Guns and the NRA
Mike Painter
> > the NRA is the single largest supporter of gun safety education in
> the US,
> > and strong advocates of trigger safety locks. they also push VERY
> hard for
> > stricter gun law enforcement, something the left wing has failed to
> do
Which gun manufacturer did NRA members shun at a recent convention and why?
David L. Moffitt
"Mike Painter" <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote in message news:yKy15.2094$q5.4...@news.inreach.com...
%%%% S&W, because they sold out to the gun control hacks of the Klinton administration for the promise of federal contracts. Due to
their sell out gun owners (not necessarily NRA members) refused to buy any weapons made by this British controlled company and they
went bankrupt. The company was bought out and is once more owned by Americans. This is a prime example what a dedicated boycott can
do. You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.!
Ninure Saunders
<mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
- > > the NRA is the single largest supporter of gun safety education in
-> the US,
-> > and strong advocates of trigger safety locks. they also push VERY
-> hard for
-> > stricter gun law enforcement, something the left wing has failed to
-> do
-
-Which gun manufacturer did NRA members shun at a recent convention and why?
Wasn't it the one that VO:UNTARILY supplied "gun locks" to those who
buy their products?
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
David L. Moffitt
"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RainbowChristiannoh...@1cust27.tnt9.chin.da.uu.net...
> In article <yKy15.2094$q5.4...@news.inreach.com>, "Mike Painter"
> <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
>
> - > > the NRA is the single largest supporter of gun safety education in
> -> the US,
> -> > and strong advocates of trigger safety locks. they also push VERY
> -> hard for
> -> > stricter gun law enforcement, something the left wing has failed to
> -> do
> -
> -Which gun manufacturer did NRA members shun at a recent convention and why?
>
> Wasn't it the one that VO:UNTARILY supplied "gun locks" to those who
> buy their products?
%%%% Incorrect. all manufacturers of hand guns supplied locks with their guns voluntarily without federal regulations requiring
them. Many handguns came with locks prior to the focus on S&W. One of the major objections that gun owners have that S&W stated
they would comply with was the registration of gun owners. The registration of gun owners has led to the confiscation of weapons in
several countries most notably Nazi Germany and in more recent times England and Australia.
Many gun owners strongly believe in their Second Ammendment rights to keep and bear arms.
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,SAS,TFA Member and BASTARDS----and damn proud of it!
[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that
all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
Louann Miller
<moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
(a post)
Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
David L. Moffitt
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
Louann Miller
<moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
>> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>> (a post)
>>
>> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
>> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
>> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
>
>%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
This post did it too.
Derek Stevenson
news:TOve7.1948$x36.35...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> > Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
> > line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
> > your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
>
> %%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must
have gotten scrambled in transmit.
Obviously there's a *very* noisy connection somewhere -- just look at the
garbage at the beginning of that line.
Paul J Gans
NO. You have to hit return after 65 or so characters. It doesn't
happen automatically.
It seems like a pain, but if you go to all the trouble of writing
something, wouldn't it be nice to let us read it?
---- Paul J. Gans
pz
wrote:
> In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
> >> On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> >> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >> (a post)
> >>
> >> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
> >> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
> >> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
>
> >%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have
> >gotten scrambled in transmit.
>
> NO. You have to hit return after 65 or so characters. It doesn't
> happen automatically.
You do? It does happen automatically on smart newsreaders, you know.
Half-smart newsreaders don't insert the linebreaks on send, but
obligingly provide them when reading -- I suspect that's what this guy
is seeing.
But sheesh...are you still using that medieval newsreading software? I
know it's a hobby for you, but you've got to draw the line somewhere.
>
> It seems like a pain, but if you go to all the trouble of writing
> something, wouldn't it be nice to let us read it?
It's a post by an NRA fanatic that mentions Hitler and Nazis a few
times, and is crossposted to alt.politics.homosexuality. Do you really
*want* to read it?
--
pz
David L. Moffitt
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:r84lntsgavpbshld7...@4ax.com...
David L. Moffitt
"pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message news:myers-52AD7D....@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
%%%% I was answering it in alt.politics.homosexuality. The thread appears to about news readers and not guns at this point!
> --
> pz
>
pz
"David L. Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> "Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:r84lntsgavpbshld7...@4ax.com...
> > On 15 Aug 2001 10:38:10 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> > <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
> > >> On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> > >> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > >> (a post)
> > >>
> > >> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
> > >> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
> > >> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
> > >
> > >%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must
> > >have gotten scrambled in transmit.
> >
> > This post did it too.
> >
> %%%% It may be your settings. The return posting was normal.
>
>
You aren't quite grasping the problem.
*Your* newsreader automatically wraps text for you when it is displayed,
but is configured to *not* add those line breaks when posts are sent. Of
course everything looks normal to you -- you are reading it with the
same newsreader that you used to compose the message. People who view
your posts with other newsreaders find them to be lacking in a standard
character, called the 'carriage return'.
You need to get into the preferences settings of your newsreader and
tell it to wrap the text at line 65-70 on *outgoing* messages, that is,
to put in those carriage returns that other newsreaders expect. Your
current settings are INCORRECT, unless, of course, you only want your
fellow users of Microsoft Outlook Express to be able to read your
delightful bon mots.
--
pz
Ken Cox
> "Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
> > line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
> > your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
> %%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
Odd that it affects only your new text, and not the text that
you've included...
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Greg
This post as well as the one Louann responded to went off into Lala
land and required horizontal scrolling. I am viewing on Google with
MSIE. Google puts an HTML PRE tag at the beginning of the post so it
shows as it was formatted when sent. See for yourself in a browser
window at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=a4f9b05e7f94cc36,7
Do you have a high screen resolution with a maximized window? Perhaps
if the window you post from was no more than 800 pixels wide, it would
put the line breaks in.
Just a thought.
Greg
maf1029
wrote:
>In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Uhm, hate to mention this, but you are talking to Moffitt, Queen
Mother and Grande Dame of Trolldom on APH. Quite frankly, most of
us have killfiled him because he is quite possibly one of the
most retarded and bigoted posters on USENET.
maf and dog, aa # 1954
Live long and prosper.
Leben Sie lange und gedeihen Sie!
Leeft u lang en gedijt u!
J'oh l'antru!! (Romulan salutation)
Noo'Kh neKH kahless n'ess!!!! Klingon greeting. Also used to
question one's parentage in the more polite social gatherings.
rich hammett
> On 15 Aug 2001 12:12:25 -0400, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>>In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
>>>> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>> (a post)
>>>>
>>>> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
>>>> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
>>>> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
>>
>>>%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
>>
>>NO. You have to hit return after 65 or so characters. It doesn't
>>happen automatically.
>>
>>It seems like a pain, but if you go to all the trouble of writing
>>something, wouldn't it be nice to let us read it?
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
> Uhm, hate to mention this, but you are talking to Moffitt, Queen
> Mother and Grande Dame of Trolldom on APH. Quite frankly, most of
> us have killfiled him because he is quite possibly one of the
> most retarded and bigoted posters on USENET.
You mean he's a gay gun nut?
rich
> maf and dog, aa # 1954
> Live long and prosper.
> Leben Sie lange und gedeihen Sie!
> Leeft u lang en gedijt u!
> J'oh l'antru!! (Romulan salutation)
> Noo'Kh neKH kahless n'ess!!!! Klingon greeting. Also used to
> question one's parentage in the more polite social gatherings.
>
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
L. Michael Roberts
>
> In talk.origins maf1029 <maf...@xhotmailx.xcom> allegedly wrote:
> > On 15 Aug 2001 12:12:25 -0400, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> >>>> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >>>> (a post)
> >>>>
> >>>> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
> >>>> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
> >>>> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
> >>
> >>>%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
> >>
> >>NO. You have to hit return after 65 or so characters. It doesn't
> >>happen automatically.
> >>
> >>It seems like a pain, but if you go to all the trouble of writing
> >>something, wouldn't it be nice to let us read it?
> >>
> >> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
> > Uhm, hate to mention this, but you are talking to Moffitt, Queen
> > Mother and Grande Dame of Trolldom on APH. Quite frankly, most of
> > us have killfiled him because he is quite possibly one of the
> > most retarded and bigoted posters on USENET.
>
> You mean he's a gay gun nut?
xenophobia!
<snip>
+==================== L. Michael Roberts =======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Hamilton, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+=================================================================+
David L. Moffitt
"pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message news:myers-E7E613....@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
%%%% Hummmm----This has been the first time I have gotten this complaint after years of posting. It may be in the new version of
Outlook Express???!!!
David L. Moffitt
"Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:3B7AC09C...@research.bell-labs.com...
%%%% I'm trying to figure out what is going wrong. Does it appear wrong to those that are not Outlook Express or does it happen to
them also?
David L. Moffitt
"Greg" <gand...@aol.com> wrote in message news:bb2260c7.01081...@posting.google.com...
> "David L. Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<TOve7.1948$x36.35...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
> > > On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> > > <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > > (a post)
> > >
> > > Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
> > > line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
> > > your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
> >
> > %%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
>
> This post as well as the one Louann responded to went off into Lala
> land and required horizontal scrolling. I am viewing on Google with
> MSIE. Google puts an HTML PRE tag at the beginning of the post so it
> shows as it was formatted when sent. See for yourself in a browser
> window at
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=a4f9b05e7f94cc36,7
%%%% I see what you are talking about that a break is missing. I'll hunt for the problem.
David L. Moffitt
"maf1029" <maf...@xhotmailx.xcom> wrote in message news:k7mlntkhkm9htfs6t...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Aug 2001 12:12:25 -0400, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
> >>> On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> >>> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >>> (a post)
> >>>
> >>> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
> >>> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
> >>> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
> >
> >>%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
> >
> >NO. You have to hit return after 65 or so characters. It doesn't
> >happen automatically.
> >
> >It seems like a pain, but if you go to all the trouble of writing
> >something, wouldn't it be nice to let us read it?
> >
> > ---- Paul J. Gans
>
> Uhm, hate to mention this, but you are talking to Moffitt, Queen
> Mother and Grande Dame of Trolldom on APH. Quite frankly, most of
> us have killfiled him because he is quite possibly one of the
> most retarded and bigoted posters on USENET.
%%% Pot/kettle/black
David L. Moffitt
"rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message news:tnm8168...@corp.supernews.com...
> In talk.origins maf1029 <maf...@xhotmailx.xcom> allegedly wrote:
> > On 15 Aug 2001 12:12:25 -0400, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> >>>> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >>>> (a post)
> >>>>
> >>>> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
> >>>> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
> >>>> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
> >>
> >>>%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
> >>
> >>NO. You have to hit return after 65 or so characters. It doesn't
> >>happen automatically.
> >>
> >>It seems like a pain, but if you go to all the trouble of writing
> >>something, wouldn't it be nice to let us read it?
