* It's time to outlaw all guns.
No User
Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door basis.
Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of their
homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by 2005.
Very sincerely,
Jack Keller
Short Hills, New Jersey
---
This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
http://anon.xg.nu
---
Dave Thompson
"No User" <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
news:32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu...
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
basis.
>
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
>
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
2005.
>
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
>
As Ralph Kramden would say....
Just as cocaine and heroin have been totally removed from the United States
by the War on Drugs.
Mark Cook
After reading your gibberish, I thought about the "Liberator" (I know some of the
gun historians can describe much better than I, what the gun was and why it was
important to the war effort) guns used in W.W.II. My point is the Liberator was an
extremely easy and inexpensive gun to make. So no matter how hard you try, you
will never be able to disarm this county.
Mark
Dean Prescott
No User <no....@anon.xg.nu> the coward Jack Keller of Short Hills New
Jersey,
crept out of hiding from under his bed long enough to prattle on in a
completely
foolish manner while at the same time devoid of any basis in reality and
wrote
in message: news:32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu...
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
More people are killed each year in the United States by DOCTORS than by
firearms.
That does not include abortions.
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
Sounds more like an acid flashback, you shoulda left that stuff alone.
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
2005.
Nah, both sides of the issue have far too much of a financial stake in
perpetuting the debate.
HCI & the other traitors would be unemployed, or worse they might have to
get a real job.
Dean Prescott
Dave A
this agenda (some openly, others only behind closed doors) it simply isn't
going to happen in America. Why not? Because Americans are smarter than
that. We understand that you advance your silly socialist agenda by
misinforming the non thinking masses with lies.
We understand how to combat it. With each passing year we chip away at your
base of power. We show you to be the dishonest loons that you are. We
educate the misinformed public to reality.
We understand that you advance your agenda by manipulation of the courts.
That's why we are pushing reform of the courts.
Over and over, every time you socialist, freedom robbers gain a victory we
undo it and each time we learn better how to prevent you from winning in the
first place.
And, in the event you ever do gain a damaging victory, we understand the
power of resistance. Most of us are not willing to risk arrest to resist,
but enough are to make all the difference in the world. We have a
grassroots infrastructure that is too powerful for you to overcome.
You have lost and will continue to lose as we get more and more Americans to
use and own guns.
I am waiting at the cemetery for your funeral. I can see the hearse
approaching now.
--
Dave A
"No User" <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
news:32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu...
E Right
"LOL. You really think that all guns in the nation could be confiscated??
Dream on.
"After reading your gibberish, I thought about the "Liberator" (I know
some of the
"gun historians can describe much better than I, what the gun was and why it was
"important to the war effort) guns used in W.W.II. My point is the
Liberator was an
"extremely easy and inexpensive gun to make. So no matter how hard you try, you
"will never be able to disarm this county.
"
"Mark
"
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have
been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make
an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?"
Alexander Solzenitzyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Frank B.
So why don't you want to outlaw ammunition?
--
"I will have the most ETHICAL administration in history." Clinton; Nov. 1992
http://home.earthlink.net/~f6868686/
....I finally changed it.
later
Dave A wrote in message ...
>What a troll. While I agree that there are a few groups who are pushing
>this agenda (some openly, others only behind closed doors) it simply isn't
>going to happen in America. Why not? Because Americans are smarter than
>that. We understand that you advance your silly socialist agenda by
>misinforming the non thinking masses with lies.
>
>We understand how to combat it. With each passing year we chip away at your
>base of power. We show you to be the dishonest loons that you are. We
>educate the misinformed public to reality.
>
>We understand that you advance your agenda by manipulation of the courts.
>That's why we are pushing reform of the courts.
Darn! We could've created the legal concept of "guncontrol liability" and make
everyone who every supported disarming people who later became crime victims
liable for injuries. Imagine taking your favorite gun control pushing newspaper
to court for contributing to the crimes committed in your city. Think they'd
quit pushing gun control? Probably as fast as you can say "Guilty!"
>
>Over and over, every time you socialist, freedom robbers gain a victory we
>undo it and each time we learn better how to prevent you from winning in the
>first place.
I look forward to undoing their efforts. A good start would be to undo Brady.
But its not enough to prevent them from winning, you need to observe their
tactics and do to them what they've been doing to us, i.e, tax, register,
regulate out of exisitence, and do to us what they do for themselves, i.e.,
create a government cabinet to study how and implement ways to get rid of gun
control.
It may not all be bad. Imagine a tax on gun control. We could raise a lot of
money that way.
later....
armed_for_the_common_good
>
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door basis.
In order to convince anyone of this, you will need to demonstrate:
1) That more people are harmed by private gun ownership than helped,
2) That guns extant on the black market can feasibly be confiscated,
3) That mechanics and engineers can be stopped from manufacturing guns
with their own equipment,
4) That door-to-door weapon confiscation can be accomplished at all.
As things stand, the evidence is stacked against the demonstration of
any of these four. Violent crime consistently increases in states that
implement stronger gun control laws, and decreases in states that relax
gun control laws, for instance (re: item 1). This is because gun control
laws that disarm law-abiding citizens makes it easier for criminals to
hurt other people -- with knives, with clubs, or with their bare hands.
Living in an armed population gives me the security of knowing that any
violent criminals will probably be shot before they get around to hurting
me or my family.
Even if you could get most of all gun-owning families to turn in their
firearms prior to a door-to-door, say all but 20 million, and even if
you had a perfect list of all of the names and addresses of those 20
million families, it would take years for police to visit them all, even
if things went smoothly (re: item 4). I assure you that such an attempt
at confiscation would not go smoothly at all. In fact, I posit that you
would run out of living police officers before they were more than a
fraction of the way done.
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
>
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
No, it's not the way it has to be. You can alleviate your fear of guns
by learning a little about them, by educating yourself about the way the
world really is, by ignoring the propaganda crap that the popular media
stuffs down your eyeballs. If everyone who wants to carry a gun may carry
a gun, even if that's only 1/4 of the general population, then most people
(the ones who don't like guns, or don't want the responsibility of being
caretakers of the common good, or don't want to deal with learning how to
responsibly use a firearm) will be unarmed, while enough law-abiding
citizens will be armed to prevent the criminal element from posing a
significant threat to the general public. That is the future you should
be exhorting -- one that is safe, just, and possible. The future you
propose in your message is none of these three.
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by 2005.
There is no doubt in my mind that you are exactly half correct.
OldManWizard
news:LJK56.1484$nU4.1...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> What a troll. While I agree that there are a few groups who are pushing
> this agenda (some openly, others only behind closed doors) it simply isn't
> going to happen in America. Why not? Because Americans are smarter than
> that. We understand that you advance your silly socialist agenda by
> misinforming the non thinking masses with lies.
Who are you to call anyone a troll, troll? You advance your fascist agenda
by misinforming the non-thinking masses. There are no liberal "ditto-heads"
who parrot what one hate-filled cartoon character says on the radio.
> We understand how to combat it. With each passing year we chip away at
your
> base of power. We show you to be the dishonest loons that you are. We
> educate the misinformed public to reality.
You teach the ignorant how to be be afraid of anyone who looks or thinks
differently.
> We understand that you advance your agenda by manipulation of the courts.
> That's why we are pushing reform of the courts.
We just saw how your "reformed court" gave the election to a dimwit using
the most illogical and distorted interpretation of law seen in this country.
Ever.
> Over and over, every time you socialist, freedom robbers gain a victory we
> undo it and each time we learn better how to prevent you from winning in
the
> first place.
>
> And, in the event you ever do gain a damaging victory, we understand the
> power of resistance. Most of us are not willing to risk arrest to resist,
> but enough are to make all the difference in the world. We have a
> grassroots infrastructure that is too powerful for you to overcome.
You are a bunch of grassroots punk-asses who have no respect for anyone or
anything, including yourselves. Our founding fathers were willing to risk
arrest and death to resist tyranny. The Freedom Riders in the 60's were
were willing to risk arrest and death to fight for equal rights for ALL
Americans. Martin Luther King was arrested many times for his nonviolent
acts of civil disobedience. He was murdered by punk-asses like you who hid
and ambushed him.
> You have lost and will continue to lose as we get more and more Americans
to
> use and own guns.
All Americans lose when we must all carry guns to protect ourselves from
ourselves.
> I am waiting at the cemetery for your funeral. I can see the hearse
> approaching now.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. - John Dunne
Eric Florack
User <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
"......never to go to war with one another, again"
--Neville Chaimberlin
/E
Annoy a liberal, Inc
Scout
<Snip>
Troll.
Allen James
<no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
BZZT! Wrong! No gun anywhere ever loaded itself and pulled its own
trigger.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
Uh huh. Yeah- safe like New York City was safe for Amadou Diallo....
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
> basis.
Dunno what Third-World shithole you're posting from, but my country is a
free country, and will stay that way.
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
> their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
There's this nifty document called the Constitution you might wanna read
sometime....
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
Wait, wait- don't tell me- men with GUNS are gonna do the searching,
right?
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts YOU won't be one of the volunteer
stormtroopers giong house-to-house, you vile little apologist for
totalitarianism.
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
> 2005.
ANd monkeys with hula hoops will fly out of my ass.
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
Dear Jack Keller of Short HIlls, NJ-
Since you obviously do not want to be a free citizen of a free nation,
I'd be more than happy to donate cash towards your one-way ticket out of
the US. Try Singapore or Afghanistan- they're more your sort of
places.....
TAO
Not by guns; by *people*.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
Incorrect.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
basis.
Unconstitutional.
>
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
No *citizen* is going to consent to this.
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
Sounds like a few dead goons would be the result.
>
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
Draconian? It sounds insane, period.
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
2005.
Keep dreaming. :)
none
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
No User <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
news:32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu...
Bert Hyman
<no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely,
> by 2005.
Great! You can apply the same methods to drugs, alcohol, pornography
and bad music.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
Ed Reppert
James <shra...@enteract.com> wrote:
> Uh huh. Yeah- safe like New York City was safe for Amadou Diallo....
Kitty Genovese might be a better example.
CoolHandDukeTheBlueDevilMan
automatic weapons, assault rifles and other such weapons, however, is a
perfectly reasonable action.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Duke Blue Devils ( http://www.goduke.com )
2001 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions
The DNC Online ( http://www.democrats.org )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deb
Does this include the guns that the governments own?
If not....then no thanks....I'll keep mine.
Deb
http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:15:19 -0600, No User <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
Steve
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door basis.
>
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
>
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by 2005.
Only in your fantasies, peabrain.
> Very sincerely,
If so, you really are crazy.
>
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
>
> ---
> This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
> http://anon.xg.nu
> ---
Cheers
Steve
Mark2101
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
basis.
>
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
>
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
2005.
>
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
>
And we'll all live happily ever after. It's a beautiful thing.
AH.......ignorance is bliss.
Mark "COSMOS" Renfro
u tsi s da lu gi s gi = (Brilliant)
u tsi s da lu gi s gv = (Shining)
a ga li ha = (Illuminating from within)
di tli hi = (Warrior)
My Cherokee name.
E-MAIL Mark...@home.com
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under
any government,no matter how popular and respected,
is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms....
The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee
against arbitrary government, one more safeguard
against the tyranny which now appears remote in
America but which historically has proven to be always
possible."
- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
S. Jones
no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door basis.
>
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
>
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by 2005.
>
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
Amen! Finally, someone sensible about guns! There are enough idiots with
guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to stop it.
Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole for a
first time offence. True life for a second offence.
If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots for
crminals with guns!
Gee, I hope you gun freaks don't get all apoplectic and incontinent at
the mere thought of not being able to shoot anybody anymore.
>
>
>
> ---
> This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
> http://anon.xg.nu
> ---
>
>
>
--
No email please. This is the forum, not email. Email replies and
cc's to this, or any, article are neither requested, nor are they
welcome. Any such email may be published by me at my pleasure.
