Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Hooray for American gun culture!

2 views
Skip to first unread message

oddf...@hotmail.com

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 7:06:58 PM3/16/05
to
Strange how this kind of thing seems to happen in America more than in
any other part of the world. Hooray for your love of guns!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4344359.stm

GregoryD

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 7:29:42 PM3/16/05
to


Bosnia says hi.

GregoryD

sinistersteve

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 8:26:31 PM3/16/05
to
and you're from where?? I'm sure I can dig up some dirt on your home country
very easily.

For example, if you live in Canada, your tax dollars are being spent to buy
heroine; and that heroine is being administered to drug addicts. Yep, what a
way to solve a problem.

<oddf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111018018.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

FerdinandAkin

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 10:39:45 PM3/16/05
to
oddf...@hotmail.com wrote:

Guns helped Americans kick the British army out of the colonies in the
18th century.
Hooray for the American love of guns!
/sea/

edi...@netpath.net

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 8:41:29 PM3/16/05
to
Get out of denial. Seeing that you quoted the BBC News from the
land of no handguns and no "assault rifles," you might be interested to
know that - in the past week - a 12-YEAR-OLD kid in England was jailed
for life for raping his teacher at school, and an ax murder took place
on a street in an affluent area of London in broad daylight.

See all our stuff at <a
href="http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW">Internet Gun Show!</a>

Message has been deleted

Two Bears

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 8:44:20 PM3/16/05
to
Strange how THIS sort of thing seems to happen in other parts of the
world more than in America. Hooray for your love of fascism and
cowadice!

http://www.barefootsworld.net/1stmillionmom.html


ta tah...

the Bede

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 9:04:22 PM3/16/05
to
"sinistersteve" <sinist...@goto.hell> wrote

>
> For example, if you live in Canada, your tax dollars are being spent to
> buy heroine
>
...............................


FerdinandAkin

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 11:33:55 PM3/16/05
to
Chad Bryant wrote:

>"FerdinandAkin" wrote:
>
>
>
>>The French helped Americans kick the British army out of the colonies in
>>the 18th century.
>>Hooray for the American love of the French!
>>
>>
>
>Fixed.
>
>
>
What just got fixed is my killfile
<plonk>

Glenn

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 9:44:23 PM3/16/05
to

any other part of the world. Hooray for our love of guns!

N.O. East Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder

NEW ORLEANS -- A man who broke into a home Tuesday afternoon was shot
and killed by the homeowner, police said.
At about 2 p.m., the man allegedly forced his way into a home on East
Wheaton Circle after breaking into several other homes in the area,
police said.
The 44-year-old homeowner retrieved a gun and shot the intruder to
death, police said.
No names have been released.
Police said the intruder had a long criminal record.


01/20/2005
Clerk Shoots Knife-Wielding Robber

Milwaukee - Neighbors of Ayesh Food Market on Hampton Avenue and 19th
Place say nearly everyone in the area knows and likes the owner, and
police say even a man who came in to rob the store knew him.
"He was armed with a four inch steak knife," said Lt. Steven Spingola
of the Milwaukee Police Department. "He originally confronted the
owner of the store, who was standing in an aisle, and demanded money."
When a 23-year-old cashier saw the owner in trouble, police say he
grabbed the store's revolver and jumped out from behind the counter.
That's when police say the suspect started chasing the cashier.
"He was pursued up the aisle by the suspect, and he was cornered near
the meat counter at the south end of the store. He then fired his
weapon in self-defense," said Lt. Spingola.
While one bullet went through the glass, police say three bullets went
into the suspect, killing him. Officers say the store's gun is a
legally owned weapon.
"It's completely legal. It's their right to do that. The police can't
be everywhere at one time," said Lt. Spingola.


Fbob

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 9:49:02 PM3/16/05
to

<oddf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111018018.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Strange how this kind of thing seems to happen in America more than in
> any other part of the world. Hooray for your love of guns!
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4344359.stm

Is there more than one London? It seems the U.K. is suffering from gun
violence even though private ownership of firearms is nearly impossible. Oh,
I should qualify that. The LEGAL ownership of firearms is nearly impossible.
What's up with all this gun violence if there aren't any guns in the U.K.?
Looks to me like the spineless subjects of the U.K. were willing to give up
their right to personal protection without receiving the promised security.
That was a pretty lousy trade-off, now wasn't it?

What the Brits need now is camera on every street corner that can watch the
subjects. Oh, I guess that's already in place.
>


3.1...@consultant.com

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 9:59:33 PM3/16/05
to
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:49:02 -0600, "Fbob" <Farm...@iowatelecom.net>
wrote:

The British lion is de-fanged. It will now implode from within...

You Know Who

unread,
Mar 16, 2005, 11:17:47 PM3/16/05
to
On 16 Mar 2005 16:06:58 -0800, oddf...@hotmail.com wrote:

>Strange how this kind of thing seems to happen in America more than in
>any other part of the world.

Try picking up a newspaper someday and reading it.

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 12:43:27 AM3/17/05
to

"Chad Bryant" <webm...@chadbryant.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:d1anb8$vtj$i...@pita.alt.net...
> "FerdinandAkin" wrote:
>
>> The French helped Americans kick the British army out of the colonies in
>> the 18th century.
>> Hooray for the American love of the French!
>
> Fixed.

**LOL.

Americans hate to be reminded of how the French saved their arses.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Numb Natural One

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 5:16:57 AM3/17/05
to
There's no telling what your doing with Fbob

I forget. Are the British police allowed to have guns?

--
...or something
--
Owner of the Pre-Sig,

Frank from Deeeetroit

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 5:25:31 AM3/17/05
to
According the a 2002 United Nations study, the UK has the third highest
crime rate in the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html

<oddf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111018018.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Rincewind

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 6:13:52 AM3/17/05
to
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:41:29 -0800, edi...@netpath.net mumbled something
like this:

> Get out of denial. Seeing that you quoted the BBC News from the
> land of no handguns and no "assault rifles," you might be interested to
> know that - in the past week - a 12-YEAR-OLD kid in England was jailed for
> life for raping his teacher at school, and an ax murder took place on a
> street in an affluent area of London in broad daylight.

Wow! A whole TWO sex/violent crimes in the last week. British civilisation
is falling apart!

--
Rinso
/\
/ \
/wizz\
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Message has been deleted

Benrand

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 9:28:14 AM3/17/05
to
On 16 Mar 2005 16:06:58 -0800, oddf...@hotmail.com wrote:


If someone ELSE had a gun there, this guy would have been shot dead.

Ever wonder why cops use guns?


k

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 9:55:16 AM3/17/05
to

Strange how this type of thing never happens in the parts of the world
where the government fears its citizens enough to disarm them so the
criminals can be risk free.

http://www.wagc.com/GunsSaveLives.html

sinistersteve

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 10:31:21 AM3/17/05
to

"Numb Natural One" <pah...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1111054617.c83e0bf63610a6dc5694f163325cdfea@teranews...

> I forget. Are the British police allowed to have guns?

nope


James Beck

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 10:54:38 AM3/17/05
to
In article <pan.2005.03.17....@unseen.edu>, ri...@unseen.edu
says...
So, you are asserting that those were the ONLY 2 crimes that occurred in
the UK last week?

Jim

Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 11:10:21 AM3/17/05
to

You're missing the whole point. If you have civilised anti-gun laws,
neither criminals nor law-abiding citizens have guns. In Europe, a
criminal would only carry a gun if he really had something to do with
it, like murder someone. But that someone wouldn't normally be a law
abiding citizen, so the citizen has nothing to fear. At least here, if
you get burgled or raped, you know that criminal is not carrying a gun,
so you might escape with your life.

Martin Holterman

Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 11:18:02 AM3/17/05
to
James Beck wrote:

Look at how few murders occur in the Netherlands and tell me if gun
control causes more crime:

http://www.cbs.nl/en/publications/articles/webmagazine/2005/1666k.htm

Martin Holterman

j...@gardnerclan.net

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 11:52:04 AM3/17/05
to
>If you have civilised anti-gun laws,
neither criminals nor law-abiding citizens have guns.

"Law" and "criminal" are incompatible. Criminals, by definition, break
laws, so how does a law prevent a criminal from getting and using a
gun?

I've always wondered about people who believe that although a law
prohibiting murder won't stop a killer, a law prohibiting guns will.

More and more states in the U.S. are allowing their citizens to legally
carry concealed weapons, and in almost every case, violent crime in
these states has gone down as a result, not up.

>At least here, if you get burgled or raped, you know that criminal is
not carrying a gun, so you might escape with your life.

You may escape with your life, but you don't escape with your dignity.

k

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 11:57:06 AM3/17/05
to
What a bogus argument, clearly not supported by facts like your massive
crime rate. Besides, isn't this basically surrendering to criminals,
letting them have their way as long as they play nice? Not that they do
but you guys keep hoping they will by making a large population of safe
victims.

Sang

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 11:59:31 AM3/17/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1cap2$9br$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...

except in both the UK and Australia, crime (and gun crime as well) has gone
up significantly since tough gun "bans" were imposed

your theory does not match the data

are those "civilised anti-gun laws?"

fwiw, crime also went down markedly in FLA (a recent example) when gun laws
were changed from "may issue" to "shall issue" and guns proliferated
markedly (among civilians)

it's a nice theory you have, but it's not supported by evidence

the fact is that the US has (and in general has always had) a very high
violent crime rate compared to other "first world" nations. and we have had
a lot of guns. taking that correlation and inferring CAUSATION is where you
go astray

there are immense cultural differences that makes comparisons bogus

here's one example of food for thought: japanese americans have about as low
a crime rate here in gun rich america as they do in gun scarce japan.
EXTREMELY low. much lower than caucasians in england (or the US) for that
matter

however... they also have a very high suicide rate. both facts are edifices
of culture. (homicides/crime vs. suicide)

note that in the US, japanese americans USE guns for suicide far more often
than they do in japan, but the suicide rates aren't very disparate at all.
guns are used because they are easy and convenient, but they don't change
suicide rates


whit

>
> Martin Holterman
>


Jim Bianchi

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 11:57:31 AM3/17/05
to
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:10:21 +0100, Martin Holterman wrote:
>You're missing the whole point. If you have civilised anti-gun laws,

First item: there is NO SUCH THING as a 'civilised anti-gun law.'

>neither criminals nor law-abiding citizens have guns. In Europe, a

And right there is the big hole through which your entire thesis
falls: There is no way to g'tee the criminals will obey the anti-gun laws.
In fact, they likely won't. I mean, if someone is going to break a law
anyway, by raping or burglarising or mugging someone else, how will yet
another law somehow prevent him from carrying (or using) a gun?

This is the basic fallacy of guncontrol: Those who do not need to be
disarmed will be, while those who are criminals will not turn in their arms.
According to FBI statistics, guncontrol will actively penalise everyone in
order to prevent less than 1% of crime (and, given that a knife or a lead
pipe will suffice for a LOT of crime, that 'less than 1% of crime' figure is
WAY inflated.

>criminal would only carry a gun if he really had something to do with
>it, like murder someone. But that someone wouldn't normally be a law
>abiding citizen, so the citizen has nothing to fear.

Both of these thoughts are mere suppositions, with absolutely no
supporting evidence.

>At least here, if you get burgled or raped, you know that criminal is not
>carrying a gun, so you might escape with your life.

As if being burgled or raped is not enough to more than completely
ruin your day. Please! Not to mention that word 'might' (which is the
operative word in that phrase).

--
ji...@sonic.net

"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary, and those who don't."