> >>
> >> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
> > Uhm, hate to mention this, but you are talking to Moffitt, Queen
> > Mother and Grande Dame of Trolldom on APH. Quite frankly, most of
> > us have killfiled him because he is quite possibly one of the
> > most retarded and bigoted posters on USENET.
>
> You mean he's a gay gun nut?
%%%% Gay= HELL NO!!!
Supporter of the Second Ammendment= YES
Supporter of Pink Pistols ( gay 2nd Ammendment group)= YES
maf1029
<hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>In talk.origins maf1029 <maf...@xhotmailx.xcom> allegedly wrote:
>> On 15 Aug 2001 12:12:25 -0400, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
>>>>> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>>> (a post)
>>>>>
>>>>> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
>>>>> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
>>>>> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
>>>
>>>>%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
>>>
>>>NO. You have to hit return after 65 or so characters. It doesn't
>>>happen automatically.
>>>
>>>It seems like a pain, but if you go to all the trouble of writing
>>>something, wouldn't it be nice to let us read it?
>>>
>>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
>> Uhm, hate to mention this, but you are talking to Moffitt, Queen
>> Mother and Grande Dame of Trolldom on APH. Quite frankly, most of
>> us have killfiled him because he is quite possibly one of the
>> most retarded and bigoted posters on USENET.
>
>You mean he's a gay gun nut?
Gay -- hell no. He's a militant heterosexual who regularly posts his
peculiar brand of "I think fags are icky" crappola. Althoughm, he
protests so much that one might take pause to ponder whether he might
just be a repressed homosexual. After some hard vomiting at THAT
thought, I prefer not consider it a possibility.
Gun -- I have not seen his "WOOHOO gun" posts, as he has a very
special place in my dorkfile.
Nut -- definitely, completely, and clinically. Strong psychotropic
drugs are in order.
Ninure Saunders
<an...@nym.org> wrote:
-On 15 Aug 2001 08:51:33 -0400, RainbowChri...@hotmail.com
-(Ninure Saunders) wrote:
-
->In article <yKy15.2094$q5.4...@news.inreach.com>, "Mike Painter"
-><mpai...@inreach.com> wrote:
->
->- > > the NRA is the single largest supporter of gun safety education in
->-> the US,
->-> > and strong advocates of trigger safety locks. they also push VERY
->-> hard for
->-> > stricter gun law enforcement, something the left wing has failed to
->-> do
->-
->-Which gun manufacturer did NRA members shun at a recent convention and why?
->
->Wasn't it the one that VO:UNTARILY supplied "gun locks" to those who
->buy their products?
-
-
-Not hardly piss-widgeon! All new handguns sold in the US must come
-with a trigger lock of some sort - been the law for sometime now. Ever
-hear that saying "It's best to remain silent and be thought a fool
-than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? If not you should have,
-because it was coined for people just like you.
-
1) A question mark usually means a question is being asked......did you
FAIL English grammar?
2) It is interesting, and funnt, that a person too cowardly to post with
their real name finds need to repsonf to a post many DAYS old.
Larry D. Farrell
with HIV/AIDS so would you please remove misc.health.aids from the headers (and, yes, I know I have left
it in the header for this message, just to notify the readers of that newsgroup that I have made this
request). While it is easy to simply skip this off-topic thread, it is annoying to see it continually
appearing in misc.health.aids.
> Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
> Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
>
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
Ken Cox
> You mean he's a gay gun nut?
Saturday Night Live flashback, to "Gay Communist Gun Owners
for Bush".
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> %%%% I'm trying to figure out what is going wrong. Does it appear wrong to those that are not Outlook Express or does it happen to them also?
I am "not Outlook Express" and it appears wrong to me.
By the way, you've been *told* what's wrong. Your posts are
being sent out without line breaks. Ignore what you see on
the screen -- your composer/reader is inserting line breaks
that are not in the transmitted file. Find the option that
says something like "Insert line breaks on outgoing mail"
and turn it on.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
rich hammett
I just wondered, because of the "Queen" title you were granted.
rich
rich hammett
> rich hammett wrote:
>> You mean he's a gay gun nut?
> Saturday Night Live flashback, to "Gay Communist Gun Owners
> for Bush".
Don't get me wrong, I think Gay Communists should have the right
to lobby for completely unlimited gun ownership. I just think
they're wrong.
rich
Fritz
> > > >> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
> > > >> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
> > > >> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
> > > >
> > > >%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must
> > > >have gotten scrambled in transmit.
> > >
> > > This post did it too.
> > >
> > %%%% It may be your settings. The return posting was normal.
>
> You aren't quite grasping the problem.
>
> *Your* newsreader automatically wraps text for you when it is displayed,
> but is configured to *not* add those line breaks when posts are sent. Of
> course everything looks normal to you -- you are reading it with the
> same newsreader that you used to compose the message. People who view
> your posts with other newsreaders find them to be lacking in a standard
> character, called the 'carriage return'.
His messages are coming through fine for me, it must be the other
recipient that needs to set their preferences.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taking back, my freedom of consciences!
John R. Owens
Well, we're making some progress. Got a line break in that one just
before "Outlook Express", but that still left the line before that
rather too long. If it's a new version, it may have reset some settings
to defaults, or have new settings that weren't there before. Wouldn't
be the first time MS made a really stupid choice for a default setting.
:p
--
--John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Ward Stewart
His lines come in unbroken to me on 'Agent.' -- no one else's do.
ward
------------------------------------------------------------
"disapproving" of homosexuality is very like disapproving of
Tuesday. An exercise in futility and fatuity. You don't like
it, you think it is wrong and that it should be suppressed
and denied. Yet, every seven days, there it is again."
---------------------------------------------------------
Ken Cox
> Well, we're making some progress. Got a line break in that one just
> before "Outlook Express", but that still left the line before that
> rather too long. If it's a new version, it may have reset some settings
> to defaults, or have new settings that weren't there before. Wouldn't
> be the first time MS made a really stupid choice for a default setting.
It's not that stupid a choice, if they're working under the
assumption that everyone uses MS products -- or that the
people who don't, can be ignored.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
David L. Moffitt
"Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:3B7BE6E5...@research.bell-labs.com...
%%%% No I am not gay. Do you have a problem with queers owning guns?
David L. Moffitt
"Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:3B7BE751...@research.bell-labs.com...
%%%% Cannot find one.
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>
David L. Moffitt
"rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message news:tnnr7pd...@corp.supernews.com...
> In talk.origins Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> allegedly wrote:
> > rich hammett wrote:
> >> You mean he's a gay gun nut?
>
> > Saturday Night Live flashback, to "Gay Communist Gun Owners
> > for Bush".
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think Gay Communists should have the right
> to lobby for completely unlimited gun ownership. I just think
> they're wrong.
>
> rich
%%%% Guns or communism?
David L. Moffitt
"rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message news:tnnr56c...@corp.supernews.com...
%%%% That is just some faggot humor I guess.
rich hammett
I _thought_ you might have some true colors...
rich
rich hammett
> "rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message news:tnnr7pd...@corp.supernews.com...
>> In talk.origins Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> allegedly wrote:
>> > rich hammett wrote:
>> >> You mean he's a gay gun nut?
>>
>> > Saturday Night Live flashback, to "Gay Communist Gun Owners
>> > for Bush".
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I think Gay Communists should have the right
>> to lobby for completely unlimited gun ownership. I just think
>> they're wrong.
>>
>> rich
> %%%% Guns or communism?
Definitely guns. Economic systems don't kill people...
rich
L. Michael Roberts
>
> pz wrote:
<snip>
> > *Your* newsreader automatically wraps text for you when it is displayed,
> > but is configured to *not* add those line breaks when posts are sent. Of
> > course everything looks normal to you -- you are reading it with the
> > same newsreader that you used to compose the message. People who view
> > your posts with other newsreaders find them to be lacking in a standard
> > character, called the 'carriage return'.
>
> His messages are coming through fine for me,
You have my sincere condolences.
David L. Moffitt
"rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message news:tnogfhk...@corp.supernews.com...
%%%% I do and it is not pink!!
David L. Moffitt
"L. Michael Roberts" <no...@IcantAffordOne.com> wrote in message news:3B7C46F8...@IcantAffordOne.com...
> Fritz wrote:
> >
> > pz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > *Your* newsreader automatically wraps text for you when it is displayed,
> > > but is configured to *not* add those line breaks when posts are sent. Of
> > > course everything looks normal to you -- you are reading it with the
> > > same newsreader that you used to compose the message. People who view
> > > your posts with other newsreaders find them to be lacking in a standard
> > > character, called the 'carriage return'.
> >
> > His messages are coming through fine for me,
>
> You have my sincere condolences.
%%%% Your phobia of "straight" people is showing again. You need to increase your dosage of the white capsule with
the red stripe around the middle.
Paul J Gans
>On 15 Aug 2001 12:12:25 -0400, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2d1lnt4pgi0o3j64v...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 15 Aug 2001 09:57:35 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
>>>> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>> (a post)
>>>>
>>>> Without reference to your content, can I ask nicely that you set a
>>>> line-length limit on your posting software? I got each paragraph of
>>>> your post as one long line, requiring much horizontal scrolling.
>>
>>>%%%% Hummmm----Problem is not on my end. Settings are correct, it must have gotten scrambled in transmit.
>>
>>NO. You have to hit return after 65 or so characters. It doesn't
>>happen automatically.
>>
>>It seems like a pain, but if you go to all the trouble of writing
>>something, wouldn't it be nice to let us read it?
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>Uhm, hate to mention this, but you are talking to Moffitt, Queen
>Mother and Grande Dame of Trolldom on APH. Quite frankly, most of
>us have killfiled him because he is quite possibly one of the
>most retarded and bigoted posters on USENET.
Not a problem. Every so often folks of all sorts need to
be reminded about proper settings for their newsreaders.
He just provided a convenient excuse.
----- Paul J. Gans
David L. Moffitt
"rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message news:tnoggvr...@corp.supernews.com...
> In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> allegedly wrote:
>
> > "rich hammett" <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote in message news:tnnr7pd...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> In talk.origins Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> allegedly wrote:
> >> > rich hammett wrote:
> >> >> You mean he's a gay gun nut?
> >>
> >> > Saturday Night Live flashback, to "Gay Communist Gun Owners
> >> > for Bush".
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong, I think Gay Communists should have the right
> >> to lobby for completely unlimited gun ownership. I just think
> >> they're wrong.
> >>
> >> rich
>
> > %%%% Guns or communism?
>
> Definitely guns. Economic systems don't kill people...
>
> rich
%%%% Hummmmm------Russians, Chinese, Cambodian's and Vietnamese will disagree with you. Millions were killed in
the name of a socialist economic system. Guns do not kill people, People kill people using guns, knives, blunt objects, explosives
et al ad-nauseum.
GMCarter
<moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
snip
>%%%% Hummmmm------Russians, Chinese, Cambodian's and Vietnamese will disagree with you. Millions were killed in
>the name of a socialist economic system. Guns do not kill people, People kill people using guns, knives, blunt objects, explosives
>et al ad-nauseum.
