The Arkansas story of the past few days has made me physically ill. Apparently, 11 year old Andrew Golden was a practiced marksman whose father was a gun enthusiast and NRA member, and he taught his son how to shoot from the age of six.
There are people here that wail about aborting pinhead sized embryos, calling it a 'crime against humanity.' And yet, already the gun lobby is telling people that this massacre 'had nothing to do with guns.' This is the same group of people that give huge sums of money to fight abortion. It's sick, and anyone who opposes abortion and owns a gun, or does not actively fight for total criminalization of firearms ownership by civilians is a murdering pig, plain and simple.
The heroic English teacher that was killed shielding her students from the bullets was pregnant. Those guns not only murdered children, but performed an abortion.
I know some antiabortionists here are from Texas and other states in the South where guns are fine, kids are encouraged to kill things often and with great glee, and yet abortion is looked at as 'murder.'
If those people can sleep tonight, they are the personification of evil, and I will spend the rest of my life denouncing such people. Fuck all of you. I hope that something equally evil happens to you, and as you stand over the grave of your own child, I want you to watch others justify it as these murderers are trying to do right now.
-- Remove 'funky' to mail me.
'Caution: cape does not enable wearer to fly.' -actual Batman costume tag
> >It's sick, and anyone who opposes abortion and owns a gun, or does not > >actively fight for total criminalization of firearms ownership by > >civilians is a murdering pig, plain and simple.
> Not all people other than soldiers and police officers are 11 and 13 > years old.
> Guns certainly do make it easier for people to kill people. > Restrictions on guns to ensure their responsible use - and to keep > most guns completely out of the hands of children, and all guns out of > their hands in the absence of adult supervision - are something I have > no problem with.
> A ban on private gun ownership, unfortunately, will not take the guns > out of the hands of the drug dealers and pimps and robbers - either > overnight or for a long time to come indeed.
> It will make home invasion robberies a bit more common.
> On the other hand, it will make it safer for police officers to > respond to domestic violence complaints. In fact, that is the primary > way in which strict gun controls would reduce the risk of death from > shooting.
> But the downside is that this will make people feel helpless in the > face of crime, since they're no longer able to defend themselves > against criminals on an equal basis. Helpless. Panicky.
> Do you care to guess what this means for civil liberties?
> And, of course, private ownership of guns is most strongly restricted > in totalitarian countries. For obvious reasons. Making it easier for > some ambitious politician to turn one's country into a dictatorship is > something I oppose, and I think that opposing it isn't wrong at all.
> Why don't we make everyone use public transit to go to work - and take > a cab or something if the buses don't serve? Look at all the people > who die in car accidents. Is anyone who supports private car ownership > "a murdering pig, plain and simple"? I'm sorry: private gun ownership, > within reasonable limits, which might well be stricter than now exist > in some U.S. states, does serve more than one rational purpose.
> John Savard
Although I am generally against the general populace owning guns, this was a viewpoint that really invoked some thought. Just the kind of thing I like to read on the newsgroups...(even if it is off-topic)...
It is similar to those idiotic teenage group of boys who bludgeon some poor defenceless old lady to death walking across the street and seeing it as 'fun' and 'exciting'. But then these same pathetic hypocrites see abortion as a crime or as something terrible.
That is the problem with society as it is. Unfortunately society has double-standards saying it is good to own guns that could potentially kill innocent citizens but it wrong to abort, as you mentioned, pin-head sized embryos who have a status comparable to that of a vegetable.
br...@funkynassau.cv.net (Bruce Forest) wrote: >It's sick, and anyone who opposes abortion and owns a gun, or does not >actively fight for total criminalization of firearms ownership by >civilians is a murdering pig, plain and simple.
Not all people other than soldiers and police officers are 11 and 13 years old.
Guns certainly do make it easier for people to kill people. Restrictions on guns to ensure their responsible use - and to keep most guns completely out of the hands of children, and all guns out of their hands in the absence of adult supervision - are something I have no problem with.
A ban on private gun ownership, unfortunately, will not take the guns out of the hands of the drug dealers and pimps and robbers - either overnight or for a long time to come indeed.
It will make home invasion robberies a bit more common.
On the other hand, it will make it safer for police officers to respond to domestic violence complaints. In fact, that is the primary way in which strict gun controls would reduce the risk of death from shooting.
