Michael Bennett shot at...
Chris Marston
Chris Marston
according to 9 news
Mikespark
Sir Francis
dollars but to get it I had to LIVE In the USA I would say "thanks but
no thanks"
This happens ALL THE TIME
ALL THE TIME
Deja Vu
Mike Tice: "I didn't ask (the ref) if the RT McKinnie had to report."
This coming from a man who played TE and was an OL coach for over 10
years.
CBR900RRFREAK
"Chris Marston" <cmars...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7lnlcv419la58jvc3...@4ax.com...
Minniman
> Pepp was also in the car ...
Other players, including Culpepper were in the bar. Bennett was alone
in his Hummer. A radio report stated that the players decided to leave
after one of them had been pickpocketed.
>Wow that could have been a bad deal !!!
Even if one person, regardless of who it was, was injured, it would have
been bad. I do get your point football wise though.
Does anyone want to talk a little more about gun control? ;-)
Minniman
DanAS1
"Minniman" <Minn...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vcm017h...@corp.supernews.com...
Sherman residence. Having a teenager myself, I can't imagine why any adult
would have a gun in a house where there is a teenager. The hormones rage,
the emotional ups and down are experienced in a magnified way ... inserting
guns into that equation seems insane.
We've heard the argument that "guns don't kill, people do." We've heard the
argument that guns are protected by the Constitution. Even if those
arguments were accepted as true, why are people so infatuated with them?
Why aren't people repulsed by the gun culture? Why do people shoot innocent
animals, for example?
To get back to your point, Minniman, Al Gore's political party made a big
deal about gun control (e.g., holding the Million Mom's March) and it cost
them the last election. Expect little of that type of campaigning next
year. Guns are here to stay for a while. Let the machismo fly. Let the
bodies die.
Brad Walker
(and are a laughing stock) when you argue AGAINST gun control.
In 1996 death by handguns
Australia 13 (Pop. 19 million) 1 in 1.5 Million
Japan 15 (125 Million) 1 in 8 Million
UK 30 (60 Million) 1 in 2 Million
USA 9390 (265 Million) 1 in 25 Thousand
USA is 60 times deadlier than Australia (gun control)
80 times dealier than UK (Gun control)
160 times dealier than Japan (Gun control)
Time to make the tough choices - how tough are you?
Brad
Australia
"Kranny" <krann...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ei6mcvkfjum8l7f76...@4ax.com...
> And gun control stops the criminals how? The hundreds of laws already
> on the books stop the criminals how? There is a lot of raw data out
> there that proves gun control is stupid. Peace by strength. Proven
> throughout the history of man. Get it?
> >Minniman
> >
> >
> >
>
Swenson
news:3ecb8954$0$25498$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I like America and I like Americans but you are dead set kidding your self
> (and are a laughing stock) when you argue AGAINST gun control.
> In 1996 death by handguns
> Australia 13 (Pop. 19 million) 1 in 1.5 Million
> Japan 15 (125 Million) 1 in 8 Million
> UK 30 (60 Million) 1 in 2 Million
> USA 9390 (265 Million) 1 in 25 Thousand
>
> USA is 60 times deadlier than Australia (gun control)
> 80 times dealier than UK (Gun control)
> 160 times dealier than Japan (Gun control)
> Time to make the tough choices - how tough are you?
> Brad
> Australia
Looks like you guys in Australia have your work cut out for you if you want
to catch us.
Dennis Green Sucks
SirFr...@interactive.rogers.com (Sir Francis) wrote:
>Folks I said this before and I mean it if someone offered me a 10000000
>dollars but to get it I had to LIVE In the USA I would say "thanks but
>no thanks"
R E A L L Y, so I take it that you were commuting every day from
Toronto to Syracuse University when you were attending college there.
And...I suppose that every single day you went to school there you
were being shot at. Go ahead...believe the spin...I've lived in the
USA all my life and have never even seen someone pull a gun, so much
as shoot it.
As usual...you're a liar and a hypocrite...not to mention a psycho...
^ThE MaDdHaTTer^
Tark....come to south Mpls....lolololololololololololololol
Pussy....
lolololol
POP
POP
POP
POP
POP
POP
POP
POP
POP
POP
lololololololol
tarks
a Little
Female
lolol
ESE
wrote:
>Does anyone want to talk a little more about gun control? ;-)
>
>Minniman
>
Sure.
I'd suggest that someone who breaks the law by shooting at another
human being without legal warrant (self defense) wouldn't give a hill
of beans about more gun control laws.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . .
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for
the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent
homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and
Punishment (1764).
Several studies have shown that liberal CCW laws reduce crime -most
notably John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime."
For real life situations, read the following storys to see how
effective CCW laws can be:
http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/2192776/detail.html
http://www.enquirer.com/midday/05/05162003_News_1mday_mckinney17.html
ESE
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is
inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at
all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they
likely to end up with either."
-- Benjamin Franklin
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms"
- Thomas Jefferson: Letter to Wm.S. Smith, 1787
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any
government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of
citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms
is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard
against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which
historically has proven to be always possible. "
-- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
Digby
news:15761-3E...@storefull-1902.public.rogers.webtv.net...
> Folks I said this before and I mean it if someone offered me a 10000000
> dollars but to get it I had to LIVE In the USA I would say "thanks but
> no thanks"
Good. We don't want you.
TomH
"Brad Walker" <bradw...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ecb8954$0$25498$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
self
> (and are a laughing stock) when you argue AGAINST gun control.
>
> In 1996 death by handguns
> Australia 13 (Pop. 19 million) 1 in 1.5 Million
> Japan 15 (125 Million) 1 in 8 Million
> UK 30 (60 Million) 1 in 2 Million
> USA 9390 (265 Million) 1 in 25 Thousand
>
> USA is 60 times deadlier than Australia (gun control)
> 80 times dealier than UK (Gun control)
> 160 times dealier than Japan (Gun control)
>
>
> Time to make the tough choices - how tough are you?
>
> Brad
> Australia
But what's the homicide rate? I'm sure the availability of Guns does
add to the homicide rate, but the differences in the homicide rate
between countries is not that big and while the larger number
in the US, as say compared to Canada , can be attributed some to the
availability of guns, much more of it can be attributed to Gang violence
and other social economic differences not found in any other country.
Focusing on the guns is not focusing on the problem.
>Nation________________Year___Homicide_Rate
>_______________________________per_100,000
>________________________________population
>__________________________________________
>South_Africa__________1995___________75.30
>Colombia______________1996___________64.60
>Colombia______________2000___________59.
>Latin_America_________1994___________28.4
>Estonia_______________1994___________28.21
>Brazil________________1993___________19.04
>Mexico________________1994___________17.58
>Philippines___________1996___________16.20
>Taiwan________________1996____________8.12
>N._Ireland____________1994____________6.09
>United_States_________2000____________6.1
>Argentina_____________1994____________4.51
>Hungary_______________1994____________3.53
>Finland_______________1994____________3.24
>Portugal______________1994____________2.98
>Mauritius_____________1993____________2.35
>Israel________________1993____________2.32
>Scotland______________1994____________2.24
>Canada________________1996____________2.1
>Slovenia______________1994____________2.01
>Australia_____________1994____________1.86
>Singapore_____________1994____________1.71
>France________________1998____________1.64
>South_Korea___________1994____________1.62
>Italy_________________1998____________1.54
>Australia_____________1998____________1.5
>New_Zealand___________1993____________1.47
>Belgium_______________1990____________1.41
>England_and_Wales_____1998____________1.30
>Sweden________________1993____________1.30
>Denmark_______________1993____________1.21
>Germany_______________1998____________1.18
>Austria_______________1994____________1.17
>Greece________________1994____________1.14
>France________________1994____________1.12
>Netherlands___________1994____________1.11
>Switzerland___________1998____________1.06
>Kuwait________________1995____________1.01
>Norway________________1993____________0.97
>Spain_________________1993____________0.95
>Japan_________________1994____________0.62
>Ireland_______________1991____________0.62
>__________________________________________
ESE
wrote:
>But what's the homicide rate? I'm sure the availability of Guns does
>add to the homicide rate, but the differences in the homicide rate
>between countries is not that big and while the larger number
>in the US, as say compared to Canada , can be attributed some to the
>availability of guns, much more of it can be attributed to Gang violence
>and other social economic differences not found in any other country.
>Focusing on the guns is not focusing on the problem.
Mr. Walker also failed to mention that most violent crime has
increased after Australia's recent gun grab (~armed~ robbery up
44%!!!!). England, as well, is seeing an increase in crime after
their recent increase in gun control laws.
With the increasee "shall issue" CCW laws in many states, it is fair
to say that gun-laws are laxing in the U.S. We are seeing a drop in
crime as a result.
Me thinks it has less to do with guns and more to do with society and
culture of which I'm dreadfully ashamed of our "American" popular
culture!
For a fair article on the issue:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds39.html
ESE
64,999,987 U.S. firearms owners killed no one yesterday. Did we hear
that on the news?
"Shall Issue" CCW laws reduce crime!
http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/2192776/detail.html
http://www.enquirer.com/midday/05/05162003_News_1mday_mckinney17.html
Perhaps our gun control advocates should ask these patrons of Junker's
Tavern if they were thankful that a law abiding citizen, Harold
McKinney, was carrying a concealed weapon or not.
ESE
>Me thinks it has less to do with guns and more to do with society and
>culture of which I'm dreadfully ashamed of our "American" popular
>culture!
>
That should read:
Me thinks [our nations high crime -including crime committed with
firearms] has less to do with guns and more to do with society and
culture of which I'm dreadfully ashamed of our "American" popular
culture!
In other words, if you were even able to completely eliminate firearms
from society, there would remain high crime in this country. I'd dare
say just as much crime!
ESE
NG13S
>culture of which I'm dreadfully ashamed of our "American" popular
>culture!
>
>For a fair article on the issue:
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds39.html
Excellent point! Great article as well.
Sir Francis
the non-crime hate/rage/punishment mentality would remain JUST LESS
PEOPLE WOULD DIE from the crimes and the hate/rage/punishment mentality
REMOVING GUNS doesn't remove the problems it does lower the body count!
