Re: The Second Amendment: So you think you can die? Death Lives!
seon
own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
Hmmm.
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e530b55-51d9-4c99...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> |||
>
> {...}
> On Tuesday night, the gunman walked into the fitness center, entered a
> "Latin impact" dance aerobics class and placed a duffel bag on the
> ground. After pausing a few moments, he took out at least two guns out
> of the bag and started shooting.
>
> Three women were killed and nine people were injured. Police say may
> have fired as many as 52 shots before turning the gun on himself and
> committing suicide.
>
> {...}
>
> [A] 4,610-word Web page, on a domain registered in Sodini's name,
> appeared to be a nine-month chronology of his plans to commit the
> shooting, his decision to delay it and the process that led to the
> eventual carnage at the health club Tuesday
>
> "The biggest problem of all is not having relationships or friends,
> but not being able to achieve and acquire what I desire in those or
> many other areas," said an entry dated Sunday. "Everthing stays the
> same regardless of the effert I put in. If I had control over my life
> then I would be happier. But for about the past 30 years, I have not."
>
> {...}
>
> The gunman went into the health club planning to shoot several people
> � firing "multiple" weapons "indiscriminately" � and didn't say
> anything before unleashing a burst of bullets, Moffatt said. Moffatt
> said police recovered at least two guns from the scene and a note from
> the shooter's duffel bag, but he would not say who wrote it.
>
> "I don't think anyone could have stopped him," Moffatt said.
>
> In the Web site posted under his name, Sodini wrote rambling messages
> about his hatred of women and how he was tired of being rejected by
> them. He ended by writing, "Death Lives!"
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCr-8hvMxT_o93eW1whvXEAyJfqAD99SPD5O0
>
> |||
>
> A visit to George's website confirms that he is the very archetype of
> a creepy loner:
>
> http://georgesodini.com/20090804.htm
>
>
> He is clearly some repug whack job and gets himself going election day
> with sexual fantasies mapped onto his own inadequacies: "Black dudes
> have thier choice of best white hoez."
>
> Apparently he was in touch with some god bothere who left him with the
> idea that mass murder was no bar to heaven:
>
> |||
>
>
>
> Tetelestai Church in Pittsburgh, PA - "Be Ye Holy, even as I have been
> Ye holy! Thus saith the lord thy God!", as pastor Rick Knapp would
> proclaim. Holy shit, religion is a waste. But this guy teaches (and
> convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven.
>
> ||||
>
> After some rambling about how women have not supplied him with sex and
> his jealousy athe success of others, and his job fears this
> appears ...
>
> ||||
>
> August 3, 2009:
> I took off today, Monday, and tomorrow to practice my routine and make
> sure it is well polished. I need to work out every detail, there is
> only one shot. Also I need to be completely immersed into something
> before I can be successful. I haven't had a drink since Friday at
> about 2:30. Total effort needed. Tomorrow is the big day.
>
> Unfortunately I talked to my neighbor today, who is very positive and
> upbeat. I need to remain focused and absorbed COMPLETELY. Last time I
> tried this, in January, I chickened out. Lets see how this new
> approach works.
>
> Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. {...}
>
> ||||
>
> Yep ... certifiable and in possession of two guns, a bunch of
> ammunition and a pile of misogyny, angst and hatred for America as it
> was.
>
> Death Lives indeed
>
> Fran
>
> |||
>
>
>
>
>
Fran
> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
> Hmmm.
>
It's interesting Seon.
In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
opportunity to die is much expanded.
Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching for is the right
to deal with angst by killing at random people who are representative
of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
The Second Amendment right was conceived to restrain the Federal
government from trampling on the rights of the states by allowing the
citizenry to form 'a well regulated militia' to resist Federal power.
Nothing in the Second Amendment says that some bongo who is miffed
because all his sexual enjoyment comes out of his right hand is
entitled to go buy some guns and shoot some 'hoes'. George Sodini was
not part of a 'well regulated militia' nor had he any plans to join
one that would be frustrated by less liberal gun laws. Like almost all
people not in the law enforcement or armed services communities
possessing guns in the US, he was completely unregulated. And if he'd
announced that he was forming a 'well regulated militia to resist
Federal power' he'd have been landed on by the FBI to the applause of
the NRA.
This has nothing to do with "the rights of Americans' unless you mean
the right not to be shot by some whackjob with a chip on his shoulder
who needed treatment for his mental health a lot more than he needed a
gun.
Oddly, many of the same people who get up on their hind legs about gun
rights are opposing provision of the health care that would see people
like George Sodini get the help they need without killing people
taking a dance class,
Fran
Scout
Fran wrote:
> On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
>> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
>> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
>> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
>> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
>> Hmmm.
>>
>
> It's interesting Seon.
>
> In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
> the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
>
> There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
> die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
> opportunity to die is much expanded.
Right, just as freedom of the press means you are free to throw someone
into the workings of a massive printing press, or freedom of religion
allows you to burn someone at the stake, etc.
Yea, we should allow anyone to have rights, after all, we hardly want to
expand the opportunity of people to die because of rights.
seon
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ed0a4ed-eda6-4ab9...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yep your right. the second amendment does not give some right wing loon the
right to kill innocent people. It gives Americans the right and liberty to
be able to own a gun and defend themselves. If they do that they will be
charged with murder. People need guns. People like farmers or people living
in high crime area's to defend their homes from home invasions. But perhaps
yes it is too easy to get a gun in America.
Now I do not own a gun but I do ascribe to this poem:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
I would add people like you are like:
Then they came for the gun owners
and I didn't speak up
Because I don't own a gun
In fact that poem needs to be updated...
Jim Alder
@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
> Hmmm.
It doesn't "seem" that way, pal. It's what they do. Thje funny part is,
they think they can say "Look! Here's a one in a million guy who goes nuts and
shoots people, so the other 999,999 should be defenseless!" and think THEY
don't sound as nuts as this guy!
>> � firing "multiple" weapons "indiscriminately" � and didn't say
--
So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
thing working out for you so far?
seon
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9Prem.102574$qx1....@newsfe04.iad...
I don't think there is anywhere in the Bill of rights that gives Americans
those rights, let alone the right to shoot people. But what do I know I'm an
ignorant aussie (and yes iarnrod dude, I know I'm an Australian)
seon
"seon" <se...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in message
news:4a7a4f33$0$22789$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
And here it is. Updated for the 21st century:
First they came for the Gun owners,
and I didn't speak up,
because I didn't own a gun
Then they came for the Ron Paul voters,
and I didn't speak up,
because I voted for President Obama.
Then they came for the Christians,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was an atheist.
seon
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C5EF09A793A3...@216.196.97.142...
> "seon" <se...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in news:4a7a3ac9$0$22806$5a62ac22
> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
>> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right
>> to
>> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I
>> was
>> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right
>> wing
>> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
>> Hmmm.
>
> It doesn't "seem" that way, pal. It's what they do. Thje funny part is,
> they think they can say "Look! Here's a one in a million guy who goes nuts
> and
> shoots people, so the other 999,999 should be defenseless!" and think THEY
> don't sound as nuts as this guy!
>
That's so right. It's like what they do with Christians who go nuts. Look
there's one Christian out of billions who murder abortion doctors. They must
all be murderers.
They can do it to Jews, Muslims, atheists, Bahais or whatever's.
>>> - firing "multiple" weapons "indiscriminately" - and didn't say
Jim Alder
> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
>> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
>> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
>> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
>> Hmmm.
>>
>
> It's interesting Seon.
>
> In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
> the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
That's because a right to life includes a right to protect that life.
> There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
> die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
> opportunity to die is much expanded.
With my 2nd amendment rights I am less likely to die at the hands of
another.
> Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching for is the right
> to deal with angst by killing at random people who are representative
> of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
No, what Seon is pitching for is the right to be able to protect himself
from one of your angst-ridden homicidal lunatics. What YOU are pitching is
your rabid paranoia toward your fellow man, thinking they are all secretly
insane just waiting for you to get on that one last nerve.
> The Second Amendment right was conceived to restrain the Federal
> government from trampling on the rights of the states by allowing the
> citizenry to form 'a well regulated militia' to resist Federal power.
> Nothing in the Second Amendment says that some bongo who is miffed
> because all his sexual enjoyment comes out of his right hand is
> entitled to go buy some guns and shoot some 'hoes'. George Sodini was
> not part of a 'well regulated militia' nor had he any plans to join
> one that would be frustrated by less liberal gun laws. Like almost all
> people not in the law enforcement or armed services communities
> possessing guns in the US, he was completely unregulated.
No, he was nuttier than squirrel crap. It was probably wildly evident in
his 'blog' but no one paid attention and he was allowed to rant unheeded until
he snapped.
> And if he'd
> announced that he was forming a 'well regulated militia to resist
> Federal power' he'd have been landed on by the FBI to the applause of
> the NRA.
So how come no one 'landed' on him for his verbal hatred of women?
Certainly someone saw it.
> This has nothing to do with "the rights of Americans' unless you mean
> the right not to be shot by some whackjob with a chip on his shoulder
> who needed treatment for his mental health a lot more than he needed a
> gun.
Obviously. But you can't say there was no warning.
> Oddly, many of the same people who get up on their hind legs about gun
> rights are opposing provision of the health care that would see people
> like George Sodini get the help they need without killing people
> taking a dance class,
I didn't realize OBama's health care plan included mandatory mental
evaluations and mandatory treatment for those indicated. On which of the
thousand pages will I find that?
Or are you suggesting that this guy would voluntarily go to psychiatric
treatment under Obama's plan where he would not now? Why? Obviously he had
enough money for at least four guns. I haven't heard what they were, but I
would assume that was well over a thousand dollars worth, enough to at least
get oneself examined and committed. Pray tell us, what is the difference in
the new health care plan that will get people like this locked up where they
belong.
seon
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C5F3F1A5406j...@216.196.97.142...
Well the right for Americans to defend themselves. I am not lucky enough to
be born over there.
Scout
I would agree with you, but oddly enough Fran seems to find such an
example in the 2nd.
seon
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Fctem.35951$sC1....@newsfe17.iad...
Oh good I thought I was just an ignorant foreigner who didn't know what he
was talking about. I'm glad I at least know something about the Bill of
Rights.
Swampfox
Not speaking for Fran of course, but I think what
she's pitching for is the removal of firearms from the
hands of angst-ridden homicidal lunatics, which makes
eminently good sense to me.
If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced
one would think.
Or you could just continue with the status quo,
whereby citizens continue to be murdered at a
staggering rate.
It's your call I suppose, but I'm glad I don't live in
the shit hole.
Scout
Yea, but how exactly do you identify these "angst-ridden homicidal
lunatics" without running rough shod all over our rights?
> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
> protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced
> one would think.
One would think but unless you can identify all such people all the time
then people would still need the option to protect themselves, and heck
even if you could obtain 100% accuracy, that still shouldn't make it so
that people are denied that ability.
> Or you could just continue with the status quo,
> whereby citizens continue to be murdered at a
> staggering rate.
No, I think we need to identify and work to correct the causes of why
people turn to violence. You will never eliminate it, but it can be
addressed. The problem is, those things aren't issues people want to
take on because there is no quick fix and results are decades in showing
up.
> It's your call I suppose, but I'm glad I don't live in
> the shit hole.
There are worse places to be.....I understand the violent crime rate is
quite high in the UK and Australia.
Swampfox
What rights would they be?
The right that I cherish the most, even more than the
right to a free vote, is the right to live in peace.
I would find that impossible knowing that a good
percentage of my near neighbours were in posession of
a small arsenal.
>
>
>> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
>> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
>> protect themselves from them would be greatly
>> reduced one would think.
>
> One would think but unless you can identify all such
> people all the time then people would still need the
> option to protect themselves, and heck even if you
> could obtain 100% accuracy, that still shouldn't
> make it so that people are denied that ability.
If no one but the military and the police had firearms
then the need to protect yourself by means of arms
would be greatly reduced, or so it seems to me.
>
>
>> Or you could just continue with the status quo,
>> whereby citizens continue to be murdered at a
>> staggering rate.
>
> No, I think we need to identify and work to correct
> the causes of why people turn to violence. You will
> never eliminate it, but it can be addressed. The
> problem is, those things aren't issues people want
> to take on because there is no quick fix and results
> are decades in showing up.
And that as well, it doesn't need to be exclusive.
>
>
>> It's your call I suppose, but I'm glad I don't live
>> in the shit hole.
>
> There are worse places to be.....I understand the
> violent crime rate is quite high in the UK and
> Australia.
The murder rate per capita in the USA is almost treble
that of either Australia or the UK, but you are right,
there are worse places to be.
The per capita murder rate in Columbia is 15 times
higher than the USA.
I'm glad I don't live in either of the shit holes.
Jim Alder
@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
You mmight be able to change that if you go to Hawaii and ask nicely. <g>
Fran
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No, it doesn't do anything of the sort.
Here's what it says:
|||
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. ”
|||
It's clear that the purpose of 'keeping and bear[ing] arms' realted to
the ability to draft citizens to protect the state. At the time, the
Americans had just fought off the British but they were not sure if at
some point, there wouldn't be attempts to seize the government or
subvert it and take away US Independence.
You'll note that the word used is not 'guns' but 'arms'. In rpinciple,
one could have a suitcase bomb or an ICBM. It also doesn't say
'people' but 'the people' -- which means the community not
individuals.
It was an added bonus that given there were no regular police and
coastal areas were at risk from pirate raids, people could go out and
protect their town.
Things have moved on.
<snip>
> Now I do not own a gun but I do ascribe to this poem:
>
> First they came for the Communists,
> and I didn't speak up,
> because I wasn't a Communist.
> Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up,
> because I wasn't a Jew.
> Then they came for the Catholics,
> and I didn't speak up,
> because I was a Protestant.
> Then they came for me,
> and by that time there was no one
> left to speak up for me.
>
> I would add people like you are like:
>
> Then they came for the gun owners
> and I didn't speak up
> Because I don't own a gun
>
> In fact that poem needs to be updated.
Pastor Niemoller would be scandalised.
Fran
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:h5e31o$hrh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
No no, your right to go shopping with the kids, or to go to church, or to
just take a walk down the street is NOT AS IMPORTANT as some crazed
fuckwit's right to mow you and your family down with an assault weapon.
Sheesh, dont you know anything?
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
Things have moved on.
---
But Glen Beck would cry tears of joy.
Jim Alder
september.org:
I have several responses to that and I'm not sure where to start. I'll
just number them in no particular order.
1) How would you propose we do that? It's already illegal for mentally
unstable (documented) people to buy a gun. They ask on the form you fill out
if you've had mental problems. This guy's mental problems were free for all to
read about on the net, yet no one stopped him from buying four guns.
2) I'm not sure if Fran is or isn't. I looked back and see I confused this
thread with another on this same shooter where the OP talked about how this
should bother OUR conscience. But then, Fran did say YOU were pitching for a
chance to shoot people to assauge your angst. So I don't know what she wants.
> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
> protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced
> one would think.
Maybe, but there would still be crooks and muggers and bad drivers
(kidding). There will always be a need for self protection, I'm afraid. At
least in the forseeable future.
> Or you could just continue with the status quo,
> whereby citizens continue to be murdered at a
> staggering rate.
This kind of random insanity is hardly happening at a staggering rate. And
when they don't have a gun they find a way. A racist drove his Cadillac
through a day care center a few years ago, I believe it was because of the
'foreign' clientele, but I could be wrong about his motive. When people are
nuts, their motives aren't all that important anymore. Another time a spurned
lover set fire to a disco and killed 85, I think. I believe that's a record
for this kind of thing, but you never see it mentioned when the news media
starts listing such "incidents" because he didn't use a gun.
> It's your call I suppose, but I'm glad I don't live in
> the shit hole.
Uh huh. Then please by all means stay in the shit hole you're in.
Jim Alder
september.org:
Then your version of 'peace' would be 'freedom from my own paranoia'?
Sorry, we can't do anything about your peace of mind when you worry about your
fellow man. Move to Siberia.
>>> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
>>> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
>>> protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced one would
>>> think.
>>
>> One would think but unless you can identify all such
>> people all the time then people would still need the
>> option to protect themselves, and heck even if you
>> could obtain 100% accuracy, that still shouldn't make it so that
>> people are denied that ability.
>
> If no one but the military and the police had firearms
> then the need to protect yourself by means of arms
> would be greatly reduced, or so it seems to me.
Alas, how the world "seems to you" ain't necessarily how it is. I don't
need a gun to protect myself just from another guy with a gun. It's also for
the guy half my age with the broken bottle or knife. Or the gang of toughs at
the ATM. It's also for the diminutive girl to protect herself from the 250
pound would-be rapist.
>>> Or you could just continue with the status quo, whereby citizens
>>> continue to be murdered at a staggering rate.
>>
>> No, I think we need to identify and work to correct
>> the causes of why people turn to violence. You will
>> never eliminate it, but it can be addressed. The
>> problem is, those things aren't issues people want
>> to take on because there is no quick fix and results are decades in
>> showing up.
>
> And that as well, it doesn't need to be exclusive.
>
>>
>>
>>> It's your call I suppose, but I'm glad I don't live in the shit
>>> hole.
>>
>> There are worse places to be.....I understand the
>> violent crime rate is quite high in the UK and
>> Australia.
>
> The murder rate per capita in the USA is almost treble
> that of either Australia or the UK, but you are right,
> there are worse places to be.
> The per capita murder rate in Columbia is 15 times
> higher than the USA.
> I'm glad I don't live in either of the shit holes.
>
>
>
--
Fran
wrote:
> Fran wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
> >> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
> >> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
> >> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
> >> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
> >> Hmmm.
>
> > It's interesting Seon.
>
> > In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
> > the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
>
> > There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
> > die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
> > opportunity to die is much expanded.
>
> Right, just as freedom of the press means you are free to throw someone
> into the workings of a massive printing press, or freedom of religion
> allows you to burn someone at the stake, etc.
>
The analogy is contrived. Presses are not physical weapons. Nothing in
the right to religious belief differentially enables people to kill
others. Plainly, one can kill for any reason.
> Yea, we should allow anyone to have rights, after all, we hardly want to
> expand the opportunity of people to die because of rights
Take a deep breath and work out what it is you want to claim. Then
post.
Fran
Fran
> "Jim Alder" <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
Actually what I'm pitching for is something that puts the onus on
putative firearms owners to show
a) that they are fit and proper persons to possess firearms
b) that they have a bona fide reason for having the firearms(s) they
have
c) that they have taken adequate steps to ensure that nobody who fails
to meet either (a) or (b) can hope to gain control of their firearm(s)
Had motor vehicles and mobile phones been about when the Second
Amendment was drafted, it's likely it would have read something like:
|||
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, to operate
suitable motor vehicles and to have frree access to all that is
necesary to operate portable communication devices shall not be
infringed. ”
|||
Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose the
right to operate one. Our hoon laws now say that they can be
confiscated. Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of
orders can contact and which phones they can use.
