U.S. "Gun Culture" and Littleton, Colorado (Was: Re: Just heard about Colorado)
Andrew Manore
> Alkiperson wrote:
[Irrelevant touchy-feely stuff disposed off.]
> Yep, very depressing isn't it?
> This is the main reason why i'm against firearms, i don't get why you americans
> make such a fuss about consitutional right to have one..blabla...
I believe our "gun culture" has it's roots in the men who signed
the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolutionary War,
and wrote our Constitution. These men saw what happened when a
government held the monopoly on force after civilians had been
disarmed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and
preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief
would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
-- Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..
(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-- James Madison, _The Federalist_, No. 46
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
at 184-8.
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them..."
-- Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the
Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government]
those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General
diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
"One loves to possess arms,"
-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to George Washington,
June 19, 1796
"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain,
the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor
of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most
effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly,
but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the
militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public
officers."
-- George Mason, U.S. Constitution Virginia ratification
convention, 1788.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every so often, fecal matter hits the fan. It's a fact of life.
In those situations, people like you and me need *immediate*
protection which our local police forces *cannot* provide, or
at least not in a timely manner. A firearm can provide this
essential, often life-saving defense.
Did you hear about the Los Angeles Riots several years back?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"That night, I stood guard on the roof of the Lucky Electronics Shop
across the street from our gun shop, along with several other neighbors.
I had a 12-gauge riot shotgun and a Beretta 92F pistol. Another employee
had a Colt AR-15 Sporter rifle. We called the police for help, but they
never came. Some looters tried to break down the door of the gun store,
but we fired warning shots that drove them away. This happened many times,
and before it was over we had probably fired 200 rounds of ammunition."
"The Beretta pistol and the Colt Sporter rifle we used are both covered
under the recent crime law that bans guns and ammunition magazines that
hold more than 10 rounds. But that's exactly the kind of firepower we
needed to stop those rioting mobs from taking away our livelihoods and
our lives. The only thing that stopped them from robbing us and burning
down our stores was knowing that we were armed and prepared to stop them
with whatever it took. Those high-capacity firearms gave us the ability
to do so."
-- Prepared Testimony of David Joo before the U.S.
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime March 31,
1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> People use them to kill,
People also use them to save lives, as well as deter those who
would do them harm. This is proven fact.
>they should be banned, period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors
who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared
their own downfall by so doing."
-- Hitler's Secret Conversations
1941-1944 - Farrar, Straus and Young -
1953 Pg. 345
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"More laws are the answer!", you say?
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had several explosive devices in
their possession. Those devices are illegal to manufacture and
possess without prior authorization from the U.S. Treasury
Department's B.A.T.F. As we all saw, laws did absolutely nothing
to stop the two from manufacturing those weapons.
There are reasons why our violent crime rate is high, but it
has nothing to do with the availability of guns. There are
methods we can use to try and lower our crime rate, but it
should have nothing to do with removing firearms from the
possession of honest, law-abiding citizens.
[More touchy-feely stuff scrapped.]
--
Andrew Manore -- http://home.earthlink.net/~manorea
E-Mail: man...@earthlink.net
PGP Keys: 0xCE209032 and 0x165DF309
"Fogger" on IRC, ICQ and The Palace
Orcrist
>The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
>those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
>a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
>
You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
three years ago.
--
Ivo aka Orcrist
I can feel this pain is real
I hate deep down inside
And like broken glass you'll shatter
With bloody fists I'll batter
Like a ten ton hammer
(å’ŒachineHead, Ten Ton Hammer)
audrey
those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Hugs and kisses, Audrey
******************************
Alive
******************************
Lee E. Brown
audrey wrote in message <01be8cb5$8839a140$b2aa15a5@default>...
>The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
>those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
>a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
Anyone who thinks that these kinds weren't over the edage for quite a while is
fooling themselves.
But let's make sure to blame everyone who DIDN't have contact with these
looney-tunes on a daily basis yet who did NOTHING about it.
Jonnie
> I believe our "gun culture" has it's roots in the men who signed
> the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolutionary War,
> and wrote our Constitution.
Yep, it does.
> These men saw what happened when a
> government held the monopoly on force after civilians had been
> disarmed.
You're forgetting that the present is very different from that time.
> People also use them to save lives, as well as deter those who
> would do them harm. This is proven fact.
"Deter those who would do them harm"....funny statement.And how do you think we
manage in Holland and any other country that doesn't allow it's citizens to
carry arms?
> "More laws are the answer!", you say?
Not to prevent things like this no.
> Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had several explosive devices in
> their possession. Those devices are illegal to manufacture and
> possess without prior authorization from the U.S. Treasury
> Department's B.A.T.F. As we all saw, laws did absolutely nothing
> to stop the two from manufacturing those weapons.
Correct.
> There are reasons why our violent crime rate is high, but it
> has nothing to do with the availability of guns.
It does.*sighs deeply*
Why can't you simply see that.....
> There are methods we can use to try and lower our crime rate, but it
> should have nothing to do with removing firearms from the
> possession of honest, law-abiding citizens.
It shouldn't, everybody should be allowed to carry arms and use them only at
shooting ranges and/or hunting if permitted. Also people shouldn't drin and
drive, but this isn't a perfect world.....
> --
> Andrew Manore -- http://home.earthlink.net/~manorea
> E-Mail: man...@earthlink.net
> PGP Keys: 0xCE209032 and 0x165DF309
> "Fogger" on IRC, ICQ and The Palace
--
a.k.a. Calis the Eagle of Krondor.
'Be afraid of him. Be very afraid. He is not what he seems. He is
the Eagle of Krondor, and wise men keep out of sight when he flies above'
ICQ:23751168
jerry
<J.N.F.Z...@twi.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>Andrew Manore wrote:
>
>> I believe our "gun culture" has it's roots in the men who signed
>> the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolutionary War,
>> and wrote our Constitution.
>
>Yep, it does.
>
Thank god....
>> These men saw what happened when a
>> government held the monopoly on force after civilians had been
>> disarmed.
>
>You're forgetting that the present is very different from that time.
>
Yeah...now governments are much more efficient
>> People also use them to save lives, as well as deter those who
>> would do them harm. This is proven fact.
>
>"Deter those who would do them harm"....funny statement.And how do you think we
>manage in Holland and any other country that doesn't allow it's citizens to
>carry arms?
>
For one we have differant cultures. Take all the guns out of the US
and we would still be more violent that people in holland. To compare
our two countries is apples and oranges. Also your claim that every
country that has banned guns is less violent. Guns were banned in
nazi germany and stalin russia. Guns are bann in kosovo, rwanda, the
sudan...and those place are FAR more violent than the US.
>> "More laws are the answer!", you say?
>
>Not to prevent things like this no.
>
No kidding...they broke about 7 guns laws just to commit this crime.
But it was fun watching the gun control people make fools of
themselves.
>> Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had several explosive devices in
>> their possession. Those devices are illegal to manufacture and
>> possess without prior authorization from the U.S. Treasury
>> Department's B.A.T.F. As we all saw, laws did absolutely nothing
>> to stop the two from manufacturing those weapons.
>
>Correct.
>
>> There are reasons why our violent crime rate is high, but it
>> has nothing to do with the availability of guns.
>
>It does.*sighs deeply*
>Why can't you simply see that.....
>
Why can't you see we're differant people i differant cultures.
>> There are methods we can use to try and lower our crime rate, but it
>> should have nothing to do with removing firearms from the
>> possession of honest, law-abiding citizens.
>
>It shouldn't, everybody should be allowed to carry arms and use them only at
>shooting ranges and/or hunting if permitted. Also people shouldn't drin and
>drive, but this isn't a perfect world.....
>
The lack of understand the differance between, a devine right and bad
habit is very astounding. One of founding fathers called things like
this the messy consequences of freedom. People who live in countries
that are to scared to live free will never understand america.
>> --
>> Andrew Manore -- http://home.earthlink.net/~manorea
>> E-Mail: man...@earthlink.net
>> PGP Keys: 0xCE209032 and 0x165DF309
>> "Fogger" on IRC, ICQ and The Palace
>
>
>
Drakmere
>The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
>those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
>a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
>
--
All spellings are not guaranteed accurate. ICQ: 8869737 Yahoo: Drakmere Aim: drakmere9
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world.
When in-laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have in-laws.
If you can't say something nice, post it on Usenet.
If anyone has an extra organs lieing pickled them in a jar and send them to me.
This .sig in UNDER CONSTRUCTION any suggestions are appreciated, and disposed of ;)
brian
> You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
> an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
> this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
> three years ago.
And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
--
Reach me by ICQ. My ICQ# is 12100719 or,
Brian
My Email address is anti-spam encoded.
Remove the 2 if you see it.
brian
> > Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had several explosive devices in
> > their possession. Those devices are illegal to manufacture and
> > possess without prior authorization from the U.S. Treasury
> > Department's B.A.T.F. As we all saw, laws did absolutely nothing
> > to stop the two from manufacturing those weapons.
>
> Correct.
It is also illegal for minors to have acces to guns except under the
supervision of an adult.
> > There are reasons why our violent crime rate is high, but it
> > has nothing to do with the availability of guns.
>
> It does.*sighs deeply*
> Why can't you simply see that.....
Because strangely enough, in those cities and states that allow law
abiding people to own and carry, the crime rate is leading the decline
in the overall national crime rate.
At the same time, in the cities and states that make it hard or
impossible for the law abiding to own and carry, the crime rate is in
all but one or two cases still rising.
> > There are methods we can use to try and lower our crime rate, but it
> > should have nothing to do with removing firearms from the
> > possession of honest, law-abiding citizens.
>
> It shouldn't, everybody should be allowed to carry arms and use them only at
> shooting ranges and/or hunting if permitted. Also people shouldn't drin and
> drive, but this isn't a perfect world.....
There are several programs that have nothing to do with disarming the
law abiding, that are resulting in lower crime rates everywhere they are
tried.
Just look at Florida after they passed 'shall issue' carry permits.
Since then their violent crime rates have dropped more than 40%.
> > --
> > Andrew Manore -- http://home.earthlink.net/~manorea
> > E-Mail: man...@earthlink.net
> > PGP Keys: 0xCE209032 and 0x165DF309
> > "Fogger" on IRC, ICQ and The Palace
>
> --
> a.k.a. Calis the Eagle of Krondor.
>
> 'Be afraid of him. Be very afraid. He is not what he seems. He is
> the Eagle of Krondor, and wise men keep out of sight when he flies above'
>
> ICQ:23751168
--
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
Jonnie wrote in message <371F1872...@twi.tudelft.nl>...
>Andrew Manore wrote:
>
>> I believe our "gun culture" has it's roots in the men who signed
>> the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolutionary War,
>> and wrote our Constitution.
>
>
>> These men saw what happened when a
>> government held the monopoly on force after civilians had been
>> disarmed.
>
Oh yeah, this is so so true. All you need do is pick up a copy of Alexis de
Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and you quickly realize you are
reading about a country - and a vigorous people, jealous of their rights -
that is long gone. What's worse, the guy predicts exactly what will go
wrong. And now here we are, a de-moralized and debased people, "unable to
endure our vices nor bear the remedies needed to cure them." Oh yeah,
you're right: the present is very very different from that time ...
Jonnie
> For one we have differant cultures. Take all the guns out of the US
> and we would still be more violent that people in holland.
Maybe, maybe not.
> To compare
> our two countries is apples and oranges. Also your claim that every
> country that has banned guns is less violent.
I'm not claiming that, having a violent population can have many reasons, but I
do think having guns availlable will result in people using them, be it in
'self-defense' or to intentionally harm others
> Guns were banned in nazi germany and stalin russia. Guns are bann in kosovo,
> rwanda, the sudan...and those place are FAR more violent than the US.
Euhmm..these are all countries either at was with otheres or suffering a civil
war.I don't think you can compare that to peacetime America.
> No kidding...they broke about 7 guns laws just to commit this crime.
> But it was fun watching the gun control people make fools of
> themselves.
And how exactly did them make fools out of themselves?
> Why can't you see we're differant people i differant cultures.
Not really that different, over here the people that do have guns use them far
too often then we like.
> The lack of understand the differance between, a devine right and bad
> habit is very astounding.
If you seriously think owning a gun is a divine right, I'll stop the arguement
now, because I can only take soo much BS.
> One of founding fathers called things like
> this the messy consequences of freedom. People who live in countries
> that are to scared to live free will never understand america.
People in holland scared to live free?*rofl*
i think this country is much, much more tolerant and it's citizens are much more
free to do as they please, but you're right about us sometimes not understanding
America.
John Chase
>
> Andrew Manore wrote:
>
> > I believe our "gun culture" has it's roots in the men who signed
> > the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolutionary War,
> > and wrote our Constitution.
>
>
> > These men saw what happened when a
> > government held the monopoly on force after civilians had been
> > disarmed.
>
Is it? My government still wants more of what I earn; still wants to
tell me what I can and cannot own; where, when and how I can and cannot
go; what, where and how I can and cannot do; with whom I can and cannot
associate; what I should and should not think; ...
Beyond technological advances, what has changed?
> > People also use them to save lives, as well as deter those who
> > would do them harm. This is proven fact.
>
> "Deter those who would do them harm"....funny statement.
Why do you consider it funny?
> And how do you think we
> manage in Holland and any other country that doesn't allow it's citizens to
> carry arms?
I don't have time to research your country, so if you really want me to
know, why don't you just tell me?
> > "More laws are the answer!", you say?
>
> Not to prevent things like this no.
>
> > Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had several explosive devices in
> > their possession. Those devices are illegal to manufacture and
> > possess without prior authorization from the U.S. Treasury
> > Department's B.A.T.F. As we all saw, laws did absolutely nothing
> > to stop the two from manufacturing those weapons.
>
> Correct.
>
> > There are reasons why our violent crime rate is high, but it
> > has nothing to do with the availability of guns.
>
> It does.*sighs deeply*
> Why can't you simply see that.....
Because there is nothing there to see.
> > There are methods we can use to try and lower our crime rate, but it
> > should have nothing to do with removing firearms from the
> > possession of honest, law-abiding citizens.
>
> It shouldn't, everybody should be allowed to carry arms and use them only at
> shooting ranges and/or hunting if permitted.
Why do you omit self-defense? That is, after all, the primary reason we
seek "legal permission" to carry arms routinely.
> Also people shouldn't drin and
> drive, but this isn't a perfect world.....
There are lots of things people "shouldn't do", and for many of those
things we enact laws to "prevent" people from doing them. But as we can
see daily, the laws we enacted do NOT prevent people from doing those
things; the laws at best only persuade the vast majority of people to
refrain from doing those things against which we enacted them. It seems
to be an unavoidable fact of life that there exist people who will do
prohibited things simply because they are prohibited, and we cannot
assess the penalties for transgression before the prohibited things are
done because we cannot infallibly identify against whom to assess them
before the fact.
-jc-
__Legion__
First off, let me say that I think you're an idiot.
> You're forgetting that the present is very different from that time.
No it's not.
We are still the same americans. We are still living on the same
ground. ANd we are facing the very same perils the settlers did.
> "Deter those who would do them harm"....funny statement.And how do you think we
> manage in Holland and any other country that doesn't allow it's citizens to
> carry arms?
Nothing has happened (that I've heard of) -- yet. But if it does.. And
the military fails.. the citizenry better tuck their heads between their
legs and kiss their ass goodbye.
> > There are reasons why our violent crime rate is high, but it
> > has nothing to do with the availability of guns.
>
> It does.*sighs deeply*
> Why can't you simply see that.....
It doesn't. Why can't you simply see that?
Pretend with me for a moment: Lets say that every single citizen
wereonly permitted to have a handgun, let's say a single-action
revolver, and a blackpowder rifle or shotgun (which is very close to
reality here in missouri). They are permitted only at ranges and
hunting. At all other times, they have to be turned into an authority
figure (almost like a valet). Now let's say that someone knows someone
else who knows someone in the Triads, and gets ahold of an AK-47 with a
30 round magazine. He decides to raid a home where a husband, wife, and
daughter are sleeping peacefully. he rapes the daughter, shoots the
father, rapes and kills the wife, and kidnaps the daughter for sale as a
prostitute. The father was left to defend his home with a baseball bat
against a AK-47 wielding criminal.