But the downside is that this will make people feel helpless in the face of crime, since they're no longer able to defend themselves against criminals on an equal basis. Helpless. Panicky.
Do you care to guess what this means for civil liberties?
And, of course, private ownership of guns is most strongly restricted in totalitarian countries. For obvious reasons. Making it easier for some ambitious politician to turn one's country into a dictatorship is something I oppose, and I think that opposing it isn't wrong at all.
Why don't we make everyone use public transit to go to work - and take a cab or something if the buses don't serve? Look at all the people who die in car accidents. Is anyone who supports private car ownership "a murdering pig, plain and simple"? I'm sorry: private gun ownership, within reasonable limits, which might well be stricter than now exist in some U.S. states, does serve more than one rational purpose.
On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:30:43 -0500, br...@funkynassau.cv.net (Bruce
Forest) wrote: >The Arkansas story of the past few days has made me physically ill. >Apparently, 11 year old Andrew Golden was a practiced marksman whose >father was a gun enthusiast and NRA member, and he taught his son how to >shoot from the age of six.
The NRA is the nation's most powerful criminal/killer's lobby. they routinely advocate death on a scale that is unimaginable except in times of war...
the lying scum at the NRA say that tougher sentencing will reduce the slaughter. thats a lie. we already have some of the most draconian laws in the western world and its done NOTHING. the NRA is great at deflecting charges with their prattle about how people kill people
the MEANS to commit murder is just as important as the MOTIVE. if we cant BAN guns, then force ALL gun owners to take psych tests AND hold them CRIMINALLY responsible if their guns are stolen if they've made no effort to keep them under lock and key.
Im tired of kids being made to pay for the lies of the NRA. lets ban guns OR hold gun owners responsible for the deaths they cause.
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:14:44 GMT, jsav...@teneerf.edmonton.ab.ca (John
Savard) wrote:
>It will make home invasion robberies a bit more common.
i wonder how people know this? american is saturated with guns. yet burglaries are very common ALREADY. why will they increase?
>Do you care to guess what this means for civil liberties?
>And, of course, private ownership of guns is most strongly restricted >in totalitarian countries.
didnt know the UK was a totalitarian country.
For obvious reasons. Making it easier for
>some ambitious politician to turn one's country into a dictatorship is >something I oppose, and I think that opposing it isn't wrong at all.
its ridiculous to think that a bunch of beer-gutted NRA gun nuts is gonna prevent the US marines from taking over the country if they want to.
>Why don't we make everyone use public transit to go to work - and take >a cab or something if the buses don't serve? Look at all the people >who die in car accidents
this is just a stupid argument. cars have a social benefit. guns dont. our society would collapse w/o cars. if guns disappeared TOMORROW the net effect would be POSITIVE
I'm sorry: private gun ownership,
>within reasonable limits, which might well be stricter than now exist >in some U.S. states, does serve more than one rational purpose.
fine.
name one that justifies having weapons which can kill 4 kids in seconds widespread in society.
John Savard wrote: >Guns certainly do make it easier for people to kill people. >Restrictions on guns to ensure their responsible use - and to keep >most guns completely out of the hands of children, and all guns out of >their hands in the absence of adult supervision - are something I have >no problem with.
I agree. What Bruce, under reasonable dire circumsatnces, wants to do has been tried by other governments around the world, totalitarian governments.
One of the sadder things is that from what Ive heard, the father of one of the boys actually took all the precautions he could to avoid his son getting his weapons, and that the guns were from the grandparents house.
A gun is simply metal tube, that hurls a small projectile. a tool. I think that we would rather blame an inanimate object than face the fact that teenagers can kill with such impunity in our society. I have no idea what causes it, but that is what we should be aiming for.
MartyBegan When I get angry, Mr Bigglesworth gets upset... and when Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset... PEOPLE DIE!!!!
wfh3 wrote: >didnt know the UK was a totalitarian country.
On this line there is an interesting historical note. I have a copy of "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" In it is the plans for the Nazi occupation of britan. Two items that had to be handed in within 24 hours of a proclomation under penalty of execution were firearms and radios.
>guns deserve to be outlawed COMPLETELY.
Then people will find other more inventive ways to kill each other. intent is the key. a person with murder on thier mind will find any way to cause as much mayhem as possible. We just want to balme a lump of metal because some people cant face the fact that teenagers in our society are capable of pre-meditated cold blooded murder.