Motor vehicles are dangerous things but in America, they are better
controlled than guns (and even motor vehicles could do with better
control).
> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
> protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced
> one would think.
Exactly. Why not have an annual psychiatric evaluation -- perhaps a
family visit by someone professional to see that everyone is "happy
happy joy joy" plus the odd randomised visit? The gun safe could be
inspected for integrity at the same time.
Harm minimisation
Fran
> Or you could just continue with the status quo,
> whereby citizens continue to be murdered at a
> staggering rate.
> It's your call I suppose, but I'm glad I don't live in
> the shit hole.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
edi...@netpath.net
> Oddly, many of the same people who get up on their hind legs about gun
> rights are opposing provision of the health care that would see people
> like George Sodini get the help they need without killing people
> taking a dance class,
Bullshit. Do you know of ANY diagnosed psychosis he had - or was
this, after all, just another O.J. Simpson-style domestic killing by a
guy hating his ex? After all, it wasn't "coincidence" that Sodini
shot his ex-girlfriend at that exercise club - nor did O.J. nor Sodini
have any known record of thinking they were Napoleon, talking to the
wall, etc.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Kevin Cunningham
> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in news:4a7a3ac9$0$22806$5a62ac22
> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
> > And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
> > own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
> > wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
> > loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
> > Hmmm.
>
> It doesn't "seem" that way, pal. It's what they do. Thje funny part is,
> they think they can say "Look! Here's a one in a million guy who goes nuts and
> shoots people, so the other 999,999 should be defenseless!" and think THEY
> don't sound as nuts as this guy!
>
So tell us Juan the meessssiiicccannnn, Juan won't show us his birth
certificate but he insists that Pres. Obama should show his. Show us
your, Juan.
And Juan now insists that buying lots of guns is your right. He
insists that only the good people will have and use guns to defend
themselves from skulking criminals. But yesterday's killer was the
typical mass murderer. He should have had his problem cared for by
our society, killing people with registered guns is a bit upsetting.
But he didn't. He had a blog that describe what he was going to do.
And no body did a thing.
The real problem here is it's easier to get legal guns than health
care.
Billary/2009
You're a fucking stalker CUNTingham. You should get some help. Or at
the very least, start taking your medications again.
Kevin Cunningham
wrote:
> Swampfox wrote:
> > "Jim Alder" <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9C5F3F1A5406j...@216.196.97.142...
Harm to self or others. That is the universal standard. It should
have been applied in this instance. The murderer demonstrated that he
intended to harm other and himself.
Typical right winger, too busy drooling over his alleged second
amendment right to notice the shooter was crazy.
Kevin Cunningham
Hey, homo, were is the proof that the British nation kills their
aged? You said it, homo, were is the proof?
Come on, put up or shut up.
Jim Alder
> "Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com> wrote:
>> "Jim Alder" <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>> > Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> >> Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching
>> >> for is the right
>> >> to deal with �angst by killing at random people who
>> >> are representative
>> >> of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
>>
>> > � � No, what Seon is pitching for is the right to be
>> > able to protect himself
>> > from one of your angst-ridden homicidal lunatics.
>> > What YOU are pitching is
>> > your rabid paranoia toward your fellow man, thinking
>> > they are all secretly
>> > insane just waiting for you to get on that one last nerve.
>>
>> Not speaking for Fran of course, but I think what
>> she's pitching for is the removal of firearms from the
>> hands of angst-ridden homicidal lunatics, which makes eminently good
>> sense to me.
>
> Actually what I'm pitching for is something that puts the onus on
> putative firearms owners to show
>
> a) that they are fit and proper persons to possess firearms
> b) that they have a bona fide reason for having the firearms(s) they
> have
> c) that they have taken adequate steps to ensure that nobody who fails
> to meet either (a) or (b) can hope to gain control of their firearm(s)
Before we do that, perhaps you could do something for us?
1) Demonstrate that you are sufficiently intelligent to express an opinion?
2) Show some academic records or CV showing your expertise on the law,
specifically Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.
3) Show facts and figures that prove your proposed methods will actually
prove to benefit the people overall and not just give your paranoia a boost.
Yes, I know you think you have the right to free speech. Ironic, ain't
it?
> Had motor vehicles and mobile phones been about when the Second
> Amendment was drafted, it's likely it would have read something like:
>
>|||
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, to operate
> suitable motor vehicles and to have frree access to all that is
> necesary to operate portable communication devices shall not be
> infringed. �
>|||
I have no idea why you would think such a thing, but then I feel the same
way about the rest of your ideas.
> Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose the
> right to operate one.
You don't have a 'right' to operate a car. You have a 'right' to own a
gun. You can also lose that right if you 'mess up' sufficiently. In either
case (car or gun) people can die when you 'mess up'.
> Our hoon laws now say that they can be confiscated.
Our what now?
> Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of
> orders can contact and which phones they can use.
What?
> Motor vehicles are dangerous things but in America, they are better
> controlled than guns (and even motor vehicles could do with better
> control).
That's because they are used in public in close proximity to many others
on roads built by the state and hence responsible for wear and tear on said
roads. And you don't have a 'right' to drive a car on public roads.
>> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
>> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
>> protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced one would think.
>
> Exactly. Why not have an annual psychiatric evaluation -- perhaps a
> family visit by someone professional to see that everyone is "happy
> happy joy joy" plus the odd randomised visit?
How about the same thing for everyone, just in case YOU should acquire a
gun illegally. Of course this would require the odd randomized search of your
premises for guns and ammo, which would be quite involved, going through your
underwear drawer and all.
> The gun safe could be
> inspected for integrity at the same time.
As would your fridge and freezer, since those are splendid hiding places
for guns and such. Say, you've got young children but I don't see a bottle of
milk or OJ in here, but you do have a bottle of Grey Goose in the freezer. I
wonder what Child Services would think about this....
> Harm minimisation
I consider the destruction of my rights to be serious harm, Fran.
> Fran
Jim Alder
@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
>
> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C5EF09A793A3...@216.196.97.142...
>> "seon" <se...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in news:4a7a3ac9$0$22806$5a62ac22
>> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>>
>>> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right
>>> to own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I
>>> was wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some
>>> right wing loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote
>>> their agenda. Hmmm.
>>
>> It doesn't "seem" that way, pal. It's what they do. Thje funny part is,
>> they think they can say "Look! Here's a one in a million guy who goes
>> nuts and
>> shoots people, so the other 999,999 should be defenseless!" and think THEY
>> don't sound as nuts as this guy!
>>
> That's so right. It's like what they do with Christians who go nuts. Look
> there's one Christian out of billions who murder abortion doctors. They must
> all be murderers.
> They can do it to Jews, Muslims, atheists, Bahais or whatever's.
It's easier than thinking.
Jim Alder
b75d-307...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 5, 11:39�pm, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in news:4a7a3ac9$0$22806$5a62ac22
>> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>>
>> > And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right
to
>> > own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I
was
>> > wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right
wing
>> > loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
>> > Hmmm.
>>
>> � � It doesn't "seem" that way, pal. It's what they do. Thje funny part is,
>> they think they can say "Look! Here's a one in a million guy who goes nuts
>> and shoots people, so the other 999,999 should be defenseless!" and think
>> THEY don't sound as nuts as this guy!
>>
>
> So tell us Juan
Fuck off.
Fran
Who is 'us'? " Which personalities ask? Do you ask by the appointment
of others?
> 1) Demonstrate that you are sufficiently intelligent to express an opinion?
Check my profile. Make up your own mind, if you have one. The
structure of this post was a clue. If it isn't that's scarcely my
fault.
> 2) Show some academic records or CV showing your expertise on the law,
> specifically Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.
I've studied law including Constituional Law at tertiary level. I''m
familiar with your system and this debate. Good enough.
> 3) Show facts and figures that prove your proposed methods will actually
> prove to benefit the people overall and not just give your paranoia a boost.
>
This is usenet. Can you seriously be asking that right here right now
I undertake a refereed exercise in modelling costs in the US of the
compiance measures and the law enforcement implications when the
likely jurisdictions aren't going to contemplate the measures?
It's hard to see how anyone doing as I suggested could boost whatever
paranoia you assert I have though. You seem to be the one suffering
paranoia.
> Yes, I know you think you have the right to free speech. Ironic, ain't
> it?
>
It's otten claimed that Americans don't get irony. You just reminded
me why people say that.
> > Had motor vehicles and mobile phones been about when the Second
> > Amendment was drafted, it's likely it would have read something like:
>
> >|||
> > A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> > State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, to operate
> > suitable motor vehicles and to have frree access to all that is
> > necesary to operate portable communication devices shall not be
> > infringed. ”
> >|||
>
> I have no idea why you would think such a thing, but then I feel the same
> way about the rest of your ideas.
>
You should have halted your sentence at the end of the fourth word.
The rest was redundant.
> > Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose
the
> > right to operate one.
>
> You don't have a 'right' to operate a car. You have a 'right' to own a
> gun. You can also lose that right if you 'mess up' sufficiently. In either
> case (car or gun) people can die when you 'mess up'.
>
> > Our hoon laws now say that they can be confiscated.
>
> Our what now?
>
In Australia Mr Alder
> > Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of
> > orders can contact and which phones they can use.
>
> What?
>
In Australia Mr Alder
> > Motor vehicles are dangerous things but in America, they are better
> > controlled than guns (and even motor vehicles could do with better
> > control).
>
> That's because they are used in public in close proximity to many others
> on roads built by the state and hence responsible for wear and tear on said
> roads. And you don't have a 'right' to drive a car on public roads.
>
> >> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> >> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
> >> protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced one would think.
>
> > Exactly. Why not have an annual psychiatric evaluation -- perhaps a
> > family visit by someone professional to see that everyone is "happy
> > happy joy joy" plus the odd randomised visit?
>
> How about the same thing for everyone, just in case YOU should acquire a
> gun illegally.
Personally, I'd be untroubled by this, but as I understand it, funds
are short for health in the US (as they are here) and so as a matter
of priority it woulkd seem ill-advised. Here in Australia we have very
little gun crime and very few guns out there.
> Of course this would require the odd randomized search of your
> premises for guns and ammo, which would be quite involved, going through your
> underwear drawer and all.
>
Yep ... you're paranoid
> > The gun safe could be
> > inspected for integrity at the same time.
>
> As would your fridge and freezer, since those are splendid hiding places
> for guns and such. Say, you've got young children but I don't see a bottle of
> milk or OJ in here, but you do have a bottle of Grey Goose in the freezer. I
> wonder what Child Services would think about this....
>
I'm a vegetarian. I have no geese in my freezer.
> > Harm minimisation
>
> I consider the destruction of my rights to be serious harm, Fran.
>
Begs the question: Are your rights being destroyed? I'd say not. If
you wish to become part of a well-regulated militia then by all means,
apply to your state government so that you can get the program going
and if someone apart from the state gets in your way, then complain.
You do realise that the Second Amendment doesn't bind the states don't
you? The states can decide whether anyone can bear arms or not. It's
only the Feds who are restrained from stopping you getting about with
your buddies and playing soldiers dressed like Daniel Boone and
picking of them Fed tyrants
Fran
Jim Alder
Why, the same "us" you refer to as "they" above. And I'm sure they won't
mind if I speak hypothetically in their behalf. After all, you're speaking for
the rest of the country, supposedly.
>> � 1) Demonstrate that you are sufficiently intelligent to express an
opinion?
>
> Check my profile.
The opinion of other usenet posters? Hardly documentation.
> Make up your own mind, if you have one. The
> structure of this post was a clue. If it isn't that's scarcely my
> fault.
It hardly seems fair for me to decide your value. Nor would it be in your
best interest.
>> � �2) Show some academic records or CV showing your expertise on the law,
>> specifically Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.
>
> I've studied law including Constituional Law at tertiary level.
Third grade? It shows.
> I''m familiar with your system and this debate. Good enough.
Obviously not.
>> � �3) Show facts and figures that prove your proposed methods will actually
>> prove to benefit the people overall and not just give your paranoia a
boost.
>>
>
> This is usenet. Can you seriously be asking that right here right now
> I undertake a refereed exercise in modelling costs in the US of the
> compiance measures and the law enforcement implications when the
> likely jurisdictions aren't going to contemplate the measures?
I'm as serious as you are asking me to submit to mental exams in order to
exercise my 2nd amendment rights.
> It's hard to see how anyone doing as I suggested could boost whatever
> paranoia you assert I have though. You seem to be the one suffering
> paranoia.
No, I don't fear your whackjob ideas. I know they will never come to
fruition. I'm just trying to show you why they won't.
>> � � �Yes, I know you think you have the right to free speech. Ironic, ain't
>> it?
>>
>
> It's otten claimed that Americans don't get irony. You just reminded
> me why people say that.
>
>> > Had motor vehicles and mobile phones been about when the Second
>> > Amendment was drafted, it's likely it would have read something like:
>>
>> >|||
>> > A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>> > State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, to operate
>> > suitable motor vehicles and to have frree access to all that is
>> > necesary to operate portable communication devices shall not be
infringed. �
>> >|||
>>
>> � � �I have no idea why you would think such a thing, but then I feel the
same
>> way about the rest of your ideas.
>>
>
> You should have halted your sentence at the end of the fourth word.
> The rest was redundant.
Oh, aren't you a wit? Or you would be if you were twins.
> > > Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose the
> > > right to operate one.
>>
>> � � �You don't have a 'right' to operate a car. You have a 'right' to own a
>> gun. You can also lose that right if you 'mess up' sufficiently. In either
>> case (car or gun) people can die when you 'mess up'.
>>
>> > Our hoon laws now say that they can be confiscated.
>>
>> � � Our what now?
>
> In Australia Mr Alder
I don't have my Oz-US dictionary handy. What's a "hoon"?
>> > Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of orders can
>> > contact and which phones they can use.
>>
>> � � �What?
>>
>
> In Australia Mr Alder
That excuse only gets you so far. I understand all the words above, but
the order in which you put them makes no sense.
>> > Motor vehicles are dangerous things but in America, they are better
>> > controlled than guns (and even motor vehicles could do with better
>> > control).
>>
>> � � �That's because they are used in public in close proximity to many
others
>> on roads built by the state and hence responsible for wear and tear on said
>> roads. And you don't have a 'right' to drive a car on public roads.
>>
>> >> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
>> >> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to protect themselves
from
>> >> them would be greatly reduced one would think.
>>
>> > Exactly. Why not have an annual psychiatric evaluation -- perhaps a
>> > family visit by someone professional to see that everyone is "happy happy
>> > joy joy" plus the odd randomised visit?
>>
>> � � �How about the same thing for everyone, just in case YOU should acquire
a
>> gun illegally.
>
> Personally, I'd be untroubled by this, but as I understand it, funds
> are short for health in the US (as they are here) and so as a matter
> of priority it woulkd seem ill-advised. Here in Australia we have very
> little gun crime and very few guns out there.
Apparently no shortage of whackjobs and busybodies.
>> Of course this would require the odd randomized search of your
>> premises for guns and ammo, which would be quite involved, going through
your
>> underwear drawer and all.
>
> Yep ... you're paranoid
It's only paranoia when no one is actually plotting against you. There are
lots of fools in this country that share your view on guns.
>> > The gun safe could be inspected for integrity at the same time.
>>
>> � � �As would your fridge and freezer, since those are splendid hiding
places
>> for guns and such. Say, you've got young children but I don't see a bottle
of
>> milk or OJ in here, but you do have a bottle of Grey Goose in the freezer.
I
>> wonder what Child Services would think about this....
>
> I'm a vegetarian. I have no geese in my freezer.
Grey Goose is vodka.
>> > Harm minimisation
>>
>> � � �I consider the destruction of my rights to be serious harm, Fran.
>
> Begs the question: Are your rights being destroyed?
No, but you're proposing that they should be.
> I'd say not. If
> you wish to become part of a well-regulated militia then by all means,
> apply to your state government so that you can get the program going
> and if someone apart from the state gets in your way, then complain.
The 2nd says 'the right of the people' not the right of the militia.
> You do realise that the Second Amendment doesn't bind the states don't
> you? The states can decide whether anyone can bear arms or not.
Apparently your tertiary education didn't get as far as the ninth
amendment?
> It's
> only the Feds who are restrained from stopping you getting about with
> your buddies and playing soldiers dressed like Daniel Boone and
> picking of them Fed tyrants
--
Billary/2009
Who the fuck cares what a Limey has to say about anything?
Gray Ghost
september.org:
And how do you plan to identify "angst ridden homicidal lunatics"?
--
Always remember:
Bull Connor was a Democrat!
Gray Ghost
5b9291...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
Who decides?
> b) that they have a bona fide reason for having the firearms(s) they
> have
According to who? And what reasons do you consider a bona fide reason?
> c) that they have taken adequate steps to ensure that nobody who fails
> to meet either (a) or (b) can hope to gain control of their firearm(s)
Not familiar with liberty and responsibility are you?
>
> Had motor vehicles and mobile phones been about when the Second
> Amendment was drafted, it's likely it would have read something like:
>
>|||
> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, to operate
> suitable motor vehicles and to have frree access to all that is
> necesary to operate portable communication devices shall not be
> infringed. �
Yes but they weren't, loon.
>|||
>
> Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose the
> right to operate one. Our hoon laws now say that they can be
> confiscated. Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of
> orders can contact and which phones they can use.
>
> Motor vehicles are dangerous things but in America, they are better
> controlled than guns (and even motor vehicles could do with better
> control).
>
But they are not in the Consitution.
>> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
>> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
>> protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced one would think.
>
> Exactly. Why not have an annual psychiatric evaluation -- perhaps a
> family visit by someone professional to see that everyone is "happy
> happy joy joy" plus the odd randomised visit? The gun safe could be
> inspected for integrity at the same time.
Facist whore! An annual psychiatric evaluation to exercise a right?!? Random
home visits? Are you a fucking facist or communist?
>
> Harm minimisation
>
> Fran
>
>> Or you could just continue with the status quo,
>> whereby citizens continue to be murdered at a
>> staggering rate.
>> It's your call I suppose, but I'm glad I don't live in
>> the shit hole.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
--
Gray Ghost
31dd95...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> � �2) Show some academic records or CV showing your expertise on the law,
>> specifically Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.
>
> I've studied law including Constituional Law at tertiary level. I''m
> familiar with your system and this debate. Good enough.
>
Apparently not.
Jim Alder
476f-a217-1...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
> Who the fuck cares what a Limey has to say about anything?
I thought Limeys were English? Fran here is an Aussie.
Hey, you know what an "Australian kiss" is?
It's the same as a French kiss, only 'down under'! Har de har!
Sid9
"Zombywoof" <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oojm75t0fcssgh15c...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:06:59 +1000, "seon"
> <se...@notmyrealaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>And now those who want to take away Americans
>>freedom's/liberties/right to
>>own a gun is using this to promote their anti
>>Constitutional agenda. I was
>>wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time
>>some right wing
>>loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote
>>their agenda.
>>Hmmm.
>>
> to promote
> their agenda.
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take
> big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."
