Another Blast From the Past
Mountain Mike^^
>> From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
>> unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
>> exterminated.
>>
>> "In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915
>> to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
>> themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
>>
>> "Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
>> 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were
>> unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
>> exterminated.
>>
>> "China established gun control in 1935. From 1948
>> to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to
>> defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
>>
>> "Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From
>> 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend
>> themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
>>
>> "Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971
>> to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend
>> themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
>>
>> "Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From
>> 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to
>> defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."
>>
>> Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in
>> the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
>> The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
>> ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and
>> exterminate?"
I didn't write this. However, it was sent to me by a friend of libery. MM^^
SxyRedChef
>>> the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
>>> The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
>>> ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and
>>> exterminate?"
>
>I didn't write this. However, it was sent to me by a friend of libery. MM^^
>
Oh come on Mike. Even you must recogognize that this is a gross
oversimplification of the facts. Just because this statement represents your
viewpoint, doesn't mean that the confiscation of guns was the CAUSE of these
poor people being murdered by their STATE. There were many more reasons for
their being murdered than simply the state confiscating arms. It isn't a cause
and effect here, although it did ease the occurrance
Bert <-- tries not to play so fast and loose with the facts
GaryR
easier for governments to do those atrocities. I think that was the
main point being made.
Surely we are all intelligent enough to realize the point being made
was that while the examples of these countries' removal of guns wasn't
the direct CAUSE of the atrocities, it was an excellent example of how
governments, left unchecked, can/will/have become extremely dangerous.
-GaryR <--- NRA member since 5/23/2000
P.S. After reading the recent threads concerning the 2nd Amendment, I
joined the NRA via their web site, I was surprised that membership was
only $10. I have always been the kind of guy that didn't really get
involved with active politicking, but also, I have always owned guns
and have carried a pistol permit for about 22 years now. (local law
requires permits for concealed pistols, an unconcealed pistol is not
allowed as it is in some states).
Mountain Mike^^
"SxyRedChef" <sxyre...@aol.com> wrote in message > Oh come on Mike. Even
you must recogognize that this is a gross> oversimplification of the facts.
with the facts
Of course you are correct. There is no direct cause and effect here. I just
thought the piece interesting. However, I remember reading about the
Revolution in China, circa 1949, and the tactic used to confiscate the guns
was ingenious. The would arrest a villager and his *punishment* would be
death *or* 10 rifles from the village. It didn't take long to get them
all......
Sorry you were offended by this piece. I didn't mean to insult your
intelligence:). Take it for what it's worth to you, naturally. MM^^
DCB
(as pointed out by our liberal friend below) but its clear to see
that the reason a government would try for the abolition of gun
rights is so that it can control its population easier and gain the
upper hand. After all, the liberals really aren't proposing getting
RID of guns to make people SAFER, just shifting the ownership
of firearms AWAY from citizens and toward governent and law
enforcement, which is a completely backward principle, and
certainly not in our best interests. This is the biggest mistake
of gun advocates, underestimating liberals. After all, they are
NOT ignorant of the facts, and they KNOW that crime and
death tolls increase when guns are "outlawed", but they don't
care. THIS is why they are corrupt and truly evil. Never say
we need guns for hunting and killing squirrels, the forefathers
never intended that, it was always assumed. They enacted
the 2nd amendment to the constitution so that the citizenry
could protect itself from the government becoming too powerful
and oppressive, as it is now... Guns are not just made for
killing human beings, they are made as a deterrent to tyranny
by ANY one form of oppression, whether it be individual or
organized by a government.. Guns are power, pure and simple.
When properly "used" guns need not be fired. Their mere
existence and posession insures our safety. No lives are lost.
Without guns we are just sheep waiting to be slaughtered.
-DavidB <--- NRA member since 1998.
"GaryR" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:392e81c2...@news.giganews.com...
> I took it as, the removal of guns from the private citizen, made it
> easier for governments to do those atrocities. I think that was the
> main point being made.
>
> Surely we are all intelligent enough to realize the point being made
> was that while the examples of these countries' removal of guns wasn't
> the direct CAUSE of the atrocities, it was an excellent example of how
> governments, left unchecked, can/will/have become extremely dangerous.
>
> -GaryR <--- NRA member since 5/23/2000
>
> P.S. After reading the recent threads concerning the 2nd Amendment, I
> joined the NRA via their web site, I was surprised that membership was
> only $10. I have always been the kind of guy that didn't really get
> involved with active politicking, but also, I have always owned guns
> and have carried a pistol permit for about 22 years now. (local law
> requires permits for concealed pistols, an unconcealed pistol is not
> allowed as it is in some states).
>
> On 26 May 2000 11:43:45 GMT, sxyre...@aol.com (SxyRedChef) wrote:
>
> >>Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in
> >>>> the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
> >>>> The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
> >>>> ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and
> >>>> exterminate?"
> >>
> >>I didn't write this. However, it was sent to me by a friend of libery.
MM^^
> >>
> >
> >
> >Oh come on Mike. Even you must recogognize that this is a gross
> >oversimplification of the facts. Just because this statement represents
your
> >viewpoint, doesn't mean that the confiscation of guns was the CAUSE of
these
> >poor people being murdered by their STATE. There were many more reasons
for
> >their being murdered than simply the state confiscating arms. It isn't a
cause
> >and effect here, although it did ease the occurrance
> >
> >
sam
says...
>
Don't get me going. Ha Ha :o) Sincerely, Sam
>Bert (
>sort of like being an agnostic, God MAY exist, but i can't prove it)
>
>
SxyRedChef
>intelligence:). Take it for what it's worth to you, naturally. MM^^
Oh< I wasn't insulted ( I guess it did look that way though). Its just that
when someone isn't careful with the words they choose, debates get hung up on
the words and not on the concepts. But I find it interesting, that people
through out things like "they KNOW that crime and
death tolls increase when guns are "outlawed", but they don't
care." I find this as very misleading if not down right untrue. First, public
ownership of firearms is so high in the US compared to almost any other country
as to make us a unique situation. You will find that the crime and murder
rates in the US are higher than in any other industrial society in the world.
As to whether crime and murder increases when guns are outlawed, i believe i
covered that in a previous post. The analysis that was used to support that
statement can not and should not be construed to be a general statement on that
position. It appears to be valid only in certain non urban states and the
numbers are so low as to be unreliable when spred across a large urban
population
Bert <-- hasn't been a liberal in many years, I consider myself a moderate (
Darwin Clegg
turn in all of their weapons. When the last liberal's gun is turned in, we
round them up and exterminate them!
Come on guys...let's do it!
Now I'm sure this idea made some liberals stop and reflect a second or two.
Could they ever be afraid of what a bunch of conservatives are capable of
doing? But not just conservatives... because anyone can do bad things with
too much power.
Darwin 8-)
Mountain Mike^^ wrote in message
> >> "In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
> >> From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
> >> unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> >> exterminated.
> >>
> >> "In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915
> >> to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
> >> themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> >>
> >> "Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
> >> 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were
> >> unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> >> exterminated.
> >>
> >> "China established gun control in 1935. From 1948
> >> to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to
> >> defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> >>
> >> "Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From
> >> 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend
> >> themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> >>
> >> "Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971
> >> to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend
> >> themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> >>
> >> "Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From
> >> 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to
> >> defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."
> >>
SxyRedChef
>
Sam,
Don't worry, I am impervious to your prosyletization. I have my faith and
religion. I may not practice it very forthrightly, but it is as solid as
bedrock.
Bert <- not agnostic, just believes God is taking an extended vacation
Frank Brent
enforced by the Federal Government and all guns would be eliminated
from the criminal underworld? If they had a 100% conviction rate with
crimes associated with guns now what would be the result in
our "civilized" society? An automatic 25 years with no parole sentence
for any crimes associated with guns appears to me like a great
deterrent ... IF it would be 100% enforced>
--
Frank B <---Does not own a gun for protection ... yet.
In article <20000526234012...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SxyRedChef
>Do you really believe that gun laws outlawing guns would be strictly
>enforced <snip>
>IF it would be 100% enforced>
>
>--
>Frank B <---Does not own a gun for protection ... yet.
Look, honest and responsible gun ownership isn't the problem. But people who
aren't responsible, or think nothing of selling their private guns under the
table, eventually get into the criminal elements hands. That is the problem.
Also, I see no purpose in allowing guns with the designed purpose of killing
PEOPLE (aka automatic assault guns) being in private hands. All the posters
who believe that an armed population keeps us protected from an unscrupulous
gov't are just a bit conspiracy crazed. Yes our gov't is not beyond a lil
underhanded action, but i believe that a free press and an interested and
informed populace, protects us as much or more than a bunch of armed vigilantes
running around with their guns, because those people don't have to answer to
anyone. They are more dangerous, because they they have little restraint on
their beleifs and are not held to a higher standard.
Sorry, but i don't see how an armed populace in a free society prevents chaos
from occurring
Bert <- wonders what the people in Columbine would think of this debate
Frank Brent
to me you just posted a statement.
--
Frank B
In article <20000527100658...@ng-ct1.aol.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Henderson
"Frank Brent" <fbren...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8goh7d$u1t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Do you really believe that gun laws outlawing guns would be strictly
> enforced by the Federal Government and all guns would be eliminated
> from the criminal underworld? If they had a 100% conviction rate with
> crimes associated with guns now what would be the result in
> our "civilized" society? An automatic 25 years with no parole sentence
> for any crimes associated with guns appears to me like a great
> deterrent ... IF it would be 100% enforced.