Walt
maimed and killed by guns: Not by the articles, but by people using them.
Police officers, having sworn to uphold the Constitution, will refuse to
participate in these searches. Just as they did in Miami.
"No User" <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
news:32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu...
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
>
William A. Levinson
Deb wrote:
> http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html
>
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:15:19 -0600, No User <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
>
> > Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
> >
> > Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
Good. Please move to a country that absolutely bans firearm ownership by private
citizens, like Cuba or Red China. You will be happier there. Get out of the United
States, your kind is not wanted here.
-Bill
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/
Teek
Heil, der dumkoff! Vo ist der Fuhrer? What a dimbulb. It's been
tried. Hitler lost. You just want to see people die, be imprisoned,
and suffer at the government's hands. Fascism doesn't work in a
diverse society. If the Gov't starts doing stuff like this, a massive,
bloody civil war will break out, and a new government formed based on
the original U.S. Constitution.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the
underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
let's not have any native militia or police."
--Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations -
1941-1944. Farrar, Straus and Young - 1953 Pg. 345
> "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the State."
-- Heinrich Himmler
"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS,
SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of
campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of
the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps
his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
-- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933
--
"The second-place trophy in a gunfight is made of granite."--Robert
Teekell
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
N9NWO
You really want those of us in the military and the police
to be your masters. Hell, the average cop or soldier is far
superior to any liberal. After, how many liberals under the
age of 45 have any military experience?
Maybe it is time to round up liberal idiots.
Sore/Loserman 2000
BTW this idiot who wrote this has no idea of how
easy guns are to make. If he did, and it seems that
he has little real world (like most liberals) experience
in work or manufacturing, then he would understand
that backyard gunsmiths would be everywhere. Hell.
the liberals say that if we ban abortion then there would
be back alley aborts. Does not the same apply to guns?
: Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
:
: Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
:
: These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
basis.
:
: Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
their
: homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
:
: Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
:
: It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
:
: Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
2005.
:
: Very sincerely,
: Jack Keller
: Short Hills, New Jersey
:
:
:
: ---
: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
:
:
N9NWO
: >this agenda (some openly, others only behind closed doors) it simply
isn't
: >going to happen in America. Why not? Because Americans are smarter than
: >that. We understand that you advance your silly socialist agenda by
: >misinforming the non thinking masses with lies.
: >
: >We understand how to combat it. With each passing year we chip away at
your
: >base of power. We show you to be the dishonest loons that you are. We
: >educate the misinformed public to reality.
: >
: >We understand that you advance your agenda by manipulation of the courts.
: >That's why we are pushing reform of the courts.
:
: Darn! We could've created the legal concept of "guncontrol liability"
and make
: everyone who every supported disarming people who later became crime
victims
: liable for injuries. Imagine taking your favorite gun control pushing
newspaper
: to court for contributing to the crimes committed in your city. Think
they'd
: quit pushing gun control? Probably as fast as you can say "Guilty!"
Anything is possible with lawyers.
: >Over and over, every time you socialist, freedom robbers gain a victory
we
: >undo it and each time we learn better how to prevent you from winning in
the
: >first place.
:
:
: I look forward to undoing their efforts. A good start would be to undo
Brady.
: But its not enough to prevent them from winning, you need to observe their
: tactics and do to them what they've been doing to us, i.e, tax, register,
: regulate out of exisitence, and do to us what they do for themselves,
i.e.,
: create a government cabinet to study how and implement ways to get rid of
gun
: control.
:
: It may not all be bad. Imagine a tax on gun control. We could raise a
lot of
: money that way.
: later....
If you really follow gun control, you will find it is about control, power
and greed. The educated, who are now the new WASPs, are out to
control the masses and have power over them. And the big gun makers
and gun dealers want their competition put out of business (greed).
: >
: >And, in the event you ever do gain a damaging victory, we understand the
Libe...@commies.morons
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door basis.
>
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
>
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by 2005.
>
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
>
>
>
>---
>This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
>It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
>http://anon.xg.nu
>---
>
>
Pointing out the other political parties'
scandles makes you a loyalist. Making
excuses for your own parties scandles
makes you an idiot. Being disgusted with
government dishonesty makes you an
American. Failure to demand government
adherence to Constitutional principles,
dishoners your ancesters. Failure to
defend youself makes you a Liberal.
A Liberal that starts fighting back
becomes a Conservative.
TAO
news:MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news...
> guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to stop it.
That very seldom happens.
>
> Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole for a
> first time offence. True life for a second offence.
This would never work.
>
> If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots for
> crminals with guns!
Ah yes, the killing part.........liberals always advocate killing.
>
> Gee, I hope you gun freaks don't get all apoplectic and incontinent at
> the mere thought of not being able to shoot anybody anymore.
The gun freaks are *all* anti-gun, so I doubt they would mind a bit.
S. Jones
You KKK types always try to twist it to make it look as if the thought is
coming from one of your heros.
> You just want to see people die, be imprisoned,
> and suffer at the government's hands.
Nope, quite the contrary. We are sikc and tired of you stooges shoooting
innocent people.
> Fascism doesn't work in a
> diverse society.
Who said anything about RepubliKlan policy here?
> If the Gov't starts doing stuff like this, a massive,
> bloody civil war will break out,
Oh well.
> and a new government formed based on
> the original U.S. Constitution.
No, there would be the same government, but with a lot less gun-toting
stooges out there.
> "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the
> subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who
> have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own
> downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the
> underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
> let's not have any native militia or police."
>
> --Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations -
> 1941-1944. Farrar, Straus and Young - 1953 Pg. 345
Bigot that you are, you are praising your hero's words? You are very sick
indeed.
> > "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
> ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
> the State."
>
> -- Heinrich Himmler
>
> "All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The SS,
> SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of
> campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of
> the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps
> his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
>
> -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933
What next, your favourite KKK quotes, bigot?
> --
> "The second-place trophy in a gunfight is made of granite."--Robert
> Teekell
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
S. Jones
says...
> And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
Uh...no one. They need their guns.
> You really want those of us in the military and the police
> to be your masters.
No, we are your masters, stormtrooper.
> Hell, the average cop or soldier is far
> superior to any liberal.
Until you factor in intelligence and survivability. A 12 year old liberal
could outwit and outlive you, stormtrooper.
> After, how many liberals under the
> age of 45 have any military experience?
Who needs it when cretins will volunteer to haave themselves shot at? We
can just sit back and order you dolts to do the dirty work.
> Maybe it is time to round up liberal idiots.
No such thing, Herr Stooge.
> Sore/Loserman 2000
>
> BTW this idiot who wrote this has no idea of how
> easy guns are to make. If he did, and it seems that
> he has little real world (like most liberals) experience
> in work or manufacturing, then he would understand
> that backyard gunsmiths would be everywhere. Hell.
> the liberals say that if we ban abortion then there would
> be back alley aborts. Does not the same apply to guns?
If you can make them so easy, then why cry about having them taken away
legally?
> : Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
> :
> : Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
> :
> : These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
> basis.
> :
> : Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
> their
> : homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
> :
> : Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
> :
> : It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
> :
> : Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
> 2005.
> :
> : Very sincerely,
> : Jack Keller
> : Short Hills, New Jersey
> :
> :
> :
> : ---
> : This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> : It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
> : http://anon.xg.nu
> : ---
> :
> :
>
>
>
--
S. Jones
tao...@hotmail.com says...
> "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news...
> > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > Amen! Finally, someone sensible about guns! There are enough idiots with
> > guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to stop it.
>
> That very seldom happens.
...the Gospel according to the NRA, and Loony Lott.
> >
> > Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole for a
> > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
>
> This would never work.
Sure it would.
> >
> > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots for
> > crminals with guns!
>
> Ah yes, the killing part.........liberals always advocate killing.
If a criminal does not give up their guns when they are required to do so
by law, then the law can use force. Nothing new there, and thaat process
is apolitical.
> >
> > Gee, I hope you gun freaks don't get all apoplectic and incontinent at
> > the mere thought of not being able to shoot anybody anymore.
>
> The gun freaks are *all* anti-gun, so I doubt they would mind a bit.
>
>
>
--
bu...@ultranet.com
<0D68358EFEEA2D91.E492813F...@lp.airnews.net>,
Deb <rdu...@ticnet.com> wrote:
> http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:15:19 -0600, No User <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
>
> > Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
> >
> > Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
> >
> > These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
> > basis.
> >
> > Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
> > their
> > homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
> >
> > Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
> >
> > It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
> >
> > Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
> > 2005.
> >
> > Very sincerely,
> > Jack Keller
> > Short Hills, New Jersey
Sounds like Fascism to me.
www.jpfo.org
TAO
> In article <938j83$k8k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tee...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news>,
> > not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> coming from one of your heros.
>
> > You just want to see people die, be imprisoned,
> > and suffer at the government's hands.
That is simply sick; get help.
>
> Nope, quite the contrary. We are sikc and tired of you stooges shoooting
> innocent people.
What in the world are you talking about? LOL
>
> > Fascism doesn't work in a
> > diverse society.
>
> Who said anything about RepubliKlan policy here?
Nobody.
>
> > If the Gov't starts doing stuff like this, a massive,
> > bloody civil war will break out,
>
> Oh well.
Typica reaction of the bloodthirsty.
>
> > and a new government formed based on
> > the original U.S. Constitution.
>
> No, there would be the same government, but with a lot less gun-toting
> stooges out there.
Now you don't even want the government to have guns?
>
> Bigot that you are, you are praising your hero's words? You are very sick
> indeed.
Hitler was *anti-gun......wake up.
TAO
> In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, n9...@amsat.org
> says...
> > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
>
> Uh...no one. They need their guns.
For the same reason as the rest of us. Wake up.
TAO
> In article <doR56.35040$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news...
> > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > > Amen! Finally, someone sensible about guns! There are enough idiots
with
> > > guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to stop
it.
> >
> > That very seldom happens.
>
> ...the Gospel according to the NRA, and Loony Lott.
>
> > >
> > > Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole for
a
> > > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
> >
> > This would never work.
>
> Sure it would.
LOL
> > >
> > > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots for
> > > crminals with guns!
> >
> > Ah yes, the killing part.........liberals always advocate killing.
>
> If a criminal does not give up their guns when they are required to do so
> by law, then the law can use force. Nothing new there, and thaat process
> is apolitical.
And unconstitutional.
Chuck Bridgeland
Please don't feed the trolls.
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door basis.
>
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
>
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by 2005.
>
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
--
Hey George! Count the silverware!
chuck bridgeland, chuckbri at mwci dot net
http://users.mwci.net/~chuckbri
Carman
Carman wrote:
In your opinion, how many was enough? Is the number of "innocent
people...maimed and killed by guns" greater or smaller than the number
of innocent people whose lives have been saved by guns?
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
Carman wrote:
Can you imagine a world where governments are going to give up their
firearms? I can't either. How about the criminals? Are they going to give
up their firearms? Not the one's I've met.
So who is it you genuinely wish to have disarmed ? It is none other than
the long-suffering and much maligned law-abiding citizen. In other
words, you want to disarm the people who pose the least risk to others,
while being themselves the victims of choice for both State violence and
Criminal violence.
You can seriously claim to believe this will somehow make the world
safer?
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-
> door basis.
Carman wrote:
Please try to get the terminology correct. The term "weapons of mass
destruction" has a strict definition. It refers to Chemical, Nuclear, and
Biological weapons, that kill in the mass.
There are sound reasons not to engage in this kind of hyperbole. If
important terms are misused for shock value, their denotations ignored
for some transient effect, the legitimate terms are diluted and begin to
lose their focus.
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
Carman wrote: Consent or be forced sounds like rape.
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
Carman wrote: That's the rape part.