What has the gun owning community done to get their right
wing loons under control?
Scout
Swampfox wrote:
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote in message
> news:tfuem.47643$0z7....@newsfe07.iad...
>>
>> Swampfox wrote:
>>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C5F3F1A5406j...@216.196.97.142...
>>>> Fran <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And now those who want to take away Americans
>>>>>> freedom's/liberties/right to
>>>>>> own a gun is using this to promote their anti
>>>>>> Constitutional agenda. I was
>>>>>> wondering how long it would take them. It seems
>>>>>> every time some right wing
>>>>>> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering
>>>>>> to promote their agenda.
>>>>>> Hmmm.
>>>>>>
>> Yea, but how exactly do you identify these
>> "angst-ridden homicidal lunatics" without running
>> rough shod all over our rights?
>
> What rights would they be?
> The right that I cherish the most, even more than the
> right to a free vote, is the right to live in peace.
> I would find that impossible knowing that a good
> percentage of my near neighbours were in posession of
> a small arsenal.
IOW, you don't care about other people's rights.
Well, that pretty much ends this conversation.
Scout
Fran wrote:
> On Aug 6, 1:11 pm, Scout <me4g...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
> wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
>>>> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
>>>> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
>>>> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
>>>> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
>>>> Hmmm.
>>> It's interesting Seon.
>>> In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
>>> the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
>>> There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
>>> die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
>>> opportunity to die is much expanded.
>> Right, just as freedom of the press means you are free to throw someone
>> into the workings of a massive printing press, or freedom of religion
>> allows you to burn someone at the stake, etc.
>>
>
> The analogy is contrived. Presses are not physical weapons.
Let me drop you into one, and if you survive, you can then tell me how
it's not a weapon.
I will simply note that you see things which aren't in the protections
enacted and are not part of the right that is protected.
Scout
Yep, and I note that what Swampfox had in mind has NOTHING to do with
what you are claiming was his intent.....which was purely proactive, and
not reactive as yours is.
Fran
Well until 'they' make clear who they are and the mandate you carry
for them I reject your proxy. Speak for yourself.
> And I'm sure they won't
> mind if I speak hypothetically in their behalf.
Oh really? What a demagogue you are! The individual rather
disappeared, didn't he or she? And you complain about 'gubmint'?
> After all, you're speaking for
> the rest of the country, supposedly.
>
Really? That will be news foir most. It never occurred to me.
> >> 1) Demonstrate that you are sufficiently intelligent to express an
> opinion?
>
> > Check my profile.
>
> The opinion of other usenet posters? Hardly documentation.
>
No -- what I've hitherto written. It's extensive.
> > Make up your own mind, if you have one. The
> > structure of this post was a clue. If it isn't that's scarcely my
> > fault.
>
> It hardly seems fair for me to decide your value. Nor would it be in your
> best interest.
>
> >> 2) Show some academic records or CV showing your expertise on the law,
> >> specifically Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.
>
> > I've studied law including Constituional Law at tertiary level.
>
> Third grade? It shows.
>
OK ... I can see you want to play at a third grade level ... You do
realise implying you're an ignoramus reduces your standing?
> > I''m familiar with your system and this debate. Good enough.
>
> Obviously not.
>
>
>
> >> 3) Show facts and figures that prove your proposed methods will actually
> >> prove to benefit the people overall and not just give your paranoia a
> boost.
>
> > This is usenet. Can you seriously be asking that right here right now
> > I undertake a refereed exercise in modelling costs in the US of the
> > compiance measures and the law enforcement implications when the
> > likely jurisdictions aren't going to contemplate the measures?
>
> I'm as serious as you are asking me to submit to mental exams in order to
> exercise my 2nd amendment rights.
>
Get it through your head: Your second amendment rights are vested in
*the people* not *individual* people. They protect *the states* from
*the feds*. They don't found an opportunity to be some gun toting DIY
vigilante or the right to a large phallic object you can wave in
people's faces to compensate for some personal deficit of your own.
> > It's hard to see how anyone doing as I suggested could boost whatever
> > paranoia you assert I have though. You seem to be the one suffering
> > paranoia.
>
> No, I don't fear your whackjob ideas. I know they will never come to
> fruition. I'm just trying to show you why they won't.
>
This is usenet. Here, in theory, ideas get discussed. People get to
say "here's how things should be and why".
>
>
> >> Yes, I know you think you have the right to free speech. Ironic, ain't
> >> it?
>
> > It's otten claimed that Americans don't get irony. You just reminded
> > me why people say that.
>
> >> > Had motor vehicles and mobile phones been about when the Second
> >> > Amendment was drafted, it's likely it would have read something like:
>
> >> >|||
> >> > A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> >> > State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, to operate
> >> > suitable motor vehicles and to have frree access to all that is
> >> > necesary to operate portable communication devices shall not be
> infringed. ”
> >> >|||
>
> >> I have no idea why you would think such a thing, but then I feel the
> same
> >> way about the rest of your ideas.
>
> > You should have halted your sentence at the end of the fourth word.
> > The rest was redundant.
>
> Oh, aren't you a wit? Or you would be if you were twins.
>
Hey ... you were the one who began with multiple personalities.
> > > > Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose the
> > > > right to operate one.
>
> >> You don't have a 'right' to operate a car. You have a 'right' to own a
> >> gun. You can also lose that right if you 'mess up' sufficiently. In either
> >> case (car or gun) people can die when you 'mess up'.
>
> >> > Our hoon laws now say that they can be confiscated.
>
> >> Our what now?
>
> > In Australia Mr Alder
>
> I don't have my Oz-US dictionary handy. What's a "hoon"?
>
In Australia, someone who makes himself a nuisance to others by misuse
of a car.
> >> > Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of orders can
> >> > contact and which phones they can use.
>
> >> What?
>
> > In Australia Mr Alder
>
> That excuse only gets you so far. I understand all the words above, but
> the order in which you put them makes no sense.
>
>
Well then you fail English syntax. "Who" is now an acceptable
alternative to "whom". Does that help?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Motor vehicles are dangerous things but in America, they are better
> >> > controlled than guns (and even motor vehicles could do with better
> >> > control).
>
> >> That's because they are used in public in close proximity to many
> others
> >> on roads built by the state and hence responsible for wear and tear on said
> >> roads. And you don't have a 'right' to drive a car on public roads.
>
> >> >> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> >> >> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to protect themselves
> from
> >> >> them would be greatly reduced one would think.
>
> >> > Exactly. Why not have an annual psychiatric evaluation -- perhaps a
> >> > family visit by someone professional to see that everyone is "happy happy
> >> > joy joy" plus the odd randomised visit?
>
> >> How about the same thing for everyone, just in case YOU should acquire
> a
> >> gun illegally.
>
> > Personally, I'd be untroubled by this, but as I understand it, funds
> > are short for health in the US (as they are here) and so as a matter
> > of priority it woulkd seem ill-advised. Here in Australia we have very
> > little gun crime and very few guns out there.
>
> Apparently no shortage of whackjobs and busybodies.
>
>
Non-responsive.
>
> >> Of course this would require the odd randomized search of your
> >> premises for guns and ammo, which would be quite involved, going through
> your
> >> underwear drawer and all.
>
> > Yep ... you're paranoid
>
> It's only paranoia when no one is actually plotting against you. There are
> lots of fools in this country that share your view on guns.
>
Nobody is plotting *against* you. They are "plotting" to reduce their
chances of being shot by some nutbag while attending Latin Impact
Dance classes, even though the Ninth Amendment says nothing about
Latin Dance.
> >> > The gun safe could be inspected for integrity at the same time.
>
> >> As would your fridge and freezer, since those are splendid hiding
> places
> >> for guns and such. Say, you've got young children but I don't see a bottle
> of
> >> milk or OJ in here, but you do have a bottle of Grey Goose in the freezer.
> I
> >> wonder what Child Services would think about this....
>
> > I'm a vegetarian. I have no geese in my freezer.
>
> Grey Goose is vodka.
>
Is it? I don't drink alcohol frequently enough to know. A sip of some
white wine at Christmas and Easter with the family or the occasional
staff gathering, and that's it
> >> > Harm minimisation
>
> >> I consider the destruction of my rights to be serious harm, Fran.
>
> > Begs the question: Are your rights being destroyed?
>
> No, but you're proposing that they should be.
No, you're interpreting my proposals as if they infringed some right
you mistakenly believe you hold.
> > I'd say not. If
> > you wish to become part of a well-regulated militia then by all means,
> > apply to your state government so that you can get the program going
> > and if someone apart from the state gets in your way, then complain.
>
> The 2nd says 'the right of the people' not the right of the militia.
>
That's right -- *the* people. Not *any* people or people at random.
There's a difference.
> > You do realise that the Second Amendment doesn't bind the states don't
> > you? The states can decide whether anyone can bear arms or not.
>
> Apparently your tertiary education didn't get as far as the ninth
> amendment?
>
Oh but it did. I've read Scalia -- one of your own as I see him -- and
it hardly alters the force or purview of the Second Amendment --
indeed it cannot precisely because the ninth amendment sought to
protect rights not yet specifed but implicit in the other provisions
without allowing the consitution to be read in ways that truncated the
ones already specified.
Fran
Fran
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 15:03:43 +1000, "Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>>Not speaking for Fran of course, but I think what
> >she's pitching for is the removal of firearms from the
> >hands of angst-ridden homicidal lunatics, which makes
> >eminently good sense to me.
>
>
And here is the problem. At the moment, we only get to find that out
*after* they have gone nuts with a weapon.
> >If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> >unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
> >protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced
> >one would think.
>
> And exactly how do you suggest one go about identifing these so-called
> "angst-ridden homicidal lunatics"?
>
See above. You want to carry a gun -- have a professional who isn't a
buddy declare that you aren't bothered at being rejected by 'hoes' or
morbidly prepossessed at the charms of africans for women of
ostensibly European descent, that your plan is to live a long and
happy life along with others in your community.
Fran
Gray Ghost
september.org:
We're still waiting for you to tell us how we are supposed to be policing the
loons.
Gray Ghost
september.org:
> What rights would they be?
> The right that I cherish the most, even more than the
> right to a free vote, is the right to live in peace.
> I would find that impossible knowing that a good
> percentage of my near neighbours were in posession of
> a small arsenal.
>
Are you stupid or stoned? "The "right to live in peace"? Are you fucking
serious? There is no such right unless you will bear some responsibility to
protect that peace. Are you really so lame that you want others to provide
YOUR peace?
Billary/2009
> "Billary/2009" <BillaryClinton2...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7f63741d-6a2e-
> 476f-a217-1db879945...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Who the fuck cares what a Limey has to say about anything?
>
> I thought Limeys were English? Fran here is an Aussie.
>
> Hey, you know what an "Australian kiss" is?
>
> It's the same as a French kiss, only 'down under'! Har de har!
>
> --
> So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
> thing working out for you so far?
Fuck him, he doesn't vote. His opinions count for shit.
SaPeIsMa
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ed0a4ed-eda6-4ab9...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
> Hmmm.
>
# It's interesting Seon.
#
# In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
# the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
What's a weapon of mass murder ?
The most recent ones I know about are
Airplaines (9.11)
Anfo (Oklahoma City)
Pyrotechnics (West Warwick RI)
Just to name 3...
#
# There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
# die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
# opportunity to die is much expanded.
Really ?
Do explan that one
#
# Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching for is the right
# to deal with angst by killing at random people who are representative
# of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
Is he now
Why don't you point in out IN DETAIL, how you have come to that conclusion
# The Second Amendment right was conceived to restrain the Federal
# government from trampling on the rights of the states by allowing the
# citizenry to form 'a well regulated militia' to resist Federal power.
At least you got that part right, escept for one detail
The Framers also CLEARLY believed that ARMED INDIIDUALS are in the best
position to defend their rights and freedoms from a government that wanted
to "trample" their INDIVIDUAL rights
After all that was what all the fighting during the Revolution was all
about..
Too bad you never learned that part of history
You also forgot or never learned the part that:
a) "well-regulated" did NOT mean framed by regulations, but insteand
meand "properly functionning" as in a "well-regulated clock"
b) The writing of the Framers like Madison, Jefferson, et all, clearly
contain VERY SPECIFIC PROOF that they beleived in an INDIVIDUAL Right to
Keep and Bear Arms.
# Nothing in the Second Amendment says that some bongo who is miffed
# because all his sexual enjoyment comes out of his right hand is
# entitled to go buy some guns and shoot some 'hoes'.
You're quite right that NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment is about committing
crimes like murder
And that argument is a dishonest and false strawman argument, ONLY used by
liars and gun-controllers.
# George Sodini was not part of a 'well regulated militia' nor had he any
plans to join
# one that would be frustrated by less liberal gun laws.
Maybe, maybe not
But he probably qualified to be in the "General Militia" as per US Code, up
to the time he decided to become a murderer and criminal
# Like almost all people not in the law enforcement or
# armed services communities possessing guns in the US,
# he was completely unregulated.
More lies from the left
There are over 20,000 gun laws in the US
That's pretty regulated
And back to the use of the term "well regulated".
It does NOT mean "regulated by laws"
It means "properly functionning" as in a "well regulated clock"
Do your homework and educate yourself on this one
# And if he'd announced that he was forming a 'well regulated militia
# to resist Federal power' he'd have been landed on by the FBI
# to the applause of the NRA.
So now you claim to speak for BOTH the FBI and the NRA ?
Methinks you are a liar..
#
# This has nothing to do with "the rights of Americans' unless you mean
# the right not to be shot by some whackjob with a chip on his shoulder
# who needed treatment for his mental health a lot more than he needed a
# gun.
Indeed you got this right
But then considering that you got it right for all the wrong reasons
That's the equivalent of a stopped clock getting the time right twice a day.
Not of any great value
# Oddly, many of the same people who get up on their hind legs about gun
# rights are opposing provision of the health care that would see people
# like George Sodini get the help they need without killing people
# taking a dance class,
Considering that some of the provisions that you are referring to, are so
broad, that someone seeking some counseling for the loss of a mate, would
also be at risk of losing their rights, your position is also a false and
dishonest one..
But at least you are consistent.
Fran
SaPeIsMa
"Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:h5don3$sld$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C5F3F1A5406j...@216.196.97.142...
>> Fran <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right
>>>> to
>>>> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I
>>>> was
>>>> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right
>>>> wing
>>>> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their
>>>> agenda.
>>>> Hmmm.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
>>
>>
>>
>> another.
>>
>>
>> himself
>> from one of your angst-ridden homicidal lunatics. What YOU are pitching
>> is
>> your rabid paranoia toward your fellow man, thinking they are all
>> secretly
>> insane just waiting for you to get on that one last nerve.
>
> the removal of firearms from the hands of angst-ridden homicidal lunatics,
> which makes eminently good sense to me.
> the general citizenry to protect themselves from them would be greatly
> reduced one would think.
Apparently "one" is not thinking much beyond the superficial
The only problems is HOW do you PRE-identify 'angst-ridden homicidal
lunatics" until they actually BECOME "angst-ridden homicidal lunatics" ?
> Or you could just continue with the status quo, whereby citizens continue
> to be murdered at a staggering rate.
Most citizens are NOT "murdered at a staggering rate" by 'angst-ridden
homicidal lunatics"
Most people being murdered are criminals by criminals (See Drug Wars)
In actual fact in the US, young black and hispanic males are 7 times more
likeley to be murder and 5 times more likely to commit murder than any other
group in the population. It should also be noted that these are typically
gang-bangers who
are either too young to LEGALLY own a firearm
are felons who are LEGALLY DISQUALIFIED from owning firearms
In other words they are criminals killing other criminals
> It's your call I suppose, but I'm glad I don't live in the shit hole.
And do tells us about the shithole you live in
One has to wonder since you have to hide behind AIOE aka
eternal-september.org.
I'm willing to be that your shithole is a far bigger one.
Jim Alder
news:emkm75lkhb5h6smth...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:39:08 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"seon" <se...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in news:4a7a3ac9$0$22806$5a62ac22
>>@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>>
>>> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
>>> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
>>> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
>>> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
>>> Hmmm.
>>
>> It doesn't "seem" that way, pal. It's what they do. Thje funny part is,
>> they think they can say "Look! Here's a one in a million guy who goes
>> nuts and
>>shoots people, so the other 999,999 should be defenseless!" and think THEY
>>don't sound as nuts as this guy!
>>
> According to this guy's blog, Fran throwing him a sympathy fuck could
> have prevented it as well.
Maybe. Of course then he might have just shot himself. <G>
>>> "Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8e530b55-51d9-4c99...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> |||
>>>>
>>>> {...}
>>>> On Tuesday night, the gunman walked into the fitness center, entered a
>>>> "Latin impact" dance aerobics class and placed a duffel bag on the
>>>> ground. After pausing a few moments, he took out at least two guns out
>>>> of the bag and started shooting.
>>>>
>>>> Three women were killed and nine people were injured. Police say may
>>>> have fired as many as 52 shots before turning the gun on himself and
>>>> committing suicide.
>>>>
>>>> {...}
>>>>
>>>> [A] 4,610-word Web page, on a domain registered in Sodini's name,
appeared
>>>> to be a nine-month chronology of his plans to commit the shooting, his
>>>> decision to delay it and the process that led to the eventual carnage at
>>>> the health club Tuesday
>>>>
>>>> "The biggest problem of all is not having relationships or friends, but
not
>>>> being able to achieve and acquire what I desire in those or many other
>>>> areas," said an entry dated Sunday. "Everthing stays the same regardless
of
>>>> the effert I put in. If I had control over my life then I would be
happier.
>>>> But for about the past 30 years, I have not."
>>>>
>>>> {...}
>>>>
>>>> The gunman went into the health club planning to shoot several people
>>>> � firing "multiple" weapons "indiscriminately" � and didn't say
>>>> anything before unleashing a burst of bullets, Moffatt said. Moffatt
>>>> said police recovered at least two guns from the scene and a note from
>>>> the shooter's duffel bag, but he would not say who wrote it.
>>>>
>>>> "I don't think anyone could have stopped him," Moffatt said.
>>>>
>>>> In the Web site posted under his name, Sodini wrote rambling messages
>>>> about his hatred of women and how he was tired of being rejected by
>>>> them. He ended by writing, "Death Lives!"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jCr-
>>>> 8hvMxT_o93eW1whvXEAyJfqAD99SPD5O0
>>>>
>>>> |||
>>>>
>>>> A visit to George's website confirms that he is the very archetype of
>>>> a creepy loner:
>>>>
>>>> http://georgesodini.com/20090804.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He is clearly some repug whack job and gets himself going election day
>>>> with sexual fantasies mapped onto his own inadequacies: "Black dudes
>>>> have thier choice of best white hoez."
>>>>
>>>> Apparently he was in touch with some god bothere who left him with the
>>>> idea that mass murder was no bar to heaven:
>>>>
>>>> |||
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tetelestai Church in Pittsburgh, PA - "Be Ye Holy, even as I have been
>>>> Ye holy! Thus saith the lord thy God!", as pastor Rick Knapp would
>>>> proclaim. Holy shit, religion is a waste. But this guy teaches (and
>>>> convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven.
