Another Gunnut Fairy Story
Little Lulu
lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>
>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>the Government would be able to get
>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>the hands of tyranny.
>
Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only read
half of the Second Amendment.
tcrpe
Little Lulu wrote in message <7e3ela$v81$2...@brokaw.wa.com>...
Duh, where did the guns come from that fought the US Revolutionary War?
TR
>
Lee E. Brown
Little Lulu wrote in message <7e3ela$v81$2...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>
>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>the Government would be able to get
>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>the hands of tyranny.
>>
>
>
>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only read
>half of the Second Amendment.
What exact evidence do you have that his assertion is incorrect?
Further, placing your obvious prejudices to one side for a moment, which half of
the Second Amendment was he fogetting and how exactly is it relevant to the
example?
tcrpe
Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
>Civilian militia
>troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
>rates rather than their fierceness!
Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
Oh, how soon we forget!
TR
ps: I deleted the queer newsgroup, I wouldn't want to catch anything.
Alan Bomberger
<DEB2B43EE13F5689.45782A05...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
upy...@rnc.com wrote:
> In article <7e3ela$v81$2...@brokaw.wa.com>, tutu_b...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
> >lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
> >>
> >>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
> >>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
> >>keep and bear arms, do you think that
> >>the Government would be able to get
> >>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
> >>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
> >>the hands of tyranny.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only read
> >half of the Second Amendment.
Yes, the clause that counts. The explanation of why the citizens have
the right to bear arms is interesting but not important. The use of
government arms against unarmed citizens is sufficient reason.
> >
>
> These little half-wits picture themselves taking their tiny
> AK-47's and defending their trailer parks from UN troops
> pulling up in tanks!
A stupid comment made by someone with little or no knowledge.
--
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
<http://www.webcom.com/thinker> Hypertext editor for creative people.
Kill File: Harry Hope, milton.brewster, kenfran, xona, enrique, Zepp,
voltai29, USSmontana
Lisa Rochwarg
unarmed
citiizenry, when the targets are human.
There's not too much a Sam Colt can do
to a fleet of B-52s, though it might be amusing to see Charlton Heston
french-kissing a cruise missile.
And it would serve him right for his advocacy of insurrection against a
duly-elected government.
Lisa
Whiplash_P.E.#1
You have moved up one the list of
people most likely to commit Kangaside.
9 mm, jack Daniel's, bathroom stall, ...
Do your patriotic duty, dumb cunt.
Lisa Rochwarg
Take your hands off the keyboard.
Now try to find your ass.
Dumb cunt.
Lisa
tcrpe
Back to school, but a different one this time, OK?
TR
Norman G. Purves wrote in message <01be7d7b$2694fbe0$8e140ccf@txleckuj>...
>
>
>tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
><8BdN2.6395$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>...
>>
>> Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
>> >Civilian militia
>> >troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
>> >rates rather than their fierceness!
>>
>>
>> Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
>>
>> Oh, how soon we forget!
>
>Your ignorance is showing: the biggest problem George Washington had (among
>a number of *big* problems) was the tendency of his militia contingents to
>*vanish* just as the going got tough. Militia troops bugged out after the
>Battle of Long Island, they took to their heels after Germantown, and he
>only managed to hold on to enough of them to carry out the Trenton attack
>(AKA the "Crossing of the Deleware") by promising to let them go after the
>battle was over.
>
>I can disagree with Senor Liberale on many things, but he's dead right
>about this....
>
>Aloha
>Norman
tcrpe
others.
TR
Zepp wrote in message <37059d67....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:56:58 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Little Lulu wrote in message <7e3ela$v81$2...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>>>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>>>
>>>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>>>the Government would be able to get
>>>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>>>the hands of tyranny.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
>>read
>>>half of the Second Amendment.
>>
>>Duh, where did the guns come from that fought the US Revolutionary War?
>
>The hundreds of guns in that war? The guns that resulted in perhaps
>2,000 casualties over eight years? Those guns?
>>
>>TR
>>>
>>
>>
>
>*********************************************************************
>
>http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
>
>Now mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
> http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
> http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
> http://resurgent.virtualave.net
> http://
> http://
>WARNING: Contains ideas.
>
>Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
tcrpe
Yep, they are safe and secure in their homes tonight.
Just like us.
I'd say my .38 trumps your Leftist dogma.
TR
Zepp wrote in message <37059d1c....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On 2 Apr 1999 22:00:10 GMT, tutu_b...@hotmail.com (Little Lulu)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>>
>>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>>the Government would be able to get
>>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>>the hands of tyranny.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
read
>>half of the Second Amendment.
>
>The result would have been a slaughter on the spot, rather than a
>forced exodus. Gun nuts always think their little .38 is gonna stop a
>regiment in its tracks.
tcrpe
HAVING ANY GUN IS BETTER THAN HAVING ONLY THOSE OLD WORN OUT LEFTIST IDEAS.
ANY gun is better than NO gun.
You sound like one of those "Better Red than Dead" Leftists. Maybe for you,
but who elected you to make decisions for the rest of the world?
Talk about Leftist arrogance!!!
TR
D. Ferrel Atkins wrote in message ...
>In article <%QcN2.6371$fb4....@news2.giganews.com> "tcrpe"
<tc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>Little Lulu wrote in message <7e3ela$v81$2...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>>>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>>>
>>>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>>>the Government would be able to get
>>>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>>>the hands of tyranny.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
>>read
>>>half of the Second Amendment.
>
>>Duh, where did the guns come from that fought the US Revolutionary War?
>
> The weapons owned by the farmers at Lexington and Concord were
>not significantly different technologically from those owned by the British
>army. I doubt that Kosovo pop-guns would have been effective against
>the Serbian tanks. // Ferrel Duh to you too!!
>
>
>
>
tcrpe
And, with a little help from the French they ran the English off.
Pretty much a failure to the "Blame America First" gang.
TR
D. Ferrel Atkins wrote in message ...
>In article <8BdN2.6395$fb4....@news2.giganews.com> "tcrpe"
<tc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
>>>Civilian militia
>>>troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
>>>rates rather than their fierceness!
>
>
>>Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
>
> Recall how Washington deplored the desertions
>from his Army...... How we forget....
>
>
>
tcrpe
D. Ferrel Atkins wrote in message ...
>technically inaccurate to give the entire credit for the victory at
Yorktown
>(it's in Virginia) to Washington. // Ferrel
Where did I do that?
TR
Say, you aren't trying to change the subject are you? Next you'll be
telling us it was the French that defeated the English. If that's so, WHY
AREN'T WE COMMUNICATING IN FRENCH?
Bill Bonde
>
> In article <8BdN2.6395$fb4....@news2.giganews.com> "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
> >>Civilian militia
> >>troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
> >>rates rather than their fierceness!
>
> >Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
>
> Recall how Washington deplored the desertions
> from his Army...... How we forget....
>
militia, a group who lives and works on the land they are protecting, is
the most powerful army, high tech and tanks and planes and all that be
damned.
Bill Bonde
> The weapons owned by the farmers at Lexington and Concord were
> not significantly different technologically from those owned by the British
> army. I doubt that Kosovo pop-guns would have been effective against
> the Serbian tanks. // Ferrel Duh to you too!!
>
type small arms.
In any case, WHY would you think that tanks could control the serbs? The
whole point in that place is that they have bad roads and mud and
mountains and lots of places to hide out. Meanwhile they are shooting
back at you with their 'pop guns'.
Juan Liberale
>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>
>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>the Government would be able to get
>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>the hands of tyranny.
>>
>
>
>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only read
>half of the Second Amendment.
>
These little half-wits picture themselves taking their tiny
AK-47's and defending their trailer parks from UN troops
pulling up in tanks! Instead of streaming across the border
into Macedonia, heavily armed civilians would be stacked up
like cord wood, waiting for mass burial. Civilian militia
troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
rates rather than their fierceness!
--
In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
of today.
The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
the conservatives of today.
Norman G. Purves
tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<8BdN2.6395$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>...
>
> Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
> >Civilian militia
> >troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
> >rates rather than their fierceness!
>
>
> Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
>
Juan Liberale
Many revolutionary war commanders would take battle positions
with their backs against rivers to prevent their militia
from deserting at the first shots!
Zepp
>
>Little Lulu wrote in message <7e3ela$v81$2...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>>
>>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>>the Government would be able to get
>>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>>the hands of tyranny.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
>read
>>half of the Second Amendment.
>
>Duh, where did the guns come from that fought the US Revolutionary War?
The hundreds of guns in that war? The guns that resulted in perhaps
2,000 casualties over eight years? Those guns?
>
>TR
>>
>
>
*********************************************************************
Zepp
wrote:
>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>
>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>the Government would be able to get
>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>the hands of tyranny.
>>
>
>
>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only read
>half of the Second Amendment.
The result would have been a slaughter on the spot, rather than a
forced exodus. Gun nuts always think their little .38 is gonna stop a
regiment in its tracks.
>
*********************************************************************
D. Ferrel Atkins
>>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>>
>>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>>the Government would be able to get
>>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>>the hands of tyranny.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
>read
>>half of the Second Amendment.
>Duh, where did the guns come from that fought the US Revolutionary War?
The weapons owned by the farmers at Lexington and Concord were
D. Ferrel Atkins
>Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
>>Civilian militia
>>troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
>>rates rather than their fierceness!
>Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
Recall how Washington deplored the desertions
D. Ferrel Atkins
>Right, and this is why Washington lost the war to England.
>Back to school, but a different one this time, OK?
>TR
Maybe you should go back to school. Do you remember the French
armada under Adm de Grasse and the French troops under Rochambeau.
The British lost only because de Grasse held off the British fleet for 3
weeks while Washington's men too pot-shots at Corwallis. So it is
technically inaccurate to give the entire credit for the victory at Yorktown
(it's in Virginia) to Washington. // Ferrel
>Norman G. Purves wrote in message <01be7d7b$2694fbe0$8e140ccf@txleckuj>...
>>
>>
>>tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
>><8BdN2.6395$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>...
>>>
>>> Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
>>> >Civilian militia
>>> >troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
>>> >rates rather than their fierceness!
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
>>>
Watcher
> >Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
> >if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
> >keep and bear arms, do you think that
> >the Government would be able to get
> >away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
> >not! Private ownership of firearms binds
> >the hands of tyranny.
> >
>
>
> Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
read
> half of the Second Amendment.
Is that the half with the words "the people"?
>
>
Watcher
read
> >half of the Second Amendment.
> >
>
> AK-47's and defending their trailer parks from UN troops
> pulling up in tanks! Instead of streaming across the border
> into Macedonia, heavily armed civilians would be stacked up
> troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
> rates rather than their fierceness!