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
Carman wrote:
Actually it doesn't sound draconian at all. It sounds like the height of
folly.
Read about Beverage Alcohol Prohibition and ask yourself why guns would
be easier to suppress than beverage alcohol. Read about the Drug War. Since
illegal drugs are illegal have they all disappeared? What is criminal to
possess will be possessed mainly by criminals.
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely,
> by 2005.
Carman wrote:
Wishing, and hoping, and praying, and lying your face off won't make it
so.
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
Carman wrote:
Too frightened to use your real name and e-mail? You should speak to
someone
about these delusions you have. It sounds as if they make you uncomfortable.
rglench...@my-deja.com
"OldManWizard" <OldMan...@HalfPastTen.net> wrote:
> Dave A <dave_an...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:LJK56.1484$nU4.1...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> > What a troll. While I agree that there are a few groups who are
pushing
> > this agenda (some openly, others only behind closed doors) it
simply isn't
> > going to happen in America. Why not? Because Americans are
smarter than
> > that. We understand that you advance your silly socialist agenda by
> > misinforming the non thinking masses with lies.
>
He is someone who can think a lot better than the original poster,
obviously. And who are you to call this guy a troll, troll?
> You advance your fascist agenda
BZZZZTTTT!! The Fascist confiscated guns just like the original poster
was proposing.
> by misinforming the non-thinking masses. There are no liberal "ditto-
heads"
> who parrot what one hate-filled cartoon character says on the radio.
Rush Limbaugh is hate-filled? Give me one instance, cretin. I am so
sick of you assholes who think that anyone that thinks differently from
you has commited a hate crime. Go to Hell.
> > We understand how to combat it. With each passing year we chip
away at
> your
> > base of power. We show you to be the dishonest loons that you
are. We
> > educate the misinformed public to reality.
>
> You teach the ignorant how to be be afraid of anyone who looks or
thinks
> differently.
What? He is opposing the Lefts subversion of our Constitution. And why
are you so afraid of anyone that thinks differently than you do on gun
control? Eat shit.
> > We understand that you advance your agenda by manipulation of the
courts.
> > That's why we are pushing reform of the courts.
>
> We just saw how your "reformed court" gave the election to a dimwit
using
> the most illogical and distorted interpretation of law seen in this
country.
> Ever.
The SCOTUS decision backed up the WRITTEN Constitution that places
FINAL authority for deciding a slate of electors from a state to its
LEGISLATURE, and not the courts. Besides, if the Courts DO in fact have
that authority, then SCOTUS' decision merely trumped SCOFLAs in just as
legitimate a manner as SCOFLA over-ruled EVERY branch of the Florida
state government, including its OWN SELF!!!
> > Over and over, every time you socialist, freedom robbers gain a
victory we
> > undo it and each time we learn better how to prevent you from
winning in
> the
> > first place.
> >
> > And, in the event you ever do gain a damaging victory, we
understand the
> > power of resistance. Most of us are not willing to risk arrest to
resist,
> > but enough are to make all the difference in the world. We have a
> > grassroots infrastructure that is too powerful for you to overcome.
>
> You are a bunch of grassroots punk-asses
Fuck you.
> who have no respect for anyone or
> anything, including yourselves. Our founding fathers were willing to
risk
> arrest and death to resist tyranny. The Freedom Riders in the 60's
were
> were willing to risk arrest and death to fight for equal rights for
ALL
> Americans. Martin Luther King was arrested many times for his
nonviolent
> acts of civil disobedience. He was murdered by punk-asses like you
who hid
> and ambushed him.
"Like us"? Sounds like you are a hate-filled bigot to me. MLK walked
all thos miles and fought all those battles to help rid the country of
fascists like your nasty crack-smoking ass.
> > You have lost and will continue to lose as we get more and more
Americans
> to
> > use and own guns.
>
> All Americans lose when we must all carry guns to protect ourselves
from
> ourselves.
No, we are protecting ourselves from criminals like you!
> > I am waiting at the cemetery for your funeral. I can see the hearse
> > approaching now.
>
> Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee. - John Dunne
Yeah, and my gun is loaded for you. Come get it bitch.
RGlenCheek
rglench...@my-deja.com
Why dont YOU come and get it, bitch, and not send some innocent cop to
do your dirty work?
rglench...@my-deja.com
cwhit...@aol.com (CoolHandDukeTheBlueDevilMan) wrote:
> Outlawing all guns is an overreaction -- and it will never happen.
Outlawing
> automatic weapons, assault rifles and other such weapons, however, is
a
> perfectly reasonable action.
Why?
What is reasonable about outlawing auto-loaders?
What is reasonable about taking guns of any kind away from lawful
citizens?
Why do you think it unreasonable to outlaw only the autos and not
outlaw all of them?
Che'Gu Maru
Do you really think the world of the middle ages was peace and light before the
introduction of firearms? Do you truly believe the average person was safer from
wanton violence before the introduction of the modern Colt?
If you honestly think these things, then we again have one more piece of evidence
showing the failure of the modern educational process.
For your information, before firearms every ordinary person lived at the whim and
mercy (or lack of it) of the strongest and most ruthless in his immediate
vicinity. The introduction of firearms FOR THE FIRST time offered a weapon which
did not take a lifetime of study nor the physique of a world-class weight lifter
to master. It is no coincidence that the introduction of firearms in Europe
occurred simultaneously with the beginning of the end of feudalism and the rise of
the modern democratic state.
No User wrote:
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door basis.
S. Jones
> "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.14c1b0f933ca3c19989ade@news...
> > In article <doR56.35040$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > > "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news...
> > > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > > > Amen! Finally, someone sensible about guns! There are enough idiots
> with
> > > > guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to stop
> it.
> > >
> > > That very seldom happens.
> >
> > ...the Gospel according to the NRA, and Loony Lott.
> >
> Not in the least; you cannot debate an issue that you do not understand.
Oh we all understand Loony Lott, trhe discredited author of a bogus study
financed by an ammunitions manufacturer.
> > > >
> > > > Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole for
> a
> > > > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
> > >
> > > This would never work.
> >
> > Sure it would.
>
> LOL
> > > >
> > > > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots for
> > > > crminals with guns!
> > >
> > > Ah yes, the killing part.........liberals always advocate killing.
> >
> > If a criminal does not give up their guns when they are required to do so
> > by law, then the law can use force. Nothing new there, and thaat process
> > is apolitical.
>
> And unconstitutional.
>
>
>
>
--
S. Jones
tao...@hotmail.com says...
No, their reasons are different. They protect the country, wheras gun-
toting stooges often shoot innocent people, often times children.
S. Jones
says...
There is a theory that:
"the psychotic suspicion that men doubtful of their own virility cling to
the gun as a symbolic phallus and unconsciously fear gun control as the
equivalent of castration."
That pretty well sums you up, little fella.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
MW
<290AC42ED94F9BA5.CAAFA323...@lp.airnews.net>,
rdu...@ticnet.com wrote:
>
> Does this include the guns that the governments own?
> If not....then no thanks....I'll keep mine.
Wow! Signs of intelligent life!
Well said.
MW
That's pretty radical...but I guess if I had to choose one or the
other, I'd choose your proposal.
> Do you really think the world of the middle ages was peace and light
before the
> introduction of firearms? Do you truly believe the average person
was safer from
> wanton violence before the introduction of the modern Colt?
I certainly don't.
> If you honestly think these things, then we again have one more piece
of evidence
> showing the failure of the modern educational process.
>
> For your information, before firearms every ordinary person lived at
the whim and
> mercy (or lack of it) of the strongest and most ruthless in his
immediate
> vicinity. The introduction of firearms FOR THE FIRST time offered a
weapon which
> did not take a lifetime of study nor the physique of a world-class
weight lifter
> to master. It is no coincidence that the introduction of firearms in
Europe
> occurred simultaneously with the beginning of the end of feudalism
and the rise of
> the modern democratic state.
It's also no coincidence that the advent of firearm technology has been
accompanied by a rise in the status of women, who can now protect
themselves fully as well as a man.
Joseph R. Darancette
>
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
>
>
>
>---
>This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
>It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
>http://anon.xg.nu
>---
>
I take it that your home does not have guns. I sire hope that you
aren't in the phone book or known by too many people in your
neighborhood.
"The poor we have always with us, and the purpose of
the Lord in providing the poor is to enable us of the better
classes to amuse ourselves by investigating them and
uplifting them and at dinners telling how charitable we are.
The poor don't like it much. They have no gratitude. ...
But if they are taken firmly in hand they can be kept
reasonably dependent and interesting for years."
-- Sinclair Lewis in the short story _Things_
first published in the Saturday Evening Post in 1919
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Allen James
Jones) wrote:
> In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
> >
> > Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
> >
> > These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
> > basis.
> >
> > Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
> > their
> > homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
> >
> > Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
> >
> > It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
> >
> > Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely,
> > by 2005.
> >
> > Very sincerely,
> > Jack Keller
> > Short Hills, New Jersey
>
> Amen! Finally, someone sensible about guns! There are enough idiots with
> guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to stop it.
>
> Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole for a
> first time offence. True life for a second offence.
>
> If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots for
> crminals with guns!
>
> Gee, I hope you gun freaks don't get all apoplectic and incontinent at
> the mere thought of not being able to shoot anybody anymore.
Great satire! You've managed to point out exactly how stupid this ninny
is!
Oh, wait- it IS satire, right? I mean, nobody but a complete idiot would
actually.... nahhhhhh.
Allen James
<ereppert-BB0561...@news-server.rochester.rr.com>, Ed
Reppert <erep...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <shrapnel-46967E...@news.enteract.com>, Allen
> James <shra...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
> > Uh huh. Yeah- safe like New York City was safe for Amadou Diallo....
>
> Kitty Genovese might be a better example.
Both are good, for different reasons.
later
N9NWO wrote in message ...
>: I look forward to undoing their efforts. A good start would be to undo
>Brady.
>: But its not enough to prevent them from winning, you need to observe their
>: tactics and do to them what they've been doing to us, i.e, tax, register,
>: regulate out of exisitence, and do to us what they do for themselves,
>i.e.,
>: create a government cabinet to study how and implement ways to get rid of
>gun
>: control.
>:
>: It may not all be bad. Imagine a tax on gun control. We could raise a
>lot of
>: money that way.
>: later....
>
>If you really follow gun control, you will find it is about control, power
>and greed. The educated, who are now the new WASPs, are out to
>control the masses and have power over them. And the big gun makers
>and gun dealers want their competition put out of business (greed).
>
You can write text books on that set of topics. My observations show that its
leftist Dems going after conservative Reps to spite them since they can. A good
example is Clinton being enraged over impeachment. He is endorsing /supporting
a lot of gun control initiatives to get back at those who went after him.
Moderate Republicans often vote anti-gun for exactly the same reason (to spite
conservative Reps). We'll see if this stops for W's adminstration.
However, a lot of folks jump on the gun control bandwagon because it's
fashionable and because unless you are a politician in a sensitive seat, there's
really nothing out there to deter such persons. A deterrent beyond the
political arena is necessary.
later.......
Teek
not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> In article <938j83$k8k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tee...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news>,
> > not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > it.
> > >
> > > Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole
for
> > a
> > > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
> > >
> > > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots
for
> > > crminals with guns!
You are the facsist, not me. You are so blind it's unbelievable. You
are advocating murder for people who refuse to give up something
enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Hitler was anti-gun, and tried
the same thing you want to see happen. He has never been a "hero" of
mine. If society does not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat
it.
> > >
> > > Gee, I hope you gun freaks don't get all apoplectic and
incontinent
> > at
> > > the mere thought of not being able to shoot anybody anymore.
> >
> > Heil, der dumkoff! Vo ist der Fuhrer? What a dimbulb. It's been
> > tried. Hitler lost.
