Federal Govt Lays Foundation for Police State...
Silverbullet
after spending millions of tax dollars while charging windmills.
Gun manufacturers are already regulated as are dealers. If anyone is to
blame for allowing illegal availability it would be the BATF for not doing
their job and prosecuting all these so called attempted purchases by felons
that the Clinton administration claims.
Jim Dunn <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:EKF34.11547$523.4...@news.chello.at...
> Tuesday December 7 11:09 PM ET
>
> U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
>
> By Andrea Shalal-Esa
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
> Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
> industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
> changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
>
> Administration officials said the U.S. Department of Housing and
> Urban Development (HUD) is readying a lawsuit on behalf of
> 3,200 public housing authorities around the country to recover
> the costs associated with gun violence, estimated at around $1
> billion a year.
>
> While the sum is significant, one HUD official said the lawsuit's
> ``primary interest will be to change the way the gun industry does
> business.''
>
> Twenty-eight cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles and San
> Francisco, already have sued makers of handguns to get
> reimbursement for municipal spending related to gun violence --
> on police and emergency medical services, for example.
>
>
>
>
>
>
tcrpe
Duh.
TR
(Why don't they sue and/or jail the criminals?)
rose...@idt.net
Andrew R. Spartz
the right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally protected, where in
the Constitution is a right to free housing on the back of the taxpayers
mentioned? I guess I know which one should go.
ARS
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty." -- Benjamin Franklin
akoe...@sunnews.infi.net
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Jim Dunn) wrote:
>Tuesday December 7 11:09 PM ET
>
> U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
>
> By Andrea Shalal-Esa
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
> Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
> industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
> changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
>
> Administration officials said the U.S. Department of Housing and
> Urban Development (HUD) is readying a lawsuit on behalf of
> 3,200 public housing authorities around the country to recover
> the costs associated with gun violence, estimated at around $1
> billion a year.
>
> While the sum is significant, one HUD official said the lawsuit's
> ``primary interest will be to change the way the gun industry does
> business.''
>
> Twenty-eight cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles and San
> Francisco, already have sued makers of handguns to get
> reimbursement for municipal spending related to gun violence --
> on police and emergency medical services, for example.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Just goes to show, they'll do anything for a buck.
Tommy the Terrorist
Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header writes:
>Administration officials said the U.S. Department of Housing and
> Urban Development (HUD) is readying a lawsuit on behalf of
> 3,200 public housing authorities around the country to recover
> the costs associated with gun violence, estimated at around $1
> billion a year.
What's extra outrageous about this is that HUD is an agency
that can't even keep its own "house" in order. In the past two
weeks or so in Chicago, I've seen two local news stories:
1) CHA (Chicago Housing Authority - the local HUD subsidiary)
elevator plummets several floors, injuring several people.
2) CHA contractor digs into electric cable, blacking out 500
units. Generators on the way.
Now, this is admittedly not a national issue, but it goes to show
just HOW INCOMPETENT that agency is. I mean, things like keeping
the elevators inspected and safe, not digging into electric cables -
these are issues that EVERY private company in the whole COUNTRY
has to deal with, and which they just about NEVER screw up. It's
not even an issue where they can plead lack of money - it's a
direct impeachment of their ability to run their organization.
Now, I could get into broader issues like HUD's withholding vast
amounts of money solely because Daley had some media come
in and look at a warehouse full of unused furniture, computers,
and goodies that HUD ordered and never used, and they're still
holding a grudge even after promising to stop it... but that's
somewhat of a digression.
The point is, they're telling gun manufacturers that they're
responsible simply because someone ABUSED their product
to do intentional harm, in CHA housing - while they themselves
can't even control their own premises. It's outrageous and
despicable; and its objective is to establish a precedent of
the destruction and/or state control of industries by abusive
litigation. The entire technique reminds me a lot of how the
Chinese control their own "free economy" so well.
rose...@idt.net
><rose...@idt.net> wrote:
>
>> "tcrpe" <tc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The answer is obvious -- get rid of public housing.
>> or guns.
>
>the right to keep and bear arms is Constitutionally protected, where in
>the Constitution is a right to free housing on the back of the taxpayers
>mentioned? I guess I know which one should go.
Subject to interpretation: ie militias, right of interpretation by Judicial
review, all are debatable concepts of "rights".............. and it IS on the
backs of "taxpayers" by shouldering the fruits of the concept of unlimited guns
in the form of everything from higher insurance rates, higer medical costs,
higher police protection, etc.
>
>--
David Goldman
> By Andrea Shalal-Esa
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
> Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
> industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
> changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
It's all about MONEY: EXTORTION AND BRIBERY. And if they can do it to
the cigarette manufacturers and gun manufacturers, drive up prices to
create a lucrative black market, the same folks making money from the
cocaine industry will do it here. They also are after Bill Gates. Of
course they aren't looking for actual litigation, but only
"settlements." Too bad they don't sue the Chinese, What's next? The
the car industry?? How about the MOVIE INDUSTRY???!! They always claim
themselves how responsible that industry is for violence????? Of
course we all know who the movie industry loves.
track9
--
How much of your brain do you use?
"Silverbullet" <nunyab...@thistime.com> wrote in message
news:udG34.4049$Fk.5...@news2.mia...
> Just more ultra-left attempts to enslave Americans. They will of course
lose
> after spending millions of tax dollars while charging windmills.
> Gun manufacturers are already regulated as are dealers. If anyone is to
> blame for allowing illegal availability it would be the BATF for not doing
> their job and prosecuting all these so called attempted purchases by
felons
> that the Clinton administration claims.
>
> Jim Dunn <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
> news:EKF34.11547$523.4...@news.chello.at...
> > Tuesday December 7 11:09 PM ET
> >
> > U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
> >
> > By Andrea Shalal-Esa
> >
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
> > Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
> > industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
> > changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
> >
> > Administration officials said the U.S. Department of Housing and
> > Urban Development (HUD) is readying a lawsuit on behalf of
> > 3,200 public housing authorities around the country to recover
> > the costs associated with gun violence, estimated at around $1
> > billion a year.
> >
Don Sterner
>responsible simply because someone ABUSED their product
>to do intentional harm, in CHA housing - while they themselves
>can't even control their own premises. It's outrageous and
>despicable; and its objective is to establish a precedent of
>the destruction and/or state control of industries by abusive
>litigation. The entire technique reminds me a lot of how the
>Chinese control their own "free economy" so well.
Next they sue the makers of alcoholic drinks for all the problems
associated with alcohol abuse. Then the vehicle manufacturers -
goodness only knows how many crimes are perpetrated by people
using automobiles. Probably eventually the manufacturers of rope
and other materials that can be used to tie people up. Studies
will show that nearly every hanging has involved these terrible
and dangerous products. Finally, because we are becoming an obese
society, and it's well-known that heavy people have poorer
health, the makers and distributors of food products will be
sued.