ESE
<Dan...@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:
> Let the machismo fly. Let the
>bodies die.
>
>
Yes, we, along with the patrons of "Junkers Tavern" in Cincinatti,
Ohio -two weeks ago tomorrow night-, can thank Harold McKinny for the
body of the armed thief he killed with his sidearm!
ESE
SirFr...@interactive.rogers.com (Sir Francis) wrote:
>ESE guns make it easy to kill people if you eliminate guns the crime and
>the non-crime hate/rage/punishment mentality would remain JUST LESS
>PEOPLE WOULD DIE from the crimes and the hate/rage/punishment mentality
>
There are many many impliments which can ~easily~ cause death. You
are, again, simply making up facts and I would bet you simply will be
unable to back up your assertion!
>REMOVING GUNS doesn't remove the problems it does lower the body count!
>
>
No, removing guns will only remove guns from non-criminals. Criminals
still will have ways of procuring guns.
This is what will make killing easy! The reason the U.S. victory over
Iraq was so easy (i.e. -the reason we killed so very many Iraqi
soldiers in contrast to our very very few Coalition casualties) was
that we had such a great advantage over the Iraqi military with our
advanced weapons.
When guns are illegal for common people to own -or even "tightly
restricted" criminals will hold a distinct advantage over the victim
-i.e. the victim cannot defend himself- it is far easier for the
criminal to kill the victim -whether the criminal has a gun or some
other weapon.
Studies have shown that a potential victim is most protected when he
uses a firearm to protect himself! In fact, a potential victim is
more likely to be injured when giving no defense at all than when
defending himself with a firearm.
In fact, a potential victim who uses a firearm in self-defense is far
less likely to be injured or even attacked than when using any other
form of self-defense (again -including "non" defense)!
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kleck.study.html
Now, do me a favor, and go tell the patrons of "Junkers Tavern" in
Cincinnati, Ohio from two weeks ago tomorrow night that you favor
their inability to own firearms to defend themselves!
Tell the tavern employee who had a gun held to his head by one of the
thieves as the thief yelled at him, "Give me your F***** wallet or I
am gonna blow your F***** brains out." Tell that to him as he recalls
to you the patron who, a moment later, shot the thief in the head
-thus ending the attempted robbery and the threat to the lives of the
people in that tavern.
Andreas Hess
> There are many many impliments which can ~easily~ cause death. [...]
Yes there are. So why don't put tight restrictions on these implements?
> No, removing guns will only remove guns from non-criminals. Criminals
> still will have ways of procuring guns.
But not as easy. And no, not every potential criminal knows an illegal
guns dealer from whom he can easily procure guns.
> This is what will make killing easy! [...]
LOL. A lot of modern western countries have tight gun restrictions, so
they should have a lot of gun shot victims.
With tight gun restrictions there will be less people who will get shot
accidentaly. With tight gun restrictions you won't have children who come
at night shot by their parents because they thought it were burglars.
With tight gun restrictions you will stop the shoot first, ask later.
> When guns are illegal for common people to own -or even "tightly
> restricted" criminals will hold a distinct advantage over the victim
> -i.e. the victim cannot defend himself- it is far easier for the
> criminal to kill the victim -whether the criminal has a gun or some
> other weapon.
>
> Studies have shown that a potential victim is most protected when he
> uses a firearm to protect himself! In fact, a potential victim is
> more likely to be injured when giving no defense at all than when
> defending himself with a firearm.
>
> In fact, a potential victim who uses a firearm in self-defense is far
> less likely to be injured or even attacked than when using any other
> form of self-defense (again -including "non" defense)!
>
> http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/kleck.study.html
And after reading this, everyone should read the following links:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm
http://www.consumerfed.org/self_defense.pdf
http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/defense.htm
http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/schools/Law/apl/blog/stories/liberties/12.htm
http://www.mppgv.org/special%20topics.htm
> Now, do me a favor, and go tell the patrons of "Junkers Tavern" in
> Cincinnati, Ohio from two weeks ago tomorrow night that you favor
> their inability to own firearms to defend themselves!
>
> Tell the tavern employee who had a gun held to his head by one of the
> thieves as the thief yelled at him, "Give me your F***** wallet or I
> am gonna blow your F***** brains out." Tell that to him as he recalls
> to you the patron who, a moment later, shot the thief in the head
> -thus ending the attempted robbery and the threat to the lives of the
> people in that tavern.
>
> http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/2192776/detail.html
>
>
> http://www.enquirer.com/midday/05/05162003_News_1mday_mckinney17.html
And how often such self defense ends in a massacre? Just think about
what if he had missed, maybe the thief would have killed everyone
around? The patron isn't a hero for me, he's just plain stupid.
At least in Germany bank clerks are taught to give the robbers the
money and get them out of the bank to save the lifes of the customers.
IMO this is a more reasonable approach than some Wild West tactics.
Andreas Hess
> University of Rostock? A stupid German making a ignorant statement
> like this? Take your loony leftist socialist crap and shove it in your
> arse.
Uh, Tark, that's you?
Andreas, making another killfile entry
Sir Francis
Deja Vu
Mike Tice: "I didn't ask (the ref) if he (OT McKinnie) had to report."
This coming from a man who played TE and was an OL coach for over 10
years. Not only should he have known, how could he not know?
Dennis Green Sucks
SirFr...@interactive.rogers.com (Sir Francis) wrote:
>ESE go tell it the children of COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL and their parents
Other than bitching in this newsgroup, what have YOU done?
Psycho...
Sir Francis
and YOU KNOW THE NAMES I POST UNDER I have made it clear to everyone
since day one.
PLEASE FOLKS don't attribute the posts of trolls to me I have clearly
outlined my names on here.
Dennis Green Sucks
SirFr...@interactive.rogers.com (Sir Francis) wrote:
>Hess no that is not me I agree with your views on gun control!
>
>and YOU KNOW THE NAMES I POST UNDER I have made it clear to everyone
>since day one.
>
>PLEASE FOLKS don't attribute the posts of trolls to me I have clearly
>outlined my names on here.
Yes...I'm sure that would give the same courtesy to anyone else.
After all, you've only libeled most of the posters in this group as
well as every major football related publication you schizoid...
Ron Gibson
> Me thinks [our nations high crime -including crime committed with
> firearms] has less to do with guns and more to do with society and
> culture of which I'm dreadfully ashamed of our "American" popular
> culture!
> In other words, if you were even able to completely eliminate firearms
> from society, there would remain high crime in this country. I'd dare
> say just as much crime!
Sadly I have to agree 100% with this...
Ron Gibson
> argument that guns are protected by the Constitution. Even if those
> arguments were accepted as true, why are people so infatuated with them?
> Why aren't people repulsed by the gun culture? Why do people shoot innocent
> animals, for example?
Why don't you bring yourself above the level of categorical prejudice
and stop characterizing anyone who has owned or used a gun as some sort
of pervert that gets his cookies while holding his gun in a loving
embrace.
You continue to misrepresent this issue.
I find this offensive and am telling you so now in light of this post and
a recent reply to one of mine.
This is the reason I'd rather avoid political debate as people are
incapable of doing so without malice.
..People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought
which they avoid - Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
DanAS1
Let me remind you how we got here.
You made the point about how you lived/visited an environment where animals
were hazards and had to be killed. I responded that guns are needed in
certain circumstances.
My point in what you responded to is that why do people kill INNOCENT
animals, meaning animals who are not putting us in danger (as opposed to
those who are).
Why is asking that question so offensive?
"Ron Gibson" <rgi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:eleS4DQ3N6dS-p...@user-33qtsb7.dialup.mindspring.com...
Wolfie
"DanAS1" wrote
> why do people kill INNOCENT animals
To paraphrase Mr. Brooks, "It's good to be at the
top of the food chain."
Minniman
>
> My point in what you responded to is that why do people
> kill INNOCENT animals, meaning animals who are not
> putting us in danger (as opposed to those who are).
Dan, I understand where you are coming from, but humans (Homo Sapien
Sapien) are omnivoruos. We are also at the top of a food web that would
see catastrophic results if it was allowed to go without a dominant
predator.
I am sure that many people here know about the Isle Royale studies on
moose and wolves. Populations of grazing and browsing animals must be
maintained by predation, or the populations will surpass the carrying
capicity. They will either be thined by predation, famine or disease.
Note that the Australopithicans were vegetarians and they died off as a
race.
As far as killing animals, I worry more about people killing off other
predators and destroying the environment than I do about thinning out
the herbivores.
Inhumane livestock, veal, and chicken farms and overfishing the oceans
are a different matter altogether.
> Why is asking that question so offensive?
It shouldn't be.
Minniman
Ron Gibson
> Ron, you have a quick trigger.
> Let me remind you how we got here.
> You made the point about how you lived/visited an environment where animals
> were hazards and had to be killed. I responded that guns are needed in
> certain circumstances.
> My point in what you responded to is that why do people kill INNOCENT
> animals, meaning animals who are not putting us in danger (as opposed to
> those who are).
So now those who aren't vegetarians are undesirables also?
No further comment.
DanAS1
Second, I tried to recognize in my previous posts the need, at times, to
kill animals for the greater good. If we have to, we have to. My objection
is to turning it into a game of pleasure. It isn't particularly pleasant
when people rake leaves, or pick up trash by the road, etc. It is simply a
job to be done, just like I'd hope it wouldn't be too much of a thrill for a
cop to shoot a crazy (i.e., morally innocent) person who is endagering the
lives of others. Just a job.
It's the idea of killing for pleasure that bothers me. I'm also bothered
by the idea of eating meat (like Mr. Spock), which is another way of saying
that we're enjoying the death of an animal who had intelligence and was
capable of experiencing pain.
As for our "naturally" being omnivorous, I would say that the great thing
about being human is that we can consciously transcend our nature.
Naturally, we are also polygamous. Certainly, it is far from natural for a
male of our species to spend 60 years sleeping only with one woman. Yet,
for some reason, we opt to do it because of our values. Similarly,
decisions to avoid eating meat for pleasure would represent a way to affirm
certain values. The beauty of vegetarianism today is that we know enough
about nutrition to live healthy lives without eating meat. Maybe it's no
healthier. But it is not unhealthier. Five hundred years ago, a would-be
vegetarian couldn't make that claim.