>>>>
>>>> ||||
>>>>
>>>> After some rambling about how women have not supplied him with sex and
>>>> his jealousy athe success of others, and his job fears this
>>>> appears ...
>>>>
>>>> ||||
>>>>
>>>> August 3, 2009:
>>>> I took off today, Monday, and tomorrow to practice my routine and make
>>>> sure it is well polished. I need to work out every detail, there is
>>>> only one shot. Also I need to be completely immersed into something
>>>> before I can be successful. I haven't had a drink since Friday at
>>>> about 2:30. Total effort needed. Tomorrow is the big day.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately I talked to my neighbor today, who is very positive and
>>>> upbeat. I need to remain focused and absorbed COMPLETELY. Last time I
>>>> tried this, in January, I chickened out. Lets see how this new
>>>> approach works.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. {...}
>>>>
>>>> ||||
>>>>
>>>> Yep ... certifiable and in possession of two guns, a bunch of
>>>> ammunition and a pile of misogyny, angst and hatred for America as it
was.
>>>>
>>>> Death Lives indeed
>>>>
>>>> Fran
Sid9
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:Xns9C5FC3A1872B8We...@216.196.97.142...
I don't know.
I'm not a gun expert nor am I an expert on loons.
I think you are far more qualified to resolve this problem
then I am.
SaPeIsMa
>
> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:tfuem.47643$0z7....@newsfe07.iad...
>>
>>
>> Swampfox wrote:
>>> news:Xns9C5F3F1A5406j...@216.196.97.142...
>>>> Fran <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And now those who want to take away Americans
>>>>>> freedom's/liberties/right to
>>>>>> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda.
>>>>>> I was
>>>>>> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right
>>>>>> wing
>>>>>> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their
>>>>>> agenda.
>>>>>> Hmmm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
>>>>> the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
>>>> That's because a right to life includes a right to protect that
>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>>> There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
>>>>> die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
>>>>> opportunity to die is much expanded.
>>>> With my 2nd amendment rights I am less likely to die at the hands of
>>>> another.
>>>>
>>>>> Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching for is the right
>>>>> to deal with angst by killing at random people who are representative
>>>>> of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
>>>> No, what Seon is pitching for is the right to be able to protect
>>>> himself
>>>> from one of your angst-ridden homicidal lunatics. What YOU are pitching
>>>> is
>>>> your rabid paranoia toward your fellow man, thinking they are all
>>>> secretly
>>>> insane just waiting for you to get on that one last nerve.
>>>
>>> Not speaking for Fran of course, but I think what she's pitching for is
>>> the removal of firearms from the hands of angst-ridden homicidal
>>> lunatics, which makes eminently good sense to me.
>>
>> lunatics" without running rough shod all over our rights?
>
> The right that I cherish the most, even more than the right to a free
> vote, is the right to live in peace.
And ?
Are you trying to claim that the shithole you live in provides such a
garantee ?
Feel free to name the country to live in so we can decide how true that is.
> I would find that impossible knowing that a good percentage of my near
> neighbours were in posession of a small arsenal.
>
And why would that bother you as long as they are law-abiding ?
I don't worry much about people who LEGALLY own guns
They are usually far better citizens than the ones who do not.
One only has to look at some of the data coming out of Concealed-carry
states like Florida and Texas, where the state is required to keep
statistics on the criminal behavior of permit holders.
Clearly you worry about the wrong things
But that's typical of the ignorant.
>>
>>
>>> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby unarmed then the need
>>> for the general citizenry to protect themselves from them would be
>>> greatly reduced one would think.
>>
>> One would think but unless you can identify all such people all the time
>> then people would still need the option to protect themselves, and heck
>> even if you could obtain 100% accuracy, that still shouldn't make it so
>> that people are denied that ability.
>
> If no one but the military and the police had firearms then the need to
> protect yourself by means of arms would be greatly reduced, or so it seems
> to me.
>
Too bad that you are clueles on the subject
There are tons of countries with strict gun-control where only the military,
the police and the criminals are armed
Most are called DICTATORSHIPS where citizens live in fear PERIOD
And even those that are NOT dictatorships are far less safe than the US.
See Mexico for overall
And then you have places like Canada where rapes are double that of the US
or the UK where burglaries are double that of the US...
Maybe instead of making ignorant presumptions, you should actually go out
and EDUCATE yourself..
>>
>>
>>> Or you could just continue with the status quo, whereby citizens
>>> continue to be murdered at a staggering rate.
>>
>> No, I think we need to identify and work to correct the causes of why
>> people turn to violence. You will never eliminate it, but it can be
>> addressed. The problem is, those things aren't issues people want to take
>> on because there is no quick fix and results are decades in showing up.
>
> And that as well, it doesn't need to be exclusive.
>
Since there has NEVER BEEN any causality between gun-control and reduction
of crime, that is the ONLY INTELLIGENT solution
But for superficial people, feel-good but ineffective solutions are more
apt to let them sleep better at night in FULL IGNORANCE.
>>
>>
>>> It's your call I suppose, but I'm glad I don't live in the shit hole.
>>
>> There are worse places to be.....I understand the violent crime rate is
>> quite high in the UK and Australia.
>
> The murder rate per capita in the USA is almost treble that of either
> Australia or the UK, but you are right, there are worse places to be.
> The per capita murder rate in Columbia is 15 times higher than the USA.
> I'm glad I don't live in either of the shit holes.
>
Since homicide is NOT caused by presence of absence of guns, (unless you
believe in deadly gun rays),
And since there are tons of countries with strict gun control and HIGHER
homicide rates than the US
What exactly is your point, other than just demonstrating ignorance,
prejudice, and bigotry ?
By the way, according to Nationmaster.com
Australia is right next to the US for
Assaults (per capita) 7.02 v 7.56
Apparently you're just as bad as the Yanks.
Robberies (per capita) 1.16 v 1.38
Way ahead of the US in
Burglaries (per capita) 21.75 v 7.09
How do you sleep at night ?
Car thefts (per capita) 6.92 v 3,88
Better buy a junker than a nice one....
Rapes (per capita) 0,78 v 0.30
Not much respect for your women there, bub
So it appears that Australia is a far more dangerous shithole than the US..
Also, I heard that the numbers for the ABOS are NOT included in the general
stats, because it would raise all your rates even more..
SaPeIsMa
On Aug 6, 3:03 pm, "Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com> wrote:
> "Jim Alder" <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
# Actually what I'm pitching for is something that puts the onus on
# putative firearms owners to show
#
# a) that they are fit and proper persons to possess firearms
# b) that they have a bona fide reason for having the firearms(s) they
# have
# c) that they have taken adequate steps to ensure that nobody who fails
# to meet either (a) or (b) can hope to gain control of their firearm(s)
#
And how well did that work for Countries like
Canada, University of Montreal and Dawson College, Quebec Legislature ?
the UK - Hungerford ?
and Australia - Port Arthur ?
All those countries had such restrictions at the time of those shootings
Did NOTHING to stop them
As a matter of fact, it just changed the weapon of choice of the killers,
which is why the UK is now considering banning pointy knives...
#
# Had motor vehicles and mobile phones been about when the Second
# Amendment was drafted, it's likely it would have read something like:
#
# ||
# A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
# State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, to operate
# suitable motor vehicles and to have frree access to all that is
# necesary to operate portable communication devices shall not be
# infringed. �
But since they were not around
WHO THE FUCK CARES ?
That argument is in the same category as claiming that modern communication
devices are not protected under the First Amendment, because they didn't
exist 200 years ago..
Total NONSENSE
#|||
# Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose the
# right to operate one.
And ironicaly in the US the accidental death rate from car accidents is over
42,000 while the accidental death rate from guns is UNDER 900
Maybe cars should be regulated MORE strictly and guns less.
And let's not forget that in the US, every year, over 2,500,000 Americans
avoid being the victims of criminals through DGUs (Defensive Gun Use)
# Our hoon laws now say that they can be confiscated.
What on earth are "hoon laws" ?
# Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of
# orders can contact and which phones they can use.
And I'm willing to bet that just like "protection orders" they're really
effective at stopping criminals, when you consider that criminals are what
they are BECAUSE they ignore the law..
(Can you say "naive" ?)
#
# Motor vehicles are dangerous things but in America, they are better
# controlled than guns (and even motor vehicles could do with better
# control).
And yet in America those (more) controlled cars cause over 42,000 deaths and
over a millions injuries, while those uncontrolled guns account for less
than 900 deaths an less than 10,000 injuries
Clearly you are clueless at what are more dangerous, cars or guns
> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
> protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced
> one would think.
#
# Exactly. Why not have an annual psychiatric evaluation -- perhaps a
# family visit by someone professional to see that everyone is "happy
# happy joy joy" plus the odd randomised visit?
Ah yes, let's have Big Brother decide
By the way, in the Soviet, Big Brother considered dissidents either mentally
ill or criminals, and happily locked them up in Asylums or Gulags, which no
real standard as to whom was qualified for which.
# The gun safe could be inspected for integrity at the same time.
And let's not forget how usefull a gun safe actually is
"Hold on, mr Burglar, while I get my gun out of my gun safe to protect my
family from you..."
Maybe that's why burglary rates are much higher in Australia, the UK and
Canada than the US
# Harm minimisation
Too bad that you haven't looked at the other side of the coin
When can we expect you to do that
Let's start with turning 2,500,000 Americans into additional crime victims
each years
That's 1,500,000 to 4,000,000+ annually
That DEFINITELY does NOT qualify as "Harm minimisation", in the real
world...
SaPeIsMa
"Billary/2009" <BillaryCl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f63741d-6a2e-476f...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> c) that they have taken adequate steps to ensure that nobody who fails
>
>
> |||
> |||
>
> Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose the
> confiscated. Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of
> orders can contact and which phones they can use.
>
>
> > If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> > unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
> > protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced
> > one would think.
>
> inspected for integrity at the same time.
>
>
> Fran
>
> > Or you could just continue with the status quo,
> > whereby citizens continue to be murdered at a
> > staggering rate.
>
> > - Show quoted text -
#
# Who the fuck cares what a Limey has to say about anything?
Actually you should consider it an opportunity to educate
If not the poster, at least others who may be lurking
SaPeIsMa
> >> "Jim Alder" <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote...
> >> > Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching
> >> >> for is the right
> >> >> to deal with angst by killing at random people who
> >> >> are representative
> >> >> of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
>
> >> > No, what Seon is pitching for is the right to be
> >> > able to protect himself
> >> > from one of your angst-ridden homicidal lunatics.
> >> > What YOU are pitching is
> >> > your rabid paranoia toward your fellow man, thinking
> >> > they are all secretly
> >> > insane just waiting for you to get on that one last nerve.
>
> >> Not speaking for Fran of course, but I think what
> >> she's pitching for is the removal of firearms from the
> >> hands of angst-ridden homicidal lunatics, which makes eminently good
> >> sense to me.
>
> > Actually what I'm pitching for is something that puts the onus on
> > putative firearms owners to show
>
> > a) that they are fit and proper persons to possess firearms
> > b) that they have a bona fide reason for having the firearms(s) they
> > have
> > c) that they have taken adequate steps to ensure that nobody who fails
> > to meet either (a) or (b) can hope to gain control of their firearm(s)
>
>
# Who is 'us'? " Which personalities ask? Do you ask by the appointment
# of others?
#
> 1) Demonstrate that you are sufficiently intelligent to express an
> opinion?
# Check my profile. Make up your own mind, if you have one. The
# structure of this post was a clue. If it isn't that's scarcely my
# fault.
#
> 2) Show some academic records or CV showing your expertise on the law,
> specifically Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.
# I've studied law including Constituional Law at tertiary level. I''m
# familiar with your system and this debate. Good enough.
#
> 3) Show facts and figures that prove your proposed methods will actually
> prove to benefit the people overall and not just give your paranoia a
> boost.
>
# This is usenet. Can you seriously be asking that right here right now
# I undertake a refereed exercise in modelling costs in the US of the
# compiance measures and the law enforcement implications when the
# likely jurisdictions aren't going to contemplate the measures?
#
# It's hard to see how anyone doing as I suggested could boost whatever
# paranoia you assert I have though. You seem to be the one suffering
# paranoia.
#
> Yes, I know you think you have the right to free speech. Ironic, ain't
> it?
>
# It's otten claimed that Americans don't get irony. You just reminded
# me why people say that.
Poor franny.
It's even funnier that you make a comment about not getting irony
You sure didn't get his when he took your rules, re-defined them, and
applied them to you mouthing off ignorantly about gun-control
> > Had motor vehicles and mobile phones been about when the Second
> > Amendment was drafted, it's likely it would have read something like:
>
> >|||
> > A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
> > State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, to operate
> > suitable motor vehicles and to have frree access to all that is
> > necesary to operate portable communication devices shall not be
> > infringed. �
> >|||
>
> I have no idea why you would think such a thing, but then I feel the same
> way about the rest of your ideas.
>
#
# You should have halted your sentence at the end of the fourth word.
# The rest was redundant.
Q: What is the sound of a concept going in one of franny's ears, coming
out the other, and never slowing down in between ?
A: There is no sound in vacuum...
> > Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose
the
> > right to operate one.
>
> You don't have a 'right' to operate a car. You have a 'right' to own a
> gun. You can also lose that right if you 'mess up' sufficiently. In either
> case (car or gun) people can die when you 'mess up'.
>
> > Our hoon laws now say that they can be confiscated.
>
> Our what now?
>
#
# In Australia Mr Alder
#
Ah yes
Australia where crimes like burglary, rape, etc, except for homicide are
much higher than in the US.
> > Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of
> > orders can contact and which phones they can use.
>
> What?
>
In Australia Mr Alder
> > Motor vehicles are dangerous things but in America, they are better
> > controlled than guns (and even motor vehicles could do with better
> > control).
>
> That's because they are used in public in close proximity to many others
> on roads built by the state and hence responsible for wear and tear on
> said
> roads. And you don't have a 'right' to drive a car on public roads.
>
> >> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> >> unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
> >> protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced one would think.
>
> > Exactly. Why not have an annual psychiatric evaluation -- perhaps a
> > family visit by someone professional to see that everyone is "happy
> > happy joy joy" plus the odd randomised visit?
>
> How about the same thing for everyone, just in case YOU should acquire a
> gun illegally.
#
# Personally, I'd be untroubled by this, but as I understand it, funds
# are short for health in the US (as they are here) and so as a matter
# of priority it woulkd seem ill-advised. Here in Australia we have very
# little gun crime and very few guns out there.
How could you understand anything when you are ignorant ?
But then that is why you need to change the subject, because you can't
answer the question
> Of course this would require the odd randomized search of your
> premises for guns and ammo, which would be quite involved, going through
> your
> underwear drawer and all.
>
#
# Yep ... you're paranoid
#
And here comes the defamatory attack, instead of an intelligent response.
So tritely predictable
> > The gun safe could be
> > inspected for integrity at the same time.
>
> As would your fridge and freezer, since those are splendid hiding places
> for guns and such. Say, you've got young children but I don't see a bottle
> of
> milk or OJ in here, but you do have a bottle of Grey Goose in the freezer.
> I
> wonder what Child Services would think about this....
>
#
# I'm a vegetarian. I have no geese in my freezer.
#
It's "bottle of Grey Goose" franny
Don't you even read for comprehension ?
> > Harm minimisation
>
> I consider the destruction of my rights to be serious harm, Fran.
>
#
# Begs the question: Are your rights being destroyed? I'd say not.
But since you speak out of ignorance, franny, what makes you think your
sayings are relevant
# If you wish to become part of a well-regulated militia then by all means,
# apply to your state government so that you can get the program going
# and if someone apart from the state gets in your way, then complain.
Too bad that the Supreme Court just recently reaffirmed in a case called
Heller (Decided June 26, 2008), that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has
NOTHING to do with being in a militia...
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
:Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm
unconnected with service in a militia,
and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,
such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2�53.
So that goes that silly notion
And you claimed to have some knowledge of Constitutional issues on the
subject.
# You do realise that the Second Amendment doesn't bind the states don't
# you?
# The states can decide whether anyone can bear arms or not. It's
# only the Feds who are restrained from stopping you getting about with
# your buddies and playing soldiers dressed like Daniel Boone and
# picking of them Fed tyrants
Well actually that question has been clearly challenged by a case that just
came out of the 9th disctrict Court of Appeals, called Nordyke.
They came out and VERY CLEARLY stated otherwise
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf
And in a case before the US Supreme Court called MacDonald, the State of
California has applied to have Certiorari granted so that the Supremes can
decide of the Nordyke decision is valid throughout the country
http://www.alicemariebeard.com/law/Amicus_for_Cert_CA_AG.pdf
Fran
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7ed0a4ed-eda6-4ab9...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
> > own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
> > wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
> > loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
> > Hmmm.
>
> #
> # It's interesting Seon.
> #
> # In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
> # the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
>
> What's a weapon of mass murder ?
Any weapon that makes mass murder easy as a matter of practice? A lot
of things could qualify for that -- poisons for example, anthrax etc
and technically speaking, if there were a "National Anthrax
Association" they could apply for Second Amendment protection of the
rights or people to hold weapons-grade anthrax.
> The most recent ones I know about are
> Airplaines (9.11)
> Anfo (Oklahoma City)
> Pyrotechnics (West Warwick RI)
> Just to name 3...
>
Yes, what's your point?.
> #
> # There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
> # die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
> # opportunity to die is much expanded.
>
> Really ?
> Do explan that one
>
Well plainly, in addition to the usual ways one can anticipate dying
on any given day -- motor vehicle accident for example -- one has to
assume the people in the street who are having a bad hair day have the
option of expressing themselves with a weapon that can kill at
significant range.
That's surely a cure for the hum drum of urban life, no?
That's what people need -- more random murderous events, surely.
People set too much store by predictability, wouldn't you say?
> #
> # Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching for is the right
> # to deal with angst by killing at random people who are representative
> # of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
>
> Is he now
> Why don't you point in out IN DETAIL, how you have come to that conclusion
>
Well, he's saying it was OK in practice for some nutbag with issues
with women to have a gun to express his feelings. What one foresees
but doesn't seek to restrain, one permits.
> # The Second Amendment right was conceived to restrain the Federal
> # government from trampling on the rights of the states by allowing the
> # citizenry to form 'a well regulated militia' to resist Federal power.
>
> At least you got that part right, escept for one detail
> The Framers also CLEARLY believed that ARMED INDIIDUALS are in the best
> position to defend their rights and freedoms from a government that wanted
> to "trample" their INDIVIDUAL rights
Not clearly at all ... the words don't say that. at all. The Second
Amendment merely note the obvious -- that both well-regulated militia
and access of such militia to arms are necessary conditions for a free
state. They didn't say this was "best" or even sufficient. Essentially
they said ... all things considered, we'd better put this in, just in
case. At the time, the idea was reasonable, because America was
essentially an embryonic state with virtually no governing
infrastructure that was deeply divided over its relationship with
external powers. and confronted by indigenous folk who were buying
modern arms from the Europeans.