>
> You KKK types always try to twist it to make it look as if the
thought is
> coming from one of your heros.
I mildly insulted you in German. "Hail, the idiot! Where is the
Fuhrer? Answer: Dead. How are the following quotes from one our most
dangerous governments different from what you advocated? I'm
interested.
>
> > You just want to see people die, be imprisoned,
> > and suffer at the government's hands.
>
> Nope, quite the contrary. We are sikc and tired of you stooges
shoooting
> innocent people.
>
All right. I carry a gun as required by state law for my occupation. I
don't shoot innocent people. Why would you assume I do?
> > Fascism doesn't work in a
> > diverse society.
>
> Who said anything about RepubliKlan policy here?
>
> > If the Gov't starts doing stuff like this, a massive,
> > bloody civil war will break out,
>
> Oh well.
>
> > and a new government formed based on
> > the original U.S. Constitution.
>
> No, there would be the same government, but with a lot less gun-
toting
> stooges out there.
You don't quite get it, do you? Do you realize a submachine gun is
actually a very simple device? They are easily made from normal
machine tools. Do you realize nitrogen fertilizer and fuel oil is what
did the massive destruction at the fed bldg. in Oklahoma? Do you
realize your precious household bleach can be mixed with a couple of
other household ingredients and chemical warfare could be waged? Do
you realize you have enough materials in your household to do
significant damage to your block? Do you realize you would have to
consent to a thorough house search with no probable cause and be
considered an enemy of the state because you may be well-educated? You
see, the State fears an informed populace. And an armed one. First
the guns go; then the intellectuals. Free-thinking does not serve the
state.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the
> > underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So
> > let's not have any native militia or police."
> >
> > --Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations -
> > 1941-1944. Farrar, Straus and Young - 1953 Pg. 345
>
> Bigot that you are, you are praising your hero's words? You are very
sick
> indeed.
>
So sick that I do not see much difference in your words than the
Nazis. Please explain the difference to me.
> > "All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately ... The
SS,
> > SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity
of
> > campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one
of
> > the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless
keeps
> > his weapon ... must be regarded as an enemy of the national
government."
> >
> > -- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933
Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole for
> > a
> > > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
> > >
> > > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots
for
> > > crminals with guns!
> What next, your favourite KKK quotes, bigot?
> Yep. Here's one: "A right delayed is a right denied."--Martin Luther
King, Jr.
rglench...@my-deja.com
not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> There is a theory that:
> "the psychotic suspicion that men doubtful of their own virility
cling to
> the gun as a symbolic phallus and unconsciously fear gun control as
the
> equivalent of castration."
Yeah, not creative and rather boring, too.
Here's my theory on gun-grabbers; you numnuts suffer from penis envy.
> That pretty well sums you up, little fella.
You talkin to your pocket rocket, again? Sure sounds that way.
RGlenCheek
Brickner's
> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
>
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door basis.
>
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
>
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
>
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
>
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by 2005.
>
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
>
> ---
> This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
> http://anon.xg.nu
> ---
And I suppose that you, a gutless do-gooder want someone else's son or daughter to
enforce your
"draconian" laws.......It's people like you who spawn Hitlers and it's people like
you who must bury your own children because of your ignorance. Please have the
guts to put your own self to task in confiscating my guns..............but watch
the last 200 yards...........might be hairy........
Ignorance can be cured but stupidity is lifelong........
tcrpe
Not enough innocent people have been protected by guns.
> Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
Before the advent of the firearm, there were no free societies.
> These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
basis.
As they were in NAZI Germany.
> Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
their
> homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
Um, the US Constitution says otherwise.
But you already knew that, didn't you?
> Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
Under a hail of gunfire, perhaps.
> It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
It is Draconain.
And I suppose your kind woud be in control of all of this?
> Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
2005.
Suuuurrrreee . . . .
> Very sincerely,
> Jack Keller
> Short Hills, New Jersey
>
>
>
> ---
> This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
> http://anon.xg.nu
No surprise.
> ---
>
>
Joel C Simon
S. Jones <not-...@home.com> regurgitated in message
news:MPG.14c1be9489aab357989ae4@news...
> There is a theory that:
> "the psychotic suspicion that men doubtful of their own virility cling to
> the gun as a symbolic phallus and unconsciously fear gun control as the
> equivalent of castration."
>
> That pretty well sums you up, little fella.
It actually took over nine hours for an anti-gun freak to vomit forth a
gun=phallus truism. Amazing restraint; I applaud you.
Scout
> In article <fPR56.35069$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.14c1b0f933ca3c19989ade@news...
> > > In article <doR56.35040$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > > tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > > > "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news...
> > > > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > > > > Amen! Finally, someone sensible about guns! There are enough
idiots
> > with
> > > > > guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to
stop
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > That very seldom happens.
> > >
> > > ...the Gospel according to the NRA, and Loony Lott.
> > >
> > Not in the least; you cannot debate an issue that you do not understand.
>
> Oh we all understand Loony Lott, trhe discredited author of a bogus study
> financed by an ammunitions manufacturer.
Which simply proves to all the extend of your ignorance. Anyone can show the
fund that paid for this research in no manner concerns the operations of any
ammunition manufacturer, nor in any manner "suggested" the result. In fact
Mr. Lott is very much of the anti-gun family but is more of a researcher
than a political activist and let the results of his research speak for
itself even if they were contrary to what he probably expected to find. Mr
Lott's study had received numerous awards for the completeness and accuracy
of his study and methodology, and no one has yet found any flaw with the
manner in which the study was done. At most the only thing those opposed to
the results have been able to show is that by cherry picking data from the
study, that CCW does not increase violent crime rates. Gee, something that
doesn't hurt by the admission of it opponents, and something that probably
does help by it's proponents. Hmmm. No down side, all up. IOW, it can't hurt
and could help. So why not allow people to decide for themselves if they
will carry? After all the opponents admit it doesn't hurt.
Further would you also say the research of the Nobel prize winners is
reflective of an explosives industry?
Where exactly do you think the money for the Nobel prizes came from?
Scout
> In article <SMR56.35066$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.14c1b0798afa3efd989add@news...
> > > In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
n9...@amsat.org
> > > says...
> > > > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
> > >
> > > Uh...no one. They need their guns.
> >
> > For the same reason as the rest of us. Wake up.
>
> No, their reasons are different. They protect the country, wheras gun-
> toting stooges often shoot innocent people, often times children.
How exactly is an LEO gunning down a kid holding a candy bar "protecting the
nation"?
Oh, and for your information police shoot and kill innocent people more than
5-1 over the "gun-toting stooges". If you call that "often" what do you call
something that happens 5 times as much, and why doesn't it bother you?
Scout
"S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14c1b0798afa3efd989add@news...
> In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, n9...@amsat.org
> says...
> > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
>
> Uh...no one. They need their guns.
Well then, the statement "Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United
States completely, by 2005." is a lie. After all what does "completely"
mean?
However, please show that I don't need my guns. Prove to me that NEED is the
issue.
After all, we know that the average cop goes his entire career without ever
NEEDING his gun, so why should he have one?
Finally, please show me that your rights are limited only to what you can
show you NEED.
lin...@mindspring.com
So when all guns are "gone," and someone breaks in and attacks you with an illegal
gun, or a knife or an axe or a can of gasoline, will you ask that criminal to
"hang on" while you call 911 the wait 20 minutes for armed Police to arrive?
When is the last time you read of a criminal holding up an armed cop
at an ATM or Supermarket? When is the last time you read of an armed
cop being mugged or raped?
Criminals attack *citizens* not armed cops.
linda t
florida
come for my guns and you can have them -- one bullet at a time
Sid9
country. It would be as divisive as alcohol prohibition.
Second of all it CAN'T be done. No laws, no edicts, no way. As much as I
favor better control of guns I know it cannot work in our society and would
be a disastrous experiment.
There's no use passing laws that can't or wont be enforced. It simply breed
disrespect for the law.
"Deb" <rdu...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:0D68358EFEEA2D91.E492813F...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html
>
>
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:15:19 -0600, No User <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote:
>
> > Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
> >
> > Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
> >
> > These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
basis.
> >
> > Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
their
> > homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
> >
> > Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
> >
> > It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
> >
> > Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
2005.
> >
> > Very sincerely,
> > Jack Keller
> > Short Hills, New Jersey
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> >It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
> >http://anon.xg.nu
> >---
> >
>
BJ
give him a permit to carry a gun!
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AQ%56.203$Dd.1...@news1.mia...
an0...@hotmail.com
>In article <SMR56.35066$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
>tao...@hotmail.com says...
>> "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.14c1b0798afa3efd989add@news...
>> > In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, n9...@amsat.org
>> > says...
>> > > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
>> >
>> > Uh...no one. They need their guns.
>>
>> For the same reason as the rest of us. Wake up.
>
>No, their reasons are different. They protect the country, wheras gun-
>toting stooges often shoot innocent people, often times children.
Really? Why don't you cite specific instances. And in the meantime,
I'll point you to:
http://www.nrahq.org/administration/publications/ac/
EL PRESIDENTE
>From: cwhit...@aol.com (CoolHandDukeTheBlueDevilMan)
>Date: 1/6/01 3:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010106185823...@ng-co1.aol.com>
>
>Outlawing all guns is an overreaction -- and it will never happen. Outlawing
>automatic weapons, assault rifles and other such weapons, however, is a
>perfectly reasonable action.
Assault weapons ARE automatic weapons. What your group calls assault weapons
are semi auto rifles. Anyone that wants to can legally go buy a machine gun,
so I guess the question is, do you have a point?
Say good bye to alpha whore. The dark days of the clinton / gore trashing our
country are over!
Eric Florack
"tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>No User <no....@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
>news:32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu...
>> Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
>
>Not enough innocent people have been protected by guns.
....and you have stats on that point, I presume?
/E
Annoy a liberal, Inc
Allen James
Jones) wrote:
... nothing of substance....
Who wants to bet that this apologist for totalitarianism considers
him/herself a "progressive"?
Like it's progresive to advocate a return to feudalism. Or to advocate
for the criminalisation of a huge chunk of ones' fellow citizens because
you disagree with them politically. Or to regard a difference of opinion
as 'proof' of insanity. Or to gleefully advocate the destruction of the
Fourth Amendment. Or to endorse terroristic police action against people
who own inanimate objects one might consider 'icky', like firearms.
You're a sad little individual, not-a-fan-of-freedom. If the burden of
being a free citizen of a free nation rests too heavily on your
shoulders, please unburden yourself - disavow your American citizenship,
pack your belongings, and move to Afghanistan or Singapore. You'd be
happier there.
Richard A. DeCamp
Bummer.
Rich
S. Jones
JOEL....@prodigy.net says...
That's some strange pastime you have there...counting phallic references
and timing between them.
S. Jones
> In article <MPG.14c1afaed755dc7e989adc@news>,
> not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > In article <938j83$k8k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tee...@my-deja.com says...
> > > In article <MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news>,
> > > not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> It's time to stop
> > > it.
> > > >
> > > > Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole
> for
> > > a
> > > > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
> > > >
> > > > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots
> for
> > > > crminals with guns!
>
> You are the facsist, not me. You are so blind it's unbelievable. You
> are advocating murder for people who refuse to give up something
> enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Read the original posting, neo-nazi. The proposition is to disarm idiots
with guns. If there was ever such a law, then those that choose to be
criminals by not giving up their guns, would deserve to be shot.
S. Jones
sc...@monumental.com says...
>
> "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.14c1bdf11f601d9e989ae3@news...
> > In article <fPR56.35069$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > > "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.14c1b0f933ca3c19989ade@news...
> > > > In article <doR56.35040$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > > > tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > > > > "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news...
> > > > > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > > > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > > > > > Amen! Finally, someone sensible about guns! There are enough
> idiots
> > > with
> > > > > > guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to
> stop
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > That very seldom happens.