If we take the guns out of the hands of lawful citizens, the only
people who will have them are the criminals. If you can't see that,
you're a complete moron and should be prevented entirely from breathing.
> It shouldn't, everybody should be allowed to carry arms and use them only at
> shooting ranges and/or hunting if permitted. Also people shouldn't drin and
> drive, but this isn't a perfect world.....
What would be the purpose of that? You might as well be outlawing them
entirely. Or maybe that's your objective.
Are you a member of SFBOH (The Society for the Banning of Handguns), by
chance?
simon_thopson
>The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
>those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
>a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
Don't know if this is the culture difference or what, but in N. England
anybody who hasn't got the nerve to stand up and face his opponents isn't
worth anything, and would be considered bent, especially if they needed to
use a weapon. It's seen as a matter of honour that you can stand up and
fight with your fists if necessary, most people I know would prefer to take
one hell of a beating rather than degrade themselves by using a weapon on
their opponent. I think this probably sounds brutal but it's better than the
Yank way at least in our part of the world all you get is a couple of
cracked knuckles and a bloody nose.
And as for being violent towards girls... you wouldn't dare. You would
immediately get kicked all over by the nearest lad plus you would probably
be disowned for a while by your mates.
Panhead
>
> Orcrist wrote:
>
> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
> > three years ago.
>
> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
It's true.
Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
new law they make.
jerry
<J.N.F.Z...@twi.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>jerry wrote:
>
>> For one we have differant cultures. Take all the guns out of the US
>> and we would still be more violent that people in holland.
>
>Maybe, maybe not.
>
oh come on...
>> To compare
>> our two countries is apples and oranges. Also your claim that every
>> country that has banned guns is less violent.
>
>I'm not claiming that, having a violent population can have many reasons, but I
>do think having guns availlable will result in people using them, be it in
>'self-defense' or to intentionally harm others
>
not to sound flippant but thats the messy consequenses of freedom
>> Guns were banned in nazi germany and stalin russia. Guns are bann in kosovo,
>> rwanda, the sudan...and those place are FAR more violent than the US.
>
>Euhmm..these are all countries either at was with otheres or suffering a civil
>war.I don't think you can compare that to peacetime America.
>
Sudan isn't having a civil war right now...they are killing a bunch of
christians...but they are in relative peacetime.
>> No kidding...they broke about 7 guns laws just to commit this crime.
>> But it was fun watching the gun control people make fools of
>> themselves.
>
>And how exactly did them make fools out of themselves?
>
Well they sit there and act like if only we extended the brady law
stuff like this would stop. Everytime someone asked them if that
would stop this stuff they go OH well no I'm not saying that. And yet
there they are trying to take advantage of the shootings...they are
trying to capitalize on senseless emotion...
>> Why can't you see we're differant people i differant cultures.
>
>Not really that different, over here the people that do have guns use them far
>too often then we like.
>
I don't have a problem with law abiding responsible people using guns
>> The lack of understand the differance between, a devine right and bad
>> habit is very astounding.
>
>If you seriously think owning a gun is a divine right, I'll stop the arguement
>now, because I can only take soo much BS.
>
Look we have rights in this country wether you like it or
not....americans were never ment to live in a room with padded walls
and wearing straight jackets.
>> One of founding fathers called things like
>> this the messy consequences of freedom. People who live in countries
>> that are to scared to live free will never understand america.
>
>People in holland scared to live free?*rofl*
>i think this country is much, much more tolerant and it's citizens are much more
>free to do as they please, but you're right about us sometimes not understanding
>America.
>
You don't and never will. Its differant cultures.
jerry
<ak...@citycom.com> wrote:
>
>Jonnie wrote in message <371F1872...@twi.tudelft.nl>...
>>Andrew Manore wrote:
>>
>>> I believe our "gun culture" has it's roots in the men who signed
>>> the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolutionary War,
>>> and wrote our Constitution.
>>
>>Yep, it does.
>>
>>> These men saw what happened when a
>>> government held the monopoly on force after civilians had been
>>> disarmed.
>>
>>You're forgetting that the present is very different from that time.
>
>
>Oh yeah, this is so so true. All you need do is pick up a copy of Alexis de
>Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and you quickly realize you are
>reading about a country - and a vigorous people, jealous of their rights -
>that is long gone. What's worse, the guy predicts exactly what will go
>wrong. And now here we are, a de-moralized and debased people, "unable to
>endure our vices nor bear the remedies needed to cure them." Oh yeah,
>you're right: the present is very very different from that time ...
>
>
We are still the country e Tocqueville saw. Just becuase 2 kids go
and shoot up a school doesnt mean that all the kids are bad or the
country is going to hell. Schools have less violence overall.
zepp, a weasel
wrote:
There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
**********************************************************
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Also mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Bill Stockwell
: On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
: wrote:
: >brian wrote:
: >>
: >> Orcrist wrote:
: >>
: >> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
: >> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
: >> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
: >> > three years ago.
: >>
: >> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
: >
: > It's true.
: >Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
: >new law they make.
: There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
: that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
: exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
: guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
No, the federal government has a constitutional REQUIREMENT to not infringe
on the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And a federal judge agrees!
See www.nraila.org/emerson.html
to learn more.
: **********************************************************
: http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
: Also mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
: http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
: http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
: http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
: http://resurgent.virtualave.net
:
: Warning: Contains ideas
: ************************************************************
: Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
--
Bill Stockwell: Department of Computing Science, University of Central Oklahoma
<http://www.comsc.ucok.edu/~stockwel/>
"Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Society is safer when criminals don't know
who is armed."
Lee E. Brown
Jonnie wrote in message <371F95C7...@twi.tudelft.nl>...
>I'm not claiming that, having a violent population can have many reasons, but I
>do think having guns availlable will result in people using them, be it in
>'self-defense' or to intentionally harm others
Are you saying that "self-defense" is not a valid use for a firearm?
Lee E. Brown
simon_thopson wrote in message <37208...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
>Don't know if this is the culture difference or what, but in N. England
>anybody who hasn't got the nerve to stand up and face his opponents isn't
>worth anything, and would be considered bent, especially if they needed to
>use a weapon. It's seen as a matter of honour that you can stand up and
>fight with your fists if necessary, most people I know would prefer to take
>one hell of a beating rather than degrade themselves by using a weapon on
>their opponent. I think this probably sounds brutal but it's better than the
>Yank way at least in our part of the world all you get is a couple of
>cracked knuckles and a bloody nose.
>And as for being violent towards girls... you wouldn't dare. You would
>immediately get kicked all over by the nearest lad plus you would probably
>be disowned for a while by your mates.
Wow! What a violent society you live in!
Jonnie
> It is also illegal for minors to have acces to guns except under the
> supervision of an adult.
Duh!And how hard do you think it is for kids that want them to gain access?
> Because strangely enough, in those cities and states that allow law
> abiding people to own and carry, the crime rate is leading the decline
> in the overall national crime rate.
> At the same time, in the cities and states that make it hard or
> impossible for the law abiding to own and carry, the crime rate is in
> all but one or two cases still rising.
Because state borders don't really stop them from buying a gun in one state and
using it in another...
> There are several programs that have nothing to do with disarming the
> law abiding, that are resulting in lower crime rates everywhere they are
> tried.
> Just look at Florida after they passed 'shall issue' carry permits.
> Since then their violent crime rates have dropped more than 40%.
Sure, there are more that one ways to lower the crime rate, but stuff like this
happening is something that you simply cannot prevent.
Even allowing teachers to carry in class (which would really scare me) won't
prevent this, it'll only bring back the old wild west days.
Jonnie
> Oh yeah, this is so so true. All you need do is pick up a copy of Alexis de
> Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and you quickly realize you are
> reading about a country - and a vigorous people, jealous of their rights -
> that is long gone. What's worse, the guy predicts exactly what will go
> wrong. And now here we are, a de-moralized and debased people, "unable to
> endure our vices nor bear the remedies needed to cure them." Oh yeah,
> you're right: the present is very very different from that time ...
Maybe in America time stood still, but other countries have grown more
civilized.I'm sure that in the time America was founded, people in Europe also
carried weapons
(guns, blades, knives), but we've lost the need for them.
Jonnie
> Is it?
Yes.
> My government still wants more of what I earn; still wants to
> tell me what I can and cannot own; where, when and how I can and cannot
> go; what, where and how I can and cannot do; with whom I can and cannot
> associate; what I should and should not think; ...
Do you really believe things are different in Europe?
> Beyond technological advances, what has changed?
Morals
> Why do you consider it funny?
Because you simply want to blow them away.You want to defend yourselves by
killing those that 'threaten' you, your family or your property, but in doing so
you yourself will become a murderer plain as that.
> I don't have time to research your country, so if you really want me to
> know, why don't you just tell me?
Well, let me see.Our life sentence is equaled with 20 years, so that's our
hardest punishment, a lot of drugs aren't illegal, so i'd say we pretty much
invite criminals in.
In Amsterdam there's over 1 murder every day, yet we don't even have a political
discussion about legalizing guns.
Somehow we manage without them.....
> Because there is nothing there to see.
*sigh*
> Why do you omit self-defense? That is, after all, the primary reason we
> seek "legal permission" to carry arms routinely.
I'm not omitting it, but it's a plain fact that too many people can't deal with
guns.
> There are lots of things people "shouldn't do", and for many of those
> things we enact laws to "prevent" people from doing them. But as we can
> see daily, the laws we enacted do NOT prevent people from doing those
> things; the laws at best only persuade the vast majority of people to
> refrain from doing those things against which we enacted them. It seems
> to be an unavoidable fact of life that there exist people who will do
> prohibited things simply because they are prohibited, and we cannot
> assess the penalties for transgression before the prohibited things are
> done because we cannot infallibly identify against whom to assess them
> before the fact.
Correct, but you can never prevent things like what happened at this high school
and it'ssure to happen again, since it's so easy to gain access to weapons in
America.
> -jc-
Jonnie
> First off, let me say that I think you're an idiot.
Thank you, now i sure have a high opinion of you.....
> No it's not.
> We are still the same americans.
Are you that old?
> We are still living on the same
> ground. ANd we are facing the very same perils the settlers did.
Really?Indian raids? wild animals?
> Nothing has happened (that I've heard of) -- yet.
Over here?Plenty happens, far too much for my liking actually.
But never ever something like what happened over there, simply because kids
can't get weapons that easily over here.
> But if it does.. And the military fails.. the citizenry better tuck their
> heads between their
> legs and kiss their ass goodbye.
Why?
> It doesn't. Why can't you simply see that?
So, if these kids couldn't get the guns, they would have killed so many anyway?
> Pretend with me for a moment: Lets say that every single citizen
> wereonly permitted to have a handgun, let's say a single-action
> revolver, and a blackpowder rifle or shotgun (which is very close to
> reality here in missouri). They are permitted only at ranges and
> hunting. At all other times, they have to be turned into an authority
> figure (almost like a valet). Now let's say that someone knows someone
> else who knows someone in the Triads, and gets ahold of an AK-47 with a
> 30 round magazine. He decides to raid a home where a husband, wife, and
> daughter are sleeping peacefully. he rapes the daughter, shoots the
> father, rapes and kills the wife, and kidnaps the daughter for sale as a
> prostitute. The father was left to defend his home with a baseball bat
> against a AK-47 wielding criminal.
Could happen, but if the father didn't have a gun and the guy knew, he wouldn't
have to kill him to begin with.Now let's try the same scenario but with a gun,
the guy comes in shoots the man, because he's a threat (it would be self defense
for him) and simply does the same.
> If we take the guns out of the hands of lawful citizens, the only
> people who will have them are the criminals. If you can't see that,
> you're a complete moron and should be prevented entirely from breathing.
Hehe...Criminals and the police are the only ones carrying guns in Holland, and
somehow less people get killed by guns...Hmm....it does make you wonder....
Either
1) Many Americans are simply savage beasts out to kill each other guns or not.
Or
2) Having less people with guns in a country reduces the number of people
getting killed by them.
Since i have a lot of American friends that don't sound like savage beasts, I'm
inclined to pick option number 2, people like you however do make me consider
#1.
> What would be the purpose of that? You might as well be outlawing them
>
> entirely.
Guns?I'd love to, It's the only thing that can prevent this from ever happening
again.
Fortunately for me, almost all countries in Europe forbid civilians from having
(and certainly carrying) guns.
> Or maybe that's your objective.
> Are you a member of SFBOH (The Society for the Banning of Handguns),
> by
> chance?
1) If you were smart enough to look at my e-mail, you'd see that I'm not from
America(Yes, there's this big part of the world that's NOT America...really....)
2) No, I don't need to be, where i live they're already banned.
Panhead
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
> wrote:
>
> >brian wrote:
> >>
> >> Orcrist wrote:
> >>
> >> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
> >> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
> >> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
> >> > three years ago.
> >>
> >> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
> >
> > It's true.
> >Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
> >new law they make.
>
> There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
> that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
> exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
> guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
Uh, what "simple set of Fed laws that supersede" do YOU propose
should be enacted?
Why do want more laws that will not, CAN not be enforced anyway?
Don't you realize that the more "you" personally want as
evidenced above, creates more of the same while you and others
ignore the true causes and effects?
Don't be so dammed selfish and blind, Sir.
Don't swallow the crap being offered to you that says that guns
were the problem or the cause of this catastrophy in Colorado.
I see that you also failed to comment on the mind set of these
to rather obviously brain "damaged-goods" fools who had a thought
that infamy was better then life, while at the same time you
think it's best to regulate or ban guns, the internet, music, TV,
hardware(pipes), and propane tanks.
What gives?
Robert Frenchu
>Allan Lindsay-ONeal wrote:
>
>> Oh yeah, this is so so true. All you need do is pick up a copy of Alexis de
>> Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and you quickly realize you are
>> reading about a country - and a vigorous people, jealous of their rights -
>> that is long gone. What's worse, the guy predicts exactly what will go
>> wrong. And now here we are, a de-moralized and debased people, "unable to
>> endure our vices nor bear the remedies needed to cure them." Oh yeah,
>> you're right: the present is very very different from that time ...
>
>Maybe in America time stood still, but other countries have grown more
>civilized.I'm sure that in the time America was founded, people in Europe also
>carried weapons
>(guns, blades, knives), but we've lost the need for them.
Of *course* you have! That's why your English brothers across the
Channel are picking nails out of their faces, and Manchester hijackers
are using "... Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle..." to shoot up six
people, including three senior citizens. Very civilized.
Now get back to watering your tulips.
____________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Duane K. Kelly
>
> __Legion__ wrote:
>
> > First off, let me say that I think you're an idiot.
>
> Thank you, now i sure have a high opinion of you.....
>
> > No it's not.
> > We are still the same americans.
>
> Are you that old?
>
> > We are still living on the same
> > ground. ANd we are facing the very same perils the settlers did.
>
> Really?Indian raids? wild animals?
>
> > Nothing has happened (that I've heard of) -- yet.
>
> Over here?Plenty happens, far too much for my liking actually.
> But never ever something like what happened over there, simply because kids
> can't get weapons that easily over here.
Could it be that your kids arn't smart enought to out smart anyone,
therefore just programmed what the believe?
> > But if it does.. And the military fails.. the citizenry better tuck their
> > heads between their
> > legs and kiss their ass goodbye.
>
> Why?
>
> > It doesn't. Why can't you simply see that?
>
> So, if these kids couldn't get the guns, they would have killed so many anyway?