Anyway, Minniman, the most important thing is that we can air our
differences without getting emotionally upset about the other's point of
view. Ron also recognized in his post that that kind of emotion just isn't
worth it -- particularly not these days in this group.
"Minniman" <Minn...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vcr4co8...@corp.supernews.com...
DanAS1
beings. I'm criticizing actions, not human beings. There is a huge
difference.
Secondly, I tried to respond to this point more substantively in my response
to Minniman. Please read that. Also, please supplement that comment with
the idea that I'm advocating a particular value system, a particular set of
sensibilities, not some sort of test for differentiating "sinners" from "the
enlightened." People should be able to discuss the morality of conduct
without making it seem like we are evaluating each other's moral worth. I
am certain that I have made no effort to judge you or anyone else as an
individual on the basis of whether you agree with me or not on this issue.
"Ron Gibson" <rgi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:eleS4DQ3N6dS-p...@user-33qts7q.dialup.mindspring.com...
Ron Gibson
> enlightened." People should be able to discuss the morality of conduct
> without making it seem like we are evaluating each other's moral worth. I
> am certain that I have made no effort to judge you or anyone else as an
> individual on the basis of whether you agree with me or not on this issue.
Well OK, it may have been a slip of mis-statement and/or mis-reading.
In my case my whole family has had guns for many years and we have a
very large family. We have never had a single incident where those guns
were ever used in the commission of a crime or even a threat to the best
of my knowledge.
I wanted to stress strongly that I'm sure there are millions of
Americans that are just are ordinary and have led similar lives.
This does not make them gun yahoo's or in my case I've never been a
member of the NRA.
More to the point for me personally my Dad is dying and he taught me to
fish and use a gun as a boy. I remember those years fondly. He or I
never threatened or used a gun against any person and I'm a bit sensitive
to the issue as I recall the years I enjoyed with my father.
However in a broader sense I get so frustrated with political debates
that demonize the opposition. It is so counter-productive and IMO,
threatens to undermine that which is good in healthy debate in a
democracy. This is why I'd just rather avoid debate in USENET on these
types of topics especially if I'm a guest in another NG.
In fact I'd feel much better if anyone wishes to post a reply to come to
our NG and do so. You will not be alienated and if so I'll make sure it
stops quickly. Otherwise I really want out of this debate.
I'm game for the teenage suicide problem though as I think it's a
neutral issue not likely to degenerate into a flamefest and a profound
problem lately.
I do have an answer to one of your questions - Why the fascination,
which I'll assume was a mis-speak.
Ever been to a trap or skeet range? It is a legit sport of a sort
(though not much of one compared to football). Many people have done
that for years and never hunted a thing, never committed a gun related
crime.
I could also cite three instances in this area over the last 6 months
where a potential crime victim most likely saved their life with a
weapon. In one case it was a young woman who lived alone woke up
to find a apparent rapist/home invader standing over her.
Now I'll concede there is a ton of stupidity with the usage of guns. In
the Sherman case he'll be asking himself the rest of his life why he
didn't use trigger locks. That is a hell of a burden to bear. As I
mentioned in Florida he would have been charged with a crime for that
lack of security.
OK?
--
Email - rgi...@ix.netcom.com
Home Page - http://rsgibson.com
FTP - ftp://rsgibson.com
FTP Uploads - ftp://upload.rsgibson.com (Requires Password)
Sir Francis
There are ATHLETES out there who are VEGITARIANS
At one point humans were raping women left right and center fortunately
we have progressed
At one point humans would kill others as punishment but again we
progressed (except for certain UNCIVILIZED nations like CHINA IRAQ and
THE USA)
It is called progress at one point children were expected to work
At one point it was thought the wearing of FUR COATS was ok etc
PROGRESS is possible and vegitarianism is one example
hopefully 1 day progress will lead to a completely Vegitarian society
IT IS HUMANIZATION OF HUMANS making them MORE CIVILIZED
Us stopping to eat meat WILL NOT EFFECT the NATURAL CYCLE OF ANYTHING...
if at some point diseased animals need to be killed well that is far
different then HUNTING THEM FOR FUN or EATING THEM
Dave Jackson
<eleS4DQ3N6dS-p...@user-33qts20.dialup.mindspring.com>,
rgi...@ix.netcom.com (Ron Gibson) wrote:
Very well stated!
Dave in Minnesota
Dennis Green Sucks
SirFr...@interactive.rogers.com (Sir Francis) wrote:
>IT IS HUMANIZATION OF HUMANS making them MORE CIVILIZED
Yes...you are a shining example of a civilized human being as
evidenced by...
"STAY AWAY YOU COCKSUCKING CUNT WHORE"
You're an insane savage...how dare you attempt to talk to this group
or any group regarding civility you psycho...
DanAS1
"Ron Gibson" <3.
As someone who has lost his dad within the last year, I more than sympathize
with why you might have had a "quick trigger" -- no pun intended -- when it
comes to a topic that you associate with bashing your father. My own father
hated guns, but loved boxing. To this day, I am able to enjoy the "sweet
science," despite all the decadence attached to it.
As for demonizing one's opponent, I couldn't agree with you more. It is my
refusal to demonize Tark that caused me to make the post that has generated
so much controversy here. One should be able to criticize something without
taking the extra step toward demonization.
Finally, you'll forgive me if I remain anti-gun (leaving exceptional
circumstances aside), not merely anti guns-without-trigger-locks. I have
learned to appreciate why someone can blast boxing as something that
civilized people really ought not watch. I might not personally feel that
way, but I appreciate the sentiment.
DanAS1
of gun deaths in this country less to the gun laws than to other factors.
Thus, for example, if we prohibited all non-police officers from owning guns
tomorrow, the violent crime rate in this country would remain sky high.
Where I'd disagree with most conservatives, however, is that they seize
primarily on "popular culture" as the culprit, whereas I would point to
poverty. We can wage war on poverty and eliminate a huge chunk of it, but
we choose not to. Such a war would threaten the interests of the privileged
class, the very same people who have successfully clamored for a 12 figure
tax cut that most economists say will not tremendously help the economy,
even in the short run.
I'm not a Marxist and don't want to sound like one. Most people need the
promise of substantial economic incentives to increase their productivity.
But at some point the wealth of the top 1% of our population simply must be
reined in. They can try to ignore the side effects of poverty -- such as
crime -- by living in gated communities and avoiding the kind of public
places where gun violence is most common. What they can't avoid is the
moral responsibility that comes with privileged economic status. Even the
feudal Lords were forced to recognize the existence of such responsibility.
Alas, in America today, "noblesse oblige" has become a term of historical
interest only.
Ron Gibson
> As someone who has lost his dad within the last year, I more than sympathize
> with why you might have had a "quick trigger" -- no pun intended -- when it
> comes to a topic that you associate with bashing your father. My own father
Yes it's rough. I went fishing two weeks with a buddy and was flashing
back to those days.
> As for demonizing one's opponent, I couldn't agree with you more. It is my
Oh everyone does it to a degree. I'd rather satirize something than
demonize it. When I've committed a foul I need to own up to that and
offer an apology or clarify what I meant to say. But if it degenerates
into a war of insults no constructive results can arise.
> Finally, you'll forgive me if I remain anti-gun (leaving exceptional
> circumstances aside), not merely anti guns-without-trigger-locks. I have
If we were all the same it would be a pretty boring world would it not :)
Tammy
>Wed, 21 May 2003 09:59:42 UTC, "DanAS1" <Dan...@nospamcomcast.net> Noted:
>
>> argument that guns are protected by the Constitution. Even if those
>> arguments were accepted as true, why are people so infatuated with them?
>> Why aren't people repulsed by the gun culture? Why do people shoot innocent
>> animals, for example?
>
>Why don't you bring yourself above the level of categorical prejudice
>and stop characterizing anyone who has owned or used a gun as some sort
>of pervert that gets his cookies while holding his gun in a loving
>embrace.
I agree. I own a gun. I don't kill animals. I should not be
stereotyped because I do own a gun. The sole purpose of my gun
ownership originated because I was a military wife who was alone
several nights a year (77%). While my husband was out defending the
freedom of every person in this country, including the ones who would
like to take away the right to bear arms, I was alone 77% of the time.
Having a gun made me feel safe. I not only knew how to load, unload
and fire that gun, I knew how to take it apart, clean it and put it
back together. I also never touched the thing unless I was taking it
to a range to fire it. And you better believe I won't hesitate to
fire that sucker at an intruder who has broken into my house and is
coming at me or one of my dogs.
Tammy
__________________________
The actress hasn't learned
the lines you'd like to hear.
She won't join your clubs.
She won't dance in your halls.
She won't help the hungry once
a month at your tomboles.
She'll simply take control...
AS YOU DISAPPEAR.
Tim Rice, lyrics from
***Evita***
_____________________
DanAS1
In response to my writing this:
>
> > Most people need the
> >promise of substantial economic incentives to increase their
productivity.
> >But at some point the wealth of the top 1% of our population simply must
be
> >reined in.
Kranny wrote:
> Who the hell are you to say this? Do you work as hard as the 1%? No
> you don't so shut up.
In response to my writing this:
> >They can try to ignore the side effects of poverty -- such as
> >crime -- by living in gated communities and avoiding the kind of public
> >places where gun violence is most common. What they can't avoid is the
> >moral responsibility that comes with privileged economic status. Even
the
> >feudal Lords were forced to recognize the existence of such
responsibility.
> >Alas, in America today, "noblesse oblige" has become a term of historical
> >interest only.
>
Kranny wrote:
> Typical Marxist idiot. You absolutely don't understand WHO pays for
> things in this country. You ignore everything good that the "RICH
> PEOPLE" do and concentrate on your hatred of private property and
> wealth. Are you jealous of their success? No wonder you are Tark's
> little buddy. You idiots can sit and agree on your whacked out
> ideology and strange social behaviors that you participate in.