Sang

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 12:03:39 PM3/17/05
to

"sinistersteve" <sinist...@goto.hell> wrote in message
news:tPOdnbApfqZ...@comcast.com...

wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

check RECENT history. a fair number of the london metropolitan police (for
example) now carry guns. check the stats on those officers assigned to
heathrow as well

also, many officers have guns secured in trunks that they are allowed to
deploy on certain "hot calls"

you need to update your data.

what you say was true in the PAST. it is no longer true

http://www.britemb.org.il/generaluk/faqslaw.html#2

also note that police in northern ireland are armed (obviously)

also note the # of "army" in the cities, etc. (armed) which means there are
more armed LEO's than the stats for the civilian police might suggest
(compare to our posse comitatus , their regulations

hth

we'll see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit your error

whit


Al Smith

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 12:02:50 PM3/17/05
to

Do these "civilised" countries have anti-knife laws too? A criminal
knowing that an honest man wouldn't have a gun would be able achieve
the necessary advantage with a knife.

How then will "civilised" people cut their food?

Mortimer Schnerd, RN

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 12:07:47 PM3/17/05
to
Jim Bianchi wrote:
>> criminal would only carry a gun if he really had something to do with
>> it, like murder someone. But that someone wouldn't normally be a law
>> abiding citizen, so the citizen has nothing to fear.
>
> Both of these thoughts are mere suppositions, with absolutely no
> supporting evidence.


Armed robbers carry guns even though they don't intend to necessarily kill.
Why? Because it pretty much GUARANTEES they will get what they want. Unarmed
people won't resist. His argument is specious.


>> At least here, if you get burgled or raped, you know that criminal is not
>> carrying a gun, so you might escape with your life.


And you might not. You may escape with your rectum a smoking crater, too. Is
that a satisfactory outcome?


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

morts...@carolina.rr.com.REMOVE


Jim Yanik

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 12:09:35 PM3/17/05
to
Martin Holterman <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:d1caju$pd3$1...@reader13.wxs.nl:

Then again,that Dutch lawmaker was shot and killed by a gun-wielding
Islamic.Gun "control" sure didn't help much for him.
Seems there have been more of those sort of incidents,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Michael Manring

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 1:59:18 PM3/17/05
to

Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> "Chad Bryant" <webm...@chadbryant.cjb.net> wrote in message
> news:d1anb8$vtj$i...@pita.alt.net...
> > "FerdinandAkin" wrote:
> >
> >> The French helped Americans kick the British army out of the colonies in
> >> the 18th century.
> >> Hooray for the American love of the French!
> >
> > Fixed.
>
> **LOL.
>
> Americans hate to be reminded of how the French saved their arses.

We are reminded that they were ONCE "smart."
But being in such close proximity to England, they eventualy became as
stump stupid as the Brits, and now you Asstralians.

Two Bears

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 2:17:04 PM3/17/05
to
Trivial Trevor mewed:
**LOL.

Americans hate to be reminded of how the French saved their arses.


reply:

Yeah.....it woulda taken a little longer without the French.

Who has England or Assyland helped lately ?

LOL .....BBBWWWAAAA haaa hhaaa haaahhaaahhaahhaa.


ta tah...

Alric Knebel

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 2:44:39 PM3/17/05
to

<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1111023689.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Get out of denial. Seeing that you quoted the BBC News from the
> land of no handguns and no "assault rifles," you might be interested to
> know that - in the past week - a 12-YEAR-OLD kid in England was jailed
> for life for raping his teacher at school, and an ax murder took place
> on a street in an affluent area of London in broad daylight.

Oh, I'm too sure. For LIFE? A 12-year-old kid? While I don't agree with
anti-gun sentiments, this is just propaganda. Either that, or there's
something more to the story than the fact that the kid was 12 years old.

--
Alric Knebel
http://ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Alric Knebel

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 2:49:43 PM3/17/05
to

"Two Bears" <TWO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111023860.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Strange how THIS sort of thing seems to happen in other parts of the
> world more than in America. Hooray for your love of fascism and
> cowadice!
>
> http://www.barefootsworld.net/1stmillionmom.html
>
> ta tah...

Ta tah, nothing. That's a ridiculous counterargument. Even if civilians
have guns, you're not going to stop a modern army with them. This was just
ridiculous to use these pictures in this way. It was meaningless. What's
so stupid about it is, there were resistance movements in a lot of places,
and the Nazis did stuff like this anyway. Sometimes as retaliation to
resistance.

Jonathan McArthur

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 2:59:05 PM3/17/05
to
Michael Manring wrote:
>>>>The French helped Americans kick the British army out of the colonies in
>>>>the 18th century.
>>>>Hooray for the American love of the French!
>>>
>>>Fixed.
>>**LOL.
>>
>>Americans hate to be reminded of how the French saved their arses.
> We are reminded that they were ONCE "smart."
> But being in such close proximity to England, they eventualy became as
> stump stupid as the Brits, and now you Asstralians.

Hello I am an American and I have never left America but I can tell you
for a fact that all other countries are inferior to America.

CASE CLOSED

THIS THREAD SUCKS

--
Jonathan McArthur
Infrequently updated: http://sleepydemons.blogspot.com/
Almost never updated: http://www.satoriday.tk/

Rob Browning

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 3:07:28 PM3/17/05
to
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:10:21 +0100, Martin Holterman
<martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote:

>Benrand wrote:
>> On 16 Mar 2005 16:06:58 -0800, oddf...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Strange how this kind of thing seems to happen in America more than in
>>>any other part of the world. Hooray for your love of guns!
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4344359.stm
>>
>>
>>
>> If someone ELSE had a gun there, this guy would have been shot dead.
>>
>> Ever wonder why cops use guns?
>>
>>
>
>You're missing the whole point. If you have civilised anti-gun laws,
>neither criminals nor law-abiding citizens have guns. In Europe, a

Hehehehe. Yeah, now pull the other one.

Rob
ploovTeHS...@charter.net

--

Owner of 2501 Netstalker Points awarded by Corwin of Amber, mainly
because Atma's just too damn attractive to get away from.

Gave 7499 Netstalker Points to Cypher because there's no such thing as
a good day on AGFF without JT bashing!

Owner of David Watson, rec.arts.anime.misc

"Have you ever been walking down a street and come upon two free
standing walls parallel to one another? Did those walls then start
screaming at top volume? Did they maybe offer to meet each other at a
parking lot somewhere and fight to the death? If you answered 'yes'
then you have engaged in debate on the Internet."
--Zack Parsons, Something Awful 2-25-05

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 4:00:34 PM3/17/05
to

"Two Bears" <TWO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111087024....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Trivial Trevor mewed:
> **LOL.
>
> Americans hate to be reminded of how the French saved their arses.
>
>
> reply:
>
> Yeah.....it woulda taken a little longer without the French.

**Your revisionist history is duly noted. The facts are these, however:

The French saved the arses of Americans.

>
> Who has England or Assyland helped lately ?

**Iraq.
The US
Afghanistan
East Timor
Sri Lanka
Indonesia
New Guinea

Why do you ask?

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Mike Watt

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 4:31:43 PM3/17/05
to

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> The French saved the arses of Americans.


No, they did not, you silly Asstralian!

Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 5:24:56 PM3/17/05
to
Sang wrote:

> "Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:d1cap2$9br$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
>
>>Benrand wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Mar 2005 16:06:58 -0800, oddf...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Strange how this kind of thing seems to happen in America more than in
>>>>any other part of the world. Hooray for your love of guns!
>>>>
>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4344359.stm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If someone ELSE had a gun there, this guy would have been shot dead.
>>>
>>>Ever wonder why cops use guns?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You're missing the whole point. If you have civilised anti-gun laws,
>>neither criminals nor law-abiding citizens have guns. In Europe, a
>>criminal would only carry a gun if he really had something to do with
>>it, like murder someone. But that someone wouldn't normally be a law
>>abiding citizen, so the citizen has nothing to fear. At least here, if
>>you get burgled or raped, you know that criminal is not carrying a gun,
>>so you might escape with your life.
>
>
> except in both the UK and Australia, crime (and gun crime as well) has gone
> up significantly since tough gun "bans" were imposed
>

cite?


> your theory does not match the data
>
> are those "civilised anti-gun laws?"
>
> fwiw, crime also went down markedly in FLA (a recent example) when gun laws
> were changed from "may issue" to "shall issue" and guns proliferated
> markedly (among civilians)
>

Yes, I know, making gun control more strict only hurts law-abiding
citizens. That's why you want to focus on getting all the guns...

> it's a nice theory you have, but it's not supported by evidence
>
> the fact is that the US has (and in general has always had) a very high
> violent crime rate compared to other "first world" nations. and we have had
> a lot of guns. taking that correlation and inferring CAUSATION is where you
> go astray
>
> there are immense cultural differences that makes comparisons bogus
>

OK, from a scientific point of view, you're right. But it does make me
curious. What is it about Americans that causes them to have such a high
violent crime rate? I suggested that an important factor is the abundant
availability of fire arms. If that's not it, than what is the reason?
Simply putting it down to cultural differences is not good enough,
Europe and the US are not that different, culturally. As a matter of
fact, if you examine the cultural differences between the US and Europe,
the big difference is the virtually negligible percentage of religious
people in Europe, compared to a US where religion seems to become ever
more prominent and important. Ever since the colonial days, the US were
populated by the religious "weirdoes" (no offence) who felt oppressed in
Europe. Given the greater importance of religion in the US, one would
assume that would lead Americans to be less inclined to violent crime,
not more. So what is it about Americans that makes them want to shoot at
each other so badly?

Martin Holterman

never...@hotmail.com

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 5:36:52 PM3/17/05
to
But we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. Left wing
governments have a bad way of not respecting individual liberties and
attempting to control everyone's lives. Once left wing governments give
up all their weapons, we'll talk about citizens doing the same.

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 5:48:51 PM3/17/05
to

"Mike Watt" <Co...@bass.gov> wrote in message
news:4239F73F...@bass.gov...

>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> The French saved the arses of Americans.
>
>
> No, they did not, you silly Asstralian!

**Really? Looks like you've been reading the wrong history books.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Morton Davis

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 7:16:18 PM3/17/05
to

<j...@gardnerclan.net> wrote in message
news:1111078324.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Or in the case of one chap in the UK recently - your life or your head.

-*MORT*-


Christopher Morton

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 7:38:12 PM3/17/05
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:48:51 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>
>"Mike Watt" <Co...@bass.gov> wrote in message
>news:4239F73F...@bass.gov...
>>
>>
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> The French saved the arses of Americans.
>>
>>
>> No, they did not, you silly Asstralian!
>
>**Really? Looks like you've been reading the wrong history books.

Would that be in 1918 or in 1944?
--
"Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and you know it. Another monster lie
from the gover-media." - Judy Diarya, AKA "Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend"

Check out: http://machjr.blogspot.com

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 7:52:01 PM3/17/05
to

"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0n8k311pab9ajbq8c...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:48:51 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Watt" <Co...@bass.gov> wrote in message
>>news:4239F73F...@bass.gov...
>>>
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> The French saved the arses of Americans.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, they did not, you silly Asstralian!
>>
>>**Really? Looks like you've been reading the wrong history books.
>
> Would that be in 1918 or in 1944?

**No. Back to your history books.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Jim Bianchi

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 8:39:45 PM3/17/05
to
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:24:56 +0100, Martin Holterman wrote:
>OK, from a scientific point of view, you're right. But it does make me
>curious. What is it about Americans that causes them to have such a high
>violent crime rate? I suggested that an important factor is the abundant
>availability of fire arms.