>
> > Pretend with me for a moment: Lets say that every single citizen
> > wereonly permitted to have a handgun, let's say a single-action
> > revolver, and a blackpowder rifle or shotgun (which is very close to
> > reality here in missouri). They are permitted only at ranges and
> > hunting. At all other times, they have to be turned into an authority
> > figure (almost like a valet). Now let's say that someone knows someone
> > else who knows someone in the Triads, and gets ahold of an AK-47 with a
> > 30 round magazine. He decides to raid a home where a husband, wife, and
> > daughter are sleeping peacefully. he rapes the daughter, shoots the
> > father, rapes and kills the wife, and kidnaps the daughter for sale as a
> > prostitute. The father was left to defend his home with a baseball bat
> > against a AK-47 wielding criminal.
>
> Could happen, but if the father didn't have a gun and the guy knew, he wouldn't
> have to kill him to begin with.Now let's try the same scenario but with a gun,
> the guy comes in shoots the man, because he's a threat (it would be self defense
> for him) and simply does the same.
Lets consider this... in 1978 a man enters Pizza Hut in Amarillo, TX,
and though the employees were completely unarmed, he put their heads in
the dough mixer crushing their skulls. (Of course they died). A year
later, a man enters an Allsup store in Clovis, NM, has the employees lie
face down on the floor that are completely unarmed and shoot them in the
back of the head. In Phoenix, AZ, a man enters a Beauty Solon and shoots
the unarmed employees in the back of the head. Your idea that lack of
arms prevents this behavior is pure unadulterated Bull Shit.
BTW, if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the
"father" was unarmed, and the rapist, and murder was armed, that killed
the father wife and enslaved his daughter. Or is reading and
comprehension something they do not teach any longer over there, just
how to be politically correct.
Look bud, my Great Grand-Father left Sweden because he did not like the
way the government there was telling him what to think and how to think.
Your opinion on how we should live is still not welcome here. If your
was was so damn great, then how come is it that in two World Wars, it
took less than a week for your country to be over ran, and TWICE, we
rebellious Yankees, the savages that we are bailed you and the rest of
Europe out. Now you try to tell us how to live?
I guess the reason Germany was so successful was because of your roll
over and play dead tactics you so kindly demonstrated above. So you can
take your self-righteous pompous ass and keep you nose out of our
business, and political affairs.
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
Lurker@home
Orcrist wrote in message <371e5bde...@news-ede.bit.nl>...
>audrey wrote:
>
>>The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
>>those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
>>a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
>>
>an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
>this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
>three years ago.
That's an interesting response from someone who names themself after a
sword.
If even one person in Columbine School had been able to exercise their right
to keep and bear arms, this whole thing might have been short-circuited. If
it were known that some school people were armed, the incident might never
have started in the first place. There's nothing so inviting as a helpless
victim, and that is what gun control laws produce.
Lee E. Brown
zepp, a weasel wrote in message <3720a47b...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
>that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
>exist.
We already have a simple set of federal laws which supercede state laws AND
which the killers flagrantly violated.
Got another plan?
>The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
>guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
Care to show the reasoning behind that one?
Duane K. Kelly
>
> >The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
> >those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
> >a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
>
> anybody who hasn't got the nerve to stand up and face his opponents isn't
> worth anything, and would be considered bent, especially if they needed to
> use a weapon. It's seen as a matter of honour that you can stand up and
> fight with your fists if necessary, most people I know would prefer to take
> one hell of a beating rather than degrade themselves by using a weapon on
> their opponent. I think this probably sounds brutal but it's better than the
> Yank way at least in our part of the world all you get is a couple of
> cracked knuckles and a bloody nose.
> And as for being violent towards girls... you wouldn't dare. You would
> immediately get kicked all over by the nearest lad plus you would probably
> be disowned for a while by your mates.
Well, over here in America, we too stand up and fight, fist with fist,
and ball bats with ball bats, and guns with guns... however, we have a
slight problem, some ass hole outlawed fighting with fist, and called it
assault, and we are jailed for defending the ladies honor. It seems some
Europeans thought we was too brutal, and uncivilized and complained
about us doing the same as you, and some stupid ass hole of a politician
forgot he was representing us, not the land we left long ago, in an
attempt to civilize us in the past 25 years. How dare one to be so
brutal, and savage as to strike another with a clinched fist. God
forbid. How dare one to be so savage as to punish his children, or teach
them morals, as it estimates their growth and destroys their ability to
function as individuals. Now complain because of the results of this
stupidity? How arrogant can you Europeans be?
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
Blazing Sword
>wrote:
>
>>brian wrote:
>>>
>>> Orcrist wrote:
>>>
>>> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
>>> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
>>> > three years ago.
>>>
>>
>> It's true.
>>Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
>>new law they make.
>
>that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
>guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
>
"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".
What part do you not understand? It says they may regulate the MILITIA, but
not the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Andrew Manore
> Andrew Manore wrote:
>
> > I believe our "gun culture" has it's roots in the men who signed
> > the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolutionary War,
> > and wrote our Constitution.
>
> Yep, it does.
>
> > These men saw what happened when a
> > government held the monopoly on force after civilians had been
> > disarmed.
>
> You're forgetting that the present is very different from that time.
Of course. Our violent crime rate was nowhere *near* as high
as it is today, despite the fact that guns were more readily
available.
That, and the sheer amount of people enslaved and murdered by
their own governments probably never came close to 100+ million.
> > People also use them to save lives, as well as deter those who
> > would do them harm. This is proven fact.
>
> "Deter those who would do them harm"....funny statement.
It's true. One study by Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State
University put the exact number of defensive firearm usage as
high as 1-2.5 million.
For more on Kleck:
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
> And how do you think we manage in Holland and any other country
> that doesn't allow it's citizens to carry arms?
Holland isn't the United States, so I wouldn't know how you
people deal with crime. However, I assume that rape, murder
and robbery victims (unless physically strong or talented,
are pretty much S.O.L. until the police arrive.
> > "More laws are the answer!", you say?
>
> Not to prevent things like this no.
>
> > Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had several explosive devices in
> > their possession. Those devices are illegal to manufacture and
> > possess without prior authorization from the U.S. Treasury
> > Department's B.A.T.F. As we all saw, laws did absolutely nothing
> > to stop the two from manufacturing those weapons.
>
> Correct.
Now shall I point out how many laws were broken in regard
to guns?
> > There are reasons why our violent crime rate is high, but it
> > has nothing to do with the availability of guns.
>
> It does.*sighs deeply*
Then prove it.
Answer me this:
Several decades ago, it was completely legal in the United States
to purchase handguns and rifles through *mail-order* catalogues.
No background checks, no registration or licensing, no questions
asked, except for a statement from the buyer declaring that he/
she was an adult. Children often had their own rifles for target
shooting, plinking or hunting. Guns were *much* easier to obtain.
If the "Guns cause crime!" rhetoric holds true, our streets should
have been flowing with blood in the 40's, 50's and early 60's. Why
weren't they?
> Why can't you simply see that.....
Because that is not the truth. Gun availability is not the root
of the actual problem. Blaming the availability of guns for all
violent crime in the United States is either extremely ill-informed
at best, dishonest at worst.
Observe: Jamaica, Colombia, South Africa. All have strict gun
control laws. Their violent crime rates are *way* higher than
that of the U.S.
What seems to be the real problem is the decay of basic morals
and values in our culture. This is infinitely more responsible
for crime than guns ever have been.
> > There are methods we can use to try and lower our crime rate, but it
> > should have nothing to do with removing firearms from the
> > possession of honest, law-abiding citizens.
>
> It shouldn't, everybody should be allowed to carry arms and use them only at
> shooting ranges and/or hunting if permitted. Also people shouldn't drin and
> drive, but this isn't a perfect world.....
Law-abiding people should have the ability to carry arms (concealed
or otherwise) for self-defense, no matter where they go. In many
cases the violent crime rate is driven down, and accidental firearm
deaths do not go up. Feel free to check out this study by Professor
John Lott, Jr. and David Mustard of the University of Chicago:
"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns":
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf
(It's in Adobe PDF format.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Using cross-sectional time-series data for U.S. counties from 1977
to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons
deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths. If
those states without right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had
adopted them in 1992, county and state-level data indicate that
approximately 1,500 murders would have been avoided yearly.
Similarly, we predict that rapes would have declined by over 4,000,
robbery by over 11,000, and aggravated assaults by over 60,000. We
also find criminals substituting into property crimes involving
stealth, where the probability of contact between the criminal and
the victim is minimal. Further, higher arrest and conviction rates
consistently reduce crime. The estimated annual gain from all
remaining states adopting these laws was at least $5.74 billion in
1992. The annual social benefit from an additional concealed
handgun permit is as high as $5,000."
------------------------------------------------------------------
~Immortal-Dawn-Rose~
citizens are allowed to carry guns openly have less crime overall then
places where guns are banned. If you want to lay blame lay it on the
parents for not bringing their children up correctly. And no, no one can
say that the parents are not partially if not fully to blame. As far as
guns are concerned, no matter how many laws ban them the criminals still
have them.
--
"Beware of the green eyed Enchantress, she'll sing you songs of wonder
but freedom is the price you pay. She's fire and ice, mystery and
adventure, love and hate, compassion and torturous pain. Sadistic yet
sweet, loving and kind, the kind of woman who will blow your mind. All
your dreams in her you'll find, yet once you love your doomed for all
time." - ~Immortal-Dawn-Rose~
Panhead wrote in message <3720999E...@monmouth.com>...
Panhead
> >
> >>The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
> >>those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
> >>a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
> >>
> >an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
> >this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
> >three years ago.
>
> sword.
Meaning?
> If even one person in Columbine School had been able to exercise their right
> to keep and bear arms, this whole thing might have been short-circuited.
No it wouldn't.
Don't ever underestimate the power of the sick mind(s).
After all, as far as we all might have heard or know, there is
possibly "the mysterious armed guard" that was supposedly there.
(no doubt hiding in grassy knoll)
Matthias Warkus
..and Robert Frenchu <Robert_Frenchu*DELETE*@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:31:23 +0200, Jonnie wrote :
>
> >Allan Lindsay-ONeal wrote:
> >
> >> Oh yeah, this is so so true. All you need do is pick up a copy of Alexis de
> >> Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and you quickly realize you are
> >> reading about a country - and a vigorous people, jealous of their rights -
> >> that is long gone. What's worse, the guy predicts exactly what will go
> >> wrong. And now here we are, a de-moralized and debased people, "unable to
> >> endure our vices nor bear the remedies needed to cure them." Oh yeah,
> >> you're right: the present is very very different from that time ...
> >
> >Maybe in America time stood still, but other countries have grown more
> >civilized.I'm sure that in the time America was founded, people in Europe also
> >carried weapons
> >(guns, blades, knives), but we've lost the need for them.
>
> Of *course* you have! That's why your English brothers across the
> Channel are picking nails out of their faces, and Manchester hijackers
> are using "... Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle..." to shoot up six
> people, including three senior citizens. Very civilized.
>
> Now get back to watering your tulips.
I wouldn't do this if it weren't for that last phrase. But given it's
there, I don't feel the need to communicate with you any more than
this.
*PLONK*
mawa
--
Think!
no one of consequence
]Allan Lindsay-ONeal wrote:
]
]> Oh yeah, this is so so true. All you need do is pick up a copy of Alexis de
]> Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and you quickly realize you are
]> reading about a country - and a vigorous people, jealous of their rights -
]> that is long gone. What's worse, the guy predicts exactly what will go
]> wrong. And now here we are, a de-moralized and debased people, "unable to
]> endure our vices nor bear the remedies needed to cure them." Oh yeah,
]> you're right: the present is very very different from that time ...
]
]Maybe in America time stood still, but other countries have grown more
]civilized.I'm sure that in the time America was founded, people in Europe also
]carried weapons
](guns, blades, knives), but we've lost the need for them.
I'm sorry, you are confusing the word 'civilized' with 'domesticated' in
your pompous claims.
The overwhelming majority of American gun owners are quite civilized: they
don't use their weapons for murder or other crimes.
You also appear to have missed the point in the article by Lindsey-ONeal,
since he was definitely not saying time had stood still in America. But I
guess that would make it difficult for you to make your snotty
pronouncements implying that Americans are barbarians.
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
|her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Robert Frenchu
>It was the Fri, 23 Apr 1999 18:41:33 GMT...
>..and Robert Frenchu <Robert_Frenchu*DELETE*@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:31:23 +0200, Jonnie wrote :
>>
>> >Allan Lindsay-ONeal wrote:
>> >
>> >> Oh yeah, this is so so true. All you need do is pick up a copy of Alexis de
>> >> Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and you quickly realize you are
>> >> reading about a country - and a vigorous people, jealous of their rights -
>> >> that is long gone. What's worse, the guy predicts exactly what will go
>> >> wrong. And now here we are, a de-moralized and debased people, "unable to
>> >> endure our vices nor bear the remedies needed to cure them." Oh yeah,
>> >> you're right: the present is very very different from that time ...
>> >
>> >Maybe in America time stood still, but other countries have grown more
>> >civilized.I'm sure that in the time America was founded, people in Europe also
>> >carried weapons
>> >(guns, blades, knives), but we've lost the need for them.
>>
>> Of *course* you have! That's why your English brothers across the
>> Channel are picking nails out of their faces, and Manchester hijackers
>> are using "... Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle..." to shoot up six
>> people, including three senior citizens. Very civilized.
>>
>> Now get back to watering your tulips.
>
>I wouldn't do this if it weren't for that last phrase. But given it's
>there, I don't feel the need to communicate with you any more than
>this.
>
>*PLONK*
I didn't realize we were communicating in the first place. What a
gigantic void in my life your leaving creates. I doubt I shall ever
get over it.
zepp, a weasel
wrote:
>"zepp, a weasel" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >brian wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Orcrist wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
>> >> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
>> >> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
>> >> > three years ago.
>> >>
>> >> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
>> >
>> > It's true.
>> >Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
>> >new law they make.
>>
>> There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
>> that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
>> exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
>> guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
>
> Uh, what "simple set of Fed laws that supersede" do YOU propose
>should be enacted?
Registration of all weapons. Two years' militia service training in
order to have the right to own a weapon. Laws detailing
responsibility of ownership, including mandated reporting of sales or
theft.
Limits on muzzle velocities, weight of projectiles, range, rate of
fire, and size of clip for public use.
> Why do want more laws that will not, CAN not be enforced anyway?
It would replace the "24,000 laws" you were whining about.
> Don't you realize that the more "you" personally want as
>evidenced above, creates more of the same while you and others
>ignore the true causes and effects?
Nope. But I do know that I can have an opinion and a goal without
your permission.
> Don't be so dammed selfish and blind, Sir.
Me? I'm not the one who has to feel defensive about those dead kids
in Colorado, my friend.
> Don't swallow the crap being offered to you that says that guns
>were the problem or the cause of this catastrophy in Colorado.
You'll be pleased to know that you are one of 9% of the population who
don't believe gun availablity played a role in that tradegy.
> I see that you also failed to comment on the mind set of these
>to rather obviously brain "damaged-goods" fools who had a thought
>that infamy was better then life, while at the same time you
>think it's best to regulate or ban guns, the internet, music, TV,
>hardware(pipes), and propane tanks.
I'll settle for regulating guns. We're way overdue for that. The
second amendment mandates regulation of guns.
> What gives?
It's the end of the NRA and gunloonery. That's what gives.
zepp, a weasel
>zepp, a weasel (ze...@snowcrest.net) wrote:
>: On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
>: wrote:
>
>: >brian wrote:
>: >>
>: >> Orcrist wrote:
>: >>
>: >> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
>: >> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
>: >> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
>: >> > three years ago.
>: >>
>: >> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
>: >
>: > It's true.
>: >Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
>: >new law they make.
>
>: There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
>: that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
>: exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
>: guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
>
>No, the federal government has a constitutional REQUIREMENT to not infringe
>on the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear arms.
IF and only IF they are members of a "well-regulated militia". That
give government not only the right to regulate guns, but the
obligation. And it gives them the right to determine who qualifies to
own an arm.