This is breathtakingly lame. Capitalists kill people too, to begin
with. Look at the messes in Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan, El Salvador
where the US Government aided and abetted right wing murderers.
And guess what? They mostly used guns. Guns DO kill people and MOST
guns are designed for that capacity. Let's use an Uzi to go shoot
deer, right? Christ.
And then one need only look at the statistics. Canada has virtually no
deaths by gun while the numbers soar in the US.
So right now, many feel that the US democracy has been highjacked by a
supine court and a corrupt Florida election process. Should people go
buy a gun and defend democracy?
What a fucking crock.
George M. Carter
Derek Stevenson
In OE5, you go to Tools/Options and select the "Send" tab. "News Sending
Format", at the bottom of the dialogue box, should, of course, be set "Plain
Text". Click on the "Plain Text Settings" button and set the line-wrap
length in the "Automatically wrap text..." option.
David appears to be using OE6, however, so the procedure will no doubt be
completely different.
I'm not sure what would be involved in trying to correct the string of
garbage characters that leads off every line in his posts. Perhaps he's
trying to impersonate either Kosh from _Babylon 5_ or Twiki from _Buck
Rogers_.
Larry Handlin
<hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>In talk.origins Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> allegedly wrote:
>> rich hammett wrote:
>>> You mean he's a gay gun nut?
>
>> Saturday Night Live flashback, to "Gay Communist Gun Owners
>> for Bush".
>
>Don't get me wrong, I think Gay Communists should have the right
>to lobby for completely unlimited gun ownership. I just think
>they're wrong.
>
>rich
But more importantly, morons who can't fix their damn newsreaders
shouldn't be owning guns...
"Morris is saying that it is not possible to be
a ("consistent") Christian if you don't accept
his conclusion that Genesis 1-2 (and everything
else) is true in a literal, non-poetic, unimaginative
sense. I say that it is not worth being a Christian
if you don't believe that God has a better imagination than Henry Morris."
--Paul Neubauer
"Unbelievable, that the neutron bomb is found in
the Bible."
--Rexalla Van Impe
"My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the
land until Jesus Returns."
--James Watt to the Wall Street Journal as quoted in "James Watt & the Puritan Ethic."
By Colman McCarthy. Washington Post, May 24, 1981. PAGE L5
rich hammett
> Scríobh rich hammett <tnoggvr...@corp.supernews.com> :
>>Economic systems don't kill people..
> I humbly beg to differ.
Perhaps you should look up the words "analogy" and "irony".
rich hammett
Tylenol? Or am I dating myself there?
Ken Cox
> >> Don't get me wrong, I think Gay Communists should have the right
> >> to lobby for completely unlimited gun ownership. I just think
> >> they're wrong.
> > %%%% Guns or communism?
> Definitely guns. Economic systems don't kill people...
Terry Pratchett's latest, _Thief of Time_, has a paragraph
something like this:
"Death realized that Famine was scared, and thought he knew
why. Humans *made* Famine. Oh, there had always been the
odd drought or locust swarm, but it took humans to turn a
million square miles of fertile land into blowing dust, or
to let grain rot while people starved because those people
had no way to pay for the grain."
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> > Saturday Night Live flashback, to "Gay Communist Gun Owners
> > for Bush".
> %%%% No I am not gay.
I didn't say that you were. I was just noting that the phrase
"gay gun nut" reminded me of that skit.
The punchline of the skit, by the way, was "He's not perfect,
but two out of three isn't bad."
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> "The peoples' right to bear arms SHALL not be infringed."
> The Constitution and the Bill of Rights really pisses you
> leftist-liberal fucks off, doesn't it?
Offhand, I'd say that the person who makes unmarked edits of
the text is the one who doesn't like what it says. But your
opinion may differ.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
David L. Moffitt
"GMCarter" <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:3b7cfff7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On 16 Aug 2001 20:41:11 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> snip
> >%%%% Hummmmm------Russians, Chinese, Cambodian's and Vietnamese will disagree with you. Millions were killed in
> >the name of a socialist economic system. Guns do not kill people, People kill people using guns, knives, blunt objects,
explosives
> >et al ad-nauseum.
>
> This is breathtakingly lame. Capitalists kill people too, to begin
> with. Look at the messes in Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan, El Salvador
> where the US Government aided and abetted right wing murderers.
%%%% So you are a communist sympathizer?
> And guess what? They mostly used guns. Guns DO kill people and MOST
> guns are designed for that capacity.
%%%% My grandmother had a loaded 45 LC pistol that laid in the same drawer for over 50 years. It never climbed out of that drawer
even when left open and killed anything.
Let's use an Uzi to go shoot
> deer, right? Christ.
%%%% Silly boy! An Uzi uses a 9mm pistol round that is not effective enough for game hunting.
> And then one need only look at the statistics. Canada has virtually no
> deaths by gun while the numbers soar in the US.
%%%% Do they have any death by other means? Knives? Bats? ect?
> So right now, many feel that the US democracy has been highjacked by a
> supine court and a corrupt Florida election process. Should people go
> buy a gun and defend democracy?
%%%% The founders of this country sure did. What's your point?
David L. Moffitt
"Derek Stevenson" <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:tnq5bg6...@news.supernews.com...
> "Ken Cox" <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:3B7BE751...@research.bell-labs.com...
> > "David L. Moffitt" wrote:
>
> > > %%%% I'm trying to figure out what is going wrong. Does it appear
wrong
> to those that are not Outlook Express or does it happen to them also?
> >
> > I am "not Outlook Express" and it appears wrong to me.
> >
> > By the way, you've been *told* what's wrong. Your posts are
> > being sent out without line breaks. Ignore what you see on
> > the screen -- your composer/reader is inserting line breaks
> > that are not in the transmitted file. Find the option that
> > says something like "Insert line breaks on outgoing mail"
> > and turn it on.
>
> In OE5, you go to Tools/Options and select the "Send" tab. "News Sending
> Format", at the bottom of the dialogue box, should, of course, be set
"Plain
> Text". Click on the "Plain Text Settings" button and set the line-wrap
> length in the "Automatically wrap text..." option.
>
> David appears to be using OE6, however, so the procedure will no doubt be
> completely different.
%%%% Thanks!!! Someone finally told me how to repair/correct the problem. OE
techs didn't know how.
> I'm not sure what would be involved in trying to correct the string of
> garbage characters that leads off every line in his posts. Perhaps he's
> trying to impersonate either Kosh from _Babylon 5_ or Twiki from _Buck
> Rogers_.
%%%% Neither. I can pick out my text from a thread easier.
>
>
David L. Moffitt
"Larry Handlin" <lbha...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:d07pntc4jk97e98lf...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Aug 2001 11:55:42 -0400, rich hammett
> <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>
> >In talk.origins Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> allegedly wrote:
> >> rich hammett wrote:
> >>> You mean he's a gay gun nut?
> >
> >> Saturday Night Live flashback, to "Gay Communist Gun Owners
> >> for Bush".
> >
> >Don't get me wrong, I think Gay Communists should have the right
> >to lobby for completely unlimited gun ownership. I just think
> >they're wrong.
> >
> >rich
>
> But more importantly, morons who can't fix their damn newsreaders
> shouldn't be owning guns...
%%%% Morons who do not have the knowledge on how to repair a problem
shouldn't be allowed to post either.
The problem was in the sending format and not in the reading format.
David L. Moffitt
> In talk.origins David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> allegedly wrote:
>
> > "L. Michael Roberts" <no...@IcantAffordOne.com> wrote in message
news:3B7C46F8...@IcantAffordOne.com...
> >> Fritz wrote:
> >> >
> >> > pz wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > > *Your* newsreader automatically wraps text for you when it is
displayed,
> >> > > but is configured to *not* add those line breaks when posts are
sent. Of
> >> > > course everything looks normal to you -- you are reading it with
the
> >> > > same newsreader that you used to compose the message. People who
view
> >> > > your posts with other newsreaders find them to be lacking in a
standard
> >> > > character, called the 'carriage return'.
> >> >
> >> > His messages are coming through fine for me,
> >>
> >> You have my sincere condolences.
>
> > %%%% Your phobia of "straight" people is showing again. You need to
increase your dosage of the white capsule with
> > the red stripe around the middle.
>
> Tylenol? Or am I dating myself there?
%%%% Definitely dating yourself. Only those who are taking (or giving) the
capsule would know about the medicine I am referring to.
David L. Moffitt
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:crlqntsqsbr5h5b82...@4ax.com...
> Scríobh rich hammett <tnqh37h...@corp.supernews.com> :
>
> >In talk.origins Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> allegedly wrote:
> >> Scríobh rich hammett <tnoggvr...@corp.supernews.com> :
> >
> >>>Economic systems don't kill people..
> >
> >> I humbly beg to differ.
> >
> >Perhaps you should look up the words "analogy" and "irony".
>
%%%% Me too! I was blinded by Pol Pot/Cambodia, Mao/china, Hitler/Germany
> --
> An Féachadóir - Lig futh agus cluinfidh na clocha thú!
> Read the SCI FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/welisc/ifaq
>
Galen Hekhuis
wrote:
>%%%% Do they have any death by other means? Knives? Bats? ect?
Bats don't kill people (even rabid ones). People kill bats.
Bats need friends.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
They killed his mother, they burned his forest, he's back, and he's pissed
Bambo!
rich hammett
Why do you have to take it?
Paul J Gans
>"John R. Owens" wrote:
>> Well, we're making some progress. Got a line break in that one just
>> before "Outlook Express", but that still left the line before that
>> rather too long. If it's a new version, it may have reset some settings
>> to defaults, or have new settings that weren't there before. Wouldn't
>> be the first time MS made a really stupid choice for a default setting.
>It's not that stupid a choice, if they're working under the
>assumption that everyone uses MS products -- or that the
>people who don't, can be ignored.
Not ignored, inconvenienced. It is what you do when you
want to get rid of all the competition.
----- Paul J. Gans
David L. Moffitt
%%%% I don't because I am not infected with a virus from the African jungle.
Larry D. Farrell
this thread. This discussion is completely inappropriate for misc.health.aids.
Paul J Gans wrote:
--
Larry D. Farrell, Ph.D.
Professor of Microbiology
Idaho State University
David L. Moffitt
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
> Scríobh David L. Moffitt
> <hAgf7.5559$HU2.73...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com> :
> >"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
> >news:crlqntsqsbr5h5b82...@4ax.com...
> >> Scríobh rich hammett <tnqh37h...@corp.supernews.com> :
> >>
> >> >In talk.origins Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> allegedly wrote:
> >> >> Scríobh rich hammett <tnoggvr...@corp.supernews.com> :
> >> >
> >> >>>Economic systems don't kill people..
> >> >
> >> >> I humbly beg to differ.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps you should look up the words "analogy" and "irony".