There is no end to this, people. The government is totally out of
control. Whether you agree with the current actions or not isn't
the issue. The facts are that the government is intruding more
and more into the lives of the private citizens.
Proconsul
CRIMINAL, don't attack the tool he/she chose to use......
PC
"track9" <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:82oleq$kju$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Proconsul
choose to rearrange reality so that it comes out right......! The
"non-issue" of individual rights versus those of a "militia" was dealt with
in the Militia Act of 1797 - which is still in full effect. You might also
peruse Title 10 of the U.S. Code and read the applicable decisons handed
down by "The Supremes"......You'll learn that even if one didn't invoke
one's individual right, one would have to take the gun provided by the
government since we are ALL in the "militia".......;)
The Bill of Rights is immutable and unchanged since ratification - period!
The fact that current officials ignore the provisions of that Bill of Rights
is another matter entirely......!
PC
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:384faa27....@news.idt.net...
track9
support abortions too?
--
How much of your brain do you use?
"Proconsul" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:oLU34.17735$%5.25...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
track9
--
How much of your brain do you use?
"David Goldman" <da...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:384fdc07...@news.erols.com...
> > U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
>
> > By Andrea Shalal-Esa
>
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
> > Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
> > industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
> > changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
>
Silverbullet
that kills. Or punches holes in paper. Or thwarts burglars, rapist,
carjackers and whatever would be evil types.
How much of YOUR brain do YOU use? How about an example...
track9 <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:82p5k7$fs3$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Convenient how you justify your ownership of guns, that kill. Do you
> support abortions too?
>
> --
>
> How much of your brain do you use?
>
> "Proconsul" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:oLU34.17735$%5.25...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> > No - the answer is that if someone kills someone with a gun, punish the
> > CRIMINAL, don't attack the tool he/she chose to use......
> >
> > PC
> >
> > "track9" <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:82oleq$kju$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > | yeah, that's the answer, if you don't like someone kill them
> > |
> > | --
> > |
> > | How much of your brain do you use?
> > |
> > | "Silverbullet" <nunyab...@thistime.com> wrote in message
> > | news:udG34.4049$Fk.5...@news2.mia...
> > | > Just more ultra-left attempts to enslave Americans. They will of
> course
> > | lose
> > | > after spending millions of tax dollars while charging windmills.
> > | > Gun manufacturers are already regulated as are dealers. If anyone is
> to
> > | > blame for allowing illegal availability it would be the BATF for not
> > doing
> > | > their job and prosecuting all these so called attempted purchases by
> > | felons
> > | > that the Clinton administration claims.
> > | >
> > | > Jim Dunn <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
> > | > news:EKF34.11547$523.4...@news.chello.at...
> > | > > Tuesday December 7 11:09 PM ET
> > | > >
> > | > > U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
> > | > >
> > | > > By Andrea Shalal-Esa
> > | > >
> > | > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
> > | > > Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
> > | > > industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
> > | > > changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
> > | > >
Silverbullet
Silverbullet
addressed this issue and agree the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right.
Good luck.
Silverbullet
How much of a brain do you even have??
track9 <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:82p7q8$ivi$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> support for guns = support for killing
>
> --
>
> How much of your brain do you use?
>
> "David Goldman" <da...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:384fdc07...@news.erols.com...
> > > U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
> >
> > > By Andrea Shalal-Esa
> >
> > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
> > > Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
> > > industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
> > > changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
> >
John Kennedy
wrote:
> *You* two guys are a couple of mean-spirited ultraright-wing
>kooks. Where's your sense of *terror*?? Aren't you *scared* of life
>without government looking out for you? Are you crazy, or what? I
>think you just want a bunch of people to get killed for no good
>reason, like a warrant or methlab or something. You whackos are all
>the same. Loonie. You never feel the pain, and yourjustso *selfish*,
>why, I don't know what we're going to dowithyou but it will be very
>bad, so justyouwait.
>
>
>yup.
A rather eye-opening statement from Mr. STFU!
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Updated 12/5/99
Check out new picture of Rob Roberston!
Billy Beck
Proconsul
unborn child into a sink.....
I don't "justify" ownership of guns, I merely point out to you that the
Constitution guarantees that right to all citizens not convicted of a
felony......
PC
"track9" <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:82p5k7$fs3$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
| Convenient how you justify your ownership of guns, that kill. Do you
| support abortions too?
|
| --
|
| How much of your brain do you use?
|
| "Proconsul" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
| news:oLU34.17735$%5.25...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
| > No - the answer is that if someone kills someone with a gun, punish the
| > CRIMINAL, don't attack the tool he/she chose to use......
| >
| > PC
| >
| > "track9" <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
| > news:82oleq$kju$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
| > | yeah, that's the answer, if you don't like someone kill them
| > |
| > | --
| > |
| > | How much of your brain do you use?
| > |
| > | "Silverbullet" <nunyab...@thistime.com> wrote in message
| > | news:udG34.4049$Fk.5...@news2.mia...
| > | > Just more ultra-left attempts to enslave Americans. They will of
| course
| > | lose
| > | > after spending millions of tax dollars while charging windmills.
| > | > Gun manufacturers are already regulated as are dealers. If anyone is
| to
| > | > blame for allowing illegal availability it would be the BATF for not
| > doing
| > | > their job and prosecuting all these so called attempted purchases by
| > | felons
| > | > that the Clinton administration claims.
| > | >
| > | > Jim Dunn <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
| > | > news:EKF34.11547$523.4...@news.chello.at...
| > | > > Tuesday December 7 11:09 PM ET
| > | > >
| > | > > U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
| > | > >
| > | > > By Andrea Shalal-Esa
| > | > >
| > | > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
| > | > > Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
| > | > > industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
| > | > > changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
| > | > >
Proconsul
Those of us who have a brain use enough to realize that reality is real -
something you've so far failed to do......:)
PC
"track9" <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:82p7q8$ivi$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
| support for guns = support for killing
|
| --
|
| How much of your brain do you use?
|
| "David Goldman" <da...@erols.com> wrote in message
| news:384fdc07...@news.erols.com...
| > > U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
| >
| > > By Andrea Shalal-Esa
| >
| > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
| > > Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
| > > industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
| > > changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
| >
betweentheeyes
was up to his old tricks ...
Jim Dunn <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header><snip>
MLee388407
you
>support abortions too?
>
>--
I justify my ownership of guns because they may save my life or the life of
someone in my family.
> yeah, that's the answer, if you don't like someone kill them
Obviously you shouldnt have a gun....cuz I dont even thought of anything like
the statement you have made.
Mike
rec.guns.
Billy Beck
John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>yup.
>A rather eye-opening statement from Mr. STFU!
That's Mr. STFU123, 2 U.