90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any
type. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998)

Less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in the commission of
a crime. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)

>If that's not it, than what is the reason?

I don't know. I do know it is NOT firearms that cause these actions.

>Simply putting it down to cultural differences is not good enough,

Oh, I don't know. At least that belief doesn't justify the theft,
under color of law, of my rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

Numb Natural One

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 9:14:39 PM3/17/05
to
There's no telling what your doing with Sang

> check RECENT history. a fair number of the london metropolitan police
> (for example) now carry guns. check the stats on those officers
> assigned to heathrow as well

I only asked because there was an old Robin Willaims bit about British
police not being able to carry guns from the 80s

"STOP, or I'll say stop again!"

;_;

--
...or something
--
Owner of the Pre-Sig,

Two Bears

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 9:43:49 PM3/17/05
to
Trivial Trevor mewed:
Why do you ask?


reply:
I wanted to show everyone what a whimp-assed Assy no-life troll means
by "help".

Point proven.

ta tah...

Two Bears

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 9:52:21 PM3/17/05
to

Alric Knebel wrote:
> "Two Bears" <TWO...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1111023860.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Strange how THIS sort of thing seems to happen in other parts of
the
> > world more than in America. Hooray for your love of fascism and
> > cowadice!
> >
> > http://www.barefootsworld.net/1stmillionmom.html
> >
> > ta tah...
>
> Ta tah, nothing. That's a ridiculous counterargument. Even if
civilians
> have guns, you're not going to stop a modern army with them. This
was just
> ridiculous to use these pictures in this way. It was meaningless.
What's
> so stupid about it is, there were resistance movements in a lot of
places,
> and the Nazis did stuff like this anyway. Sometimes as retaliation
to
> resistance.
>


Bull Fucking Horse Shit !!

I've seen a "modern army" get it's ASS KICKED first hand with my own
eyes. Those pictures happened over 54 MILLION times in the 20th
century, son. Private gun ownership stops fascism at the local level
WHERE IT STARTS. If you don't belive me the read that site and don't
just look at the naked women!! Hear from from someone who WAS THERE
...Theodore Haas (Dachau survivor)

Once it gets to the point of those pictures..it's too late. That's why
we have a 2nd Amendment in the US.

ta tah...

Christopher Morton

unread,
Mar 17, 2005, 10:13:05 PM3/17/05
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:52:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>
>"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:0n8k311pab9ajbq8c...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:48:51 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Watt" <Co...@bass.gov> wrote in message
>>>news:4239F73F...@bass.gov...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The French saved the arses of Americans.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, they did not, you silly Asstralian!
>>>
>>>**Really? Looks like you've been reading the wrong history books.
>>
>> Would that be in 1918 or in 1944?
>
>**No. Back to your history books.

You've probably heard of books, but aren't qualified to say if you've
ever really seen one....

Trevor Wilson

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 3:46:57 AM3/18/05
to

"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3phk319kvn83dlrlo...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:52:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:0n8k311pab9ajbq8c...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:48:51 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Watt" <Co...@bass.gov> wrote in message
>>>>news:4239F73F...@bass.gov...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The French saved the arses of Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they did not, you silly Asstralian!
>>>>
>>>>**Really? Looks like you've been reading the wrong history books.
>>>
>>> Would that be in 1918 or in 1944?
>>
>>**No. Back to your history books.
>
> You've probably heard of books, but aren't qualified to say if you've
> ever really seen one....

**It seems I know more about US history than you do. Shame on you. Go learn
how the French helped.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Numb Natural One

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 5:34:26 AM3/18/05
to
There's no telling what your doing with Jonathan McArthur

> Michael Manring wrote:
>>>>>The French helped Americans kick the British army out of the
>>>>>colonies in the 18th century.
>>>>>Hooray for the American love of the French!
>>>>
>>>>Fixed.
>>>**LOL.
>>>
>>>Americans hate to be reminded of how the French saved their arses.
>> We are reminded that they were ONCE "smart."
>> But being in such close proximity to England, they eventualy became
>> as
>> stump stupid as the Brits, and now you Asstralians.
>
> Hello I am an American and I have never left America but I can tell
> you for a fact that all other countries are inferior to America.
>
> CASE CLOSED
>
> THIS THREAD SUCKS
>

Horrible

Christopher Morton

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 7:42:56 AM3/18/05
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:46:57 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>
>"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:3phk319kvn83dlrlo...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:52:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Christopher Morton" <cm...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:0n8k311pab9ajbq8c...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:48:51 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Watt" <Co...@bass.gov> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4239F73F...@bass.gov...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The French saved the arses of Americans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they did not, you silly Asstralian!
>>>>>
>>>>>**Really? Looks like you've been reading the wrong history books.
>>>>
>>>> Would that be in 1918 or in 1944?
>>>
>>>**No. Back to your history books.
>>
>> You've probably heard of books, but aren't qualified to say if you've
>> ever really seen one....
>
>**It seems I know more about US history than you do. Shame on you. Go learn
>how the French helped.

Only to you, but that's to be expected.

Sangfroid

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 10:04:49 AM3/18/05
to

"Numb Natural One" <pah...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1111112080.c2869451d60f2279b6480de12105f855@teranews...

> There's no telling what your doing with Sang
>
> > check RECENT history. a fair number of the london metropolitan police
> > (for example) now carry guns. check the stats on those officers
> > assigned to heathrow as well
>
> I only asked because there was an old Robin Willaims bit about British
> police not being able to carry guns from the 80s
>
> "STOP, or I'll say stop again!"
>
> ;_;
>

fwiw, london metro cops are notoriously heavy handed with the truncheon and
anybody who thinks that merely because (most) don't carry guns (all the
time) does not mean they are in any way less likely to wack somebody if
they get out of line vs. US cops. in fact, most people who study police
science believe the opposite

not that i am implying you said this, but it's a fact to be noted

whit

Sangfroid

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 10:06:02 AM3/18/05
to

"Jim Bianchi" <ji...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:slrnd3kcb1...@bolt.sonic.net...

> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:24:56 +0100, Martin Holterman wrote:
> >OK, from a scientific point of view, you're right. But it does make me
> >curious. What is it about Americans that causes them to have such a high
> >violent crime rate? I suggested that an important factor is the abundant
> >availability of fire arms.
>
> 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any
> type. (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998)
>
> Less than 1% of all firearms will ever be used in the commission of
> a crime. (FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994)
>
> >If that's not it, than what is the reason?
>
> I don't know. I do know it is NOT firearms that cause these actions.
>
> >Simply putting it down to cultural differences is not good enough,
>

because culture and human behavior are complex. try reading some history.
try studying US history, etc.

drawing an absurd correlation = causation, like many do, is shallow and does
not take into account radical cultural differences

whit

Sangfroid

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 10:10:43 AM3/18/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1d0nd$opd$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...

> Sang wrote:
>
> > "Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> > news:d1cap2$9br$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
> >
> >>Benrand wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 16 Mar 2005 16:06:58 -0800, oddf...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Strange how this kind of thing seems to happen in America more than in
> >>>>any other part of the world. Hooray for your love of guns!
> >>>>
> >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4344359.stm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If someone ELSE had a gun there, this guy would have been shot dead.
> >>>
> >>>Ever wonder why cops use guns?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>You're missing the whole point. If you have civilised anti-gun laws,
> >>neither criminals nor law-abiding citizens have guns. In Europe, a
> >>criminal would only carry a gun if he really had something to do with
> >>it, like murder someone. But that someone wouldn't normally be a law
> >>abiding citizen, so the citizen has nothing to fear. At least here, if
> >>you get burgled or raped, you know that criminal is not carrying a gun,
> >>so you might escape with your life.
> >
> >
> > except in both the UK and Australia, crime (and gun crime as well) has
gone
> > up significantly since tough gun "bans" were imposed
> >
> cite?

try a friggin google search. this is well accepted and like stating that
"guns kill people often"

it's not debatable. the UK has a # of official govt. sites that show crime
data. note the upsurge AFTER the gun ban was passed

UK has seen similar problems

> > your theory does not match the data
> >
> > are those "civilised anti-gun laws?"
> >
> > fwiw, crime also went down markedly in FLA (a recent example) when gun
laws
> > were changed from "may issue" to "shall issue" and guns proliferated
> > markedly (among civilians)
> >
> Yes, I know, making gun control more strict only hurts law-abiding
> citizens. That's why you want to focus on getting all the guns...
>

which is of cours impossible. and turns our citizens into subjects. we are
citizens, not subjects. we have a right to defense and bearing of arms

> > it's a nice theory you have, but it's not supported by evidence
> >
> > the fact is that the US has (and in general has always had) a very high
> > violent crime rate compared to other "first world" nations. and we have
had
> > a lot of guns. taking that correlation and inferring CAUSATION is where
you
> > go astray
> >
> > there are immense cultural differences that makes comparisons bogus
> >
>
> OK, from a scientific point of view, you're right. But it does make me
> curious. What is it about Americans that causes them to have such a high
> violent crime rate?

any # of factors - increased emphasis on radical individualism, great
personal freedoms, "frontier mentality" , immature development stage of
national culture, momentum of history, etc etc.


I suggested that an important factor is the abundant
> availability of fire arms. If that's not it, than what is the reason?

culture

> Simply putting it down to cultural differences is not good enough,

nor is your suggestion

YOU are making the correlation = causation statement. the burden is on you.
i've spent hours in usenet debating this in the past. it grows tiresome

it is simply not rigorous or valid to make that assumption


> Europe and the US are not that different, culturally.

rubbish


As a matter of
> fact, if you examine the cultural differences between the US and Europe,
> the big difference is the virtually negligible percentage of religious
> people in Europe, compared to a US where religion seems to become ever
> more prominent and important. Ever since the colonial days, the US were
> populated by the religious "weirdoes" (no offence) who felt oppressed in
> Europe. Given the greater importance of religion in the US, one would
> assume that would lead Americans to be less inclined to violent crime,
> not more. So what is it about Americans that makes them want to shoot at
> each other so badly?
>
> Martin Holterman

this is (at least) an essay length question. the point is do your own
study. you are the one who makes the correlation = causation claims. those
are absurd, non-scientific, and not supported by evidence

whit


Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 10:39:31 AM3/18/05
to
[cut]
I resent that you call my post non-scientif. I do not equate correlation
with causation. I know the difference, I work with it every day. The
correct sequence is that I observe a correlation, and then form a
hypothesis that that correlation is due to causation. Such a hypothesis
can then be debated and tested. If there is evidence that my hypothesis
is incorrect, or at least insufficient, to explain the observed effect,
anyone is obvioulsy welcome to propose other hypotheses. These would
have to go beyond simply putting it down to "cultural differences",
because that is equivalent to simply saying: there is more violent crime
in the US, simply, because there is. You have proposed a number of
alternative hypotheses, some of which are perfectly credible. Thank you.
It is, however, a little difficult for me to judge them from all the way
over here in Europe. That's why I post this kind of stuff on usenet. If
it bores you, as I can totally understand it would, feel free to ignore me.
As for your hypotheses:
- Radical individualism: This seems reasonable. The more individualist a
society becomes, the less social control works to keep people at bay.
- Great personal freedoms: I'm not sure what this one means. Surely you
don't mean that the Bill of Rights awards Americans more freedoms than
Europeans enjoy? And even if you did, I'm not sure how causation would work.
- "Frontier mentality": I'm not sure about this one. If this were really
a factor, you'd expect higher rates of violent crime in those regions in
the US where the frontier mentality is most clear, i.e. in the South and
the Mid-West (correct me if I'm wrong). The evidence seems to show that
it is particularly the big cities that suffer from high violent crime rates.
- Immature development stage of national culture: The US have existed as
an independent nation for 228 years, and as country for even longer. I
think your culture is quite mature.
- Momentum of history: That seems like a reasonable hypothesis.