> >>
> >> True enough. I was blinded by the words "Irish" and "famine"
> >
> >%%%% Me too! I was blinded by Pol Pot/Cambodia, Mao/china, Hitler/Germany
>
> particular ideology underpinning them?
%%%% Correct!
GMCarter
<moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:3b7cfff7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> On 16 Aug 2001 20:41:11 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
>> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>> >%%%% Hummmmm------Russians, Chinese, Cambodian's and Vietnamese will disagree with you. Millions were killed in
>> >the name of a socialist economic system. Guns do not kill people, People kill people using guns, knives, blunt objects,
>explosives
>> >et al ad-nauseum.
>>
>> This is breathtakingly lame. Capitalists kill people too, to begin
>> with. Look at the messes in Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan, El Salvador
>> where the US Government aided and abetted right wing murderers.
>
>%%%% So you are a communist sympathizer?
Nope. I find all political systems to be flawed because none manage to
overcome the worst of human nature, the greed, corruption and what-not
that holds the potential to turn any system into a steaming pile of
shit.
>> And guess what? They mostly used guns. Guns DO kill people and MOST
>> guns are designed for that capacity.
>
>%%%% My grandmother had a loaded 45 LC pistol that laid in the same drawer for over 50 years. It never climbed out of that drawer
>even when left open and killed anything.
Indeed. So why did she need it?
How many children die or are horribly wounded because of idiots like
your grandmother?
> Let's use an Uzi to go shoot
>> deer, right? Christ.
>
>%%%% Silly boy! An Uzi uses a 9mm pistol round that is not effective enough for game hunting.
Clever! So what IS anUzi used for?
>> And then one need only look at the statistics. Canada has virtually no
>> deaths by gun while the numbers soar in the US.
>
>%%%% Do they have any death by other means? Knives? Bats? ect?
Interesting question. Feel free to look it up. The number of murders
is a lot lower than the US, per capita.
>> So right now, many feel that the US democracy has been highjacked by a
>> supine court and a corrupt Florida election process. Should people go
>> buy a gun and defend democracy?
>
>%%%% The founders of this country sure did. What's your point?
They did, didn't they?
George M. Carter
GMCarter
<moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>"GMCarter" <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:3b7cfff7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> On 16 Aug 2001 20:41:11 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
>> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>> >%%%% Hummmmm------Russians, Chinese, Cambodian's and Vietnamese will disagree with you. Millions were killed in
>> >the name of a socialist economic system. Guns do not kill people, People kill people using guns, knives, blunt objects,
>explosives
>> >et al ad-nauseum.
>>
>> This is breathtakingly lame. Capitalists kill people too, to begin
>> with. Look at the messes in Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan, El Salvador
>> where the US Government aided and abetted right wing murderers.
>
>%%%% So you are a communist sympathizer?
Nope. I find all political systems to be flawed because none manage to
overcome the worst of human nature, the greed, corruption and what-not
that holds the potential to turn any system into a steaming pile of
shit.
>> And guess what? They mostly used guns. Guns DO kill people and MOST
>> guns are designed for that capacity.
>
>%%%% My grandmother had a loaded 45 LC pistol that laid in the same drawer for over 50 years. It never climbed out of that drawer
>even when left open and killed anything.
Indeed. So why did she need it?
How many children die or are horribly wounded because of idiots like
your grandmother?
> Let's use an Uzi to go shoot
>> deer, right? Christ.
>
>%%%% Silly boy! An Uzi uses a 9mm pistol round that is not effective enough for game hunting.
Clever! So what IS anUzi used for?
>> And then one need only look at the statistics. Canada has virtually no
>> deaths by gun while the numbers soar in the US.
>
>%%%% Do they have any death by other means? Knives? Bats? ect?
Interesting question. Feel free to look it up. The number of murders
is a lot lower than the US, per capita.
>> So right now, many feel that the US democracy has been highjacked by a
>> supine court and a corrupt Florida election process. Should people go
>> buy a gun and defend democracy?
>
>%%%% The founders of this country sure did. What's your point?
They did, didn't they?
George M. Carter
GMCarter
wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2001 17:54:28 -0400, "David L. Moffitt" <moff...@prodigy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>%%%% Do they have any death by other means? Knives? Bats? ect?
>
>Bats don't kill people (even rabid ones). People kill bats.
>
>Bats need friends.
LOL! Yes, they do. Wonderful animals.
George
David L. Moffitt
%%%% Home protection and putting down sick animals in rural America.
> How many children die or are horribly wounded because of idiots like
> your grandmother?
%%%% None that I've known in my lifetime, but, we were taught to respect
firearms and how to shoot them at a young age.
> > Let's use an Uzi to go shoot
> >> deer, right? Christ.
> >
> >%%%% Silly boy! An Uzi uses a 9mm pistol round that is not effective
enough for game hunting.
>
> Clever! So what IS anUzi used for?
%%%% I use mine to punch holes in paper targets.
> >> And then one need only look at the statistics. Canada has virtually no
> >> deaths by gun while the numbers soar in the US.
> >
> >%%%% Do they have any death by other means? Knives? Bats? ect?
>
> Interesting question. Feel free to look it up. The number of murders
> is a lot lower than the US, per capita.
%%%% True.
rich hammett
>> > %%%% Guns or communism?
I don't need to get explicit and explain what I meant, do I? Just in case:
"Economic system":"Killing people"::"Guns":"Killing people"
rich
Fritz
> Fritz wrote:
> >
> > pz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > *Your* newsreader automatically wraps text for you when it is displayed,
> > > but is configured to *not* add those line breaks when posts are sent. Of
> > > course everything looks normal to you -- you are reading it with the
> > > same newsreader that you used to compose the message. People who view
> > > your posts with other newsreaders find them to be lacking in a standard
> > > character, called the 'carriage return'.
> >
> > His messages are coming through fine for me,
>
> You have my sincere condolences.
Many thanks.
--
Fritz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Taking back, my freedom of consciences!
Paul Yost
> On 17 Aug 2001 17:54:28 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"GMCarter" <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:3b7cfff7...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> >> On 16 Aug 2001 20:41:11 -0400, "David L. Moffitt"
> >> <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> snip
> >> >%%%% Hummmmm------Russians, Chinese, Cambodian's and Vietnamese will disagree with you. Millions were killed in
> >> >the name of a socialist economic system. Guns do not kill people, People kill people using guns, knives, blunt objects,
> explosives
> >> >et al ad-nauseum.
> >>
> >> This is breathtakingly lame. Capitalists kill people too, to begin
> >> with. Look at the messes in Indonesia, Iran, Afghanistan, El Salvador
> >> where the US Government aided and abetted right wing murderers.
> >
> >%%%% So you are a communist sympathizer?
>
> Nope. I find all political systems to be flawed because none manage to
> overcome the worst of human nature, the greed, corruption and what-not
> that holds the potential to turn any system into a steaming pile of
> shit.
Then think of your gun as public veto power. Most of the time you
should be able to excercise control at the ballot box. Should your
elected representatives ever decide ballots are no longer necessary,
you'll have the means to displace them. The same way american
patriots displaced the original european despot.
> >> And guess what? They mostly used guns. Guns DO kill people and MOST
> >> guns are designed for that capacity.
> >%%%% My grandmother had a loaded 45 LC pistol that laid in the same drawer for over 50 years. It never climbed out of that drawer
> >even when left open and killed anything.
> Indeed. So why did she need it?
Do you have any tools you have not used in a long time? The United
States has nuclear missiles. Should we unilaterally disarm? (If you
answer yes, you *ARE* a communist sympathizer).
> How many children die or are horribly wounded because of idiots like
> your grandmother?
Children need to be taught the proper respect and use of tools.
Children die and are wounded by many things. Eliminating guns is not
the solution to this problem. Education is. You cannot simply
eliminate every threat your child will ever face. Your children are
going to grow up in the real world, I presume. They should learn,
from an early age, that they need to watch out for themselves. There
is no effective replacement for a lost and mangled limb, or a lost
life.
> > Let's use an Uzi to go shoot
> >> deer, right? Christ.
Christ never used an Uzi to shoot deer, to my knowledge.
> >%%%% Silly boy! An Uzi uses a 9mm pistol round that is not effective enough for game hunting.
> Clever! So what IS an Uzi used for?
I presume the author is an upstanding citizen, and would use his
firearms, if necessary, for the defense of himself, his family, his
neighbors, and his community, should the need ever arise. Because you
choose to shirk your own responsibility to yourself, your family, your
neighborhood, and your community, is insufficient reason to deride the
integrity of people who assume the responsibility of gun ownership
more seriously than you do.
Perhaps you do not trust yourself. You know that, given a gun, you
would problaby go drinking and carousing, and not be able to resist
the urge to shoot it off into the night sky in a public place. You
translate such lacks in your own moral fiber into a general distrust
of your fellow man. You know you could not handle the responsibility
of gun ownership, and so seek to deny it for everyone.
Louann Miller
>Perhaps you do not trust yourself. You know that, given a gun, you
>would problaby go drinking and carousing, and not be able to resist
>the urge to shoot it off into the night sky in a public place. You
>translate such lacks in your own moral fiber into a general distrust
>of your fellow man. You know you could not handle the responsibility
>of gun ownership, and so seek to deny it for everyone.
You may not have noticed, but there are incidents where people DO go
drinking and carousing and shoot into the night sky (or a crowd of
people they dislike on a street corner, or that guy who Looked Funny
at their date). Whether this is rare or common, or whether any given
gun regulation would or wouldn't decrease it in frequency, it's
certainly a real phenomenon and not a fantasy spun by self-distrusting
anti-gun nuts.
Guns don't have a will of their own in either a sacred or satanic
sense. All they do is intensify one of the problems inherent in humans
and tool/weapon use. The argument in favor of having a lot of them
around is that one in the hands of a Good Guy can be a formidable
defense against a larger or stronger Bad Guy. The argument against is
that if the Bad Guy has one too, he's probably much more willing to
shoot first. It's not a simple problem, and no amount of screaming
insults at opponents of either stripe can make it simple.
David L. Moffitt
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:piu2otgqnklmvfmnv...@4ax.com...
%%%% Great Britain and Australia have become prime examples of what happens
when you disarm the law abiding citizen. The law abiding lose their arms and
become victims to the armed criminal who didn't give up his arms.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
=========================
"This morning my back is out again, I have sciatica, I have a
herpes shingle going right up my back. I'm just now
finishing all my drugs. Yesterday I had to take injections
to make my bone marrow grow, and my life is no fun.
Sometimes I wish I were dead. If somebody was H.I.V.
negative and I could transport them into my body for a
few days and let them feel the pain, I think they'd have a
whole new understanding about the risks they're taking."
-JEFF GETTY ,a founder of Survive AIDS in San Francisco
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/19/health/19RISK.html?todaysheadlines
>
John Wilkins
David L. Moffitt <moff...@prodigy.net> wrote:
That would no doubt be why Australia has a fraction of the gun-related
deaths of the US, and why we have so few gun battles between police and
criminals...