And I've got BB's in my butt.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Sing Wee
everyone has guns. None of which have ever shot a human or even spent
a night in jail for any reason. How can that be you ask? I can see how
people can get brainwashed into thinking guns are the root of evil.
Remember TV and movies are fantasy. Remember the news media goes
bunkers over the few students who went nutso but never mentions how
uncommon school shootings really are. Remember not everyone has
confined themselves to a pathetic city lifestyle locked in their
little apartment. This is a free country and gun owners will keep it
that way.
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999 16:38:16 -0500, "track9" <yeah...@nospam.com>
wrote:
Tommy the Terrorist
dste...@yahoo.com writes:
>Next they sue the makers of alcoholic drinks for all the problems
>associated with alcohol abuse. Then the vehicle manufacturers -
>goodness only knows how many crimes are perpetrated by people
>using automobiles. Probably eventually the manufacturers of rope
>and other materials that can be used to tie people up. Studies
>will show that nearly every hanging has involved these terrible
>and dangerous products. Finally, because we are becoming an obese
>society, and it's well-known that heavy people have poorer
>health, the makers and distributors of food products will be
>sued.
While this has a lot of truth to it, it's important to remember that
it won't be as random or facetious as that. They want to damage
the gun and tobacco industries - in the former case, trying to
destroy ordinary people's right to have any military power what
so ever, and in the latter case, simply using addiction as a cash
cow just like the CIA does with heroin and cocaine already, for no
real reason but that it works. They don't really have a strong
motive to attack the rope manufacturers, so they won't bother.
Nor will they bother attacking the auto manufacturers, PROVIDED
that they do whatever they're told, not "make waves", not put
up any lobbying resistance to having secret GPS transmitters
put into every car or having the max speed reduced in favor of
gas mileage (and easy catchability by police) or putting a video
camera in the things for constant surveillance, eventually. The
point is, they're developing a credible threat, using it where it is
convenient, and keeping it handy for lots of other situations. It
is truly the Chinese brand of capitalism in action.
track9
don't deliver babies. They don't drive cars... They don't help the
handicapped... They are made to kill.... so, if you support guns, you
support killing... You guys need to stop smoking weed while using your
computers
--
How much of your brain do you use?
"Proconsul" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Yg%34.18190$%5.26...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> Nope - but then there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to suck your
> unborn child into a sink.....
>
> I don't "justify" ownership of guns, I merely point out to you that the
> Constitution guarantees that right to all citizens not convicted of a
> felony......
>
> PC
>
> "track9" <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:82p5k7$fs3$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> | Convenient how you justify your ownership of guns, that kill. Do you
> | support abortions too?
> |
> | --
> |
> | How much of your brain do you use?
> |
> | "Proconsul" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> | news:oLU34.17735$%5.25...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> | > No - the answer is that if someone kills someone with a gun, punish
the
> | > CRIMINAL, don't attack the tool he/she chose to use......
> | >
> | > PC
> | >
> | > "track9" <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> | > news:82oleq$kju$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> | > | yeah, that's the answer, if you don't like someone kill them
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > |
> | > | How much of your brain do you use?
> | > |
> | > | "Silverbullet" <nunyab...@thistime.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:udG34.4049$Fk.5...@news2.mia...
> | > | > Just more ultra-left attempts to enslave Americans. They will of
> | course
> | > | lose
> | > | > after spending millions of tax dollars while charging windmills.
> | > | > Gun manufacturers are already regulated as are dealers. If anyone
is
> | to
> | > | > blame for allowing illegal availability it would be the BATF for
not
> | > doing
> | > | > their job and prosecuting all these so called attempted purchases
by
> | > | felons
> | > | > that the Clinton administration claims.
> | > | >
> | > | > Jim Dunn <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
> | > | > news:EKF34.11547$523.4...@news.chello.at...
> | > | > > Tuesday December 7 11:09 PM ET
> | > | > >
> | > | > > U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
> | > | > >
> | > | > > By Andrea Shalal-Esa
> | > | > >
> | > | > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
> | > | > > Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
> | > | > > industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
> | > | > > changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
> | > | > >
track9
the bullet, the projectile, to kill... That's why their made. If the gun
manufacturers stopped making guns that would kill you clowns would stop
buying them. So supporting guns = supporting killing.
Take your heads out of your pants when you talk...you are embarrassing
yourselves
--
How much of your brain do you use?
"Sing Wee" <ha...@chickenshit.com> wrote in message
news:3850aaa3...@news.telepath.com...
track9
tell your kid when they come home from a school shooting that you support
guns, and that it was okay for the other kid to shoot the hell out of the
students. Now take your medication and listen... support for guns = support
for killing. Guns kill, that's the reason that they are made.
--
How much of your brain do you use?
"Silverbullet" <nunyab...@thistime.com> wrote in message
news:KbW34.6232$Fk.7...@news2.mia...
> That's your plan??? Killing people you don't like? How Clintonian.
>
> track9 <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:82oleq$kju$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > yeah, that's the answer, if you don't like someone kill them
> >
> > --
> >
> > How much of your brain do you use?
> >
track9
me wrong. Guns are made for one reason... to kill. They are not made to be
imbibed like drinks. They are not made to drive busses. They are made to
kill. And if you support guns, then you support killing... pull your pants
up... your brains are showing...
--
How much of your brain do you use?
"Don Sterner" <dste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:abtv4s05gmrcq1jrp...@4ax.com...
> >The point is, they're telling gun manufacturers that they're
> >responsible simply because someone ABUSED their product
> >to do intentional harm, in CHA housing - while they themselves
> >can't even control their own premises. It's outrageous and
> >despicable; and its objective is to establish a precedent of
> >the destruction and/or state control of industries by abusive
> >litigation. The entire technique reminds me a lot of how the
> >Chinese control their own "free economy" so well.
>
> Next they sue the makers of alcoholic drinks for all the problems
> associated with alcohol abuse. Then the vehicle manufacturers -
> goodness only knows how many crimes are perpetrated by people
> using automobiles. Probably eventually the manufacturers of rope
> and other materials that can be used to tie people up. Studies
> will show that nearly every hanging has involved these terrible
> and dangerous products. Finally, because we are becoming an obese
> society, and it's well-known that heavy people have poorer
> health, the makers and distributors of food products will be
> sued.
>
track9
what are they designed to do... are they made to rescue animals from certain
boredom? Do they play gin rummy? No... the bullet is designed to kill...
to injure to put the object out of circulation... to kill...
You know, you really need to stop inhaling that junk when you talk... your
lips are beating you to death...
--
How much of your brain do you use?
"Proconsul" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:di%34.18191$%5.26...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> Nonsense.....
>
> Those of us who have a brain use enough to realize that reality is real -
> something you've so far failed to do......:)
>
> PC
>
> "track9" <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:82p7q8$ivi$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> | support for guns = support for killing
> |
> | --
> |
> | How much of your brain do you use?