Why would it work any more effectively than an "automatic" death sentence?
The bleeding hearts say that executions don't deter murder, it won't bring
back the murdered and is only adding to the problem because now we have two
dead.
You need to realize that I am -not- opposed to the death sentence or, in
principle, anyway, your suggestion. Someone will manage to "discover" a
multitude of ways in which neither will work.
Steve Henderson
> Look, honest and responsible gun ownership isn't the problem. But people
who
And, they never have been. However, it depends on who you talk to as to how
serious the problem is. Some of those more radically opposed to private gun
ownership want -all- guns removed.
> aren't responsible, or think nothing of selling their private guns under
the
> table, eventually get into the criminal elements hands. That is the
problem.
That is only -part- of the problem.
> Also, I see no purpose in allowing guns with the designed purpose of
killing
> PEOPLE (aka automatic assault guns) being in private hands. All the
posters
Make sure you state that as -full- automatic weaponry. There are a few out
there that can't differentiate between semi-automatic and full-automatic.
> who believe that an armed population keeps us protected from an
unscrupulous
> gov't are just a bit conspiracy crazed. Yes our gov't is not beyond a
lil
Why did you just go overboard? It's not that we feel that it's -going- to
happen, but that it -could- happen and we want to be ready for it if and
when it does. Every right that is removed from the general population moves
us one more step towards totalitarianism.
> underhanded action, but i believe that a free press and an interested and
> informed populace, protects us as much or more than a bunch of armed
vigilantes
> running around with their guns, because those people don't have to answer
to
> anyone. They are more dangerous, because they they have little restraint
on
> their beleifs and are not held to a higher standard.
You went overboard, again. Gun owners are -not- vigilantes just because
they own firearms.
> Sorry, but i don't see how an armed populace in a free society prevents
chaos
> from occurring
But, chaos can't be contained by an UNarmed populace, either.
> Bert <- wonders what the people in Columbine would think of this debate
Incidents like those at Columbine can't be attributed to sanity, either. No
matter what you legislate, you won't get rid of the crazies. Limiting
firearms to all because of an unstable few is stupid and flies directly in
the face of logic.
Patrick Johnson
> [liberals] are NOT ignorant of the facts, and they KNOW that crime and
> death tolls increase when guns are "outlawed", but they don't
> care. THIS is why they are corrupt and truly evil.
Man, would I hate to have to spend all my time in THIS head.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Mountain Mike^^
"SxyRedChef" <sxyre...@aol.com> > Also, I see no purpose in allowing guns
with the designed purpose of killing> PEOPLE (aka automatic assault guns)
being in private hands.
Just when I thought you had a whit of smarts, you go and prove me wrong:)
"you see no purpose", huh? *That's* the problem. The Constitution sees every
purpose..........I guess it's back to the rhetoric. Maybe I don't see a
*purpose* for your view. Maybe *I* don't see a purpose for allowing the
newspaper to print stuff I don't agree with......YOu get my drift? MM^^
Ron Hudson
wrote:
>Why would it work any more effectively than an "automatic" death sentence?
>The bleeding hearts say that executions don't deter murder, it won't bring
>back the murdered and is only adding to the problem because now we have two
>dead.
However, it has been proven to reduce recidivism.
Ron
Mountain Mike^^
"Ron Hudson" <R...@LocalPool.com> wrote in message .
> > However, it has been proven to reduce recidivism.
>
might apply. For example, a person sentenced to die always gets an automatic
appeal. The appeals generally last decades. And even if the sentece is
carried out ( a very big *if*), I think his che` might go in search of
another body to corrupt. I know I would.....
MM<---just funnin'
Steve Henderson
"Ron Hudson" <R...@LocalPool.com> wrote in message
> >Why would it work any more effectively than an "automatic" death
sentence?
> >The bleeding hearts say that executions don't deter murder, it won't
bring
> >back the murdered and is only adding to the problem because now we have
two
> >dead.
>
> However, it has been proven to reduce recidivism.
You are exactly right, but you'll notice that *I* didn't make that
statement. I attributed it to others.
Steve Henderson
"Mountain Mike^^" <not...@freewwweb.com> wrote in message
news:8govi...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > > However, it has been proven to reduce recidivism.
> >
> I've never seen any *studies* that prove this is true. I think the
opposite
> might apply. For example, a person sentenced to die always gets an
automatic
> appeal. The appeals generally last decades. And even if the sentece is
> carried out ( a very big *if*), I think his che` might go in search of
> another body to corrupt. I know I would.....
Common sense will tell you that if that particular person is no longer
amongst the living, he won't "kill again". Suggesting that the chi would
move onward and perpetrate more crimes moves this discussion from the
sublime to the ridiculous.
Ron Hudson
wrote:
>
>"Ron Hudson" <R...@LocalPool.com> wrote in message .
>> > However, it has been proven to reduce recidivism.
>>
>I've never seen any *studies* that prove this is true. I think the opposite
>might apply. For example, a person sentenced to die always gets an automatic
>appeal. The appeals generally last decades. And even if the sentece is
>carried out ( a very big *if*), I think his che` might go in search of
>another body to corrupt. I know I would.....
>
>MM<---just funnin'
Mike,
Go with the empirical evidence. For example, during 1994, 2,331 prisoners are
known to have been executed in 37 countries. Not one of them is known to have
committed a crime since then.
Ron
Mountain Mike^^
"Steve Henderson" <etao...@geotec.net> wrote in message news:39300dc0$0
Suggesting that the chi would> move onward and perpetrate more crimes moves
this discussion from the> sublime to the ridiculous.
>
MM^^<--still got his funny bone intact
Darwin Clegg
are
> known to have been executed in 37 countries. Not one of them is known to
have
> committed a crime since then.
>
>
> Ron
Good one Ron! I love it! An absolute '0' repeat rate. Now does anyone
have the numbers of released repeat offenders? Has anyone talked to the
family members of a victim who was murdered by someone released from prison?
You may die in a car wreck, an airplane crash, a fire, electricuted,
drowned, blown up at a plant, or accidently get hit on the head with a pool
cue! You might even be sentenced to death by a jury after you've killed
someone! Oh my gosh! It's not a perfect world. You won't get out
alive...some things you can control, some you can't, some you are
responsible for, some you aren't. They say let the murderers live.....and
kill the innocent babies instead! I can't believe the humanistic,
self-centered mentality that would even attempt to justify that one!
Darwin
sam
says...
>
You know, I never get into this shit, because I've been there and done that,
BUT, I guess I've got to give you my slant. First of all, your right to own
firearms is very important. I really don't care whether it is an old 10 guage
or an assault rifle. It's your right, in my opinion. Your right to use it, is
another matter. If your kid gets a hold of it and kills another kid, shame on
you. You should be prosecuted. NOW, having said this, GOVERNMENT is about
power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When upstanding
citizens have a potential deterrent to Chaos and manipulation, we have a balance
of power. When the masses are helpless, you have helpless masses. Get my
point? Just a thought. :o) Sincerely, Sam
>I guess I must of scratched my smarts in the side pocket <g> Let me see if I
>understand your position. You believe that specifically a free population, in
>order to protect their freedoms, against a centralized, well armed
>government,of the people, by the people, and for the people, that THEY elected,
>are well within their rights to keep fully automatic assault weapons? All in
>the interests of perserving their freedoms?
>
>Well, I guess the best analogy that comes to mind is the one of the late '50's
>& early '60's, where people constructed bomb shelters in their backyard. At
>the time it seemed plausible, although the odds were, not only that was it
>neccessary, but it might not even help you if it did. Do you think that the
>general population would have had the 10 minutes advanced notice to get into
>their shelter? Of that when Dr. Strangelove came a-calling they were gonna be
>home even?
>
>I understand your reasoning, its just that I see it as a very unlikely
>scenario, as things stand now. I don't disagree that things could change.
>Ever since the late '60's it has been my personal belief that a major radical
>change in the world was brewing, but I have no idea what those changes will
>entail. Is it the computer/telecommunications reveloution? i don't know. But
>Orwell seemed to miss his target by about 20 or 30 years. I will thank him for
>being early, in that he might have prevented it by showing us the deadly
>possibilities before they have a chance to occur. Of course even if he told us
>so, doiesn't mean we aren't doomed to commit those errors
>
>Bert <-- sometimes Im not sure which side I lean towards, i guees thats why i
>consider myself a moderate. By the way, you ARE a Libertarian. aren't you?
>And which mouantian is taht anyway, i thought YOU were in Hemet, and Sam was in
>San Berdoo.