Allow me to add one more: poverty. Poverty tends to drive people to
crime. In Europe, social security helps keep the poor at a level of
income that they don't have to commit crime to make ends meet. In the
US, they're often on their own.

Martin Holterman

Morton Davis

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 10:49:08 AM3/18/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1et2j$m17$1...@reader10.wxs.nl...

> Allow me to add one more: poverty. Poverty tends to drive people to
> crime. In Europe, social security helps keep the poor at a level of
> income that they don't have to commit crime to make ends meet. In the
> US, they're often on their own.
>
>
CITE most definately required.

BTW: Explain why there aren't a lot of gun-related crimes with these weapons
in America?

http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/

-*MORT*-


Al Smith

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 11:10:05 AM3/18/05
to

These same people don't have a problem understanding that Klingons are
more violent than Vulcans and you probably don't want to go into a
Klingon bar after they get all hopped up on Romulan ale even if you do
have a phaser and they don't.

Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 12:47:07 PM3/18/05
to

That depends on what you consider a lot. In the Netherlands, there are
about 200 murders and manslaugters a year. (Source, see my original
post.) In the US, the number of murders and non-negligent homicides in
2003 was 16.503 (source: FBI Uniform Crime Report
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm) If you correct for the different size
of the population, the US rate is roughly 5 times higher. Table 2.12 in
the Crime Report shows the breakdown for murder: 14.408 murders, of
which 9.638 are carried out with fire arms (66,9 %). 7,701 murders
carried out with handguns, 390 with rifles, etc.
In the Netherlands, roughly 30 % of murders and non-negligent homicides
are carried out with fire arms and another 30 % with knives. I think
that takes care of the statement that there is more violent crime in the
US, and also that, in the US, a larger percentage of violent crime
involves fire arms.
Extra Cite: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

As for the link between poverty and crime. First, lots of rich people
break the law, e.g. Martha Stewart, but they don't usually hold up
liquor stores. Focusing on violent crime, here are some cites. I tried
to make them as varied as possible:

http://www.crime.org/do/Home (Look under: solving the root causes of crime)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf (page 9) (Although 71 %
of prison inmates had a job in the month before their arrest, only 16,4
% of inmates had a monthly income of more than $ 2000, while 46 % had a
monthly income of less than $ 600,-.

Martin Holterman


Bubba

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 1:58:13 PM3/18/05
to

Tell ya what Marty, correlate this hypothesis. If the murder victims in
the Netherlands had guns to defend themselves with, how low would the
murder rate be?

RD Sandman

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 2:33:22 PM3/18/05
to
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:24:56 +0100, Martin Holterman wrote:

And just exactly do you propose doing that. Keep in mind that if you can
eliminate all guns from the hands of the criminals and guarantee they can
get no more, I may consider not carrying mine.



>> it's a nice theory you have, but it's not supported by evidence
>>
>> the fact is that the US has (and in general has always had) a very high
>> violent crime rate compared to other "first world" nations. and we have had
>> a lot of guns. taking that correlation and inferring CAUSATION is where you
>> go astray
>>
>> there are immense cultural differences that makes comparisons bogus
>>
>
> OK, from a scientific point of view, you're right. But it does make me
> curious. What is it about Americans that causes them to have such a high
> violent crime rate? I suggested that an important factor is the abundant
> availability of fire arms. If that's not it, than what is the reason?

Nope, that is a tool. The causes of violence are rooted in the culture and
social conditions.



> Simply putting it down to cultural differences is not good enough,

Even if that is part of the correct answer?



> Europe and the US are not that different, culturally. As a matter of
> fact, if you examine the cultural differences between the US and Europe,

You will see that Europe does not have a gun culture or one of independence
anymore.



> the big difference is the virtually negligible percentage of religious
> people in Europe, compared to a US where religion seems to become ever
> more prominent and important. Ever since the colonial days, the US were
> populated by the religious "weirdoes" (no offence) who felt oppressed in
> Europe. Given the greater importance of religion in the US, one would
> assume that would lead Americans to be less inclined to violent crime,
> not more. So what is it about Americans that makes them want to shoot at
> each other so badly?

Do you really believe that european kids are exposed to the same stimuli as
US kids? Do you really believe the War on Drugs is the same on both
continents?

--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell

Morton Davis

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 3:04:12 PM3/18/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1f4hv$q3o$1...@reader10.wxs.nl...

> Morton Davis wrote:
> > "Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> > news:d1et2j$m17$1...@reader10.wxs.nl...
> >
> >>Allow me to add one more: poverty. Poverty tends to drive people to
> >>crime. In Europe, social security helps keep the poor at a level of
> >>income that they don't have to commit crime to make ends meet. In the
> >>US, they're often on their own.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > CITE most definately required.
> >
> > BTW: Explain why there aren't a lot of gun-related crimes with these
weapons
> > in America?
> >
> > http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/
> >
> > -*MORT*-
> >
> >
>
> That depends on what you consider a lot.

I'm talking asbout the weapons shoewn at the URL I gave. Get back to me when
you can tell me the HUGE number of murders and etc. done with the weapons
shown at the URL.

-*MORT*-


Morton Davis

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 3:07:13 PM3/18/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1f4hv$q3o$1...@reader10.wxs.nl...

> As for the link between poverty and crime. First, lots of rich people
> break the law, e.g. Martha Stewart, but they don't usually hold up
> liquor stores. Focusing on violent crime, here are some cites. I tried
> to make them as varied as possible:
>
> http://www.crime.org/do/Home (Look under: solving the root causes of
crime)
>
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm
>
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf (page 9) (Although 71 %
> of prison inmates had a job in the month before their arrest, only 16,4
> % of inmates had a monthly income of more than $ 2000, while 46 % had a
> monthly income of less than $ 600,-.
>
>
Different people react to stimuli in different ways. The real link between
crime and an enviromental factor is education. Most violent criminals can't
read or write at all or well enough to get a job.

-*MORT*-


Alric Knebel

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 3:16:04 PM3/18/05
to

"Two Bears" <TWO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111114341.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Well, that explain how the Nazis marched all over Europe and set up
concentration camps with absolute ease. I appreciate your ideas, but I
think you're being a bit optimistic. And let me make this perfectly clear:
I'm a liberal, and I'm AGAINST any sort of gun control. So let's discuss
this.

Okay. You say fascism would start at the local level. I'd say that fascism
would be empowered at a CENTRAL level, on the federal level. It would be
IMPLEMENTED locally, through law enforcement, through judges, jails, and do
on. But how would you stop it? I believe at this very moment that fascism
is slowly being implemented. The work place is basically totalitarian for
most people. Okay. What do you do about it, if they abuse that power
further? Who are you going to shoot? Would you organize some sort of
secret organization? And do keep in mind, that regardless of the regime,
there's always local people benefiting from it, and don't want to see it
change.

--
Alric Knebel
http://ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 3:28:45 PM3/18/05
to
Morton Davis wrote:
> "Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:d1f4hv$q3o$1...@reader10.wxs.nl...
>
>>Morton Davis wrote:
>>
>>>"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
>>>news:d1et2j$m17$1...@reader10.wxs.nl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Allow me to add one more: poverty. Poverty tends to drive people to
>>>>crime. In Europe, social security helps keep the poor at a level of
>>>>income that they don't have to commit crime to make ends meet. In the
>>>>US, they're often on their own.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>CITE most definately required.
>>>
>>>BTW: Explain why there aren't a lot of gun-related crimes with these
>
> weapons
>
>>>in America?
>>>
>>>http://www.knobcreekshoot.com/
>>>
>>>-*MORT*-
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That depends on what you consider a lot.
>
>
> I'm talking asbout the weapons shoewn at the URL I gave. Get back to me when
> you can tell me the HUGE number of murders and etc. done with the weapons
> shown at the URL.
>
>
>
> -*MORT*-
>
>

Oh, I'm sorry, I saw that URL the first time, but I thought it was just
a part of your signature.
For those who can't be bothered, it's basically about a whole range of
machine guns, including AK-47s, UZIs, and other weapons such as flame
throwers and anti-tank weapons.
Brief response: I admit that these weapons are used less to commit
crimes with, which is shown in the cite in my previous post.
(http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm)
That is basically due to two reasons: Firstly, these weapons are a less
logical choice for criminals. Unless you want to do a seriously violent
bank robbery, à la "Heat", criminals would usually prefer smaller
weapons, that are easier to hide and less messy. It's hard to see what
crime you would want to commit with a flame thrower. (Except for arson,
of course.) Secondly, their limited availability. As far as I know (and
I'm not an American) there used to be a ban on these weapons, but it
expired last year. Therefore, it would make sense that criminals would
use different kinds of fire arms to commit crime with. Even if they
could get their hands on one, it would be easier to trace, making it
less useful.
So much for the upside. The other side of the story is that it is harder
to see why the government should not forbid citizens to own such
weapons. Citizens wouldn't normally want to own such weapons for self
defence, because it is slight overkill. Besides, if you want to carry
your weapon with you at all times, you'd normally prefer something
smaller. As for hunting, hunting is not a constitutionally protected
right, and would presumably be a lot more fun with a rifle that is not
an automatic. That way, at least it stays a challenge.
Basically, the only reason why the government shouldn't is the idea that
the second amendment exists to enable the citizens to resist the
government if it breaks the constitution. (Elsewhere in this newsgroup I
already referred to article 20 (4) of the German constitution which
explicitly gives Germans this right.) I, for one, am not convinced that
that is what the second amendment is for. (Cf. the reference to fighting
rebellion in article I (9) (2)) I am not convinced that it isn't,
either, though.

Yours,

Martin Holterman

Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 4:08:20 PM3/18/05
to

That's not a bad suggestion. Here's the same report of the Department of
Justice that I got the income data from, above, on education: (Note that
these are data for all prison inmates, not just violent crime.)

8th grade or less: 12,3%
Some High school: 31,6%
GED: 17,1%
High school diploma: 25,9%
Some College: 10,1%
College graduate or more: 2,9%

I would say that this is proof that prison inmates, on average, have
less education than the average American. However, I am not in a
position to judge how much less. (I am not that familiar with the
average American.) Moreover, I am not sure about causality. (Did they
drop out of school to turn to crime, or did they turn to crime because
they didn't have enough education to get a satisfactory job? Or are they
simply too lazy to go to school or have a job? (The three different
possibilities when faced with correlation: A causes B, B causes A or C
causes A and B.)

Martin Holterman

Jim Bianchi

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 4:33:53 PM3/18/05
to
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:28:45 +0100, Martin Holterman wrote:
>Oh, I'm sorry, I saw that URL the first time, but I thought it was just
>a part of your signature.
>For those who can't be bothered, it's basically about a whole range of
>machine guns, including AK-47s, UZIs, and other weapons such as flame
>throwers and anti-tank weapons.
>Brief response: I admit that these weapons are used less to commit
>crimes with, which is shown in the cite in my previous post.
>(http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm)
>That is basically due to two reasons: Firstly, these weapons are a less
>logical choice for criminals. Unless you want to do a seriously violent
>bank robbery, à la "Heat", criminals would usually prefer smaller
>weapons, that are easier to hide and less messy. It's hard to see what
>crime you would want to commit with a flame thrower. (Except for arson,
>of course.) Secondly, their limited availability.