> > > >
> > > > ...the Gospel according to the NRA, and Loony Lott.
> > > >
> > > Not in the least; you cannot debate an issue that you do not understand.
> >
> > Oh we all understand Loony Lott, trhe discredited author of a bogus study
> > financed by an ammunitions manufacturer.
>
> Which simply proves to all the extend of your ignorance.
Lott's promotional literature for Olin ammunition has been discredited so
badly that if anyone can still honeslty stand up for it, it doing nothing
more than making fools of themselves.
> Anyone can show the
> fund that paid for this research in no manner concerns the operations of any
> ammunition manufacturer, nor in any manner "suggested" the result. In fact
> Mr. Lott is very much of the anti-gun family
Yeah, and the KKK is pro Jesse Jackson.
> but is more of a researcher
> than a political activist and let the results of his research speak for
> itself even if they were contrary to what he probably expected to find.
He had a predetermined outcome and bastardized the data to achieve that
outcome.
> Mr
> Lott's study had received numerous awards for the completeness and accuracy
> of his study and methodology, and no one has yet found any flaw with the
> manner in which the study was done.
No one? hahahahaha...now you're getting funny.
S. Jones
says...
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 04:41:28 GMT, not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
>
> >In article <SMR56.35066$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> >tao...@hotmail.com says...
> >> "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.14c1b0798afa3efd989add@news...
> >> > In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, n9...@amsat.org
> >> > says...
> >> > > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
> >> >
> >> > Uh...no one. They need their guns.
> >>
> >> For the same reason as the rest of us. Wake up.
> >
> >No, their reasons are different. They protect the country, wheras gun-
> >toting stooges often shoot innocent people, often times children.
>
> Really? Why don't you cite specific instances.
This is just from Houston....one city....multiply that by the number of
similarly sized cities, and youy get the idea.
A 7-year-old girl, Mary Farmer, was shot to death by her father on New
Year's Eve. He had been firing his gun in the yard when it jammed. When
he was trying to unjam the gun, it fired, killing his daughter.
Kyle Wilhelm, 11 years old, was shot while playing with a 9 mm pistol he
and his brother found under a bed while visiting their aunt's house. Kyle
is in stable condition.
Roy Rivera, 8, was killed with an illegal sawed off shotgun , when
struggling with the gun with a teenager who had brought the gun to the
apartment.
Christopher Ortiz, 13, was accidentally shot to death outside his home in
northwest Houston by a friend. At first, the police were told it was a
drive-by shooting. Later the friend admitted he showed his father's 38-
caliber revolver to his friend, thinking it was unloaded.
Family argument ends with one person dead and three wounded. Stephen
Powell, 28, an unemployed pipefitter, died Tuesday in Herman Hospital
with a bullet wound to the stomach. His father-in-law, wife, and her son
Shannon, 12, suffered a chest wound.
Jesus Mejia, 9, died while playing with his father's gun in a closet of
their southeast Houston apartment. The boy removed the magazine and was
playing with the gun when a live round in the chamber discharged and hit
him in the chest.
Robert Volino, 12, was critically wounded while he and two other boys
skipped school and were playing with a gun belonging to one's parents.
The gun accidentally went off while one boy was aiming it at his friends,
striking Robert Volino in the head.
A 2-year-old boy was critically wounded after he apparently shot himself
by accident. The accident occurred near Groceville.
A three year old boy was critically wounded when playing with a gun he
found in his father's briefcase in the front seat of the car. The boy
later died.
A 12-year-old boy accidentally shot his 12-year-old friend. The boy is in
critical condition.
Trent Johnson, 10, was accidentally shot to death by his 16-year-old
brother.
A 16-year-old boy shot his father to death then himself during a
confrontation. They had fought in front of their home in the 1900 block
of Sakowitz in northeast Houston.
A 13-year-old boy was shot to death. Police are investigating whether the
boy committed suicide or was killed wihle playing with a gun. He lived in
the 7300 block of Brace.
A 14-year-old boy is charged with the death of his 15-year-old friend at
a home in the 241000 block of East Lake Houston. The 14-year-old boy said
he had a gun so he could protect himself. The 15-year-old died at Herman
Hospital.
Demitrius Scott, 7, was fatally shot as he watched TV in his southwest
Houston home in the 6100 block of Muskigum. Demitrius Scott died.
A father accidentally shot has 12-year-old son at a westside convenience
store.
Julie Gregory, 12, was shot in the head and killed by a 15-year-old boy
playing with a pistol. She was taken by Life Flight to Hermann Hospital
where she died. The gun was owned by the boy's father.
Sky Seal Tucker, 14, was shot to death by a 16-year-old boy who said it
was an accident. Sky died at Ben Taub Hospital. The boy was charged with
manslaughter. and the apartment resident, who owned the shotgun, was
charged with making a firearm accessible to a child.
Carmen Crew, Jr., 3, shot off his finger with a loaded pistol he found in
his parent's bedroom. The parents have been charged with felony
abandonment and endangering a child.
Alexus Capetillo, 4, was being watched by her grandfather when she found
a shotgun behind a door. It accidentally discharged, blowing off part of
one of her fingers.
Salvador Ramirez, 27, and Veronica Ramirez, 17, were found shot to death
at a residence in the 1200 block of Marleen. Police believe Salvador
Ramirez killed his niece, then himself.
The mother of a ten-year-old girl accidentally shot the child in the foot
while arguing with the girl’s father. The mother was in custody and was
expected to be charged with injury to a child.
Rodolfo Lizama 16, was killed when a gun his friend was handling
discharged accidentally. Lizama was visiting a friend in the 1000 bock of
South Wayside. Charges of criminally negligent homicide are pending.
Nathan Krone Jr., 12, died after his 9-year-old brother fired a .410-
guage shotgun they got from a closet in their parents’ bedroom. The
father had purchased the gun recently and planned to take the older boy
hunting. The parents were out of town and the boys were alone in the
house when the shooting occurred.
Police said the shooting death of Mario Alvarado, 17, was apparently
accidental. While visiting with friends, he was handling an automatic
pistol which fired one time. He was taken by private vehicle to the
hospital where he was dead on arrival.
A middle school student was hospitalized after he was accidentally struck
with shotgun pellets last Friday. He reported to a school nurse that he
was in pain on Monday morning. The student was showing a shotgun to some
of his friends. They fired it into the ground to see what would happen.
He didn’t want his parents to know about the accident and covered the
wounds with bandages.
A baby delivered prematurely after his mother, Herlinda Cabrera Romero,
35, was shot in the head, died hours later. Carlos Curia Aguirre, 26,
told investigators he went home to get a pistol and was loading it when
it discharged, hitting Romero in the face. He has been charged with
manslaughter .
Cody Smith, 3, was at home with his mother and a younger child when he
found a loaded 9 mm pistol under the mattress in his mother’s bedroom and
fatally shot himself in the head. The pistol belonged to Corey Magee, the
mother’s husband.
Derek Almanza, 10, was accidentally shot by a 9-year-old friend and was
in critical condition at Ben Taub Hospital. The friend, who was not
identified, was handing a pistol to his father when it discharged.
Daniel Montoya, 15, was fatally shot in the chest outside his home. He
was initially thought to have been shot by an unknown person. Further
investigation indicated he was accidentally shot by his brother, George,
24, who gave police a statement.
A teenager, apparently thinking he was playing Russian roulette, died of
a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. The .45 pistol unlike a
revolver had automatically inserted a cartridge in the firing chamber
when the gun was cocked.
Jason McNorton
> a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. The .45 pistol unlike a
> revolver had automatically inserted a cartridge in the firing chamber
> when the gun was cocked.
That one needs to go to Darwinawards.com
Joel C Simon
>
> Lott's promotional literature for Olin ammunition has been discredited so
> badly that if anyone can still honeslty stand up for it, it doing nothing
> more than making fools of themselves.
>
> outcome.
Would you care to tell us where we can find this discrediting information?
Because I've sure never seen it. Unlike you I've read Lott's book and a lot
of lame shit purporting to refute it. But I haven't seen what you describe.
Actually, it sounds like you're describing the Kellerman/Reay study that
"proved" gun owners were 43 times more likely to shoot their mothers than
home intruders. That would explain the scarcity of mothers, I guess.
Dave A
would have found a way to die in a rubber room. Am I a bad person to find
this story funny?
--
Dave A
"Jason McNorton" <jm...@ont.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14c288dea...@news.ont.com...
Pat Hines
>
> In article <3a5891f...@news.jax.bellsouth.net>, an0...@hotmail.com
> says...
> > On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 04:41:28 GMT, not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> >
> > >In article <SMR56.35066$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > >tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > >> "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:MPG.14c1b0798afa3efd989add@news...
> > >> > In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, n9...@amsat.org
> > >> > says...
> > >> > > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
> > >> >
> > >> > Uh...no one. They need their guns.
> > >>
> > >> For the same reason as the rest of us. Wake up.
> > >
> > >No, their reasons are different. They protect the country, wheras gun-
> > >toting stooges often shoot innocent people, often times children.
> >
> > Really? Why don't you cite specific instances.
>
> This is just from Houston....one city....multiply that by the number of
> similarly sized cities, and youy get the idea.
<mythological statements snipped for obvious reasons>
Since those stories have been circulating in this and other newsgroups
for YEARS, and are unsubstantiated, and have been alleged to have
occurred over and over again, we will need cites that include the date,
city, and town where they occurred and in what journal the report first
appeared for such reports to be considered as genuine.
Even if these were genuine, we don't make national policy based on rare
events such as shootings by accident through neglect, or particularly
policy concerning guns which have a prohibition on regulating laws via
the protection of the right to be armed in the Second Amendment of the
US Constitution.
Pat Hines
S. Jones
JOEL....@prodigy.net says...
You are wrong.
I looked up your favourite gun freak stooge, Lott, and it seems that his
propaganda is so out of whack that it is obvious why his mythology
appeals to you, and other gun freaks such as yourself.
First of all, we see that his study was funded by the John. M. Olin
Foundation. Now, how did this foundation come into existence? Well, it
was created by the personal fortune of the late John M. Olin. And who is
he, you might ask? Well, think Olin Corp. And w3hat does Olin Corp do?
One of it's stated main products is ammunitions for firearms, aka
bullets.
Gee, no bias there, huh?
When we look at the propaganda itself, which Lott tries to dress up as a
legitimate study, we find numerous people poking holes into it so easily
that it can be likened to putting your finger through wet toilet paper. I
make that analogy so that you can understand the concept easier, as it
may well fit into your daily experience.
We see here his data source, and how he drops data that doesn't meet his
pre-planned outcome:
[begin excerpt]
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Atrium/4507/lott.html
Lott’s foundational claim that gun ownership is on the rise in the United
States is based on the 1988 CBS News General Election Exit Poll and the
1996 Voter News Service National General Election Exit Poll, which
collected data that year for CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, and the Associated
Press. According to Lott, both voter exit polls contained a question on
whether a person owned a gun, as well as information on the person’s age,
sex, race, income, place of residence and political views. The 1992 voter
exit poll was not used, as it did not contain any questions on gun
ownership.
Problems with the Data
The UCR
Most of the analysis done by Lott and Mustard was done on data garnered
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports. The
findings of the study are vulnerable to weaknesses in the data on which
they were based. Problems with FBI data are widely acknowledged. The UCR
is compiled from information coming out of police departments; its main
feature is the arrest rate. Lott uses the arrest rate as a proxy for the
crime rate, a substitution that arguably results in an under-
representation of the actual crime rate, as not all crimes result in
arrests; some estimates of the percentage of crimes ‘solved’ with an
arrest run as low as ten percent. Because of this, one cannot assume that
those [crimes] that are solved by an arrest are a representative sample
of all those committed.