>
>
Mountain Mike^^
"Darwin Clegg" <dec...@eatel.net> wrote in message news:js1Y4.135718> Good
one Ron! I love it! An absolute '0' repeat rate
You can accomplish the same rate by locking them up for life. Actually, it
may surprise you, but I don't think the death penalty is a deterent for
anybody. It simply legalizes murder in the same way that our abortion laws
do. I think that it is not applied fairly to those of color, and that some
states use it exclusively to placate a mis-informed populace and to re-elect
certain state officials. A civilized country should be able to do better,
IMHO. I do, however, believe in justified killing to stop any violent crime
or to stop a fleeing felon that has commited a violent crime. I believe that
all citizens should have the authority to do this.....MM^^
Mountain Mike^^
if I
> understand your position
Allow me. I believe that the citizens of this country enjoy more individual
libery than any other country. I believe that the Constitution is the major
reason. The *purpose* of the Constitution was specifically designed to
prevent the kind of reasoning that you just used. That is, that *someone*
could decide what was acceptable and what was not. For example, in a pure
democracy, the majority might decide that people over 70 were too expensive
to keep alive. Or that short people should be eliminated, or that (true
example) a certain race of people should be slaves to the rest. The
Constitution fights the tyranny of the masses and the mis-use of power of
our political leaders.
Saying that, we must all "preserve, defend and protect" the Constitution
against any assault, by anyone....Even those who ostensibly have our *best
interests* at heart. History is chock full of examples of corrupt leaders
destroying a country with unlimited power. Hell, Hitler even got 90% of the
vote, didn't he?
So my position on *assault* weapons is this: The 2nd Ammendment was
designed to give the people the means to resist a tyrannical gov't. It would
be hard as hell to defend yourself with a slingshot, now wouldn't it? But,
I'm not completely nuts, though. I say let the law-abiding citizens keep and
bear arms. Any arms. I didn't say nuclear weapons. And let the feds
prosecute those who possess or use these weapons for criminal activity to
the fullest. But they don't. They simply pass more gun laws that effectively
makes the 2nd Ammendment almost meaningless. So, if you believe the rhetoric
of the previous world leaders regarding *gun safety*, then you ignore most
of history. They *always* give you a palatable reason to strip away your
freedoms, don't they? This is the difference in the gun debate. One side
thinks that the gov't *will* protect your rights, and the other side thinks
the gov't is usually full of shit. My intellect tells me the latter is
usually true. MM^^
SxyRedChef
Pat,
Do you think he also believes that an Alien conspiracy thwarted Nixon from a
second Presidential term?
Bert <-- has done a real reversal of Nixon's contributions,
SxyRedChef
>> Also, I see no purpose in allowing guns with the designed purpose of
>killing
>> PEOPLE (aka automatic assault guns) being in private hands. All the
>posters
>
>Make sure you state that as -full- automatic weaponry. There are a few out
>there that can't differentiate between semi-automatic and full-automatic.
Steve, I see the real problem as the semi auto's being easily converted to full
auto. There are mfg'er's out there who purposely design their product to be
easily converted, and then help supply conversion kits to make an extra buck.
May i ask, what is the real purpose of a semi auto rifle? Do deer fire back?
Do huntersw really snap off an extra round or two and drop their target? Is
this benefit really worth the hazards?
>> who believe that an armed population keeps us protected from an
>unscrupulous
>> gov't are just a bit conspiracy crazed. Yes our gov't is not beyond a
>lil
>
>Why did you just go overboard? It's not that we feel that it's -going- to
>happen, but that it -could- happen and we want to be ready for it if and
>when it does. Every right that is removed from the general population moves
>us one more step towards totalitarianism.
>
Steve I think that you are just as overboard as I am, if that is how you reason
it out. The sky may fall the hair in my nose may fall out. Do I prepare for
these eventualities also? At some point we must all except the risk of simply
living in the real world and not try and prevent every eventuality. Of course
my friends on the right side of the aisle will use this same reasoning to
bolster their beliefs. So be it. Just goes to show that the middle ground is
the most sane course.
>> underhanded action, but i believe that a free press and an interested and
>> informed populace, protects us as much or more than a bunch of armed
>vigilantes
>> running around with their guns, because those people don't have to answer
>to
>> anyone. They are more dangerous, because they they have little restraint
>on
>> their beleifs and are not held to a higher standard.
>
>You went overboard, again. Gun owners are -not- vigilantes just because
>they own firearms.
I don't think that is what I said or implied. Vigilantes has a very narrow
definition, and I beleive that I used it correctly. I don't think that you can
construe from my statement that Vigilante's and gun ownership are synonymous.
>> Sorry, but i don't see how an armed populace in a free society prevents
>chaos
>> from occurring
>
>But, chaos can't be contained by an UNarmed populace, either.
Chaos by its very nature is uncontainable, with gun ownership or without it.
Besides i think what I was getting at is much larger and has many more causes
than simple gun control/legislation or its lack thereof.
>Incidents like those at Columbine can't be attributed to sanity, either. No
>matter what you legislate, you won't get rid of the crazies. Limiting
>firearms to all because of an unstable few is stupid and flies directly in
>the face of logic.
>
>
I agree. But I don't think I ever said that I wanted all guns confiscated.
There are many legitimate reasons for having a gun. But, and this is my
personal belief, carrying a weapon simply for self protection shoud be allowed
under only very strict circumstances. I think the carryer should present an
affirmative and real expectation that he/she needs a weapon for this reason,
and not just a general belief that "Its a dangerous world out there"
Bert <== loves this well thought out debate without the name calling
SxyRedChef
>Just when I thought you had a whit of smarts, you go and prove me wrong:)
>"you see no purpose", huh? *That's* the problem. The Constitution sees every
>purpose..........I guess it's back to the rhetoric. Maybe I don't see a
>*purpose* for your view. Maybe *I* don't see a purpose for allowing the
>newspaper to print stuff I don't agree with......YOu get my drift? MM^^
>
>
>
>Mike,
I guess I must of scratched my smarts in the side pocket <g> Let me see if I
SxyRedChef
>Date: 05/27/2000 10:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8gon2j$1r1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>If your response is to my post I don't understand the reply. It appears
>to me you just posted a statement.
>
>--
>Frank B
>
>In article <20000527100658...@ng-ct1.aol.com>,
> sxyre...@aol.com (SxyRedChef) wrote:
>> >From: Frank Brent
>>
>>
>> >IF it would be 100% enforced>
>> >
>> >--
>> >Frank B <---Does not own a gun for protection ... yet.
>>
>people who
>under the
>> table, eventually get into the criminal elements hands. That is the
>problem.
>killing
>> PEOPLE (aka automatic assault guns) being in private hands. All the
>posters
>unscrupulous
>> gov't are just a bit conspiracy crazed. Yes our gov't is not beyond
>a lil
>and
>> informed populace, protects us as much or more than a bunch of armed
>vigilantes
>> running around with their guns, because those people don't have to
>answer to
>> anyone. They are more dangerous, because they they have little
>restraint on
>> their beleifs and are not held to a higher standard.
>>
>prevents chaos
>> from occurring
>>
>debate
>>
>
>
>
Brent,
I think I just replied my feelings in response to your post, not neccessarily
debating your statements point by point.
Sorry for not being clearer.
Bert <-- at least my skin is clear!
Steve Henderson
> >> Also, I see no purpose in allowing guns with the designed purpose of
> >killing
> >> PEOPLE (aka automatic assault guns) being in private hands. All the
> >posters
> >
> >Make sure you state that as -full- automatic weaponry. There are a few
out
> >there that can't differentiate between semi-automatic and full-automatic.
>
> Steve, I see the real problem as the semi auto's being easily converted to
full
> auto. There are mfg'er's out there who purposely design their product to
be
> easily converted, and then help supply conversion kits to make an extra
buck.
> May i ask, what is the real purpose of a semi auto rifle? Do deer fire
back?
> Do hunters really snap off an extra round or two and drop their target?
Is
> this benefit really worth the hazards?
No, they aren't that easy to convert. For most, it takes a machine shop and
the ability to completely remanufacture the selector sear pin from scratch
because the existing one can't be converted. They are designed in this
manner purposely. The ability to remanufacture the selector sear from
scratch is -way- beyond the capabilities of the average gun owner.
The -real- purpose of a semi-automatic rifle is to enable the shooter to
reload (because it is done during the normal operation of the weapon)
without having to get out of the firing position. The purpose is to enable
the shooter to put another round downrange at the deer that he -missed- on
the first shot due to deflection of the round in brush. How often have you
been deer hunting and had a clear shot out to the maximum effective range of
the rifle?
If bird hunting, the semi-automatic shotgun is, for most people, a
necessity. Trying to bring down quail isn't -nearly- as easy as shooting as
skeet, and -that- isn't easy.
> >> who believe that an armed population keeps us protected from an
> >unscrupulous
> >> gov't are just a bit conspiracy crazed. Yes our gov't is not beyond a
> >lil
> >
> >Why did you just go overboard? It's not that we feel that it's -going-
to
> >happen, but that it -could- happen and we want to be ready for it if and
> >when it does. Every right that is removed from the general population
moves
> >us one more step towards totalitarianism.
>
> Steve I think that you are just as overboard as I am, if that is how you
reason
> it out. The sky may fall the hair in my nose may fall out. Do I prepare
for
> these eventualities also? At some point we must all except the risk of
simply
> living in the real world and not try and prevent every eventuality. Of
course
> my friends on the right side of the aisle will use this same reasoning to
> bolster their beliefs. So be it. Just goes to show that the middle
ground is
> the most sane course.
I'm nowhere near as overboard as -anyone- that wants to restrict firearms
ownership.
The hair may fall out of your head, too. Baldness "cures" abound.
Charlatans have made mega-bucks over sure-fire "cures".