>As far as I know (and I'm not an American) there used to be a ban on these
>weapons, but it expired last year.

No. These weapons 'banned' were 1. NOT 'banned' and 2. they were all
semi-automatic firearms ONLY.
1. The AWB prohibited sale of new firearm meeting these criteria.
Older ones could still be possessed, sold, or bought.
2. The criteria were such that it was (rather) obvious this
legislation was based ONLY on cosmetics -- how the thing looked. And that
was ALL that was to distinguish one of these so called 'assault weapons'
from any other kind of firearm.

Not to even mention that a flamethrower is not considered a
destructive device under NFA-34 -- the regulation under which machineguns,
artillery, silencers, short bbl shotguns and rifles are taxed -- one can buy
and own one with perfect legality. But NONE of these were covered by the AWB
which expired.

Two Bears

unread,
Mar 18, 2005, 11:02:15 PM3/18/05
to

Well, I'm probably a libertarian but I usually vote republican and I AM
FOR GUN CONTROL....felons and mentally ill should not have guns as well
as some other people. That's gun control.

>
> Okay. You say fascism would start at the local level. I'd say that
fascism
> would be empowered at a CENTRAL level, on the federal level.

Yes. I agree and stand corrected. But gun ownership can stop fascism at
the local level both kenetically and potentially. "The autocrat does
not fear the guns as much as the spirit of those who own them"

> It would be
> IMPLEMENTED locally, through law enforcement, through judges, jails,
and do
> on. But how would you stop it?


http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm


I believe at this very moment that fascism
> is slowly being implemented. The work place is basically
totalitarian for
> most people.

I agree.

Okay. What do you do about it, if they abuse that power
> further? Who are you going to shoot? Would you organize some sort
of
> secret organization?

I don't know. It's the gazillion dollar question. ~~It's too late to
work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards~~


> And do keep in mind, that regardless of the regime,
> there's always local people benefiting from it, and don't want to see
it
> change.

Fer sure. In fact for a long time, we all benefit from it.


later,
Two Bears

Phil Smythe

unread,
Mar 19, 2005, 9:23:51 AM3/19/05
to

Sang wrote:

> except in both the UK and Australia, crime (and gun crime as well)
has gone
> up significantly since tough gun "bans" were imposed
>

I can't speak for the UK but your claim re Australia is WRONG.

The "gun ban" came in in 1996 and in that year there were 3,219 crimes
involving firearms. The latest data is for 2003 and there were 1,905
crimes involving firearms(ABS publication 4510.0 Recorded Crime). I'll
save you the math by telling you that's a fall of over 40%.

Your claim re "crime" is quite meaningless because firearms are only
involved in a couple of percent of all crimes, either offensively or
defensively. I believe credit card fraud is up. Is that an indicator of
a failed gun policy?

The gun laws were introduced to have effect on a specific crime, one we
have not seen since.

Two Bears

unread,
Mar 19, 2005, 12:28:16 PM3/19/05
to
Phil of Shit bleats:

The gun laws were introduced to have effect on a specific crime, one we

have not seen since.


reply"
Yep. And W H E N that crime DOES occur, Phil of Shit and his
ilk will resort to their usual Jr High tactics of semantics.

For example: Joe Blow guns down 34 people in Assyland and Phil of
Shit will come up with... "mew mew....It's not the same!! He used a
gun that was from the US so it's all the US's fault." ...or....
"mmbbaaahh, bhaaaaa.....It is not the same because Joe blow was proven
to be crazy"

ROFLMMFAO !

ta tah...

PLMerite

unread,
Mar 19, 2005, 2:54:22 PM3/19/05
to

"Rincewind" <ri...@unseen.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.17....@unseen.edu...
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:41:29 -0800, edi...@netpath.net mumbled something
> like this:
>
> > Get out of denial. Seeing that you quoted the BBC News from the
> > land of no handguns and no "assault rifles," you might be interested to
> > know that - in the past week - a 12-YEAR-OLD kid in England was jailed
for
> > life for raping his teacher at school, and an ax murder took place on a
> > street in an affluent area of London in broad daylight.
>
> Wow! A whole TWO sex/violent crimes in the last week. British civilisation
> is falling apart!


Then stay there. Be safe. Be happy. Be quiet.


Regards, PLMerite

--
"Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil is not overcome by fleeing
from it." - Jeff Cooper

>
> --
> Rinso
> /\
> / \
> /wizz\
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>


Randy Sweeney

unread,
Mar 19, 2005, 2:54:58 PM3/19/05
to

"Two Bears" <TWO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111253296....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Phil of Shit bleats:
> The gun laws were introduced to have effect on a specific crime, one we
>
> have not seen since.

Something you rarely saw anyway.
You might also say that banning guns has resulted in no vampire attacks.


Glenn

unread,
Mar 19, 2005, 7:06:04 PM3/19/05
to
On 19 Mar 2005 06:23:51 -0800, "Phil Smythe" <smy...@upnaway.com>
wrote:

>
>Sang wrote:
>
>> except in both the UK and Australia, crime (and gun crime as well)
>has gone
>> up significantly since tough gun "bans" were imposed
>>
>
>I can't speak for the UK but your claim re Australia is WRONG.
>
>The "gun ban" came in in 1996 and in that year there were 3,219 crimes
>involving firearms. The latest data is for 2003 and there were 1,905
>crimes involving firearms(ABS publication 4510.0 Recorded Crime). I'll
>save you the math by telling you that's a fall of over 40%.
>
>Your claim re "crime" is quite meaningless because firearms are only
>involved in a couple of percent of all crimes, either offensively or
>defensively.

LOL And how can there be "deefensive" use when the law abiding
citizen cannot carry a gun?

> I believe credit card fraud is up. Is that an indicator of
>a failed gun policy?

No, but the average Australian citizen cannot carry a gun. The
criminal now has esay prey.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig02.html
The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per
100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.
In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people - the
highest recorded since 1995.
The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000 people, which is higher
than any previous year.

>
>The gun laws were introduced to have effect on a specific crime, one we
>have not seen since.

Really? Right above you state that "The "gun ban" came in in 1996 and


in that year there were 3,219 crimes involving firearms. The latest
data is for 2003 and there were 1,905 crimes involving firearms(ABS
publication 4510.0 Recorded Crime). I'll save you the math by telling
you that's a fall of over 40%."

Now which specific crime did it "prevent" and you haven't seen any
since?

Rapes?

Assaults?

Robbery?


Hugh Gibbons

unread,
Mar 19, 2005, 7:30:20 PM3/19/05
to
In article <T5l_d.34518$6g7....@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Alric Knebel" <al...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Two Bears" <TWO...@aol.com> wrote in message

> news:1111023860.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Strange how THIS sort of thing seems to happen in other parts of the
> > world more than in America. Hooray for your love of fascism and
> > cowadice!
> >
> > http://www.barefootsworld.net/1stmillionmom.html
> >
> > ta tah...
>
> Ta tah, nothing. That's a ridiculous counterargument. Even if civilians
> have guns, you're not going to stop a modern army with them. This was just
> ridiculous to use these pictures in this way. It was meaningless. What's
> so stupid about it is, there were resistance movements in a lot of places,
> and the Nazis did stuff like this anyway. Sometimes as retaliation to
> resistance.

But you're missing the point of the Amendment. The Amendment protects
the right of citizens to have MILITARY arms so that they can function as
a Militia when they are called to serve the country in the event of
rebellion or foreign attack. It's not about handguns or even shotguns.
The 2nd Amendment clearly implies that citizens ought to have assault
rifles.

Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
-- Anonymous

Hugh Gibbons

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 12:16:22 AM3/20/05
to
In article <RxG_d.148843$4q6.118802@attbi_s01>,
"Morton Davis" <anti...@home.com> wrote:

Where are you going with this argument? Do you want to suggest that
Americans commit more crimes because they're dumber than Europeans?

Phil Smythe

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 4:38:40 AM3/20/05
to

Yes, heard this all before. Mort Davis has been bleating this line for
a few years now. You stick to your fevered imaginings, I'll stick with
the facts.

Phil Smythe

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 4:51:47 AM3/20/05
to

That statement only demonstrates you lack of knowledge on the topic.
According to the Australian Institute of Criminolgy "There have been no
mass-murders committed with a firearm since 1995-96. Prior to this
Australia recorded at least one firearm mass-murder per year (with the
exception of 1989-90 and 1993-94)" (covering a 12 year period).

I'd guess that firearm mass murders were not as rare as vampire attacks
based on that, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Happily in the
almost decade since the AIC noted that "at least 1 a year" period there
have been ZERO. Nobody here is unhappy with that.

Phil Smythe

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 5:10:00 AM3/20/05
to

Glenn wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2005 06:23:51 -0800, "Phil Smythe" <smy...@upnaway.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sang wrote:
> >
> >> except in both the UK and Australia, crime (and gun crime as well)
> >has gone
> >> up significantly since tough gun "bans" were imposed
> >>
> >
> >I can't speak for the UK but your claim re Australia is WRONG.
> >
> >The "gun ban" came in in 1996 and in that year there were 3,219
crimes
> >involving firearms. The latest data is for 2003 and there were 1,905
> >crimes involving firearms(ABS publication 4510.0 Recorded Crime).
I'll
> >save you the math by telling you that's a fall of over 40%.
> >
> >Your claim re "crime" is quite meaningless because firearms are only
> >involved in a couple of percent of all crimes, either offensively or
> >defensively.
>
> LOL And how can there be "deefensive" use when the law abiding
> citizen cannot carry a gun?

A serious question first. What is the fear of using cutting and pasting
to quote somebody? Surely that is the safest way to accurately quote
someone? Most dont do it and subsequently misquote.

As for your question 'how can there be "deefensive" use when the law
abiding citizen cannot carry a gun?', Australia has no history of such
defensive uses pre gun laws. That invalidates any claims that because
of stricter laws people cannot defend themselves and criminals know
they can offend safe in the knowledge there will be no firearm self
defence.

>
>
> > I believe credit card fraud is up. Is that an indicator of
> >a failed gun policy?
>
> No, but the average Australian citizen cannot carry a gun. The
> criminal now has esay prey.

>
> http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig02.html
> The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per
> 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.
> In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people - the
> highest recorded since 1995.
> The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000 people, which is higher
> than any previous year.

As the almost all firearms crimes are murder and robbery since the 1996
gun laws the rate per 100,000 is, according to the latest data LOWER.
You need to update your figures.

>
>
>
> >
> >The gun laws were introduced to have effect on a specific crime, one
we
> >have not seen since.
>
> Really? Right above you state that "The "gun ban" came in in 1996
and
> in that year there were 3,219 crimes involving firearms. The latest
> data is for 2003 and there were 1,905 crimes involving firearms(ABS
> publication 4510.0 Recorded Crime). I'll save you the math by telling
> you that's a fall of over 40%."
>
> Now which specific crime did it "prevent" and you haven't seen any
> since?
>
> Rapes?
>
> Assaults?
>
> Robbery?

Shame on you for putting in quotes the word "prevent" which is
obviously your INVENTION. I'll repeat what I did say in the hope that
you might actually read it this time, "The gun laws were introduced to
have effect on a specific crime, one we have not seen since." Any
mention of "prevention" in there? No, I didn't think so. Perhaps a
hint? No, absolutely NOTHING about prevention. And your the man
constantly telling to look up a dictionary. How emabarrrassing for you.

Your question above is a classic strawman. "The Straw Man fallacy is
committed when a person simply ignores another person's actual position
and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of
that position." That's exactly what you've done after I wrote "effect"
and you then demanded I give evidence of "prevent".