Children and firearm-related deaths: <
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm>
Realtive firearm-related deaths - US tops all countries: <
http://archive.nandotimes.com/newsroom/ntn/world/041698/world8_14325_S1_
noframes.html>
Japan has the lowest firearm-related death rate:
<http://www.newstimes.com/archive98/apr1798/nag.htm>
US States with the highest firearm-related deaths: <
http://cgi1.usatoday.com/snapshot/news/nsnap171.htm>
Australia's firearm-related deaths declining: <
http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/data/phonebook/queries/guns.php> <
http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/data/phonebook/queries/guninjuries94.php
>
I just spent two weeks in the US, and I must admit I felt pretty safe
(NYC is a much nicer place than it was ten years ago from my limited
experience). But I did hear gunfire in Brooklyn at night. The only time
I've ever heard gunfire in Australia is at a firing range or on a farm.
GMCarter
snip...
>> Nope. I find all political systems to be flawed because none manage to
>> overcome the worst of human nature, the greed, corruption and what-not
>> that holds the potential to turn any system into a steaming pile of
>> shit.
>
>Then think of your gun as public veto power. Most of the time you
>should be able to excercise control at the ballot box. Should your
>elected representatives ever decide ballots are no longer necessary,
>you'll have the means to displace them. The same way american
>patriots displaced the original european despot.
The American revolution was, arguably, one of the very rare events
where violence resulted in something somewhat less worse than existed
prior to the violence. The US Civil War and WWII are the other
exceptions. Otherwise, the rest of the bloodshed was mostly futile.
I reject violence as a means for solving problems. There are militia
nuts who take the same attitude as you--a gun is an option to end
political strife? I don't believe that is the answer to oppression.
And too often, it results in Stalins and Hitlers and Pol Pots. The
Jeffersons, Roosevelts and Lincolns are the rare exceptions, not the
rule.
>> >> And guess what? They mostly used guns. Guns DO kill people and MOST
>> >> guns are designed for that capacity.
>
>> >%%%% My grandmother had a loaded 45 LC pistol that laid in the same drawer for over 50 years. It never climbed out of that drawer
>> >even when left open and killed anything.
>
>> Indeed. So why did she need it?
>
>Do you have any tools you have not used in a long time? The United
>States has nuclear missiles. Should we unilaterally disarm? (If you
>answer yes, you *ARE* a communist sympathizer).
Yes. Yes--I sympathize with communists. And capitalists. I sympathize
with human beings. Even you! lol....
>> How many children die or are horribly wounded because of idiots like
>> your grandmother?
>
>Children need to be taught the proper respect and use of tools.
Right. And 5 year olds are always wise enough to understand it.
>Children die and are wounded by many things. Eliminating guns is not
>the solution to this problem. Education is. You cannot simply
>eliminate every threat your child will ever face.
LOL. This is so absurd and pathetic it's breathtaking. You must not
ever be around children? At least I hope not.
>Your children are
>going to grow up in the real world, I presume. They should learn,
>from an early age, that they need to watch out for themselves. There
>is no effective replacement for a lost and mangled limb, or a lost
>life.
Damn right. Which is why gun control makes a lot of very good sense.
>> > Let's use an Uzi to go shoot
>> >> deer, right? Christ.
>
>Christ never used an Uzi to shoot deer, to my knowledge.
Jesus never used a gun at all.
>> >%%%% Silly boy! An Uzi uses a 9mm pistol round that is not effective enough for game hunting.
>
>> Clever! So what IS an Uzi used for?
>
>I presume the author is an upstanding citizen, and would use his
>firearms, if necessary, for the defense of himself, his family, his
>neighbors, and his community, should the need ever arise. Because you
>choose to shirk your own responsibility to yourself, your family, your
>neighborhood, and your community, is insufficient reason to deride the
>integrity of people who assume the responsibility of gun ownership
>more seriously than you do.
Right. Defend against what? His wife fucking the postman so he can
shoot them both? Most people live their lives without need of any
guns.
But at least you're honest enough to admit that the Uzi is there to
kill humans. That's what it is *designed* to do. I respect that at
least you have the integrity and honesty to admit that.
>Perhaps you do not trust yourself. You know that, given a gun, you
>would problaby go drinking and carousing, and not be able to resist
>the urge to shoot it off into the night sky in a public place. You
>translate such lacks in your own moral fiber into a general distrust
>of your fellow man. You know you could not handle the responsibility
>of gun ownership, and so seek to deny it for everyone.
I've seen what guns do to people. And you're right. I don't trust most
of the people who have them to use them responsibly.
George M. Carter
Paul Yost
> On 20 Aug 2001 16:09:47 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
> snip...
> >> Nope. I find all political systems to be flawed because none manage to
> >> overcome the worst of human nature, the greed, corruption and what-not
> >> that holds the potential to turn any system into a steaming pile of
> >> shit.
> >
> >Then think of your gun as public veto power. Most of the time you
> >should be able to excercise control at the ballot box. Should your
> >elected representatives ever decide ballots are no longer necessary,
> >you'll have the means to displace them. The same way american
> >patriots displaced the original european despot.
> The American revolution was, arguably, one of the very rare events
> where violence resulted in something somewhat less worse than existed
> prior to the violence. The US Civil War and WWII are the other
> exceptions. Otherwise, the rest of the bloodshed was mostly futile.
>
> I reject violence as a means for solving problems. There are militia
> nuts who take the same attitude as you--a gun is an option to end
> political strife? I don't believe that is the answer to oppression.
> And too often, it results in Stalins and Hitlers and Pol Pots. The
> Jeffersons, Roosevelts and Lincolns are the rare exceptions, not the
> rule.
Hitler did not overthrow the former regime through violence--he was
democratically elected. Stalin, for that matter, would have had a
tougher time maintaining power against an armed civilian population.
He does not represent a good example for your argument. Clearly the
russian peasants were not better off under the communists than they
were under the Czars. But they weren't all that much worse, either.
And the revolution they fought was more with pitchforks and farm
implements than with guns.
> >Do you have any tools you have not used in a long time? The United
> >States has nuclear missiles. Should we unilaterally disarm? (If you
> >answer yes, you *ARE* a communist sympathizer).
> Yes. Yes--I sympathize with communists. And capitalists. I sympathize
> with human beings. Even you! lol....
It is one thing to sympathize with people suffering under an ignoble
regime. It is quite another to support that regime.
> >> How many children die or are horribly wounded because of idiots like
> >> your grandmother?
> >Children need to be taught the proper respect and use of tools.
> Right. And 5 year olds are always wise enough to understand it.
I was raised in a house where loaded firearms were kept, as was my
father and are my children. The message appears to work fine.
> >Children die and are wounded by many things. Eliminating guns is not
> >the solution to this problem. Education is. You cannot simply
> >eliminate every threat your child will ever face.
> LOL. This is so absurd and pathetic it's breathtaking. You must not
> ever be around children? At least I hope not.
Your children could get burned by stove elements. Do you teach them
to treat the oven with respect, or do you give them working toy ovens
to play with, and encourage them to place their tender palms on
glowing elements?
A stove is something I use every day. I don't use my guns every day,
but often enough. Perhaps more often than I use my skill saw, less
often than I use my hammer. My kids do not shoot my guns except under
my supervision, nor do they use the oven or my power tools unless also
supervised. Some things are less dangerous than others, and with
these they are granted greater leeway.
> >Your children are
> >going to grow up in the real world, I presume. They should learn,
> >from an early age, that they need to watch out for themselves. There
> >is no effective replacement for a lost and mangled limb, or a lost
> >life.
> Damn right. Which is why gun control makes a lot of very good sense.
Gun control is nonsense.
> >> > Let's use an Uzi to go shoot
> >> >> deer, right? Christ.
> >Christ never used an Uzi to shoot deer, to my knowledge.
> Jesus never used a gun at all.
Jesus never used a computer, either. Go and do thou likewise.
> >> >%%%% Silly boy! An Uzi uses a 9mm pistol round that is not effective enough for game hunting.
>
> >> Clever! So what IS an Uzi used for?
> >I presume the author is an upstanding citizen, and would use his
> >firearms, if necessary, for the defense of himself, his family, his
> >neighbors, and his community, should the need ever arise. Because you
> >choose to shirk your own responsibility to yourself, your family, your
> >neighborhood, and your community, is insufficient reason to deride the
> >integrity of people who assume the responsibility of gun ownership
> >more seriously than you do.
> Right. Defend against what? His wife fucking the postman so he can
> shoot them both? Most people live their lives without need of any
> guns.
Most people prior to the invention of the automobile lived their lives
without the need of one. A great many people in the world today have
never heard a dial tone, for that matter.
> But at least you're honest enough to admit that the Uzi is there to
> kill humans. That's what it is *designed* to do. I respect that at
> least you have the integrity and honesty to admit that.
To kill humans?
Has the owner of the Uzi ever used it for that purpose? He claimed
the only thing he has ever used it for was to punch holes in paper
targets. That, in fact, is the only thing I have ever used my 9mm
for. That and popping soda cans into the air. And punching
ventilation holes into a burn barrel (which is not really a proper use
for a 9mm, but it worked).
I personally would not buy an Uzi, unless I got a really good deal.
For the same reason I would not buy a muscle car. Fuel economy is
important to me.
> >Perhaps you do not trust yourself. You know that, given a gun, you
> >would problaby go drinking and carousing, and not be able to resist
> >the urge to shoot it off into the night sky in a public place. You
> >translate such lacks in your own moral fiber into a general distrust
> >of your fellow man. You know you could not handle the responsibility
> >of gun ownership, and so seek to deny it for everyone.
> I've seen what guns do to people. And you're right. I don't trust most
> of the people who have them to use them responsibly.
> George M. Carter
There are about 100 million gun owners in the United States. Most of
them are responsible citizens, and use their guns responsibly.
Some parents buy their kids pellet guns or BB guns with the
instructions, "Here. Go have fun." This is irresponsible. All kids
should take a hunter safety class, whether they will ever own or use a
gun or not. This would go a long ways towards correcting
misconceptions and bad attitudes towards guns. Kids take archery in
PE. I think it would be great if they learned the proper way to treat
firearms in PE as well.
David L. Moffitt
> On 20 Aug 2001 16:09:47 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
> snip...
> >> Nope. I find all political systems to be flawed because none manage to
> >> overcome the worst of human nature, the greed, corruption and what-not
> >> that holds the potential to turn any system into a steaming pile of
> >> shit.
> >
> >Then think of your gun as public veto power. Most of the time you
> >should be able to excercise control at the ballot box. Should your
> >elected representatives ever decide ballots are no longer necessary,
> >you'll have the means to displace them. The same way american
> >patriots displaced the original european despot.
>
> The American revolution was, arguably, one of the very rare events
> where violence resulted in something somewhat less worse than existed
> prior to the violence. The US Civil War and WWII are the other
> exceptions. Otherwise, the rest of the bloodshed was mostly futile.