I live in the real world and have owned firearms (pistols, rifles and
shotguns) since I was 10. They have specific uses and NONE of them have to
do with hunting and/or killing humans. I don't carry one -ever- and only
transport them when I am actively headed to use them for those specific
purposes.
> >> underhanded action, but i believe that a free press and an interested
and
> >> informed populace, protects us as much or more than a bunch of armed
> >vigilantes
> >> running around with their guns, because those people don't have to
answer
> >to
> >> anyone. They are more dangerous, because they they have little
restraint
> >on
> >> their beleifs and are not held to a higher standard.
> >
> >You went overboard, again. Gun owners are -not- vigilantes just because
> >they own firearms.
>
> I don't think that is what I said or implied. Vigilantes has a very
narrow
> definition, and I beleive that I used it correctly. I don't think that
you can
> construe from my statement that Vigilante's and gun ownership are
synonymous.
You said "a free press and an interested and informed populace, protects us
as much or more than a bunch of armed vigilantes running around with their
guns". That sounds like you are accusing the entire gun owning population
of being vigilantes to me.
A journalist with an agenda derived from faulty reasoning can create a great
deal of mayhem as well. Who was it that said "The pen is mightier than the
sword."? Can not "sword" be also apply to firearms?
> >> Sorry, but i don't see how an armed populace in a free society prevents
> >chaos
> >> from occurring
> >
> >But, chaos can't be contained by an UNarmed populace, either.
>
> Chaos by its very nature is uncontainable, with gun ownership or without
it.
> Besides i think what I was getting at is much larger and has many more
causes
> than simple gun control/legislation or its lack thereof.
So, Chaos has a better chance of being contained by an unarmed populace than
by an armed one? That, quite simply, does not make sense.
> >Incidents like those at Columbine can't be attributed to sanity, either.
No
> >matter what you legislate, you won't get rid of the crazies. Limiting
> >firearms to all because of an unstable few is stupid and flies directly
in
> >the face of logic.
>
> I agree. But I don't think I ever said that I wanted all guns
confiscated.
> There are many legitimate reasons for having a gun. But, and this is my
> personal belief, carrying a weapon simply for self protection shoud be
allowed
> under only very strict circumstances. I think the carryer should present
an
> affirmative and real expectation that he/she needs a weapon for this
reason,
> and not just a general belief that "Its a dangerous world out there"
Limiting gun ownership is simply the first step. If you want five objects
(be they guns, acres of land, buttons, etc.) and settle for one, what's
going to stop you from asking for another one in a few months and then
again, and again, and again. Pretty soon, we won't have -any- and some
regulatory force (or commission or government agency, etc.) will have them
all.
If I earned the money to buy those objects (beans, bullets or bandaids) and
complied with the common sense usage of all those items, why should someone
else have the right to just walk in and demand them?
Ron Shepard
>one Ron! I love it! An absolute '0' repeat rate
>
>You can accomplish the same rate by locking them up for life.
Or by dropping the bomb on everyone on earth. Just think of all the murders
that would prevent from now until eternity. Everyone is going to die
eventually anyway, right? Isn't that the argument? :-)
The problem I have with the death penalty is that too many innocent people have
been convicted. Here in Illinois we have a pro-death-penalty governer. Yet
even he decided to impose an indefinite ban on executions in the state. I
think there have been over a hundred (I forget the exact number) death row
prisoners released here in the past 6 or 8 years.
There are many reasons for these false convictions. Some are because of racism
-- sometimes you just can't get a fair trial if you don't look like the jurors.
Some are because of police corruption. There is a case like this that shows up
here about once a year that involves police corruption (usually involving
drugs) where an innocent person was framed by the police. Sometimes it is
planting evidence, sometimes it is withholding evidence that would prove
someone innocent.
Sometimes it is just because of the way the legal system works. Poor people
get public defenders to represent them in court, and they sometimes don't do a
good job.
Sometimes someone is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many of those
released have been released because of new evidence that proves their
innocence. For example, DNA can now be tested more accuractly than it could
just a few years ago, and as forensic techniques improve, it helps reduce the
false convictions. In one recent case, one person was convicted of a crime
committed by another person, that that other person confessed to the police --
but they had already started the trial, so they concealed the evidence from the
public defender, and eventually "won" the conviction of the wrong person.
These things don't just happen in Chicago. A few years ago there were two
blacks released from prison in LA for murdering a policeman. It is often
argued that if any crime should get the death penalty, it should be for killing
a policeman. It turned out that he was killed by other policemen and they
rigged the evidence and framed the two innocent people. They each spent 17
years in prison before the truth came out. How can you give back 17 years of
someone's life. That's time to start a career, raise a family. That's your
youth and middle age. When you take that away from someone, how can you give
it back? And if they had been executed, it would have been even worse.
When the state executes someone, they do it with the authority of its citizens.
They do it in my name. But I don't trust the system. That's why I don't like
the death penalty. I also don't like the idea that it sends, the idea that
killing someone can be justified. I understand killing someone in self
defense, when there is no other choice, but killing someone strapped to a chair
is not self defense, and that is what the state does in my name.
Illinois is one state that allows new forensic evidence (such as DNA testing)
to be used to reopen trials to prove someone's innocence. Some states don't
allow this. Now THAT's a crime.
Innocent people are convicted all the time, all over the place. It's scary.
$.02 -Ron Shepard <--Sometimes I think, "There, but for the grace of God, go
I".
Ron Shepard
>a second Presidential term?
Actually, Nixon WAS elected to a second term.
Speaking of politics, have any of you been listening to Nightline over the past
couple of years when they play the Johnson tapes? These things are remarkable.
He really knew how to twist arms, persuade, and coerce. It's not so much of a
surprise how he got the Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed (I think it was a
unanimous vote, except for two abstensions). And except for that single act,
and everything that followed because of it (worthy of mention on this Memorial
Day), he was truely a great leader during a tough period.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
SxyRedChef
>One side
>thinks that the gov't *will* protect your rights, and the other side thinks
>the gov't is usually full of shit. My intellect tells me the latter is
>usually true. MM^^
>
The gov't, won't protect my rights, if who you are refering to is Congress or
the Executive branch. I have a little more faith in the judiciary, but not
much really. In the final analysis its the people who vote and participate who
will protect our rights. I beleive that its time for a more open debate in the
political arean, ie that Libertarians and other 3rd party candidates start
getting more attention. It is painfully apparrent that the Elepants and
Donkeys are more interested in splitting whatever power is available than
engaging in serious debate of the issues. This partll the electorates fault in
that we don't disown them when they act as jackasses and are not responsive to
the public
.
>The *purpose* of the Constitution was specifically designed to
>prevent the kind of reasoning that you just used. That is, that *someone*
>could decide what was acceptable and what was not.
Mike,
I beleive that just one person, or some small group of people, are very
unlikely, to acheive, let alone attempt what you envision. I don't rule that
possibility out entirely, mind you, that its just unlikely. And that should we
act in accordance with your take on this is a bit rash. I noticed that much of
my post was not commented on, so would i be correct in saying that you don't
disagree with much of it? And that is where I address the wisdom of allowing
the proliferation of assault rifles. In the last several weeks, John Walkup
has stated that he keeps assault weapons and that he would gladly use them if
neccessary. In light of some of his other views, with which I strongly
disagree, I am frightend for the public at large in his vicinity. Not that he
would act irresponsibly, but he is a human being and not perfect. His
judgement is no less fallable than mine. That is the kind of situation that
makes me ponder the wisdom of general availability of guns. Its all to easy to
see that an accident is waiting to happen. If not with John then someone else.
Is it the wisest course to wait until we can see in hindsight what should have
been obvious. or is just hubrous on my part to think that sometimes if we
exercise some wisdom, we might prevent tragedy
This is not an indictment of John per se, he is entitled to his views. I just
see the world very differently than he does and his view is very scarey to me.
so, please no flames in public John. If you wish to comment by all means
e-mail me privately. I doubt that we will even be able to agree to disagree,
but i am not afraid of honest debate on the issues
Bert
SxyRedChef
>From: sam s...@lasercom.net
Sam,
My boss had a sign on his office door that read "Power Corrupts, Absolute Power
Corrupts Absolutely. Ain't Power Neat!" And this is a guy who couldn't find
his own ass with both hands and a road map.
Kinda scary huh?
Bert
SxyRedChef
>No, they aren't that easy to convert. For most, it takes a machine shop
Sorry Steve, in general you might be right, but there are instances in the
public domain where a cheap ( under $100) kit with just a screwdriver and
pliers have been used to convert them. I won't pretend to know the actual
details but i beleive the reports
>The purpose is to enable
>the shooter to put another round downrange at the deer
This is the question I was asking. Is this benefit worth the potential harm.
You feel that it is reasonable. I, on the other hand question that wisdom. I
am not saying it isn't worth it, just that I question it.
>I'm nowhere near as overboard as -anyone- that wants to restrict firearms
>ownership.
>
This is simply a self serving statement. change the word restrict to
proliferate, and I would be closer to summing up my position and would be
equally self serving
>I live in the real world and have owned firearms (pistols, rifles and
>shotguns) since I was 10. They have specific uses and NONE of them have to
>do with hunting and/or killing humans. I don't carry one -ever- and only
>transport them when I am actively headed to use them for those specific
>purposes.
Steve, please re-read my statemen. I said that "carrying" weapons needs to be
scrutinized very carefully. I never attempted to say that target shooting or
even hunting, was or should be constricted.