MartyBegan When I get angry, Mr Bigglesworth gets upset... and when Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset... PEOPLE DIE!!!!
wfh3 wrote: >the MEANS to commit murder is just as important as the MOTIVE. if we >cant BAN guns, then force ALL gun owners to take psych tests AND hold >them CRIMINALLY responsible if their guns are stolen if they've made >no effort to keep them under lock and key.
Id go further. If youve ever been convicted of a felony: No Gun If youve been mentally insatutionalized: No Gun 15 day waiting periods. ANY type of conviction for domestic violence: No Gun ANY arrest for an improper use of a firearm (including just carrying it in a way your not supposed to, or a kid even getting within 5 feet of the thing when its loaded) LOSE YOUR GUN: You pay for an FBI background Check I would make these rules for ANY handgun purchase.
I believ law abiding citizes, if they want to should be able to own a firearm, but I also believ that it sould be dam easy to lose that right if you are an idiot.
On the criminal liability, If there was proof of adequate security, and the police are not notified of the theft.
MartyBegan When I get angry, Mr Bigglesworth gets upset... and when Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset... PEOPLE DIE!!!!
w...@enter.netxx wrote in message <351b1db1.7766...@news3.enter.net>... >On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:30:43 -0500, br...@funkynassau.cv.net (Bruce >Forest) wrote:
>>The Arkansas story of the past few days has made me physically ill. >>Apparently, 11 year old Andrew Golden was a practiced marksman whose >>father was a gun enthusiast and NRA member, and he taught his son how to >>shoot from the age of six.
Which means that he wouldn't accidentally shoot anyone. The real tragedy here is that the threats were made before and no one took them seriously. They were not the normal sort of threats even an immature teenager would make idly. The problem here wasn't with the guns, it was with primarily one child's serious problems being ignored, and another one going along with him.
--Melanie
>The NRA is the nation's most powerful criminal/killer's lobby. they >routinely advocate death on a scale that is unimaginable except in >times of war...
I don't think this is at all an accurate statement.
>the lying scum at the NRA say that tougher sentencing will reduce the >slaughter. thats a lie. we already have some of the most draconian >laws in the western world and its done NOTHING. the NRA is great at >deflecting charges with their prattle about how people kill people
WE may have the laws, but they are frequently not enforced. I seem to recall a few years back (forgotten the guy's name now) that a man shot someone, went home and wiped out a bunch of people with a knife and slit his kids throats leaving them to die. The ones who were knifed were just as dead.
>the MEANS to commit murder is just as important as the MOTIVE. if we >cant BAN guns, then force ALL gun owners to take psych tests AND hold >them CRIMINALLY responsible if their guns are stolen if they've made >no effort to keep them under lock and key.
I would be concerned about requiring psych tests for all. For someone so worried about privacy, you ought to be a bit concerned about that notion. Such things make convenient weapons for political opponents.
>Im tired of kids being made to pay for the lies of the NRA. lets ban >guns OR hold gun owners responsible for the deaths they cause.
Ever see the Eddie Eagle program developed for kids? I've seen people refuse to use it with their children because the NRA puts it out, even though it is quite well done. I have seen some school districts try to mimic it, but none quite as well, or as simply.
You know, one thing that sits on my mind is this fact: I was not raised around guns at all. My husband was. He was trained to use them and so was his brother and sister. They were not about to accidentally shoot anyone. They were trained not to point ANY gun at anyone unless they wanted to kill them. It was a serious matter and they took it seriously. On the other hand, had I found a gun, I doubt I would have been as careful. I'm not sure what I would have done, or what would have happened as a result. I could very well have accidentally shot someone.
Actually, the law already holds gun owners who improperly store guns or are directly responsible for gun-related deaths responsible, at least in California.
>>Guns certainly do make it easier for people to kill people. >>Restrictions on guns to ensure their responsible use - and to keep >>most guns completely out of the hands of children, and all guns out of >>their hands in the absence of adult supervision - are something I have >>no problem with.
>I agree. What Bruce, under reasonable dire circumsatnces, wants to do has been >tried by other governments around the world, totalitarian governments.
>One of the sadder things is that from what Ive heard, the father of one of the >boys actually took all the precautions he could to avoid his son getting his >weapons, and that the guns were from the grandparents house.
>A gun is simply metal tube, that hurls a small projectile. a tool. I think that >we would rather blame an inanimate object than face the fact that teenagers can >kill with such impunity in our society. I have no idea what causes it, but >that is what we should be aiming for.