The irony is that the abusive Tark posts that gave rise to my proposal that
he change his ways stood out for their incivility, yet even though the above
post ended with an anti-Tark rant, I can think of no better words than
"abusive" and "uncivil" to characterize the above post. People who treat
others civilly and blast Tark for his language and ad hominems have some
credibility, which is precisely what is lacking in anti-Tark posts marked by
personal insults and hatred.
Sir/mam, I assume that you have been having a tough weekend and needed to
vent. That's OK. But you shouldn't take out your personal problems on
people you don't know. You don't know me. You don't know what I do for a
living, or whether I behave socially or anti-socially when I'm off of work.
My views are not -- God-forbid -- Marxist. Yet you feel the need to
characterize them as such. I suggest that if your life isn't going well
right now, call a friend and talk, or let off some steam verbally at an
enemy whom you know and who has wronged you. It takes no courage to use
cyberspace as a means of blasting strangers. And that's what we are to each
other.
In short, keep the incivility away from Usenet, please. I have said the
same thing to my "big buddy" Tark, and said so repeatedly. I also say it to
myself when I lose my temper in here. It's happened before, but I won't let
it happen this time.
The next time you want to respond to one of my posts and respond civilly, I
will extend the same courtesy to you. I don't hold grudges in here that
often.
Sleuth
> People who treat
> others civilly and blast Tark for his language and ad hominems have some
> credibility
LOL. In case you hadn't noticed most of those people have left. This
newsgroup was one of the most civil groups on Usenet prior to the arrival of
Terry Zinc. Look at it now.
> You don't know me. You don't know what I do for a
> living
You previously identified yourself as Daniel A. Spiro. You are an attorney
with the FCC. You live in Bethesda, MD.
DanAS1
But thanks for respecting my privacy.
Ron Gibson
> I agree. I own a gun. I don't kill animals. I should not be
> stereotyped because I do own a gun.
That's bad stuff but everyone does it at some time or another. It's an
offshoot of the tribal/clan thing, related to xenophobia.
Oddly enough the structure of the English language makes it an easy to
commit errors as we see things as either/or polar positions whereas the
Chinese language is more inclined to see a continuum from one pole to the
other with many stopping points.
> The sole purpose of my gun
> ownership originated because I was a military wife who was alone
> several nights a year (77%). While my husband was out defending the
> freedom of every person in this country, including the ones who would
> like to take away the right to bear arms, I was alone 77% of the time.
> Having a gun made me feel safe.
In another post I mentioned in the last year a woman living alone about
your age, IOW a youngin' :), awoke to see a home invader hovering over
her. She managed to get to her gun that was in her night stand and shot
the guy.
An interesting puzzle about having a gun is that you might get shot
trying to resist to get to it. OTOH, if you give the intruder what he
wants he still might kill you anyway - slowly.
It's a kinky world - Not dog eat dog but cat eat dog.
Sleuth
> But thanks for respecting my privacy.
You posted your name in this newsgroup on 2-06-01. Then you threw down a
challenge in this thread by saying "You don't know me. You don't know what
I do for a living ..... ".
Quit belly aching.
Minniman
> I agree. I own a gun. I don't kill animals. I should
> not be stereotyped because I do own a gun. The sole
> purpose of my gun ownership originated because I
> was a military wife who was alone several nights a year.
No, you should not be stereotyped. Please do not stereotype gun control
advocates either.
The point is that the likelyhood of you or your husband being shot with
that gun, or it being stolen and used for a crime, are far greater than
the chance of you defending yourself with it.
> While my husband was out defending the freedom of
> every person in this country, including the ones who
> would like to take away the right to bear arms, I was
> alone 77% of the time.
We don't want to open the "rights" can of worms here; do we? By the
way, both my wife and I served in the military, and neither of us view
the Second Amendment the way you do.
> Having a gun made me feel safe.
But you were actually less safe.
Ron stated:
> In another post I mentioned in the last year a woman
> living alone awoke to see a home invader hovering over
> her. She managed to get to her gun that was in her night
> stand and shot the guy.
She was lucky. Many other people turn on the lights to see they have
shot their husbands or children who have come home early. At least a
taser would have given them a second chance to correct the error.
> An interesting puzzle about having a gun is that you might
> get shot trying to resist to get to it. OTOH, if you give the
> intruder what he wants he still might kill you anyway - slowly.
Well, that's a nice way to scare people, but in most crime cases, the
more of a threat you are, the greater likelyhood of you being killed.
Minniman
Minniman
> Most people need the promise of substantial economic
> incentives to increase their productivity.
This is correct. It has to do with opportunity costs and economic
rents.
> But at some point the wealth of the top 1% of our
> population simply must be reined in.
Economic stratification destroys the consumer market.
Socially and politically, it is a fairness issue.
Kranny wrote:
> Who the hell are you to say this? Do you work as hard
> as the 1%? No, you don't, so shut up.
How hard do you believe that 1% works? Harder than a police officer?
Harder than a teacher? Harder than an infantry soldier? Harder than a
meat packer?
It's time for you to buy a clue.
Kranny wrote:
> Typical Marxist idiot.
You don't even understand what Marxism is. It is an explanation of
social change more than an advocation of it.
> You absolutely don't understand WHO pays for things in
> this country. You ignore everything good that the "RICH
> PEOPLE" do and concentrate on your hatred of private
> property and wealth.
You obviously do not understand how markets work.
> Are you jealous of their success?
I have to laugh at your posts. Unless you are worth over $1 million,
you are getting screwed, and you go out of your way to try to defend
those who are holding the driver. As long as you get your news from
Newscorp, General Electric, Disney, and Viacom, you will remain
misinformed.
> No wonder you are Tark's little buddy. You idiots can sit
> and agree on your whacked out ideology and strange social
> behaviors that you participate in.
I killfiled Tark for his name calling, libel, and other anti-social
behavior. I have never killfiled anyone purely for one's political
views.
It is ironic that I have killfiled you, Kranny the Tark basher, for your
anti-social behavior as well.
Minniman
Tammy
wrote:
>Tammy stated:
>
>> I agree. I own a gun. I don't kill animals. I should
>> not be stereotyped because I do own a gun. The sole
>> purpose of my gun ownership originated because I
>> was a military wife who was alone several nights a year.
>
>No, you should not be stereotyped. Please do not stereotype gun control
>advocates either.
I didn't think I did.
>The point is that the likelyhood of you or your husband being shot with
>that gun, or it being stolen and used for a crime, are far greater than
>the chance of you defending yourself with it.
Yeah, I've heard that before. I'm sure the statistics back it up, but
it's a chance I'm willing to take.
>> While my husband was out defending the freedom of
>> every person in this country, including the ones who
>> would like to take away the right to bear arms, I was
>> alone 77% of the time.
>
>We don't want to open the "rights" can of worms here; do we? By the
>way, both my wife and I served in the military, and neither of us view
>the Second Amendment the way you do.
No, we don't want to open the "rights" can of worms, Minniman.
>> Having a gun made me feel safe.
>
>But you were actually less safe.
I don't agree.
Tammy
www.bumperpugs.1colony.com
ND Vikes Fan
says...
> We don't want to open the "rights" can of worms here; do we? By the
> way, both my wife and I served in the military, and neither of us view
> the Second Amendment the way you do.
>
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
Just curious, how do you view it?
ND Vikes Fan
> way, both my wife and I served in the military, and neither of us view
> the Second Amendment the way you do.
>
Sorry but I was wondering about this too. When talking about gun laws
isn't the "rights" can of worms already open? Like you stated it is the
Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Minniman
> Amendment II
>
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed.
>
>
> Just curious, how do you view it?
Let's just say that I put more emphasis on the "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" rather than
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Gun advocates tend to quote the latter with disregard to the former part
of the Amendment.
Minniman
ND Vikes Fan
says...
Can I ask why? They both are there and should carry the same weight
shouldn't they? And even if you don't agree with that look at it this
way. It says no where that people can not bear arms, correct? Then
look at the 10th amendent. The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So even if you
use your view on the 2nd the consitution has given all other rights to
the state or the people. When the states fail to act, and no state has,
that right is passed to the people. That being said the US Constitution
has given citizens the right to bear arms unless a state government has
a law against it, correct? But I believe that the 2nd was written to
make that very clear if you don't pick and chose what you want.
Ron Gibson
> >You don't even understand what Marxism is. It is an explanation of
> >social change more than an advocation of it.
> Trying to defend your agenda?
He's right about that. Marx was more of a socio-political theorist on
social stratification than one proposing any form of government.
Communism as Marxism is not really a very good classification.
Hell even Communism as it was in practice bore little resemblance to
its charters where used.
Minniman
> > Let's just say that I put more emphasis on the "A well
> > regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
> > free State" rather than "the right of the people to keep
> > and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Gun advocates
> > tend to quote the latter with disregard to the former
> > part of the Amendment.
> >
> > Minniman
>
> Can I ask why? They both are there and should carry
> the same weight shouldn't they?
Read what I have written. I put more emphasis on the former because the
entire statement must be taken as a whole, and that part is often
disregarded by gun-advocates.
It is not really about the two carrying the same weight. Is is about
the two being part of one sentence and thus a complete thought that is
not valid if not quoted in its complete context.
> And even if you don't agree with that look at it this way.
> It says no where that people can not bear arms, correct?
That is correct. It is up to the legislative branch to decide.
> Then look at the 10th amendent. The powers not delegated
> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
> it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
> to the people.
That is what it says: correct.
> So even if you use your view on the 2nd, the Consitution
> has given all other rights to the state or the people.
Not "rights" per say. The only inalienable rights are those stated in
the Bill of Rights. By act of legislation, there are laws. Either way,
it still follows your line of thinking, but while the former cannot be
taken away the latter can be.
> When the states fail to act, and no state has, that right is
> passed to the people.
All states have acted. All states have licensing and gun control laws
to some degree.
As far as "to the people" are concerned, that refers to elected bodies
and to common law but not to individual preferences. People does not
mean persons.
> That being said, the US Constitution has given citizens
> the right to bear arms unless a state government has
> a law against it, correct?
This is what I was making reference to above. You disregarded that the
Second Amendment gives people as "a well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State," the right to "bear arms".
If not taken in its entirety, the statement is invalid.
If you are part of the "well regulated Militia", you may certainly bring
your weapon home and not be subject to criminal complaints.