Can you post some facts to support this? And please only include civilian
militia units, i.e. true volunteers, not the types where the government
‘drafts’ people into the militia.
Watcher
> >>troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
> >>rates rather than their fierceness!
>
>
>
> from his Army...... How we forget....
Ah. . .please note that you are refering to a standing army not a militia.
>
>
>
>
Watcher
read
> >half of the Second Amendment.
>
> forced exodus. Gun nuts always think their little .38 is gonna stop a
> regiment in its tracks.
Maybe, maybe not. Remember some of the most feared units in the past four
major conflicts (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam) were snipers. Military history
has shown that one man (or two in some cases) can inflect major damage to a
unit. This can be done by taking out the leaders or by demoralizing the
men by them seeing their buddies getting shot down and not having the
ability to stop it.
Ashford Wyrd
tcrpe wrote in message
>
>Little Lulu wrote in message <7e3ela$v81$2...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>>
>>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>>the Government would be able to get
>>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>>the hands of tyranny.
>>>
>>
>>
>read
>>half of the Second Amendment.
>
>
>>
>
A well organised malitia OF THE PEOPLE.... this is NOT a federal army, and
the statement is BECAUSE IT IS NECISARY, not WHEN it is necisary... the
statment is that a well organised malitia of the people is ALWAYS necisary
to preserve freedom, SO the US government shal IN NO WAY impede the rights
of the people to bear arms.
>
inver...@my-dejanews.com
haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
> Well, admittedly, an armed citizenry is much more
> dangerous than an unarmed citiizenry, when the targets
> are human.
>
> There's not too much a Sam Colt can do
> to a fleet of B-52s, though it might be amusing to see
> Charlton Heston french-kissing a cruise missile.
So what are you saying? That citizens should be armed
with the more "humanitarian" B-52s? Or that citizens
need anti-aircraft guns?
> And it would serve him right for his advocacy of
> insurrection against a duly-elected government.
>
> Lisa
Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
in the 1980s? Did that make the death squads legitimate?
Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"? For that
matter, wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"? That puts
Heston in bed with the FSLN, the ANC, and the largely
communist Resistance Movement in WW II. Does that change
your opinion of him?!
Charlie
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Zepp
>Those guns. And those cannons. Nope, not those supplied by the French, the
>others.
Gee, Tripe, most of the cannons in North America were made by the
British. We didn't have a foundry yet.
Zepp
wrote:
George Washington considered the militia to be unreliable,
undisciplined coward who nearly cost America the war. That's why,
when he became President, he did everything in his power to prevent
the continuation of civilian militias as outlined in the Constitution.
Zepp
>Having NO guns sure helped the "ethnic Albanians" in this case, didn't it?
>
>Yep, they are safe and secure in their homes tonight.
>
>Just like us.
>
>I'd say my .38 trumps your Leftist dogma.
So why is it that Canadians, Brits, Swedes, and others are all both
freer and more secure than Americans? Not only do they not fear their
government, but they don't have to hit the floor of their living rooms
when a car backfires.
>
>TR
>
>
>Zepp wrote in message <37059d1c....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>On 2 Apr 1999 22:00:10 GMT, tutu_b...@hotmail.com (Little Lulu)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>>>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>>>
>>>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>>>the Government would be able to get
>>>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>>>the hands of tyranny.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
>read
>>>half of the Second Amendment.
>>
>>The result would have been a slaughter on the spot, rather than a
>>forced exodus. Gun nuts always think their little .38 is gonna stop a
>>regiment in its tracks.
>>>
>>
Juan Liberale
theonlywat...@NOSPAM.mrpost.com says...
>
>> >Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
>read
>> >half of the Second Amendment.
>> >
>>
>> AK-47's and defending their trailer parks from UN troops
>> pulling up in tanks! Instead of streaming across the border
>> into Macedonia, heavily armed civilians would be stacked up
>> troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
>> rates rather than their fierceness!
>
>militia units, i.e. true volunteers, not the types where the government
>‘drafts’ people into the militia.
>
You should have stayed in school until you completed
US history, pussyboy.
Juan Liberale
says...
>
>In article <20285-37...@newsd-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
>
>> Well, admittedly, an armed citizenry is much more
>> dangerous than an unarmed citiizenry, when the targets
>> are human.
>>
>> There's not too much a Sam Colt can do
>> to a fleet of B-52s, though it might be amusing to see
>> Charlton Heston french-kissing a cruise missile.
>
> So what are you saying? That citizens should be armed
>with the more "humanitarian" B-52s? Or that citizens
>need anti-aircraft guns?
Hey, if the second amendment is a sacred right, then B52's
should be covered by "arms". Of course you gun wackos are
just being manupulated by the NRA/KKK coalition.
>
>> And it would serve him right for his advocacy of
>> insurrection against a duly-elected government.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> Wasn't the government of El Salvador "duly elected"
>in the 1980s? Did that make the death squads legitimate?
>Wasn't apartheid South Africa "duly elected"? For that
>matter, wasn't Hitler himself "duly elected"? That puts
>Heston in bed with the FSLN, the ANC, and the largely
>communist Resistance Movement in WW II. Does that change
>your opinion of him?!
>
> Charlie
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
D. Ferrel Atkins
>D. Ferrel Atkins wrote:
>>
>> In article <8BdN2.6395$fb4....@news2.giganews.com> "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
>> >>Civilian militia
>> >>troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
>> >>rates rather than their fierceness!
>>
>> >Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
>>
>> Recall how Washington deplored the desertions
>> from his Army...... How we forget....
>>
>What they went through and still they won the war tells me that a
>militia, a group who lives and works on the land they are protecting, is
>the most powerful army, high tech and tanks and planes and all that be
>damned.
ON THE LAND??? Look at the history at Yorktown. Washington
probably would not have won the decisive battle at Yorktown had it not
been for Admiral deGrasse who used his French fleet of 24 ships to hold
of the British fleet under Graves which sailed from NYork and tried to
reach Yorktown but were foiled by deGrasse.
If you've been to Yorktown, you note that much of the power
of the battle was due to the effect of cannons and mortars. Do you
favor arming members of your "individual militia" with cannons??
I do not understand the confusion between a formally organized
militia and a bunch of citizens randomly running across the country side
armed with pop-guns. // Ferrel
D. Ferrel Atkins
>D. Ferrel Atkins wrote:
>> The weapons owned by the farmers at Lexington and Concord were
>> not significantly different technologically from those owned by the British
>> army. I doubt that Kosovo pop-guns would have been effective against
>> the Serbian tanks. // Ferrel Duh to you too!!
>>
>This is, of course, an argument for allowing Americans to own military
>type small arms.
I have no argument against individual concealed carry of
cannon and mortars. // Ferrel
D. Ferrel Atkins
>> >Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>> >if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>> >keep and bear arms, do you think that
>> >the Government would be able to get
>> >away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>> >not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>> >the hands of tyranny.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
>read
>> half of the Second Amendment.
>Is that the half with the words "the people"?
No it's the half you always skip over about the
"well-regulated militia" // Ferrel
D. Ferrel Atkins
>> >Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
>> >>Civilian militia
>> >>troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
>> >>rates rather than their fierceness!
>>
>>
>> >Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
>>
>> Recall how Washington deplored the desertions
>> from his Army...... How we forget....
>Ah. . .please note that you are refering to a standing army not a militia.
So this is an admission, at last, that arguments involving the Revolution
and individual guns is immaterial because the Revolution was won
by a Standing Army, not a "well-regulated militia" // Ferrel
tcrpe
Zepp wrote in message <370625a0....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>So why is it that Canadians, Brits, Swedes, and others are all both
>freer and more secure than Americans? Not only do they not fear their
>government, but they don't have to hit the floor of their living rooms
>when a car backfires.
Zepp,
We weren't talking about the Canadians, Brits, Swedes and others. We were
tallking about Kosovars, remember? Why do you bring these English toadies
and Socialists into this discussion now? Well?
And do they indeed all feel both freer and more secure than Americans?
Prove it!
And do they indeed not fear their governement? Prove it!
And do they indeed not hit the floor when a car backfires? Prove it!
I see you ignored Australia. Why?
TR
>>
>>TR
>>
>>
>>Zepp wrote in message <37059d1c....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>>On 2 Apr 1999 22:00:10 GMT, tutu_b...@hotmail.com (Little Lulu)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>>>>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>>>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>>>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>>>>the Government would be able to get
>>>>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>>>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>>>>the hands of tyranny.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
>>read
>>>>half of the Second Amendment.
>>>
tcrpe
know, even for a Leftist you are getting dumber.
OK, accepting your latest argument, the British supplied the cannon that
Washington fought the Revolutionary War. That's it!
Why would they supply the enemy with cannon? What drug induced Liberal
Leftists Fairness Fantasy is this?
That is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
WHY WOULD THE BRITISH SUPPLY CANNONS TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY ARMY?
AND IF THEY DIDN'T, WHO DID?
Standing by for you answer.
TR
Zepp wrote in message <37062399....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 20:51:32 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Those guns. And those cannons. Nope, not those supplied by the French,
the
>>others.
>
>Gee, Tripe, most of the cannons in North America were made by the
>British. We didn't have a foundry yet.
>
tcrpe
Zepp wrote in message <370623c9....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>George Washington considered the militia to be unreliable,
Prove it!
>undisciplined coward who nearly cost America the war.
Prove it!
>That's why,
>when he became President, he did everything in his power to prevent
>the continuation of civilian militias as outlined in the Constitution.
Prove it!
Gee, I see militias in the Constitution.
TR
Jerry Stratton
>So why is it that Canadians, Brits, Swedes, and others are all both
>freer and more secure than Americans? Not only do they not fear their
>government, but they don't have to hit the floor of their living rooms
>when a car backfires.
Oddly enough, the only places in the United States where people "hit the
floor when a car backfires" are those places with high gun control...
You also might want to talk to people in the free speech movement before
calling Canadians "freer".
You might also want to look at the change in violent crime rates in
Britain as gun control has increased.
Please detail your definition of "freer" and "more secure" and explain how
this applies to Canadians, Brits, and Swedes compared to Americans.
Note follow-ups.
Jerry
"In Great Britain we do not have the right to cause an intruder any injury
whatsoever, nor indeed any attacker. Yes, we must allow ourselves to be
seriously hurt or killed lest we harm the attacker. All the law allows us
'is to use minimum restraint'-- anything more renders us liable to a
prosecution."--Alan J. Holmes, explaining the superiority of British gun
law
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
tcrpe
"WHERE DID THE GUNS AND CANNON COME FROM THAT FOUGHT THE REVOLUTIONARY
WAR -- EXCLUDING THOSE SUPPLIED BY THE FRENCH?"