>
>And a federal judge agrees!
>See www.nraila.org/emerson.html
>to learn more.
>
>
>: **********************************************************
>: http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
>
>: Also mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
>: http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
>: http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
>: http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
>: http://resurgent.virtualave.net
>:
>: Warning: Contains ideas
>: ************************************************************
>
>: Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>
>--
>Bill Stockwell: Department of Computing Science, University of Central Oklahoma
> <http://www.comsc.ucok.edu/~stockwel/>
>"Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Society is safer when criminals don't know
>who is armed."
**********************************************************
zepp, a weasel
<leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>zepp, a weasel wrote in message <3720a47b...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>
>>There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
>>that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
>>exist.
>
>We already have a simple set of federal laws which supercede state laws AND
>which the killers flagrantly violated.
Tell us what they are.
>
>Got another plan?
>
I'll wait for you to back up your latest ridiculous assertion first.
>>The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
>>guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
>
>
>Care to show the reasoning behind that one?
It's called the second amendment. Who do you think is empowered to
regulate that militia that is to have the arms?
zepp, a weasel
<blazin...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>zepp, a weasel wrote in message <3720a47b...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>brian wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Orcrist wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
>>>> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
>>>> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
>>>> > three years ago.
>>>>
>>>> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
>>>
>>> It's true.
>>>Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
>>>new law they make.
>>
>>There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
>>that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
>>exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
>>guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
>>
>No, they have a right to regulate the ACTIONS of the militia.
It doesn't say a word about the actions of the militia.
"Well-regulated" means training, discipline, and arms.
>
>"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".
>
>What part do you not understand? It says they may regulate the MILITIA, but
>not the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
It doesn't go on to say, "Oh, and by the way, any undisciplined,
paranoid, drunken yahoo who wants an arsenal can have one, too."
Until it does, you unregulated types with all the big guns are
violating the constitution.
Jonnie
> >Maybe, maybe not.
> oh come on...
You've never tried it, are you Americans genetically different from us
Europeans?
> not to sound flippant but thats the messy consequenses of freedom
So, you think these people died as a result of your freedom?Odd freedom.....
> Sudan isn't having a civil war right now...they are killing a bunch of
> christians...but they are in relative peacetime.
Ok, so we'll call it an internal conflict, but that's hardly the same state
America is in.
> Well they sit there and act like if only we extended the brady law
> stuff like this would stop. Everytime someone asked them if that
> would stop this stuff they go OH well no I'm not saying that. And yet
> there they are trying to take advantage of the shootings...they are
> trying to capitalize on senseless emotion...
senseless emotion?Well, requiring people to have a permit or a license to drive
doesn't prevent all accidents, but it does help.
It's the same with guns really.
> I don't have a problem with law abiding responsible people using guns
Neither do i, but you simply can't guarantee that the less responsible won't get
them.
> Look we have rights in this country wether you like it or
*s*Oh, i like freedom and rights, but my first concern would be my right to
live,
which imo has been denied to too many by 2 free people.
> not....americans were never ment to live in a room with padded walls
> and wearing straight jackets.
It's a shame for some, they really should, but I know you prefer to give them
the opportunity to grab some guns, go to school, blow some people away and then
shoot themselves.Yes, that sounds much nicer then putting them in a padded
room.....
> You don't and never will. Its differant cultures.
Probably we value life more than anything, I guess you value the right to carry
a gun more.
Jonnie
> I'll say it over and over again, guns are NOT the problem.
IMO, they are a large part of the problem.
> Places where citizens are allowed to carry guns openly have less crime overall
> then
> places where guns are banned.
Maybe in America, but not when you compare America to Europe.
> If you want to lay blame lay it on the
> parents for not bringing their children up correctly. And no, no one can
> say that the parents are not partially if not fully to blame.
True, and the school failed as well.
> As far as guns are concerned, no matter how many laws ban them the criminals
> still
> have them.
Yep, they will always have them, but won't be 'forced' to use them.
> --
> "Beware of the green eyed Enchantress, she'll sing you songs of wonder
> but freedom is the price you pay. She's fire and ice, mystery and
> adventure, love and hate, compassion and torturous pain. Sadistic yet
> sweet, loving and kind, the kind of woman who will blow your mind. All
> your dreams in her you'll find, yet once you love your doomed for all
> time." - ~Immortal-Dawn-Rose~
--
Jonnie
> Of *course* you have! That's why your English brothers across the
> Channel are picking nails out of their faces, and Manchester hijackers
> are using "... Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle..." to shoot up six
> people, including three senior citizens. Very civilized.
And how often do incidents like this happen in Europe?
> Now get back to watering your tulips.
*s*Hey, good one...
Jonnie
> We are still the country e Tocqueville saw. Just becuase 2 kids go
> and shoot up a school doesnt mean that all the kids are bad or the
> country is going to hell.
I've never claimed that, i don't even blame this wholely on guns, IMO the
parents and the school have failed.
> Schools have less violence overall.
Compared to what/where?
Jonnie
> Are you saying that "self-defense" is not a valid use for a firearm?
Yep.IMO If you kill in self defense you're still a murderer.
Lets try this scenario.
You're a criminal and you have a gun.
You're breaking into a house knowing that the owner has a gun and is asleep in
the bedroom.
You sneak into the bedroom and he wakes, would you kill him or let him kill you?
Now the same scenario, but now you know the owner doesn't have a gun
would you still kill him, or just threaten him?
if you're a normal human being you'd probably make the same decisions i would
and not having a gun, would've saved the man's life.
del Valles
Jonnie wrote in message <371F1872...@twi.tudelft.nl>...
>Andrew Manore wrote:
>
>> I believe our "gun culture" has it's roots in the men who signed
>> the Declaration of Independence, fought the Revolutionary War,
>> and wrote our Constitution.
>
>Yep, it does.
>
>> These men saw what happened when a
>> government held the monopoly on force after civilians had been
>> disarmed.
>
>You're forgetting that the present is very different from that time.
True, but the clinton government still seeks to obtain
a monopoly on force and has excused slaughter of
citizens with that force -- the Waco raid and subsequent
massacre being but one example. So, in terms of what
matters when comparing past and present on this
issue -- the present isn't so different.
>> People also use them to save lives, as well as deter those who
>> would do them harm. This is proven fact.
>
>"Deter those who would do them harm"....funny statement. And how
>do you think we manage in Holland and any other country that doesn't
>allow it's citizens to carry arms?
The Red Army Faction terrorists get away with killing. The
Dutch "manage" by burying the dead.
You're blanking out differences in the cultures of the US
and the Netherlands.
>> "More laws are the answer!", you say?
>
>Not to prevent things like this no.
Correct. This incident occurred in the clinton Brady Bill
Utopia. But that's a fact the apologists for disarming
peaceful people blank out of their minds and struggle
to keep from the public's attention.
---
Self government won't work without
self discipline.
Paul Harvey
Zepp
wrote:
>simon_thopson wrote:
>>
>> >The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
>> >those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
>> >a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
>>
Before you get too impressed with Dwhines' courage (assuming you were
considering such an idiocy) I'll point out that he's a coward to
propagandizes the liberal groups on the net, but killfilles dissenting
opinions. He can dish it out, but he can't take it.
In short, the sort who NEEDS a gun to deal with his social problems.
>Cordially,
>
>Duane K. Kelly
jerry
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
>wrote:
>
>>brian wrote:
>>>
>>> Orcrist wrote:
>>>
>>> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
>>> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
>>> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
>>> > three years ago.
>>>
>>> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
>>
>> It's true.
>>Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
>>new law they make.
>
>There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
>that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
>exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
>guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
>
actually the 2nd amendment says the government can regulate the
militia's...it says nothing about regulating the guns...
jerry
wrote:
>Jonnie wrote:
That was great....best part was the cordially...
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
>
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
wrote:
>
> It's true.
> Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
> new law they make.
>
Some estimates place the total number at over 26,000.
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:50:28 GMT, ze...@snowcrest.net (zepp, a weasel)
wrote:
>
> There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
> that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
> exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
> guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
>
(A) The word is "supersede."
(B) ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. The phrase that appears in the 2nd "Amendment"
is "A well-regulated militia....."
Please look up what "regulated" meant at the time that was written. The
terminology and context specifically refer to WELL-TRAINED and WELL-EQUIPPED,
not to "regulation" in the modern sense.
Further, this matter was explained in detail in Title 10, Section 311, of
the U.S. Code, which clearly differentiated between the "organized" militia,
i.e. the military reserves which report to politicians, and the "UNorganized"
militia, which is "all able-bodied males above the age of 17." I.e. you,
me, and everyone else, whether we have silly "militia" uniforms or not;
the law of our land *presumes* that we will have the interest and the capacity
to help defend and keep our communities safe, not to mention our own homes
and property.
Note, lastly, that the "Well-regulated militia" phrase is used as an exemplar,
and *not* as a sole justification for RKBA, and that it follows with "the
right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Since the other nine parts of the Bill Of Rights make it clear that the term
"people" refers to *everyone*, it is hardly defensible that in the 2nd, it
refers only to members of some militia "organization."
Historically, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with this stance, by the way.
In <372141cf...@news.itol.com> ever...@itol.com writes:
>
> actually the 2nd amendment says the government can regulate the
> militia's...it says nothing about regulating the guns...
>
Well, since the U.S. Code clarification, the government ( actually, the
governors of the states command the various reserves and national guard
units, I think, but don't quote me on that ) "regulates" *only* the
"organized" militias, the military reserves.
If you're over 17, you're a member of the Militia, whether you own a
rifle or not; U.S. law just sort of presumes that you'll recognize
your responsibility and fulfill it at need.
Johnny Rhyne
zepp, a weasel <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in article
<372105f9...@news.snowcrest.net>...
> On 23 Apr 1999 17:15:12 GMT, w...@aix1.ucok.edu (Bill Stockwell) wrote:
>
> >zepp, a weasel (ze...@snowcrest.net) wrote:
> >: On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
> >: wrote:
> >
> >: >brian wrote:
> >: >>
> >: >> Orcrist wrote:
> >: >>
> >: >> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this
should be
> >: >> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the
Bastards
> >: >> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver
some
> >: >> > three years ago.
> >: >>
> >: >> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
> >: >
> >: > It's true.
> >: >Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
> >: >new law they make.
> >
> >: There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
> >: that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
> >: exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
> >: guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
> >
> >No, the federal government has a constitutional REQUIREMENT to not
infringe
> >on the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear arms.
>
> IF and only IF they are members of a "well-regulated militia".
Guess what? The people are the Militia.
That
> give government not only the right to regulate guns, but the
> obligation.
What part of "....shall not be infringed?" do you not understand?
And it gives them the right to determine who qualifies to
> own an arm.
Like No Juden(Jews). No Blacks. No Right Wing Wackos. No one who dosen't
work for the govenment.
Like that?
Self-Defense is an inherant right. It cannot be taken away by any
government.
> >And a federal judge agrees!
> >See www.nraila.org/emerson.html
> >to learn more.
> >
> >
> >: **********************************************************
> >: http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
> >
> >: Also mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
> >: http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
> >: http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
> >: http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
> >: http://resurgent.virtualave.net
> >:
> >: Warning: Contains ideas
> >: ************************************************************
> >
> >: Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> >
> >--
> >Bill Stockwell: Department of Computing Science, University of Central
Oklahoma
> > <http://www.comsc.ucok.edu/~stockwel/>
> >"Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Society is safer when criminals
don't know
> >who is armed."
>
audrey
<8B4FB52C77B7586E.0B5B5E1F...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
audrey wrote in message <01be8cb5$8839a140$b2aa15a5@default>...
> >The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
> >those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
> >a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
while > is fooling themselves.
> But let's make sure to blame everyone who DIDN't have contact with these
> looney-tunes on a daily basis yet who did NOTHING about it.
Moral of the story?
Being unwanted and alone can cause you to lose your sanity and life.
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Hugs and kisses, Audrey
******************************
Flying high in the sky
******************************
brian
> There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
> that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
> exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
> guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
Actually, I think you should go read the second amendment again.
It doesnt give the government any rights, nor do any of the 10
amendments in the bill of rights.
They either enumerate rights of the people, or limit the power of the
government.
--
Reach me by ICQ. My ICQ# is 12100719 or,
Brian
My Email address is anti-spam encoded.
Remove the 2 if you see it.
brian
> > Uh, what "simple set of Fed laws that supersede" do YOU propose
> >should be enacted?
>
> Registration of all weapons.
Illegal under federal law.
> Two years' militia service training in
Not allowed under the US constitution.
> order to have the right to own a weapon.
Also not allowed under the constitution.
The second amendment makes no distinction of who can or cannot own
firearms. We (the NRA) and millions like us helped create the laws that
make it illegal for convicted felons and certain other people to own
them. These laws have been supported as constitutionally allowed but the
US Supreme Court.
> Laws detailing
> responsibility of ownership, including mandated reporting of sales or
> theft.
Already exist.
> Limits on muzzle velocities, weight of projectiles, range, rate of
> fire, and size of clip for public use.
And this will accomplish nothing.
How long has cocaine been illegal in the US?
And if you wanted some, how long would it take to get some?
> > Why do want more laws that will not, CAN not be enforced anyway?
>
> It would replace the "24,000 laws" you were whining about.
And if those laws, or even a fraction of them were enforced, we would
all be safer.
Do you know how many prosecutions there have been of people alleged to
have violated the 'brady' law?
Chicken willie (clintoon) likes to throw around big 7 or 8 digit numbers
of 'felons' who have been prevented from buying guns. He doesnt tell you
that more than 75% of those are wrongfull denials that are overturned on
revue.
And the number of people prosecuted for alleged violation of the brady
law has just recently (after how many years?) hit a grand total of ten.
Not ten per state, not ten thousand, just ten. The number between nine
and eleven. Do like the NRA (that you like to denounce without knowing
what you are talking about) says, and enforce the laws that already
exist. Do like a city in virginia (richmond I think) did and try the NRA
sponsored program called "Project Exile". After a year of this program,
gun related crime in the city dropped more than 60%. So successfull that
Phila. Pa. has just adopted it.
> > Don't you realize that the more "you" personally want as
> >evidenced above, creates more of the same while you and others
> >ignore the true causes and effects?
>
> Nope. But I do know that I can have an opinion and a goal without
> your permission.
>
> > Don't be so dammed selfish and blind, Sir.
>
> Me? I'm not the one who has to feel defensive about those dead kids
> in Colorado, my friend.
>
> > Don't swallow the crap being offered to you that says that guns
> >were the problem or the cause of this catastrophy in Colorado.
>
> You'll be pleased to know that you are one of 9% of the population who
> don't believe gun availablity played a role in that tradegy.
And where did you get the '9%' figure?
No such poll has been done.
> > I see that you also failed to comment on the mind set of these
> >to rather obviously brain "damaged-goods" fools who had a thought
> >that infamy was better then life, while at the same time you
> >think it's best to regulate or ban guns, the internet, music, TV,
> >hardware(pipes), and propane tanks.
>
> I'll settle for regulating guns.
Then you can also settle for the higher crime that (at least in the US)
follows on the heels of more laws that only affect the law abiding.
> We're way overdue for that. The
> second amendment mandates regulation of guns.
Not according to the founding fathers of this country or the US Supreme
Court.
> > What gives?
>
> It's the end of the NRA and gunloonery. That's what gives.
Why are you so opposed to an organization that supported and in many
cases created and helped pass laws that in many states are causing
drastic reduction in violent crime?
brian
> It doesn't go on to say, "Oh, and by the way, any undisciplined,
> paranoid, drunken yahoo who wants an arsenal can have one, too."
> Until it does, you unregulated types with all the big guns are
> violating the constitution.
Part of this is a new tack, that those of us who do what the
constitution and the writers thereof said their intentions were (go read
the federalist papers)
The rest is the standard left-wing tactic of demonizing those you
disagree with.