>You said "a free press and an interested and informed populace, protects us
>as much or more than a bunch of armed vigilantes running around with their
>guns". That sounds like you are accusing the entire gun owning population
>of being vigilantes to me.
>
Why do you think that when I refer to vigilantes, that it should be construed
as a blanket stament against all people who own guns? Not all gun owners are
vigilantes, and not all vigilantes are gun owners.
You are correct when you say that journalists are as dangerous or more so than
the average gun owner. Those reasons can be laid to the loosening of
journalistic integrety and the need to make profits. It should also be a
separate debate.
>So, Chaos has a better chance of being contained by an unarmed populace than
>by an armed one? That, quite simply, does not make sense.
No I am saying once chaos starts, that an unarmed or armed populace makes no
difference. Radical changes will come about, and will never return to the
previous status quo. The nature of the new equilibrium will change depending
on many things, not just who has the guns. As unlikely as it seems, if the
"Liberals" had as many guns as the Conservatives, in a time of chaos, and had
the will to use them, when the smoke clears, it will be a very different world
whichever side wins.
>Limiting gun ownership is simply the first step. If you want five objects
>(be they guns, acres of land, buttons, etc.) and settle for one, what's
>going to stop you from asking for another one in a few months and then
>again, and again, and again. Pretty soon, we won't have -any- and some
>regulatory force (or commission or government agency, etc.) will have them
>all.
Sounds like the Domino theory. Turns out to be untrue 40 yrs ago and untrue
today as well. I think there are enough people out there that when push comes
to shove, will be outraged enough at some point that infringement of anything
will push them over the edge and enforce the peoples will. It may take a long
time, but it will happen. Even the God Ordained IRS, CIA, and FBI have had
their abuse of power looked into and controls attempted. No one said this is a
perfect world, but we have the best form of gov't anywhere, it works and has so
for over 200 years.
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." Does this mean that
when all our freedoms are taken away we will be truly free? I pose this
question to Sam since he loves Janis ( and I guess Kris Kirstoffson as well, as
I do too)
Bert
SxyRedChef
>Actually, Nixon WAS elected to a second term.
I stand corrected. Really dumb of me to have forgotten that. Guess all those
thoughts on table long cut shots has driven all sense from me <g>.
Frank Brent
sxyre...@aol.com (SxyRedChef) wrote:
<sniped>
Bert, you addressed John openly on the www, where anyone in the whole
world can read what you think about him, and you are telling him to
reply to you only in pprivate!!! How can you possibly think your
judgement is better or more logical than his!!!
--
Frank B
SxyRedChef
>reply to you only in pprivate!!! How can you possibly think your
>judgement is better or more logical than his!!!
>--
>Frank B
>
>
No No NO Frank I DON'T think that at all. In fact I think I disavowed myself
of that. But I don't want to let a fight errupt in public if I can fight in
private. In fact I tried not to fight at all. I said I disagree with him And
I don't think that I attributed anything bad really. My world view is
different than his is all. Myabe I have made an error, I just want to keep
things civil. I think maybe you're right and I issue a public apology to John.
Bert
Steve Henderson
> >No, they aren't that easy to convert. For most, it takes a machine shop
>
> Sorry Steve, in general you might be right, but there are instances in the
> public domain where a cheap ( under $100) kit with just a screwdriver and
> pliers have been used to convert them. I won't pretend to know the actual
> details but i beleive the reports
This sounds like one more of those "urban myths", it's a rumor to titillate
and frighten. It appears to have done its job on you. Belief without fact
or detail sound remarkably like "faith". I have little faith in BS rumors.
> >The purpose is to enable
> >the shooter to put another round downrange at the deer
>
> This is the question I was asking. Is this benefit worth the potential
harm.
> You feel that it is reasonable. I, on the other hand question that
wisdom. I
> am not saying it isn't worth it, just that I question it.
A -car- has thousands of pounds of "potential" harm. Does this suggest that
we should all go back to horses? If you like venison, why wouldn't
increased chances of bringing home the bacon (bad pun, I know) outweigh the
"potential" harm of doing without?
> >I'm nowhere near as overboard as -anyone- that wants to restrict firearms
> >ownership.
>
> This is simply a self serving statement. change the word restrict to
> proliferate, and I would be closer to summing up my position and would be
> equally self serving
I'm not trying to convince untold numbers of non-gun owners to rush out and
buy one. I just want mine left alone by those that can't reason beyond the
tips of their noses.
The Anti-Gun people are acting like Orwell's "Big Brother" and want to
remove my responsible gun ownership on a "maybe". For -my- own good, they
want to remove my right to keep and bear arms.
> >I live in the real world and have owned firearms (pistols, rifles and
> >shotguns) since I was 10. They have specific uses and NONE of them have
to
> >do with hunting and/or killing humans. I don't carry one -ever- and only
> >transport them when I am actively headed to use them for those specific
> >purposes.
>
> Steve, please re-read my statemen. I said that "carrying" weapons needs
to be
> scrutinized very carefully. I never attempted to say that target shooting
or
> even hunting, was or should be constricted.
Yeah. Just another nibble.
> >You said "a free press and an interested and informed populace, protects
us
> >as much or more than a bunch of armed vigilantes running around with
their
> >guns". That sounds like you are accusing the entire gun owning
population
> >of being vigilantes to me.
>
> Why do you think that when I refer to vigilantes, that it should be
construed
> as a blanket stament against all people who own guns? Not all gun owners
are
> vigilantes, and not all vigilantes are gun owners.
Non-gun owning vigilantes won't stand a chance against gun-owning vigilantes
in a heads-up disagreement. BOTH of your "groups" have self-serving ideas
about gun ownership. Because the non-owners know they can't go toe-to-toe
with the owners, they try to get popular support to vote out the ability to
privately own firearms. They are using propoganda to level the playing
field because their views are otherwise untenable.
> You are correct when you say that journalists are as dangerous or more so
than
> the average gun owner. Those reasons can be laid to the loosening of
> journalistic integrety and the need to make profits. It should also be a
> separate debate.
Yet, you used them both in the same sentence, compared them and found the
gun owners to be reprehensible by comparing them to vigilantes. If the
press is skewed, how can you possibly come to that determination?
> >So, Chaos has a better chance of being contained by an unarmed populace
than
> >by an armed one? That, quite simply, does not make sense.
>
> No I am saying once chaos starts, that an unarmed or armed populace makes
no
> difference. Radical changes will come about, and will never return to the
> previous status quo. The nature of the new equilibrium will change
depending
> on many things, not just who has the guns. As unlikely as it seems, if
the
> "Liberals" had as many guns as the Conservatives, in a time of chaos, and
had
> the will to use them, when the smoke clears, it will be a very different
world
> whichever side wins.
It makes a HUGE difference. If Chaos steps into my back yard and tries to
dictate how *I* like *my* steaks cooked on *my* grill using *my* charcoal,
cut up using *my* knives while sitting on *my* plates and using *my* table
and *my* chairs, I'll have a damn sight easier time keeping *my* preferences
*mine* because I own firearms. At present, there's nothing illegal about
eating steaks in the manner I choose.
If someone legislates away any portion of those choices, I'm no longer doing
it the way *I* choose.
> >Limiting gun ownership is simply the first step. If you want five
objects
> >(be they guns, acres of land, buttons, etc.) and settle for one, what's
> >going to stop you from asking for another one in a few months and then
> >again, and again, and again. Pretty soon, we won't have -any- and some
> >regulatory force (or commission or government agency, etc.) will have
them
> >all.
>
> Sounds like the Domino theory. Turns out to be untrue 40 yrs ago and
untrue
> today as well. I think there are enough people out there that when push
comes
> to shove, will be outraged enough at some point that infringement of
anything
> will push them over the edge and enforce the peoples will. It may take a
long
> time, but it will happen. Even the God Ordained IRS, CIA, and FBI have
had
> their abuse of power looked into and controls attempted. No one said this
is a
> perfect world, but we have the best form of gov't anywhere, it works and
has so
> for over 200 years.
Ummm. If it's an "unworkable" method, they why does -someone- always revert
back to it to get their way? It's because SOME people refuse to knuckle
under and allow it to happen is why is has, to this point, failed. Someone
will eventually manage to sneak one over on us and make it happen.
Vigilance (not vigilantism) is the only way to combat it.
> "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." Does this mean
that
> when all our freedoms are taken away we will be truly free? I pose this
> question to Sam since he loves Janis ( and I guess Kris Kirstoffson as
well, as
> I do too)
Kristofferson was a helluva song-writer. He can't carry a tune as well as
*I* can, and I can NOT sing.
Haven't you ever noticed that "artists" use some of the most bizarre of
reasoning and they get that reasoning heard and believed simply because of
that notoriety?
If you haven't, maybe someone snuck something past you while you weren't
paying attention.
SxyRedChef
>From: "Steve Henderson"
>Haven't you ever noticed that "artists" use some of the most bizarre of
>reasoning and they get that reasoning heard and believed simply because of
>that notoriety?
>
>If you haven't, maybe someone snuck something past you while you weren't
>paying attention.
>
>
>
>
>Its called artistic licence. never take that at face value, coz its just
there to make you think
Bert
barenada
Ron Shepard wrote...