Sorry to cut off you escape.
You don't want to answer, because, you would have to admit your irrational
anti-gun bias.
TR
D. Ferrel Atkins wrote in message ...
tcrpe
Volt...@geocities.com wrote in message
<371131ad...@news.mindspring.com>...
>The militia desertion rate was even higher during the Mexican War.
>
> Jim
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
Why are we not speaking Spanish? Oh, the Mexicans lost that one.
There goes another unproven Leftist revision of history. Pooof!
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
Visit the Web Page. It's a hoot! It's a copy of 'ol One Shot Kangas' page.
Hey, Jim, you got a gun and a botle of Jack Daniel's? I know a public
toilet you can use!!!
TR
Bill Bonde
>
> In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
> in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
> tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
> and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
> members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
> of today.
> The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
> food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
> elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
> the conservatives of today.
>
and control of business.
Bill Bonde
>
> In article <3705B776...@mailexcite.com> Bill Bonde <std...@mailexcite.com> writes:
>
> >D. Ferrel Atkins wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
> >> >>Civilian militia
> >> >>troops have historically been more famous for their desertion
> >> >>rates rather than their fierceness!
> >>
> >> >Right, Juan-boy, just like the Revolutionary Army.
> >>
> >> Recall how Washington deplored the desertions
> >> from his Army...... How we forget....
> >>
> >militia, a group who lives and works on the land they are protecting, is
> >the most powerful army, high tech and tanks and planes and all that be
> >damned.
>
> ON THE LAND??? Look at the history at Yorktown. Washington
> probably would not have won the decisive battle at Yorktown had it not
> been for Admiral deGrasse who used his French fleet of 24 ships to hold
> of the British fleet under Graves which sailed from NYork and tried to
> reach Yorktown but were foiled by deGrasse.
>
> If you've been to Yorktown, you note that much of the power
> of the battle was due to the effect of cannons and mortars. Do you
> favor arming members of your "individual militia" with cannons??
>
how the Revolutionary war would've turned out, the version that actually
happened. If the colonies hadn't gotten any outside support, perhaps
they would still be subjugated to England but perhaps some other way to
win would also have been found. Examples include fighting less in large
groups and more hit and run, not attempting to continually control
territory but just to injury the other side and move to the next attack.
Modern armies have a real hard time with this sort of warfare, think
what the Brits would've had.
> I do not understand the confusion between a formally organized
> militia
>
The militia in the United States simply IS the group of able bodied
males between 18 and 45. The people in this set ARE the militia,
organization or even knowledge that they are part of it isn't required.
> and a bunch of citizens randomly running across the country side
> armed with pop-guns.
>
Pop-guns? I own a 444 Marlin lever action rifle. Would you prefer to be
hit with its expanding bullets or a fully jacketed .223 round from an
M-16?
D. Ferrel Atkins
>That is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
>WHY WOULD THE BRITISH SUPPLY CANNONS TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY ARMY?
I think perhaps they "supplied" them involuntarily.
D. Ferrel
D. Ferrel Atkins
****** If it includes almost anyone, then why the term "well-regulated
militia". All the males in the country between 18 anbd 45 hardly
form a "well-regulated" set of people.
Zepp
>The question was who supplied the guns and cannon, not who made them. You
>know, even for a Leftist you are getting dumber.
>
>OK, accepting your latest argument, the British supplied the cannon that
>Washington fought the Revolutionary War. That's it!
>
>Why would they supply the enemy with cannon? What drug induced Liberal
>Leftists Fairness Fantasy is this?
Never heard of the French and Indian War, have you? Also known as the
Seven Years' War. Britian spent a lot of money protecting the
colonies.This included cannon to defend forts.
>
>That is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
I'm not particularly worried. It's becoming rapidly apparent that you
don't do much reading.
>
>WHY WOULD THE BRITISH SUPPLY CANNONS TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY ARMY?
>
>AND IF THEY DIDN'T, WHO DID?
>
>Standing by for you answer.
Did you know that if you do visit Ft. Sumpter (sp) in South Carolina,
where the civil war erupted when Confederate forces fired on the Union
fort, the cannon used to fire on the fort are still there. And they
all say, "Union made". Now, why do you suppose the Union provided the
Confederates with cannon?
Standing by for your answer...
Zepp
But you don't see militias in real life. Just because the
Constitution says the government CAN do something doesn't mean it has
to, unless it interferes with rights.
You really do have a problem reading, don't you?
>
>TR
Bruce Garrett
>> Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only
>> read half of the Second Amendment.
W> Is that the half with the words "the people"?
You won't get any argument from this Gay man on the proposition
that a citizenry capable of bearing arms in it's own defense is more
secure, then one utterly at the mercy of armies, foreign or
domestic...but I have to wonder why this thread got cross posted to
alt.politics.homosexuality. Anyone have any clues? There something
particularly Gay about guns or militias that I missed...?
---
-Bruce Garrett \ http://www.pobox.com/~bgarrett
Cockeysville, MD. / \ I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance,
I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country.
What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
-Raymond Chandler, Farewell, My Lovely
Juan Liberale
>
>Pop-guns? I own a 444 Marlin lever action rifle. Would you prefer to be
>hit with its expanding bullets or a fully jacketed .223 round from an
>M-16?
It would make no difference. You and all of the other little gun
pussies, would be hiding in your basement. Wait. That is not
true. Your trailer doesn't have a basement! hahahahaha
--
Zepp
wrote:
>In <370625a0....@news.snowcrest.net> ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>So why is it that Canadians, Brits, Swedes, and others are all both
>>freer and more secure than Americans? Not only do they not fear their
>>government, but they don't have to hit the floor of their living rooms
>>when a car backfires.
>
>Oddly enough, the only places in the United States where people "hit the
>floor when a car backfires" are those places with high gun control...
Like Los Angeles, or Detroit, or Cleveland?
>
>You also might want to talk to people in the free speech movement before
>calling Canadians "freer".
Certainly. Name something on American television that cannot be shown
on Canadian television.
>
>You might also want to look at the change in violent crime rates in
>Britain as gun control has increased.
Compared to the rate of increase before gun control? About the same.
>
>Please detail your definition of "freer" and "more secure" and explain how
>this applies to Canadians, Brits, and Swedes compared to Americans.
Well, for starters, they don't have the suffrocating presence of the
religious right. They are much less likely to get shot for expressing
views, and can travel in bad parts of town with a reasonable
expectation of surviving the experience.
>
>Note follow-ups.
>
>Jerry
>"In Great Britain we do not have the right to cause an intruder any injury
>whatsoever, nor indeed any attacker. Yes, we must allow ourselves to be
>seriously hurt or killed lest we harm the attacker. All the law allows us
>'is to use minimum restraint'-- anything more renders us liable to a
>prosecution."--Alan J. Holmes, explaining the superiority of British gun
>law
>http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
Bet it works, too. Most gun nuts are just cowards with guns, and
cowards with power tend to be more dangerous than most people.
Zepp
>
>Zepp wrote in message <370625a0....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>
>>So why is it that Canadians, Brits, Swedes, and others are all both
>>freer and more secure than Americans? Not only do they not fear their
>>government, but they don't have to hit the floor of their living rooms
>>when a car backfires.
>
>
>Zepp,
>
>We weren't talking about the Canadians, Brits, Swedes and others. We were
>tallking about Kosovars, remember? Why do you bring these English toadies
>and Socialists into this discussion now? Well?
Because someone else mentioned that Americans were freer with guns. I
responded, and don't need a bellicose half-wit like you to decide
whether I should so respond or not.
>
>And do they indeed all feel both freer and more secure than Americans?
>Prove it!
>
See other posts. Listen to BBC and CBC radio.
>And do they indeed not fear their governement? Prove it!
Go talk to them. I've lived in both Canada and the UK, and I know.
>
>And do they indeed not hit the floor when a car backfires? Prove it!
>
>I see you ignored Australia. Why?
Because it isn't part of Canada or Sweden, and quit being part of the
UK back in 1901.
Lisa Rochwarg
arms whatsoever. You people would be very pleased to have Patriot
missile launchers
in your back yard.
That means the next time we hear of someone "going ballistic," we can
take
that phrase at face value. It also means
that your home town will look like downtown Belgrade, especially if you
have
Bill Bonde as a neighbor, and especially
if he skips his medication.
I think we all know damn well where Heston's political loyalties lie.
Lisa
tcrpe
Zepp wrote in message <370699ce...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:22:39 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The question was who supplied the guns and cannon, not who made them. You
>>know, even for a Leftist you are getting dumber.
>>
>>OK, accepting your latest argument, the British supplied the cannon that
>>Washington fought the Revolutionary War. That's it!
>>
>>Why would they supply the enemy with cannon? What drug induced Liberal
>>Leftists Fairness Fantasy is this?
>
>Never heard of the French and Indian War, have you? Also known as the
>Seven Years' War. Britian spent a lot of money protecting the
>colonies.This included cannon to defend forts.
Heard of 'em both.
Now, where did those guns and cannon come from? How did the Americans come
to put guns into their hands? The British gave them to them? Said, "Here,
just to make this fair, we ar going to give you some guns."
>>
>>That is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
>
>I'm not particularly worried. It's becoming rapidly apparent that you
>don't do much reading.
>>
>>WHY WOULD THE BRITISH SUPPLY CANNONS TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY ARMY?
>>
>>AND IF THEY DIDN'T, WHO DID?
>>
>>Standing by for you answer.
>
>Did you know that if you do visit Ft. Sumpter (sp) in South Carolina,
>where the civil war erupted when Confederate forces fired on the Union
>fort, the cannon used to fire on the fort are still there.
Gee what did the Confederate forces fire with? And where, how, and with
what did they get them?
>And they
>all say, "Union made". Now, why do you suppose the Union provided the
>Confederates with cannon?
Lets see, the Civil War followed the Revoltutionary war by some 90 years.
Are you suggesting that arms were sent back in time. Or just trying to
change the subject again.
Where did the guns that armed the Revoltuionary Army come from? We covered
the French, so that's not it.
Not back in time. Not gifts from the British. Nope, they had to come from
somewhere. where do you suppose they came from. Let's make it a little
easier:
Who gave the Revolutionary Army the guns?
I know you can guess. Just try.
Why don't you go check 'ol One Shot Kangas' site, it has programmed answers.
Take a look.
>
>Standing by for your answer...
Not talking about the 1860s. Otherwise see above.
>>
>>TR
>>
>>
>>Zepp wrote in message <37062399....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 20:51:32 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Those guns. And those cannons. Nope, not those supplied by the French,
>>the
>>>>others.