America is no longer that place.
> After all that was what all the fighting during the Revolution was all
> about..
> Too bad you never learned that part of history
>
You failed to understand it in context, whatever you read.
> You also forgot or never learned the part that:
> a) "well-regulated" did NOT mean framed by regulations, but insteand
> meand "properly functionning" as in a "well-regulated clock"
There's nothing about clocks in there. But even if there were, clocks
are 'well-regulated" because mechanical rules govern the operation of
the hands. The word 'regulate" derives from the latin word for word
for "rule" (regula). So does the word "regal". Dig deeper and you get
*regis* for "king" -- a ruler.Further pack at proto-indo-european you
get the stem *reg* -- move in a straight line. The well known Indian
word "Raj" shares this base in Sanskrit -- "king". Interestingly, the
word for king in Gaelic is "righ" from the same route which later
morphed into our contemporary view of *rights* -- things over which we
had power.
So you can see (or you should) that the question of *rights* and
*rules* and the notion of the sovereign are eternally connected. One
can't have *rights* apart from *rules* and in the minds of the framers
this would have seemed obvious. So a well-*reg*ulated militia is one
that operates under clear rules with a command structure ultimately
traceable to the free state, the writ of which it the militia was
conceived to protect..
> b) The writing of the Framers like Madison, Jefferson, et all, clearly
> contain VERY SPECIFIC PROOF that they beleived in an INDIVIDUAL Right to
> Keep and Bear Arms.
>
You want to move the goalposts do you? Second Amendment not good
enough eh? You want the law to be based on some guess about James
Madison's personal opinion?
> # Nothing in the Second Amendment says that some bongo who is miffed
> # because all his sexual enjoyment comes out of his right hand is
> # entitled to go buy some guns and shoot some 'hoes'.
>
> You're quite right that NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment is about committing
> crimes like murder
> And that argument is a dishonest and false strawman argument, ONLY used by
> liars and gun-controllers.
>
Fallacy: Affirm the consequent
Who uses the argument doesn't affect the integrity of the claim. You
need to show that the Second Amendment contemplates purely individual
access to guns absent a well-regulated militia.
> # George Sodini was not part of a 'well regulated militia' nor had he any
> plans to join
> # one that would be frustrated by less liberal gun laws.
>
> Maybe, maybe not
Not maybe. His website was a testimony to his state of mind. He
doesn't mention getting involved with a militia to defend the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from Federal or other tyranny. He talks
of masturbation as his only sexual relief.
> But he probably qualified to be in the "General Militia" as per US Code, up
> to the time he decided to become a murderer and criminal
>
Irrelevant, even if true.
> # Like almost all people not in the law enforcement or
> # armed services communities possessing guns in the US,
> # he was completely unregulated.
>
> More lies from the left
> There are over 20,000 gun laws in the US
> That's pretty regulated
>
Not regulated enough, plainly. Right now, the US is the main source of
guns for Mexican criminals shooting it out with the Mexican police,
murdering judges, citizens etc.
> And back to the use of the term "well regulated".
> It does NOT mean "regulated by laws"
> It means "properly functionning" as in a "well regulated clock"
> Do your homework and educate yourself on this one
>
I did my homework years ago. I have training in History, Law and
Linguistics. Your grasp is superficial.
> # And if he'd announced that he was forming a 'well regulated militia
> # to resist Federal power' he'd have been landed on by the FBI
> # to the applause of the NRA.
>
> So now you claim to speak for BOTH the FBI and the NRA ?
> Methinks you are a liar..
>
You think very little, plainly, and you speak without knowledge.
|||
BE IT REAFFIRMED AND RESOLVED THAT:
The NRA vehemently disavows any connection with, or tacit approval of,
any club or individual which advocates (1) the overthrow of duly
constituted government authority, (2) subversive activities directed
at any government, (3) the establishment or maintenance of private
armies or group violence.
The NRA does not approve or support any group activities that properly
belong to the national defense or the police.
{...}
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/nra.militia.statement.html
|||
> #
> # This has nothing to do with "the rights of Americans' unless you mean
> # the right not to be shot by some whackjob with a chip on his shoulder
> # who needed treatment for his mental health a lot more than he needed a
> # gun.
>
> Indeed you got this right
> But then considering that you got it right for all the wrong reasons
> That's the equivalent of a stopped clock getting the time right twice a day.
> Not of any great value
>
> # Oddly, many of the same people who get up on their hind legs about gun
> # rights are opposing provision of the health care that would see people
> # like George Sodini get the help they need without killing people
> # taking a dance class,
>
> Considering that some of the provisions that you are referring to, are so
> broad, that someone seeking some counseling for the loss of a mate, would
> also be at risk of losing their rights, your position is also a false and
> dishonest one..
Begs the question ... again ... what rights?
> But at least you are consistent.
>
Always, or at least I try.
Fran
SaPeIsMa
On Aug 6, 1:34 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7ed0a4ed-eda6-4ab9...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
> >> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right
> >> to
> >> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I
> >> was
> >> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right
> >> wing
> >> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their
> >> agenda.
> >> Hmmm.
>
>
> > In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
>
>
>
> > not part of a 'well regulated militia' nor had he any plans to join
> > people not in the law enforcement or armed services communities
> > possessing guns in the US, he was completely unregulated. And if he'd
> > announced that he was forming a 'well regulated militia to resist
> > Federal power' he'd have been landed on by the FBI to the applause of
> > the NRA.
>
> > This has nothing to do with "the rights of Americans' unless you mean
>
> > Oddly, many of the same people who get up on their hind legs about gun
>
> Yep your right. the second amendment does not give some right wing loon
> the
> right to kill innocent people. It gives Americans the right and liberty to
> be able to own a gun and defend themselves.
#
# No, it doesn't do anything of the sort.
#
# Here's what it says:
#
# |||
# 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. �
# |||
#
#
# It's clear that the purpose of 'keeping and bear[ing] arms' realted to
# the ability to draft citizens to protect the state. At the time, the
# Americans had just fought off the British but they were not sure if at
# some point, there wouldn't be attempts to seize the government or
# subvert it and take away US Independence.
Apparently your reading skills are NOT up to snuff, franny.
The first phrase:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State,"
is NOT a conditional phrase that binds the 2nd part
It's just a statement of something that would be nice to have
:
And by the way, "well-regulated" in this case does NOT mean framed by
regulations...
It means properly functionning, as in a "well regulated clock".
A phrase and meaning in common use at the time.
Oh and by the way,
The US Supreme Court, in a case called Heller decided last summer, CLEARLY
stated that YOU are wrong.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
# You'll note that the word used is not 'guns' but 'arms'. In rpinciple,
# one could have a suitcase bomb or an ICBM. It also doesn't say
# 'people' but 'the people' -- which means the community not
# individuals.
And now you're going to start tying to split hairs ?
"Arms" means "personal arms"
NEITHER suitcase bombs, NOR ICBMS, are NOT personal arms by ANY meaning of
the word.
This is just an example of stupidity also squished in Heller
:(f) None of the Court�s precedents forecloses the Court�s
interpretation.
Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264�265, refutes the
individualrights
interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not
limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by
the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47�54.
# It also doesn't say 'people' but 'the people'
# -- which means the community not individuals.
And now we go into the communal right bullshit
Start reading Heller on pages 8 and 9, for Scalia's brilliant rebuttal of
that hoary nonsense
#
# It was an added bonus that given there were no regular police and
# coastal areas were at risk from pirate raids, people could go out and
# protect their town.
#
# Things have moved on.
Well that's nice
But the constitution does not change JUST BECAUSE, in YOUR opinion, "things
have moved on"
By the way, in the US, more than 2,500,000 people use guns EACH YEAR to
avoid being the victims of criminals
Apparently things have not "moved on" that much since the 18th Century
<snip>
> Now I do not own a gun but I do ascribe to this poem:
>
> First they came for the Communists,
> and I didn't speak up,
> because I wasn't a Communist.
> Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up,
> because I wasn't a Jew.
> Then they came for the Catholics,
> and I didn't speak up,
> because I was a Protestant.
> Then they came for me,
> and by that time there was no one
> left to speak up for me.
>
> I would add people like you are like:
>
> Then they came for the gun owners
> and I didn't speak up
> Because I don't own a gun
>
> In fact that poem needs to be updated.
#
# Pastor Niemoller would be scandalised.
#
Really ?
Why ?
Maybe with hindsight, Pastor Niemoller would be a very PRO 2nd Amendment
person
After all
Jesus was too...
SaPeIsMa
> >> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right
> >> to
> >> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I
> >> was
> >> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right
> >> wing
> >> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their
> >> agenda.
> >> Hmmm.
>
> > It's interesting Seon.
>
> > In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
> > the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
>
> > There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
> > die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
> > opportunity to die is much expanded.
>
> into the workings of a massive printing press, or freedom of religion
> allows you to burn someone at the stake, etc.
>
# The analogy is contrived. Presses are not physical weapons. Nothing in
# the right to religious belief differentially enables people to kill
# others. Plainly, one can kill for any reason.
On the other hand, since you argue elsewhere that things have changed in 200
years current personal arms should not qualify under the 2nd Amendment
By that logic Modern printing presses, the internet, ink-jet printers could
be banned, since after all they didn't exist 200 years ago either, and thus
are not protected like quill pens and single page presses that were in
existence at the time.
> Yea, we should allow anyone to have rights, after all, we hardly want to
> expand the opportunity of people to die because of rights
#
# Take a deep breath and work out what it is you want to claim. Then
# post.
LOL
A rule you should also take to heart
SaPeIsMa
On Aug 6, 8:20 am, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 11:39 pm, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
> > "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in
> > news:4a7a3ac9$0$22806$5a62ac22
> > @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
> > > And now those who want to take away Americans
> > > freedom's/liberties/right to
> > > own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I
> > > was
> > > wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right
> > > wing
> > > loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their
> > > agenda.
> > > Hmmm.
>
> > they think they can say "Look! Here's a one in a million guy who goes
> > nuts and
> > shoots people, so the other 999,999 should be defenseless!" and think
> > THEY
> > don't sound as nuts as this guy!
>
> certificate but he insists that Pres. Obama should show his. Show us
> your, Juan.
>
> And Juan now insists that buying lots of guns is your right. He
> insists that only the good people will have and use guns to defend
> themselves from skulking criminals. But yesterday's killer was the
> typical mass murderer. He should have had his problem cared for by
> our society, killing people with registered guns is a bit upsetting.
> But he didn't. He had a blog that describe what he was going to do.
> And no body did a thing.
>
> The real problem here is it's easier to get legal guns than health
> care.
#
# You're a fucking stalker CUNTingham. You should get some help. Or at
# the very least, start taking your medications again.
He also is a stupid troll that you should killfile
And actually, if you don't have money, you can get healthcare in the US.
That's why so many illegal aliens come north to the US
For the free health care which is bankrupting border states like
California.
Mitchell Holman
news:xqqdncjWqdwm8ebX...@posted.cpinternet:
>
>
> The Framers also CLEARLY believed that ARMED INDIIDUALS are in the
> best position to defend their rights and freedoms from a government
> that wanted to "trample" their INDIVIDUAL rights
If the intent of the framers is paramount then
of course you oppose gun restrictions on felons
and mental patients and children, none of whom were
denied "gun rights" by said framers.
Gray Ghost
september.org:
Hmm, so you keep telling us to police our own but you don't know what that
means?
Private citizens do not have police powers. I had hoped if you made the
suggestion you'd be smart enough to have an answer. My bad.
Gray Ghost
@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
And can we hold them responsible if they are wrong?
Fran
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You misunderstand. The purpose of law is to protect the legitimate
interests of individuals as best those individuals can conceive both
the interests and the resources to defend them. That's one of the
problems with having overarching sets of rules. They become dated or
the source of anomaly because the factors that moved their institution
initially no longer apply.
What really matters is not 'what the founding fathers intended' even
if one could be confident one knew what that was, because the
"founding fathers", and everyone who ever met them and the next 20
generations of those people's descendants are now all dead and have no
interests to protect. The people of the late 18th Century have no
business at all binding the behaviour of the people alive in the early
21st Century even allowing that this was their ambition. They have no
standing. To grant them standing to do so diminishes, to that extent,
the sovereignty of everyone alive now. In a very real sense, the
Constitution, interpreted by fundamentalists, exists *at the expense*
of the rights of the people of America, because it infringes their
scope to determine how to give effect to their interests.
Now, there are good policy reasons for concluding that the broad
principles specified in the Constitution are of enduring value and
represent an appropriate and indispensible part of any specification
of the rights of contemporary Americans. Concepts such as the
presumption that people may assemble and speak freely, that all people
are deemed ethical equals and so forth. These leave open to every
generation how to translate these things into policy. Yet a
fundamentalist interpretation might declare that equality was for
'men' only when today we would affirm that 'men' should be read as
including women, people of transgender, children and so forth. There
was a time when the courts took the view that those of African descent
had had 'no rights which the white man was bound to respect'. These
days, 'men' includes black men.
It is clear that these days that there is no threat to the America or
its states that randomly armed individuals could systematically abate.
These days, Barbary pirates don't raid the Eastern shores for people
to ransom. These days there are professional and highly disciplined
armed forces and police forces to do the security of the state stuff.
There are functioning courts and due process. In what sense is the
Second Amendment even relevant? It isn't. The state can and does raise
a National Guard. It's enough.
> By that logic Modern printing presses, the internet, ink-jet printers could
> be banned, since after all they didn't exist 200 years ago either,
That's just silly. I understand that this is a hot button issue for
you. You're emotional. Your abusive tone below is telling. Your claim
doesn't derive from anything I said.
If you are going to use 'what was in the minds of the founding
fathers' as a guide to the Second Amendment you wouldn't be including
semi-automatic rifles or machine pistols. Of course, what is done
today is to ignore that and to include all things that today can be
seen as 'arms' in the specification -- but if so, then a nuclear
device qualifies. So would weapons grade anthrax, an anti-tank missile
etc.
<snip>
I've managed to live my life here for 51 years without once being in a
setting where a gun would have helped. Apart from the police and
security guards at Armoured vans, I have never seen a gun in public.
It never occurs to me that my fellow shoppers might be armed and if
one comes across a couple of people arguing in the street I don't
start looking for somewhere to get out of the line of a firefight. The
numbers of police shot by non-police is near zero. We did have a spate
of gangland killings a while back in Melbourne -- one fairly recently.
A bunch of seriously criminal people set about knocking each other
off, which, given they were fairly efficient about it and there was no
collateral damage, didn't seem like such a bad outcome. Apart from
that though the actual level of serious crime where most of us live is
pretty low.
We did have a spate of mass murders of the public with guns between
the 1980s and 1996. Measures were taken by the then conservative
government to retrieve weapons at large in the community. Although I
was very hostile to this government politically, this measure was
defencible and with hindsight, has proven to be right because we've
had none since.
Now, Australia is a special case. It would be far easier to smuggle
guns across US frontiers than here. We are an island and away from
large sources of weapons. So what worked here would probably not work
in the US. There is a different attitude here to guns as well.
Nevertheless, it does seem to be the case that a whole range of
measures, including some tightening up on the distribution and
possession of firearms in America is called for if the ongoing saga of
spree killings is to be abated.
As I said earlier -- it's not simply about guns. Your health system
needs to be able to deal with mental illness (and illness in general)
and family dysfunction better than it does. But getting guns out of
the hands of people who have no good reason to have them is one key
element.
Fran
SaPeIsMa
On Aug 7, 7:55 am, Zombywoof <Zomby-W...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 15:03:43 +1000, "Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>>Not speaking for Fran of course, but I think what
> >she's pitching for is the removal of firearms from the
> >hands of angst-ridden homicidal lunatics, which makes
> >eminently good sense to me.
>
> Once they are identfied as such the law already addresses that issue.
>
# And here is the problem. At the moment, we only get to find that out
# *after* they have gone nuts with a weapon.
#
You noticed that, did you ?
You now are facing a connundrum
Do you go about assuming that every male is a rapist-to-be because they have
a penis ?
How about assuming that every woman is a whore-to-be because she has a
vagina ?
So how do you treat EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING as POTENTIAL "angst-ridden
homicidal lunatics" ?
Apparently your solution is to take away every one's guns in the hope that
your unidentified "angst-ridden homicidal lunatic", won't pick up a knife,
rock, baseball bat, bottle, or any other kind of object to use as a weapon.
You should lean from the experience of the idiot Brits, who went and banned
guns.
So now there is a thriving black market in gunsm on which the criminals are
getting rich
And the criminals who can't affford guns have turned to knives and other
tools, to the point that the idiot Brits now want to ban pointy knives.
And when the criminals turn to something else, lke a pointy screwdriver,
then the idiot Brits will go ahead and ban those
And so on, and so on, and so on, until the UK will ban sticks and stones and
anything else that they can ban in the hopes that criminals will stop using
objects to commit crimes
> >If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby
> >unarmed then the need for the general citizenry to
> >protect themselves from them would be greatly reduced
> >one would think.
>
> And exactly how do you suggest one go about identifing these so-called
> "angst-ridden homicidal lunatics"?
>
#
# See above. You want to carry a gun -- have a professional who isn't a
# buddy declare that you aren't bothered at being rejected by 'hoes' or
# morbidly prepossessed at the charms of africans for women of
# ostensibly European descent, that your plan is to live a long and
# happy life along with others in your community.
Why should I subject myself to such an inquisition in the first place ?
When the above question will fail, there will be more idiots like you to
expand the question into other areas, until effectively you'll have
eliminated everyone from qualifying
That's usual what happens when you start registration
History shows that it CONSISTENTLY leads to a full ban and confiscation, and
only leaves the law-abiding defenseless, since after all the criminals
IGNORE THE LAW.
So in effect what you propose targets the wrong people..
Stupid is a good word for this.
SaPeIsMa
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 19:01:45 -0700, <.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .!
> !!! .> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>No no, your right to go shopping with the kids, or to go to church, or to
>>just take a walk down the street is NOT AS IMPORTANT as some crazed
>>fuckwit's right to mow you and your family down with an assault weapon.
>>
>>Sheesh, dont you know anything?
>>
> Well let's see what you know. Define assault weapon.
>
And let's nor forget how often whole families are mowed down with said
"assault weapons".
By the way, I recently heard about a family that was recently "mowed down"
by a bad case of dysentery from some tainted hamburger
Does that hamburger qualify as an "assault weapon" ?
After all every member of that family was "mowed down' by it.
SaPeIsMa
On Aug 7, 5:27 am, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is usenet. Can you seriously be asking that right here right now
>
> exercise my 2nd amendment rights.