>
> I reject violence as a means for solving problems. There are militia
> nuts who take the same attitude as you--a gun is an option to end
> political strife? I don't believe that is the answer to oppression.
> And too often, it results in Stalins and Hitlers and Pol Pots.
%%%% Excuse me! Stalins and Hitlers and Pol Pots disarmed the populace
making oppression possible.
[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the
conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors
who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
downfall by doing so.] --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942,
quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
>The Jeffersons, Roosevelts and Lincolns are the rare exceptions, not the
> rule.
%%%% What is <your> answer for violence?
>
>
> >> >> And guess what? They mostly used guns. Guns DO kill people and MOST
> >> >> guns are designed for that capacity.
> >
> >> >%%%% My grandmother had a loaded 45 LC pistol that laid in the same
drawer for over 50 years. It never climbed out of that drawer
> >> >even when left open and killed anything.
> >
> >> Indeed. So why did she need it?
> >
> >Do you have any tools you have not used in a long time? The United
> >States has nuclear missiles. Should we unilaterally disarm? (If you
> >answer yes, you *ARE* a communist sympathizer).
>
> Yes. Yes--I sympathize with communists. And capitalists. I sympathize
> with human beings. Even you! lol....
>
> >> How many children die or are horribly wounded because of idiots like
> >> your grandmother?
> >
> >Children need to be taught the proper respect and use of tools.
>
> Right. And 5 year olds are always wise enough to understand it.
%%%% I never bothered her loaded pistol and knew where it was (in the bottom
dresser drawer) and that was at age 5!
>
> >Children die and are wounded by many things. Eliminating guns is not
> >the solution to this problem. Education is. You cannot simply
> >eliminate every threat your child will ever face.
>
> LOL. This is so absurd and pathetic it's breathtaking. You must not
> ever be around children? At least I hope not.
%%%% I grew up with a gun rack with "loaded" guns in it hanging on my
bedroom wall. I never took one down without permission. At age 12 I got my
own 22 rifle (still have it) and hunted alone with it on many occasions.
>
> >Your children are
> >going to grow up in the real world, I presume. They should learn,
> >from an early age, that they need to watch out for themselves. There
> >is no effective replacement for a lost and mangled limb, or a lost
> >life.
>
> Damn right. Which is why gun control makes a lot of very good sense.
%%%% Gun control is hitting your target. You "must" teach children respect
for weapons, how to properly handle them, and how to shoot them.
>
> >> > Let's use an Uzi to go shoot
> >> >> deer, right? Christ.
> >
> >Christ never used an Uzi to shoot deer, to my knowledge.
>
> Jesus never used a gun at all.
>
>
> >> >%%%% Silly boy! An Uzi uses a 9mm pistol round that is not effective
enough for game hunting.
> >
> >> Clever! So what IS an Uzi used for?
> >
> >I presume the author is an upstanding citizen, and would use his
> >firearms, if necessary, for the defense of himself, his family, his
> >neighbors, and his community, should the need ever arise. Because you
> >choose to shirk your own responsibility to yourself, your family, your
> >neighborhood, and your community, is insufficient reason to deride the
> >integrity of people who assume the responsibility of gun ownership
> >more seriously than you do.
>
> Right. Defend against what? His wife fucking the postman so he can
> shoot them both? Most people live their lives without need of any
> guns.
%%%% Call 911 then call Dominoes and see which one shows up first. Many
people have died for lack of one also.
> But at least you're honest enough to admit that the Uzi is there to
> kill humans. That's what it is *designed* to do. I respect that at
> least you have the integrity and honesty to admit that.
%%%% How many people do you think own an Uzi?
> >Perhaps you do not trust yourself. You know that, given a gun, you
> >would problaby go drinking and carousing, and not be able to resist
> >the urge to shoot it off into the night sky in a public place. You
> >translate such lacks in your own moral fiber into a general distrust
> >of your fellow man. You know you could not handle the responsibility
> >of gun ownership, and so seek to deny it for everyone.
>
> I've seen what guns do to people. And you're right. I don't trust most
> of the people who have them to use them responsibly.
%%%% Is this a personal expierence or were your observations from the TV?
Mine are from personal expierence.
>
> George M. Carter
>
>
GMCarter
snip...
>> Yes. Yes--I sympathize with communists. And capitalists. I sympathize
>> with human beings. Even you! lol....
>
>It is one thing to sympathize with people suffering under an ignoble
>regime. It is quite another to support that regime.
Agreed.
>
>> >> How many children die or are horribly wounded because of idiots like
>> >> your grandmother?
>
>> >Children need to be taught the proper respect and use of tools.
>
>> Right. And 5 year olds are always wise enough to understand it.
>
>I was raised in a house where loaded firearms were kept, as was my
>father and are my children. The message appears to work fine.
So far. I hope your kids nor you or any of your family wind up dead or
injured.
>> >Children die and are wounded by many things. Eliminating guns is not
>> >the solution to this problem. Education is. You cannot simply
>> >eliminate every threat your child will ever face.
>
>> LOL. This is so absurd and pathetic it's breathtaking. You must not
>> ever be around children? At least I hope not.
>
>Your children could get burned by stove elements. Do you teach them
>to treat the oven with respect, or do you give them working toy ovens
>to play with, and encourage them to place their tender palms on
>glowing elements?
Stoves cook food. Guns kill people and animals.
>
>Gun control is nonsense.
Brilliant reply. The citizens who live elsewhere where it exists beg
to differ. Gun control needn't mean you can't own one. Canadians love
to hunt. But it means not letting criminals have easy access by lax
regulations.
George M. Carter
Paul Yost
We have plenty of regulations--the last thing we need is more
regulations. Enforcement of existing statutes should be enough.
Passing more unenforceable statutes, or statutes that drastically
erode personal liberty is never the answer.
Ward Stewart
One must wonder why it is that the second amendment is somehow raised
in significance over all the others -- it is, at best, ambiguous --
the matter of militias -- and at words destructive. Could it be the
smell of testosterone boiling off the fools who are so devoted to this
one particular bit of law --
Just to weigh your allegiance to the bill of rights tell us how you
feel about the conviction, some seeks ago, of the pornographer who
wrote revolting fantasies of child molestation in his own private
diary and has been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for having
so written?
Is that as it should be?
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that
he is FREE to act as he will. To lead his life in any harmless
way he sees fit.He is NOT to be restricted by prejudices and
animosity amongst his neighbors -- if THEY wish to restrain
him from his freedom, THEY must demonstrate the public
interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
David L. Moffitt
"Ward Stewart" <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b854767.4597220@news-server...
%%%% Where did this happen? Was his diary the only evidence against him? Do
you have a URL to this story?
Wise Decision
In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS
Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United
States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese
Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most
of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had
fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in
battle who could confide in one another.
Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the
Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US
forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of
unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the
Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the
question.
"You are right", he told the Americans. "We did indeed know
much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every
second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that
your country actually had state championships for private
citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set
foot in such quicksand."
GMCarter
>gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote in message news:<3b83a3b1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>> On 21 Aug 2001 15:20:18 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
>> >Gun control is nonsense.
>
>> Brilliant reply. The citizens who live elsewhere where it exists beg
>> to differ. Gun control needn't mean you can't own one. Canadians love
>> to hunt. But it means not letting criminals have easy access by lax
>> regulations.
>> George M. Carter
>
>We have plenty of regulations--the last thing we need is more
>regulations. Enforcement of existing statutes should be enough.
Incorrect.
>Passing more unenforceable statutes, or statutes that drastically
>erode personal liberty is never the answer.
I disagree.
George M. Carter
Paul Yost
> On 22 Aug 2001 14:39:28 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
> >gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote in message news:<3b83a3b1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >> On 21 Aug 2001 15:20:18 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
> >> >Gun control is nonsense.
>
> >> Brilliant reply. The citizens who live elsewhere where it exists beg
> >> to differ. Gun control needn't mean you can't own one. Canadians love
> >> to hunt. But it means not letting criminals have easy access by lax
> >> regulations.
> >> George M. Carter
> >
> >We have plenty of regulations--the last thing we need is more
> >regulations. Enforcement of existing statutes should be enough.
> Incorrect.
We have statutes prohibiting gun ownership by convicted felons. It is
already prohibited for convicted felons to own guns, according to the
handgun control act of 1968. Why shouldn't enforcement of this
statute be sufficient? Why do we need to rob honest citizens of their
firearms as well? And why stop with firearms, so long as we want to
expand the role of the federal government into confiscating private
property and protecting citizens from themselves?
> >Passing more unenforceable statutes, or statutes that drastically
> >erode personal liberty is never the answer.
> I disagree. George M. Carter
Then this probably is not the first time you have been wrong.
Paul Yost
> On 22 Aug 2001 14:39:28 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
> >gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote in message news:<3b83a3b1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >> On 21 Aug 2001 15:20:18 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
> >> >Gun control is nonsense.
>
> >> Brilliant reply. The citizens who live elsewhere where it exists beg
> >> to differ. Gun control needn't mean you can't own one. Canadians love
> >> to hunt. But it means not letting criminals have easy access by lax
> >> regulations.
> >> George M. Carter
> >
> >We have plenty of regulations--the last thing we need is more
> >regulations. Enforcement of existing statutes should be enough.
> >Passing more unenforceable statutes, or statutes that drastically
> >erode personal liberty is never the answer.
> One must wonder why it is that the second amendment is somehow raised
> in significance over all the others -- it is, at best, ambiguous --
> the matter of militias -- and at words destructive. Could it be the
> smell of testosterone boiling off the fools who are so devoted to this
> one particular bit of law --
And at 'worst' destructive? No more destructive than freedom of
speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. I do not hold the
2nd amendment more dear than any of these others. Someone once
suggested it was the 2nd amendment that protected the others, however.
I am a big fan of free speech. If your free speech includes hateful
words or actions, such as burning the U.S. flag, that is your
perogative (so long as you're not destroying or threatening someone
else's property). I would not be enthralled with someone printing
flags on panties or toilet paper, but I consider it speech protected
by the 1st amendment, and would oppose any amendment that would erode
any one of the bill of rights.
> Just to weigh your allegiance to the bill of rights tell us how you
> feel about the conviction, some seeks ago, of the pornographer who
> wrote revolting fantasies of child molestation in his own private
> diary and has been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment for having
> so written?
>
> Is that as it should be?
>
> ward
It is a miscarriage of justice. I would like more details concerning
this incident.
Speaking of child pornography, far and away the largest producer and
distributive of this obscene filth is the United States Post Office,
under a program originated by Ronald Reagan.
I would limit definitions of child pornography to photographic
depictions of minors in unquestionably sexually compromised positions,
or artwork originated through the use of live models. Words or essays
would not fall under this definition. When I hear people discuss
child pornography, I always wonder how they would categorize the
photograph of the baby on the bearskin rug, bathing children, and
other completely innocent subjects. One person's pornography is
another's erotica is yet another's news.