>>>
>>>Gee, Tripe, most of the cannons in North America were made by the
>>>British. We didn't have a foundry yet.
>>>
tcrpe
ridiculous Leftists dogma. Prove Washington considered the militia
unreliable and cowardly.
Just because Zepp the Wacko Leftist says or even believes something doesn't
make it true -- or does it?
TR
Zepp wrote in message <37069aba...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:24:32 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Zepp wrote in message <370623c9....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>
>>>George Washington considered the militia to be unreliable,
>>
>>Prove it!
>>
>>>undisciplined coward who nearly cost America the war.
>>
>>Prove it!
>>
>>>That's why,
>>>when he became President, he did everything in his power to prevent
>>>the continuation of civilian militias as outlined in the Constitution.
>>
>>Prove it!
>>
>>Gee, I see militias in the Constitution.
>
>But you don't see militias in real life. Just because the
>Constitution says the government CAN do something doesn't mean it has
>to, unless it interferes with rights.
>
>You really do have a problem reading, don't you?
>>
>>TR
>>
>>
>>
>
Bill Bonde
>
> In article <37066218...@mailexcite.com>, std...@mailexcite.com says...
> >
> >Pop-guns? I own a 444 Marlin lever action rifle. Would you prefer to be
> >hit with its expanding bullets or a fully jacketed .223 round from an
> >M-16?
>
> It would make no difference.
>
> You and all of the other little gun
> pussies, would be hiding in your basement. Wait. That is not
> true. Your trailer doesn't have a basement! hahahahaha
>
Well, then perhaps we should just store the weapons so studs like you
can use them to protect us as we cower under our trailers.
tcrpe
Ticonderoga, (I presume with torches held aloft like in the movies), and
surprised the fort's defenders and took *their* guns, now they had even more
guns. The Brits didn't give them up willingly, they had to be taken away.
The locals took the guns they had and amplified them into even MORE guns.
Without their personal weapons, they would have had NOTHING.
Second Amendment. Get used to it.
And why Zipp boy just couldn't bring himself to admit this -- well, we all
know why.
TR
Donald R. McGregor wrote in message <92320838...@news.remarQ.com>...
>In article <NIyN2.7205$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>,
>tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Now, where did those guns and cannon come from? How did the Americans
come
>>to put guns into their hands? The British gave them to them? Said,
"Here,
>>just to make this fair, we ar going to give you some guns."
>
>Fort Ticondaroga, among other places. It was stormed early in the
>war while it still had a skeleton crew. The cannon were captured and
>dragged (supervised by a guy named Knox) back to Boston, where
>they eventually forced the British to leave after they were placed
>on heights commanding Boston harbor.
>
>--
>Don McGregor | "Yes, vanity is a weakness indeed. But pride -- where
there
>mcg...@mbay.net | is a real superiority of mind, pride will be always
under
> | good regulation" --Mr. Darcy, _Pride & Prejudice_
Jerry Stratton
>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:29:43 GMT, ne...@hoboes.com wrote:
>>Oddly enough, the only places in the United States where people "hit the
>>floor when a car backfires" are those places with high gun control...
>
>Like Los Angeles, or Detroit, or Cleveland?
Exactly. Los Angeles and Detroit I am personally familiar with, and both
have high gun control compared to the rest of the United States. Neither
in most of Michigan's lower peninsula nor most of California (including
Los Angeles) can you receive a concealed carry permit. Los Angeles has a
one-a-month law; they even have been talking about banning bullets, with
apparent disregard for their hockey team. California is a high-gun control
area of the United States, and Los Angeles is a high gun control area of
California. Michigan is not nearly as high a gun control state as
California, but it is still higher in gun control than many, if not most,
other states.
I have no familiarity with Cleveland, except that Ohio, like California
and Michigan, is one of the remaining states that do not have
nondiscretionary concealed carry.
>>You also might want to talk to people in the free speech movement before
>>calling Canadians "freer".
>
>Certainly. Name something on American television that cannot be shown
>on Canadian television.
I don't watch television. I do read books, however, and Canada has
problems with free written expression at least, even comic books:
This is from an ex-Diamond employee; Diamond was then one of the major
comic book distributors in the Untied States (they are now the only major
distributor):
That is -very- true, and was a constant headache
when I was working at Diamond; we never knew from
one week to the next what books would or wouldn't
be allowed through customs because of their adult
content -- the customs guards at the border (we
sent a weekly truckload of product from the Seattle
warehouse to the Vancouver warehouse) would
periodically change and everybody had slightly
different interpretations as to what was acceptable
and what wasn't. We tried to separate the
potentially troublesome books into separate boxes
just in case they wound up being refused, but every
so often we'd be surprised by some title that we
expected to be 'safe', and we'd have to pull over
and search every box to find and remove every
single issue of that one book. (All books were
usually sorted and packed according to customer.)
(See http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=394998965)
Canadian customs has problems with Gay and Lesbian books:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=990219/2293154
More information is available at
http://www.lsisters.com/courtcase/court.htm : the law was ruled valid, but
the particular enforcement of the law was not. Also, this is only within
British Columbia; Customs officials elsewhere may continue to refuse entry
to such materials, unless there has been a court case of which I am
unaware.
Friends have also told me that Heinz Heger's "The Men with the Pink
Triangles" (autobiography of a Gay in a concentration camp) has also been
banned for import; why? apparently because there's a "nice" law that says
demeaning and dehumanizing materials may not be imported, and, well, the
Nazi's demeaned and dehumanized concentration camp victims. I have not
verified this. Similarly, the community also places Teleny (attributed
somewhat dubiously to Oscar Wilde) as being high on the Canadian customs
hit list.
Best Gay Erotica 1999 has been confiscated and presumed destroyed.
(http://www.tribe.net/news/world/990215/w99021505.html)
Note that those are only the items of which I am personally aware.
>>You might also want to look at the change in violent crime rates in
>>Britain as gun control has increased.
>Compared to the rate of increase before gun control? About the same.
In other words, gun control had no effect. Or was there one reason for
their low crime rates before gun control, and another reason for their low
crime rates after gun control?
Little Lulu
Atkins , says...
Yippee someone took my cross posted bait....
No, "All males in the country between 18 and 45" are not the "well regulated
militia". The "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment
--in the dependent clause the NRA always ignores-- is regulated by
Congress and the states, according to the Article 1 Section 8 of
Constitution.
Congress officially renamed all of the local militia the National Guard and
Naval Reserve etc. in the The National Defense Act of 1916 . This definition
remains encoded in US Code on Intelligence Title 10. In the same section,
all men between 18 and 45 are labeled something not even mention in the
Constitution, "the unorganized militia", a meanless designation, an entity
with no legal standing what-so-ever. No provisions for an unorganized
militia exist anywhere else in the US Code, in any legal precedents, or
in the Constitution Itself. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in
support of the NRA's position that the 2nd Amend gurantes individuals the
right to bear arms.
This does raise an interesting legal question about the civil rights of gay
Americans who have been banned from serving openly in the military,
including the Guard. If everyone has the Constitutional right to bear arms
in the militia, according to this long standing precedent, doesn't 2nd
Amendment protect the right of gay citizens to serve in the Guard?
Has Lambda Legal or anyone else ever argued this in court?
Donald R. McGregor
inver...@my-dejanews.com
<337D76DBA4B45AC1.7A064F58...@library-proxy.airnews.net
>, upy...@rnc.com wrote:
> In article <7e5a12$l11$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, inver...@my-dejanews.com
> says...
> >
> >In article <20285-37...@newsd-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > haa...@webtv.net (Lisa Rochwarg) wrote:
> >
> >> Well, admittedly, an armed citizenry is much more
> >> dangerous than an unarmed citiizenry, when the targets
> >> are human.
> >>
> >> There's not too much a Sam Colt can do
> >> to a fleet of B-52s, though it might be amusing to see
> >> Charlton Heston french-kissing a cruise missile.
> >
> > So what are you saying? That citizens should be armed
> >with the more "humanitarian" B-52s? Or that citizens
> >need anti-aircraft guns?
>
> Hey, if the second amendment is a sacred right, then B52's
> should be covered by "arms". Of course you gun wackos are
> just being manupulated by the NRA/KKK coalition.
Actually, they wouldn't be, since they are not the
sort of weapon a "well-regulated militia" would use. If
we wanted to include them in the right to bear arms, I
think we would have to expand the Second Amendment.
Notice the contrast between the rulers and the citizens.
: The rulers have B52s and every other weapon imaginable,
including nuclear bombs, but somehow, the anti-gun nuts
fail to notice this stupendous arsenal.
: The citizen has small-arms, and this drives the anti-gun
nuts crazy
If you're opposition to weapons were GENUINE, you would
start by taking the weapons away from the police-state.
> In the early days, when most of the human race still lived
> in caves, there were two tribes. When a family in the first
> tribe lost the breadwinner, the rest of the tribe pitched in
> and shared their meager resources with the less fortunate
> members of the society. This tribe evolved into the liberals
> of today.
> The second tribe was different. When one of their own lost the
> food gatherer, the remainder of the family was cast into the
> elements to perish. This tribe evolved not at all, and became
> the conservatives of today.
In the early days, there were two kinds of
tribes: agrarians and nomads. The nomads said
to themselves "Why should we work, when we can
simply STEAL the food the peasants have grown."
Thus an era of lawlessness dawned. But after
a while, the lawlessness began to infect nomad
culture itself, as the nomads began stealing
not just from the peasants but also from each
other.
The nomad ruler became aware of the problem.
"We need to find a way to make SOME forms of
theft GOOD, and other forms BAD." he said.
And then he seized on the idea of government
altruism. "Some of the peasants are poorer
than the others. We will take the grain from
the rich and give a little back to the poor.
That will divide the peasants and get the poor
on our side.".
"How will that change things?" asked an aide.
"After all, it's still STEALING!".
"No, no, no!" said the ruler. "Don't call
it stealing! Call it COMPASSION! We are not
THIEVES: we are HUMANITARIANS! We are doing
GOD's work now! The poor peasants may even
start to WORSHIP us!"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Zepp
wrote:
It's also a favorite NRA lie. The USC does say that able-bodied males
are considered to be in the militia, but it's in a section of the USC
that is applicable to armed forces personnel ONLY. Contrary to what
the NRA claims, the purpose of that law is to PREVENT civilian
militias.
>
>****** If it includes almost anyone, then why the term "well-regulated
>militia". All the males in the country between 18 anbd 45 hardly
>form a "well-regulated" set of people.
>
>>> and a bunch of citizens randomly running across the country side
>>> armed with pop-guns.
>>>
>>Pop-guns? I own a 444 Marlin lever action rifle. Would you prefer to be
>>hit with its expanding bullets or a fully jacketed .223 round from an
>>M-16?