And this from someone who wants, nay DEMANDS, parents to be totally and utterly reposible for their kids actions and lives (but only if the kid happens to be a minor girl who is pregnant and wants an abortion).
In article <1998032705420901.AAA05...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, MartyBegan <martybe...@aol.com> writes
>I believ law abiding citizes, if they want to should be able to own a firearm, >but I also believ that it sould be dam easy to lose that right if you are an >idiot.
--It is similar to those idiotic teenage group of boys who bludgeon some --poor defenceless old lady to death walking across the street and seeing --it as 'fun' and 'exciting'. But then these same pathetic hypocrites see --abortion as a crime or as something terrible.
Judge, I don't know who you're talking about, but I certainly don't support gun ownership OR bludgening old ladies. Who are these "same pathetic hypocrites"?
John Savard <jsav...@teneerf.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote: >A ban on private gun ownership, unfortunately, will not take the guns >out of the hands of the drug dealers and pimps and robbers - either >overnight or for a long time to come indeed.
>It will make home invasion robberies a bit more common.
Which is why countries where guns are tightly restricted have such a problem with crime and robberies.
Right?
>On the other hand, it will make it safer for police officers to >respond to domestic violence complaints. In fact, that is the primary >way in which strict gun controls would reduce the risk of death from >shooting.
>But the downside is that this will make people feel helpless in the >face of crime, since they're no longer able to defend themselves >against criminals on an equal basis. Helpless. Panicky.
Especially once the fear-mongers have convinced them that the _need_ lots of guns to defend themselves from all of the evil _criminals_ just looking for an opportunity to rape, rob, and then kill them.
>Do you care to guess what this means for civil liberties?
More people dead?
>And, of course, private ownership of guns is most strongly restricted >in totalitarian countries.
Like? Japan? Europe? Canada?
> For obvious reasons. Making it easier for >some ambitious politician to turn one's country into a dictatorship is >something I oppose, and I think that opposing it isn't wrong at all.
How often have guns been used by individuals to defend liberty in the United States? I can think of just once, and that was 222 years ago.
-- Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. -- Louis Brandeis
> --It is similar to those idiotic teenage group of boys who bludgeon some > --poor defenceless old lady to death walking across the street and seeing > --it as 'fun' and 'exciting'. But then these same pathetic hypocrites see > --abortion as a crime or as something terrible.
> Judge, I don't know who you're talking about, but I certainly don't > support gun ownership OR bludgening old ladies. Who are these "same > pathetic hypocrites"?
> Lisa D.
Don't worry Lisa. This is just another example of the "Comic Book" view of Prolifers (see PJ's post) that pro-aborts try to paint. It has nothing to do with reality. It's just a way for pro-aborts to make themselves feel enlightened and superior.
> It's sick, and anyone who opposes abortion and owns a gun, or does not > actively fight for total criminalization of firearms ownership by > civilians is a murdering pig, plain and simple. ... > If those people can sleep tonight, they are the personification of evil, > and I will spend the rest of my life denouncing such people. F--- all of > you. I hope that something equally evil happens to you, and as you stand > over the grave of your own child, I want you to watch others justify it as > these murderers are trying to do right now.
Bruce, this is the same sort of demonization I've been taking PJ and Joto to task over. There are many legitimate reasons to advocate private gun ownership that have nothing to do with reckless disregard for human life. Wishing them evil such as their own children dead is a pretty low thing to do; nothing can justify that bit of rhetorical excess.
Would you have been happier had these two kids built a fertilizer bomb and detonated it in the yard when the crowd came out? Crazy shit like that from crazies happens from time to time, and laws and law-enforcers can't shield us 100% from them without sealing each of us in rubber rooms.
We should fear the government that fears its own citizens enough to deny them the means to protect themselves.
In article <6fgvmm$...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.~Remove~hp.com> writes:
>Bruce, this is the same sort of demonization I've been taking PJ and >Joto to task over. There are many legitimate reasons to advocate private >gun ownership that have nothing to do with reckless disregard for human >life. Wishing them evil such as their own children dead is a pretty low >thing to do; nothing can justify that bit of rhetorical excess.
I think it is ironic how training the kid to use the gun properly is actually what made him more deadly in the end.