It is a valid point that the people, through democratic action, can
further define the laws as they wish as long as it does not preclude the
right granted by the Second Amendment which is specific and situational.
> But I believe that the 2nd was written to make that very
> clear if you don't pick and chose what you want.
It does make it clear - if you don't pick and chose what you want. That
is my point.
If the Second Amendment had been written as such, "A well regulated
Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and should be
maintained by each state. The personal right of citizens to keep and
bear Arms, regardless of assoctiation to a well regulated militia, shall
not be infringed," then there wouldn't be much debate. That is not what
was written.
Note that the arms at the time of the writing of the Constitution were
quite limited. Getting off three round in a minute with a musket was
the best one could do. Even with that stated, there was debate as to
how much freedom the Second Amendment would recognize as a right. The
final draft was written to recognize what it did, and those who
advocated more or less personal restriction were free to do so by
legislation.
Minniman
Minniman
> He's right about that. Marx was more of a socio-political
> theorist on social stratification than one proposing any
> form of government.
>
> Communism as Marxism is not really a very good
> classification.
>
> Hell even Communism as it was in practice bore
> little resemblance to its charters where used.
That's right, Ron. Thanks for the back up.
I guess he doesn't understand that I have multiple degrees in Political
Science and Social Science. It doesn't mean I am right, but it doesn't
mean I am left either. ;-)
Kranston's earlier posts got him killfiled anyway, so I wouldn't bother
with him anymore.
Minniman
Minniman
differing views on this, and we have not taken cheap shots at each
other. Pretty cool.
Minniman
Tammy
wrote:
>By the way, please note that Ron, ND Fan, Tammy, and myself have
>differing views on this, and we have not taken cheap shots at each
>other. Pretty cool.
I can respect that others have different opinions and beliefs. I
don't care much for a lot of the social spending our government does
(though I agree some of it is needed). I know that Minniman believes
more in social spending. We agree to disagree. It drives me mad to
see generation after generation of people on welfare. My feeling is
that these people should get off their lazy asses and work. My God, I
have worked since I was 18 years old. I'm not talking about the
disabled or some others. I'm talking about the able people who just
choose not to work.
Anyway, political discussions can easily make enemies out of friends
here, so I get involved as little as possible. What really matters is
that we're all Vikings fans. How long until the season starts anyway?
:-)
Ron Gibson
> > Communism as Marxism is not really a very good
> > classification.
> > Hell even Communism as it was in practice bore
> > little resemblance to its charters where used.
> That's right, Ron. Thanks for the back up.
> I guess he doesn't understand that I have multiple degrees in Political
> Science and Social Science. It doesn't mean I am right, but it doesn't
> mean I am left either. ;-)
No problem. I got a SSci along with my BSME and remember all too well
those dreary days when everyone else was at play and I'm reading Marx :(
Wolfie
"Tammy" wrote
> It drives me mad to
> see generation after generation of people on welfare. My feeling is
> that these people should get off their lazy asses and work.
Clinton signed a bill about seven years ago that limited the amount
of time people could stay on welfare, setting in place work
requirements, etc. (Those evil Demoncrats!)
In short, people can't stay on welfare all their lives or even for a
lengthy time. There's both a single-term and a lifetime limit on
welfare benefits. That's *welfare,* though, not help for the working
poor, such as food stamps, etc. But even those programs have work
requirements for long-term eligibility.
Sir Francis
of that as an academic discipline
and degrees from community colleges in north dakota don't count
Deja Vu
Mike Tice: "I didn't ask (the ref) if he (OT McKinnie) had to report."
This coming from a man who played TE and was an OL coach for over 10
years. Not only should he have known, how could he not know?
Barky Tarky
ND Vikes Fan
says...
> If the Second Amendment had been written as such, "A well regulated
> Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and should be
> maintained by each state. The personal right of citizens to keep and
> bear Arms, regardless of assoctiation to a well regulated militia, shall
> not be infringed," then there wouldn't be much debate. That is not what
> was written.
>
> Note that the arms at the time of the writing of the Constitution were
> quite limited. Getting off three round in a minute with a musket was
> the best one could do. Even with that stated, there was debate as to
> how much freedom the Second Amendment would recognize as a right. The
> final draft was written to recognize what it did, and those who
> advocated more or less personal restriction were free to do so by
> legislation.
>
> Minniman
>
>
I agree with most of what you say. Using your arguement it should also
be stated that only those in the militia should bear arms, but it
doesn't. It says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed. It does not say that the right of members of the
militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It states a
reason why people needed guns at that time and then went on to declare
the right to bear arms. There honestly is no way to prove either side
correct just based on the wording though. To understand the intent you
have to look at who these people were and what happened during this
time. They just finished fighting a war against a powerfull government
for individual freedoms. They went out of their way to word the
consitution so it would protect everyones freedoms. You had wilderness
areas where a man or woman could not survive without a musket. Do you
honestly believe these men only wanted members of the militia to be
protected by a weapon when they moved west? The most important way to
understand what they ment by this amendment is how they used it after
writing it, correct? I can am certain that if you asked anyone that
signed that paper they would never have wanted only the militia to own
weapons. You know the old saying, actions speak louder then words.
Even you must admit that the righters themselves didn't have the same
ideas you do about it. I agree that there are problems, but punishing
innocent citizens is not the answer. This is my last post on this topic
because I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. But I will
say that when a freedom is given up by some and taken from others it is
very very hard to ever be given that freedom back. It also opens the
door for people to go after other freedoms, one that you may dearly
cherish.
Scimpy
Minniman
> I don't care much for a lot of the social spending our
> government does (though I agree some of it is needed).
Only a small part of the budget is social spending unless one includes
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The interest on the United States debt is as much as Medicaid, and it
will only get worse.
> I know that Minniman believes more in social spending.
Pay now, or pay later. One prison inmate costs $200,000 per year.
> We agree to disagree.
I'd say we agree more than disagree, but we do look at things from a
differing viewpoint.
> It drives me mad to see generation after generation of
> people on welfare. My feeling is that these people
> should get off their lazy asses and work.
It isn't always that simple. There is a cycle of poverty that is very
hard to escape from. If people really wanted to do something, they
would start by linking inner city and suburban school districts so that
there is equal education throughout.
I am sure you know that the ultra-rich get more handouts from our
government than the impoverished class. Oh, they try to cover it up and
call it an economic stimulus plan, a cost plus privatization contract,
an economic development program, a cost overrun and the like, but they
are still sucking billions out of the government in waste and
corruption. Why don't you get so mad about that? It costs us a heck of
a lot more money.
> My God, I have worked since I was 18 years old. I'm
> not talking about the disabled or some others. I'm talking
> about the able people who just choose not to work.
I have worked since I was 16 years old. I worked my way through school
twice. I know what you mean.
That stated, there will always be people who cannot be hired because
full employment does not equal 100% employment.
> Anyway, political discussions can easily make enemies
> out of friends here, so I get involved as little as possible.
They can. In fact, I believe Tark went down the slippery slope in a few
OT threads.
I try not to let OT threads get in the way of the group. After all,
friends discuss this kind of stuff at bars and then don't call each
other vulgar names.
> What really matters is that we're all Vikings fans. How
> long until the season starts anyway? :-)
Too long ....
Minniman
Wolfie
"ND Vikes Fan" wrote
> To understand the intent you
> have to look at who these people were and what happened during this
> time. They just finished fighting a war against a powerfull government
> for individual freedoms.
Right, which is why the Supreme Court has fairly consistently
ruled that the Second Amendment is a limitation only on
Congress. The intent was to preserve the right of the states
to form Militias as a counter-balance to the power of the
Federal government. Other provisions prohibit the states
from forming standing armies of their own.
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render
possible the effectiveness of [a well-regulated Militia] the
declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were
made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
That's pretty clear, IMO. As pointed out, you can't take one
part of the amendment and say it's the key part. They're *both*
key parts. The "Militia" they were talking about is well-specified,
largely because they defined it in conjunction with other parts of
the Constitution. And it was specifically the *Militia* they were
worried about being disarmed by the federal government.
So, are you part of a "well regulated Militia," having a weapon
as part of that Militia that you keep and maintain at home? If
so, it's definitely protected. Otherwise, it's fair game for gun
control by the Federal Government. And the state government
can come get any and all guns it wants whenever it wants as well,
since it's the one setting those definitions...
At least that's how I read the case law. The Second Amendment
just isn't challenged very often at the Supreme Court level, probably
because the case law *is* clear. There's a lot of gun control laws
around, right? If there was a defined "right to bear arms" as there
is a "right to free speech," don't you think it would have been used
to overturn those laws by now?
Minniman
> I agree with most of what you say. Using your arguement
> it should also be stated that only those in the militia should
> bear arms, but it doesn't.
All it states is that those in the well regulated militia are the only
ones who have the "right" to bear arms rather than the privilege.
> It says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
> not be infringed. It does not say that the right of members
> of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I disagree.
> It states a reason why people needed guns at that time and
> then went on to declare the right to bear arms.
It states the sole purpose.
> There honestly is no way to prove either side correct just
> based on the wording though. To understand the intent you
> have to look at who these people were and what happened
> during this time. They just finished fighting a war against a
> powerfull government for individual freedoms. They went
> out of their way to word the Consitution so it would protect
> everyone's freedoms.
They finished fighting a war and were afraid of a federal military ruled
by a despot that would take away the rights of the states. Because of
this, they made sure that the states could keep well regulated militias
to defend against future tyrany. Their was good reason, though to the
late 1960's and Reconstruction, for this.
> You had wilderness areas where a man or woman could not
> survive without a musket. Do you honestly believe these men
> only wanted members of the militia to be protected by a weapon
> when they moved west?
That is a moot point. The laws allowed people to have firearms when
moving west. Just as it is today, no-one was going to take peoples
hunting rifles away. It would have been political suicide.
> The most important way to understand what they ment by
> this amendment is how they used it after writing it, correct?
Its original purpose must be found by contemporary study.
> I can am certain that if you asked anyone that signed that
> paper they would never have wanted only the militia to own
> weapons.
They certainly wouldn't have wanted the rabble of Boston running around
with weapons in shops, on boats, or within plantations.