Should All Counties be Counted?
One problem faced by Lott in his analysis was how to deal with small
counties with minimal crime rates. While county crime rate changes were
weighted in proportion to their population, the concern is that in small
counties, only one or two crimes might result in a huge percentage change
in the crime rate, whereas the same crimes would have a virtually
nonexistent effect in counties with higher crime rates. To control for
this, Lott introduces the arrest ratio into his analysis, which is the
number of reported arrests per crime. The inclusion of this variable in
the model specification materially affects the size and composition of
the estimation data set. If a county has no reported crime of a
particular category for a given year, its arrest rate for that category
is divided by zero, and the county is dropped from the sample for that
year. According to Black and Nagin, in their reworking of Lott and
Mustard’s data, Lott’s technique here results in frequencies of missing
data of 46.6 percent for homicide, 30.5 percent for rape, 12.2 percent
for aggravated assault, and 29.5 percent for robbery. The missing data
would not necessarily be a problem in and of itself if it simply resulted
in a smaller, but still representative, sample. Black and Nagin charge,
however, that because this model excludes observations based on the
realization of the dependent variable, i.e., crime, it may potentially
create a substantial selection bias.
Black and Nagin’s proposed solution for dealing with the small county
problem and Lott’s selection bias is to exclude from the sample all
counties with populations of less than 100,000, thus ensuring that that
the sample is selected based on the realization of an exogenous variable
(population), not on the realization of the dependent variable; and any
selection bias is thus eliminated. This technique results in a sample
size of only 393 counties, 86 of which had adopted RTC laws by the end of
Lott and Mustard’s study.40 What is more relevant than the number of
counties included, however, is that while this new sample includes only
69% of the population covered by Lott and Mustard’s analysis, 80% of the
crimes are included. Moreover, Lott himself states in More Guns, Less
Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws that the new [RTC] laws
induce the greatest changes in the largest counties. If this is true,
then Black and Nagin’s sample should produce evidence of an even more
pronounced drop in the crime rate after passage of RTC laws than Lott and
Mustard’s does.
This is not, however, the case. Black and Nagin measure state-specific
changes after the adoption of RTC laws in their new sample, and conclude
that the passage of the laws is correlated with increases in crime rates
in some states, and decreases in others. Adoption of nondiscretionary
concealed-handgun laws reduced aggravated assault 67% in Maine but
increased murders 105% in West Virginia. Such widely varying estimates
are indicative not, Black and Nagin argue, of a crime reduction affect
from the adoption of RTC laws, but rather that Lott and Mustard’s model
is misspecified.
[end excerpt]
Ok, so you say well, that's just one (what is it you gun freaks call
people that disagree with you?) "fascists's" point of view.
Well, let's look at some others, shall we?
Dezhbakhsh, Hashem. "First Person: More Guns, Less Crime? Hashem
Dezhbakhsh Disagrees." Emory Report. September 27, 1999; Volume 52,
Number 6.
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1999/September/erseptember.27
/9 _27_99dezhbakhsh.html
Handgun Control, Inc: Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. "John Lott's
More Guns, Less Crime — An Alternative Q & A."
http://www.handguncontrol.org/lott.htm
Hemenway, David. "Book Review: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime
and Gun Control Laws By John R. Lott." The New England Journal of
Medicine. December 31, 1998; Volume 339, Number 27.
http://www.nejm.org/content/1998/0339/0027/2029.asp
Ratnesar, Romesh. "Should You Carry a Gun?" Time. July 6, 1998; Volume
152, Number 1.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980706/box2.html
Time.com. Transcript: "More Guns, Less Crime? A Debate Between John Lott,
author of More Guns, Less Crime, and Douglas Weil, Research Director of
Handgun Control, Inc." July 1, 1998.
http://www.time.com/time/community/transcripts/chattr070198.html
Webster, Daniel W. "The Claims That Right-to-Carry Laws Reduce Violent
Crime are Unsubstantiated." Pacific Center for Violence Prevention: The
Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
http://pcvp.org/pcvp/firearms/pubs/mustard3.shtml
Webster, Daniel W. "The Claims That Right-to-Carry Laws Reduce Violent
Crime are Unsubstantiated: Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime."
Pacific Center for Violence Prevention: The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun
Policy and Research.
http://pcvp.org/pcvp/firearms/pubs/summary3.shtml
It would be more productive for you to accept facts, and to work from
there.
Ever so humbly,
Your teacher, 'S'.
Pat Hines
>
> In article <939t81$eine$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
> JOEL....@prodigy.net says...
> >
> > S. Jones <not-...@home.com> regurgitated in message
> > news:MPG.14c1be9489aab357989ae4@news...
> >
> > > There is a theory that:
> > > "the psychotic suspicion that men doubtful of their own virility cling to
> > > the gun as a symbolic phallus and unconsciously fear gun control as the
> > > equivalent of castration."
> > >
> > > That pretty well sums you up, little fella.
> >
> > It actually took over nine hours for an anti-gun freak to vomit forth a
> > gun=phallus truism. Amazing restraint; I applaud you.
>
> That's some strange pastime you have there...counting phallic references
> and timing between them.
Well, since anti-self defense zealots, such as yourself, are so easily
countered with facts and logic, some sport is brought into the newsgroup
from time to time.
Pat Hines
S. Jones
> "S. Jones" wrote:
> >
> > In article <3a5891f...@news.jax.bellsouth.net>, an0...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> > > On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 04:41:28 GMT, not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > >
> > > >In article <SMR56.35066$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > > >tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > > >> "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:MPG.14c1b0798afa3efd989add@news...
> > > >> > In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, n9...@amsat.org
> > > >> > says...
> > > >> > > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Uh...no one. They need their guns.
> > > >>
> > > >> For the same reason as the rest of us. Wake up.
> > > >
> > > >No, their reasons are different. They protect the country, wheras gun-
> > > >toting stooges often shoot innocent people, often times children.
> > >
> > > Really? Why don't you cite specific instances.
> >
> > This is just from Houston....one city....multiply that by the number of
> > similarly sized cities, and youy get the idea.
>
Did you see these incidents? The 31 children in this list were all from
Houston alone. You can imagine the number for thew whole country.
> Pat Hines
Sucks to be you. Seriously, it does suck to be you. To write off the
above 31 incidents as fictional so that you can keep your gun and risk
having a family member shot, is turly disgusting, Klansman. So yeah,
honestly, it sucks to be you.
Pat Hines
Dr. John Lott's study has never been refuted by any legitimate peer
reviewed journal article nor any response from any peer of Dr. Lott.
The Olin foundation neither manufacturers ammunition nor anything else
for that matter. The Olin foundation grants funding for a chair at the
University of Chicago, the University of Chicago is the sole determinant
of the recipient of that funded chair.
> > Anyone can show the
> > fund that paid for this research in no manner concerns the operations of any
> > ammunition manufacturer, nor in any manner "suggested" the result. In fact
> > Mr. Lott is very much of the anti-gun family
>
> Yeah, and the KKK is pro Jesse Jackson.
Jackson certainly uses them to gather funding, one would think that if
they didn't exist, Jackson would create them.
Your racist comment in no way relates to the research done by Dr. Lott.
> > but is more of a researcher
> > than a political activist and let the results of his research speak for
> > itself even if they were contrary to what he probably expected to find.
>
> He had a predetermined outcome and bastardized the data to achieve that
> outcome.
Since I have original copies of both the study and Dr. Lott's book
based on the study, and find absolutely no evidence of your claim, I am
forced to dismiss you as an anti-self defense bigot.
> >
> > Mr Lott's study had received numerous awards for the completeness and accuracy
> > of his study and methodology, and no one has yet found any flaw with the
> > manner in which the study was done.
>
> No one? hahahahaha...now you're getting funny.
No one in the academic community with standing, and no one outside
academic circles except several anti-self defense organizations such as
the appropriately named "Violence Policy Center", found basic fault or
fraud within Dr. Lott's study.
It is obvious that your understanding of statistical analysis is
lacking a certain, shall we say, robustness. It is your un- or
undereducated statements that show a bias, not Dr. Lott's well reviewed study.
Download the study: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf
Have someone with at least a modicum of understanding explain it to you.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
>
> In article <93959v$19k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tee...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <MPG.14c1afaed755dc7e989adc@news>,
> > not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > > In article <938j83$k8k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tee...@my-deja.com says...
> > > > In article <MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news>,
> > > > not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > > > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > It's time to stop
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole
> > for
> > > > a
> > > > > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
> > > > >
> > > > > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots
> > for
> > > > > crminals with guns!
> >
> > You are the facsist, not me. You are so blind it's unbelievable. You
> > are advocating murder for people who refuse to give up something
> > enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Read the original posting, neo-nazi. The proposition is to disarm idiots
> with guns. If there was ever such a law, then those that choose to be
> criminals by not giving up their guns, would deserve to be shot.
Americans, unlike the citizens of nearly every other country, are
guaranteed a federal government protection of the right to be armed, a
right possessed without regard to any government or document.
Additionally, since gun owners are, unlike nearly any other group, in
possession of the tools to defend their intrinsic right to be armed and
will defend their right with whatever is required for that defense.
Pat Hines
S. Jones
Your head is buried somewhere where you can only see crap, and not the
truth that has been pointed out to you sso often.
[your crap snipped]
>
> Pat Hines
Pat Hines
>
> In article <3A58D505...@home.com>, fas...@home.com says...
> > "S. Jones" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3a5891f...@news.jax.bellsouth.net>, an0...@hotmail.com
> > > says...
> > > > On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 04:41:28 GMT, not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >In article <SMR56.35066$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > > > >tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > > > >> "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:MPG.14c1b0798afa3efd989add@news...
> > > > >> > In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, n9...@amsat.org
> > > > >> > says...
> > > > >> > > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Uh...no one. They need their guns.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For the same reason as the rest of us. Wake up.
> > > > >
> > > > >No, their reasons are different. They protect the country, wheras gun-
> > > > >toting stooges often shoot innocent people, often times children.
> > > >
> > > > Really? Why don't you cite specific instances.
> > >
> > > This is just from Houston....one city....multiply that by the number of
> > > similarly sized cities, and youy get the idea.
> >
>
> Did you see these incidents? The 31 children in this list were all from
> Houston alone. You can imagine the number for thew whole country.
<unverified, mythical incidents snipped>
> > Pat Hines
>
> Sucks to be you. Seriously, it does suck to be you. To write off the
> above 31 incidents as fictional so that you can keep your gun and risk
> having a family member shot, is turly disgusting, Klansman. So yeah,
> honestly, it sucks to be you.
Ignoring your racebaiting, teenagerist attack, let me say this...
If I owned a gun, I would be able to keep it without regard to the
above fraudulent incidents, even if they were real, which as I have
stated, they are not.
The right to access, possess, own, and use a gun is an intrinsic right
not dependent on any document or government.
Pat Hines
S. Jones
You are wrong yet again. You are wrong with an amazing consistency. The
2nd amendment myths have been dispelled in this newsgroup countless
times. The fact that you ignore the truth, does not mean the truth does
not exist.
> Additionally, since gun owners are, unlike nearly any other group, in
> possession of the tools to defend their intrinsic right to be armed and
> will defend their right with whatever is required for that defense.
>
> Pat Hines
>
--
Pat Hines
Actually, no, I am not wrong. All peer reviewed legal studies and
articles published for the last fifteen years support my position.
Would you like a list? See The Second Amendment Law Library at:
http://www.2ndLawLib.org/
> You are wrong with an amazing consistency. The
> 2nd amendment myths have been dispelled in this newsgroup countless
> times.
Actually, since that's not possible, your statement is a lie and
provably so. There are no facts that support the Second Amendment of
the US Constitution as other than a required protection of the intrinsic
right to be armed.
> The fact that you ignore the truth, does not mean the truth does
> not exist.