> |
> | "David Goldman" <da...@erols.com> wrote in message
> | news:384fdc07...@news.erols.com...
> | > > U.S. Plans to Sue Gun Industry
> | >
> | > > By Andrea Shalal-Esa
> | >
> | > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration said on
> | > > Tuesday it would file a class action lawsuit against the gun
> | > > industry next year unless manufacturers agree to make major
> | > > changes in the way they market and distribute guns.
> | >
tcrpe
track9 <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:82rn1p$9ht$2...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> You can't be that stupid. Of course, every time I say that someone proves
> me wrong. Guns are made for one reason... to kill. They are not made to
be
> imbibed like drinks. They are not made to drive busses. They are made to
> kill. And if you support guns, then you support killing... pull your
pants
> up... your brains are showing...
>
> --
>
> How much of your brain do you use?
John Kennedy
wrote:
>It's really not hard... now slow down and use your brain. Guns kill. They
>don't deliver babies. They don't drive cars... They don't help the
>handicapped... They are made to kill.... so, if you support guns, you
>support killing..
Yes. I support killing.
Since you presumably don't, I'm sure you are calling for the
disarmament of your employees, the police, the armed forces, the
secret service. Becuase if you don't support the disarming of your
employees then clearly by your own argument you support killing. Your
hired hands have guns. Those guns are made to kill.
You are calling for their disarmament, aren't you?
>. You guys need to stop smoking weed while using your
>computers
John Kennedy
wrote:
>Kill... yeah right... I do not support guns. Of course, if you do... then
>tell your kid when they come home from a school shooting that you support
>guns, and that it was okay for the other kid to shoot the hell out of the
>students. Now take your medication and listen... support for guns = support
>for killing. Guns kill, that's the reason that they are made.
Uh, how are you going to stop us from having guns without authorizing
the use of guns on your behalf?
Do you support the public use of guns by agents of your government to
prevent private citizens from having guns? Because that's the only
way you can hope to prevent them. But that would require you to
endorse the use of guns: for your purposes.
You want to ban guns? Disarm your employees.
John Kennedy
wrote:
>You guys need to stop playing video games... guns are made, designed, with
>the bullet, the projectile, to kill... That's why their made. If the gun
>manufacturers stopped making guns that would kill you clowns would stop
>buying them. So supporting guns = supporting killing.
>
>Take your heads out of your pants when you talk...you are embarrassing
>yourselves
Do you support anti-gun legislation?
If so, how would you enforce it against armed violators?
John Kennedy
wrote:
>You can't be that stupid. Of course, every time I say that someone proves
>me wrong. Guns are made for one reason... to kill.
Is there never a good reason to kill?
> They are not made to be
>imbibed like drinks. They are not made to drive busses. They are made to
>kill. And if you support guns, then you support killing... pull your pants
>up... your brains are showing...
Eric Freeman
>
> Guns kill. They don't deliver babies.
They do if they protect pregnant women from being killed by criminals.
> They don't help the handicapped...
They do if they protect handicapped people from being killed by criminals.
> They are made to kill.... so, if you support guns,
> you support killing...
I support killing criminals who prey on pregnant women and the handicapped.
> You guys need to stop smoking weed while using
> your computers
Most of us are quite capable of doing both, thank you.
Eric
---------------
"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one
another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of
labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson
- First inaugural address, 1801
---------------
http://www.ametro.net/~ericfree
Allen James
<yeah...@nospam.com> wrote:
> It's really not hard... now slow down and use your brain. Guns kill. They
> don't deliver babies. They don't drive cars... They don't help the
> handicapped... They are made to kill.... so, if you support guns, you
> support killing... You guys need to stop smoking weed while using your
> computers
Jeez loweez, you're stupid. And, as trolls go, you're barely a 1.75.....
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
track9 wrote in message <82rnbm$9un$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>You guys need to stop playing video games... guns are made, designed, with
>the bullet, the projectile, to kill... That's why their made. If the gun
>manufacturers stopped making guns that would kill you clowns would stop
>buying them. So supporting guns = supporting killing.
What else do the voices tell you?
Tommy the Terrorist
yeah...@nospam.com writes:
>You can't be that stupid. Of course, every time I say that someone proves
>imbibed like drinks. They are not made to drive busses. They are made to
>kill. And if you support guns, then you support killing... pull your pants
>up... your brains are showing...
You know that there are guns specifically manufactured and balanced to
be extra heavy but exceptionally accurate, solely in order to do better
at shooting at a target in competition?
That's not the usual gun, but it is the beginning of the end of this claim
of yours.
The point is, there are various purposes that different people have in
mind for guns. A shotgun might be dedicated to the cruel killing of
innocent little grouse... you might say that's heartless killing, but it's
not ethically any different from fried chicken. Or it might be intended
to be sawed off and hidden under a counter by a paranoid inner city
jeweler, "just in case". Or it might be purchased for a single shot, by
a depressed young lady. Or it might be used solely to shoot clay
pigeons on a target range - people shoot thousands and thousands
of rounds at those things, I don't know why but I guess in the olden
days men were men and all that, and they didn't get a proper rush
out of twiddling a joystick to make a video screen run around.
However, out of all the uses, you can figure out that while a small
number of fatalities - mostly suicides - occur involving guns, that
the entire nation of the U.S. is just COVERED in guns, and that these
represent only some miniscule fraction of the total. To say that
guns are to kill is like saying that lighters are to burn down houses
with ... it's true, but it's not the whole truth.
Last but not least: consider the point that if the fatality didn't
occur with a gun, it could occur another way. The person who puts
a quick, merciful end to his life by shotgun, might instead be lying
in the hospital in agony as an overdose of Tylenol destroys his
liver slowly over the course of a week. (well, actually it destroys
the liver first but it takes longer to die...). The person who
murders with a gun might instead burn down the victim's entire
apartment building, with the doors chained shut. The assassin
who goes after a politician with a gun might instead send the
train he is riding to the bottom of a gorge with a well-placed
hacksaw cut to the rails. Count your blessings - if people use
guns for a violent end, they use a very specific and LIMITED means
to accomplish what they want. Cruder and more violent means
can easily be found.
John Kennedy
that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
The framers understood that there comes a time when you may need to
kill somebody to defend the your life, liberty, and property - *most
especially against government*. They saw the nightmarish folly of
delivering this ability exclusively into the hands of government.
So forget about all these other uses of guns and step up and defend
them for the most important utility they provide: the ability to kill
people efficiently.
It's not wrong to kill in defense of your life, liberty, and property
- it's right. Those who are unwilling to kill cannot secure their life
and liberty.
On 11 Dec 1999 03:54:33 GMT, Tommy the Terrorist <may...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Updated 12/10/99
New link to eight Billy Beck essays not found on his web page.