--------- "Incredibly, people NEVER expect to get hit with a snowball in the house." - Calvin and Hobbes
Pat Winstanley wrote: >And this from someone who wants, nay DEMANDS, parents to be totally and >utterly reposible for their kids actions and lives (but only if the kid >happens to be a minor girl who is pregnant and wants an abortion).
>HYPOCRITE!!!!
I thought we finished killing of the family of murderers around the time of Hannurabi..
Hypocrite???? So asking for parental notifiaction and input before surgical predures on children is the same as a parent getting executed over the act of said child????
are you kidding???
MartyBegan When I get angry, Mr Bigglesworth gets upset... and when Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset... PEOPLE DIE!!!!
MartyBegan <martybe...@aol.com> wrote: >Ray Fischer wrote: >>Which is why countries where guns are tightly restricted have such a >>problem with crime and robberies.
>and its funny that those countires also need machine gun armed national police >at thier airports.
Canada, Japan, and Britain? I've never been to Japan, but I've never seen any "machine gun armed national police" at ANY airports. Not even when I went to Russia.
Been reading too much propaganda?
-- Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. -- Louis Brandeis
On 27 Mar 1998 05:33:13 GMT, martybe...@aol.com (MartyBegan) wrote:
>A gun is simply metal tube, that hurls a small projectile. a tool. I think that >we would rather blame an inanimate object than face the fact that teenagers can >kill with such impunity in our society. I have no idea what causes it, but >that is what we should be aiming for.
what a bizarre concept...we would rather blame an inanimate object
the object KILLS in case you havent forgotten!! if we CANT control teenagers we CAN control guns.
On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:15:08 -0800, "Melanie" <wmn4...@ns.net> wrote:
The problem here wasn't with the guns, it was
>with primarily one child's serious problems being ignored, and another one >going along with him.
i disagree. what kid HASNT said at some point that he's gonna 'kill' someone? the problem is that anyone can go to his grandfathers house and get a gun as casually as if he got a piece of apple pie.
too many guns...too many deaths.
get rid of guns.
>--Melanie
>>the lying scum at the NRA say that tougher sentencing will reduce the >>slaughter. thats a lie. we already have some of the most draconian >>laws in the western world and its done NOTHING. the NRA is great at >>deflecting charges with their prattle about how people kill people
>WE may have the laws, but they are frequently not enforced.
oh BROTHER this again
how many prisons you wanna build? how many schools you NOT gonna build so that you can build prisons.
we ALREADY have one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet.
Jailing people doesnt work. get rid of guns instead.
I seem to
>recall a few years back (forgotten the guy's name now) that a man shot >someone, went home and wiped out a bunch of people with a knife and slit his >kids throats leaving them to die. The ones who were knifed were just as >dead.
fine. when 17,000 people are murdered with knives every year, and when 2 kids can kill 5 people in seconds with a knife you'll have an argument.
>I would be concerned about requiring psych tests for all. >For someone so worried about privacy, you ought to be a bit concerned about >that notion. Such things make convenient weapons for political opponents.
ROFLMAO!!!
someone applying for gun is HARDLY doing private act!!! typical conservative...screw everybody except for the traditionally powerful!!
>>Im tired of kids being made to pay for the lies of the NRA. lets ban >>guns OR hold gun owners responsible for the deaths they cause.
>Ever see the Eddie Eagle program developed for kids?
you mean the pro-killer program sponsored by the country's biggest criminal organization the NRA?
no, never heard of it
>You know, one thing that sits on my mind is this fact: >I was not raised around guns at all. My husband was.
so what
>He was trained to use them and so was his brother and sister.
so what
They were not
>about to accidentally shoot anyone.
so what. neither were the kids in arkansas. they killed on purpose
>Actually, the law already holds gun owners who improperly store guns or are >directly responsible for gun-related deaths responsible, at least in >California.
whatever that means. since this didnt happen in CA its obvious a FEDERAL law is needed to overcome the objections of the cowardly right wing legislators in the gutless southern states.
Ray Fischer wrote: >Canada, Japan, and Britain? I've never been to Japan, but I've never >seen any "machine gun armed national police" at ANY airports. Not >even when I went to Russia.
>Been reading too much propaganda?
and in those countries people find new and exciting ways to bump each other off.
I was talking more along the lines of france, germany etc.
MartyBegan When I get angry, Mr Bigglesworth gets upset... and when Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset... PEOPLE DIE!!!!
|