All historical research on the history of the Second Amendment and on
the intrinsic right to be armed says your statement is false, and
supports my position fully and completely.
Pat Hines
Since your statement isn't true, we can say with some confidence that
you are without an argument here and simply dust you off.
Pat Hines
James F. Mayer
> > "S. Jones" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3a5891f...@news.jax.bellsouth.net>, an0...@hotmail.com
> > > says...
> > > >
> > > > >In article <SMR56.35066$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > > > >> > In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, n9...@amsat.org
> > > > >> > says...
> > > > >> > > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Uh...no one. They need their guns.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For the same reason as the rest of us. Wake up.
> > > > >
> > > > >No, their reasons are different. They protect the country, wheras gun-
> > > > >toting stooges often shoot innocent people, often times children.
> > > >
> > > > Really? Why don't you cite specific instances.
> > >
> > > This is just from Houston....one city....multiply that by the number of
> > > similarly sized cities, and youy get the idea.
> >
>
> Did you see these incidents? The 31 children in this list were all from
> Houston alone. You can imagine the number for thew whole country.
>
to defend themseles should have died instead of using the gun?
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567487868
Brett Kottmann
> ...
> Sucks to be you. Seriously, it does suck to be you. To write off the
> above 31 incidents as fictional so that you can keep your gun and risk
> having a family member shot, is turly disgusting, Klansman. So yeah,
> honestly, it sucks to be you.
So since drunk drivers kill a lot of people we should outlaw cars?
It must suck to be you, so illogical yet so stubborn.
Admit it you hate the idea of guns even existing, not punishing those
who misuse them.
That in and of itself is fine, don't own guns, spread your beliefs around.
But when you infringe upon my Constitutional rights because of your fears
you cross the line.
Stupendous Man
http://reagan.webteamone.com/
http://www.buyntrade.com/
___________________________________________________________
The Supreme Court said the count does not "comport with minimal
constitutional standards" and violates "rudimentary requirements of
equal treatment and fundamental fairness."
Recount is _unconstitutional_ AND _violates Federal law_. Any questions?
Allen James
Jones) wrote:
> In article <93959v$19k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tee...@my-deja.com says...
> > In article <MPG.14c1afaed755dc7e989adc@news>,
> > not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > > In article <938j83$k8k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tee...@my-deja.com says...
> > > > In article <MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news>,
> > > > not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> > > > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > It's time to stop
> > > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole
> > for
> > > > a
> > > > > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
> > > > >
> > > > > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots
> > for
> > > > > crminals with guns!
> >
> > You are the facsist, not me. You are so blind it's unbelievable. You
> > are advocating murder for people who refuse to give up something
> > enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
>
> Read the original posting, neo-nazi. The proposition is to disarm idiots
> with guns. If there was ever such a law, then those that choose to be
> criminals by not giving up their guns, would deserve to be shot.
Define "idiot" as used above, and describe the test you'd like to have
administered to determine "idiocy".
Are you gonna advocate that all citizens submit to your "idiocy"
testing, or will you just presume that anyone who disagrees with your
beliefs is automatically an "idiot"?
MW
not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> In article <doR56.35040$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,> > news:MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news...
idiots with
stop it.
> >
> > That very seldom happens.
>
> ...the Gospel according to the NRA, and Loony Lott.
>
> > >
for a
> > > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
> >
>
> Sure it would.
No -- and here's why: the citizens of this country would overthrow the
government in such circumstanes.
> > > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots
for
> > > crminals with guns!
> >
> > Ah yes, the killing part.........liberals always advocate killing.
>
> If a criminal does not give up their guns when they are required to
do so
> by law, then the law can use force. Nothing new there, and thaat
process
> is apolitical.
But you're not talking about criminals.
And you can't make them criminals by passing a law outlawing gun
ownership. Under the US Constitution, it is impossible to make such a
law.
Eric Florack
Allen James <shra...@enteract.com> wrote:
>
>Define "idiot" as used above, and describe the test you'd like to have
>administered to determine "idiocy".
>
>Are you gonna advocate that all citizens submit to your "idiocy"
>testing, or will you just presume that anyone who disagrees with your
>beliefs is automatically an "idiot"?
But accoridng to Mr Jones, anyone not a liberal MUST be an idiot.
E Right
"In article <3A58D505...@home.com>, fas...@home.com says...
"> "S. Jones" wrote:
"> >
"> > In article <3a5891f...@news.jax.bellsouth.net>, an0...@hotmail.com
"> > says...
"> > > On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 04:41:28 GMT, not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
"> > >
"> > > >In article <SMR56.35066$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
"> > > >tao...@hotmail.com says...
"> > > >> "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
"> > > >> news:MPG.14c1b0798afa3efd989add@news...
"> > > >> > In article <hSQ56.4470$m01.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
n9...@amsat.org
"> > > >> > says...
"> > > >> > > And who will take the guns from the police or the military?
"> > > >> >
"> > > >> > Uh...no one. They need their guns.
"> > > >>
"> > > >> For the same reason as the rest of us. Wake up.
"> > > >
"> > > >No, their reasons are different. They protect the country, wheras gun-
"> > > >toting stooges often shoot innocent people, often times children.
"> > >
"> > > Really? Why don't you cite specific instances.
"> >
"> > This is just from Houston....one city....multiply that by the number of
"> > similarly sized cities, and youy get the idea.
">
"
"Did you see these incidents? The 31 children in this list were all from
"Houston alone. You can imagine the number for thew whole country.
"
"> Pat Hines
"
"Sucks to be you. Seriously, it does suck to be you. To write off the
"above 31 incidents as fictional so that you can keep your gun and risk
"having a family member shot, is turly disgusting, Klansman. So yeah,
"honestly, it sucks to be you. -- S. Jones
Screw U racist - irresponsible people like you SHOULD stay away from guns.
The second amendment was written to protect us from tyrants in government.
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have
been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make
an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?"
Alexander Solzenitzyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Justifiable Homicide
pack the anti-gun crowd is.
dave...@my-deja.com
not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
> First of all, we see that his study was funded by the John. M. Olin
> Foundation. Now, how did this foundation come into existence? Well, it
> was created by the personal fortune of the late John M. Olin. And who
is
> he, you might ask? Well, think Olin Corp. And w3hat does Olin Corp do?
> One of it's stated main products is ammunitions for firearms, aka
> bullets.
>
Hey, Jones, the Olin Foundation has no connection with Olin Corp. It is
like saying that General Motors and General Electric are the same
company because they have the first name. Here is what John Lott has to
say about bigots like you and the groups you represent.
IN January 1997, I published a paper in the Journal of Legal Studies on
the consequences of legalizing concealed weapons. Using FBI crime data
for all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, I demonstrated that
allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns deters violent
crime and produces no significant increase in accidental handgun deaths.
In addition, in counties which permitted citizens to arm themselves,
murder rates fell by at least 8.5 per cent, aggravated assaults by 7 per
cent, rapes by 5 per cent, and robberies by 3 per cent. The study,
ideally, should have been the occasion for a reasoned examination of our
gun-control laws. Instead, its reception became a case study in
dishonesty among gun-control advocates and gullibility among reporters.
In the end, the study's media fallout was almost as telling as its
original findings. When I was preparing to present the study at the
Cato Institute in early August 1996, I wanted to get a proponent of gun
control to provide critical comments on the paper. I approached 22
gun-control advocates before Jens Ludwig, a young assistant professor at
Georgetown University, accepted my invitation to comment. Some of the
people I approached -- like Susan Glick, of the Violence Policy Center
-- said straight out that they were unwilling to act as commentator
because, as Miss Glick put it when I spoke to her that June, she didn't
want to ``help give any publicity to the paper.'' When I asked her if I
could at least send her a copy of the paper because I would appreciate
any comments she might have, she said, ``Forget it. There is no way that
I am going to look at it. Don't send it.'' But when the story broke
anyway in USA Today on August 2, Miss Glick was among the many people
who left telephone messages asking for a copy of the paper. The media
were calling, and she ``need[ed] [my] paper to be able to criticize
it.'' At around 3:00 P.M. that day ABC News reporter Barry Serafin
called me saying that certain objections had been raised about my paper;
he mentioned that one of those who had criticized it was Susan Glick.
After talking to Mr. Serafin, I gave Miss Glick a call to ask her if she
still wanted a copy of my paper. She said that she wanted it right away
and wondered if I could fax it to her. I then noted that her request
seemed strange because Mr. Serafin had just told me that she had said
the study was ``flawed.'' I asked how she could have said it was flawed
without having looked at it. At that point Miss Glick hung up. Many of
the attacks from groups like Handgun Control, Inc., and the Violence
Policy Center focused on claims that my study had been paid for by gun
manufacturers or that the Journal of Legal Studies was not a
peer-reviewed journal. These attacks were false, and I believe that
those who made them knew they were false. At least they had been told by
all the relevant parties at the University of Chicago -- where I am the
John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow -- and at the Olin Foundation that
the funding charges were wrong, and the peer-reviewed status of the
Journal of Legal Studies is not in question. But the attacks claiming
that my work had been paid for by gun manufacturers were unrelenting.
Rep. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) wrote in the Wall Street Journal: ``The
Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University
of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is 'associated with
the Olin Corporation,' one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers.
Maybe that's a coincidence . . . But it's also a fact.'' In a letter
that the Violence Policy Center mass-mailed to newspapers around the
country, Kristen Rand, the Center's federal-policy director, wrote,
``Lott's work was, in essence, funded by the firearms industry -- the
primary beneficiary of increased handgun sales. Lott is the John M. Olin
fellow at the University of Chicago law school, a position founded by
the Olin Foundation. The foundation was established by John Olin of the
Olin Corp., manufacturer of Winchester ammunition and maker of the
infamous 'Black Talon' bullet.'' Stories repeating this assertion
appeared in newspapers from the Chicago Tribune to the Houston Chronicle
to the Des Moines Register, as well as in high-brow publications like
The National Journal. The Associated Press eventually released a
partial correction stating that the the Olin Foundation and Olin
Corporation are separate organizations, but a Nexis search of news
stories reveals that only one newspaper in the entire country that had
published the original Associated Press report carried the correction.
William Simon, the Olin Foundation's president (and former U.S.
Secretary of the Treasury), tried to set the record straight in a letter
to the Wall Street Journal in September 1996: The John M. Olin
foundation, of which I have been president for nearly 20 years, is
an independent foundation . . . created by the personal fortune of
the late John M. Olin, and is not associated with the Olin Corp.
The John M. Olin Foundation has supported for many years a
program in law and economics at the University of Chicago Law
School. This program is administered and directed by a committee
of faculty members in the law school. This committee, after
reviewing many applications in a very competitive process, awarded
a research fellowship to Mr. Lott. We at the foundation had no
knowledge of who applied for these fellowships, nor did we ever
suggest that Mr. Lott should be awarded one of them. We did not
commission his study, nor, indeed, did we even know of it until
last month . . . If Olin were trying to buy research, it must be
getting a very poor return on its money. Given the hundreds of people at
different universities who have received Olin fellowships, I have been
the only one to work on the issue of gun control. After the funding
attacks, the gun-control organizations brought up new issues. In the
spring of 1997, the Violence Policy Center sent out a press release
entitled ``Who Is John Lott?'' It claimed, among other things: ``Lott
believes that some crime is good for society, that wealthy criminals
should not be be punished as harshly as poor convicts.'' I had in fact
argued that ``individuals guilty of the same crime should face the same
expected level of punishment'' and that with limited resources to fight
crime, it is not possible to eliminate all of it. Nonetheless, these
silly assertions were picked up by publications like The New Republic.