Samantha Foxx starred in her first pornographic film at age 16. This
is the age of consent in some states. Women younger than this can get
married in some states. At least one antipornography crusader on the
Meese Commission counted photographs of semiclad 19 and 20 year old
women as "child pornography."
I have no problem with protecting children from criminal activity.
And I accept the position that children below a certain age are too
young to give informed consent. But I oppose manufactured crimes,
such as the USPS sting operation. I could mock up quite a realistic
looking image in Adobe Photoshop and surrepticiously plant it onto
someone's computer in North Carolina. Next thing you know, their
network administrator discovers the image, and is required by law to
report it. Off the fellow goes to prison.
Imagine a program like the sircam32 worm that just pulls child porn
off some off shore web site and places it in various directories on
your hard drive. What purpose is served by a law that incarcerates
people for writing down ideas? I had a dream. I dreamed I smoked
some marijuana. I write this dream down in my journal. Maybe I
should go to jail, for harboring such perverse subconscious desires.
Or perhaps I just should not write down my thoughts. The thought
police might be watching.
How are you going to defend yourself against busy bodies? This is
just another good reason for the 2nd amendment.
Paul Yost
> On 21 Aug 2001 15:20:18 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
> >Your children could get burned by stove elements. Do you teach them
> >to treat the oven with respect, or do you give them working toy ovens
> >to play with, and encourage them to place their tender palms on
> >glowing elements?
> Stoves cook food. Guns kill people and animals.
The animal I cooked on my stove last night was brought down with my
gun.
Your problem, Mr. Carter, is that you view inanimate objects as
sources of evil. A gun is no more evil than any other tool. Consider
all the jews who were put into the ovens. If in your mind ovens were
closely associated with holocaust, you'd form the same opinion about
them as you already have guns.
We prosecute people for what they do, not for what we think or hope
they might do. You could run your car into a crowded street corner
and kill a lot of people. Other's have done this. But we cannot
arrest you or confiscate your auto until you demonstrate a threat, or
actually commit a crime. You understand this, I hope. Confiscating a
gun on the outside chance it might be used to commit a crime is just
as morally reprehensible as confiscating a car on the outside chance
it might run over someone, or demolishing an oven because it could be
used to cook a jew.
Relax, I'm not going to shoot you, unless you make some utterly
convincing, potentially mortal threat. And I trust you not to behave
so injudiciously.
Paul Yost
Care to site specific examples of these "lax" regulations?
Please point out the flaws in the following law:
Paul Yost
> >We have plenty of regulations--the last thing we need is more
> >regulations. Enforcement of existing statutes should be enough.
> >Passing more unenforceable statutes, or statutes that drastically
> >erode personal liberty is never the answer.
> One must wonder why it is that the second amendment is somehow raised
> in significance over all the others -- it is, at best, ambiguous --
> the matter of militias -- and at words destructive. Could it be the
> smell of testosterone boiling off the fools who are so devoted to this
> one particular bit of law --
One more word on your comment. Ambiguous. "The right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That sounds pretty
clear and unequivocal to me. Unambiguous.
The first amendment concerns the rights of citizens. Not members of a
militia. The 1st amendment does not mean only members of the armed
forces are free to practice religion as they see fit, assemble, or
speak their minds.
The fourth amendment does not protect only miltia men or military
personnel from unreasonable search and seizure.
All 10 amendments concern the citizens of the United States, and
indeed the inhabitants thereof. Why twist the 2nd to mean only
standing armies are allowed to own weapons? This is actually
irrational. What nation ever thought to itself, "oh my, we need to
pass a law allowing our troops to bear arms." Ridiculous.
Some folks think we have outgrown the 2nd amendment. This is clearly
nonsense. I will be happy to elaborate if necessary, but hope it is
self evident. Please consider the 2nd amendment as important as any
other. The founding fathers certainly did.
David L. Moffitt
%%%% How do you propose to disarm the criminal without disarming the
non-criminal?
Ward Stewart
There is nothing so grand as a truly trenchant reply phrased in
eloquent language -- we are impressed!
ward
Ward Stewart
>wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote in message news:<3b854767.4597220@news-server>...
>> On 22 Aug 2001 14:39:28 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
>> >We have plenty of regulations--the last thing we need is more
>> >regulations. Enforcement of existing statutes should be enough.
>> >Passing more unenforceable statutes, or statutes that drastically
>> >erode personal liberty is never the answer.
>
>> One must wonder why it is that the second amendment is somehow raised
>> in significance over all the others -- it is, at best, ambiguous --
>> the matter of militias -- and at worst destructive. Could it be the
>> smell of testosterone boiling off the fools who are so devoted to this
>> one particular bit of law --
>
>One more word on your comment. Ambiguous. "The right of the people
>to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That sounds pretty
>clear and unequivocal to me. Unambiguous.
Unambiguous? Perhaps so if you do not cite the whole sentence:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "
>
>The first amendment concerns the rights of citizens. Not members of a
>militia. The 1st amendment does not mean only members of the armed
>forces are free to practice religion as they see fit, assemble, or
>speak their minds.
Quite so and it makes NO MENTION of militias!
>
>The fourth amendment does not protect only miltia men or military
>personnel from unreasonable search and seizure.
It too makes no mention of or reference to militias.
>
>All 10 amendments concern the citizens of the United States, and
>indeed the inhabitants thereof. Why twist the 2nd to mean only
>standing armies are allowed to own weapons? This is actually
>irrational. What nation ever thought to itself, "oh my, we need to
>pass a law allowing our troops to bear arms." Ridiculous.
>
>Some folks think we have outgrown the 2nd amendment. This is clearly
>nonsense. I will be happy to elaborate if necessary, but hope it is
>self evident. Please consider the 2nd amendment as important as any
>other. The founding fathers certainly did.
FAR from "self-evident."
David L. Moffitt
Sir,
I most respectfully disagree with you. It is not by the
words alone in the Second Amendment that we know what was
intended by the Founding Fathers. It is by their own
statements.
First, let us get straight who are the militia, those whom
you say are the only one who have the right to keep and bear
arms.
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age..."
U. S. Code Title 10, Section 331
However, since I do not accept your premise, allow me to
enlighten you in another way. I will try to do so not with
my words, but with the words of those who were there at the
founding of our country and the writing of the Constitution.
"On every question of construction (of the
Constitution)let us carry ourselves back to the time when
the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what
meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented
against it, conform to the probable one in which it was
passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12,
1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
So Jefferson says to look at the INTENT, not what you want
to make the words mean. Was the intent clear? I believe so
as is evidenced by the following.
Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual
discretion... in private self-defense.
John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the
Government of the USA, 471(1788)
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to
authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press
or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their
own arms.
Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the
people. The possession of arms is the distinction between
a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who
himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose
property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he
is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought
to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses;
else he lives precariously, and at discretion.
James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into
Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses London, 1774-1775
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces
which must be occasionally raised to defend our country,
might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow
citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their
right to keep and bear their private arms.
Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the
Amendments to the Federal Constitution' in the
Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared,
then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own
bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their
swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of
the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state
government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,
in the hands of the people.
Tench Coxe 1788
The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the
right of the people at large or considered as
individuals.... It establishes some rights of the
individual as unalienable and which consequently, no
majority has a right to deprive them of.
Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society,
October 7, 1789
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is
that they be properly armed.
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8
The great object is that every man be armed and everyone
who is able may have a gun.
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the
ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other
Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, at 271, 275
2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our
defense? Where is the difference between having our arms
in possession and under our direction, and having them under
the management of Congress? If our defense be the real
object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be
trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in
our own hands?
Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State
Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers
are not warned from time to time that this people
preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms . .
. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.
Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed.,
1939
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United
States) assert that all power is inherent in the people;
that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their
right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are
entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom
of property, and freedom of press.
Thomas Jefferson
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T.
Jefferson Papers, 334, [C .J .Boyd, Ed., 1950
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . .
. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better
for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to
prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater confidence than an armed man.
Thomas Jefferson
The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They
are left in full possession of them.
Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people
themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing
arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole
body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at
a select militia, must be influenced by a truly
anti-republican principle.
Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal
Farmer (1788) at 169.
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body
of people always possess arms, and be taught alike
especially when young, how to use them.
Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Letters from the Federal Farmer
to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama
Press,1975)
The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not
be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the
body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most
natural defense of a free country...
James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
To disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual
way to enslave them.
George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people,
except for few public officials.
George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe,
and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid
mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the
use of them.
Thomas Paine
The people are confirmed by the next article in their right
to keep and bear their private arms.
from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18,
1789 at 2, col.2,
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution
itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and
keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims
landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and
tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and
happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable .
. . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains
evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all
that is good.
George Washington
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but
they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain
a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse
them, which would include their own government.
George Washington
When firearms go, all goes - we need them every hour.
President George Washington
Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99
99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in
safe and sane hands.
George Washington
There have also been many court decisions from the past
which repudiate your comments and also agree with the
Constitutional point of view, for example:
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men
with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the
penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation
of a constitutional privilege.
Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law
prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law
forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the
former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part
of the right that is secured by the Constitution; it is the
right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of
the Constitution; and if any portion of that right be
impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and
immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is
equally forbidden by the constitution.
Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. 2 Litt 90, at 92, and 93,
13 Am. Dec. 251 1822
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of
himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it
from the State government. It is one of the "high powers"
delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of
the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed
to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law,
and independent of the lawmaking power.
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate
them.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491 (1966)
The right of the whole people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed. The right of the whole people, old and
young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep
and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as
are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed,
or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for
the important end to be attained: the rearing up and
qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary
to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any
law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution,
and void, which contravenes this right.
Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all
persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the
Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise
of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made
subject to the will of the sheriff.
People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928
(1922)
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution
could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to
Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious
attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a
state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of
inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment
may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed.
1829)
The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most
essential one to every free people and should not be
whittled down by technical constructions.
State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224
(1921)
"The people" seems to have been a term of art employed in
select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares
that the Constitution is ordained, and established by the
people of the U.S.' The Second Amendment protects the right
of the people to keep and bear arms.
U.S. V. Uerdug~Uriqwdez (1990).
To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm .
. . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional
right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable
men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns,
the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows,
and not by a general deprivation of constitutional
privilege.
Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at
54 (1878
And from a current US Supreme Court Justice:
It would . . . be strange to find in the midst of a catalog
of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the
states the right to maintain a designated Militia' -- and
to find that purely institutional guarantee accorded a
position of great prominence immediately following freedom
of religion and freedom of speech.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: A Matter of
Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton
University Press, 1997, 159 pages.
I would also like to cite some other authorities:
In recent years it has been suggested that the Second
Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to
maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of
"the people" to keep and bear arms. The phrase ~the people"
meant the same thing in the Second Amendment as it did in
the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments - that is,
each and every free person. A select militia defined as only
the privileged class entitled to keep and bear arms was
considered an anathema to a free society, in the same way
that Americans denounced select spokesmen approved by the
government as the only class entitled to the freedom of the
press.