Come back if you a question relating to what I actually did write.

Morton Davis

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 9:13:14 AM3/20/05
to

"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
news:party-A81A4C....@news-fe-02.texas.rr.com...
We don't commit more crime that Europeans. When it comes to violent crime,
people in the UK are more likely to be victims of crime than Americans. If
you look at criminals in general, most of them are undereducated - both in
Europe and in America. Many have also been in trouble with the law many
times. That makes it hard for them to change carreers in mid-stream as it
were. Add in drug addiction and the uneraseable marks that can leave on a
human body, prison tattoos, scars, broken teeth, etc. that are common among
the lower levels of crime and you get individuals who need a lot more than a
helping hand to get their lives straight.

-*MORT*-


Glenn

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 9:25:27 AM3/20/05
to
On 20 Mar 2005 02:10:00 -0800, "Phil Smythe" <smy...@upnaway.com>
wrote:

You mean that no one in Australian history has used a gun to defend
himself from a criminal (except police)? I find that totaaly
amazing!!!

It is also false. Are you so intent on trying to make a point that
you resort to lies? Or did you just not take time to research and
figure you can post any old thing and it be accepted as fact?

PS: "Kingsley Foreman".


> That invalidates any claims that because
>of stricter laws people cannot defend themselves and criminals know
>they can offend safe in the knowledge there will be no firearm self
>defence.
>
>>
>>
>> > I believe credit card fraud is up. Is that an indicator of
>> >a failed gun policy?
>>
>> No, but the average Australian citizen cannot carry a gun. The
>> criminal now has esay prey.
>
>>
>> http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig02.html
>> The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per
>> 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.
>> In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people - the
>> highest recorded since 1995.
>> The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000 people, which is higher
>> than any previous year.
>
>As the almost all firearms crimes are murder and robbery since the 1996
>gun laws the rate per 100,000 is, according to the latest data LOWER.
>You need to update your figures.

OK: Please provide the site that has lower figures.

>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >The gun laws were introduced to have effect on a specific crime, one
>we
>> >have not seen since.
>>
>> Really? Right above you state that "The "gun ban" came in in 1996
>and
>> in that year there were 3,219 crimes involving firearms. The latest
>> data is for 2003 and there were 1,905 crimes involving firearms(ABS
>> publication 4510.0 Recorded Crime). I'll save you the math by telling
>> you that's a fall of over 40%."
>>
>> Now which specific crime did it "prevent" and you haven't seen any
>> since?
>>
>> Rapes?
>>
>> Assaults?
>>
>> Robbery?
>
>Shame on you for putting in quotes the word "prevent" which is
>obviously your INVENTION.

Really? Again, I note that abstract thinking is not your strong
point.

> I'll repeat what I did say in the hope that
>you might actually read it this time, "The gun laws were introduced to
>have effect on a specific crime, one we have not seen since."

I see. So if "The gun laws were introduced to have effect on a
specific crime", then what was the intent? Was the effect to 'prevent'
that crime? To cause 'more' of the crime?

If there was an intent other than to 'prevent', please say what it
was.


> Any
>mention of "prevention" in there? No, I didn't think so. Perhaps a
>hint? No, absolutely NOTHING about prevention. And your the man
>constantly telling to look up a dictionary. How emabarrrassing for you.

What is embarassing is your concern for the word prevent. As above,
please tell us the effect the laws are aupposed to have if not
"prevent"?


>
>Your question above is a classic strawman. "The Straw Man fallacy is
>committed when a person simply ignores another person's actual position
>and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of
>that position."

So prevention is distorted, exaggerated or misrepresentation?


> That's exactly what you've done after I wrote "effect"
>and you then demanded I give evidence of "prevent".
>
>Come back if you a question relating to what I actually did write.

OK: If the laws were not enacted to prevent a crime, what is the
desired effect?

Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 10:07:17 AM3/20/05
to

I thought we were wondering why the US have a higher violent crime rate.
That's why I discussed a number of differences between the US and
Europe that might be relevant to explain this. Your point only works if
Americans, on average, are less educated than Europeans. And I'm not
sure if that is the case, although it might be hard to compare them due
to the different education systems.

Martin Holterman

Jim Bianchi

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 10:43:14 AM3/20/05
to
On 20 Mar 2005 01:51:47 -0800, Phil Smythe wrote:
>
>Randy Sweeney wrote:
b>> "Two Bears" <TWO...@aol.com> wrote in message

>> news:1111253296....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > Phil of Shit bleats:
>> > The gun laws were introduced to have effect on a specific crime,
>one we
>> >
>> > have not seen since.
>>
>> Something you rarely saw anyway.
>> You might also say that banning guns has resulted in no vampire
>attacks.
>
>That statement only demonstrates you lack of knowledge on the topic.
>According to the Australian Institute of Criminolgy "There have been no
>mass-murders committed with a firearm since 1995-96. Prior to this
>Australia recorded at least one firearm mass-murder per year (with the
>exception of 1989-90 and 1993-94)" (covering a 12 year period).

You mean, there HAVE been vampire attacks?

Scout

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 10:58:57 AM3/20/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1k3j9$l7q$1...@reader13.wxs.nl...

Well, you might want to first figure out why the UK has a higher rate than
the rest of Europe, then get back to us with the differences, then we can
see which if any of those differences apply to the US.


Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 11:46:47 AM3/20/05
to
Scout wrote:

Do they? I could look for the data, but I think since you brought it up
the burden of providing a cite is on you. (Not that I don't believe you,
it's just that I would like to take a closer look a the numbers, but I'm
too lazy to look for them myself ;-) ).

Martin Holterman

Scout

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 12:41:05 PM3/20/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1k9ol$746$2...@reader10.wxs.nl...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 1:23:10 PM3/20/05
to
Scout wrote:

Fair enough, although it is an article from 2001. The US does have a
higher murder rate (says the article) and I would assume that the US
also have a higher rate of crimes committed with guns. (I know that out
of about 13.000 murders and homicides in the US in 2003, about 8000 were
committed with fire arms. Source: Department of Justice.)
Generally, the final purpose of the discussion is the question of
whether the 2nd amendment is a good thing. That's why I think the above
rephrased research question is a fair adjustment in light of the new
evidence.

Martin Holterman

Two Bears

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 1:34:16 PM3/20/05
to
We still have a long long long long long way to go to catch up with the
murder and carnage rates of those other "western developed" countries
who do not have a 2nd Amendment:

Don't believe me?

Then believe this:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/1stmillionmom.html


ta tah...

Scout

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 1:38:20 PM3/20/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1kfqv$jcg$1...@reader08.wxs.nl...

Oh? The issue is whether the 2nd Amendment is a good thing? I can answer
that question.

"An estimated 170 MILLION people have been murdered by tyrannical,
out-of-control governments in [20th] CENTURY alone. "

Here is a breakdown of the carnage:


Democide in the 20th Century


Regime Years Total killed


Soviet Union 1917-1987 61,911,000
Communist China 1949-1987 35,236,000
Nazi Germany 1933-1945 20,946,000
Nationalist China 1928-1949 10,075,000
Japan 1936-1945 5,964,000
China (communist guerillas) 1923-1949 3,466,000
Cambodia 1975-1979 2,035,000
Turkey 1909-1918 1,883,000
Vietnam 1945-1987 1,678,000
North Korea 1948-1987 1,663,000 (suspected)
Poland 1945-1948 1,585,000
Pakistan 1958-1987 1,503,000
Mexico 1900-1920 1,417,000 (suspected)
Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944-1987 1,072,000
Russia 1900-1917 1,066,000 (suspected)
China (warlords) 1917-1949 910,000
Turkey (Ataturk) 1919-1923 878,000
United Kingdom 1900-1987 816,000
Portugal 1926-1982 741,000
Indonesia 1965-1987 729,000
Combined others 1900-1987 2,792,000


World total 1900-1987 169,202,000


DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
by R.J. Rummel (Transaction Books, 1994)
(reviewed by Doug Bandow, May 1995)

I think it's clear that it's better to be armed, than unarmed given these
governmental totals. Criminal action is nothing more than sniffles in
comparison.

Scout

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 1:40:07 PM3/20/05
to

"Two Bears" <TWO...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111343656....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

And this

Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 1:47:42 PM3/20/05
to
Two Bears wrote:

No offense, but I think it is disgusting if anyone other than the Jews
tries to use the Holocaust for political gain. No matter how right you
may be, leave those people alone, they've suffered enough.
BTW, my opinion so far is that the only way the 2nd amendment makes
sense is if you see it as a guarantee to enable citizens to resist and
oppressive government. (Which is the point that website is trying to
make, and the point Scout made in the post just below yours.) Everything
else you can legally do with a gun does not seem worthy of
constitutional protection. Nevertheless, one has to wonder whether the
other ways of keeping the government at bay shouldn't be enough. The US
are not Nazi-Germany or Stalinist-Russia. The courts have shown in the
past that they are more than willing to stop the government if they're
going too far, starting all the way back with Madbury v. Madison.

Martin Holterman

RD Sandman

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 1:52:08 PM3/20/05
to
On 20 Mar 2005 01:51:47 -0800, Phil Smythe wrote:

>> Something you rarely saw anyway.
>> You might also say that banning guns has resulted in no vampire
> attacks.
>
> That statement only demonstrates you lack of knowledge on the topic.
> According to the Australian Institute of Criminolgy "There have been no
> mass-murders committed with a firearm since 1995-96. Prior to this
> Australia recorded at least one firearm mass-murder per year (with the
> exception of 1989-90 and 1993-94)" (covering a 12 year period).

Interesting.....the US has not suffered a spate of school shootings in a
while after having several of them. No particular laws have been passed
that would have affected that frequency. What do you suppose the reason
is? Can I attribute it to the fall of AOL-Time Warner?

--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman

School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.

"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell

RD Sandman

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 1:57:14 PM3/20/05
to

Among others. The USSC says the amendment reference to the militia means"

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates
in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and
the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the
Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the
common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And
further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to
appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at
the time."

The term "of the kind in common use at the time" would indicate rifles,
shotguns and sidearms. All of which were used in battle.

Scout

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 3:56:43 PM3/20/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1kggn$3d0$2...@reader13.wxs.nl...

> Two Bears wrote:
>
>> We still have a long long long long long way to go to catch up with the
>> murder and carnage rates of those other "western developed" countries
>> who do not have a 2nd Amendment:
>>
>> Don't believe me?
>>
>> Then believe this:
>> http://www.barefootsworld.net/1stmillionmom.html
>>
>>
>> ta tah...
>>
>
> No offense, but I think it is disgusting if anyone other than the Jews
> tries to use the Holocaust for political gain.

Why? Are you asserting that no one else should recognize and learn from the
events of history? What is it about this event that should be ignored
because the danger of disarming the people isn't currently being limited to
the Jews?

If the events of Germany in the late 1930's and early 1940's were occuring
today against Muslims are you claiming they couldn't point out the
similarities because they aren't Jews?

Sorry, but the Holocaust is an historical event and shouldn't be ignore by
everyone except the Jewish.

> No matter how right you may be, leave those people alone, they've suffered
> enough.

Who? The Jews or the government that tried to exterminate them?

Why shouldn't we keep the lessons of history fresh so that we need never
repeat those mistakes?

> BTW, my opinion so far is that the only way the 2nd amendment makes sense
> is if you see it as a guarantee to enable citizens to resist and
> oppressive government.

That is ONE of it's purposes, but hardly the only one.