So much for a reasoned debate. Before I did my original study, I never
would have guessed how deeply people fear discussion of these issues. I
never would have guessed how much effort goes into deliberately ignoring
certain findings in order to deny them news coverage. I never would have
guessed how much energy goes into attacking the integrity of those who
present such findings, with such slight reference -- or no reference at
all -- to the actual merits of the research. Nor would I have guessed
how often such attacks get carelessly reproduced in the media. Count
me sadder, but wiser -- and considerably more skeptical whenever I scan
the headlines or turn on the TV news.
JOHN LOTT
Reprinted from http://www.nationalreview.com/22jun98/lott062298.html
It would be more productive for you to accept facts, and to work from
there.
>
Ever so humbly,
>
Your teacher, 'Dave Frier'.
Justifiable Homicide
know your unarmed it will be easy to take my revenge out on someone before
the cops get me.
"S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news...
> In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > Enough innocent people have been maimed and killed by guns.
> >
> > Without guns, the world will be a much, much safer place.
> >
> > These weapons of mass destruction must be rounded up on a door-to-door
basis.
> >
> > Citizens should first be given the option of consenting to a search of
their
> > homes and vehicles to ensure NO guns are present.
> >
> > Those who refuse will have their premises searched by warrant.
> >
> > It may sound draconian, but that's the way it has to be.
> >
> > Guns will be outlawed and removed from the United States completely, by
2005.
> >
> > Very sincerely,
> > Jack Keller
> > Short Hills, New Jersey
>
> Amen! Finally, someone sensible about guns! There are enough idiots with
> guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to stop it.
>
> Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole for a
> first time offence. True life for a second offence.
>
> If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots for
> crminals with guns!
>
> Gee, I hope you gun freaks don't get all apoplectic and incontinent at
> the mere thought of not being able to shoot anybody anymore.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> > It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
> > http://anon.xg.nu
> > ---
Justifiable Homicide
themselves/family member/neighbor. I guess their lives are forfeit so your
commie way can triumph.
"S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14c1b0f933ca3c19989ade@news...
> In article <doR56.35040$1M.81...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> tao...@hotmail.com says...
> > "S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.14c18bccf3e131e989ad5@news...
> > > In article <32b931458b9a818f...@anon.xg.nu>,
> > > no....@anon.xg.nu says...
> > > Amen! Finally, someone sensible about guns! There are enough idiots
with
> > > guns, shooting up their own families and neighbors. It's time to stop
it.
> >
> > That very seldom happens.
>
> ...the Gospel according to the NRA, and Loony Lott.
>
> > >
> > > Jail 'em all if they refuse to give them up. Ten years, no parole for
a
> > > first time offence. True life for a second offence.
> >
> > This would never work.
>
> Sure it would.
>
> > >
> > > If they don't give 'em up, then shoot to kill, no warning shots for
> > > crminals with guns!
> >
> > Ah yes, the killing part.........liberals always advocate killing.
>
> If a criminal does not give up their guns when they are required to do so
> by law, then the law can use force. Nothing new there, and thaat process
> is apolitical.
>
> > >
> > > Gee, I hope you gun freaks don't get all apoplectic and incontinent at
> > > the mere thought of not being able to shoot anybody anymore.
> >
> > The gun freaks are *all* anti-gun, so I doubt they would mind a bit.
Michael Shirley
> You KKK types always try to twist it to make it look as if the thought is
> coming from one of your heros.
Read the Nazi firearms law. JPFO has a copy.
>
> Nope, quite the contrary. We are sikc and tired of you stooges shoooting
> innocent people.
We don't. There are about 18,000 firearms related murders out of a total
of 280 million guns in the hands of 67 million people. Do the math. Those
shootings don't even reach one percent. Seems a slim basis on which to
trash the Bill of Rights and not only the 2nd Amendment.
>
> > Fascism doesn't work in a
> > diverse society.
>
> Who said anything about RepubliKlan policy here?
It's collectivist policy. And it covers both Republicans and Democrats.
The big difference is that one side wants fascism as a permanent condition
and
the other sees it as a stepping stone towards evolving into socialism.
Neither is a
particularly good model for safeguarding the rights of individuals.
And the Democrats are big on this. Get a copy of "An Immodest Agenda"
by Professor Amatai Etzioni of George Washington University. He proposes
fascism as a solution for the problems besetting this country. His take on
the
rights of individuals is that the duty of the citizen to obey the government
outweighs
the obligation of the government to respect the rights of the individual.
Clinton is heavily influenced by Etzioni and the latter proudly points
to him as an
exponent of his political positions.
>
> > If the Gov't starts doing stuff like this, a massive,
> > bloody civil war will break out,
>
> Oh well.
It pays not to be so flippant about it. It takes only 3.5 percent of a
population engaged
in an insurgency for it to be viable. It takes a ratio of seven line troops
for every
insurgent before a government defense against the latter is viable, and it
takes 8 logistical
troops for every line troop to support the combat elements. Do the math.
Even if it was
only 3.5 percent of the population of gun owners instead of the population
as a whole,
the Feds would go bankrupt. And you can't use conventional counterinsurgency
techniques
against a decentralized movement where you have everyone thinking globally
but acting
locally. And most government weapons, particularly heavy ones can't work,
because they
can't identify targets in a pistol and icepick war and they can't turn the
country into a
freefire zone when they need the civilians and the civilian economy to leech
off of. We
weren't dependant on the Vietnamese economy, but we are on ours.
The bottom line here is that the end results of any insurgency in this
country will be,
(1.) Government bankruptcy resulting in an economic collapse due to capital
depletion,
(2.) balkanization resulting from a collapse of the government due to the
bankruptcy,
and (3.) foreign intervention mostly by Mexico and Japan because a
squabbling pack
of successor states with broken back economies because of the Inverse Square
Law
of the Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, are going to be far weaker and
thus
more vulnerable to intervention than an economically and politically United
States
will be. Japanese hegemonism and the Mexican Revanche are things to be
feared,
especially since we're rapidly deindustrializing this country and
transferring the very
production plant that is necessary to wartime expansion of military
production, to
Mexico, which in the end is a hostile country. (The policy of the
Institutional
Revolutionary Party, for example, is that they intend to recover the
territory that we
took from them in 1848, and the PRI for 80 some odd years was the defacto
Government and Civil Service of Mexico. Hang around places where Latinos
congregate around here and you hear a lot of "Viva Mexico" and "Viva La
Raza"
and "Viva La Reconquista". It's a warning that most people ignore, but the
threat
is real.)
Given that your gun problem is mostly a statistically insignificant one
and the
second and third order collateral effects of what you propose is far worse
than
the current situation, I'd think hard about whether I'd want to provoke a
civil war.
>
> No, there would be the same government, but with a lot less gun-toting
> stooges out there.
No, there'd be more and the net firepower available to individuals who
are inclined
to violate the law would increase. Military production techniques such as
are used
for producing submachineguns, are simple and don't require much tooling. I
can
produce a dozen SMGs for the time and effort that it would take me to
reproduce
my old service revolver. Currently you see that happening in England where
aside
from all of the Bulgarian Makarovs that get smuggled in, you have shops in
places
like Manchester arming the Jamacian "Yardie" gangs with MAC-10 and MAC-11
SMGs. There is currently no legal production of these anywhere, but they're
so
easy to make that people in Britain are turning them out in basements and
the
local gang bangers treat them as fashion accessories.
And that's just one example. I can cite others. All that you're going to
accomplish
is that you and a lot of other people are going to be unarmed while the
firepower
available to criminals will go way up. Not a good move, that.
> What next, your favourite KKK quotes, bigot?
Given that the quotes are provided by Jews for the Preservation of
Firearms Ownership,
I think that your ad hominem comments are not only inaccurate, but also are
intellectually
dishonest and no substitute for logical discourse.
Now, I'm going to ask you the same question that I've asked all
gungrabbers
for over two decades and I'd be interested in seeing your answer. I've
recieved
two replies in all of that time, so it will be interesting if you have an
answer to it.
The question is this: Assuming a comprehensive ban on the private
ownership of
firearms, which articles of the Bill of Rights besides the Second Amendment
are you
prepared to surrender in order to make it enforcable?
Eric Florack
dave...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <MPG.14c2a14ce7204b07989af7@news>,
> not-...@home.com (S. Jones) wrote:
>
>> First of all, we see that his study was funded by the John. M. Olin
>> Foundation. Now, how did this foundation come into existence? Well, it
>> was created by the personal fortune of the late John M. Olin. And who
>is
>> he, you might ask? Well, think Olin Corp. And w3hat does Olin Corp do?
>> One of it's stated main products is ammunitions for firearms, aka
>> bullets.
>>
>Hey, Jones, the Olin Foundation has no connection with Olin Corp. It is
>like saying that General Motors and General Electric are the same
>company because they have the first name. Here is what John Lott has to
>say about bigots like you and the groups you represent.
Or that they are attached to the military because they're both
Generals.
Generally speaking.
(LOL)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
>IN January 1997, I published a paper in the Journal of Legal Studies on
>the consequences of legalizing concealed weapons. Using FBI crime data
>for all 3,054 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, I demonstrated that
>allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns deters violent
>crime and produces no significant increase in accidental handgun deaths.
So it does. Yours is not the only study to so conclude.
>In addition, in counties which permitted citizens to arm themselves,
>murder rates fell by at least 8.5 per cent, aggravated assaults by 7 per
>cent, rapes by 5 per cent, and robberies by 3 per cent. The study,
>ideally, should have been the occasion for a reasoned examination of our
>gun-control laws. Instead, its reception became a case study in
>dishonesty among gun-control advocates and gullibility among reporters.
Same.
>In the end, the study's media fallout was almost as telling as its
>original findings. When I was preparing to present the study at the
>Cato Institute in early August 1996, I wanted to get a proponent of gun
>control to provide critical comments on the paper. I approached 22
>gun-control advocates before Jens Ludwig, a young assistant professor at
>Georgetown University, accepted my invitation to comment. Some of the
>people I approached -- like Susan Glick, of the Violence Policy Center
>-- said straight out that they were unwilling to act as commentator
>because, as Miss Glick put it when I spoke to her that June, she didn't
>want to ``help give any publicity to the paper.'' When I asked her if I
>could at least send her a copy of the paper because I would appreciate
>any comments she might have, she said, ``Forget it. There is no way that
>I am going to look at it. Don't send it.''
Typical liberal. THeir minds are made up, don't confuse them with
facts.
But when the story broke
>anyway in USA Today on August 2, Miss Glick was among the many people
>who left telephone messages asking for a copy of the paper. The media
>were calling, and she ``need[ed] [my] paper to be able to criticize
>it.'' At around 3:00 P.M. that day ABC News reporter Barry Serafin
>called me saying that certain objections had been raised about my paper;
>he mentioned that one of those who had criticized it was Susan Glick.
>After talking to Mr. Serafin, I gave Miss Glick a call to ask her if she
>still wanted a copy of my paper. She said that she wanted it right away
>and wondered if I could fax it to her. I then noted that her request
>seemed strange because Mr. Serafin had just told me that she had said
>the study was ``flawed.'' I asked how she could have said it was flawed
>without having looked at it. At that point Miss Glick hung up.
LOL!
Eric Florack
"Michael Shirley" <mi...@gbis.com> wrote:
>
>"S. Jones" <not-...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.14c1afaed755dc7e989adc@news...
>
>> You KKK types always try to twist it to make it look as if the thought is
>> coming from one of your heros.
>
> Read the Nazi firearms law. JPFO has a copy.
>>
>> Nope, quite the contrary. We are sikc and tired of you stooges shoooting
>> innocent people.
>
> We don't. There are about 18,000 firearms related murders out of a total
>of 280 million guns in the hands of 67 million people. Do the math. Those
>shootings don't even reach one percent. Seems a slim basis on which to
>trash the Bill of Rights and not only the 2nd Amendment.
But isn't that the point? I mean when have they ever needed anything
substantial to do such in the past?