>
>
*********************************************************************
Zepp
>
>Zepp wrote in message <370699ce...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:22:39 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The question was who supplied the guns and cannon, not who made them. You
>>>know, even for a Leftist you are getting dumber.
>>>
>>>OK, accepting your latest argument, the British supplied the cannon that
>>>Washington fought the Revolutionary War. That's it!
>>>
>>>Why would they supply the enemy with cannon? What drug induced Liberal
>>>Leftists Fairness Fantasy is this?
>>
>>Never heard of the French and Indian War, have you? Also known as the
>>Seven Years' War. Britian spent a lot of money protecting the
>>colonies.This included cannon to defend forts.
>
>Heard of 'em both.
Different names. Same war.
Dope.
>
>Now, where did those guns and cannon come from? How did the Americans come
>to put guns into their hands? The British gave them to them? Said, "Here,
>just to make this fair, we ar going to give you some guns."
That's exactly what they did.
>
>>>
>>>That is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.
>>
>>I'm not particularly worried. It's becoming rapidly apparent that you
>>don't do much reading.
>>>
>>>WHY WOULD THE BRITISH SUPPLY CANNONS TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY ARMY?
>>>
>>>AND IF THEY DIDN'T, WHO DID?
>>>
>>>Standing by for you answer.
>>
>>Did you know that if you do visit Ft. Sumpter (sp) in South Carolina,
>>where the civil war erupted when Confederate forces fired on the Union
>>fort, the cannon used to fire on the fort are still there.
>
>Gee what did the Confederate forces fire with? And where, how, and with
>what did they get them?
Well, GOSH! I wonder?
>
>>And they
>>all say, "Union made". Now, why do you suppose the Union provided the
>>Confederates with cannon?
>
>
>Lets see, the Civil War followed the Revoltutionary war by some 90 years.
>Are you suggesting that arms were sent back in time. Or just trying to
>change the subject again.
Nope. Just drawing a parallel, but I see I aimed a bit high for your
understanding.
The Confederates started out with all union arms because they were a
part of the Union and were so armed.
The colonists started out with British Empire arms because they were
part of the British Empire.
Am I' getting through to you? Hello?
>
>Where did the guns that armed the Revoltuionary Army come from? We covered
>the French, so that's not it.
Those guns came from the British.
>
>Not back in time. Not gifts from the British. Nope, they had to come from
>somewhere. where do you suppose they came from. Let's make it a little
>easier:
They weren't gifts. They were issued.
>
>Who gave the Revolutionary Army the guns?
The British.
>
>I know you can guess. Just try.
>
>Why don't you go check 'ol One Shot Kangas' site, it has programmed answers.
>Take a look.
Ah. When you start smearing Kangas, I know you've run up the white
flag.
>
>
>>
>>Standing by for your answer...
>
>Not talking about the 1860s. Otherwise see above.
>
>>>
>>>TR
>>>
>>>
>>>Zepp wrote in message <37062399....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>>>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 20:51:32 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Those guns. And those cannons. Nope, not those supplied by the French,
>>>the
>>>>>others.
>>>>
>>>>Gee, Tripe, most of the cannons in North America were made by the
>>>>British. We didn't have a foundry yet.
>>>>
Zepp
wrote:
>In <37069b54...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:29:43 GMT, ne...@hoboes.com wrote:
>>>Oddly enough, the only places in the United States where people "hit the
>>>floor when a car backfires" are those places with high gun control...
>>
>>Like Los Angeles, or Detroit, or Cleveland?
>
>Exactly. Los Angeles and Detroit I am personally familiar with, and both
>have high gun control compared to the rest of the United States.
LA shows no evidence of gun control.
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse, though. Laws are
enacted when guns are a problem. You try to claim that guns are a
problem because laws are enacted.
>Neither
>in most of Michigan's lower peninsula nor most of California (including
>Los Angeles) can you receive a concealed carry permit. Los Angeles has a
>one-a-month law; they even have been talking about banning bullets, with
>apparent disregard for their hockey team. California is a high-gun control
>area of the United States, and Los Angeles is a high gun control area of
>California. Michigan is not nearly as high a gun control state as
>California, but it is still higher in gun control than many, if not most,
>other states.
>
Most gun murders are not committed by people with concealed carry
permits. Perhaps you've read newspapers and noted that.
>I have no familiarity with Cleveland, except that Ohio, like California
>and Michigan, is one of the remaining states that do not have
>nondiscretionary concealed carry.
So have the states that have concealed carry seen a drop in crime
greater than that of their neighbors?
>
>>>You also might want to talk to people in the free speech movement before
>>>calling Canadians "freer".
>>
>>Certainly. Name something on American television that cannot be shown
>>on Canadian television.
>
>I don't watch television. I do read books, however, and Canada has
>problems with free written expression at least, even comic books:
And America doesn't? ABC dropped a Canadian made cartoon, "Reboot",
because in one scene, a female character is holding a big gun, and
says to her companion, "Do you think this makes me look too butch?"
So: you've made one generality, and I've come back with one specific.
>
>http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Comics/About%20Comics/Comics%20News/Big%20Blown%20Baby%20%231%20denied%20entry
>
>This is from an ex-Diamond employee; Diamond was then one of the major
>comic book distributors in the Untied States (they are now the only major
>distributor):
>
> That is -very- true, and was a constant headache
> when I was working at Diamond; we never knew from
> one week to the next what books would or wouldn't
> be allowed through customs because of their adult
> content -- the customs guards at the border (we
> sent a weekly truckload of product from the Seattle
> warehouse to the Vancouver warehouse) would
> periodically change and everybody had slightly
> different interpretations as to what was acceptable
> and what wasn't. We tried to separate the
> potentially troublesome books into separate boxes
> just in case they wound up being refused, but every
> so often we'd be surprised by some title that we
> expected to be 'safe', and we'd have to pull over
> and search every box to find and remove every
> single issue of that one book. (All books were
> usually sorted and packed according to customer.)
That's just plain bureaucracy.
>
>(See http://www.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=394998965)
>
>
>Canadian customs has problems with Gay and Lesbian books:
>
>http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?f=990219/2293154
>
>More information is available at
>http://www.lsisters.com/courtcase/court.htm : the law was ruled valid, but
>the particular enforcement of the law was not. Also, this is only within
>British Columbia; Customs officials elsewhere may continue to refuse entry
>to such materials, unless there has been a court case of which I am
>unaware.
>
>Friends have also told me that Heinz Heger's "The Men with the Pink
>Triangles" (autobiography of a Gay in a concentration camp) has also been
>banned for import; why? apparently because there's a "nice" law that says
>demeaning and dehumanizing materials may not be imported, and, well, the
>Nazi's demeaned and dehumanized concentration camp victims. I have not
>verified this. Similarly, the community also places Teleny (attributed
>somewhat dubiously to Oscar Wilde) as being high on the Canadian customs
>hit list.
Note that your source says that this is unverified gossip.
>
>Best Gay Erotica 1999 has been confiscated and presumed destroyed.
>(http://www.tribe.net/news/world/990215/w99021505.html)
>
>Note that those are only the items of which I am personally aware.
So you have bureaucratic snafus, and one unverified piece of gossip.
>
>>>You might also want to look at the change in violent crime rates in
>>>Britain as gun control has increased.
>>Compared to the rate of increase before gun control? About the same.
>
>In other words, gun control had no effect. Or was there one reason for
>their low crime rates before gun control, and another reason for their low
>crime rates after gun control?
But I thought getting rid of gun control, in itself, was supposed to
lower the crime rate! Did the NRA lie to us?
>
>Jerry
>http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
Jerry Stratton
<tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have no problem reading, you seem to have a problem backing up your
>ridiculous Leftists dogma. Prove Washington considered the militia
>unreliable and cowardly.
Careful with this; Washington may have been a good example for why gun
control is a bad thing.
Washington was very racist, even for the time. He definitely did consider
at least part of the militia unreliable: when he took over the command of
the Continental army, one of the first things he tried to do was kick the
blacks out. He couldn't handle the thought of Blacks with guns. (He may
have had a change of heart somewhere in his life, as he was one of the few
Southern planters to free his slaves in his will.)
Here is a list of the things Washington didn't like about the army he'd
taken over:
1. Blacks with muskets.
2. Officers elected by the rank and file.
When Washington took over, he ordered:
1. Blacks out of the army
2. Officers to be chosen by their superiors
3. Increase in officers' pay
4. The use of flogging for discipline
He gave in on number 1, but not the rest, and about half the army left in
disgust. Common sense. They were fighting for democracy, after all.
Sometime around Valley Forge, however, he did gain a new respect and
warmth for his army.
Note follow-ups.
tcrpe
Zepp wrote in message <37078f94...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:50:36 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Now, where did those guns and cannon come from? How did the Americans
come
>>to put guns into their hands? The British gave them to them? Said,
"Here,
>>just to make this fair, we ar going to give you some guns."
>
>That's exactly what they did.
You really ought to sue the public (government) schools for what they did to
you. You, sir, are an idiot.
And that's it for you. Pathologically incapable of admitting you are wrong,
instead reduced to spouting sheer idiocy, assuming the "just because Zipp
says it, it must be true."
I've heard it all, now.
TR
TR
Christopher Morton
>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 01:23:32 GMT, ne...@hoboes.com (Jerry Stratton)
>wrote:
>
>>In <37069b54...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:29:43 GMT, ne...@hoboes.com wrote:
>>>>Oddly enough, the only places in the United States where people "hit the
>>>>floor when a car backfires" are those places with high gun control...
>>>
>>>Like Los Angeles, or Detroit, or Cleveland?
>>
>>Exactly. Los Angeles and Detroit I am personally familiar with, and both
>>have high gun control compared to the rest of the United States.
>
>LA shows no evidence of gun control.
LA operates under California gun controls which are much stricter than
in Ohio or other states.
That's not rationally deniable.
tcrpe
Christopher Morton wrote in message <370aa25a...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>>LA shows no evidence of gun control.
>
>in Ohio or other states.
>
>That's not rationally deniable.
That won't stop Zipp. He's been trained by Vultai69.
TR
Zepp
>I have no problem reading, you seem to have a problem backing up your
>ridiculous Leftists dogma. Prove Washington considered the militia
>unreliable and cowardly.
Let me see what I can find. His comments on the militia -- where in
he called them cowardly and unreliable -- were widely reported a few
years ago after the OKC bombing, when militias caught the public's
attention. Shouldn't be too hard to find.
>
>Just because Zepp the Wacko Leftist says or even believes something doesn't
>make it true -- or does it?