> (Which is the point that website is trying to make, and the point Scout
> made in the post just below yours.) Everything else you can legally do
> with a gun does not seem worthy of constitutional protection.

On the contrary, as a means of defense it is very much worthy of
constitutional protection. On an individual basis it makes little difference
to the victim if they are being oppressed by the government, an
organization, a gang, or a solitary violent criminal. They have just as much
right to defend themselves against a solitary violent criminal as they do
against a government turned oppressive. As such their means to that defense
is just as worthy of Constitutional consideration.

> Nevertheless, one has to wonder whether the other ways of keeping the
> government at bay shouldn't be enough.

If they are then we need never fear about the presence of arms. History
however, which you seem to wish to ignore certain lessons of, teachs us that
any government can, in time, turn oppressive and that no one is safe from
the effects of that oppression and the effects can be extensive to the point
of insane. Further the lessons of history also teach us that our own
government isn't safe against oppression, against the Native Americans, the
Japanese-Americans, African-Americans, Mormons, Socialists and Southerners
to name a few examples of people subject to oppression by American
government turned oppressive. They serve as warnings, to those who chose not
to ignore the lessons of history, that we need to watch carefully the
actions of government and never blindly accept the claims of government
without careful consideration.

> The US are not Nazi-Germany or Stalinist-Russia.

Ask the Native Americans, or the Japanese-Americans. At times I suspect they
would have seen little difference in the actions they were subjected to.

> The courts have shown in the past that they are more than willing to stop
> the government if they're going too far, starting all the way back with
> Madbury v. Madison.

Really? So they stopped the slaughter of the Native Americans? They
prevented the illegal and Unconstitutional restraint and detention of
Japanese-Americans? They prevented the oppression of the Mormons to the
point they had to move West to escape that oppression? We didn't have honest
Americans subjected to persecution, investigation, surveillance and pressure
because of their political beliefs? We didn't have a massive conflict take
place due to Unconstitutional actions by an American President which
resulted in the most American deaths in combat so far?

Explain to me how the courts stopped these actions from taking place when
it's clear that according to history they did take place.

Sorry, but the US doesn't have a clean track record, and it's clear that the
courts can not, will not, or could not prevent such oppression.


Martin Holterman

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 4:47:45 PM3/20/05
to
Scout wrote:
> "Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
> news:d1kggn$3d0$2...@reader13.wxs.nl...
>
>>Two Bears wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We still have a long long long long long way to go to catch up with the
>>>murder and carnage rates of those other "western developed" countries
>>>who do not have a 2nd Amendment:
>>>
>>>Don't believe me?
>>>
>>>Then believe this:
>>>http://www.barefootsworld.net/1stmillionmom.html
>>>
>>>
>>>ta tah...
>>>
>>
>>No offense, but I think it is disgusting if anyone other than the Jews
>>tries to use the Holocaust for political gain.
>
>
> Why? Are you asserting that no one else should recognize and learn from the
> events of history? What is it about this event that should be ignored
> because the danger of disarming the people isn't currently being limited to
> the Jews?
>
> If the events of Germany in the late 1930's and early 1940's were occuring
> today against Muslims are you claiming they couldn't point out the
> similarities because they aren't Jews?
>
> Sorry, but the Holocaust is an historical event and shouldn't be ignore by
> everyone except the Jewish.
>
I am all for learning lessons from history. I love reading about history
myself, and I certainly reckognise how relevant knowlegde of history is
for discussing all sorts of present day issues. However, the Holocaust
is the A-bomb of historic lessons. Too many people bring it up in too
many discussions that have too little to do with what they're really
trying to say. On usenet, that's called Godwin's law, although I didn't
want to bring that one up at this point, because your post is not a good
example of Godwin's law at work.
Comparing GITMO to Auschwitz is rubbish, an exaggeration. As for you,
I'm guessing, and only guessing, that you're a white, male, American.
The chance you have of ending up like the people in the pictures are
about the same as your chances of being abducted by aliens or hit by a
meteor. Not only are you and people like you in no danger whatsoever of
such treatment, that is not the kind of thing you should be talking
about. If you really think your country might cange into Nazi-Germany,
leave. There are lesser evils your weapons might help you combat, and
you are perfectly entitled to use all sorts of historical examples to
argue that point.
Forced labour camps for example. I hear that there are counties that put
their prisoners to work in chain gangs. If I wanted to argue against
that, I could compare it to the Soviet Gulag or to the Burma Railroad.
If I wanted to caution against the general tendency in many federal
states (and in the US it isn't even so bad) for the federal government
to get ever more power at the expense of the constituent parts, i.e. the
states, I might compare it to 1930s Germany or 1990s Russia.
Point is, the Holocaust is an extraordinary tragedy. The people who died
in it should be remembered and respected. They should not be used for
political gain. If you overdo it with your historical comparisons,
you're only going to drive people away. E.g. now you have me sitting
hear, thinking the pro-2nd amendment activists that made that website
are very sick individuals, or religious zealots at best. If you use such
a "big gun", people aren't going to take you seriously anymore.

>
>>No matter how right you may be, leave those people alone, they've suffered
>>enough.
>
>
> Who? The Jews or the government that tried to exterminate them?
>
> Why shouldn't we keep the lessons of history fresh so that we need never
> repeat those mistakes?
>
See above. I agree with you.

>
>>BTW, my opinion so far is that the only way the 2nd amendment makes sense
>>is if you see it as a guarantee to enable citizens to resist and
>>oppressive government.
>
>
> That is ONE of it's purposes, but hardly the only one.
>
>
>>(Which is the point that website is trying to make, and the point Scout
>>made in the post just below yours.) Everything else you can legally do
>>with a gun does not seem worthy of constitutional protection.
>
>
> On the contrary, as a means of defense it is very much worthy of
> constitutional protection. On an individual basis it makes little difference
> to the victim if they are being oppressed by the government, an
> organization, a gang, or a solitary violent criminal. They have just as much
> right to defend themselves against a solitary violent criminal as they do
> against a government turned oppressive. As such their means to that defense
> is just as worthy of Constitutional consideration.
>
The Bill of Rights protects citizens against the government.
BTW, when it comes to criminals, the authors of a constitution should be
born optimists, trusting the police to protect the innocent. That is not
to say that people don't have the right to use a fire arm to protect
themselves, it just means that it is not the kind of thing people think
or should be thinking of when writing a constitution.

>
>>Nevertheless, one has to wonder whether the other ways of keeping the
>>government at bay shouldn't be enough.
>
>
> If they are then we need never fear about the presence of arms. History
> however, which you seem to wish to ignore certain lessons of, teachs us that
> any government can, in time, turn oppressive and that no one is safe from
> the effects of that oppression and the effects can be extensive to the point
> of insane. Further the lessons of history also teach us that our own
> government isn't safe against oppression, against the Native Americans, the
> Japanese-Americans, African-Americans, Mormons, Socialists and Southerners
> to name a few examples of people subject to oppression by American
> government turned oppressive. They serve as warnings, to those who chose not
> to ignore the lessons of history, that we need to watch carefully the
> actions of government and never blindly accept the claims of government
> without careful consideration.
>
BS. If you're going to learn from history, learn your lesson again. All
the examples you're giving in this paragraph, are about people gainging
understanding of civil liberties. I.e. they're going from thinking
they're ok to understanding that it was really wrong. The kind of
situation where you might need your 2nd amendment right to carry a fire
arm, is the other way around. First the government does not do
something, because they think it would be wrong to do it. Later, they
decide that it is OK after all, and become more oppressive.
Just recently, I read the case of Reynolds v. United States (1878),
because I was wondering why the government thinks it has the right to
ban bigamy. Essentially, the SCOTUS ruled that the Mormon's wish to
marry multiple wives is not the right kind of religious obligation, so
it is not protected by the first amendment. (e.g. "Polygamy has always
been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe" "polygamy
leads to the patriarchal principle (...) An exceptional colony of
polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a
time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who
surround it; but there is no doubt that (...) it is within the
legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine
whether polygamy or monogamy shall be teh law of social life under its
dominion.")
I think this ruling is stupid. The worst thing is that it doesn't even
feel like they were arguing towards a desired ruling, as courts
sometimes do. Actually, I can't think of a good reason why the
government should have the right to ban bigamy. But this is a case of
increasing insight. We move towards greater protection of civil liberties.
That does not mean that the opposite might not happen. But there are no
examples in US history to illustrate that.

>
>>The US are not Nazi-Germany or Stalinist-Russia.
>
>
> Ask the Native Americans, or the Japanese-Americans. At times I suspect they
> would have seen little difference in the actions they were subjected to.
>
>
>>The courts have shown in the past that they are more than willing to stop
>>the government if they're going too far, starting all the way back with
>>Madbury v. Madison.
>
>
> Really? So they stopped the slaughter of the Native Americans? They
> prevented the illegal and Unconstitutional restraint and detention of
> Japanese-Americans? They prevented the oppression of the Mormons to the
> point they had to move West to escape that oppression? We didn't have honest
> Americans subjected to persecution, investigation, surveillance and pressure
> because of their political beliefs? We didn't have a massive conflict take
> place due to Unconstitutional actions by an American President which
> resulted in the most American deaths in combat so far?
>
> Explain to me how the courts stopped these actions from taking place when
> it's clear that according to history they did take place.
>
> Sorry, but the US doesn't have a clean track record, and it's clear that the
> courts can not, will not, or could not prevent such oppression.
>
>
Again, increasing insight. Basically, it's a case of collective
learning. At first we thought African-Americans were like monkeys, that
we could do with them as we pleased. But with time, we realised that
that is not the case, and we freed the slaves. That is not to say that
an oppressive government might not come to power in the US at some
point. I, myself, am quite worried about the influence of religious
extremists on the present US administration, but you cannot point to the
track record. The track record shows your country learning, sometimes a
little slower than might have been desireable, but learning nevertheless.
As for the question of whether we can rely on the courts to protect us
against an oppressive government. The founding fathers did their best to
give you a constitution that contains whatever safeguards they could
think of. Just recently, I commented somewhere else on usenet that I was
struck by the atmosphere of distrust of the government that the whole
document exudes. There is horizontal and vertical balance of powers, to
a much greater extent than any other country on earth. Essentially, if
you have a good point, the courts will side with you if you deserve it,
unless you are a fairly small minority. (Here, a comparison with the
Mormons is in place.) And if you are a part of a small group who feel
they are being oppressed, while the rest of the population sees no
problem, maybe it would be better to be modest and examine your own
opinions critically before taking up arms against the government.

Martin Holterman

P.S. Nothing in this post should be construed as arguing against the
right of the people to take up arms against an oppressive government. As
I have noted before, article 20 (4) of the German constitution, which I
think is the best constitution in the world, explicitly protects this
right. I am Dutch, and our declaration of independence (1581) discusses
at length why the people do have this right.

Scout

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 7:02:34 PM3/20/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1krqp$5ai$1...@reader08.wxs.nl...

Maybe, maybe not, however in the context of THIS discussion it is relevent
and shouldn't be blown off simply because the speaker isn't Jewish. The
dangers of a tyrannical government with a monopoly on force is clearly
illustrated and shows quite clearly that having an armed population is well
worth it. As such it directly applies to THIS discussion, and if you wish to
ignore it because you feel in general that it's misused that is YOUR
problem, and has nothing to do with THIS discussion.

> On usenet, that's called Godwin's law, although I didn't want to bring
> that one up at this point, because your post is not a good example of
> Godwin's law at work.