(snip)
> The problem I have with the death penalty is that too many innocent
> people have been convicted.
And that's the reason the automatic appeals on death sentence trials, but
you're right, unless we're 100% sure of a person's guilt there has to be a
chance that they're innocent.
Can we ever have 100% certainty? Eyewitnesses can be prejudiced, evidence
can be planted or tampered with, hell some loonies will even confess to
crimes they didn't commit as part of a plea-bargaining agreement. Then
you've got your extenuating circumstances. Say you pull a gun on me and I
shoot and kill you in self-defense. Later it's found out that your "gun" was
actually a Pez dispenser. Do I still get to claim self-defense? Perhaps
before you pulled the "gun" you said something like "Hey Dave look at my
cool new Pez dispenser." If I heard you and shot you anyway that would be
murder. If I didn't hear you then it could be self-defense or not depending
on what the jury thought.
I read a book recently called "The Truth Machine" by Joe Halperin in which a
100% fool-proof lie detector is developed, tested, and approved for use as
evidence. Punishment for any murder (or the second offense for ANY other
violent crime) is immediate execution. Since there is 100% certainty there
are no innocent people being executed, and the crime rate drops pretty
suddenly as people are either executed for their crimes or else they change
their ways rather than face certain conviction for any crimes they commit.
I think with 100% certainty the death penalty is not only justified, it's
common sense, both as a deterrent and as a budget issue. Without that 100%
certainty, however, you're killing a person just because you think they
killed someone else, and that seems a little screwy to me. Lock 'em up, but
don't throw away the key unless you're sure you won't be needing it again
someday.
--
Dave <-- highly recommends both "The First Immortal" and "The Truth Machine"
by Joe Halperin
Ron Shepard
>I just
>see the world very differently than he does and his view is very scarey
>to me.
>so, please no flames in public John.
So, you are afraid that he might start shooting people with tattoos or
something?
And just when MM and John were getting along so well. I does make you wonder
though?
$.02 -Ron Shepard <-- got any tattoos MM? :-)
Jim Barr
SxyRedChef wrote in message
<20000527100658...@ng-ct1.aol.com>...
> All the posters
>who believe that an armed population keeps us protected from an
unscrupulous
>gov't are just a bit conspiracy crazed.
An armed population may have well kept us protected during the second world
war. It has been documented that Hitler knew he would not be able to win an
invasion of the US because of an armed population.
Jim Barr
The Billiard Search Engine
http://www.sound.net/~jimbarr/docs/websearch/
Patrick Johnson
> It has been documented that Hitler knew he would not be able to win an
> invasion of the US because of an armed population.
What "documentation"? What percentage of the US populace was even
"armed" at the time? With what kinds of weapons? How much better armed
were we than the countries that Hitler actually invaded?
Or is this just something you remember hearing somewhere?
(The whole Internet is one big peanut gallery...)
Pat Johnson
Chicago
donald tees
Jim Barr wrote in message <8grtm...@news1.newsguy.com>...
>
>SxyRedChef wrote in message
><20000527100658...@ng-ct1.aol.com>...
>
>> All the posters
>>who believe that an armed population keeps us protected from an
>unscrupulous
>>gov't are just a bit conspiracy crazed.
>
>An armed population may have well kept us protected during the second world
>invasion of the US because of an armed population.
>
I think there might have been another few deterents as well.
Bradley E. Robertson
>
> "SxyRedChef" wrote"
> > >> underhanded action, but i believe that a free press and an interested
> and
> > >> informed populace, protects us as much or more than a bunch of armed
> > >vigilantes
> > >> running around with their guns, because those people don't have to
> answer
> > >to
> > >> anyone. They are more dangerous, because they they have little
> restraint
> > >on
> > >> their beleifs and are not held to a higher standard.
> > >
> > >You went overboard, again. Gun owners are -not- vigilantes just
because
> > >they own firearms.
> > I don't think that is what I said or implied. Vigilantes has a very
> narrow
> > definition, and I beleive that I used it correctly. I don't think that
> you can
> > construe from my statement that Vigilante's and gun ownership are
> synonymous.
Do you guys remember the Watts riots? The store owners who saved their
stores were the ones that protected them with firearms. Vigilantes?
Maybe, because they had to take the law into their own hands as the police
were elsewhere.
Brad
Bradley E. Robertson
Ron wrote:>
>
> Some [false convictions] are because of police corruption. There is a
case like this that shows up here about once a year that involves police
corruption (usually involving drugs) where an innocent person was framed by
the police. Sometimes it is planting evidence, sometimes it is withholding
evidence that would prove someone innocent.
Check my logic:
All policemen are human
Some policemen are corrupt
All politicians are human
Therefore some politicians are corrupt
How do we preserve are freedom from corrupt police and politicians?
Brad
Steve Henderson
> >Haven't you ever noticed that "artists" use some of the most bizarre of
> >reasoning and they get that reasoning heard and believed simply because
of
> >that notoriety?
> >
> >If you haven't, maybe someone snuck something past you while you weren't
> >paying attention.
> >
> Its called artistic licence. never take that at face value, coz its just
> there to make you think
No, it isn't. I don't know what you are talking about, but I'm talking
about what some of these people actually -believe-.
Steve Henderson
"Bradley E. Robertson" <br...@whidbey.com> wrote in message
news:sj3agn...@corp.supernews.com...
> Do you guys remember the Watts riots? The store owners who saved their
> stores were the ones that protected them with firearms. Vigilantes?
Yes, I do remember them.
> Maybe, because they had to take the law into their own hands as the police
> were elsewhere.
That's not vigilantism. That's protecting what is yours.
Mountain Mike^^
Hitler
> couldn't even invade England let alone the US.
>
That's not the point, is it? What IF...............think about it:)
Patrick Johnson
> Check my logic:
>
> All policemen are human
> Some policemen are corrupt
> All politicians are human
> Therefore some politicians are corrupt
I think you checked it at the door. The above doesn't follow logically,
though it's undoubtedly all true (except maybe for the part about
politicians being human).
Here's what I mean:
All men are human
Some men have really big penises
All women are human
Therefore... well, you get the drift
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Mountain Mike^^
Straw Man
(Putting Words in my Mouth)
Word Origin
A straw man is a scarecrow -- and scarecrows don't fight back, making it an
excellent way for an opponent to gain a quick, flamboyant victory.
Putting Words in one's Mouth is a similar tactic -- perverting your opponent
into what one wants him to be, and then attacking the perversion.
Definition
The speaker invents a distorted, easier-to-attack version of his opponent's
argument, and attacks that instead
Speaker 1 makes Argument A
Speaker 2 invents Argument B, a distortion of Speaker 1's Argument.
Argument B is clearly wrong.
Therefore, Argument A is wrong
This argument is a fallacy because an invented argument attacked goes
nowhere
when the point is to prove the opponent wrong.
Note that most Straw Men depend on having a Red Herring.
Example:
Vince: I think that euthanasia, or mercy killing, is actually the morally
upright thing to do.
Jay: You advocate killing old, sick ladies? How awful!
Mountain Mike^^
"Ed Mercier" <emer...@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3931fba6$0$88...@news.execpc.com...
> Let me see, by your logic it is wrong as a society to "murder" someone
after a
> trial and conviction and penalty phase, but it would be all right for any
person
> to act as their own judge and jury and shoot and kill a fleeing suspect
Didn't you read my "straw man" piece? THAT is not what I said. You are using
a red herring argument to argue a point I didn't make. Your dad teach you
that?
What I said was that "to reduce recidivism, it's not necesary to use the
death penalty. Locking the perp up for life will accomplish the same thing.
I think the death penalty is *not* applied equally, and is therefore *not*
justice for all.
Stopping a violent crime, using deadly force, is still stopping violent
crime. Any well trained citizen could accomplish this as well as any
policeman. And if he's wrong.......well, the same applies to a cop. They get
prosecuted. Or they should. The same argument goes for a fleeing suspect. A
person that *observed* another commit the crime has real reason to stop him.
If nothing else, to stop him from commiting another. The problem is that
there is no standard among the several states.
So, if you want to debate the points I raised, fine. If you want just want
to argue, I suggest you make an appointment to see your dad. MM^^
SxyRedChef
>An armed population may have well kept us protected during the second world
>war. It has been documented that Hitler knew he would not be able to win an
>invasion of the US because of an armed population.
>
>Jim Barr
>The Billiard Search Engine
>http://www.sound.net/~jimbarr/docs/websearch/
>
>
Heck we were in far greater danger of being invaded by the Japanese.. Hitler
couldn't even invade England let alone the US.
Bert
Ed Mercier
trial and conviction and penalty phase, but it would be all right for any person
committing what they believe is a violent crime. This seemingly would apply
even for crimes that could not receive the death penalty should they be tried in
a court of law.
BTW Mike, in your special ideal world, why would you even bother to have a court
system? Strictly for the citizenry that don't happen to have good aim?