Billy Beck
John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
I don't know why anyone argues this matter on any grounds but the
right of private property. It doesn't matter whether I like to set up
chromed .50's in my living room just to polish them and admire the
gleam, or let 'em rip in my back yard just to howl at the noise.
"Ain't nobody's business if I do."
John Kennedy
wrote:
>
The right to private property and the right to self defense are at
bottom one and the same. Those rights cannot be secured of course if
one is unwilling to resort to lethal force. I'd just like to remind
these defenders of the Second Amendment that it was not intended as a
protection for a special type of property.
-
John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Updated 12/11/99
Robertson in a hot tub, I swear to god this time!
Plus new link to eight Billy Beck essays not found on his web page.
no one of consequence
track9 <yeah...@nospam.com> wrote:
]Right... nonsense, you're saying that guns are not made to kill. Pray tell
]what are they designed to do... are they made to rescue animals from certain
]boredom? Do they play gin rummy? No... the bullet is designed to kill...
]to injure to put the object out of circulation... to kill...
Guns send a projectile in one direction at high velocities. Where that
projectile goes is up to the user, and your blatherings seem to indicate
that you would send said projectile at another person.
--
|Patrick Chester (Now in Elmhurst, Illinois) wol...@io.com |
|"Anything I can do to help?" "Um. Short of dying? No, can't think of a |
| thing." -Morden, Vir. 'Interludes and Examinations' -Babylon 5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Bucky
> I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
> that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
> gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
> was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
> human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
Many don't offer this defense because it's one which separates
the wheat from the chaff among gun rights supporters.
I found during my time in the Land of Compassion that this was
the biggest difference between Canadian and American gun rights
supporters. The former conceded the utilitarian arguments for
gun ownership -- the ones which are based on the fact that guns
are made for killing -- some twenty five years ago. Now they
are left with no way to oppose new restrictions on their rights
expect to whine about how it will inconvenience their hobby,
tread upon tradition, or drain their wallets. Naturally, when
the issue is over something "designed for killing," those dogs
don't hunt among the general public.
For those of you who are looking for a gun rights organization
to support, run away with arms flailing from those which stress
heritage, hunting and sport.
--
mfu...@somtel.com; Northern Franklin County, Maine $
The Constitution is the white man's ghost shirt. }>:-/> --->
John Kennedy
wrote:
Yes, they have already conceded the crucial argument.
John Kennedy
wrote:
>
>"Bucky" <mfu...@somtel.com> wrote:
>
>>John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>>> that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>>> gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>>> was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>>> human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
>>
>>Many don't offer this defense because it's one which separates
>>the wheat from the chaff among gun rights supporters.
>>
>>I found during my time in the Land of Compassion that this was
>>the biggest difference between Canadian and American gun rights
>>supporters. The former conceded the utilitarian arguments for
>>gun ownership -- the ones which are based on the fact that guns
>>are made for killing -- some twenty five years ago. Now they
>>are left with no way to oppose new restrictions on their rights
>>expect to whine about how it will inconvenience their hobby,
>>tread upon tradition, or drain their wallets. Naturally, when
>>the issue is over something "designed for killing," those dogs
>>don't hunt among the general public.
>>
>>For those of you who are looking for a gun rights organization
>>to support, run away with arms flailing from those which stress
>>heritage, hunting and sport.
>
> *Hear, hear*.
>
> Kennedy: *this* is why I insist on a *principled* defense of gun
>ownership that in no way depends on *what* any particular person is
>going to do with guns (given, of course, that there will be no rights
>violation involved). Utilitarian arguments of *any* sort are *always*
>going to be subject to some pencil-necked geek of a poli-sci professor
>sitting around scratching his ass and burning down brain cycles at
>trying to figure a way to tweak the "social consequences" (or go pick
>your own favorite rationale du jour). "Utility" is always subjective.
>Go try to state the "utility" of sticking 10 successive model-year
>Cadillacs nose-down in a bed of concrete, and some fuckin' Erb or
>other is going to snoot his attitude at you and disagree, with the aim
>of putting the project out of business. Meanwhile, you and I would
>agree that the guy has a right to do what he *wants* with his
>Cadillacs & concrete, regardless of what anyone else in the world has
>to say about it.
Billy, Bucky there was agreeing with my post.
Yes, you have a right to Cadillacs and guns but it makes rather a big
difference if the state moves to confiscate all Cadillacs or all guns.
>
> It's the same principle with guns. The right of ownership is the
>thing, and it doesn't matter one hair-thin *whit* what their utility
>is, which is what you're doing when you arbitrarily narrow the context
>to self-defense.
How are you going to secure your porperty rights without defensive
force? You can defend your Cadillac with your gun, or some privately
owned gun, the reverse is more problematic.
You need access to guns, or the utility of guns, more than you need
access to the utility of Cadillacs. The framers would recognize your
right to own a Cadillac, but they were far more concerned about trying
to guarantee your right to a gun, knowing that without access to the
utility guns all of your other rights were in dire jeopardy.
>
> "Okay," sez the pencil-neck, "That's easy. All you have to do is
>*prove* your requirement for self-defense, and we'll issue this
>license.
And what do you imagine I would say to him? Would I accept that
requirement?
> (Oh, and BTW: if, at any point, we find that your stated
>requirement is in error, we'll yank the license, and you'll get to
>have a nice day.) Meanwhile, everybody else gets to make do without
>them, to include collectors and cranks like Beck who also happen to
>like the look, feel, and sound of them."
Is this cramping your style? Do you own your guns only at the
discretion of the state? I hope not.
Jeez Billy, if you're concerned with how pretzel necked geek
bureacrats are going to rule on your rights you can always work to get
the out the vote.
> When you stand on utilitarian arguments, there is always going to
>be someone who'll challenge your concept of utility, and you've
>already ceded the most crucial premise - *ownership* and the right of
>property - without a word.
Not by a long shot. I've asserted the crucial principle of self
defense. The right of property and the right of self defense are
different sides of the same coin. You can't have either without the
other. I ceded nothing, I asserted that I will accept no infringement
on my right to defend myself and my property as I see fit. In securing
these rights there is a certain class of property that is crucial:
arms.
> Utility is not open to discussion, because the *right* is not
>open to discussion.
I didn't leave my rights open to discussion, I asserted that they are
not.
>That's the point that needs to be made. When the
>emphasis is on utility, the right is neglected, and you're going at
>the whole thing completely upside-down.
Why do you have property rights Billy? Is the answer divorced from the
utility of property?
John Kennedy
wrote:
>
>John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>>>I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>>>>that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>>>>gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>>>>was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>>>>human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
>>>
>>> I don't know why anyone argues this matter on any grounds but the
>>>right of private property. It doesn't matter whether I like to set up
>>>chromed .50's in my living room just to polish them and admire the
>>>gleam, or let 'em rip in my back yard just to howl at the noise.