> You know the old saying, actions speak louder then words.
> Even you must admit that the writers themselves didn't have
> the same ideas you do about it.
No, they didn't. Those who wanted the amendment to include more or less
restrictive language made more or less restrictive interpretations later
on. Because the Federal Government did not act to take arms away from
the ordinary citizenry, there was no need to make a definitive ruling by
the Supreme Court while the writers of the Constutution could have filed
petitions to the court. What rulings have been made have leant to the
more restrictive interpretation of the amendment.
> I agree that there are problems, but punishing innocent
> citizens is not the answer.
Whom is being punished?
> But I will say that when a freedom is given up by some
> and taken from others it is very very hard to ever be
> given that freedom back. It also opens the door for
> people to go after other freedoms, one that you may
> dearly cherish.
I agree; the freedom of people to walk our cities without worrying about
be shot is long past. It will be very hard to ever get that freedom
back.
By the way, if you cherish your rights, you had better hope that Antonin
Scalia doesn't become the Chief Justice when William Rehnquist steps
down.
> I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.
That is likely so. It has been a healthy debate nevertheless.
Minniman
Tammy
And it has changed. I should have stated that.
In the past, some folks have been unwilling to get off of welfare
because they'd lose their medical benefits. Now, they're able to
retain their medicaid benefits while working. This is something I've
supported and wished for in the past. They're able to get on their
own two feet and not lose their medical coverage.
When Connecticut first announced they were limiting welfare, there was
an outcry. Those mean Republicans - out to starve people! Put them
on the streets! Hang Gov. Rowland! They did some follow up stories
on people after their benefits ended. These people found jobs, most
of them making pretty good money. More importantly, they found
self-esteem. They felt worth-while, not having to depend on the state
anymore.
I do believe welfare is needed but I am sickened by the people who
take advantage of it.
mdatek
"Wolfie" <bgbd...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:fleBa.1569$vL5.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Tammy" wrote
>
> > It drives me mad to
> > see generation after generation of people on welfare. My feeling is
> > that these people should get off their lazy asses and work.
>
> Clinton signed a bill about seven years ago that limited the amount
> of time people could stay on welfare, setting in place work
> requirements, etc. (Those evil Demoncrats!)
>
clinton vetoed that same bill several times. congress kept sending him the
bill. he signed it, sure, but he obviously didn't want it.
Ron Gibson
> >He's right about that. Marx was more of a socio-political theorist on
> >social stratification than one proposing any form of government.
> Is he? I was referring to modern Marxist beliefs. It is nothing like
> the original load of crap old Karl dreamt up when trying to take over
> the world.
The work Marx did was just about all theory and as you stated Marx
and even the co-authored work below in fact bears little resemblance to
the modern mis-conception of Marxism. So indeed you are quite correct
in referring to old Marxism as being very unlike what might be
considered modern Marxism.
In fact both of you guys are correct. These works have been so twisted
it is hard to oin it down as it's a moving target over time
Marx's central concept is dialectical materialism, and the Communists
still screwed that up.
All that is - is a concept that whenever the status quo in government is
changed the new government becomes entrenched and resources and wealth
become concentrated in another faction which sets the seeds for yet
another change. So it's sort of a revolving door analysis of wealth and
power.
What happened is that some Communists invoked this concept as cause for
revolution and establishing a government that redistributed wealth to
the masses which of course never really happened. This is why I say
charter Communism has little resemblance to it as it was/is practiced.
I did a quick check and Marx in collaboration with another author did
the Communist Manifesto. At the time, the below states the concept of
Communism was in a flux and might be better labeled as Socialism.
I had not seen this before as I read his works prior to this document.
So in a sense you are correct that Marx has his name on a Communist
Document but in 1848 and as a co-author. However it is called a league
and appears to be more of a labor movement at the time this work was
done. It also appears to diverge from Marx's prior works and I wonder if
Engels might be more important in that work.
Actually Lenin and Trotsky are most responsible for the original Soviet
Communist Party. However it was only a few short years before that got
twisted. Here's a link and briefer quote...
------------------------------------------
http://www.trotsky.net/
Trotsky led an implacable struggle against the Stalinist degeneration of
the Soviet Union. The Stalinist regime's response was to expel him from
the Soviet Communist Party and then exile him from the Soviet Union
itself. Huge numbers of his supporters inside the Soviet Union ended up
in Stalin's camps from which they were never to return. From exile
Trotsky gathered supporters inside the Communist Parties with which he
built the International Left Opposition.
Trotsky alone defended the genuine traditions, ideas and methods of
Marxism. This in itself was a great achievement. But he went further:
he was able to analyse and explain the phenomenon of Stalinism and offer
an alternative to this terribly deformed caricature of what a genuinely
healthy workers' state should be.
-------------------------------------------
Here's a link to the whole manifesto and you might want to read it. I
will to and might have to modify my statement. To my best recollection
Tolstoy was the founder of the Party and put the more current spin on it
all. I got a comment on that below also.
http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1848-CM/1872.txt
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
1848
PREFACE TO 1872 GERMAN EDITION
The Communist League, an international association of workers, which
could of course be only a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the
time, commissioned us, the undersigned, at the Congress held in London
in November 1847, to write for publication a detailed theoretical and
practical programme for the Party. Such was the origin of the following
Manifesto, the manuscript of which travelled to London to be printed a
few weeks before the February Revolution. First published in German, it
has been republished in that language in at least twelve different
editions in Germany, England, and America. It was published in English
for the first time in 1850 in the _Red Republican_, London, translated
by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and in 1871 in at least three different
translations in America. The french version first appeared in Paris
shortly before the June insurrection of 1848, and recently in _Le
Socialiste_ of New York. A new translation is in the course of
preparation. A Polish version appeared in London shortly after it was
first published in Germany. A Russian translation was published in
Geneva in the 'sixties. Into Danish, too, it was translated shortly
after its appearance.
However much that state of things may have altered during the last
twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto
are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some
detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles
will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all
times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and,
for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures
proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many
respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic
strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved
and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical
experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still
more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time
held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some
details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the
Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of
ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See
_The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the
International Working Men's Assocation_, 1871, where this point is
further developed.) Further, it is self-evident that the criticism of
socialist literature is deficient in relation to the present time,
because it comes down only to 1847; also that the remarks on the
relation of the Communists to the various opposition parties (Section
IV), although, in principle still correct, yet in practice are
antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed,
and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater
portion of the political parties there enumerated.
But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which we have
no longer any right to alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear
with an introduction bridging the gap from 1847 to the present day; but
this reprint was too unexpected to leave us time for that.
-------------------------------------------
Whoa, lots of stuff on this. When I get the time I'll research this more
for you and me as I'm curious about the sequence of events now.
If you like I can email you (or anyone else) my findings and that will
help
you to make sounder arguments on this topic. Email me if you'd like me
to do that. I don't mind at all as I need the practice as it's been so
long
since I studied this and need to refresh my memory on this.
Give me a few days if so. I finally am making the jump to Broadband
(ADSL) and I need a few days to make sure I have what I need to set
it up.
Dave Jackson
<eleS4DQ3N6dS-p...@user-33qts4r.dialup.mindspring.com>,
rgi...@ix.netcom.com (Ron Gibson) wrote:
Didn't Lenin/Lennon read a book on Marx while the quartet Practiced in
the park?
Dave (sorry I couldn't help myself) in Minnesota
Sir Francis
1 turn to crime
2 work as slave wages and still don't make enough
3 force to take dangerous or shitty jobs
IowaNorseman
ease your pain resin brain.
"Sir Francis" <SirFr...@interactive.rogers.com> wrote in message
news:12857-3E...@storefull-1902.public.rogers.webtv.net...
Minniman
> Clinton vetoed that same bill several times. Congress kept
> sending him the bill. He signed it, sure, but he obviously
> didn't want it.
From what I have read, President Clinton wanted safeguards against a
poor economy, safeguards for children's medical coverage, and some other
changes. There was no need to sign a bill that just created cheap
forced labor for corporations.
My view has always been that the government should give incentives to
work as well as give businesses incentives to hire.
I find it strange that our government tried to force people to work and
then actively created laws and tax loopholes that gave billion of
dollars of corporate welfare to major corporations, aided in exporting
our manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico, and helped move many
corporate headquarters to tax fee havens like the Bahamas and Cayman
Islands.
One example:
Enron's Sales in 1999: $40,112,000,000
Net Income: $893,000,000
Cash on hand at end of 1999: $288,000,000
Kenneth L. Lay CEO, Pay: $5,200,000
Enron contributed $99,750 to George W. Bush's Presidential Campaign
From the Citizens For Tax Justice:
"Over the five-year period from 1996 to 2000, Enron received a net tax
REBATE of $381 million. This includes a $278 million tax REBATE in 2000
alone.
Over the same period, the company's PROFIT before federal income taxes
totaled $1.785 billion. In none of these years was the company's pretax
PROFIT less than $87 million."
"At the 35 percent tax rate, Enron's tax on profits in the past five
years would have been $625 million, but the company was able to use tax
benefits from stock options and other loopholes to reduce its five-year
tax total to substantially less than zero. Among the loopholes used to
reduce the company's tax liability was the creation of more than 800
subsidiaries in "tax havens" such as the Cayman Islands."
The tax paying citizens of the United States paid Enron $381 million in
welfare over five years to a company that made over $1.7 billion in
profits and otherwise paid no taxes. $381 million is the same as 31,750
regular welfare recipients at $1000 per month for one year. Those lazy
welfare bastards!
By the way, your friendly Congress slipped in an amendment to the tax
reform bill, just passed by Congress and signed by President G.W. Bush,
that would require no taxes on dividends from corporations that have
moved their operations to offshore tax havens.
Minniman
Minniman
Marx and Engel based his theories on Hegal's Dialectic of thesis and
antithesis creating synthesis (which became the new thesis). Marx
applied this to economics and defined the thesis and antithesis within
the model of Dialectical Materialism.
It always nice to see a straw man fleshed out a bit.
Minniman
mdatek
"Minniman" <Minn...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vdcin2a...@corp.supernews.com...