Mountain Mike^^ wrote:
> "Darwin Clegg" <dec...@eatel.net> wrote in message news:js1Y4.135718> Good
> one Ron! I love it! An absolute '0' repeat rate
>
> You can accomplish the same rate by locking them up for life. Actually, it
> may surprise you, but I don't think the death penalty is a deterent for
> anybody. It simply legalizes murder in the same way that our abortion laws
> do. I think that it is not applied fairly to those of color, and that some
> states use it exclusively to placate a mis-informed populace and to re-elect
> certain state officials. A civilized country should be able to do better,
> IMHO. I do, however, believe in justified killing to stop any violent crime
> or to stop a fleeing felon that has commited a violent crime. I believe that
> all citizens should have the authority to do this.....MM^^
--
Ed Mercier Please Playpool.com
President Mail P.O. Box 716
http://playpool.com Your Milwaukee, WI 53201-0716
e...@playpool.com Fliers Phone 262-502-9354 Fax 9361
Ed Mercier
Steve Henderson wrote:
> > "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." Does this mean
> that
> > when all our freedoms are taken away we will be truly free? I pose this
> > question to Sam since he loves Janis ( and I guess Kris Kirstoffson as
> well, as
> > I do too)
And Kris and Janis got along pretty well too.
Ron Shepard
>No, it isn't. I don't know what you are talking about, but I'm talking
>about what some of these people actually -believe-.
You mean like Shirley McClain?
$.02 -Ron Shepard <--her brother was thinking of
running for President, you know
Ed Mercier
(Just a guess. I'm trying to keep up with the 'logic' around here.)
"Bradley E. Robertson" wrote:
> Ron wrote:>
> >
> > Some [false convictions] are because of police corruption. There is a
> case like this that shows up here about once a year that involves police
> corruption (usually involving drugs) where an innocent person was framed by
> the police. Sometimes it is planting evidence, sometimes it is withholding
> evidence that would prove someone innocent.
>
> Check my logic:
>
> All policemen are human
> Some policemen are corrupt
> All politicians are human
> Therefore some politicians are corrupt
>
> How do we preserve are freedom from corrupt police and politicians?
>
> Brad
--
Ron Shepard
wasn't being fair to judges and prosecutors. We have fairly regular scandles
involving these other people too. The "Graylord" scandle here was a big FBI
scam that caught a bunch of judges taking bribes. And one of the false
convictions that resulted in an innocent person being locked up for years also
involved conspiracy with the prosecution attornies. And a few months ago they
caught a female judge, who was a heroine addict, making a deal in a case with
her drug dealer.
$.02 -Ron Shepard <--at least Chicago politics isn't boring
Ed Mercier
> "Bradley E. Robertson" wrote:
>
> > Check my logic:
> >
> > All policemen are human
> > Some policemen are corrupt
> > All politicians are human
> > Therefore some politicians are corrupt
>
> I think you checked it at the door.
I think he lost it in a tragic childhood accident. I strongly doubt he has
been anywhere near it for decades.
> The above doesn't follow logically,
> though it's undoubtedly all true (except maybe for the part about
> politicians being human).
>
> Here's what I mean:
>
> All men are human
> Some men have really big penises
> All women are human
> Therefore... well, you get the drift
>
> Pat Johnson
> Chicago
Please Pat, if you're going to make a point you are going to have to be far
more direct than that. All you've done is scare Brad off women forever. At
least those that are hung better than he is. Which by your 'logic' would be
"some of them."
SxyRedChef
>That's not the point, is it? What IF...............think about it:)
>
>
You mean we should be more concerned about what if, rather than what is most
likely to occur? Not your best argument Mike. Pass the bong <g>
Bert <-- remembers John Belushi saving the world from the Japanese in 1942
SxyRedChef
>You mean like Shirley McClain?
>
>$.02 -Ron Shepard <--her brother was thinking of
> running for President, you know
>
>
In a sense he did <g> What was the name of that movie Bullwinkle (sic) or
something like that. Lampooned politicians and hoisted them on their own
petard. One of the funniest (and funnest movies) I'd seen in a while. So was
Wag the Dog. Politicians at their worst
Bert
SxyRedChef
>
>
>And a few months ago they
>caught a female judge, who was a heroine addict,
I'm addicted to a good heroine too. I just love Xena <g>
Bert <- just having some fun with a typo
Bradley E. Robertson
> > Check my logic:
> >
> > All policemen are human
> > Some policemen are corrupt
> > All politicians are human
> > Therefore some politicians are corrupt
Ed Mercier wrote:
> Shoot'em with guns???
>
> (Just a guess. I'm trying to keep up with the 'logic' around here.)
Okay, to see if I disserved the grade I got in logic 103 how is this:
Some humans are corrupt
Some humans are policemen and politicians
Some policemen and politicians have penises
therefore some policemen and politicians are corrupt dickheads
Brad . . . heading for the garage to look for that college book on logic
sam
>
Gee, this is fun.
All men are human
Some men have really big penises
Sam is some man
Therefore....Ha Ha
All men are human
Some men have really big penises
Sam is a really big human
Therefore, Sam is a big penis
Got any more Pat? Ha Ha :o) Sincerely, Sam
Steve Henderson
"Ron Shepard" <ron...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20000529031218...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
> [What artists think...]
> >No, it isn't. I don't know what you are talking about, but I'm talking
> >about what some of these people actually -believe-.
>
> You mean like Shirley McClain?
Yeah, that's exactly the type of "belief" I'm referring to.
Mountain Mike^^
"SxyRedChef" <sxyre...@aol.com> wrote in message > You mean we should be
more concerned about what if, rather than what is most
> likely to occur? Not your best argument Mike. Pass the bong <g>
>
had just formed this great republic and all.......and then they went and
passed the Bill Of Rights just in case.......
MM^^<--somebody go find Chef's logic:)
Ed Mercier
Your "logic" is completely without depth. I have not distorted your arguments
or created straw man positions. You simply have not thought about this stuff
any further than the nose on your face. Once someone takes your positions to
their logical results, you get defensive because you hadn't thought that far.
Why don't you just call me one of those nasty liberals and go on fantasizing
about living in your own version of a spaghetti western. Are you going to play
The Man With No Name?
Mountain Mike^^ wrote:
> "Ed Mercier" <emer...@execpc.com> wrote in message
> news:3931fba6$0$88...@news.execpc.com...
> > Let me see, by your logic it is wrong as a society to "murder" someone
> after a
> > trial and conviction and penalty phase, but it would be all right for any
> person
> > to act as their own judge and jury and shoot and kill a fleeing suspect
>
Mountain Mike^^
"Ed Mercier" <emer...@execpc.com> wrote in message news:3932a42b$0> Why
don't you just call me one of those nasty liberals and go on fantasizing>
about living in your own version of a spaghetti western. Are you going to
play> The Man With No Name?
>
Oh, really? *I'm* the one calling names and putting labels on people? This
is *your* idea of debate? With thoughtful reasoning and razor sharp logic?
Try again, Ed. Nobody is buying your bullshit......
MM^^<--Where do they get these guys??
Mike Page
<not...@freewwweb.com> wrote:
Let me see, after saying a civilized country can do better than having a
death penalty, MM goes on with:
[...] I do, however, believe in justified killing to stop any violent crime
> or to stop a fleeing felon that has commited a violent crime. I believe that
> all citizens should have the authority to do this.....MM^^
Then Ed replies with:
***********************
Let me see, by your logic it is wrong as a society to "murder" someone after a
trial and conviction and penalty phase, but it would be all right for any person
to act as their own judge and jury and shoot and kill a fleeing suspect after
committing what they believe is a violent crime. This seemingly would apply
even for crimes that could not receive the death penalty should they be tried in
a court of law.
BTW Mike, in your special ideal world, why would you even bother to have a court
system? Strictly for the citizenry that don't happen to have good aim?
************************
Then with righteous indignation aimed at Ed, MM says:
>
> Oh, really? *I'm* the one calling names and putting labels on people? This
> is *your* idea of debate? With thoughtful reasoning and razor sharp logic?
> Try again, Ed. Nobody is buying your bullshit......
>
> MM^^<--Where do they get these guys??
MM, you wouldn't know logic if someone packed it into a semiautomatic
weapon and sprayed your compound with it. Why don't you think for
yourself for a change instead of parroting all this paranoid, libertarian,
anti-government nonsense.
Do they just attach strings to your lips and fingers, or do they actually
control your mind?
--
mike page <--knows name calling and labeling when he sees it
fargo
Mountain Mike^^
"Mike Page" <pa...@plains.nodak.edu> wrote in message news:page-
Mike Page comes to the defense of the defenseless.......
> Let me see, after saying a civilized country can do better than having a
> death penalty, MM goes on with:
>
> [...] I do, however, believe in justified killing to stop any violent
crime
> > or to stop a fleeing felon that has commited a violent crime. I believe
that
> > all citizens should have the authority to do this.....MM^^
>
> Let me see, by your logic it is wrong as a society to "murder" someone
after a
> trial and conviction and penalty phase, but it would be all right for any
person
> to act as their own judge and jury and shoot and kill a fleeing suspect
Again.....not what I said or implied. (the judge and jury red herring thingy
*you* referred to). Police and ordinary citizens stop violent crime every
day using this criteria. Some states more than others. Here in California,
in the *carry* counties, it's commonplace. Quite a few lives are saved and
innocent victims are quite thankful. The cops know they always arrive *after
the fact*, and the Sheriff here is pleased that we don't turn a deaf ear as
is done in most large cities. I guess you prefer, *that*, huh?
> committing what they believe is a violent crime. This seemingly would
apply
> even for crimes that could not receive the death penalty should they be
tried in
> a court of law.