>>>
>>> "Ain't nobody's business if I do."
>>
>>The right to private property and the right to self defense are at
>>bottom one and the same.
>
> No, they're not. I could spend a fortune at buying every gun I
>could possibly lay my hands on, with the purpose of melting them all
>down in a furnace, and I would still be within my rights. So would
>Sarah Brady.
No? Why do you have a right to property?
>>Those rights cannot be secured of course if
>>one is unwilling to resort to lethal force. I'd just like to remind
>>these defenders of the Second Amendment that it was not intended as a
>>protection for a special type of property.
>
> Who the hell *cares* about the Second Amendment?
Not me, but I was trying to point out the relevant principle to people
who do care about it, since they just might be facing a situation that
can help them grasp the principle.
Billy Beck
"Bucky" <mfu...@somtel.com> wrote:
>John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>> that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>> gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>> was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>> human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
>
*Hear, hear*.
It's the same principle with guns. The right of ownership is the
thing, and it doesn't matter one hair-thin *whit* what their utility
is, which is what you're doing when you arbitrarily narrow the context
to self-defense.
"Okay," sez the pencil-neck, "That's easy. All you have to do is
*prove* your requirement for self-defense, and we'll issue this
license. (Oh, and BTW: if, at any point, we find that your stated
requirement is in error, we'll yank the license, and you'll get to
have a nice day.) Meanwhile, everybody else gets to make do without
them, to include collectors and cranks like Beck who also happen to
like the look, feel, and sound of them."
When you stand on utilitarian arguments, there is always going to
be someone who'll challenge your concept of utility, and you've
already ceded the most crucial premise - *ownership* and the right of
property - without a word.
Utility is not open to discussion, because the *right* is not
open to discussion. That's the point that needs to be made. When the
emphasis is on utility, the right is neglected, and you're going at
the whole thing completely upside-down.
Billy Beck
John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>>I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>>>that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>>>gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>>>was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>>>human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
>>
>> I don't know why anyone argues this matter on any grounds but the
>>right of private property. It doesn't matter whether I like to set up
>>chromed .50's in my living room just to polish them and admire the
>>gleam, or let 'em rip in my back yard just to howl at the noise.
>>
>> "Ain't nobody's business if I do."
>
>The right to private property and the right to self defense are at
>bottom one and the same.
No, they're not. I could spend a fortune at buying every gun I
could possibly lay my hands on, with the purpose of melting them all
down in a furnace, and I would still be within my rights. So would
Sarah Brady.
>Those rights cannot be secured of course if
>one is unwilling to resort to lethal force. I'd just like to remind
>these defenders of the Second Amendment that it was not intended as a
>protection for a special type of property.
Who the hell *cares* about the Second Amendment?
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>
>John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>>that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>>gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>>was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>>human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
>
> I don't know why anyone argues this matter on any grounds but the
>right of private property. It doesn't matter whether I like to set up
>chromed .50's in my living room just to polish them and admire the
>gleam, or let 'em rip in my back yard just to howl at the noise.
>
> "Ain't nobody's business if I do."
>
Well I'd say it was nobody's business what you plan to do, but it
might be somebody's if you're actual rippin' and howlin' spill over
into my stuff. But that's not the point. I got killing critters out
of my system a long time ago and I prefer my loud noises to come out
of a set of speakers, and I don't enjoy polishing off anything other
than a good steak. I only have guns around to shoot people with and I
can't figure why I ought to be ashamed of it. I don't plan on doing
any shooting unless I have to, but the guns I have are built for
stopping people in their tracks.
Ace
Billy Beck
John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>"Bucky" <mfu...@somtel.com> wrote:
You're right, and I can see now how I misapprehended his word
"conceded", but it doesn't matter: *he's* myopic, too.
In the very same way that he suggests "run[ning] away" from the
hunting crowd, etc., I cannot recommend too emphatically running away
from the self-defense argument for exactly the same reason: the
premise is far too narrow and contingent. There is *no way* around
the principle of private property, unless it has to do with condemning
property in general, at which point the whole battle is about a lot
more than guns.
>Yes, you have a right to Cadillacs and guns but it makes rather a big
>difference if the state moves to confiscate all Cadillacs or all guns.
Not to a Cadillac owner who doesn't happen to be interested in
guns, and I'm telling you right now: you'd better get behind his fight
before they come for your stereo that's too loud.
The other day, a most remarkable post turned up at
rec.aviation.student. Entitled "In The Future", it projected a time
in which civilian flight training would be reduced to the very most
plain-vanilla gloss over what it *should* be in order to produce
qualifed and capable pilots. It's hard to tell from this single
drive-by post whether the author is aware of the broader political
implications of what he wrote. That's because the post was fairly
specifically tailored for pilots. However, he included this line:
"Really, what reason does anyone have for using more
than 30 degrees of bank?"
Get it? (What are the magic words to be substituted after "What
reason does anyone have for..."?)
That question - and any like it - will *never* be effectively
dealt with by taking it on its own premise. That way lies
capitulation. The reason is that it implicitly dismisses as settled
principles deeply underpinning it, and they're *not* settled in the
manner that it presumes. Quite the opposite. The *illusion* of
settlement is part of the reason why this whole sort of a process of
what I refer to as tactical rhetoric *succeeds*: people not
conditioned to probing to, and reasoning from, principles, accept as
given that the question is valid on its face, and it's not even close.
(As I pointed out in reply, the only proper answer to a question like
that is, "It's none of your goddamned business, and who the hell do
you think you are, anyway?") They look around at each other, shrug,
saying to themselves (or out loud) the effective equivalent of, "Well,
who am I to know?" and take up the question on its face...those who
retain even a moment's independent thought, that is. Most never even
stop to consider it, rushing to fabricate a reason in answer to the
question and hoping that it'll be good enough.
Well, I, for one, will not be pressed into that sort of
intellectually illicit box.
"*Fuck* you." That's my answer to the impertinence of the
question, right from the jump.
Nobody in the *world* gets to approach my life and demand a
reason for *anything* I do. Anyone who walked into my home and asked
a question like that would be swiftly medicating his injuries if he
could retain consciousness, and I'll be goddamned it I'm going to
offer anyone any reason whatever for my ownership of guns, beyond the
fact that, because I'm a human being, I get to own stuff.
Period. Full stop, shut the fuck up and get lost.
>> It's the same principle with guns. The right of ownership is the
>>thing, and it doesn't matter one hair-thin *whit* what their utility
>>is, which is what you're doing when you arbitrarily narrow the context
>>to self-defense.
>
>How are you going to secure your porperty rights without defensive
>force?
That's perfectly impertinent to the point at issue. For
instance: I could point out any number of ethical situations in which
one might be philosophically *averse* to defensive force and still own
guns. Now, *you* might find something like that distasteful as a
matter of philosophy, or confusing as a matter of utility, but none of
that would have any bearing on the validity of the *right*.