> "mdatek" wrote:
>
> > Clinton vetoed that same bill several times. Congress kept
> > sending him the bill. He signed it, sure, but he obviously
> > didn't want it.
>
> From what I have read, President Clinton wanted safeguards against a
> poor economy, safeguards for children's medical coverage, and some other
> changes. There was no need to sign a bill that just created cheap
> forced labor for corporations.
so you're saying the welfare reform act was not good?
>
> My view has always been that the government should give incentives to
> work as well as give businesses incentives to hire.
i agree completely
>
>
> I find it strange that our government tried to force people to work and
> then actively created laws and tax loopholes that gave billion of
> dollars of corporate welfare to major corporations, aided in exporting
> our manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico, and helped move many
> corporate headquarters to tax fee havens like the Bahamas and Cayman
> Islands.
>
> One example:
>
> Enron's Sales in 1999: $40,112,000,000
> Net Income: $893,000,000
> Cash on hand at end of 1999: $288,000,000
> Kenneth L. Lay CEO, Pay: $5,200,000
> Enron contributed $99,750 to George W. Bush's Presidential Campaign
As you state below, the timeframe you use is 96-2000, before GWB took
office. How is how much they contributed to GWB relevant? also, fyi, they
donated > $100,000 to clinton.
>
> From the Citizens For Tax Justice:
>
> "Over the five-year period from 1996 to 2000, Enron received a net tax
> REBATE of $381 million. This includes a $278 million tax REBATE in 2000
> alone.
> Over the same period, the company's PROFIT before federal income taxes
> totaled $1.785 billion. In none of these years was the company's pretax
> PROFIT less than $87 million."
>
> "At the 35 percent tax rate, Enron's tax on profits in the past five
> years would have been $625 million, but the company was able to use tax
> benefits from stock options and other loopholes to reduce its five-year
> tax total to substantially less than zero. Among the loopholes used to
> reduce the company's tax liability was the creation of more than 800
> subsidiaries in "tax havens" such as the Cayman Islands."
>
> The tax paying citizens of the United States paid Enron $381 million in
> welfare over five years to a company that made over $1.7 billion in
> profits and otherwise paid no taxes. $381 million is the same as 31,750
> regular welfare recipients at $1000 per month for one year. Those lazy
> welfare bastards!
not my contention. there are SOME "lazy welfare bastards", but there are
many who truly need the assistance. i have no problem with the government
providing welfare to those that need it (other than the fact that some of
the original founders are quoted as saying there was nothing in the
constitution which enabled congress to pass a law creating welfare). my
problem is with a system which has run amok and become a way of life for
people who do not need it. the welfare program as it was structured prior
to the act encouraged people to not only stay on welfare, but to take action
to get on it. my original comment was only to rebut the idea that welfare
reform was clinton's idea/plan.
>
> By the way, your friendly Congress slipped in an amendment to the tax
> reform bill, just passed by Congress and signed by President G.W. Bush,
> that would require no taxes on dividends from corporations that have
> moved their operations to offshore tax havens.
>
another debate, another time :)
> Minniman
later
mike
>
>
Dennis Green Sucks
SirFr...@interactive.rogers.com (Sir Francis) wrote:
>And what happens when people get kicked off welfare>
>
>1 turn to crime
Proof? Links?
>
>2 work as slave wages and still don't make enough
Proof? Links?
>
>3 force to take dangerous or shitty jobs
Proof? Links?
Minniman
> so you're saying the welfare reform act was not good?
Some good and some bad.
> > My view has always been that the government should
> > give incentives to work as well as give businesses
> > incentives to hire.
>
> I agree completely
So do I. Wait, ... nevermind.
> As you state below, the timeframe you use is 96-2000,
> before GWB took office. How is how much they
> contributed to GWB relevant? Also, fyi, they
> donated > $100,000 to Clinton.
It was showing that campaign contributions allow corporate lords to get
away with theft from the treasury. Your note about Clinton makes it all
the worse. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats hold any moral
high ground on this issue.
The feeble efforts against World Com and Microsoft do make the Bush
administration look worse though.
> > By the way, your friendly Congress slipped in an amendment
> > to the tax reform bill, just passed by Congress and signed by
> > President G.W. Bush, that would require no taxes on dividends
> > from corporations that have moved their operations to offshore
> > tax havens.
>
> another debate, another time :)
>
> later
Yeah, this thread is getting a bit long, and it is off topic. Maybe
it's time to wrap it up. I am sure there will be some future news to
spark another OT thread.
Now that it is summer, we will be looking forward to on topic football
posts!
Minniman
Tammy
wrote:
>
>
>"Wolfie" <bgbd...@gte.net> wrote in message
>news:fleBa.1569$vL5.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "Tammy" wrote
>>
>> > It drives me mad to
>> > see generation after generation of people on welfare. My feeling is
>> > that these people should get off their lazy asses and work.
>>
>> Clinton signed a bill about seven years ago that limited the amount
>> of time people could stay on welfare, setting in place work
>> requirements, etc. (Those evil Demoncrats!)
>>
>
>clinton vetoed that same bill several times. congress kept sending him the
>bill. he signed it, sure, but he obviously didn't want it.
Ah, it was all the evil republicans' doing then, huh? :-)
Wolfie
"Tammy" wrote
> Ah, it was all the evil republicans' doing then, huh? :-)
Nope, just a President doing his Constitutional duty. Clinton
*did* sign the bill, a bill his vetoes strengthened. That's
different than having a veto overridden.
Ron Gibson
Noted:
> Didn't Lenin/Lennon read a book on Marx while the quartet Practiced in
> the park?
I dunno but did you see where Putin, while he was a KGB operative was a
fan of the Beatles even though it was against their laws to listen to
"subversive" music. Paul Mcartney sang "Let it Be" in a solo performance
when he visited Putin recently.
> Dave (sorry I couldn't help myself) in Minnesota
I know what you mean. Often aliens take control of me typing fingers :)
Ron Gibson
> >Give me a few days if so. I finally am making the jump to Broadband
> >(ADSL) and I need a few days to make sure I have what I need to set
> >it up.
> Broadband Rules! ;)
Oh man I can hardly wait. The move was actually prompted by Earthlink's
continuing abysmal service in this area. I've got a V90 now and it
should always do 52K, as it has for years prior to Earthlink buying all
these companies and trying to stuff it all on three numbers in this
area.
In the last week I have had at least 10 connection drops, 5 busy
signals, seldom able to reach 52K and 4 mysterious DNS resolution
failures that lasted several hours.
There have been these types of problems for months now.
S I started looking at other ISP's (been threatening to do that for over
a year) reluctantly as I've had the same email addy for 8 years. Enuf
is a enuf, though.
So Verizon was in the local news for boosting their lines to 1.5 MB.
I looked at their site and they dropped the price to $34.95/month, free
ISP with Verizon or MSN, no setup fee, free MODEM, first month free, two
months at $29.95, thereafter the normal price sets in.
I made several calls and they are using standard protocols , were
knowledgable in answering complicated questions and I never had to wait
longer than three minutes to reach someone.
So I jumped all over that. Only problem I have is getting a NIC for
three OS's. I'm gonna try a cheapo Linksys for now and if that won;t
work I found a Intel for $55 that will handle it all.
I hope you an Minniman can find a way to a truce. Both of you seem
to be good dudes that just have differing views. Some people handle
that well and another, well you know what I mean.
Ron Gibson
> >I hope you an Minniman can find a way to a truce. Both of you seem
> >to be good dudes that just have differing views. Some people handle
> >that well and another, well you know what I mean.
> Hey I am a jerk! ;) In a liberal world a conservative has to be vocal.
Oh I don't believe that :) You and I are having a civil discussion and
I'm a liberal, but most of my liberal views are not even on the screen
of typical so called (and I don't like top use those labels as they tend
to confuse issues, IMO), There are always some people you just aren't
gonna get along with for some reason though.
> People seem to buy the emotional liberal rhetoric without giving it a
> second thought. I find this dangerous. Disagreements aside at least
> two viewpoints are shown. I do realize this is not the proper forum
Well I couldn't agree more on that point for both ends on the pendulum.
People tend to swallow others views hook, line and sinker and not think
through them all too often.
Example - I have several ideas I guarantee you would cut Medicaid costs
hugely. They are sound ideas that have basis on studies on a number of
issues.
Actually the problem is a huge bureaucracy that keeps way too many fat
cats in a job. Decentralization and widespread usage of clinics would
save millions and millions of dollars. However it's not gonna happen as
it would force to many fat cats to go out and get a real job.
Anyway as you say politics is a tough topic in this type of NG. That
is why I might make a passing comment but prefer to avoid net-bates.
How about this for a liberal idea that would be hard to find many to
disagree with. Broadband for everyone as a part of their regular phone
or cable service :)
I finally am getting ADSL and can't wait :)
Eric
On 22 May 2003 08:34:02 +0200, Andreas Hess <ja...@gmx.net> wrote:
>But not as easy. And no, not every potential criminal knows an illegal
>guns dealer from whom he can easily procure guns.
A 10 year old boy walked into a gas station/convenience store in my
home city. He had a 9mm semi-auto hand gun. Apparently it was pretty
easy for him to get (hint: He did not procure it legally).
>
>LOL. A lot of modern western countries have tight gun restrictions, so
>they should have a lot of gun shot victims.
>
>With tight gun restrictions there will be less people who will get shot
>accidentaly. With tight gun restrictions you won't have children who come
>at night shot by their parents because they thought it were burglars.
>With tight gun restrictions you will stop the shoot first, ask later.
"tight gun restrictions" is not the same thing as gun banning or gun
confiscation. It is a separate issue in and of itself.
Ex. In Switzerland, every able bodied male is REQUIRED to own a fully
automatic machine gun. However, the guns are tightly restricted. In
light of this, their murder rate is low.
In a situation where guns were outright banned (what I was referring
to when I made the comment 'this is what will make killing easy'), law
abiding citizens will not have the use of these items for
self-defense.. In a situation where guns are tightly restricted, law
abiding citizens will still have those impliments to utilize in
self-defense against the criminal element.