>
>TR
>
>
>
>Zepp wrote in message <37069aba...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 10:24:32 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Zepp wrote in message <370623c9....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>>
>>>>George Washington considered the militia to be unreliable,
>>>
>>>Prove it!
>>>
>>>>undisciplined coward who nearly cost America the war.
>>>
>>>Prove it!
>>>
>>>>That's why,
>>>>when he became President, he did everything in his power to prevent
>>>>the continuation of civilian militias as outlined in the Constitution.
>>>
>>>Prove it!
>>>
>>>Gee, I see militias in the Constitution.
>>
>>But you don't see militias in real life. Just because the
>>Constitution says the government CAN do something doesn't mean it has
>>to, unless it interferes with rights.
>>
>>You really do have a problem reading, don't you?
>>>
>>>TR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Zepp
>
>Zepp wrote in message <37078f94...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:50:36 -0800, "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Now, where did those guns and cannon come from? How did the Americans
>come
>>>to put guns into their hands? The British gave them to them? Said,
>"Here,
>>>just to make this fair, we ar going to give you some guns."
>>
>>That's exactly what they did.
>
>
>You really ought to sue the public (government) schools for what they did to
>you. You, sir, are an idiot.
Gosh, and I didn't even attend public schools. Not until grade 10,
anyway. I was 14 at the time. How 'BOUT that?
>
>And that's it for you. Pathologically incapable of admitting you are wrong,
>instead reduced to spouting sheer idiocy, assuming the "just because Zipp
>says it, it must be true."
>
>I've heard it all, now.
Still don't know who the Americans fought for in the French and Indian
War, do you?
>
>TR
tcrpe
Zepp wrote in message <3707b045...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>Still don't know who the Americans fought for in the French and Indian
>War, do you?
Another feeble attempt to change the subject?
Where did the guns come from? The Brits gave them the guns to make the
fight fair, right?
TR
Juan Liberale
Just because you gun crazies keep having your weapons turning up
blazing away at school chidren.
>
>If you're opposition to weapons were GENUINE, you would
>start by taking the weapons away from the police-state.
Police state? You stupid little Mcveigh clones need to get
yourself on medication. What a fuckwit you are.
--
William Barwell
Little Lulu <tutu_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <01be7c81$e6cd6b40$4fe2...@storeroom.lifesci.ucsb.edu>,
>lac...@lifesci.ucsb.edu, Chelle, says...
>>
>>Ok anti-gun fanatics. For the last time,
>>if the Kosovo civilians had the right to
>>keep and bear arms, do you think that
>>the Government would be able to get
>>away with ethnic cleansing? Of course
>>not! Private ownership of firearms binds
>>the hands of tyranny.
>>
>
>
>Another fairy story brought to you by fans of the NRA, where folks only read
>half of the Second Amendment.
>
Many HAVE guns. They are called the Kosova Liberation Army.
Arms didn't help, it just gave the Serbs and excuse to go on
their sprees in the name of anti-terrorism.
A few handguns and shotguns and a hunting rifle or two will
not stop the para-militaries in a small village. It would just give them
an excuse to machine gun the lot of you.
Or back off and set up mortars. Which apparently has happened
a few times when they did corner a few armed KSA members.
Rifles will not stop tanks and armored personal carriers.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
tcrpe <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hey, stupid, and you should know this from your very own experience:
>
>HAVING ANY GUN IS BETTER THAN HAVING ONLY THOSE OLD WORN OUT LEFTIST IDEAS.
>
>ANY gun is better than NO gun.
>
When your gun is extremely ineffectual and simply makes you a
target, it is not better than no gun.
Get real and stop living a Rambo movie dreamlife. This
is real life, not a B action movie where the hero's never
die or run out of ammunition.
tcrpe
I think she was a really fat girl in the Sunday Comics when I was a kid. I
guess she's grown up.
TR
Little Lulu wrote in message <7e96ee$o6l$3...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>In article <5qUN2.511$eF1....@news3.ispnews.com>, zarl...@conan.ids.net,
>Michael Zarlenga, says...
>>
>>William Barwell (wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
>>: >HAVING ANY GUN IS BETTER THAN HAVING ONLY THOSE OLD WORN OUT LEFTIST
>IDEAS.
>>: >ANY gun is better than NO gun.
>>
>>: When your gun is extremely ineffectual and simply makes you a
>>: target, it is not better than no gun.
>>
>>Better to go quietly than fighting, eh, Subgenius?
>>
>>That worked well for the Jews, now, didn't it?
>>\
>
>
>Yet another NRA Fan Club fairy story creeps into the conversation.
>Care to document this urban legend ?
>
tcrpe
TR
I would ask where the full time soldiers came from, but then you'd just have
to scramble to reinvent history again ..
Juan Liberale wrote in message ...
>In article <fgPN2.7918$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>, tc...@yahoo.com
says...
>It makes no difference, asswipe. The revolutionary war was
>won by full time soldiers. Militiamen proved themselves to
>be cowards time and again. Just like today, they are boastful
>little pussies who like to pretend to be brave soldiers, but
>cut and run when faced with danger.
tcrpe
Are you pathologically stupid?
I would suggest that the Jews of Europe in the 30s and 40s would have
gratefully accepted arms, and used them very effectively.
You suggest that they wouldn't? Really? They would have preferred instead
to have victimized in the murder of 13 million people.
I think they would have kicked ass, and the world would have been a much
better place.
TR
Next time you need a gun, dial 911 and ask for a unionized cop. And then
wait . . . .
Little Lulu wrote in message <7e9em2$umj$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>
>Actually it's you and the NRA Fan Club who seems to be revising The
>Holocaust into a self-serving parable about guns.
>
>Care to document your theory that it was gun control in Germany and the
>rest of Europe that some how lead to the Holocaust?
>
>Try to explain away how well armed, brown shirted citizen thugs lead by
>Ernst Roehm brought Hitler and the Nazis to power in the 20s by
intimidating
>even murdering political opponents. It happened because Roehm's right-wing
>political vigilantes had guns and used them, not because guns were banned.
>
>
>
>In article <_eVN2.8230$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>, tc...@yahoo.com,
>tcrpe, says...
tcrpe
>In article <msXN2.8283$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>, tc...@yahoo.com,
>tcrpe, says...
>>
>>Hey, dummy, they were the ONLY ones who had guns.
>
>
>
>your claim that only the Nazis had guns.
First, I want you to come to grips with the fact that the Jews were unarmed.
When I said that they were the ONLY one that had guns I meant that of the
NAZIS and the Jews, the NAZIs were the ONLY ones that had guns.
That being said, the pre-Nazi Weimar republic set the stage for the Nazi
takeover by passing Gun Control laws in 1928, 1931 and 1932. While the
Nazi's never gained a majority of the German vote they gained power through
legal means by a coalition with others. The Nazi's used the existing gun
control laws to disarm all but their supporters and seized permanent
control. These pre Nazi gun control laws served them so well that they made
no changes to them for 5 years. The Nazi Weapons Act (18 Mar 1938) invented
the concept of "Handgun Control".
Now unless you want to make a case that the Jews were NAZI supportersm you
will see that when one side is armed and the other side is not, the battle
is short and, invariably, decisive.
I don't need to rehash what the NAZIs did to the unarmed Jews and others, do
I?
As far as doing your homework, and citing all the specifics of the evoultion
German Laws and how they were used to benefit the NAZI thugs, that's not
going to happen. I can see that whatever source, and whichever authority,
will never be sufficient for you.
If you feel so strongly about guns, don't own one.
>
>Ernst Roehm and his SA thugs acting as armed citizen vigilantes in the
20a
>may have been the only ones using their guns to kill off and intimdiate
>political opponents. --This happened well before the Nazis captured the
>goverment. Having no opponants was the primary reason the NAZI's rose to
>power.-- But the Nazis were certainly not the only citizens who were
>armed. Even the German Army, which certainly was heavily armed, didn't try
>to stop the Nazi's vigilante actions even though they could easily have
done
>so.
Please provide some documentation, preferably a primary source, to support
your claim that the German Army could easily have stopped the NAZI vigilate
actions.
>>Are you pathologically stupid?
>
>I'm smart enough to ask you to provide evidence to support the claims you
>make.
13 million legal murders. Preceeded with prohibitions against Jews owning
guns. Among many, mnay other prohibitions.
Yea, I said legal murders.
>>I would suggest that the Jews of Europe in the 30s and 40s would have
>>gratefully accepted arms, and used them very effectively.
>>
>>You suggest that they wouldn't? Really? They would have preferred
instead
>>to have victimized in the murder of 13 million people.
>>
>>I think they would have kicked ass, and the world would have been a much
>>better place.
>
>Your placing words in my mouth, and speculating about what might have
been,
>do not provide the facts I've asked for.
>
I'm not sure II understand your question. "Do not provide the facts I've
asked for"?
I am not speculating about what might have been, rather pointing to 13
million bodies stacked up like cordwood, and noting that they had been
legally disarmed by their government. And then their government murdered
them.
>I'm still waiting for a source, please!
I have given you all any rational person would need. If you need more (and
I suspect you do), use the internet for research instead of posting your
revisionist holocaust nonsense.
Just try this:
The Jews had no guns with which to defend themselves.
The Jews had no legal avenue through which they could obtain same.
The NAZIs had plenty of guns.
6 million Jews were murdered by their government.
Today the Jews have plenty of guns.
And the willingness to use them.
And no notin of giving them up.
No sane Israeli politician would dare use the phrase "gun control".
Why do you suppose that is?
If you don't need a gun now, and doubt you'd ever need one, then don't buy
one.
Why would you want to take mine away (presuming I had any)?
Good day, madam,
TR
>>TR
>>
>>Next time you need a gun, dial 911 and ask for a unionized cop. And then
>>wait . . . .
>
>
>I have never needed a gun, and I doubt I wil ever need one.
>
>Do you really believe that vigilante justice with everyone holding a gun,
>untrained, becoming in a single moment police, judge, jury and executioner
>is a good recipe for justice?
>
>You haven't convinced me of it yet.
>
>Back to the point, you still haven't provided that source!
Michael Zarlenga
: >HAVING ANY GUN IS BETTER THAN HAVING ONLY THOSE OLD WORN OUT LEFTIST IDEAS.
: >ANY gun is better than NO gun.
: When your gun is extremely ineffectual and simply makes you a
: target, it is not better than no gun.
Better to go quietly than fighting, eh, Subgenius?
That worked well for the Jews, now, didn't it?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Michael Zarlenga
: Many HAVE guns. They are called the Kosova Liberation Army.
Few, very few, have guns. The KLA is outnumbered 100;1, in
large part because the Kosovars were largely disarmed by their
government.