You've got to CATCH them and PROSECUTE them first, Mike. Check the stats
you're so used to quoting for the real story. Most violent crime doesn't end
in a conviction of anybody......IF you murder someone in a large city, the
odds of you going to jail for it is 1 in10. (or so, I'm not going to do your
homework)
>
> BTW Mike, in your special ideal world, why would you even bother to have a
court
> system? Strictly for the citizenry that don't happen to have good aim?
See red herring and straw man explanation for this idiotic reply.
> ************************
Page, you accuss *me* of not thinking for myself? Your problem is that I see
through your little transparent attempt to deflect attention from the real
issues. Learn that from Slick Willie? News flash!! It's not working
anymore.....Get yourself a new *spin doctor*. MM^^
Ed Mercier
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> DCB wrote:
>
> > [liberals] are NOT ignorant of the facts, and they KNOW that crime and
> > death tolls increase when guns are "outlawed", but they don't
> > care. THIS is why they are corrupt and truly evil.
>
> Man, would I hate to have to spend all my time in THIS head.
>
> Pat Johnson
> Chicago
Michael Page
<not...@freewwweb.com> wrote:
> Page, you accuss *me* of not thinking for myself?
You say that like you think you're a surprising person to be accused of
such a thing.! just call'n it like I see it. And I've been seein it for a
long time.
>Your problem is that I see
> through your little transparent attempt to deflect attention from the real
> issues. Learn that from Slick Willie? News flash!! It's not working
> anymore.....Get yourself a new *spin doctor*. MM^^
yawn.
mike page
fargo
Mountain Mike^^
"Michael Page" <pa...@plains.nodak.edu> wrote in message news:page-> You say
that like you think you're a surprising person to be accused of> such a
thing.! just call'n it like I see it.
Nice try. But no cigar. Give me a ring when you decide you can handle the
heat of the topic at hand. Maybe Ed's dad would give you and him group
rates......
MM^^<---knows a straw man when he sees one.
SxyRedChef
> guess it wasn't the Framers best argument either. I mean after all, they
>had just formed this great republic and all.......and then they went and
>passed the Bill Of Rights just in case.......
MikPlease go back and read the Federalist Papers again. I mean really read it.
In there you will find the most comprhensive document on the Framers thoughts.
I think you will be quite suprised about how the viewed the Bill of Rights.
Actually its quite different than we do today
Bert <-- knows what he talks of
donald tees
>
>You've got to CATCH them and PROSECUTE them first, Mike. Check the stats
>you're so used to quoting for the real story. Most violent crime doesn't
end
>in a conviction of anybody......IF you murder someone in a large city, the
>odds of you going to jail for it is 1 in10. (or so, I'm not going to do
your
>homework)
>>
Now *that* is interesting. Here in Canada, the rate is just about the
opposite. Perhaps one murder in 10 goes unsolved.
Darwin Clegg
judges. Sometimes you get what you deserve. You set the expectation level
of these people. If they are corrupt and you don't get them out, then it's
your fault. People don't want to impose strict laws upon their own society
because they are afraid that it might affect them one day. Therefore, they
are willing to put up with looser laws and morals. Earlier paroles, and
earlier releases because they don't want more money spent on prisons.
Loopholes in convictions that let criminals off of the hook. No capital
punishment. Give them weight rooms so they can be tougher prisoners when
they get out! Give them law books so they can learn how to beat the system.
Then society whines about the problem when they are the victim. If you
stand way back and look at the system...It's a crooks dream. Not much there
to deter him..plus he probably figures won't get caught anyway. What we are
really doing is 'enabling' these dregs of our society and encouraging their
growth. Just like tough love...the system needs to be tough. Yes these are
human lives at stake, but remember you are also dealing with human nature.
Have you ever thought about why these criminals want to treat other people
the way that they do.....robbing, raping, killing their neighbors? It has
to do with morals and respect. If the society doesn't teach it and demand
it....they damned well won't get it!
Darwin
Ron Shepard <ron...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:20000529033138...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
> When I was talking about police corruption in Chicago (and other places) I
> wasn't being fair to judges and prosecutors. We have fairly regular
scandles
> involving these other people too. The "Graylord" scandle here was a big
FBI
> scam that caught a bunch of judges taking bribes. And one of the false
> convictions that resulted in an innocent person being locked up for years
also
> involved conspiracy with the prosecution attornies. And a few months ago
they
> caught a female judge, who was a heroine addict, making a deal in a case
with
> her drug dealer.
>
Mountain Mike^^
"Darwin Clegg" <dec...@eatel.net> wrote in message news:cxKY4.144850People
don't want to impose strict laws upon their own society
The US has the highest incarceration per capita than any nation on earth.
MM^^
Bradley E. Robertson
Mountain Mike^^ wrote:
> The US has the highest incarceration per capita than any nation on earth.
> MM^^
>
And how many are drugs related?
Brad
Ron Shepard
>> MM^^
>>
>And how many are drugs related?
Someone posted a web site a while back that had this data, but I didn't
bookmark it. If I remember correctly, about 40% of all prisoners are in jail
for marijuana, a nonaddictive drug that no one in the history of the world has
ever overdosed on. Not cocaine, not heroin, marijuana.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Bradley E. Robertson
Ron Shepard wrote:>
> Someone posted a web site a while back that had this data, but I didn't
> bookmark it. If I remember correctly, about 40% of all prisoners are in
jail
> for marijuana, a nonaddictive drug that no one in the history of the world
has
> ever overdosed on. Not cocaine, not heroin, marijuana.
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard
Thanks Ron. We haven't learned the lesson from the prohibition of alcohol.
Brad . . .now taking off his liberal hat
Mountain Mike^^
"Bradley E. Robertson" <br...@whidbey.com> wrote in message > And how many
are drugs related?
>
About half in the federal system. About a third in the states. In Michigan,
possession of 65 grams of coke gets you life with no parole. Quebec once
refused to extradite a drug-related felon because it called the Michigan
laws "brutal, and violated world standards for unusual punishment". Of
course, the US soon beat them in to a retraction.
The point is that after all the billions of dollars spent, after all the
jail cells are packed, after all the drug czars and their rhetoric, no one
has the guts to focus on more important crimes. That is, violent crimes
against citizens. ANY crime, including murder, recieves a much lessor
sentence than some of our archaic drug laws. The "war on drugs" is all
politics and the politicians don't ever admit when they have made a mistake.
That's why our schools are a joke, our safety is at risk, and our
Constituion is under assault every day. They would rather destroy this
country trying to pound a square peg in a round hole rather than admit they
are wrong. And can we get them out? Trying to get an incumbent out of office
is almost impossible. They get the cash from the special interest groups and
they spend it all on TV propoganda to fool the minority needed to get
re-elected. Sorry for the rant......MM^^
donald tees
that a very similar situation exists in Canada. I'll go further. If one
fifth the amount spent on incarceration was spent on treatment of drug
addicts, we might even start winning a "war" on drugs.
A large part of the problem, in my opinion, is that it is viewed as a "war
on drugs". In fact it should be a war on VIOLENCE, combined with a major
program of treatment for substance abuse. I say "substance abuse" because
the problem is not just with what the government has chosen to label a
"drug" for the purpose of a narcotics act. The problem includes
prescription drugs, nicotine, and alcohol.
If you look at crime statistics, there is as much violence where the root
cause is alcohol abuse as there is where the root cause is other drugs.
About 75% of the crack addicts that I deal with have a greater problem with
alcohol than with cocaine, when it comes to getting their life in order. I
have seen case after case where an addict beats their addiction, and become
exemplary citizens ... and in each of those cases, there have been criminal
records going back years.
While the tendency is to say "it is their problem, they should have to deal
with it", the real problem is that using the criminal law system to deal
with addiction just does not work. Using the criminal law system as a method
of getting addicts off the street costs at least ten times as much as does a
treatment program. Not only that, but it exacerbates the problem by placing
those addicts in a social setting guaranteed to make them callous and
violent ... that is the only way that you can survive once you are in jail.
I could go on for hours, but I will end this rant with that.
Darwin Clegg
whole society. I'm saying that we caused this overcrowding ourselves. If
you have a child that does something bad and you threaten a punishment like
a spanking with a belt, and then you tap him on the butt lightly one time
instead, it won't take him long to figure out that your words are
meaningless and he'll defy you over and over again. To get where we are
today you first start off with loose punishment (fear of massive protest and
civil rights marches 60's / 70's and you couldn't put them ALL in jail) then
after that you tighten your laws due to rising crime rates (late 70's/80's)
you end up putting them all in jail. I would hate to say it was society's
fault because I believe in self-responsibility, but I believe that the
strange timing of both the civil rights movement happening at the same time
of the Vietnam war had a great impact on our society and it's legal system
was severely impacted. I don't think we've recovered yet. Now our
responsibility is to teach our young ones what can happen if they do
something wrong so they can avoid the same tragedy. And to do that properly
they need to learn that the law has teeth! It's a crime in itself to enable
someones misbehavior (the majority of them won't disappoint you) and then
throw the cuffs on them! It's almost like entrapment!
Darwin 8-)
Mountain Mike^^ <not...@freewwweb.com> wrote in message
news:8h0jq...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> "Darwin Clegg" <dec...@eatel.net> wrote in message
news:cxKY4.144850People
> don't want to impose strict laws upon their own society
>