However, tight gun restrictions go make it theoretically easier for a
governmental gun-grab if the government has the desire to remove the
ability for it's citizens to defend themselves against the government.
Whether you agree that citizens who have firearms can defend
themselves against a tyrranical government or not, that potentiality
is one of the main reasons the founding fathers gave us the RIGHT to
bear arms.
>And after reading this, everyone should read the following links:
>
>http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm
>http://www.consumerfed.org/self_defense.pdf
>http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/defense.htm
>http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/schools/Law/apl/blog/stories/liberties/12.htm
>http://www.mppgv.org/special%20topics.htm
>
Note, in none of your links did the authors of the articles you cite
discount the fact that a person who defends himself or herself with a
firearm is less likely to be robbed or even injured -even when
compared to a victim who takes no defense!
The only statistic your sources have issue with is the total number of
times a firearm was used in self defense.
For a rebuttle to your citations, read:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M46D211D4
>And how often such self defense ends in a massacre?
I don't know? Do you have any credible statistics on how many of
these events in a "massacre"?
According to the cites you have posted above, they take no issue with
Gary Klecks documentation that people who use firearms in self-defense
are far LESS likely to be injured.
So, I'm curious if your just posting an snippet to evoke an emotional
response, or if you actually have statistics on this matter.
>Just think about
>what if he had missed, maybe the thief would have killed everyone
>around?
Not possible. The patron had the barrel of the gun up against the
head of the thief.
Furthermore, if the patron had refrained from defending the other
people in the tavern, far more innocent people would have been
murdered than if he had "accidentally" hit an innocent bystander.
>The patron isn't a hero for me, he's just plain stupid.
>At least in Germany bank clerks are taught to give the robbers the
>money and get them out of the bank to save the lifes of the customers.
This was not a bank. This was a tavern. The thief was about to pull
the trigger of the gun he had aimed at a barkeep.
So, in your example -the fact that you would not have done something
would probably mean that an innocent person would be dead.
>IMO this is a more reasonable approach than some Wild West tactics.
Again, a pointless ad-hominem intent on evoking an emotional response.
ESE
Eric
SirFr...@interactive.rogers.com (Sir Francis) wrote:
>ESE go tell it the children of COLUMBINE HIGH SCHOOL and their parents
I'll let the parents of the Columbine High School victims speak for
themselves:
http://www.locksley.com/6696/colmbine.htm
ESE
Andreas Hess
> I'll let the parents of the Columbine High School victims speak for
> themselves:
>
> http://www.locksley.com/6696/colmbine.htm
<http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/scott.htm>
<http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bldarrellscott.htm>
Andreas Hess
> Ex. In Switzerland, every able bodied male is REQUIRED to own a fully
> automatic machine gun.
They are required to own a gun because there is a liability to
military service in Switzerland. After the military service
everyone is in the reserve and they have to keep there military
gun at home.
[...]
> However, tight gun restrictions go make it theoretically easier for a
> governmental gun-grab if the government has the desire to remove the
> ability for it's citizens to defend themselves against the government.
>
> Whether you agree that citizens who have firearms can defend
> themselves against a tyrranical government or not, that potentiality
> is one of the main reasons the founding fathers gave us the RIGHT to
> bear arms.
If you feel the need to defend yourself against your government,
take your butter knife. Your ability to defend yourself against
your government won't suffer.
>>And after reading this, everyone should read the following links:
>>
>>http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm
>>http://www.consumerfed.org/self_defense.pdf
>>http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/defense.htm
>>http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/schools/Law/apl/blog/stories/liberties/12.htm
>>http://www.mppgv.org/special%20topics.htm
>>
>
> Note, in none of your links did the authors of the articles you cite
> discount the fact that a person who defends himself or herself with a
> firearm is less likely to be robbed or even injured -even when
> compared to a victim who takes no defense!
Note, you haven't presented a credible statistic showing that a
person who defends himself with a firearm is less likely to be
robbed or even injured. I've presented some links above that
dissect and show flaws in the so called Kleck report.
> The only statistic your sources have issue with is the total number of
> times a firearm was used in self defense.
No, please reread these links. They present facts about how it's
more likely to kill a family member or yourself with your gun, than
protecting yourself with your gun. If you accept these consequences
just to feel a little bit more safe, so be it.
Some excerpts from the above links, that you've obviously ignored:
"Studies by public health professionals have repeatedly found that
having a gun around for any reason increases the likelihood that a
family member--as opposed to a criminal--will be inured or killed
with a gun. A 1997 American Journal of Public Health study showed
that family members that had a history of buying a handgun from a
licensed dealer were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide
as were persons similarly situated who had no such family history
of gun purchase."
"One, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that
having a gun in the home made it nearly three times more likely that
someone in the family will be killed. This risk is particularly high
for women, who are more likely to be killed by a spouse, intimate
acquaintance, or close relative. An Archives of Internal Medicine
study found that, with one or more guns in the home, the risk of
suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of
homicide increased more than three times."
"When a child is hurt in a firearm accident it is often the self
defense gun that was found, played with, and ultimately fired by the
youngster."
"HAVING A FIREARM IN THE HOME IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN PROTECTIVE."
"But is the risk of violent crime so great that we cannot be safe
without arming ourselves? Research suggests that the answer is no.
Violent crime is on the decline: in 2000, the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) found that victimization rates are at
their lowest point since the survey's inception in 1973."
"As Criminologist Gary Kleck notes, 'the vast majority of the
population lives in low-crime neighborhoods and has virtually no
need for a gun for defensive reasons.'"
>>And how often such self defense ends in a massacre?
>
> I don't know? Do you have any credible statistics on how many of
> these events in a "massacre"?
No, I have no statistics. But I've read more than one newspaper
article about people who acted in self defense and now are dead.
Maybe they still would be alive, if they've just handed over there
wallet to the robber, we will never know.
> According to the cites you have posted above, they take no issue with
> Gary Klecks documentation that people who use firearms in self-defense
> are far LESS likely to be injured.
They just show flaws in the way he collected his statistics.
[...]
Just for the record. I feel much more safe in an environment where
just policemen and criminals own guns, than in an environment where
members of my family, my neighbours, and everyone around me owns a
gun. But that's just me.
ESE
Thanks!
Both the "Urban Legends" and the "Snopes" websites both confirm that
Darrel Scott indeed said those very words!
The "Urban Legends" website makes the following link to the full
testimony of Darrel Scott:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A176152D4
I appreciate your back up on this!
ESE (Eric)
Andreas Hess
Nothing to thank for. If just presented the links for people who
are not as "gun-loving" as you, and who are able to see that there
are always two sides to a story.
ESE
>
>Nothing to thank for. If just presented the links for people who
>are not as "gun-loving" as you, and who are able to see that there
>are always two sides to a story.
????
Since no point I made was remotely contradicted, there wasn't another
"side" to be seen.
(hint: both web pages contradicted ~only~ the claim that these words
by Darrel Scott were ~suppressed~ by the media. That had absolutley
nothing to do with my point in providing the testimony of Darrel
Scott.)
ESE
ESE
>They are required to own a gun because there is a liability to
>military service in Switzerland. After the military service
>everyone is in the reserve and they have to keep there military
>gun at home.
~WHY~ they have the guns is irrelevant. They have ~all~ have them.
>If you feel the need to defend yourself against your government,
>take your butter knife. Your ability to defend yourself against
>your government won't suffer.
That's simply absurd. A firearm allows me to defend myself from a
distance.
>Note, you haven't presented a credible statistic showing that a
>person who defends himself with a firearm is less likely to be
>robbed or even injured.
Yes I have. Even your websites do not contradict this.
That you choose not to believe them has no effect on their
credibility.
In fact, even the Clinton Department of Justice has confirmed Kleck's
numbers by actually informing us that Kleck's numbers were LOW!!!!
For example, Kleck left out incidents where the potential victims did
not actually see any potential attacker.
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf
>I've presented some links above that
>dissect and show flaws in the so called Kleck report.
The links you provided only allege flaws in the number of actuall of
events where firearms were used as a defense. They did not remotely
contradict the fact that using a firearm to defend yourself lowers the
risk of injury to you.
>1997 American Journal of Public Health study ...
So, I guess I'm supposed to take your surveys at face value?
>They just show flaws in the way he collected his statistics.
>
No, their complaint was that the statistics regarding DGU's were too
high. However, Kleck counters that (quite impressively I might add)
in the subsequent link I cite.
>Just for the record. I feel much more safe in an environment where
>just policemen and criminals own guns, than in an environment where
>members of my family, my neighbours, and everyone around me owns a
>gun. But that's just me.
Thankfully!
ESE
Andreas Hess
In <3edf68ce....@netnews.attbi.com> you stated:
"I'll let the parents of the Columbine High School victims speak for
themselves"
In doing so, you presented the statement of a single person as the
general opinion of the the parents of the Columbine High School
victims.
My other "side" was the following, that you won't acknowledge and
you won't find on your "one-sided" pages:
"[...] The same, by the way, goes for the testimony given by several
other of the parents of the Columbine victims who appeared before the
same committee, some of whom expressed opinions considerably differing
from Mr. Scott's."
"Also as noted above, Mr. Scott was merely one of many people who gave
testimony in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime in the wake of
the Littleton shootings. Other parents of Columbine shooting victims
spoke as well, but you won't find that fact acknowledged here, much
less any indication of what they said. Why should their words be any
less important than Darrell Scott's? (Perhaps the reason they're not
mentioned is because their opinions didn't agree with Mr. Scott's, and
therefore didn't agree with the opinions of whoever wrote the prologue
and coda to this piece.)"
Andreas Hess
> On 5 Jun 2003 17:14:04 +0200, Andreas Hess <ja...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>If you feel the need to defend yourself against your government,
>>take your butter knife. Your ability to defend yourself against
>>your government won't suffer.
>
> That's simply absurd. A firearm allows me to defend myself from a
> distance.
The distance makes no difference, if your government wants to get
you.
>>Note, you haven't presented a credible statistic showing that a
>>person who defends himself with a firearm is less likely to be
>>robbed or even injured.
>
> Yes I have. Even your websites do not contradict this.
Yes, you've presented statistics as credible as statistics that say
that 20 million Americans have seen aliens.