Jonnie
> Of course. Our violent crime rate was nowhere *near* as high
> as it is today, despite the fact that guns were more readily
> available.
And I can see why they would be needed for.
> It's true. One study by Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State
> University put the exact number of defensive firearm usage as
> high as 1-2.5 million.
Goodie....
> Holland isn't the United States, so I wouldn't know how you
> people deal with crime. However, I assume that rape, murder
> and robbery victims (unless physically strong or talented,
> are pretty much S.O.L. until the police arrive.
Yep, but not shot.Over here killing a burglar would be seen as murder or
manslaughter at least.
> Now shall I point out how many laws were broken in regard
> to guns?
Not really necessary, I know they broke many.What i have a problem with though
is that it's so easy to gain access to a gun in America.
> Then prove it.
Guns are given to people without proper checking if the people are mentally
stable enough and THAT is what i have a problem with.I know that people that can
deal with guns won't do those things. My parents used to have a shooting gallery
(we still do actually, but don't work in it anymore), but it's the ones that
have guns and go wacko that frighten me.
> If the "Guns cause crime!" rhetoric holds true, our streets should
> have been flowing with blood in the 40's, 50's and early 60's. Why
> weren't they?
Morals, parents attention.........the things which a lot of kids (and parents)
nowadays lack.But arming citizens causes criminals to want/need bigger
guns....it's a downward spiral.
> Because that is not the truth. Gun availability is not the root
> of the actual problem. Blaming the availability of guns for all
> violent crime in the United States is either extremely ill-informed
> at best, dishonest at worst.
It may not be the root, but it is a big part of the problem.IMO the root is the
lack of attention for their kids from the parents, but if they didn't have
access to guns they would never have been able to do something like this.
Hey, teenagers in Holland suffer the same problems, but we've never had anything
like this happen, and why do you think is that?
> Observe: Jamaica, Colombia, South Africa. All have strict gun
> control laws. Their violent crime rates are *way* higher than
> that of the U.S.
*lol*Now that's your average crime rate countries.
Why don't you compare the American crime rates to say the ones of Holland,
England and Spain......
> What seems to be the real problem is the decay of basic morals
> and values in our culture. This is infinitely more responsible
> for crime than guns ever have been.
To an extent i agree.
> "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns":
> http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf
>
> (It's in Adobe PDF format.)
*friendly smile*i know, it says so in the link.
brian
> Duh!And how hard do you think it is for kids that want them to gain access?
Thats the fault of the gun owner for not securing it properly.
> > Because strangely enough, in those cities and states that allow law
> > abiding people to own and carry, the crime rate is leading the decline
> > in the overall national crime rate.
> > At the same time, in the cities and states that make it hard or
> > impossible for the law abiding to own and carry, the crime rate is in
> > all but one or two cases still rising.
>
> Because state borders don't really stop them from buying a gun in one state and
> using it in another...
Then, by the logic that you are using, that availability of guns
increases the crime rate, why is the crime rate **FALLING** in states
where the guns are available?
Do you see the gaping hole in your logic?
> > There are several programs that have nothing to do with disarming the
> > law abiding, that are resulting in lower crime rates everywhere they are
> > tried.
> > Just look at Florida after they passed 'shall issue' carry permits.
> > Since then their violent crime rates have dropped more than 40%.
>
> Sure, there are more that one ways to lower the crime rate, but stuff like this
> happening is something that you simply cannot prevent.
> Even allowing teachers to carry in class (which would really scare me) won't
> prevent this, it'll only bring back the old wild west days.
The 'wild west' arguement has been used since before you were born to
try to scare the uninformed. It is discredited over and over again all
over the country.
__
Jonnie
> Could it be that your kids arn't smart enought to out smart anyone,
> therefore just programmed what the believe?
My kids?Hmm...I'm a bit too young to have kids.
And no, it's got nothing to do with outsmarting anyone, we simply don't have
many guns in this country.
And what do you mean by "therefore just programmed what the believe?"
> Your idea that lack of arms prevents this behavior is pure unadulterated Bull
> Shit.
Well, it seems to work on this side of the ocean, so maybe it's not that much
bullshit after all.
> BTW, if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the
> "father" was unarmed, and the rapist, and murder was armed, that killed
> the father wife and enslaved his daughter.
Then why did he kill anyway?Over here, despite our very low penalties criminals
hardly ever kill.
> Or is reading and
> comprehension something they do not teach any longer over there, just
> how to be politically correct.
Hardly.
> Your opinion on how we should live is still not welcome here.
Bad luck.Us Europeans have as much rights to an opinion as you do.
> If your
> was was so damn great,
my what?
> then how come is it that in two World Wars, it
> took less than a week for your country to be over ran, and TWICE, we
> rebellious Yankees, the savages that we are bailed you and the rest of
> Europe out.
Firstly we remained neutral during the first world war and America only got
involved because the germans sank the Lusitania.Secondly yes, we were overrun in
less then a week, hardly a surprise considering the state and absolute numbers
of the armies involved. and once again America was only involved because Germany
declared war on America.
> Now you try to tell us how to live?
Nope, i'm just stating my opinion.
> I guess the reason Germany was so successful was because of your roll
> over and play dead tactics you so kindly demonstrated above.
*lol*
> So you can take your self-righteous pompous ass and keep you nose out of our
> business, and political affairs.
Why?1) Usenet isn't yours, I'm on it, deal with it.
2) Does America have the monopoly on intervening and telling other countries how
to act/behave?
3) If you can't deal with some one having a different opinion, well it's really
your problem isn't it.
> Cordially,
>
> Duane K. Kelly
Lee E. Brown
zepp, a weasel wrote in message <3721041f...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >brian wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Orcrist wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
>>> >> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
>>> >> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
>>> >> > three years ago.
>>> >>
>>> >> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
>>> >
>>> > It's true.
>>> >Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
>>> >new law they make.
>>>
>>> that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
>>> exist. The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
>>> guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
>>
>>should be enacted?
>
>Registration of all weapons.
How will this aid in reducing crime?
>Two years' militia service training in
>order to have the right to own a weapon.
Why? What point will this serve?
> Laws detailing
>responsibility of ownership, including mandated reporting of sales or
>theft.
And the details would be what, exactly?
>Limits on muzzle velocities, weight of projectiles, range, rate of
>fire, and size of clip for public use.
And these limits would be... What exactly?
>> Why do want more laws that will not, CAN not be enforced anyway?
>
>It would replace the "24,000 laws" you were whining about.
What a noble goal! How about "will it have any measurable effect on crime?" or
other *actual* criteria?
>> Don't you realize that the more "you" personally want as
>>evidenced above, creates more of the same while you and others
>>ignore the true causes and effects?
>
>Nope. But I do know that I can have an opinion and a goal without
>your permission.
I also hope you know that an opinion is not the same thing as a fact. Opinions
are generally not required to have any basis in reality.
>> Don't be so dammed selfish and blind, Sir.
>
>Me? I'm not the one who has to feel defensive about those dead kids
>in Colorado, my friend.
Neither do any of us. That was a pretty lame thing to say, even for you.
>> Don't swallow the crap being offered to you that says that guns
>>were the problem or the cause of this catastrophy in Colorado.
>
>You'll be pleased to know that you are one of 9% of the population who
>don't believe gun availablity played a role in that tradegy.
YOu mean the population that is being bombarded non-stop with lies from the
media, like the "proliferation" of guns and the "easier access nowdays?" *THAT*
public?
>> I see that you also failed to comment on the mind set of these
>>to rather obviously brain "damaged-goods" fools who had a thought
>>that infamy was better then life, while at the same time you
>>think it's best to regulate or ban guns, the internet, music, TV,
>>hardware(pipes), and propane tanks.
>
>I'll settle for regulating guns. We're way overdue for that. The
>second amendment mandates regulation of guns.
Stil waiting for you to point out exactly *where* it does that. Can you show
us?
>> What gives?
>It's the end of the NRA and gunloonery. That's what gives.
Yeah, right. We'll see. Provided you don't go and "pull a Kangas" on us in the
meantime.
Lee E. Brown
zepp, a weasel wrote in message <372105f9...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>IF and only IF they are members of a "well-regulated militia". That
>give government not only the right to regulate guns, but the
>obligation. And it gives them the right to determine who qualifies to
>own an arm.
Zepp clearly has no idea of what the phrase "well-regulated" actually means.
(HINT: Try the OED. That's the Oxford English Dictionary. It's a big book
with lots of words in it.)
Lee E. Brown
zepp, a weasel wrote in message <3721063d...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:05:03 -0400, "Lee E. Brown"
><leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>zepp, a weasel wrote in message <3720a47b...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>>
>>>There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
>>>that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
>>>exist.
>>
>>which the killers flagrantly violated.
>
>Tell us what they are.
>>
>>Got another plan?
>>
>I'll wait for you to back up your latest ridiculous assertion first.
You have to be over 18 to purchase or be in posession of any long arm.
Did they break that one? YUP!
You have to be over 21 to purchase or be in posession of any handgun.
Did they break that one? YUP!
It is illegal to be in posession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school
Did they break that one? YUP!
Shall I continue, or are you feeling sufficiently stupid?
>>>The federal goverment has the constitutional right to regulate
>>>guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
>>
>>
>>Care to show the reasoning behind that one?
>
>It's called the second amendment. Who do you think is empowered to
>regulate that militia that is to have the arms?
First, it is "the people" who are to have the arms. Second, "shall not be
infringed" means exactly that.
Zepp, the best thing you could do for your cause is to shut up and sit down....
brian
> Because you simply want to blow them away.
That is another of your rediculous statements.
> You want to defend yourselves by
> killing those that 'threaten' you, your family or your property, but in doing so
> you yourself will become a murderer plain as that.
So, we should lay down and die so the criminal can do what he wants?
And according to law in the US, using deadly force to defend yourself,
your family and in most places your property or other innocent victims
is not murder.
> > Because there is nothing there to see.
>
> *sigh*
Instead of trying to look arrogant, how about telling us what you think
there is to see, and backing it up with a fact or two if you can.
> > Why do you omit self-defense? That is, after all, the primary reason we
> > seek "legal permission" to carry arms routinely.
>
> I'm not omitting it, but it's a plain fact that too many people can't deal with
> guns.
So, All should suffer because of a few?
> Correct, but you can never prevent things like what happened at this high school
> and it'ssure to happen again, since it's so easy to gain access to weapons in
> America.
Again, can you support your claim that the two are related?
--
Lee E. Brown
zepp, a weasel wrote in message <37210681...@news.snowcrest.net>...
>"Well-regulated" means training, discipline, and arms.
No it doesn't, go check the OED if you disbelieve.
>It doesn't go on to say, "Oh, and by the way, any undisciplined,
>paranoid, drunken yahoo who wants an arsenal can have one, too."
>Until it does, you unregulated types with all the big guns are
>violating the constitution.
Zepp, you could at least try to use the correct words.
An ARSENAL is a place where weapons are MANUFACTURED. An ARMORY is a place
where weapons are STORED.
It says "the people," Zepp, in spite of your arm waving nonsense.
Lee E. Brown
Zepp wrote in message <37213301....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>In short, the sort who NEEDS a gun to deal with his social problems.
You're projecting again, Zepp.
brian
>
> >The most chilling part is that the gunmen were laughing whilst shooting
> >those people. One of them looked at the girl under the table, said "Peek
> >a boo" and shot her in the neck. Bloody bastards.
>
> anybody who hasn't got the nerve to stand up and face his opponents isn't
> worth anything, and would be considered bent, especially if they needed to
> use a weapon. It's seen as a matter of honour that you can stand up and
> fight with your fists if necessary, most people I know would prefer to take
> one hell of a beating rather than degrade themselves by using a weapon on
> their opponent. I think this probably sounds brutal but it's better than the
> Yank way at least in our part of the world all you get is a couple of
> cracked knuckles and a bloody nose.
> And as for being violent towards girls... you wouldn't dare. You would
> immediately get kicked all over by the nearest lad plus you would probably
> be disowned for a while by your mates.
Ah yes, its a utopia there.
No crime, no murder, no rape...
Stop me when I start to stray from the truth please...
Lee E. Brown
Jonnie wrote in message <3720EA39...@twi.tudelft.nl>...
>Lee E. Brown wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that "self-defense" is not a valid use for a firearm?
>
>Yep.IMO If you kill in self defense you're still a murderer.
>
>Lets try this scenario.
>
>You're a criminal and you have a gun.
>You're breaking into a house knowing that the owner has a gun and is asleep in
>the bedroom.
>You sneak into the bedroom and he wakes, would you kill him or let him kill
you?
>
>Now the same scenario, but now you know the owner doesn't have a gun
>would you still kill him, or just threaten him?
>
>if you're a normal human being you'd probably make the same decisions i would
>and not having a gun, would've saved the man's life.
In other words, you're willing to bet you life on the honor of thieves. What an
outstanding plan!
Unfortunately, your Gedanken experiment simply doesn't work out in reality. The
rates for "Hot " burglaries (that is, burglaries comitted when the occupants are
at home) are at their lowest in areas where gun ownership is highest. Criminals
aren't completely stupid!
Duane K. Kelly
>
> Duane K. Kelly wrote:
>
> > Could it be that your kids arn't smart enought to out smart anyone,
> > therefore just programmed what the believe?
>
> My kids?Hmm...I'm a bit too young to have kids.
> And no, it's got nothing to do with outsmarting anyone, we simply don't have
> many guns in this country.
> And what do you mean by "therefore just programmed what the believe?"
So little boy, how long have you been in this big world that makes you
such an authority? Wet behind the ears and so damn smart your ass is
showing and you do not even have the brains to realize it.
> > Your idea that lack of arms prevents this behavior is pure unadulterated Bull
> > Shit.
>
> Well, it seems to work on this side of the ocean, so maybe it's not that much
> bullshit after all.
Yep, your ideas work so well that a small country like Germany can walk
all over the whole damn content of Europe in a matter of a few short
months. Damn that's good, especially when it is those of us you choose
to lambast that bailed your damn pompous asses out of the mess your
passiveness got you in to begin with.
> > BTW, if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the
> > "father" was unarmed, and the rapist, and murder was armed, that killed
> > the father wife and enslaved his daughter.
>
> Then why did he kill anyway?Over here, despite our very low penalties criminals
> hardly ever kill.
One does not need a motive to kill, only the desire and will to carry it
out. The motive is just an excuse, not a reason.
> > Or is reading and
> > comprehension something they do not teach any longer over there, just
> > how to be politically correct.
>
> Hardly.
That is just what I thought, reading and comprehension is not one of
your topics of understanding... it must have something to do with the
aristocratic rule that keep the poor from excelling, and as an excuse,
you keep the doped to the gills so they don't realize they are
considered low class that is not bright enough to be educated, therefore
never given the opportunity. That's right people, Sweden is still a
country where if you are born a peasant, you have no chance of going to
college, just a trade school. Now if you are Middle or upper class, the
state will pay for the college education. Yep, they keep their people in
place, and make them step in time, and walk the line, and by allowing
them to say fuck on national TV, and smoke a joint when ever they have
them all convinced that they are free.
> > Your opinion on how we should live is still not welcome here.
>
> Bad luck.Us Europeans have as much rights to an opinion as you do.
>
> > If your [note: jonnie has learned how to use the cut features of his computer, and the reason three whole paragraphs are missing here, typical for a self-righteous pompous ass hole that can't face the truth, so they have to censor it]
> > was was so damn great,
>
> my what?
Your self-rightious pompus ass as you have proven again.
> > then how come is it that in two World Wars, it
> > took less than a week for your country to be over ran, and TWICE, we
> > rebellious Yankees, the savages that we are bailed you and the rest of
> > Europe out.
>
> Firstly we remained neutral during the first world war and America only got
> involved because the germans sank the Lusitania.Secondly yes, we were overrun in
> less then a week, hardly a surprise considering the state and absolute numbers
> of the armies involved. and once again America was only involved because Germany
> declared war on America.