>
#
# Get it through your head: Your second amendment rights are vested in
# *the people* not *individual* people. They protect *the states* from
# *the feds*. They don't found an opportunity to be some gun toting DIY
# vigilante or the right to a large phallic object you can wave in
# people's faces to compensate for some personal deficit of your own.
1) And yet the Framer's of the US Constitution, INCLUDING the Bill of
Rights, which INCLUDES the 2nd Amendment, clearly state in MULTPLE documents
and statements that they considered the RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms)
to be an INDIVIDUAL right
2) The claim that "the people" is not a group word meaning INDIVIDUALS is
pure BULLSHIT
And it doesn't matter what YOU may fantasize on this issue, the US
SUPREME COURT has STATED VERY CLEARLY that "the people' means INDIVIDUALS
3) The Bill of Rights is NOT about "State Rights".
The Bill of Rights is RESTRICTIONS on the Government to PROTECT
INDIVIDUAL rights
And there is ONLY ONE reference to "States rights", in it
(And I'm willing to bet, you don't even know where that is...)
4) But at least you got something right
The Bill of Rights through the 2nd Amendment does not
" found an opportunity to be some gun toting DIY
vigilante or the right to a large phallic object
you can wave in people's faces to compensate
for some personal deficit of your own."
But your statement that I quote above, shows a GREAT DEAL OF PREJUDICE AND
IGNORANCE.on your part.
I'm always amused at how gun-controllers misrepresent Freud and implicit
that carrying a gun is generaly some form of phallic compesation
My experience has been that the ones screaming loudest about "compensation"
are usually the ones doing the "compensating"..
Freud also stated that the ones that have an unreasonable fear of inanimate
objects are the ones with the retarded development issues.
So franny, you give more imformation about yourself than you probably should
when you make such statements...
<snip>
#
# Oh but it did. I've read Scalia -- one of your own as I see him -- and
# it hardly alters the force or purview of the Second Amendment --
# indeed it cannot precisely because the ninth amendment sought to
# protect rights not yet specifed but implicit in the other provisions
# without allowing the consitution to be read in ways that truncated the
# ones already specified.
Too bad that your reading of Scalia was so faulty
Maybe you should try again
By the way, did you know that the "communal" interpretation of "the people"
that you are using is a fairly recent thing
It's how the gun-controllers are trying to get around the REAL meaning of
the 2nd Amendment.
Also a recent thing..
Fran
Fran
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:33674170-5958-478e...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 7, 7:55 am, Zombywoof <Zomby-W...@cox.net> wrote:> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 15:03:43 +1000, "Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > <snip>>Not speaking for Fran of course, but I think what
> > >she's pitching for is the removal of firearms from the
> > >hands of angst-ridden homicidal lunatics, which makes
> > >eminently good sense to me.
>
> > Once they are identfied as such the law already addresses that issue.
>
> #
> # And here is the problem. At the moment, we only get to find that out
> # *after* they have gone nuts with a weapon.
> #
>
> You noticed that, did you ?
> You now are facing a connundrum
> Do you go about assuming that every male is a rapist-to-be because they have
> a penis ?
> How about assuming that every woman is a whore-to-be because she has a
> vagina ?
> So how do you treat EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING as POTENTIAL "angst-ridden
> homicidal lunatics" ?
> Apparently your solution is to take away every one's guns in the hope that
> your unidentified "angst-ridden homicidal lunatic", won't pick up a knife,
> rock, baseball bat, bottle, or any other kind of object to use as a weapon.
>
Maybe if we discover that the person is potentially harmful to himself
or others we will see that he gets the treatment he needs?
It's clear you are overwrought. I can see this is upsetting you from
the increasingly hysterical tone of your strawmen.
I'm going to wish you well. If you feel you can discuss this in a calm
and rational way without outlandish claims and hyperventilating, then
I'll respond.
Until then ...
Be at peace ...
<snip>
Fran
SaPeIsMa
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:51:01 -0400, "Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Zombywoof" <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:06:59 +1000, "seon"
>>> <se...@notmyrealaddress.com>
>>>
>>>>And now those who want to take away Americans
>>>>freedom's/liberties/right to
>>>>own a gun is using this to promote their anti
>>>>Constitutional agenda. I was
>>>>wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time
>>>>some right wing
>>>>loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote
>>>>their agenda.
>>>>Hmmm.
>>>>
>>> to promote
>>> their agenda.
>>> --
>>> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take
>>> big bites.
>>> Moderation is for monks."
>>
>>What has the gun owning community done to get their right
>>wing loons under control?
>>
> control.
>
In actual fact the gun owning community is not necessarily "right-wing"
I know a whole bunch of people who are definitely "left-wing" who own guns
They don't talk about it much, but I discovered that nasty little secret,
when I ran across one of them buying ammo at a Wal-Mart 70 miles across the
state line from where he lives
Since then, a whole bunch of them "came out of the safe" so to speak and
admitted that the own guns and like to shoot.
The Ugle Republican Brand is Dead
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:7LOdnZ8ZBqZQKebX...@posted.cpinternet...
You're a self-absorbed lunatic if you actually believe any of the drivel you
just wrote.
SaPeIsMa
On Aug 7, 9:51 am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7ed0a4ed-eda6-4ab9...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:> And now
> those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
> > own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I
> > was
> > wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right
> > wing
> > loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
> > Hmmm.
>
> #
> # It's interesting Seon.
> #
> # In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
> # the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
>
> What's a weapon of mass murder ?
# Any weapon that makes mass murder easy as a matter of practice? A lot
# of things could qualify for that -- poisons for example, anthrax etc
# and technically speaking, if there were a "National Anthrax
# Association" they could apply for Second Amendment protection of the
# rights or people to hold weapons-grade anthrax.
Do you always practice being stupid ?
Or is it something that comes naturally ?
The 2nd Amendment is about "personal arms"
(Didn't you claim somehwere else to be up to speed on this ?
Where you lying or just deceiving yourself ?)
> The most recent ones I know about are
> Airplaines (9.11)
> Anfo (Oklahoma City)
> Pyrotechnics (West Warwick RI)
> Just to name 3...
>
#
# Yes, what's your point?.
#
So you were just trying to bullshit.
Got it.
> #
> # There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
> # die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
> # opportunity to die is much expanded.
>
> Really ?
> Do explan that one
>
#
# Well plainly, in addition to the usual ways one can anticipate dying
# on any given day -- motor vehicle accident for example -- one has to
# assume the people in the street who are having a bad hair day have the
# option of expressing themselves with a weapon that can kill at
# significant range.
There's an interesting book you should read called "The Polar Bear Strategy"
It's about risk analysis
Something you seem clueless about.
In the US there are OVER 42,000 accidental fatalities and more than
10,000,000 injuries from cars
There are also UNDER 900 accidental shootings and less than 10,000
accidental injuries from guns
You do the math
Which do you think is your greater risk ?
#
# That's surely a cure for the hum drum of urban life, no?
#
Only in your fantasies
#
# That's what people need -- more random murderous events, surely.
# People set too much store by predictability, wouldn't you say?
Only in your ignorant fantasies
But hey, you apparently are disconnected from reality
Probably from reading too much Brady Bunch Bullshit
> #
> # Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching for is the right
> # to deal with angst by killing at random people who are representative
> # of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
>
> Is he now
> Why don't you point in out IN DETAIL, how you have come to that conclusion
>
#
# Well, he's saying it was OK in practice for some nutbag with issues
# with women to have a gun to express his feelings. What one foresees
# but doesn't seek to restrain, one permits.
Well that is the basis of ANY FREE society
What is not forbidden is allowed
And you let individuals assume the risks of the way they live.
The more you go towards dictatorships, the less choice you have.
This should help you with the concept
www.wimp.com/thegovernment
> # The Second Amendment right was conceived to restrain the Federal
> # government from trampling on the rights of the states by allowing the
> # citizenry to form 'a well regulated militia' to resist Federal power.
>
> At least you got that part right, escept for one detail
> The Framers also CLEARLY believed that ARMED INDIIDUALS are in the best
> position to defend their rights and freedoms from a government that wanted
> to "trample" their INDIVIDUAL rights
#
# Not clearly at all ... the words don't say that. at all. The Second
# Amendment merely note the obvious -- that both well-regulated militia
# and access of such militia to arms are necessary conditions for a free
# state. They didn't say this was "best" or even sufficient. Essentially
# they said ... all things considered, we'd better put this in, just in
# case. At the time, the idea was reasonable, because America was
# essentially an embryonic state with virtually no governing
# infrastructure that was deeply divided over its relationship with
# external powers. and confronted by indigenous folk who were buying
# modern arms from the Europeans.
<sigh>
I didn't realize that you had reading comprehension issues
Do you PRESUME that I made my statement based on the 2nd Amendment ?
Or did the thought even occur to you that my statement was based on reading
OTHER MATERIAL from the Framers of the Constitution
Here are some tidbits
What Would America's Founders Say?
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so
let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so
the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.
--Thomas Jefferson
It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate,
tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the
minds of men.
--Samuel Adams
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
against tyranny in government.
-- Thomas Jefferson
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
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and
silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.
-- George Washington
When governments fear the people there is liberty.
When the people fear the government there is tyranny.
-- Thomas Jefferson
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,
there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that
original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive
forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to
arms, without concert, without system, without resource;
except in their courage and despair ...
The natural strength of the people in a large community, in
proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater
than in a small ... the people, without exaggeration, may be said
to be entirely the masters of their own fate.
-- Alexander Hamilton
We in America do not have government by the majority.
We have government by the majority who participate.
-- Thomas Jefferson
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good
conscience to remain silent.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of
the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe
depositories.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government
those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny.
-- Thomas Jefferson
#
# America is no longer that place.
#
And yet the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and even the 2nd Amendment
ARE STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND,
(no matter how such as you may wish otherwise)
> After all that was what all the fighting during the Revolution was all
> about..
> Too bad you never learned that part of history
>
#
# You failed to understand it in context, whatever you read.
#
Oh no I did NOT
But YOU did
> You also forgot or never learned the part that:
> a) "well-regulated" did NOT mean framed by regulations, but insteand
> meand "properly functionning" as in a "well-regulated clock"
#
# There's nothing about clocks in there. But even if there were, clocks
# are 'well-regulated" because mechanical rules govern the operation of
# the hands. The word 'regulate" derives from the latin word for word
# for "rule" (regula). So does the word "regal". Dig deeper and you get
# *regis* for "king" -- a ruler.Further pack at proto-indo-european you
# get the stem *reg* -- move in a straight line. The well known Indian
# word "Raj" shares this base in Sanskrit -- "king". Interestingly, the
# word for king in Gaelic is "righ" from the same route which later
# morphed into our contemporary view of *rights* -- things over which we
# had power.
Nice wanking
But meaningless, since it changes NOTHING as to the intent of the meaing
used in the 2nd Amendment by it's authors..
All you demonstrate that is that you can play with words while ignoring the
historical context
The 2nd Amendment, just like the Constitution should be read with the
MEANING of the terms AT THE TIME of writing and NOT with current usage.
#
# So you can see (or you should) that the question of *rights* and
# *rules* and the notion of the sovereign are eternally connected. One
# can't have *rights* apart from *rules* and in the minds of the framers
# this would have seemed obvious. So a well-*reg*ulated militia is one
# that operates under clear rules with a command structure ultimately
# traceable to the free state, the writ of which it the militia was
# conceived to protect..
BZZZZT
Wrong
You are so enamored with your construct, that it's sad to see that since
your premise is wrong, so is all that follows..
One has to wonder if you're just a sock-puppet for the Brady Bunch
> b) The writing of the Framers like Madison, Jefferson, et all, clearly
> contain VERY SPECIFIC PROOF that they beleived in an INDIVIDUAL Right to
> Keep and Bear Arms.
>
#
You want to move the goalposts do you? Second Amendment not good
enough eh? You want the law to be based on some guess about James
Madison's personal opinion?
Don't have to guess
He actually stated QUITE CLEARLY where he stood on the subject
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -
unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments
are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
(sounds like you and Australia)
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.
James Madison
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
over the people of almost every other nation, the existence
of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached,
and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier
against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which
a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the
military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried
as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid
to trust the people with arms.
And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able
to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess
the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves,
who could collect the national will and direct the national force,
and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments,
and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with
the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe
would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
James Madison
Source: Federalist #46, January 29, 1788
> # Nothing in the Second Amendment says that some bongo who is miffed
> # because all his sexual enjoyment comes out of his right hand is
> # entitled to go buy some guns and shoot some 'hoes'.
>
> You're quite right that NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment is about committing
> crimes like murder
> And that argument is a dishonest and false strawman argument, ONLY used by
> liars and gun-controllers.
>
#
# Fallacy: Affirm the consequent
#
# Who uses the argument doesn't affect the integrity of the claim. You
# need to show that the Second Amendment contemplates purely individual
# access to guns absent a well-regulated militia.
#
See above
See the Supreme Court Heller Decision
See the Declaration of both houses Congress in
> # George Sodini was not part of a 'well regulated militia' nor had he any
> plans to join
> # one that would be frustrated by less liberal gun laws.
>
> Maybe, maybe not
#
# Not maybe. His website was a testimony to his state of mind. He
# doesn't mention getting involved with a militia to defend the
# Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from Federal or other tyranny. He talks
# of masturbation as his only sexual relief.
That did not necessarily disqualify him from the General Militia as per the
US Code.10 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32,
under 45 years of age who are,
or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of
the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and
the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are
not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
SaPeIsMa
" The Ugle Republican Brand is Dead" <inv...@hell.com> wrote in message
news:h5gcut$jn3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Since I lived it's it's much harder to disbelieve it.
But then who cares what a dipshit like you imagines
Since after all for you, thinking is really about "feelings"....
SaPeIsMa
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
Not irrelevant at all
>> # Like almost all people not in the law enforcement or
>> # armed services communities possessing guns in the US,
>> # he was completely unregulated.
>>
>> More lies from the left
>> There are over 20,000 gun laws in the US
>> That's pretty regulated
>>
>
> Not regulated enough, plainly. Right now, the US is the main source of
> guns for Mexican criminals shooting it out with the Mexican police,
> murdering judges, citizens etc.
>
TOTAL PROPAGANDA BULLSHIT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=331859509096446
The more I read you, the more you sound like a sock-puppet for the Brady
Bunch.
Either that, or you're just a deluded usefull idiot for them
>> And back to the use of the term "well regulated".
>> It does NOT mean "regulated by laws"
>> It means "properly functionning" as in a "well regulated clock"
>> Do your homework and educate yourself on this one
>>
>
> I did my homework years ago. I have training in History, Law and
> Linguistics. Your grasp is superficial.
>
Really ?
Interesting that you spout a point of view (the communal rights view of the
2nd Amendment) that did NOT exist before WWII
Why do you think that for the 150 years before WWII that view did not
exist ?
Apparently your education was more like indoctrination
I studied Engineering Math
Then went on to Business School and even spend 10 years teaching Logic and
Systems Analysis at the Undergrad level.
I would suspect that my abilities for critical thinking and analysis are far
better developped than yours
And unlike you, I can back up my claims about the original framers with
cites
What have you presented so far, other than unsupported opinions ?
ONLY unsupported opinions..
>> # And if he'd announced that he was forming a 'well regulated militia
>> # to resist Federal power' he'd have been landed on by the FBI
>> # to the applause of the NRA.
>>
>> So now you claim to speak for BOTH the FBI and the NRA ?
>> Methinks you are a liar..
>>
>
> You think very little, plainly, and you speak without knowledge.
>
More and more probably the reverse
> |||
> BE IT REAFFIRMED AND RESOLVED THAT:
>
> The NRA vehemently disavows any connection with, or tacit approval of,
> any club or individual which advocates (1) the overthrow of duly
> constituted government authority, (2) subversive activities directed
> at any government, (3) the establishment or maintenance of private
> armies or group violence.
>
> The NRA does not approve or support any group activities that properly
> belong to the national defense or the police.
>
> {...}
>
> http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/nra.militia.statement.html
> |||
>
>
And your point is ?
Oh wait, you're a gun-controller
So naturally the NRA is you ennemy\
Do you even know why the NRA was originally formed ?
Do you even know what the PRINCIPAL activity of the NRA actually is ?
I'm willing to be that BOTH answers are a resounding NO !
>
>> #
>> # This has nothing to do with "the rights of Americans' unless you mean
>> # the right not to be shot by some whackjob with a chip on his shoulder
>> # who needed treatment for his mental health a lot more than he needed a
>> # gun.
>>
>> Indeed you got this right
>> But then considering that you got it right for all the wrong reasons
>> That's the equivalent of a stopped clock getting the time right twice a
>> day.
>> Not of any great value
>>
>> # Oddly, many of the same people who get up on their hind legs about gun
>> # rights are opposing provision of the health care that would see people
>> # like George Sodini get the help they need without killing people
>> # taking a dance class,
>>
>> Considering that some of the provisions that you are referring to, are so
>> broad, that someone seeking some counseling for the loss of a mate, would
>> also be at risk of losing their rights, your position is also a false and
>> dishonest one..
>
>
> Begs the question ... again ... what rights?
>
What ?
You claim to never have heard of the RKBA
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
A right which belong to "the people" !
A right which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !
Apparently you even have problems following a conversation
NO surprise that you are confused on more complex issues that actually
require some thought instead of lieberal regurgitation...
>> But at least you are consistent.
>>
>
> Always, or at least I try.
>
You need to try harder
As a sage said
"Not try...
Do or not do"
Yoda.
In your case, a lot of "do"....
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> >> Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > "Swampfox" <noi...@whocares.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "Jim Alder" <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>> >> >> > Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching
>> >> >> >> for is the right
>> >> >> >> to deal with �angst by killing at random people who
>> >> >> >> are representative
>> >> >> >> of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
>>
>> >> >> > � � No, what Seon is pitching for is the right to be
>> >> >> > able to protect himself
>> >> >> > from one of your angst-ridden homicidal lunatics.
>> >> >> > What YOU are pitching is
>> >> >> > your rabid paranoia toward your fellow man, thinking
>> >> >> > they are all secretly
>> >> >> > insane just waiting for you to get on that one last nerve.
>>
>> >> >> Not speaking for Fran of course, but I think what
>> >> >> she's pitching for is the removal of firearms from the
>> >> >> hands of angst-ridden homicidal lunatics, which makes eminently good
>> >> >> sense to me.
>>
>> >> > Actually what I'm pitching for is something that puts the onus on
>> >> > putative firearms owners to show
>>
>> >> > a) that they are fit and proper persons to possess firearms
>> >> > b) that they have a bona fide reason for having the firearms(s) they
>> >> > have c) that they have taken adequate steps to ensure that nobody who
>> >> > fails to meet either (a) or (b) can hope to gain control of their
>> >> > firearm(s)
>>
>> >> � � �Before we do that, perhaps you could do something for us?
>>
>> > Who is 'us'? " Which personalities ask? Do you ask by the appointment of
>> > others?
>>
>> � � �Why, the same "us" you refer to as "they" above.
>
>
> Well until 'they' make clear who they are and the mandate you carry
> for them I reject your proxy. Speak for yourself.
Fine. Call it the editorial 'we' then. You're suggesting legislature, so
am I.