Stephen P. Holbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed: The
Evolution of a Constitutional Right", University of New
Mexico Press, 1984, pp .83-84.
The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee
against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the
tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which
historically has proved to be always possible.
Senator Hubert H. Humprey (D-Minnesota, 1911-1978)
In truth, a state which deprives its law-abiding citizens of
the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized
but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists
and thugs, and revealing its totalitarian nature by its
tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created
by criminals is far less a threat to state power than are
men and women who believe themselves free and independent,
and who act accordingly.
Jeffrey R. Snyder, The Public Interest, No.113, Fall 1993.
And from the highest authority of all,
When a man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions
are undisturbed.
The Bible Luke 11:21
And if you don't have a sword, better sell your clothes and
buy one.
The Bible: Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36
So yousee, sir, that your ideas are ludicrous in the
extreme. I will be happy to sit down and debate with you the
meaning fo the Second Amendment, and you seem to be well
versed in your error, so the debate should be a lively one.
However, I will leave you, instead, with the following.
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the
government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those
guarantees."
-- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
If you are so certain that a society of disarmed people is
so much safer, move to Australia, where they recently
disarmed the entire nation, with a resulting crime increase
which boggles the mind. In Victoria province alone crime
increased 300% in the first year. Murders and all forms of
violent crime have steadily invreased after more than two
decades of dropping. for years, the proponants of disarming
the people have been saying, "Just wait. We'll be safer
soom." I'm not buying it, and neither are the people of
Australia.
I will close with the words of a man who is known as one of
the best modern examples of the peaceful man, Mahatma
Mohandas Gandi, who said, "Among the many misdeeds of the
British rule in India, history will look upon the act of
depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,SAS,TFA Member and BASTARDS----and damn
proud of it!
"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly
reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We
the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it
doesn't tell us. 'We the people' are the driver, the government is the
car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how
fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which
governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our
Constitution is a document in which 'We the people' tell the
government what it is allowed to do. 'We the people' are free. This
belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do
these past eight years." --Ronald Reagan
GMCarter
>gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote in message news:<3b84fff5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>> On 22 Aug 2001 14:39:28 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>>
>> >gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote in message news:<3b83a3b1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>> >> On 21 Aug 2001 15:20:18 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>>
>> >> >Gun control is nonsense.
>>
>> >> Brilliant reply. The citizens who live elsewhere where it exists beg
>> >> to differ. Gun control needn't mean you can't own one. Canadians love
>> >> to hunt. But it means not letting criminals have easy access by lax
>> >> regulations.
>> >> George M. Carter
>> >
>> >We have plenty of regulations--the last thing we need is more
>> >regulations. Enforcement of existing statutes should be enough.
>
>> Incorrect.
>
>We have statutes prohibiting gun ownership by convicted felons.
Where?
>It is
>already prohibited for convicted felons to own guns, according to the
>handgun control act of 1968.
That's a start and those laws should be enforced. One way would be to
have background checks on people buying guns. Another would simply to
make a lot of different weapons simply illegal.
>Why shouldn't enforcement of this
>statute be sufficient?
Good question. It isn't.
>Why do we need to rob honest citizens of their
>firearms as well? And why stop with firearms, so long as we want to
>expand the role of the federal government into confiscating private
>property and protecting citizens from themselves?
Because private citizens aren't always honest. Sometimes they become
felons. More easily with ready access to guns designed to kill humans.
George M. Carter
David L. Moffitt
> On 23 Aug 2001 14:39:20 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
> >gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote in message
news:<3b84fff5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >> On 22 Aug 2001 14:39:28 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
> >>
> >> >gm...@ix.netcom.com (GMCarter) wrote in message
news:<3b83a3b1...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> >> >> On 21 Aug 2001 15:20:18 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Gun control is nonsense.
> >>
> >> >> Brilliant reply. The citizens who live elsewhere where it exists beg
> >> >> to differ. Gun control needn't mean you can't own one. Canadians
love
> >> >> to hunt. But it means not letting criminals have easy access by lax
> >> >> regulations.
> >> >> George M. Carter
> >> >
> >> >We have plenty of regulations--the last thing we need is more
> >> >regulations. Enforcement of existing statutes should be enough.
> >
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> >We have statutes prohibiting gun ownership by convicted felons.
>
> Where?
>
> >It is
> >already prohibited for convicted felons to own guns, according to the
> >handgun control act of 1968.
>
> That's a start and those laws should be enforced. One way would be to
> have background checks on people buying guns.
%%%% We already do under the Brady Bill.
Another would simply to
> make a lot of different weapons simply illegal.
%%%% Why? Which ones? Who decides? Can I decide?
> >Why shouldn't enforcement of this
> >statute be sufficient?
>
> Good question. It isn't.
%%%% Correct. there are over 20,000 gun laws in effect now that do not/will
not/can not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. How will one more law
do any more good than the previous 20,000+?
> >Why do we need to rob honest citizens of their
> >firearms as well? And why stop with firearms, so long as we want to
> >expand the role of the federal government into confiscating private
> >property and protecting citizens from themselves?
>
> Because private citizens aren't always honest. Sometimes they become
> felons. More easily with ready access to guns designed to kill humans.
%%%% So I should be punished because someone unknown to me "may" have the
potential to do something illegal. George you need to turn in your car today
because someone in the next state may go out tonight and drive drunk!
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,SAS,TFA Member and BASTARDS----and damn
proud of it!
Gun controllers continue with their crusade in the face of these facts,
demonstrating:
1) That they are not rational on this topic and
2) That they are not really trying to reduce crime or violence but are
instead after
something else.
I speculate that their motives are an unhealthy mix of the following:
1) Fear of the unknown (guns).
2) Fear of those unwashed "others" who might own guns.
3) Insecurity about their ability to protect themselves, with or
without a
gun.
4) Childlike desire for some big, burly father figure to protect them.
5) Childlike desire for a soft, pink, fluffy world with no sharp
corners,
threats or dangers.
6) Sublimated fear of penises/male power, as embodied by phallic guns.
7) Deep denial about the roots of violence in human nature and, by
extension,
their own capacity for violence.
8) A self-righteous belief in their own moral superiority.
CAMILLE PAGLIA
> George M. Carter
>
Moira de Swardt
> >Bats don't kill people (even rabid ones). People kill bats.
> >Bats need friends.
> LOL! Yes, they do. Wonderful animals.
Talking about bats, completely off topic, there are bats in the
attic here. Any idea how to lure them out? Come on APH - this is
your opportunity to demonstrate the alleged experience of gay men in
luring tiny warmblooded creatures out to do *terrible* things to
them. :-)
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
GMCarter
<moira.d...@africaonline.co.sz> wrote:
Moira! You want to do it with a bat??? Lol....I'm very sorry I don't
have any good ideas. Maybe open a window and use a dog whistle to
annoy them enough that they'll leave?
George M. Carter
Moira de Swardt
GMCarter <gm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> Moira! You want to do it with a bat???
That's not a very nice thing to say about my love interest. He
merely has big ears. :-)
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Galen Hekhuis
<moira.d...@africaonline.co.sz> wrote:
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
They killed his mother, they burned his forest, he's back, and he's pissed
Bambo!
Paul Yost
> On 23 Aug 2001 12:38:47 -0700, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
> >wste...@hawaii.rr.com (Ward Stewart) wrote in message news:<3b854767.4597220@news-server>...
> >> On 22 Aug 2001 14:39:28 -0400, c...@iea.com (Paul Yost) wrote:
>
> >> >We have plenty of regulations--the last thing we need is more
> >> >regulations. Enforcement of existing statutes should be enough.
> >> >Passing more unenforceable statutes, or statutes that drastically
> >> >erode personal liberty is never the answer.
>
> >> One must wonder why it is that the second amendment is somehow raised
> >> in significance over all the others -- it is, at best, ambiguous --
> >> the matter of militias -- and at worst destructive. Could it be the
> >> smell of testosterone boiling off the fools who are so devoted to this
> >> one particular bit of law --
> >
> >One more word on your comment. Ambiguous. "The right of the people
> >to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That sounds pretty
> >clear and unequivocal to me. Unambiguous.
> Unambiguous? Perhaps so if you do not cite the whole sentence:
>
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> infringed. "
Some of the fouding fathers viewed the constitution as flawed because
it did not address individual rights. The Bill of rights, the 1st 10
amendments, addressed this defect.
Each of the 10 articles in the bill of rights concerns the rights of
citizens, including the 2nd amendment. The language of the 2nd
amendment contains the clause concerning militias simply to underscore
the need for reserving the right to arms for the citizens. This
clause would be like having the 1st amendment contain a clause stating
the right of citizens to own and operate printing presses to further
secure their right to free speech.
The language of the 2nd amendment is just fine the way it is, and no
amount of tinkering or tomfoolery can alter its meaning to justify the
confiscation of arms, or the restriction or elimination of rights
enjoyed by citizens these past two centuries.
How can any rational person believe the law applied to citizens for
two hundred years, but now applies only to standing armies?
> >The first amendment concerns the rights of citizens. Not members of a
> >militia. The 1st amendment does not mean only members of the armed
> >forces are free to practice religion as they see fit, assemble, or
> >speak their minds.
> Quite so and it makes NO MENTION of militias!
It makes no mention of printing presses either. Or telephones,
television, fax machines, radios. Despite this 'shortcoming,' you
remain free to use other media to excercise your right to free speech,
assembly, and religious affiliation.
Paul Yost
> >> >Passing more unenforceable statutes, or statutes that drastically
> >> >erode personal liberty is never the answer. Paul Yost
> >> I disagree. George M. Carter
> >Then this probably is not the first time you have been wrong. PY
> There is nothing so grand as a truly trenchant reply phrased in
> eloquent language -- we are impressed! Uncle Ward
Well, I thank you. But I take it you also demur. I would therefore
appreciate an example of an unenforceable law or a law that seriously
eroded personal liberty that proved to good effect. One example will
do--I cannot think of any at all.
Paul Yost
I think it is clear from George's previous answer that he favors
confiscation of all personal arms. He proposes disarming law abiding
citizens. Those who do not abide by the laws will therefore have all
the advantages, more than they enjoy now. This is kind of nice.
Consider how horrible it is for criminals under the status quo. They
risk life and limb when they break into private residences to steal or
rape. When guns are eliminated, they will be able to pillage and
plunder with gay abandon, without fear of retaliation. This will
relieve considerable stress, I am sure. The mental health and welfare
of criminals will vastly improve. No doubt, with the elimination of
arms, they will feel such tremendous psychological relief they will
give up crime, and the flowers will bloom, and the birds fill the air
with song. Weeds and winter will end, and mankind will live in peace
and harmony until the end of time.
It's simply those pesky guns that prevents the actualization of this
pefect dream.