Would you care to argue that such a person is *not entitled* to
his property?... or that he deserved what he got if unilateral force
against him was successful?
> You can defend your Cadillac with your gun, or some privately
>owned gun, the reverse is more problematic.
Politically, that might very well be quite true, depending on the
actual level of threat in any given culture (and I'll certainly agree
that the threat in this one is far advanced), but it's still a very
myopic consideration of what's involved here.
>You need access to guns, or the utility of guns, more than you need
>access to the utility of Cadillacs.
Sez you. You're projecting. *You* might think so, but the
latter are not yours, nor is it your life and property at issue in
that particular instance.
>The framers would recognize your
>right to own a Cadillac, but they were far more concerned about trying
>to guarantee your right to a gun, knowing that without access to the
>utility guns all of your other rights were in dire jeopardy.
At this point, I could play weezils' advocate and assert that you
have no hope of that defense in the face of determined onslaught with
modern military power.
There's your utility.
To hell with "the framers". I would point out that the very fact
that they codified the gun issue in the Second Amendment is the whole
reason *why* this debate takes place today. Always remember: "If it
can be written down, it can be erased." Well, they wrote it down, and
that's exactly why the gun debate revolves around the focal-point of
the Second Amendment - and its premises of self-defense against
government (which is merely a single facet of self-defense against
criminality) - instead of the right of private property.
>> "Okay," sez the pencil-neck, "That's easy. All you have to do is
>>*prove* your requirement for self-defense, and we'll issue this
>>license.
>
>And what do you imagine I would say to him? Would I accept that
>requirement?
Oh, I have no doubt that you wouldn't, but that - resistence - is
not what this is about. It's about the principles on which it stands.
>> (Oh, and BTW: if, at any point, we find that your stated
>>requirement is in error, we'll yank the license, and you'll get to
>>have a nice day.) Meanwhile, everybody else gets to make do without
>>them, to include collectors and cranks like Beck who also happen to
>>like the look, feel, and sound of them."
>
>Is this cramping your style? Do you own your guns only at the
>discretion of the state? I hope not.
No more than I own anything else. I do not *essentially*
distinguish between my guns and my baseball glove or a single blank
floppy disk laying around on my desk. They're *mine*. It's the thing
common to *everything* I own which is why I reject all inquiries of
any sort into their disposition except at my own world-famous grace,
sweetness, and indulgence.
>Jeez Billy, if you're concerned with how pretzel necked geek
>bureacrats are going to rule on your rights you can always work to get
>the out the vote.
<blink>
I get it. That's a joke.
>> When you stand on utilitarian arguments, there is always going to
>>be someone who'll challenge your concept of utility, and you've
>>already ceded the most crucial premise - *ownership* and the right of
>>property - without a word.
>
>Not by a long shot. I've asserted the crucial principle of self
>defense. The right of property and the right of self defense are
>different sides of the same coin. You can't have either without the
>other. I ceded nothing, I asserted that I will accept no infringement
>on my right to defend myself and my property as I see fit.
...but that's not *why* you claim your guns. You claim them
because of their utility as defensive tools.
>In securing these rights there is a certain class of property that is crucial:
>arms.
Okay: does that make everything else you own less crucial to your
existence and flourishing?
>> Utility is not open to discussion, because the *right* is not
>>open to discussion.
>
>I didn't leave my rights open to discussion, I asserted that they are
>not.
Question: do you make a habit of qualifying your ownership of
anything else? If not, then why not? Would you, for instance,
qualify your ownership of a car because it makes it possible for you
to drive to a grocery store?
Try to imagine a day when some weezil or other would attack your
ownership of a car with the premise that your food would be delivered
to you by the state. What, then, of your ability to drive to work, or
to a movie, or simply around town burning gas on a Saturday night?
How many uses of your car are you interested to defend?... as
many as the weezils can dream up to attack?
Why not simply crash their whole project with one *valid*
principle that circumscribes *all* of it? Look: the whole *point* of
a principle is to unify consideration of all the concretes subsumed
under it. Otherwise, action on any particular front is bound to be
contingent and/or arbitrary: contingent, *implicitly*, because whether
you know it or not, there *is* a principle by which to refer to a
concrete, even if you're running around at attempting a logical
patchwork of reasoned defense, like sticking your finger in leaks
springing up all over a dike (which is exactly what's happening with
the so-called "gun lobby" and its varous adherents: witness the
frequency of reference to all the gun-control laws already on the
books and their sniveling tones of "Isn't it *enough* already??" while
the statists shake their heads "no"); and arbitrary in the case of
people who are simply too stupid to think their way to the bottom of
it and wind up sniveling the same tones.
<bah> Bollocks & *rot*, I say. Go straight to the root of it,
and stand there.
>>That's the point that needs to be made. When the
>>emphasis is on utility, the right is neglected, and you're going at
>>the whole thing completely upside-down.
>
>Why do you have property rights Billy? Is the answer divorced from the
>utility of property?
*What* "utility"?
On my desk, I keep a twenty-five year-old light bulb. It's
extremely dear to me. On its base, it stands almost a foot tall, and
it's rated at 1500 watts. It was given to me by a man I worked with
at The Strand Theater in Ithaca, New York, saved from the rubble of a
fire that effectively put that place out of business. It was also my
first serious job in my business.
It's just a fuckin' light bulb, John. It'll never fire again,
and it's of no use whatever... except to *me*. I like to look at it
now and then and reflect on how far I've come, which is something that
means nothing to anyone in the world but *me*.
I swear: I would instantly kill any person engaged in a serious
effort to take it from me.
It's *mine*, and that's all the answer that, in a political
context, anyone will ever get to a question like yours.
Same thing with my guns. They're nobody else's business in any
way whatsoever.
Bucky
> Billy, Bucky there was agreeing with my post.
Correct, although I was wearing my Saul Alinsky Power Politics
Pasties at the time. When personally asked why I own firearms,
my usual answer is, "because I want them, and so long as I'm not
infringing on others' rights it's none of your damned business."
John Kennedy
wrote:
>
Get behind his fight with what Billy?
Force is required to fight.
No, that's not why I claim them, but it is why I'd be particularly
foolish to part with them.
>
>>In securing these rights there is a certain class of property that is crucial:
>>arms.
>
> Okay: does that make everything else you own less crucial to your
>existence and flourishing?
A lot of things are less crucial, yes. I have a right to heroin and
yet I find that a state prohibition on heroin has little direct effect
on me. A state prohibition on guns would have profoundly different
effects.
>
>>> Utility is not open to discussion, because the *right* is not
>>>open to discussion.
>>
>>I didn't leave my rights open to discussion, I asserted that they are
>>not.