>> And I'm sure they won't mind if I speak hypothetically in their
>> behalf.
>
> Oh really? What a demagogue you are! The individual rather
> disappeared, didn't he or she? And you complain about 'gubmint'?
>
>> After all, you're speaking for
>> the rest of the country, supposedly.
>>
>
> Really? That will be news foir most. It never occurred to me.
>
>
>> >> � 1) Demonstrate that you are sufficiently intelligent to express an
>> >> opinion?
>>
>> > Check my profile.
>>
>> � � The opinion of other usenet posters? Hardly documentation.
>>
>
> No -- what I've hitherto written. It's extensive.
Verbosity is hardly a recommendation. And why should I read more when I
don't like what I've seen here?
>> > Make up your own mind, if you have one. The
>> > structure of this post was a clue. If it isn't that's scarcely my fault.
>>
>> � � �It hardly seems fair for me to decide your value. Nor would it be in
your
>> best interest.
>>
>> >> � �2) Show some academic records or CV showing your expertise on the
law,
>> >> specifically Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights.
>>
>> > I've studied law including Constituional Law at tertiary level.
>>
>> � � �Third grade? It shows.
>>
>
> OK ... I can see you want to play at a third grade level ... You do
> realise implying you're an ignoramus reduces your standing?
My dictionary describes tertiary as "third." It was a judgement call.
>> > I''m familiar with your system and this debate. Good enough.
>>
>> � � � Obviously not.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> � �3) Show facts and figures that prove your proposed methods will
actually
>> >> prove to benefit the people overall and not just give your paranoia a
>> >> boost.
>>
>> > This is usenet. Can you seriously be asking that right here right now
>> > I undertake a refereed exercise in modelling costs in the US of the
>> > compiance measures and the law enforcement implications when the likely
>> > jurisdictions aren't going to contemplate the measures?
>>
>> � � �I'm as serious as you are asking me to submit to mental exams in order
to
>> exercise my 2nd amendment rights.
>
> Get it through your head: Your second amendment rights are vested in
> *the people* not *individual* people.
Oh, please. Not that tired argument. Are the other rights of "the
people" so tenuous as well?
> They protect *the states* from
> *the feds*. They don't found an opportunity to be some gun toting DIY
> vigilante or the right to a large phallic object you can wave in
> people's faces to compensate for some personal deficit of your own.
Ah, so you're going to move on to an even more tired argument. And a
pathetic one.
>> > It's hard to see how anyone doing as I suggested could boost whatever
>> > paranoia you assert I have though. You seem to be the one suffering
>> > paranoia.
>>
>> � � �No, I don't fear your whackjob ideas. I know they will never come to
>> fruition. I'm just trying to show you why they won't.
>>
>
> This is usenet. Here, in theory, ideas get discussed. People get to
> say "here's how things should be and why".
That's what we're doing.
>> >> � � �Yes, I know you think you have the right to free speech. Ironic,
ain't
>> >> it?
>>
>> > It's otten claimed that Americans don't get irony. You just reminded me
why
>> > people say that.
>>
>> >> > Had motor vehicles and mobile phones been about when the Second
>> >> > Amendment was drafted, it's likely it would have read something like:
>>
>> >> >|||
>> >> > A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
>> >> > State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, to operate
>> >> > suitable motor vehicles and to have frree access to all that is
necesary
>> >> > to operate portable communication devices shall not be infringed. �
>> >> >|||
>>
>> >> � � �I have no idea why you would think such a thing, but then I feel
the
>> >> same way about the rest of your ideas.
>>
>> > You should have halted your sentence at the end of the fourth word.
>> > The rest was redundant.
>>
>> � � Oh, aren't you a wit? Or you would be if you were twins.
>>
>
> Hey ... you were the one who began with multiple personalities.
Uh huh.
>> > > > Yet we have licencing for cars and if you mess up, you can lose the
>> > > > right to operate one.
>>
>> >> � � �You don't have a 'right' to operate a car. You have a 'right' to
own a
>> >> gun. You can also lose that right if you 'mess up' sufficiently. In
either
>> >> case (car or gun) people can die when you 'mess up'.
>>
>> >> > Our hoon laws now say that they can be confiscated.
>>
>> >> � � Our what now?
>>
>> > In Australia Mr Alder
>>
>> � � �I don't have my Oz-US dictionary handy. What's a "hoon"?
>>
>
> In Australia, someone who makes himself a nuisance to others by misuse
> of a car.
Ah. We have many words for them, mostly interchangeable. <g> Hoon is not
one of them.
>> >> > Our control orders now specify who persons the subject of orders can
>> >> > contact and which phones they can use.
>>
>> >> � � �What?
>>
>> > In Australia Mr Alder
>>
>> � � �That excuse only gets you so far. I understand all the words above,
but
>> the order in which you put them makes no sense.
>
> Well then you fail English syntax. "Who" is now an acceptable
> alternative to "whom". Does that help?
No. And I'm not being that petty. If I understand the syntax and I think I
do, "who" is the right word. I have no idea what "control orders" are or from
whom they come. It sounds like you're talking about cell phone usage (again,
not a right) but I can't imagine the government is regulating who you can talk
to or what brand of phone you can buy. That sounds more like an agreement
between providers.
>> >> > Motor vehicles are dangerous things but in America, they are better
>> >> > controlled than guns (and even motor vehicles could do with better
>> >> > control).
>>
>> >> � � �That's because they are used in public in close proximity to many
>> >> others on roads built by the state and hence responsible for wear and
tear
>> >> on said roads. And you don't have a 'right' to drive a car on public
roads.
>>
>> >> >> If angst-ridden homicidal lunatics were thereby unarmed then the need
>> >> >> for the general citizenry to protect themselves from them would be
>> >> >> greatly reduced one would think.
>>
>> >> > Exactly. Why not have an annual psychiatric evaluation -- perhaps a
>> >> > family visit by someone professional to see that everyone is "happy
happy
>> >> > joy joy" plus the odd randomised visit?
>>
>> >> � � �How about the same thing for everyone, just in case YOU should
acquire
>> >> a gun illegally.
>>
>> > Personally, I'd be untroubled by this, but as I understand it, funds
>> > are short for health in the US (as they are here) and so as a matter
>> > of priority it would seem ill-advised. Here in Australia we have very
>> > little gun crime and very few guns out there.
>>
>> � � �Apparently no shortage of whackjobs and busybodies.
>
> Non-responsive.
I suppose. Okay, responsive, then. You're a foreign country. Conditions
are totally different. You may speak English (sort of <G>) and may even have a
similar homogenous mix, I don't know. Much of the problem here is space per
capita, which you have more of, I believe. We don't have an outback for the
rough and tumble crowd to hang out in, unless they want to work a ranch in
Wyoming. We have teen gangs who think they are tough and are the real source
of those homicide statistics you keep hearing coming from here.
The US is a different kind of country for whatever reason,. and you won't
change it by taking the guns away, which you won't be able to do anyway. I
know I'll never give all of mine up no matter what the law is, and you can
make what you like of that. And the absolutely last people to surrender their
guns will be the whackjobs writing diaries like our late friend George wrote
before he died. So people who propose the impossible will often find
themselves subject to ridicule, especially when the impossible thing they want
to do is also ill-advised.
We're different. Call it our history or our upbringing. Maybe Obama is
right for once and we're an arrogant country. So far as I know, in all of
North and South America, we are the only ones to call ourselves "Americans."
By itself that means little, but it's there.
Some people have it in their heads that they are entitled to something
better than what they have. They didn't get it so it must be someone's fault.
Again, the sad, late George is a good example of this. Some of these people
just accept it and live lives of quiet desperation. Others like George decide
to go out with a bang. They blame the world for not being their friends, they
blame women for their lack of a sex life. George refused to see that the
common denominator in all the failed relationships was always George.
Despite your view of this country from 10,000 miles away, my chances of
being killed by the next George are considerably smaller than my chances of
being struck by lightning. They make headlines around the world because a)
they are horrific and b) they are extremely rare events.
>> >> Of course this would require the odd randomized search of your premises
for
>> >> guns and ammo, which would be quite involved, going through your
underwear
>> >> drawer and all.
>>
>> > Yep ... you're paranoid
>>
>> � � It's only paranoia when no one is actually plotting against you. There
are
>> lots of fools in this country that share your view on guns.
>
> Nobody is plotting *against* you. They are "plotting" to reduce their
> chances of being shot by some nutbag while attending Latin Impact
> Dance classes, even though the Ninth Amendment says nothing about
> Latin Dance.
Actually yes, they are. The people in this country who are working long
and hard t steal our rights from us are indeed plotting against us. My theory
is that they fear us because they know they themselves can't be trusted to
control their emotions. I've heard it many times in discussions like this with
Americans. They will eventually say something like "I just know that if I had
a gun around all the time, sooner or later I'd shoot someone who pissed me
off." It probably isn't true, but it doesn't stop them from worrying that
everyone else is just as 'on the edge' as they think THEY are.
>> >> > The gun safe could be inspected for integrity at the same time.
>>
>> >> � � �As would your fridge and freezer, since those are splendid hiding
>> >> places for guns and such. Say, you've got young children but I don't see
a
>> >> bottle of milk or OJ in here, but you do have a bottle of Grey Goose in
>> >> the freezer. I wonder what Child Services would think about this....
>>
>> > I'm a vegetarian. I have no geese in my freezer.
>>
>> � � Grey Goose is vodka.
>
> Is it? I don't drink alcohol frequently enough to know. A sip of some
> white wine at Christmas and Easter with the family or the occasional
> staff gathering, and that's it
That explains your surefootedness as you danced around the point I was
making.
>> >> > Harm minimisation
>>
>> >> � � �I consider the destruction of my rights to be serious harm, Fran.
>>
>> > Begs the question: Are your rights being destroyed?
>>
>> � � �No, but you're proposing that they should be.
>
> No, you're interpreting my proposals as if they infringed some right
> you mistakenly believe you hold.
No, you're misinterpreting my rights, vis-a-vis the courts.
>> > I'd say not. If
>> > you wish to become part of a well-regulated militia then by all means,
>> > apply to your state government so that you can get the program going
>> > and if someone apart from the state gets in your way, then complain.
>>
>> � � �The 2nd says 'the right of the people' not the right of the militia.
>
> That's right -- *the* people. Not *any* people or people at random.
> There's a difference.
So "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" means it has to be
everyone at once? A few people or a few hundred are NOT allowed to assemble
peacefully?
So "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," does not refer to
individual people?
So "We, the People of the United States," doesn't include me?
Sorry, kiddo, but that's a lame dodge now just like it was a lame dodge
long ago when they first tried it.
>> > You do realise that the Second Amendment doesn't bind the states don't
>> > you? The states can decide whether anyone can bear arms or not.
>>
>> � � Apparently your tertiary education didn't get as far as the ninth
>> amendment?
>
> Oh but it did. I've read Scalia -- one of your own as I see him -- and
> it hardly alters the force or purview of the Second Amendment --
> indeed it cannot precisely because the ninth amendment sought to
> protect rights not yet specifed but implicit in the other provisions
> without allowing the consitution to be read in ways that truncated the
> ones already specified.
Sounds to me like that's what you'd be doing.
--
So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
thing working out for you so far?
Jim Alder
news:hinm75ticn6c5hp52...@4ax.com:
>>> Who is 'us'? " Which personalities ask? Do you ask by the appointment of
>>> others?
>>
>> Why, the same "us" you refer to as "they" above. And I'm sure they
won't
>>mind if I speak hypothetically in their behalf. After all, you're speaking
for
>>the rest of the country, supposedly.
>>
> You have my permission, not that it is really required. After all we
> did take a vote!
Well, thanks. I guess that's enough for a "we".
Jim Alder
409e-b081-6...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 6, 5:11�pm, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> "Billary/2009" <BillaryClinton2...@gmail.com> wrote in news:7f63741d-6a2e-
>> 476f-a217-1db879945...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Who the fuck cares what a Limey has to say about anything?
>>
>> � � I thought Limeys were English? Fran here is an Aussie.
>>
>> � � Hey, you know what an "Australian kiss" is?
>>
>> � � It's the same as a French kiss, only 'down under'! Har de har!
>>
> Fuck him, he doesn't vote. His opinions count for shit.
Fran is a him? I'm being polite for nothing?
You know what they say; Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, but
that doesn't mean I want to hear them.
seon
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C5F7AF51BD15...@216.196.97.142...
> "seon" <se...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in news:4a7a5670$0$22827$5a62ac22
> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
>>
>>
>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C5EF09A793A3...@216.196.97.142...
>>> "seon" <se...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in
>>> news:4a7a3ac9$0$22806$5a62ac22
>>> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>>>
>>>> And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right
>>>> to own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda.
>>>> I
>>>> was wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some
>>>> right wing loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote
>>>> their agenda. Hmmm.
>>>
>>> It doesn't "seem" that way, pal. It's what they do. Thje funny part
>>> is,
>>> they think they can say "Look! Here's a one in a million guy who goes
>>> nuts and
>>> shoots people, so the other 999,999 should be defenseless!" and think
>>> THEY
>>> don't sound as nuts as this guy!
>>>
>> That's so right. It's like what they do with Christians who go nuts. Look
>> there's one Christian out of billions who murder abortion doctors. They
>> must
>> all be murderers.
>> They can do it to Jews, Muslims, atheists, Bahais or whatever's.
>
> It's easier than thinking.
>
Yeah just let the media do the thinking for them. I guess the reason the
media only reports the bad is because good news about the right doesn't
sell.
seon
<.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .> wrote in
message news:31arkh....@news.alt.net...
>
> "Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ded4b55e-dd8f-45a3...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 1:34 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
>> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7ed0a4ed-eda6-4ab9...@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 6, 12:06 pm, "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
>> >> And now those who want to take away Americans
>> >> freedom's/liberties/right
>> >> to
>> >> own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I
>> >> was
>> >> wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right
>> >> wing
>> >> loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their
>> >> agenda.
>> >> Hmmm.
>>
>> > It's interesting Seon.
>>
>> > In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest
>> > the liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
>>
>> > There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
>> > die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your
>> > opportunity to die is much expanded.
>>
>> > Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching for is the right
>> > to deal with angst by killing at random people who are representative
>> > of those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
>>
>> > The Second Amendment right was conceived to restrain the Federal
>> > government from trampling on the rights of the states by allowing the
>> > citizenry to form 'a well regulated militia' to resist Federal power.
>> > Nothing in the Second Amendment says that some bongo who is miffed
>> > because all his sexual enjoyment comes out of his right hand is
>> > entitled to go buy some guns and shoot some 'hoes'. George Sodini was
>> > not part of a 'well regulated militia' nor had he any plans to join
>> > one that would be frustrated by less liberal gun laws. Like almost all
>> > people not in the law enforcement or armed services communities
>> > possessing guns in the US, he was completely unregulated. And if he'd
>> > announced that he was forming a 'well regulated militia to resist
>> > Federal power' he'd have been landed on by the FBI to the applause of
>> > the NRA.
>>
>> > This has nothing to do with "the rights of Americans' unless you mean
>> > the right not to be shot by some whackjob with a chip on his shoulder
>> > who needed treatment for his mental health a lot more than he needed a
>> > gun.
>>
>> > Oddly, many of the same people who get up on their hind legs about gun
>> > rights are opposing provision of the health care that would see people
>> > like George Sodini get the help they need without killing people
>> > taking a dance class,
>>
>> Yep your right. the second amendment does not give some right wing loon
>> the
>> right to kill innocent people. It gives Americans the right and liberty
>> to
>> be able to own a gun and defend themselves.
>
> No, it doesn't do anything of the sort.
>
> Here's what it says:
>
> |||
> 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. "
> |||
>
>
> It's clear that the purpose of 'keeping and bear[ing] arms' realted to
> the ability to draft citizens to protect the state. At the time, the
> Americans had just fought off the British but they were not sure if at
> some point, there wouldn't be attempts to seize the government or
> subvert it and take away US Independence.
>
> You'll note that the word used is not 'guns' but 'arms'. In rpinciple,
> one could have a suitcase bomb or an ICBM. It also doesn't say
> 'people' but 'the people' -- which means the community not
> individuals.
>
> It was an added bonus that given there were no regular police and
> coastal areas were at risk from pirate raids, people could go out and
> protect their town.
>
> Things have moved on.
>
> <snip>
>> Now I do not own a gun but I do ascribe to this poem:
>>
>
>
>
>> First they came for the Communists,
>> and I didn't speak up,
>> because I wasn't a Communist.
>> Then they came for the Jews,
>> and I didn't speak up,
>> because I wasn't a Jew.
>> Then they came for the Catholics,
>> and I didn't speak up,
>> because I was a Protestant.
>> Then they came for me,
>> and by that time there was no one
>> left to speak up for me.
>>
>> I would add people like you are like:
>>
>> Then they came for the gun owners
>> and I didn't speak up
>> Because I don't own a gun
>>
>> In fact that poem needs to be updated.
>
> Pastor Niemoller would be scandalised.
>
> ---
>
> But Glen Beck would cry tears of joy.
>
>
>
He makes me ashamed to be a white guy but hey maybe he'd like it.
seon
> infringed. �
> |||
>
>
> It's clear that the purpose of 'keeping and bear[ing] arms' realted to
> the ability to draft citizens to protect the state. At the time, the
> Americans had just fought off the British but they were not sure if at
> some point, there wouldn't be attempts to seize the government or
> subvert it and take away US Independence.
>
> You'll note that the word used is not 'guns' but 'arms'. In rpinciple,
> one could have a suitcase bomb or an ICBM. It also doesn't say
> 'people' but 'the people' -- which means the community not
> individuals.
>
> It was an added bonus that given there were no regular police and
> coastal areas were at risk from pirate raids, people could go out and
> protect their town.
>
> Things have moved on.
>
But it still has "shall not be infringed" and I believe if Americans keep
giving away their rights the government, be it democratic or republican, has
a danger of becoming as tyrannical as the British were,
> <snip>
>> Now I do not own a gun but I do ascribe to this poem:
>>
>
>
>
>> First they came for the Communists,
>> and I didn't speak up,
>> because I wasn't a Communist.
>> Then they came for the Jews,
>> and I didn't speak up,
>> because I wasn't a Jew.
>> Then they came for the Catholics,
>> and I didn't speak up,
>> because I was a Protestant.
>> Then they came for me,
>> and by that time there was no one
>> left to speak up for me.
>>
>> I would add people like you are like:
>>
>> Then they came for the gun owners
>> and I didn't speak up
>> Because I don't own a gun
>>
>> In fact that poem needs to be updated.
>
> Pastor Niemoller would be scandalised.
>
> Fran
seon
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C5F2AC1B84C7...@216.196.97.142...
> "seon" <se...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in news:4a7a5d8c$0$22791$5a62ac22
> @per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>
>>
>>
>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9C5F3F1A5406j...@216.196.97.142...
>>> Fran <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And now those who want to take away Americans
>>>>> freedom's/liberties/right
>>>>> to own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional
>>>>> agenda.