Yet, even outnumbered, outgunned and with none of the CCC that
the Serbs have, armed with their small arms, they're fighting
back.
No one expects them to win, of course, unless we lift the arms
embargo and give them a fighting chance. Even if they lose, what
have they really lost? If we're to believe the Clinton admin,
they're destined to be killed, anyway, armed or not.
Some people would rather fight than go out on their knees. (I
don't suspect you understand that). If what the Clinton admin and
the media are telling us is true, then every single Serb soldier
taken out by an armed KLA rebel means one less Serb killer in
Yugoslavia and that's a good thing.
: Arms didn't help, it just gave the Serbs and excuse to go on
: their sprees in the name of anti-terrorism.
Yeah, right ... if only the Kosovars had fewer guns, then they'd
be dying in fewer numbers.
: A few handguns and shotguns and a hunting rifle or two will
: not stop the para-militaries in a small village.
You're right, they probably won't. So what? If you're going to
be killed anyway, why not fight? History is full of some rather
amazing battles and subsequent victories by tremendous underdogs.
Anyone remember Vietnam? Afghanistan? Korea?
: It would just give them an excuse to machine gun the lot of you.
Is that any worse than being take somewhere else and shot with
a pistol or starved to death?
: Rifles will not stop tanks and armored personal carriers.
Tanks and APCs alone, with no foot soldiers, cannot possibly
clear a village.
Little Lulu
>: >HAVING ANY GUN IS BETTER THAN HAVING ONLY THOSE OLD WORN OUT LEFTIST
IDEAS.
>: >ANY gun is better than NO gun.
>
>: When your gun is extremely ineffectual and simply makes you a
>: target, it is not better than no gun.
>
>Better to go quietly than fighting, eh, Subgenius?
>
>That worked well for the Jews, now, didn't it?
Juan Liberale
Little Lulu
Actually it's you and the NRA Fan Club who seems to be revising The
Holocaust into a self-serving parable about guns.
Care to document your theory that it was gun control in Germany and the
rest of Europe that some how lead to the Holocaust?
Try to explain away how well armed, brown shirted citizen thugs lead by
Ernst Roehm brought Hitler and the Nazis to power in the 20s by intimidating
even murdering political opponents. It happened because Roehm's right-wing
political vigilantes had guns and used them, not because guns were banned.
In article <_eVN2.8230$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>, tc...@yahoo.com,
tcrpe, says...
>
>Oh, God, here we have a Holocaust revisionist named Little Lulu.
>
>I think she was a really fat girl in the Sunday Comics when I was a kid. I
>guess she's grown up.
>
>TR
>
>
>Little Lulu wrote in message <7e96ee$o6l$3...@brokaw.wa.com>...
Little Lulu
tcrpe, says...
>
>Hey, dummy, they were the ONLY ones who had guns.
Please provide some documentation, preferably a primary source, to support
your claim that only the Nazis had guns.
Ernst Roehm and his SA thugs acting as armed citizen vigilantes in the 20a
may have been the only ones using their guns to kill off and intimdiate
political opponents. --This happened well before the Nazis captured the
goverment. Having no opponants was the primary reason the NAZI's rose to
power.-- But the Nazis were certainly not the only citizens who were
armed. Even the German Army, which certainly was heavily armed, didn't try
to stop the Nazi's vigilante actions even though they could easily have done
so.
>Are you pathologically stupid?
I'm smart enough to ask you to provide evidence to support the claims you
make.
>I would suggest that the Jews of Europe in the 30s and 40s would have
>gratefully accepted arms, and used them very effectively.
>
>You suggest that they wouldn't? Really? They would have preferred instead
>to have victimized in the murder of 13 million people.
>
>I think they would have kicked ass, and the world would have been a much
>better place.
Your placing words in my mouth, and speculating about what might have been,
do not provide the facts I've asked for.
I'm still waiting for a source, please!
>TR
>
>Next time you need a gun, dial 911 and ask for a unionized cop. And then
>wait . . . .
I have never needed a gun, and I doubt I wil ever need one.
Do you really believe that vigilante justice with everyone holding a gun,
untrained, becoming in a single moment police, judge, jury and executioner
is a good recipe for justice?
You haven't convinced me of it yet.
Back to the point, you still haven't provided that source!
>Little Lulu wrote in message <7e9em2$umj$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
Little Lulu
tcrpe, says...
>
>Little Lulu wrote in message <7e9jb0$26r$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>In article <msXN2.8283$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>, tc...@yahoo.com,
>>tcrpe, says...
>>>
>>>Hey, dummy, they were the ONLY ones who had guns.
>>
>>
>>
>>Please provide some documentation, preferably a primary source, to
support
>>your claim that only the Nazis had guns.
>
>First, I want you to come to grips with the fact that the Jews were
unarmed.
>When I said that they were the ONLY one that had guns I meant that of the
>NAZIS and the Jews, the NAZIs were the ONLY ones that had guns.
Why do you keep trying to hange the subject and ignore the fact that the
armed Nazi citizen vigilantes, street thugs led by Ernst Roehm, in the 1920s
were the force that allowed the Nazis to come to power at all.
>That being said, the pre-Nazi Weimar republic set the stage for the Nazi
>takeover by passing Gun Control laws in 1928, 1931 and 1932. While the
Source please!
>Nazi's never gained a majority of the German vote they gained power through
>legal means by a coalition with others. The Nazi's used the existing gun
>control laws to disarm all but their supporters and seized permanent
>control. These pre Nazi gun control laws served them so well that they made
>no changes to them for 5 years. The Nazi Weapons Act (18 Mar 1938) invented
>the concept of "Handgun Control".
Source please!
>Now unless you want to make a case that the Jews were NAZI supportersm you
>will see that when one side is armed and the other side is not, the battle
>is short and, invariably, decisive.
>
>I don't need to rehash what the NAZIs did to the unarmed Jews and others,
do
>I?
>
>As far as doing your homework, and citing all the specifics of the
evoultion
>German Laws and how they were used to benefit the NAZI thugs, that's not
>going to happen. I can see that whatever source, and whichever authority,
>will never be sufficient for you.
But you haven't identified even a single source yet....
Zepp
>
>Zepp wrote in message <3707b045...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>
>>Still don't know who the Americans fought for in the French and Indian
>>War, do you?
>
>
>Another feeble attempt to change the subject?
>
>Where did the guns come from? The Brits gave them the guns to make the
>fight fair, right?
VERY good! We're all very, very proud of you, Tripe!
Zepp
Morton) wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 16:24:13 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 01:23:32 GMT, ne...@hoboes.com (Jerry Stratton)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In <37069b54...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:29:43 GMT, ne...@hoboes.com wrote:
>>>>>Oddly enough, the only places in the United States where people "hit the
>>>>>floor when a car backfires" are those places with high gun control...
>>>>
>>>>Like Los Angeles, or Detroit, or Cleveland?
>>>
>>>Exactly. Los Angeles and Detroit I am personally familiar with, and both
>>>have high gun control compared to the rest of the United States.
>>
>>LA shows no evidence of gun control.
>
>LA operates under California gun controls which are much stricter than
>in Ohio or other states.
>
>That's not rationally deniable.
It has the same problem Chicago has: the NRA simply started pushing
guns in the surrounding communities. Thus making gun laws
ineffective. Gun rules need to be broadened.
Jerry Stratton
>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 01:23:32 GMT, ne...@hoboes.com wrote:
>>Exactly. Los Angeles and Detroit I am personally familiar with, and both
>>have high gun control compared to the rest of the United States.
>LA shows no evidence of gun control.
? LA is under California's gun control, and even enacts their own gun
control laws beyond California's.
>You seem to be putting the cart before the horse, though. Laws are
>enacted when guns are a problem. You try to claim that guns are a
>problem because laws are enacted.
I've never said anything of the sort, and you're changing the subject by
claiming so.
>>Neither
>>in most of Michigan's lower peninsula nor most of California (including
>>Los Angeles) can you receive a concealed carry permit. Los Angeles has a
>>one-a-month law; they even have been talking about banning bullets, with
>Most gun murders are not committed by people with concealed carry
>permits. Perhaps you've read newspapers and noted that.
No, I've read criminological studies and noted that. I am a bit confused,
however. So far in this discussion, you have stated that:
1. Gun control laws do not affect the crime rate.
2. Nondiscretionary concealed carry does not affect the crime rate.
Why do you care about gun control?
>>I don't watch television. I do read books, however, and Canada has
>>problems with free written expression at least, even comic books:
>
>And America doesn't? ABC dropped a Canadian made cartoon, "Reboot",
>because in one scene, a female character is holding a big gun, and
>says to her companion, "Do you think this makes me look too butch?"
Wow. You are claiming that ABC dropping a cartoon is the same as the
Canadian government blocking books? ABC has nothing to do with freedom.
Anyone who wants to watch "Reboot" can attempt to find alternative means
of viewing it. Trying to find alternative means of importing something
that customs has blocked has another name: smuggling. Its a good way to go
to jail.
>That's just plain bureaucracy.
And? A right denied because of too much bureaucracy is still denied.
>>In other words, gun control had no effect. Or was there one reason for
>>their low crime rates before gun control, and another reason for their low
>>crime rates after gun control?
>But I thought getting rid of gun control, in itself, was supposed to
>lower the crime rate! Did the NRA lie to us?
Again with the change of subject. What does the NRA have to do with it?
(That's a rhetorical question; I'd rather you answer the question preceded
by ">>" than try to evade the subject yet again.)
tcrpe
whichever authority, will never be sufficient for you.
I really enjoy the rantings of the Holocaust revisionists. A holocaust
isn't a holocaust unless you are the victim. That's rich.
I get it now, if the Jews had been allowed guns, there would have been no
difference on the outcome.
There are a lot of Jews that would disagree with you, but so be it.
What do you suppose is the model for the modern American Gun Control NAZIs?
TR
See below
Little Lulu wrote in message <7e9nq6$3qm$2...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>In article <yTYN2.8315$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>, tc...@yahoo.com,
>tcrpe, says...
>>
>>Little Lulu wrote in message <7e9jb0$26r$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>>In article <msXN2.8283$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>, tc...@yahoo.com,
>>>tcrpe, says...
>>>>
>>>>Hey, dummy, they were the ONLY ones who had guns.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Please provide some documentation, preferably a primary source, to
>support
>>>your claim that only the Nazis had guns.
>>
>>First, I want you to come to grips with the fact that the Jews were
>unarmed.
>>When I said that they were the ONLY one that had guns I meant that of the
>>NAZIS and the Jews, the NAZIs were the ONLY ones that had guns.