No, it's not because I'm not calling you a Nazi, nor am I asserting your
agenda is Nazism. It is, and remains, a case in point of why and how we have
a long way to go before we match the results of the "enlightened" Europeans
and why our having a generally armed population is a good thing even if
there are certain small problems that may arise as a result. Then freedom
does have problems. The freedom to chose allows people to make less than
good choices. The alternative however is nothing that I want to live under.

> Comparing GITMO to Auschwitz is rubbish, an exaggeration.

It is an exaggeration, but there certainly are some moral issues involved
there even if what they are doing is technically legal. Which, in a sense,
is what Auschwitz was. True, it is like comparing the superbowl, to a
football game between neighborhood children, but one is, in principle, much
like the other.

> As for you, I'm guessing, and only guessing, that you're a white, male,
> American.

What I am is irrelevent to the discussion.

> The chance you have of ending up like the people in the pictures are about
> the same as your chances of being abducted by aliens or hit by a meteor.

So as long as it's not my risk....then I should ignore the plight of others?
I shouldn't see what occured to others and see that it doesn't happen again
to other people even if it doesn't happen to me? I don't think so. I will
stick up for the rights of others even if my rights aren't threatened. For
if I don't stand up for them, who can I expect to stand up for me if I
should need it? So who cares what the odds are such tyranny could happen to
me? It is enough that it has happened to others, is happening to others, and
may one day happen to yet other people, to speak out against acts which are
oppression, could cause oppression, lead to oppression, or benefit
oppression. If oppression can not grow, then my risk of being oppressed
remains unlikely. Let it grow unchecked, and in time, my risk of being
oppressed may reach near certainity.

So who I am or what I am is irrelevent. It is a matter of principle which
cares not one bit for who the speaker is and what their personal risk of
oppression may be. Tyranny should NEVER be accepted passively.

> Not only are you and people like you in no danger whatsoever of such
> treatment, that is not the kind of thing you should be talking about.

On the contrary, we are very much in danger of having our rights reduced,
curtailed, limited, restricted, abridged, infringed, or otherwise subject to
government regulation. The whole issue of gun control is the infringment of
our rights, and even now there are bills in Congress which would reduce the
freedoms I enjoy and should enjoy. How dare you tell me I am in no danger,
when that danger is even now subject to vote on the floor of Congress to
strip me of some of my freedoms and liberties. How dare you suggest that I
should just sit back and accept such infringments because it's unlikely that
I will be subject to events such as those that overtook the Jews. How dare
you suggest that any oppression should be ignored as long as it doesn't
impact me personally.

When should oppression be fought? After they are loading people into rail
cars? When should oppression be pointed out? After they close the shower
doors?

It may not seem like much oppression to you right now, but the largest flood
begins with a single drop of rain. Opression starts small, and that is where
it is easist to fight it, when it is small. I'm not going to wait until the
flood waters treaten to take out the dam before I comment that maybe we need
to do something about the water. Sure, maybe I'm wasting my time because
this particular rain will never become a flood, nor the next, or even the
next....but ignoring it isn't going to make the problem go away, and
ignoring potential problems is the most certain means of insuring that at
some time you WILL have a problem.

Sorry, if I seem to get a bit harsh there, but you pushed a button there
when you seemed to suggest that I ignore rights violations because they
weren't likely to become of a magnitude to matter to the world.

> If you really think your country might cange into Nazi-Germany, leave.

And go where? Any country can turn into a Nazi-Germany if the people ignore
oppression of minorities and refuse to speak out because it's not happening
to them....which I believe is just the advice you suggested to me.

No, thank you, I prefer to remain here and maintaining the freedom I have.

>There are lesser evils your weapons might help you combat, and you are
>perfectly entitled to use all sorts of historical examples to argue that
>point.

Sure there are. There are big examples, and small examples, and examples
inbetween. So what's your point? These examples are too extreme to use? That
I'm not entitled to point to such extreme examples? That such extreme
examples somehow should be ignored because they illustrate so clearly the
reasons against allowing the government to obtain a monopoly on force?


> Forced labour camps for example. I hear that there are counties that put
> their prisoners to work in chain gangs. If I wanted to argue against that,
> I could compare it to the Soviet Gulag or to the Burma Railroad.

Sure, and if they were persons such as those subjected to these abuses then
the oppression would still be there even if it wasn't as extreme and the
people weren't Asian.


> If I wanted to caution against the general tendency in many federal states
> (and in the US it isn't even so bad) for the federal government to get
> ever more power at the expense of the constituent parts, i.e. the states,
> I might compare it to 1930s Germany or 1990s Russia.

Again, good points. So why wouldn't you want to use them if they applied?


> Point is, the Holocaust is an extraordinary tragedy.

Here is a breakdown of the carnage:


Regime Years Total killed


World total 1900-1987 169,202,000


Sorry, but I can't say it's that extraordinary. The only thing that is
extraordinary is that people actually recognize the carnage that took place.

> The people who died in it should be remembered and respected. They should
> not be used for political gain.

Who is seeking political gain?

If you mean by pointing out the dangers of political agendas then why
shouldn't they be used if they apply? How can pointing out the dangers be
bad?

> If you overdo it with your historical comparisons, you're only going to
> drive people away.

True, which is why such comparisons need to be valid and accuratly reflect
the principles involved. Right now I would have to say that GITMO is acting
a lot like a Russian Gulag which you seem to be so much against. People held
for political reasons, without hearings, parol, representation, trial, etc.
In principle how is it different than what you seem to have condemned the
Russians for doing?

> E.g. now you have me sitting hear, thinking the pro-2nd amendment
> activists that made that website are very sick individuals, or religious
> zealots at best. If you use such a "big gun", people aren't going to take
> you seriously anymore.

True, some people try to shock the people into waking up by comparisons to
such extremes. I am not going to say they are wrong for trying to do so even
if I consider their methods ill advised. However, such people tend to be
very much the minority and hardly reflect the mainstream.

On the contrary, the ability to defend oneself is a pre-requisite to being
able to defend others. It was understood that by prohibiting the government
from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms would allow the extreme
example of a well regulated militia to secure the free state, against even
their own government if need be, and therefore every other less extreme
example down to personal self defense against a lone criminal.


>>
>>>Nevertheless, one has to wonder whether the other ways of keeping the
>>>government at bay shouldn't be enough.
>>
>>
>> If they are then we need never fear about the presence of arms. History
>> however, which you seem to wish to ignore certain lessons of, teachs us
>> that any government can, in time, turn oppressive and that no one is safe
>> from the effects of that oppression and the effects can be extensive to
>> the point of insane. Further the lessons of history also teach us that
>> our own government isn't safe against oppression, against the Native
>> Americans, the Japanese-Americans, African-Americans, Mormons, Socialists
>> and Southerners to name a few examples of people subject to oppression by
>> American government turned oppressive. They serve as warnings, to those
>> who chose not to ignore the lessons of history, that we need to watch
>> carefully the actions of government and never blindly accept the claims
>> of government without careful consideration.
>>
> BS. If you're going to learn from history, learn your lesson again. All
> the examples you're giving in this paragraph, are about people gainging
> understanding of civil liberties. I.e. they're going from thinking they're
> ok to understanding that it was really wrong.

I see, so tyranny is acceptable as long as some people believe it's ok?

Too bad that those being subjected to this oppression didn't agree.

> The kind of situation where you might need your 2nd amendment right to
> carry a fire arm, is the other way around.

Really? So let's take one example. In exactly what way was it proper to lock
up American citizens without cause, without charges, and without trial
because of their race?

Was it proper because it was popular?

Was it proper to send Jews off to camps?

When exactly does it reach a point when those being oppressed might need
their 2nd Amendment rights? Before or after they are oppressed?

>First the government does not do something, because they think it would be
>wrong to do it.

Sure they do, but they figure the best interests of (whatever) are more
important.

> Later, they decide that it is OK after all, and become more oppressive.

Yep, the tyranny of "it's for your own good".

> Just recently, I read the case of Reynolds v. United States (1878),
> because I was wondering why the government thinks it has the right to ban
> bigamy. Essentially, the SCOTUS ruled that the Mormon's wish to marry
> multiple wives is not the right kind of religious obligation, so it is not
> protected by the first amendment. (e.g. "Polygamy has always been odious
> among the northern and western nations of Europe" "polygamy leads to the
> patriarchal principle (...) An exceptional colony of polygamists under an
> exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to
> disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there is
> no doubt that (...) it is within the legitimate scope of the power of
> every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be
> teh law of social life under its dominion.")
> I think this ruling is stupid. The worst thing is that it doesn't even
> feel like they were arguing towards a desired ruling, as courts sometimes
> do. Actually, I can't think of a good reason why the government should
> have the right to ban

And yet they do so.

> But this is a case of increasing insight. We move towards greater
> protection of civil liberties.

So polygamy is legal? I wasn't aware we have moved towards the protection of
those civil liberties? Is my right to arms without infringement no longer
subject to increasing infringement because the government is moving towards
greater protection of these civil liberties? If so then why are there bills
on the floor of Congress as we speak that would reduce those civil
liberties?

Sorry, but just because we are on an upswing in many areas doesn't mean that
it includes all areas, or even that this upswing will continue. We have had
cycles before and I see no reason to believe we have seen the end of tyranny
in America, and many reasons to disbelieve it.


> That does not mean that the opposite might not happen. But there are no
> examples in US history to illustrate that.

I gave you examples.

>>>The US are not Nazi-Germany or Stalinist-Russia.
>>
>>
>> Ask the Native Americans, or the Japanese-Americans. At times I suspect
>> they would have seen little difference in the actions they were subjected
>> to.
>>
>>
>>>The courts have shown in the past that they are more than willing to stop
>>>the government if they're going too far, starting all the way back with
>>>Madbury v. Madison.
>>
>>
>> Really? So they stopped the slaughter of the Native Americans? They
>> prevented the illegal and Unconstitutional restraint and detention of
>> Japanese-Americans? They prevented the oppression of the Mormons to the
>> point they had to move West to escape that oppression? We didn't have
>> honest Americans subjected to persecution, investigation, surveillance
>> and pressure because of their political beliefs? We didn't have a massive
>> conflict take place due to Unconstitutional actions by an American
>> President which resulted in the most American deaths in combat so far?
>>
>> Explain to me how the courts stopped these actions from taking place when
>> it's clear that according to history they did take place.
>>
>> Sorry, but the US doesn't have a clean track record, and it's clear that
>> the courts can not, will not, or could not prevent such oppression.
>>
>>
> Again, increasing insight.

If it is increasing insight then why do these oppressions continue to occur?
Why are my rights today less than they were 40 years ago?

Sorry, but I can't seem to find this increasing insight of yours. If it were
taking place then I should have more rights today to do things than I had 40
years ago, instead I can do less legally despite the protections that
supposedly protect my rights.


Hugh Gibbons

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 8:44:22 PM3/20/05
to
In article <p7qdnRgACqd...@adelphia.com>,
"Scout" <4g...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

Maybe English speaking is a factor. British, Americans, Australians...
not the world's most law-abiding folks.

Scout

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 9:11:33 PM3/20/05
to

"Hugh Gibbons" <pa...@my.house.com> wrote in message
news:party-D8C1A8....@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com...

Taiwan, Mexico....care to revise your theory?


SaPeIsMa

unread,
Mar 20, 2005, 9:09:28 PM3/20/05
to

"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d1kggn$3d0$2...@reader13.wxs.nl...

The jews were NOT the only victims of the Holocaust
Half of those killed were NOT jews.
What gives the Jews the right to make the Holocaust theirs only ?


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages