3:00pm on a
>Friday.
Why? Do they carry guns on their Friday commute?
>
>>kill and or injure a living thing. When guns were invented, nobody was
>>thinking about target practice and tin cans. And if cars are used as
>>they were designed to be used, they will not kill anybody. Guns are
>>SUPPOSED to kill.
>
>That's funny, none of my guns has killed anybody since I purchased
>them. Are they defective? Should I sell them and get new guns that
>WILL kill people? Or is it me? Am I misusing my guns by not killing
>anyone with them?
The way you think, I figure it's only a matter of time before your
guns kill someone.
>
>Don't pretend you care about fatalities and injuries, since cars kill
>and injure more. You just care about guns. If cars killed 1,000,000
>a year you wouldn't care.
I approve of auto registration, and state-mandated safety laws such as
speed limits. I think car owners are responsible to maintain their
cars to keep them safe on the road, and I think that car owners have
an obligation to take reasonable precautions to avoid theft.
>
But gunloons should be above all types of responsibility, right?
>
>> That's fascism. I refuse to live under fascism.
>>
>>Well, you sure better switch parties.<g>
>
>Really? To which party do I belong?
>
>>> How about next door? Is next door ok?
>>
>>Yeah. Next door is fine.
>
>Maybe they'll show you their gun collections when they get out....
>
>
>
>---
>Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
>better off when only Mark Fuhrman has a gun.
>
>Check out:
>
>http://extra.newsguy.com/~cmorton
>http://www.firstnethou.com/gunsite/moore.html
----------------------------------------------------
Zepp Weasel
>>With guns, there's a higher level of liability. If someone steals
>
>Says YOU. I don't recognize any such higher level of liability. Nor
>in most cases does the law.
In which case, you should talk to a lawyer. You're heading for
trouble otherwise. Unfortunately, the law doesn't much care what you
"recognize".
>
>>your gun, you pretty much have to assume that the weapon would be used
>>in a crime. This means that you have a higher obligation to prevent
>>theft than a car owner.
>
>Stolen cars are frequently used in crimes. You're not making your
>case very well.
>
>>With a car, I would say taking the key, locking it, and setting the
>>alarm would be adequate to avoid liability.
>
>Would you REQUIRE people to have alarms?
Nope, but I notice that insurance companies are moving in that
direction fairly rapidly. By the time there's a law mandating it, the
point will be pretty much moot, is my guess.
>
>>With a gun, I would maintain the same level of precaution, except I
>>wouldn't have a gun case with glass windows in it. (And in fact my
>>gun is VERY securely locked up, along with some of our deadlier sharp
>>pointy objects).
>
>Would you REQUIRE people to have gun safes?
If they want to have guns, then yes.