Yep, and we still bailed your self-righteous pompous asses out of a
sling, and the reason your not speaking German today.
> > Now you try to tell us how to live?
>
> Nope, i'm just stating my opinion.
Like I said, if we had wanted your damn opinion we would not have left
and move over here to get away from it to begin with. So shut up little
boy, and listen for a change, it keeps your ass from showing so bad.
> > I guess the reason Germany was so successful was because of your roll
> > over and play dead tactics you so kindly demonstrated above.
>
> *lol*
Interesting that you would laugh about being over-run in a weeks time
because passiveness is your way of life. You haven't the guts to stand
up and fight, just run and hide, then ridicule the same people that
bailed your asses out. I see your not to smart either, as I pointed out
in my first post. Not only are your kids stupid, but your one of those
stupid kids that edit anothers post and then laugh becouse you were not
able to defend yourself.
> > So you can take your self-righteous pompous ass and keep you nose out of our
> > business, and political affairs.
>
> Why?1) Usenet isn't yours, I'm on it, deal with it.
> 2) Does America have the monopoly on intervening and telling other countries how
> to act/behave?
> 3) If you can't deal with some one having a different opinion, well it's really
> your problem isn't it.
4) Little boys that are still wet behind the ears should be listening,
not showing their ass and speaking out of turn.
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
Duane K. Kelly
<begin excerpt>
Jonnie wrote:
>
> __Legion__ wrote:
>
> > First off, let me say that I think you're an idiot.
>
> Thank you, now i sure have a high opinion of you.....
>
> > No it's not.
> > We are still the same americans.
>
> Are you that old?
>
> > We are still living on the same
> > ground. ANd we are facing the very same perils the settlers did.
>
> Really?Indian raids? wild animals?
>
> > Nothing has happened (that I've heard of) -- yet.
>
> Over here?Plenty happens, far too much for my liking actually.
> But never ever something like what happened over there, simply because kids
> can't get weapons that easily over here.
Could it be that your kids arn't smart enought to out smart anyone,
therefore just programmed what the believe?
> > But if it does.. And the military fails.. the citizenry better tuck their
the unarmed employees in the back of the head. Your idea that lack of
arms prevents this behavior is pure unadulterated Bull Shit.
BTW, if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the
"father" was unarmed, and the rapist, and murder was armed, that killed
the father wife and enslaved his daughter. Or is reading and
comprehension something they do not teach any longer over there, just
how to be politically correct.
> > If we take the guns out of the hands of lawful citizens, the only
Your opinion on how we should live is still not welcome here. If your
was was so damn great, then how come is it that in two World Wars, it
took less than a week for your country to be over ran, and TWICE, we
rebellious Yankees, the savages that we are bailed you and the rest of
Europe out. Now you try to tell us how to live?
I guess the reason Germany was so successful was because of your roll
over and play dead tactics you so kindly demonstrated above. So you can
take your self-righteous pompous ass and keep you nose out of our
business, and political affairs.
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
<end excerpt>
Ended up looking like this:
Jonnie wrote:
>
> Duane K. Kelly wrote:
>
> > Could it be that your kids arn't smart enought to out smart anyone,
> > therefore just programmed what the believe?
>
> My kids?Hmm...I'm a bit too young to have kids.
> And no, it's got nothing to do with outsmarting anyone, we simply don't have
> many guns in this country.
> And what do you mean by "therefore just programmed what the believe?"
>
> > Your idea that lack of arms prevents this behavior is pure unadulterated Bull
> > Shit.
>
> Well, it seems to work on this side of the ocean, so maybe it's not that much
> bullshit after all.
>
> > BTW, if you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the
> > "father" was unarmed, and the rapist, and murder was armed, that killed
> > the father wife and enslaved his daughter.
>
> Then why did he kill anyway?Over here, despite our very low penalties criminals
> hardly ever kill.
>
> > Or is reading and
> > comprehension something they do not teach any longer over there, just
> > how to be politically correct.
>
> Hardly.
>
> > Your opinion on how we should live is still not welcome here.
>
> Bad luck.Us Europeans have as much rights to an opinion as you do.
>
> > If your
> > was was so damn great,
>
> my what?
>
> > then how come is it that in two World Wars, it
> > took less than a week for your country to be over ran, and TWICE, we
> > rebellious Yankees, the savages that we are bailed you and the rest of
> > Europe out.
>
> Firstly we remained neutral during the first world war and America only got
> involved because the germans sank the Lusitania.Secondly yes, we were overrun in
> less then a week, hardly a surprise considering the state and absolute numbers
> of the armies involved. and once again America was only involved because Germany
> declared war on America.
>
> > Now you try to tell us how to live?
>
> Nope, i'm just stating my opinion.
>
> > I guess the reason Germany was so successful was because of your roll
> > over and play dead tactics you so kindly demonstrated above.
>
> *lol*
>
> > So you can take your self-righteous pompous ass and keep you nose out of our
> > business, and political affairs.
>
> Why?1) Usenet isn't yours, I'm on it, deal with it.
> 2) Does America have the monopoly on intervening and telling other countries how
> to act/behave?
> 3) If you can't deal with some one having a different opinion, well it's really
> your problem isn't it.
>
> > Cordially,
> >
> > Duane K. Kelly
>
> --
> a.k.a. Calis the Eagle of Krondor.
>
> 'Be afraid of him. Be very afraid. He is not what he seems. He is
> the Eagle of Krondor, and wise men keep out of sight when he flies above'
>
> ICQ:23751168
Could it be that little Jonnie is prone to lying, and editing ones post
by means of cut and paste, not to mention add words, and change the
words of the one he is replying to, words that did not exit in the post
in accordance to his choosing to which his replies, while ignoring the
fact that made his pompous little self-righteous ass look like the fool
he is?
Though so.
I do believe it is time Little Jonnie found himself in ever ones black
list as a lier, a fraud, and as well as a mere TROLL.
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
Chance
<snip>
> Could it be that little Jonnie is prone to lying, and editing ones post
> by means of cut and paste, not to mention add words, and change the
> words of the one he is replying to, words that did not exit in the post
> in accordance to his choosing to which his replies, while ignoring the
> fact that made his pompous little self-righteous ass look like the fool
> he is?
I don't know about you, but I learned in elementary or middle school
that you're not supposed to use run-on sentences. Chaucer may have gone
for lines and lines without ending his sentences, but there's no need
for you to try to imitate him. When a sentence is that long, the point
gets lost.
It's proper netiquette to cut out pieces of a post to which you aren't
responding, in the interest of making posts smaller and easier to read.
What words were changed or added? I, nor anyone else, has the time it
would take to compare those posts word-for-word. If you want to make
accusations like that, give SPECIFIC examples, don't repost the entire
thing and expect people to search for them.
If _anyone_ is a pompous self-righteous ass, it's you:
"Could it be that your kids arn't smart enought to out smart anyone,
therefore just programmed what the believe?" [sic]
"So little boy, how long have you been in this big world that makes you
such an authority? Wet behind the ears and so damn smart your ass is
showing and you do not even have the brains to realize it."
"That is just what I thought, reading and comprehension is not one of
your topics of understanding... it must have something to do with the
aristocratic rule that keep the poor from excelling..."
ETC., ETC.
It's f*ckheads like you that give all Americans a bad name. It's just
really too bad that *ssholes like yourself aren't prohibited from all
forms of interpersonal communication. The world would be a MUCH better
place.
I'll conclude by reposting a little excerpt from one of Jonnie's posts:
1) Usenet isn't yours, I'm on it, deal with it.
2) Does America have the monopoly on intervening and telling other
countries how to act/behave?
3) If you can't deal with some one having a different opinion, well
it's really your problem isn't it.
Pay special attention to #3, and say "Yes, I am an intolerant sh*thead.
I need to work on tolerating others' opinions, even if I don't agree
with them." The first step is admitting that you have a problem...
<snip>
> as well as a mere TROLL.
Not where he's posting from, he's not. I have no idea from which of the
crossposted groups you are posting, but where I'm at, "troll" would be
the label for YOU. Pipe down or go away. Preferably the latter.
-Chance
audrey
<37208...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
> Don't know if this is the culture difference or what, but in N. England
> anybody who hasn't got the nerve to stand up and face his opponents isn't
> worth anything, and would be considered bent, especially if they needed
to
> use a weapon. It's seen as a matter of honour that you can stand up and
take
> one hell of a beating rather than degrade themselves by using a weapon on
> their opponent. I think this probably sounds brutal but it's better than
the
> Yank way at least in our part of the world all you get is a couple of
> cracked knuckles and a bloody nose.
It works the same way here. But it's also because we have absolutely no
access to any weapon (besides knives, which not many of us know how
to use anyway).
> And as for being violent towards girls... you wouldn't dare. You would
> immediately get kicked all over by the nearest lad plus you would
probably
> be disowned for a while by your mates.
A guy would get killed if he dares lay a finger on a girl here. Everyone
around him, including the girls, would never let him go.
We girls fight amongst ourselves a lot too. Sometimes, we're more violent
than the guys. But the baseline is, we don't use weapons.
audrey
<9667190FA0D5773A.57138B24...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
> Wow! What a violent society you live in!
Violence is about the only way you can survive. But there's a limit to it.
Robert Frenchu
>Robert Frenchu wrote:
>
>> Of *course* you have! That's why your English brothers across the
>> Channel are picking nails out of their faces, and Manchester hijackers
>> are using "... Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle..." to shoot up six
>> people, including three senior citizens. Very civilized.
>
>And how often do incidents like this happen in Europe?
I don't know. Does the degree of civilization directly correspond with
the frequency of these events?
_________________________________________
"... Adolph Hitler had a few good ideas..."
ex-ATF Agent Jim Moore 4/23/99
Jonnie
> About as hard as it is for criminals in those countries that have
> extremely strict gun control laws - not at all.
True.But at least here everybody that has a gun IS a criminal and can be
apprehended.
> Then why, if Virginia is awash in guns and Maryland and DC have strict
> controls, are the crime and homicide rates so much lower in Virginia?
> After all, the firearms are much MORE available in Virginia, aren't
> they?
I'm not talking about states, but about the whole country.
> Not likely. The result would probably be much the same as it is for CCW
> everywhere else - when the nuts and crooks realize that THEY may be
> shot, they simply do not attempt that type of crime.
Nuts don't give a damn, and crooks will simply shoot first, just look around
you.
> There is no reason
> for you to assume that the same would not happen in schools.
Nope, the very thing i'm trying to say did happen...sadly.
Jonnie
> Thats the fault of the gun owner for not securing it properly.
Absolutely true.
> Then, by the logic that you are using, that availability of guns
> increases the crime rate, why is the crime rate **FALLING** in states
> where the guns are available?
I'll answer this with a question.If the availablility of guns decreases crime
rates, then why is it that in countries where guns are banned completely crime
rates are still lower then those in America.
> Do you see the gaping hole in your logic?
No, do you see it in yours?
> The 'wild west' arguement has been used since before you were born to
> try to scare the uninformed. It is discredited over and over again all
> over the country.
So you really think a criminal with a gun will run the moment he sees you have
one?if you do, you've never met one.
Jonnie
> I'm sorry, you are confusing the word 'civilized' with 'domesticated' in
> your pompous claims.
Hardly.
> The overwhelming majority of American gun owners are quite civilized: they
> don't use their weapons for murder or other crimes.
True.
> You also appear to have missed the point in the article by Lindsey-ONeal,
> since he was definitely not saying time had stood still in America.
When someone claims his country basically is the same as it was 200 or 300 years
ago,I'm very inclined to say that time stood still there.
> But I
> guess that would make it difficult for you to make your snotty
> pronouncements implying that Americans are barbarians.
Not really, if you value your guns more than the lives of teenagers you would be
barbarians by many people's definitions.
> --
> |Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
> |"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
> |her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
> |Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Jonnie
> Really. Is that why the violent crime rates are rising in most of those
> countries, while they are dropping in the US?
But dropping to a still much, much higher rate then in Europe.
> Note that gun control
> did NOT reduce violent crime in European countries. Those countries
> with strict gun control laws and low crime rates had low crime rates
> before the gun control laws.
I don't think guns were ever legal in Holland, but i'd say that not having so
many guns may have something to do with a lower (violent) crime rate.
> Gun control has never provably reduced violent crime rates.
And how much research has been done in that area?
Jonnie
> Where did you get this? Deadly force is justified, by law,
There's law and there's morals.
> when you
> reasonably believe that you or a loved one are in "imminent" danger of
> death or maiming. By "threatened," that is what is meant - in such
> imminent danger.
But imminent danger is very discussable, I saw a Jerry Springer show a few weeks
agoit had a guy from New York I believe on it he shot 4 teenagers in the subway,
because they asked him if he'd give them $5, he didn't like their smiles so he
shot them.
He felt threatened....they died or got put in a wheelchair for the rest of their
lives.
> And every other country. There is no country in the world where
> criminals can not obtain firearms.
True, criminals will always get them, but you will prevent a lot of 'incidents'
if they're not as available as they are in America.
Jonnie
> That is another of your rediculous statements.
Not really, there are more ways to deter someone that with a gun, that and the
fact that i doubt that an armed criminal would simply surrender when you grab
for your gun.
> So, we should lay down and die so the criminal can do what he wants?
Why would you die?Even with armed robberies fewer people die in Europe then in
America, why do you think is that?
The only difference i see is that criminals know the victims don't have a gun
and therefore aren't a thread to them.
> And according to law in the US, using deadly force to defend yourself,
> your family and in most places your property or other innocent victims
> is not murder.
killing a human being is still murder, legitimate or not.
> Instead of trying to look arrogant, how about telling us what you think
> there is to see, and backing it up with a fact or two if you can.
> > I'm not omitting it, but it's a plain fact that too many people can't deal
> with
> > guns.
>
> So, All should suffer because of a few?
That's pretty much how things work in life yes.Do you think drugs should be
legal?
> Again, can you support your claim that the two are related?
Weapons aren't that available in Holland (or Europe for that matter) and nothing
like this has ever happened.
Jonnie
> True, but the clinton government still seeks to obtain
> a monopoly on force and has excused slaughter of
> citizens with that force -- the Waco raid and subsequent
> massacre being but one example.
Euhmm..didn't they shoot a few policemen first ?I find it hard to believe that
you need guns to protect yourselves from your own government.
> The Red Army Faction terrorists get away with killing. The
> Dutch "manage" by burying the dead.
We do?And when exactly was the last time the R.A.F. killed in Holland?
But talking about burying the dead, it seems that it's all you can do now too,
so citizens carrying guns will never help with that.
> You're blanking out differences in the cultures of the US
> and the Netherlands.
And what exactly are those differences?
Panhead
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:35:10 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
> wrote:
> > Uh, what "simple set of Fed laws that supersede" do YOU propose
> >should be enacted?
>
> Registration of all weapons. Two years' militia service training in
> order to have the right to own a weapon.
I can get better training at the local gun club without cost to
the taxpayers.
And what about the handy capped that can't do the "militia
service training"?
They should be un armed?
And, registration won't solve a thing.
So that's not that simple and, not to smart.
> Laws detailing
> responsibility of ownership, including mandated reporting of sales or
> theft.
If you can get the crooks to do that, fine. I have already
proven my responsibility, in detail, with all the guns I own by
not abusing them or their use.
(but I still don't agree with forcing a free people to do
anything or cloud the system with more paperwork.) I also don't
want the Government to know every single thing I own or do.
I kinda bet that you don't either, really.
So that's not that simple and, "BIG BROTHER" not to smart.
>
> Limits on muzzle velocities, weight of projectiles, range, rate of
> fire, and size of clip for public use.
That's just silly. In other words you want to ban hunting,
right?
Clip or magazine capacity will also be futile. What would keep
anybody from just getting more clips? And as far as "rate of
fire" those laws are already on the books. Do you know how hard
it is to legally buy a fully automatic weapon?
So that's not that simple and, certainly not to smart.