>
>
>Why do you keep trying to hange the subject and ignore the fact that the
>armed Nazi citizen vigilantes, street thugs led by Ernst Roehm, in the
1920s
>were the force that allowed the Nazis to come to power at all.
I am not trying to "hange" the subject.
If it will make you feel better, which is sertainly more important to you
than the facts:
Who had guns, who didn't?
Would it have made a difference?
>>That being said, the pre-Nazi Weimar republic set the stage for the Nazi
>>takeover by passing Gun Control laws in 1928, 1931 and 1932. While the
>
>Source please!
Gun Control Laws of 1928, 1931, 1932.
>>Nazi's never gained a majority of the German vote they gained power
through
>>legal means by a coalition with others. The Nazi's used the existing gun
>>control laws to disarm all but their supporters and seized permanent
>>control. These pre Nazi gun control laws served them so well that they
made
>>no changes to them for 5 years. The Nazi Weapons Act (18 Mar 1938)
invented
>>the concept of "Handgun Control".
>
>
>Source please!
Weapons Act of 1938.
>>Now unless you want to make a case that the Jews were NAZI supportersm you
>>will see that when one side is armed and the other side is not, the battle
>>is short and, invariably, decisive.
>>
>>I don't need to rehash what the NAZIs did to the unarmed Jews and others,
>do
>>I?
>>
>>As far as doing your homework, and citing all the specifics of the
>evoultion
>>German Laws and how they were used to benefit the NAZI thugs, that's not
>>going to happen. I can see that whatever source, and whichever authority,
>>will never be sufficient for you.
>
>
>But you haven't identified even a single source yet....
Um, there are four listed above.
tcrpe
Zepp wrote in message <3708c262...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>It has the same problem Chicago has: the NRA simply started pushing
>guns in the surrounding communities. Thus making gun laws
>ineffective. Gun rules need to be broadened.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolf Hitler, 1935
tcrpe
Jerry Stratton wrote in message ...
>In <370790eb...@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 01:23:32 GMT, ne...@hoboes.com wrote:
>>>Exactly. Los Angeles and Detroit I am personally familiar with, and both
>>>have high gun control compared to the rest of the United States.
>>LA shows no evidence of gun control.
>
>? LA is under California's gun control, and even enacts their own gun
>control laws beyond California's.
>
>>You seem to be putting the cart before the horse, though. Laws are
>>enacted when guns are a problem. You try to claim that guns are a
>>problem because laws are enacted.
>
>I've never said anything of the sort, and you're changing the subject by
>claiming so.
Yep, that's what Zipp trys to do when he's in trouble.
>>>Neither
>>>in most of Michigan's lower peninsula nor most of California (including
>>>Los Angeles) can you receive a concealed carry permit. Los Angeles has a
>>>one-a-month law; they even have been talking about banning bullets, with
>>Most gun murders are not committed by people with concealed carry
>>permits. Perhaps you've read newspapers and noted that.
>
>No, I've read criminological studies and noted that. I am a bit confused,
>however. So far in this discussion, you have stated that:
>
>1. Gun control laws do not affect the crime rate.
>2. Nondiscretionary concealed carry does not affect the crime rate.
>
>Why do you care about gun control?
He doesn't care about controlling guns, per se, but rather he wants to
control you.
>>>I don't watch television. I do read books, however, and Canada has
>>>problems with free written expression at least, even comic books:
>>
>>And America doesn't? ABC dropped a Canadian made cartoon, "Reboot",
>>because in one scene, a female character is holding a big gun, and
>>says to her companion, "Do you think this makes me look too butch?"
>
>Wow. You are claiming that ABC dropping a cartoon is the same as the
>Canadian government blocking books? ABC has nothing to do with freedom.
>Anyone who wants to watch "Reboot" can attempt to find alternative means
>of viewing it. Trying to find alternative means of importing something
>that customs has blocked has another name: smuggling. Its a good way to go
>to jail.
>
>>That's just plain bureaucracy.
>
>And? A right denied because of too much bureaucracy is still denied.
To Zipp, there can never be too much bureaucracy. As long as it towing the
Leftist line, that is.
>>>In other words, gun control had no effect. Or was there one reason for
>>>their low crime rates before gun control, and another reason for their
low
>>>crime rates after gun control?
>>But I thought getting rid of gun control, in itself, was supposed to
>>lower the crime rate! Did the NRA lie to us?
>
>Again with the change of subject. What does the NRA have to do with it?
>(That's a rhetorical question; I'd rather you answer the question preceded
>by ">>" than try to evade the subject yet again.)
I don't think tat will happen.
TR
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
Adolf Hitler, 1935
>Jerry
>http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
tcrpe
Zepp wrote in message <3708c221...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>Where did the guns come from? The Brits gave them the guns to make the
>>fight fair, right?
>
>VERY good! We're all very, very proud of you, Tripe!
Ding, ding, ding, ding . . . .
That says it all. The British supplied guns to the Revolutionary Army to
make the fight fair.
Ding, ding, ding, ding.
Oh, Zipp, that ain't a slot machine.
TR
Duane K. Kelly
>
> In article <msXN2.8283$fb4....@news2.giganews.com>, tc...@yahoo.com,
> tcrpe, says...
> >
> >Hey, dummy, they were the ONLY ones who had guns.
>
> Please provide some documentation, preferably a primary source, to support
> your claim that only the Nazis had guns.
>
> may have been the only ones using their guns to kill off and intimdiate
> political opponents. --This happened well before the Nazis captured the
> goverment. Having no opponants was the primary reason the NAZI's rose to
> power.-- But the Nazis were certainly not the only citizens who were
> armed. Even the German Army, which certainly was heavily armed, didn't try
> to stop the Nazi's vigilante actions even though they could easily have done
> so.
After gaining power through assassination, the Nazis began a smear
campaign based on "rising crime rate" of which they were actively
involved in its rise. They called for the registration of firearms in
the name of crime control while they themselves were the active
criminals in the process of eliminating the oppositions by
assassination. After successfully registering all firearms and having
sufficient control over the government they collected the firearms while
demonizing the homosexuals and Jews. They were then free to herd the
Jews into the ghettos with little or no resistance, as it was not until
after the disarming of the citizens of Germany that the Nazis began the
process of rounding up the "undesirables".
You seem to believe the Jews were armed to the teeth, and yet went
willfully without a fight marched to their doom when the roundup began
after the disarming.
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
--
========================================================
========================================================
I do not refer to myself as a "spam hater", but an internet lover who
has no desire to see it destroyed out of greed, be it in the name of
business, charity, or any other so called "public interest".
The Big Lie | http://www.kellyfreehold.com/spam/
Join the fight against Spam! | http://www.cauce.org
Join the fight for ethical internet business! |
http://spam.abuse.net/spam
To reply directly to this post: http://www.kellyfreehold.com/usenet.html
========================================================
Michael Zarlenga
: >: When your gun is extremely ineffectual and simply makes you a
: >Better to go quietly than fighting, eh, Subgenius?
: >That worked well for the Jews, now, didn't it?
: Yet another NRA Fan Club fairy story creeps into the conversation.
: Care to document this urban legend ?
What urban legend? That millions of unarmed Jews went along
peacefully and were then killed at the hands of the Nazis?
Is the holocaust now an "urban legend?"
Little Lulu
tcrpe, says...
>
>Little Lulu, thank you for reaffirming the fact that whatever source, and
>whichever authority, will never be sufficient for you.
You haven't presented even one source to support your story.
>I really enjoy the rantings of the Holocaust revisionists. A holocaust
>isn't a holocaust unless you are the victim. That's rich.
>
>I get it now, if the Jews had been allowed guns, there would have been no
>difference on the outcome.
>
>There are a lot of Jews that would disagree with you, but so be it.
>
>What do you suppose is the model for the modern American Gun Control NAZIs?
You are the the one who is attempting to revise the history of the Holocaust
and the Nazi's rise to power as an armed citizen's vigilante group in the
1920s into an parable against gun control. I have simply asked for
sources, which you repeatedly refuse to supply.
So from your refusal to present any evidence to support your claim, shall we
conclude that you have none?
Little Lulu
Michael Zarlenga, says...
>
>Little Lulu (tutu_b...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>: >: When your gun is extremely ineffectual and simply makes you a
>
>: >Better to go quietly than fighting, eh, Subgenius?
>: >That worked well for the Jews, now, didn't it?
>
>: Yet another NRA Fan Club fairy story creeps into the conversation.
>: Care to document this urban legend ?
>
>peacefully and were then killed at the hands of the Nazis?
>
>Is the holocaust now an "urban legend?"
>
>--
No, the Holocaust is NOT an urban legend. If you claim I have ever said
that, you are grossly misrepresenting what I have written.
What I have asked for again and again, and never received, is documention
supporting the claims made by the NRA fan club that the Nazi rise to power
in the 20s as right-wing group of armed citizen vigilantes who murdered
and intimidated their opposition, and the Holocasut that followed later,
had anything to do with the presence of gun control laws.
Perhaps you can provide this documentation.
tcrpe
Little Lulu wrote in message <7eb3jr$ud9$5...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>In article <Up5O2.517$dY.4...@news21.ispnews.com>, zarl...@conan.ids.net,
>Michael Zarlenga, says...
>>
>>Little Lulu (tutu_b...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>: >: When your gun is extremely ineffectual and simply makes you a
>>: >: target, it is not better than no gun.
>>
>>: >Better to go quietly than fighting, eh, Subgenius?
>>: >That worked well for the Jews, now, didn't it?
>>
>>: Yet another NRA Fan Club fairy story creeps into the conversation.
>>: Care to document this urban legend ?
>>
>>What urban legend? That millions of unarmed Jews went along
>>peacefully and were then killed at the hands of the Nazis?
>>
>>Is the holocaust now an "urban legend?"
>>
>>--
>
>
>No, the Holocaust is NOT an urban legend. If you claim I have ever said
>that, you are grossly misrepresenting what I have written.
Really? Really?
>What I have asked for again and again, and never received, is documention
>supporting the claims made by the NRA fan club
NRA Fan Club -- where does this come from?
>that the Nazi rise to power
>in the 20s as right-wing group
right wing group? where does this come from?
>of armed citizen vigilantes who murdered
>and intimidated their opposition, and the Holocasut that followed later,
>had anything to do with the presence of gun control laws.
>
>Perhaps you can provide this documentation.
Aside from your obvious attempt to propagandize this question, you have
ignored the facts as they have been presented to you. You have no intention
of considering history or facts, but are consumed with your own fanatic
Leftist ideology, misguided as it may be.
When you need help, don't call me. Call one of your unarmed leftist
friends. They can come and negotiate for you.
I'm sure they would have helped the Jews also.
Take your revisionist Holocaust history elsewhere.
TR