>>>>> I was wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some
>>>>> right wing loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote
>>>>> their agenda. Hmmm.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting Seon.
>>>>
>>>> In America, there are 'right to life' groups but they don't protest the
>>>> liberal distribution of weapons of mass murder.
>>>
>>> That's because a right to life includes a right to protect that life.
>>>
>>>> There are 'right to die' groups but in America, there is no right to
>>>> die, but as some point out, under the Second Amendment your opportunity
>>>> to die is much expanded.
>>>
>>> With my 2nd amendment rights I am less likely to die at the hands of
>>> another.
>>>
>>>> Need I point out Seon, what you are really pitching for is the right
>>>> to deal with angst by killing at random people who are representative
>>>> of
>>>> those one blames for one's feelings of alienation?
>>>
>>> No, what Seon is pitching for is the right to be able to protect
>>> himself
>>> from one of your angst-ridden homicidal lunatics. What YOU are pitching
>>> is
>>> your rabid paranoia toward your fellow man, thinking they are all
>>> secretly
>>> insane just waiting for you to get on that one last nerve.
>>>
>> Well the right for Americans to defend themselves. I am not lucky enough
>> to
>> be born over there.
>
> You mmight be able to change that if you go to Hawaii and ask nicely.
> <g>
>
Yeah or act in action movies for 20 years and get my wife to campaign for
changing the Constitution.
(luckily for Obama he produced his BC)
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
"seon" <se...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in message
news:4a7be9e6$0$22793$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>I believe if Americans keep giving away their rights the government, be it
>democratic or republican, has a danger of becoming as tyrannical as the
>British were,
That's because you are a fucking idiot.
Grow up.
....the_pc_jellllybean!!.!!!!.
> I guess the reason the media only reports the bad
Stop watching faux mews, moron.
seon
"Zombywoof" <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:oojm75t0fcssgh15c...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 12:06:59 +1000, "seon" <se...@notmyrealaddress.com>
> wrote:
>
>>And now those who want to take away Americans freedom's/liberties/right to
>>own a gun is using this to promote their anti Constitutional agenda. I was
>>wondering how long it would take them. It seems every time some right wing
>>loon breaks the law they use people's suffering to promote their agenda.
>>Hmmm.
>>
> What ya mean, they've always used other peoples suffering to promote
> their agenda.
> --
Well ever since Michael Moore anyway (or did they do it even before that?)
seon
<.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .> wrote in
message news:31dg48....@news.alt.net...
Lol nice comeback, let's all use grade school language and resort to petty
insults. By the way your countries founding fathers would be disgusted at
you and how their once great nation has been reduced to this. A bunch of
slimeball politicians trying to strip the American people of their rights.
And the people not even caring (unless it's in American Idol that is) my hat
goes of to Americans like Jim who actually do give a damn.
Yes lets all worship big government and lick big governments boots and while
were at it shut up and watch the latest mind numbing reality tv show.
seon
<.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! .> wrote in
message news:31dg48....@news.alt.net...
>
Then I'll only have Steve Colbert to laugh at numb nuts.
SaPeIsMa
# You misunderstand. The purpose of law is to protect the legitimate
# interests of individuals as best those individuals can conceive both
# the interests and the resources to defend them. That's one of the
# problems with having overarching sets of rules. They become dated or
# the source of anomaly because the factors that moved their institution
# initially no longer apply.
So then you would agree with the concept that if a law does NOT do what it
was intended to do, it should be repealed or replaced with a more effecitve
one
(This is a good argument for putting an expiry data on any and all laws,
so that they need to be re-evaluated every 10 years or so.)
#
# What really matters is not 'what the founding fathers intended' even
# if one could be confident one knew what that was, because the
# "founding fathers", and everyone who ever met them and the next 20
# generations of those people's descendants are now all dead and have no
# interests to protect. The people of the late 18th Century have no
# business at all binding the behaviour of the people alive in the early
# 21st Century even allowing that this was their ambition. They have no
# standing. To grant them standing to do so diminishes, to that extent,
# the sovereignty of everyone alive now. In a very real sense, the
# Constitution, interpreted by fundamentalists, exists *at the expense*
# of the rights of the people of America, because it infringes their
# scope to determine how to give effect to their interests.
There are a whole bunch of fallacies in the above
1) The intent of the Framers of the COnstitution is actually quite CLEAR
and EVIDENT in their writings.
2) Jurisprudence regularly goes back in time to look at the law IN
CONTEXT of it's writing and of it's original authors, (A reality partially
fixed in the copncept of "precedence")
So the argument that since they are dead, they and their ideas are of no
consequence is a false one
It also shines a light of your ignorance of how a Constitutional Republic is
supposed to work
The Constitution is the FRAME of the construct
Just line one doesn't go around changing the frame of a house to suit
current fashion, neither does one go around changing the frame of the
Republic to suit current fashion
And that is also why Constitutional Amendments can NOT be enacted through a
simple act of Congress.
The Framers had it right, and you have it wrong
Finally the argument that the Constitution limits the ability of people
today to fiddle with the framework is EXACTLY what was intended
A house whose walls are constantly being moved around is no house at all,
and it will fall down in the first big gust of wind.
One only has to look at any other country, where some tin-pot dictator
wannabe came along and modified the Constitution (Chavez in Venezuela is a
recent example). He has achieved in effect a position of dictator as El
Presidente for life..The opposite is Honduras where the Supreme Court asked
the Military to oust it's President to PREVENT the very same thing from
happening.
A more subtle example is what happenned in Canada with it's Constitution
where the Supreme Court basically declared Bill 101 to be Unconstitutional
but invoked a "notwithstanding" clause to allow for the infringement of the
citizens rights to keep political peace
Ask yourself what is the TRUE value of a Constitution that says, you the
citizen have these rights, but we the government can infringe on them when
it suits us.
IN effect, the citizens only have rights IF the government CHOOSES to
let them have them
THS are NOT "rghts", those are "priviledges" that you have on
government sufferance.
A REAL "right" is something that the government cannot take away from you
when it suits it's purpose
Finally the US Consitution is NOT a "binding" on the people of the US. The
US Constitution is a DEFINITION of what the Government is and is not allowed
to do.
And the Bill of Rights is SPECIFICALLY a list of restrictions, NOT on the
citizens, but ON THE GOVERNMENT.
I am surprised that in your studies, you never learned or grasped this most
important concept.
# Now, there are good policy reasons for concluding that the broad
# principles specified in the Constitution are of enduring value and
# represent an appropriate and indispensible part of any specification
# of the rights of contemporary Americans. Concepts such as the
# presumption that people may assemble and speak freely, that all people
# are deemed ethical equals and so forth. These leave open to every
# generation how to translate these things into policy. Yet a
# fundamentalist interpretation might declare that equality was for
# 'men' only when today we would affirm that 'men' should be read as
# including women, people of transgender, children and so forth. There
# was a time when the courts took the view that those of African descent
# had had 'no rights which the white man was bound to respect'. These
# days, 'men' includes black men.
Well, too bad for you that the Framers BELIEVED that the ONLY way to insure
that you could protect your rights if the government starts to overstep it's
authority is to have an ENFORCEABLE RESET button.
The 2nd Amendment is the TOOL that insures that citizens can stand up to
government trying to use force to cow the population.
# It is clear that these days that there is no threat to the America or
# its states that randomly armed individuals could systematically abate.
There is the VERY CLEAR threat of Governemnt overstepping it's boundaries
Waco is the most recent and bloodiest example of that
Ruby Ridge is a much smaller but just as applicable case
# These days, Barbary pirates don't raid the Eastern shores for people
# to ransom. These days there are professional and highly disciplined
# armed forces and police forces to do the security of the state stuff.
And what do you do when the FBI, BATF, are themselves the "pirates" who
abuse their authority ?
How do you defend yourself from your own government doing the abuse ?
# There are functioning courts and due process. In what sense is the
# Second Amendment even relevant? It isn't.
What do you do when due process flouted is not ignored ?
How do you protect yourself from the governement kicking in your door for
the simple reason that they believe they can get away with it.
# The state can and does raise a National Guard. It's enough.
BZZZZT
FA:LSE
The National Guard is a FEDERAL and NOT a State entity.
In effect it's the reserve arm of the Army, Navy/Marines, Air Force, and NOT
a REAL "state militia"
The Supremes said so in Perpich
http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/334/case.html
Since your arguments above are based of wrong premises, the conclusions you
derive are also WRONG.
> By that logic Modern printing presses, the internet, ink-jet printers
> could
> be banned, since after all they didn't exist 200 years ago either,
#
# That's just silly. I understand that this is a hot button issue for
# you. You're emotional. Your abusive tone below is telling. Your claim
# doesn't derive from anything I said.
1) Silly, you say
And yet that is EXACTLY ONE of the legs of your argument against the
2nd
2) You understand NOTHING about any "hot buttons" I may have.
Your presumption is just ignorance on YOUR part
3) I'm a Canadian citizen living in the US, who decided to EDUCATE myself
on the subject
I originaly was as ignorant as you have shown yourself to be so far
Unlike you, I decided to change that
4) I don't respect liars and intellectually dishonest people
5) My claim was an application of your arguments against guns to another
right, the right of free speech and how it was limited at the time the
Constitution was written, to quill pens, single-page presses, and
YOU are the one arguing that the Constitution is dated, and
therefore infringing on the rights of citizens
You have YET to ENUMERATE those infringements
Frankly I doubt that you can. Instead you resort to libelous
innuenedo. I liar's tactic if ever.
#
# If you are going to use 'what was in the minds of the founding
# fathers' as a guide to the Second Amendment you wouldn't be including
# semi-automatic rifles or machine pistols. Of course, what is done
# today is to ignore that and to include all things that today can be
# seen as 'arms' in the specification -- but if so, then a nuclear
# device qualifies. So would weapons grade anthrax, an anti-tank missile
# etc.
Again you demonstrate either your abyssal ignroance of the subject or your
intellectual dishonesty
In the wording of the 2nd Amendment, the Framers gave ONE (NON_EXCLUSIVE)
reason for the purpose of the RKBA
To have the men, competent in arms, to form a well-regulated (properly
functionning) militia
The arms that are CLEARLY protected by the 2nd Amendment are those that
individuals would be issued if called to service
And today, that does NOT mean, swords and muskets, it means Assault rifles,
machine pistols, pump shotguns, possibly even greande launchers, in effect
all squad-level INDIVIDUAL issue weapons.
Your claim about "nuclear arms" is just one of the many DISHONEST and
UNFOUNDED claims that hoplophobes like to throw around as a strawman
argument to muddy the issue.
It's such a cheap tactic
Shame on you
<snip>
#
# I've managed to live my life here for 51 years without once being in a
# setting where a gun would have helped. Apart from the police and
# security guards at Armoured vans, I have never seen a gun in public.
And your point is what exactly
That because YOU never had a problem, we shoud presume that to be true for
everyone else
In the US, there are 2,500,000 DGUs annually. Definsive Gun Uses, where
citizens AVOID being the victims of criminals BECAUSE they were armed and
able to use it.
Do you think those yearly 2,500,000 non-victims would prefer to be disarmed
because YOU have not had THEIR experience ?
There are all sorts of benefits to a population that is armed and carries.
Far more than there are downsides
(And this is where the hoplophobes like to muddy the waters by
conflating CRIMINAL MISUSE of guns with lawful use)
It has been found that women and children are the ones who benefit
disproportionately when the law-abiding are armed. Not just because the
women have the option of being armed for their defense, and thus reducing
their risk level, but also because of something called the "halo effect"
where the unarmed citizens benefit from the fact that a few armed ones put
the criminals at greater risk of running into an armed target when they try
to commit a crime
# It never occurs to me that my fellow shoppers might be armed and if
# one comes across a couple of people arguing in the street I don't
# start looking for somewhere to get out of the line of a firefight.
And ?
Do you think that people do this in countries like the US and Switzerland,
where people are "packing" ?
This is just another of those stupid strawman arguments that hoplophobes
like so much.
Again, you are using ignorant presumptions to justify your position
Not smart
# The numbers of police shot by non-police is near zero.
And ?
Most if not all police are shot by CRIMINALS and NOT the law-abiding whether
armed or not
That's just another dishonest conflation of the anti-gun crowd
# We did have a spate of gangland killings a while back in Melbourne
# one fairly recently.
# A bunch of seriously criminal people set about knocking each other
# off, which, given they were fairly efficient about it and there was no
# collateral damage, didn't seem like such a bad outcome.
And that is the case of the MAJORITY of homicides in the US. Most related to
gang activites connected to drugs and illegal aliens.
The other side of the coin is that people who carry LEGALLY, are usually far
more law-abiding than even the police
In Florida, (carry) permit holders have 1/6th the contact with police as do
non permit holders
In Texas, permit holders commit less crime and misdemeanors than even the
police.
Fearing the law-abiding people who carry is the LEAST of your worries
Even the POLICE are a bigger threat to you in public situations
The police will tupically shoot the wrong person about 8 times more often
that people who "pack heat".
By the way, this is all data that comes from verifiable sources such as the
US DOJ, State of Florida, State of Texas, etc.
# Apart from that though the actual level of serious crime where most
# of us live is pretty low. between the 1980s and 1996.
# Measures were taken by the then conservative
# government to retrieve weapons at large in the community. Although I
# was very hostile to this government politically, this measure was
# defencible and with hindsight, has proven to be right because we've
# had none since.
Too bad that there is NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, otherstories such as yours, to
support the claim that gun-control has ANY effect on crime levels
The US CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the US NAS (NAtional Academy of
Scicences) did separate studies on the subject and came to the same
conclusion. Gun-control does NOT have any effect on crime levels.
# Now, Australia is a special case. It would be far easier to smuggle
# guns across US frontiers than here. We are an island and away from
# large sources of weapons. So what worked here would probably not work
# in the US. There is a different attitude here to guns as well.
#
Trust me, if drugs are being smuggled into Australia, so are guns, or
anything else that has a black market value
I also heard that after the Port Arthur ban, people were making guns in
their basements
Today, with a decent CNC mill, that only costs $2-3000, you can make a
pretty decent gun
There are even sites where you can get pretty good plans for making machine
guns using stuff you buy at your local hardware store.
Similarly it's not that hard to make your own ammo, either from components
(cases, primers, bullets, powder) that you can mail-order
#
# Nevertheless, it does seem to be the case that a whole range of
# measures, including some tightening up on the distribution and
# possession of firearms in America is called for if the ongoing saga of
# spree killings is to be abated.
LOL
What a load of wishfull thinking completely disconnected from reality
In another post you made a refeence to guns being smuggles into Mexico from
the US
It's BULLSHIT using smoke and mirrors that has been DEBUNKED
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
Do you even grasp how easy it is to acquire or make guns illegally if your
willing to spend the time and money to do so ?
By the way, it's far easier to make a (full auto) machine-gun than a
(single-shot-repeater) semi-auto ?
It takes both less parts and less time to build one from parts or
scratch.
# As I said earlier -- it's not simply about guns. Your health system
# needs to be able to deal with mental illness (and illness in general)
# and family dysfunction better than it does. But getting guns out of
# the hands of people who have no good reason to have them is one key
# element.
More ignorance based on propaganda, and conflating disparate factors into a
non-sensible mess
Mental illness is a problem for a whole bunch of reasons
For example, how do you force the mentally ill to take their medication ?
Particularly when they complain of the side-effects of said medication
Not to mention that the effects of their prescribed doses can vary from
simple issues like the time of the month in women, or what food was eaten in
the previous days
And typically, that's when the mentally ill tend to act up, when they stop
(Voluntarily) taking their meds.
There's also the problem of detection of mental illness
Typically it's not detected until the person acts up
Then you also have the issue of degree of mental illness, where people with
different levels of the same illness will represent VERY DISPARATE risk
levels to those around them
Doctors don't even have a handle on that.
And then there's the whole stigma thing attached to "mental illness"
For example is a person, who goes through a difficult period of their life
and end up "depressed", mentally ill ?
Is the situation permanent or temporary ?
Can he come out of it by himself, by voluntary intervention, or by
forced intervention
Is this mental illness enough to lose rights such as RKBA ?
Your facile view of the problem is most superficial, verging on the trivial
And one does NOT take away the rights of people for superficial and trivial
reasons
EVEN when you argue with emotional appeals, "my feeling safe is more
important than his rights..."
Think on that before you want to curtail peoples rights too quickly.
SaPeIsMa
# Maybe if we discover that the person is potentially harmful to himself
# or others we will see that he gets the treatment he needs?
The problem with the "potentially harmful" is who sets the standards for the
"potential" part
Right now, medicine has NO WAY to really define a good consistent baseline
for "potential" that I'm willing to accept for use in abrogating the rights
of people who have done nothing wrong.
The argument for doing so is also based on a couple of false assumptions
1) The law can be used to PREVENT crime, when clearly the law can only
punish crime AFTER the fact
2) At one point are you willing to give the government so much power over
deciding that you are a potential criminal
(the movie with Tom Cruise comes to mind)
It also is more simply exemplified by the logical fallacy
That since rapists have penises, and men have penises, therefore all
men are potential rapists...Idem for whores, vaginas and women...
Should be therefore treat all men like rapists and all women like
whores ?
Where do you draw the line for doing so ?
In a TRULY FREE society, you MUST draw the line at the point where a
man actually attempts or commits the rape, or the woman whores herself out,
AND NOT ONE INSTANT BEFORE that..
It's the old INNOCENT until shown guilty and not PRESUMED GUILTY
UNTIL shown innocent thing...
#
#cIt's clear you are overwrought. I can see this is upsetting you from
# the increasingly hysterical tone of your strawmen.
#
Nice attempt to weasel out
You have NO CLUE is to my mental state
But I'mnot surprised that you would stoop to such an intellectually
disreputable and dishonest tactic
I think it's contemptible on your part
#
# I'm going to wish you well. If you feel you can discuss this in a calm
# and rational way without outlandish claims and hyperventilating, then
# I'll respond.
What "hyperventialtion ?
What "outlandish claims"
You know what
Maybe if you can avoid the lies, the bullshit and intelectually dishonest
tactics, you'll get some respect
So until you grow up and argue like an adult....
pyotr filipivich
Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:53:25 -0400 did write/type or cause to appear in
talk.politics.guns the following:
>
>>What has the gun owning community done to get their right
>>wing loons under control?
>>
>Probably about the same as they have to get any other "wing" under
>control.
The difference between the Conservatives and the Progressive (nee
Liberals) is that the conservatives have done more to marginalize the
nut jobs than the Liberals. The Liberals not only have faced their
inner nutter, but have celebrated them and put them in charge.
toodles
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
"If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around
with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it." Mark Steyn, Oct 27, 2007
Jeff George
> You don't have a 'right' to operate a car. You have a 'right' to own a
> gun.
Both are privileges granted by governing bodies.
--
JG, former Quarterback and Lt. General SWIFT (Socialist Workers
Infiltrating Federal Targets)
Soy el Diablo Gringo Supremo