>
> > Why do want more laws that will not, CAN not be enforced anyway?
>
> It would replace the "24,000 laws" you were whining about.
With the same things that simply can't work.
But let's just say you had your way. Would you get rid of the
other 23,999?
Hmmmmm.
> > Don't you realize that the more "you" personally want as
> >evidenced above, creates more of the same while you and others
> >ignore the true causes and effects?
>
> Nope. But I do know that I can have an opinion and a goal without
> your permission.
You sure can. I never said otherwise. And in all fairness, your
opinion varies greatly from mine as I consider yours wrong and
futile.
>
> > Don't be so dammed selfish and blind, Sir.
>
> Me? I'm not the one who has to feel defensive about those dead kids
> in Colorado, my friend.
Why are thinking I feel defensive? Just because you would like
to have more laws that do nothing but effect me personally when I
didn't have anything to do with it?
Perhaps you're right.
But I most certainly don't feel guilty about it though, either.
I feel saddened that that act of madness occurred. I feel even
sadder when to many people are trying to look the other way and
try to find a scapegoat in more gun control.
Did you hear what happened in FLA. and here in NJ just
yesterday? Over 10 different incidents causing several school
closings in NJ alone due to BOMB Threats and one kid blatantly
showing off his gun in class, in complete defiance because "They
thought what happened in Littleton was "kEwL"!"
So please tell me that limiting my ability to purchase whatever
I want is going to stop these MORONS that feel that copy catting
a serious crime is splendid.
The issue is not guns. Never has been and never will be unless
you and others make it one.
Silly!
>
> > Don't swallow the crap being offered to you that says that guns
> >were the problem or the cause of this catastrophy in Colorado.
>
> You'll be pleased to know that you are one of 9% of the population who
> don't believe gun availablity played a role in that tradegy.
Where did you get that figure? A CNN poll? <snicker> I truly bet
the % is a whole hell of a lot higher than that. Perhaps you left
the "0" off at the end?
>
> > I see that you also failed to comment on the mind set of these
> >to rather obviously brain "damaged-goods" fools who had a thought
> >that infamy was better then life, while at the same time you
> >think it's best to regulate or ban guns, the internet, music, TV,
> >hardware(pipes), and propane tanks.
> I'll settle for regulating guns. We're way overdue for that. The
> second amendment mandates regulation of guns.
That's what I figured. Ignoring the real problem as usual.
The next time it might just be nothing but bombs and you'll say
something like: "Why, there ought to be a law!"
> What gives?
>
> It's the end of the NRA and gunloonery. That's what gives.
Only in your dreams.
The NRA in schools (Eddie Eagle classes) could have prevented
this.
The only "gunloonery" are the liberals and grabbers.
Have fun, study hard.
David Veal
> On 23 Apr 1999 17:15:12 GMT, w...@aix1.ucok.edu (Bill Stockwell) wrote:
> >No, the federal government has a constitutional REQUIREMENT to not infringe
> >on the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear arms.
> IF and only IF they are members of a "well-regulated militia". That
> give government not only the right to regulate guns, but the
> obligation. And it gives them the right to determine who qualifies to
> own an arm.
In other words, the Second Amendment protects from infringement by
the Federal Government those people the Federal Government decide should
be allowed to bear arms.
Which is nonsense. The language is clearly very restrictive
regarding the government ("shall not be infringed"). If that language
applies only to the militia, then the government's ability to define the
militia must be limited in some way, else the restriction is completely
nonexistent.
Saying it protects a right that the government allows you to have is
the same as saying you're simply going to define the words so the law goes
away.
--
David Veal lv...@user.icx.net
Panhead
> >: On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 12:02:38 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
> >: wrote:
> >
> >: >brian wrote:
> >: >>
> >: >> Orcrist wrote:
> >: >>
> >: >> > You heard that and you don't know if is't true. I think this should be
> >: >> > an eye opener, else more people are gonna freak and Beat the Bastards
> >: >> > this way. Easy gun access would not have made my school saver some
> >: >> > three years ago.
> >: >>
> >: >> And all the gun control we have so far couldnt stop it.
> >: >
> >: > It's true.
> >: >Over 24 thousand(!!) laws so far and it's getting worse with each
> >: >new law they make.
> >
> >: that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
> >: guns under the second amendment, and should do so.
> >
> >on the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear arms.
>
> IF and only IF they are members of a "well-regulated militia".
Unless you're underage, you *are* the militia.
(Jeez Louise! I hope we don't have to go thru this again!)
And if you are not "the people" as mentioned clearly in the
Second, then the first doesn't apply to you either.
Panhead
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 15:05:03 -0400, "Lee E. Brown"
> <leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >zepp, a weasel wrote in message <3720a47b...@news.snowcrest.net>...
> >
> >>There's a lot to be said for a simple set of federal gun-control laws
> >>that supercede the crazy patch-quilt of state and local laws that now
> >>exist.
> >
> >which the killers flagrantly violated.
>
> Tell us what they are.
Murder for one.
zepp, a weasel
wrote:
>"zepp, a weasel" wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:35:10 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> > Uh, what "simple set of Fed laws that supersede" do YOU propose
>> >should be enacted?
>>
>> Registration of all weapons. Two years' militia service training in
>> order to have the right to own a weapon.
>
> I can get better training at the local gun club without cost to
>the taxpayers.
For whatever it's worth. But we're talking constitutional mandates,
not a bunch of drunks in t-shirts potshotting cardboard cut-outs of
Negroes.
> And what about the handy capped that can't do the "militia
>service training"?
They perform duties within the range of their abilities.
> They should be un armed?
>And, registration won't solve a thing.
Sure it will. It will make gun owners a lot more careful about
securing their weapons, and it will help avoid things like nutball
teens getting major armories at gun shows.
> So that's not that simple and, not to smart.
Just because you say so?
>
>> Laws detailing
>> responsibility of ownership, including mandated reporting of sales or
>> theft.
>
> If you can get the crooks to do that, fine. I have already
>proven my responsibility, in detail, with all the guns I own by
>not abusing them or their use.
But you keep trying to claim that nearly all guns are owned by
legitimate owners. Crooks get guns from owners who aren't so
legitimate. The idea is to get the guns out the hands of crooks and
psychotics.
> (but I still don't agree with forcing a free people to do
>anything or cloud the system with more paperwork.) I also don't
>want the Government to know every single thing I own or do.
> I kinda bet that you don't either, really.
Nope, but I don't mind registering my car, and I don't mind having an
SS number, and I don't mind registering my gun.
> So that's not that simple and, "BIG BROTHER" not to smart.
>
Wave that bloody red strawman of "big brother". Pretend the
government is The Enemy. Talk like a typical gun loon when your
arguments run out.
See how obedient you are?
>>
>> Limits on muzzle velocities, weight of projectiles, range, rate of
>> fire, and size of clip for public use.
>
> That's just silly. In other words you want to ban hunting,
>right?
How does that follow?
> Clip or magazine capacity will also be futile. What would keep
>anybody from just getting more clips?
Pausing to reload can save lives.
>And as far as "rate of
>fire" those laws are already on the books. Do you know how hard
>it is to legally buy a fully automatic weapon?
Yup. But we need to address semi-autos and rapid-fires. Or do you
need those when you're hunting squirrels, too?
>So that's not that simple and, certainly not to smart.
Never know when one of those squirrels might attack, right?
>>
>> > Why do want more laws that will not, CAN not be enforced anyway?
>>
>> It would replace the "24,000 laws" you were whining about.
>
> With the same things that simply can't work.
> But let's just say you had your way. Would you get rid of the
>other 23,999?
Sure. Laws based directly on the constitutional mandates supercede
any and all state or local laws.
> Hmmmmm.
>
>> > Don't you realize that the more "you" personally want as
>> >evidenced above, creates more of the same while you and others
>> >ignore the true causes and effects?
>>
>> Nope. But I do know that I can have an opinion and a goal without
>> your permission.
>
> You sure can. I never said otherwise. And in all fairness, your
>opinion varies greatly from mine as I consider yours wrong and
>futile.
>
I consider yours wrong and suicidal.
>>
>> > Don't be so dammed selfish and blind, Sir.
>>
>> Me? I'm not the one who has to feel defensive about those dead kids
>> in Colorado, my friend.
>
> Why are thinking I feel defensive? Just because you would like
>to have more laws that do nothing but effect me personally when I
>didn't have anything to do with it?
> Perhaps you're right.
> But I most certainly don't feel guilty about it though, either.
>I feel saddened that that act of madness occurred. I feel even
>sadder when to many people are trying to look the other way and
>try to find a scapegoat in more gun control.
>
Not a scapegoat. Where did those kids get those weapons? Without
those weapons, they're just a couple of alienated punks with attitudes
that they'll outgrow in a couple of years, and everyone else gets to
live.
> Did you hear what happened in FLA. and here in NJ just
>yesterday? Over 10 different incidents causing several school
>closings in NJ alone due to BOMB Threats and one kid blatantly
>showing off his gun in class, in complete defiance because "They
>thought what happened in Littleton was "kEwL"!"
Yup. We had a couple of such threats here in California, too. Those
don't worry me. The next shooting worries me. Got any kids in
school?
> So please tell me that limiting my ability to purchase whatever
>I want is going to stop these MORONS that feel that copy catting
>a serious crime is splendid.
> The issue is not guns. Never has been and never will be unless
>you and others make it one.
> Silly!
I guess you need to talk to someone who is in the propane business.
Those tanks aren't going to go up because someone attaches an M-80 to
'em. Unlike guns, they ARE regulated for safety.
>>
>> > Don't swallow the crap being offered to you that says that guns
>> >were the problem or the cause of this catastrophy in Colorado.
>>
>> You'll be pleased to know that you are one of 9% of the population who
>> don't believe gun availablity played a role in that tradegy.
>
>Where did you get that figure? A CNN poll? <snicker> I truly bet
>the % is a whole hell of a lot higher than that. Perhaps you left
>the "0" off at the end?
>
Nope. Nine percent. America is fed up with your deadly hobby killing
children.
>
>>
>> > I see that you also failed to comment on the mind set of these
>> >to rather obviously brain "damaged-goods" fools who had a thought
>> >that infamy was better then life, while at the same time you
>> >think it's best to regulate or ban guns, the internet, music, TV,
>> >hardware(pipes), and propane tanks.
>
>> I'll settle for regulating guns. We're way overdue for that. The
>> second amendment mandates regulation of guns.
>
>That's what I figured. Ignoring the real problem as usual.
> The next time it might just be nothing but bombs and you'll say
>something like: "Why, there ought to be a law!"
>
Yeah, much better to have children massacred then to cause you any
inconvenience or tweak your already super-sensitive case of paranoia,
right?
> > What gives?
>
>>
>> It's the end of the NRA and gunloonery. That's what gives.
>
> Only in your dreams.
> The NRA in schools (Eddie Eagle classes) could have prevented
>this.
> The only "gunloonery" are the liberals and grabbers.
>
> Have fun, study hard.
It sounds like those two kids DID take Eddie Eagle classes. Certainly
they had good aim. I bet those cardboard cutouts the NRA used helped
them to identify prime targets like Blacks, Jews and Liberals, too.
**********************************************************
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Also mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Jonnie
> So little boy,
*rofl*i'm not THAT young either.
> how long have you been in this big world that makes you
> such an authority?
20 years of dealing with the greatest of criminals and the most law abiding of
citizens.
> Wet behind the ears and so damn smart your ass is
> showing and you do not even have the brains to realize it.
*l*Very humourous, but that's the only thing it is.
> Yep, your ideas work so well that a small country like Germany can walk
> all over the whole damn content of Europe in a matter of a few short
> months.
Small country?i think you need to do some research on Europe my friend, you seem
to lack some basic knowledge....
> Damn that's good, especially when it is those of us you choose
> to lambast that bailed your damn pompous asses out of the mess your
> passiveness got you in to begin with.
We didn't choose you, In both World Wars it was Germany that challenged America.
> One does not need a motive to kill, only the desire and will to carry it
> out. The motive is just an excuse, not a reason.
People with brains do, fortunately most criminals in Europe have brains.Even
animals don't kill when it's not necessary.
> That is just what I thought, reading and comprehension is not one of
> your topics of understanding... it must have something to do with the
> aristocratic rule that keep the poor from excelling, and as an excuse,
> you keep the doped to the gills so they don't realize they are
> considered low class that is not bright enough to be educated, therefore
> never given the opportunity.
*lol*Then how come we have a higher grade of University educated people and
higher educational standards than America?
> That's right people, Sweden is still a
> country where if you are born a peasant, you have no chance of going to
> college, just a trade school.
*rofl*Hmm...yes.....and they also tattoo a number in your arms....Oh..Oh..the
evil Swedish government......
> Now if you are Middle or upper class, the
> state will pay for the college education. Yep, they keep their people in
> place, and make them step in time, and walk the line, and by allowing
> them to say fuck on national TV, and smoke a joint when ever they have
> them all convinced that they are free.
> If your [note: jonnie has learned how to use the cut features of his computer,
> and the reason three whole paragraphs are missing here, typical for a
> self-righteous pompous ass hole that can't face the truth, so they have to
> censor it]
Some things are just too much BS to reply to.
> Your self-rightious pompus ass as you have proven again.
>
> Yep, and we still bailed your self-righteous pompous asses out of a
> sling, and the reason your not speaking German today.
You acted only out of self interest.Besides i hardly think I should thank YOU
for America's actions 50/55 years ago.
> Like I said, if we had wanted your damn opinion we would not have left
> and move over here to get away from it to begin with.
As I've said before, just your bad luck.
> So shut up little boy, and listen for a change, it keeps your ass from showing
> so bad.
A very intelligent remark*claps*
You've really ovoutdone yourself.
> Interesting that you would laugh about being over-run in a weeks time
> because passiveness is your way of life.
Not really, but you making conclusions without knowing the situation at that
time is.
> You haven't the guts to stand
> up and fight, just run and hide, then ridicule the same people that
> bailed your asses out.
*lol*
> I see your not to smart either,
I'm not....really....
> as I pointed out in my first post.
So you knew before even knowing me, that I was stupid?Hmm....can you say
prejudice?
> Not only are your kids stupid, but your one of those
> stupid kids that edit anothers post
What are you talking about man?!1) I don't have kids
2) What post did I edit?
> and then laugh becouse you were not able to defend yourself.
1) Why would i laugh, talking with you makes me rather want to cry from pity
then laughI don't find stupidity amusing.
2) Why am I not able to defend myself? and from what?
> 4) Little boys that are still wet behind the ears should be listening,
> not showing their ass and speaking out of turn.
So, shut up then.
> Cordially,
The only civilised thing I read in your whole post.Do you get therapy?
> Duane K. Kelly
Jonnie
> What I would like to know, is how a post that looked like this:
> Ended up looking like this:
*shrugs*
You tell me, I only cut paragraphs.
Why don't you point out exactly what is different/changed and we'll try to find
out together.
I hate being called a liar and a fraud and i think people in this NG (alt.teens)
know me well enough to know that I don't need to resort to these tactics you
suggest i did.
Now, point out what I've changed/added and/or frauded about or shut the hell up
and fuck off.
Falsely accusing me...bastard......
Jonnie
> I don't know. Does the degree of civilization directly correspond with
> the frequency of these events?
I'll let you answer that for yourself.
> "... Adolph Hitler had a few good ideas..."
He did.
Jonnie
> In other words, you're willing to bet you life on the honor of thieves. What
> an
> outstanding plan!
nope, common sense of the criminals killing is more severely punished then
burglary, so why would they kill.
> Unfortunately, your Gedanken experiment simply doesn't work out in reality.
Oddly enough, it does work that way in Holland and I think the greater part of
Europe as well.
> The
> rates for "Hot " burglaries (that is, burglaries comitted when the occupants
> are
> at home) are at their lowest in areas where gun ownership is highest.
> Criminals
> aren't completely stupid!
Nope, that's what the theory is based upon.
Jonnie
> What words were changed or added? I, nor anyone else, has the time it
> would take to compare those posts word-for-word. If you want to make
> accusations like that, give SPECIFIC examples, don't repost the entire
> thing and expect people to search for them.
Yes, please do.I have never ever changed or added words in any post I replied
to, but if you do please use the original posts, because at this moment i feel
as if somebody's trying to set me up.
> -Chance
Thank you Chance.
M. W. Eglestone
> Not really, if you value your guns more than the lives of teenagers you would be
> barbarians by many people's definitions.
=========================================================================
MWE: Since more teenage youths in this country loose their lives in auto
accidents than with guns, lets try THIS rant on for size!
It's a FACT that thousands of lives could be saved each year if Americans
would give up their insane love affair with privately owned cars and
trucks. The mind set that each man has a right to his own vehicle was just
fine 50 years ago, but in today's day and age we can't afford the number of
accidental deaths that occur each year.
Observe the shear volume of deaths that are caused when un-trained and
in-experienced drivers are allowed out on the roads. More laws won't help a
bit. The ONLY way to reduce the accident rate is to lower the number of
available vehicles.
The best solution would be to put ALL the transportation into the hands
of the State and Federal Government. Do away with privately owned vehicles
completely - go 100 percent into public transportation. The number of
lives that would be saved is WELL worth the minor inconvenience of having
to walk a few blocks to catch a "SAFE" ride to work or to the store.
Now, Jonnie my friend, are you willing to give up your transportation to save
a few lives? Are ALL the folks who keep harping on the GUN DEATH RATE willing
to do something to stop the number ONE killer in the U.S.A. (Auto Accidents
from PRIVATELY Owned Vehicles)
It time to put the old MONEY where the mouth is folks.
Mike Eglestone
---------------
Tag Lines:
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!
The Lion and the Lamb may lie down together, but the Lamb won't get much
sleep!
~Immortal-Dawn-Rose~
--
"Beware of the green eyed Enchantress, she'll sing you songs of wonder
but freedom is the price you pay. She's fire and ice, mystery and
adventure, love and hate, compassion and torturous pain. Sadistic yet
sweet, loving and kind, the kind of woman who will blow your mind. All
your dreams in her you'll find, yet once you love your doomed for all
time." - ~Immortal-Dawn-Rose~
Jonnie wrote in message <3720E6BC...@twi.tudelft.nl>...
>~Immortal-Dawn-Rose~ wrote:
>
>> I'll say it over and over again, guns are NOT the problem.
>
>IMO, they are a large part of the problem.
>
>> Places where citizens are allowed to carry guns openly have less crime
overall
>> then
>> places where guns are banned.
>
>Maybe in America, but not when you compare America to Europe.
>
>> If you want to lay blame lay it on the
>> parents for not bringing their children up correctly. And no, no one can
>> say that the parents are not partially if not fully to blame.
>
>True, and the school failed as well.
>
>> As far as guns are concerned, no matter how many laws ban them the
criminals
>> still
>> have them.
>
>Yep, they will always have them, but won't be 'forced' to use them.
>
>> --
>> "Beware of the green eyed Enchantress, she'll sing you songs of wonder
>> but freedom is the price you pay. She's fire and ice, mystery and
>> adventure, love and hate, compassion and torturous pain. Sadistic yet
>> sweet, loving and kind, the kind of woman who will blow your mind. All
>> your dreams in her you'll find, yet once you love your doomed for all
>> time." - ~Immortal-Dawn-Rose~
Juan Liberale
2. No sales from any location except for licensed
gun dealers. Individuals may only sell guns
back to a dealer.
3. All firearms registered to owner who must provide proof
of gunsafe ownership and completion of gun safety
training course.
4. $10,000 fine for neglegently allowing a firearm to get into
the hands of an unlicensed person. Ten years in
prison if that person commits a crime, or harms
another person with your gun.
5. A $1,5000,000 gun liability insurance policy to protect anyone
injured by your gun.
6. A minimum ten year prison sentence for anyone who commits
a crime where a firearm is displayed or mentioned. This
would include a misdemeanor case of brandishing. No parole
or probation on any crimes where a firearm is used.
7. A one dollar per bullet tax to pay for registrations and
background investigations.
8. Any person convicted of a crime where a gun was used or where
a person was injured is prohibited from owning a gun
for life.
Panhead
>
> On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 11:08:37 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"zepp, a weasel" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:35:10 -0400, Panhead <panmy...@monmouth.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> > Uh, what "simple set of Fed laws that supersede" do YOU propose
> >> >should be enacted?
> >>
> >> Registration of all weapons. Two years' militia service training in
> >> order to have the right to own a weapon.
> >
> > I can get better training at the local gun club without cost to
> >the taxpayers.
>
> For whatever it's worth. But we're talking constitutional mandates,
> not a bunch of drunks in t-shirts potshotting cardboard cut-outs of
> Negroes.
You're a hateful little plebe that envisions way to much, eh?
Are you on medication? (should you be?)
Here you took a perfectly reasonable response by me and tried to
turn it into a "All gun owners hate and shoot blacks" thing.
What is wrong with you? Why did you avoid the answer regarding
how I and others that want or desire a gun can get better
training without Government intervention or joining "their club?"
You need help.
> > And what about the handy capped that can't do the "militia
> >service training"?
>
> They perform duties within the range of their abilities.
What duties? Desk jobs?
Many here already have them.
Why join the [add jingle here--->] "army/navy/airforce/marines"
just to have a life?
We don't need no stinkin' "constitutional mandates."
What we need is for the loonies like YOU to enforce JUST ONE of
the already to many laws that are on the books.
You want Brady? Fine. How come it only resulted in less then a
dozen arrests when tens of thousands failed "the test"?
You are blind and appearing rather stupid now.
>
> > They should be un armed?
> >And, registration won't solve a thing.
>
> Sure it will. It will make gun owners a lot more careful about
> securing their weapons, and it will help avoid things like nutball
> teens getting major armories at gun shows.
Heh heh heh. You're silly!
You watch to much TV.
First of all, the incredible majority of gun owners are ALREADY
careful. I mean, we're talking REALLY really incredible
percentages here!
What *you* fail to realize is, no matter how careful anyone can
or could be, shit is going to happen regardless when the brain
damaged or disillusioned gets a bug up his or her ass.
You are still failing to admit what the real problems are and,
how to address it.
Why?
> > So that's not that simple and, not to smart.
>
> Just because you say so?
Pretty much. Truth hurts?
> >> Laws detailing
> >> responsibility of ownership, including mandated reporting of sales or
> >> theft.
> >
> > If you can get the crooks to do that, fine. I have already
> >proven my responsibility, in detail, with all the guns I own by
> >not abusing them or their use.
> But you keep trying to claim that nearly all guns are owned by
> legitimate owners.
They are. Must I waste bandwidth again by showing the facts and
stats?
Crooks get guns from owners who aren't so
> legitimate. The idea is to get the guns out the hands of crooks and
> psychotics.
I agree that crooks can get them. That's what we all are saying.
But your "vision" only effects the law abiding.
You're forgetting that the extreme majority are law abiding AND
also, ALSO, have a great deal of common sense.
I have (as far as you know) many guns. Therefore: "I reserve
the right to refuse service to anyone. No Shoes, Shirt? No way!
No sale!"
Why do keep forgetting that the "evil" don't follow the rules?
Why do you keep forgetting that no matter how well you can or
do secure something, that if the lawless want's it bad enough,
they will take it?
Or in the case of those punks in Colorado, will make it?
You're so "gung-ho" on doing something, anything, even if it's
wrong or not relevant.
You're hysterical, just like the HCI and other loony liberals
want's you to be.
> > (but I still don't agree with forcing a free people to do
> >anything or cloud the system with more paperwork.) I also don't
> >want the Government to know every single thing I own or do.
> > I kinda bet that you don't either, really.
>
> Nope, but I don't mind registering my car, and I don't mind having an
> SS number, and I don't mind registering my gun.
Fine!
Do so! If that's what *you* want to do, that's great and you
have my blessing.
(besides, you don't have a choice!) <---Ooooo! Nasty word that
"Choice" is to some!
> > So that's not that simple and, "BIG BROTHER" not to smart.
> Wave that bloody red strawman of "big brother". Pretend the
> government is The Enemy. Talk like a typical gun loon when your
> arguments run out.
Now look who's in the mirror, eh?
I suppose you do like the Government to run your life instead of
the other way around. Right?
Right.
>
> See how obedient you are?
Hardly! It's YOU that feels a need to be controlled. You just
said it!
(dang, yer not to tightly wrapped!)
> >> Limits on muzzle velocities, weight of projectiles, range, rate of
> >> fire, and size of clip for public use.
> >
> > That's just silly. In other words you want to ban hunting,
> >right?
>
> How does that follow?
Do you just blindly type stuff from the HCI dictionary or, do you
actually know what those "big words" you just posted mean?
If you don't know how important the velocities, weight, range
and ROF is in hunting or sport..then you truly are an
ignoranimus.
> > Clip or magazine capacity will also be futile. What would keep
> >anybody from just getting more clips?
>
> Pausing to reload can save lives.
Especially for the criminal who doesn't abide by the rules you
wish to limit the law abiding only too, eh?
You're behind. Do try to keep up, ok?
>
> >And as far as "rate of
> >fire" those laws are already on the books. Do you know how hard
> >it is to legally buy a fully automatic weapon?
>
> Yup. But we need to address semi-autos and rapid-fires. Or do you
> need those when you're hunting squirrels, too?
<snicker> Semi-auto , rapid fire, and fully automatic. Hmmmm.
You are clueless, ain't cha? Like many others, I now know that
you have absolutely NO understanding of guns in general, or in
particular, due to your watching to many episodes of McGyver and
Charlie's Angles. </snicker>
>
> >So that's not that simple and, certainly not to smart.
>
> Never know when one of those squirrels might attack, right?
Now you're becoming a dip shit.
Still avoiding the major point mind you are, but a much larger
dipshit.
> >> It would replace the "24,000 laws" you were whining about.
(moving on..)
> >> Nope. But I do know that I can have an opinion and a goal without
> >> your permission.
> >
> > You sure can. I never said otherwise. And in all fairness, your
> >opinion varies greatly from mine as I consider yours wrong and
> >futile.
> >
> I consider yours wrong and suicidal.
How do you figure?
Has the media clouded your mind so bad that you think that just
because someone owns a gun that they are "semi -automatically"
suicidal? Or is that "fully automatically?"
All the many years that I have been a gun owner, I have never
had those feelings.
At a young 42 years of age, I have never contemplated the
thoughts of harming, killing, stealing, or threatening.
Am I doing something wrong?
I never built a bomb either.
Regardless, thanks for avoiding the issue yet again while making
a larger fool of just yourself.
> >> > Don't be so dammed selfish and blind, Sir.
> >>
> >> Me? I'm not the one who has to feel defensive about those dead kids
> >> in Colorado, my friend.
> >
> > Why are thinking I feel defensive? Just because you would like
> >to have more laws that do nothing but effect me personally when I
> >didn't have anything to do with it?
> > Perhaps you're right.
> > But I most certainly don't feel guilty about it though, either.
> >I feel saddened that that act of madness occurred. I feel even
> >sadder when to many people are trying to look the other way and
> >try to find a scapegoat in more gun control.
> Not a scapegoat. Where did those kids get those weapons?
The facts aren't in yet so, why speculate? In all honesty, I
heard that one of them (the 18 year old) bought one on or near
his birthday. It *might* be true.
So what?
Why did he also make several bombs? One that would have possibly
leveled the entire school!
Why are you still avoiding the question as to WHY and what was
wrong with these two punks?
Ya see, the more you make it a gun issue, the more I see you
make it seem like it was a justifiable act.
Us gun owners know that the entire blame is on those two's
shoulders.
YOU want to place the blame on guns. Why?
Without
> those weapons, they're just a couple of alienated punks with attitudes
> that they'll outgrow in a couple of years, and everyone else gets to
> live.
You mean the BOMB weapons, or the guns they had?
Sorry Charlie. You are pitifully, and despicably wrong! AGAIN!
What are you? Eighth grade?
>
> > Did you hear what happened in FLA. and here in NJ just
> >yesterday? Over 10 different incidents causing several school
> >closings in NJ alone due to BOMB Threats and one kid blatantly
> >showing off his gun in class, in complete defiance because "They
> >thought what happened in Littleton was "kEwL"!"
>
> Yup. We had a couple of such threats here in California, too. Those
> don't worry me. The next shooting worries me. Got any kids in
> school?
BWAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.
Bombs don't bother you. Threats don't either. Just guns in the
hands of the law abiding!
Stunning!
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/qbath23.htm should make you get all
wet then!
Thanks again for avoiding the FARGEN ISSUE as to what causes
certain people to go bezerk!
You're a class act! Please don't reproduce.
> > So please tell me that limiting my ability to purchase whatever
> >I want is going to stop these MORONS that feel that copy catting
> >a serious crime is splendid.
> > The issue is not guns. Never has been and never will be unless
> >you and others make it one.
> > Silly!
>
> I guess you need to talk to someone who is in the propane business.
> Those tanks aren't going to go up because someone attaches an M-80 to
> 'em. Unlike guns, they ARE regulated for safety.
What? Are you really that stupid or just pretending?
That was NOT a rhetorical question!!!
(snip the rest!)
Egads!
Lee E. Brown
Jonnie wrote in message <3721E340...@twi.tudelft.nl>...
>Lee E. Brown wrote:
>
>> In other words, you're willing to bet you life on the honor of thieves. What
>> an
>> outstanding plan!
>
>nope, common sense of the criminals killing is more severely punished then
>burglary, so why would they kill.
Speaking of common sense, why would a criminal go willingly to a gun fight if he
can avoid it?
>> Unfortunately, your Gedanken experiment simply doesn't work out in reality.
>
>Oddly enough, it does work that way in Holland and I think the greater part of
>Europe as well.
except that the rate of "hot" burglaries - burglaries comitted when the occupant
is at home - is much HIGHER in most of Europe than in the US.
I wonder why?
Jonnie
> Registration of all weapons. Two years' militia service training in
> order to have the right to own a weapon. Laws detailing
> responsibility of ownership, including mandated reporting of sales or
> theft.
You don't have to report sales or theft?How extremely odd.
> Limits on muzzle velocities, weight of projectiles, range, rate of
> fire, and size of clip for public use.
>
> It would replace the "24,000 laws" you were whining about.
>
> You'll be pleased to know that you are one of 9% of the population who
> don't believe gun availablity played a role in that tradegy.
>
> I'll settle for regulating guns. We're way overdue for that. The
> second amendment mandates regulation of guns.
Thank you, I'm very relieved to hear that there are Americans that think this
loose gun policy might not be the smartest thing.
Jonnie
> And the European countries had lower crime rates, compared to America
> BEFORE their gun control laws. In fact they now have higher crime rates
> than they had before passing their gun control laws.
Most countries i know of have had gun control laws since the 19th century, and
since more crimes are being reported then 100 years ago.....
> No gun control law has provably reduced violent crime or homicide rates.
And what does your common sense say?Has there been any research on this subject?
> ??? Who is forcing them?
The citizens posing a threat to their lives.In other words, the ones with guns.
Jonnie
> But, to play your game, if the burglar knows the homeowner is armed, he
> WOULDN'T break into that house - he would go find easier pickings.
some will, some wil kill.
> This is why the UK has a much greater rate of burglaries of occupied
> dwellings than does the U.S.
And still less killings occur in them.And I don't have to convince you that the
criminals in the UK do have guns, now do I?
So, then why Oh why aren't there more killings, if they killed for the fun of
it, there should be more deaths.
Jonnie
> About as often as in the U.S.
I sincerely doubt that.
> As a matter of fact, the number of such
> incidents in the US has been DROPPING year by year. The only thing
> increasing is the hysteria of the media.
>From what i heard the number may drop, but the numbr of dead people per incident
has gone up.