>
> Question: do you make a habit of qualifying your ownership of
>anything else? If not, then why not? Would you, for instance,
>qualify your ownership of a car because it makes it possible for you
>to drive to a grocery store?
I didn't qualify my ownership. I gave the reason why it would be
particularly foolhardy to cede guns to the state.
>
> Try to imagine a day when some weezil or other would attack your
>ownership of a car with the premise that your food would be delivered
>to you by the state. What, then, of your ability to drive to work, or
>to a movie, or simply around town burning gas on a Saturday night?
>
> How many uses of your car are you interested to defend?... as
>many as the weezils can dream up to attack?
I'll defend my property rights.
But how do you defend property rights without force?
>
> Why not simply crash their whole project with one *valid*
>principle that circumscribes *all* of it?
Because it is not the *argument* that crashes their project? The
argument is words. Only deeds will stop them.
Say a U.S. Marshall with a warrant to sieze it for back taxes?
>
> It's *mine*, and that's all the answer that, in a political
>context, anyone will ever get to a question like yours.
Billy, I want you to have the light bulb. I'd do a lot to help you
keep the light bulb.
What is the source of your property rights? You assert a principle
here, yet decline to explain the source of the principle.
I'm not some weezil looking for a pretext to take your property, I'm
asking the philosophical question.
>
> Same thing with my guns. They're nobody else's business in any
>way whatsoever.
Andrew Northbrook
>
>"Bucky" <mfu...@somtel.com> wrote:
>
>>John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>>> that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>>> gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>>> was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>>> human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
>>
>>Many don't offer this defense because it's one which separates
>>the wheat from the chaff among gun rights supporters.
>>
>>I found during my time in the Land of Compassion that this was
>>the biggest difference between Canadian and American gun rights
>>supporters. The former conceded the utilitarian arguments for
>>gun ownership -- the ones which are based on the fact that guns
>>are made for killing -- some twenty five years ago. Now they
>>are left with no way to oppose new restrictions on their rights
>>expect to whine about how it will inconvenience their hobby,
>>tread upon tradition, or drain their wallets. Naturally, when
>>the issue is over something "designed for killing," those dogs
>>don't hunt among the general public.
>>
>>For those of you who are looking for a gun rights organization
>>to support, run away with arms flailing from those which stress
>>heritage, hunting and sport.
Obviously, I missed a crucial portion of this paragraph, somewhere.
It seems to me that the primary reason -- as expressed in the paragraph --
that Canadien gun-owners lost their rights, was they acknowledged that the
purpose of a gun is to kill. The article flatly states that the public isn't
going to sympathize with issues like heritage, sport, or hunting when the
issue is something designed to kill. So, with that in mind, I'm told to
avoid the gun-rights organizations that stress heritage, sport, & hunting, &
de-emphasize the fact that guns are made to propel a dangerous projectile in
a particular direction?
I'm sorry -- but that simply makes *no* sense whatsoever. You're telling me
to stay away from the very people who make the arguments that the public is
most likely to support, in favor of the radicals the public is *least*
likely to support, & tell me that's how I should preserve my gun rights?
That's *insane*.
BTW, I think it's ludicrous to argue that guns are *not* designed for
killing. That *is* their primary purpose. It's utterly irrelevant to
ownership, but it's also idiotic to claim that it's not what they're for. Be
that as it may, IMHO it's the death knell for gun ownership, when gun owners
allow the debate to be sidetracked into whether or not guns are designed to
kill. We'll get a LOT farther when we argue about hunting, sport, tradition,
etc., then we ever will talking "stopping power".
--
think about it,
Andrew Northbrook
Congress: Putting the FUN back into dysfunctional
Andrew Northbrook
>
>John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>>>I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>>>>that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>>>>gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>>>>was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>>>>human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
>>>
>>>right of private property. It doesn't matter whether I like to set up
>>>chromed .50's in my living room just to polish them and admire the
>>>gleam, or let 'em rip in my back yard just to howl at the noise.
>>>
>>> "Ain't nobody's business if I do."
>>
>>bottom one and the same.
>
> No, they're not. I could spend a fortune at buying every gun I
>could possibly lay my hands on, with the purpose of melting them all
>down in a furnace, and I would still be within my rights. So would
>Sarah Brady.
Yea, Sarah Brady would argue that she was defending herself by making every
gun she could grab her personal, private property.
However, other then hands & feet, pretty much *all* methods of defending
yourself come down to some form of weapon, which (by definition) constitutes
"property", privately-owned.
> Who the hell *cares* about the Second Amendment?
I do. Yea, so maybe that means Jack-Diddley-Shit to you, but -- you asked,
&, frankly, if you don't give a shit about the answer, you shouldn't ask the
question.
Steve Canyon
<ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>BTW, I think it's ludicrous to argue that guns are *not* designed for
>killing. That *is* their primary purpose. It's utterly irrelevant to
>ownership, but it's also idiotic to claim that it's not what they're for. Be
>that as it may, IMHO it's the death knell for gun ownership, when gun owners
>allow the debate to be sidetracked into whether or not guns are designed to
>kill. We'll get a LOT farther when we argue about hunting, sport, tradition,
>etc., then we ever will talking "stopping power".
That makes no sense. There is no debate about gun ownership. The
people who are against them are pussies who are afraid of them and
since you can never make a man out of a pussy, they are never going to
change their mind. There is no sense arguing with the pussies, just
plan on pushing them out of your way. The irony is that many of the
anti-gun pussies are also legalise-recreational-drug-proponants too,
and many of them believe in their right to defy the law and practice
their drug hobby. I take the same road. I don't bother to argue the
issue, I just make sure I have whatever guns I think I'm ever going to
want and that there is no public record of that fact. I'm pretty sure
most other gun owners feel the same way. Let the pussies pass
whatever anti-gun laws they want. It's not going to change anything
for me.
Ace
Andrew Northbrook
>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 06:52:38 -0800, "Andrew Northbrook"
><ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>BTW, I think it's ludicrous to argue that guns are *not* designed for
>>killing. That *is* their primary purpose. It's utterly irrelevant to
>>ownership, but it's also idiotic to claim that it's not what they're for.
Be
>>that as it may, IMHO it's the death knell for gun ownership, when gun
owners
>>allow the debate to be sidetracked into whether or not guns are designed
to
>>kill. We'll get a LOT farther when we argue about hunting, sport,
tradition,
>>etc., then we ever will talking "stopping power".
>
>That makes no sense.
I'm sorry that you missed the point.
>There is no debate about gun ownership.
O, that's nice. I'm certainly glad to hear there's no controversy whatsoever
concerning my ability to buy whatever firearm I choose to buy, to carry it
where I choose to, etc. Thanx for the reassurance, Steve -- I'll just pop
right on out & buy that M-16 I've always dreamed of.
*sheesh*
>The irony is that many of the anti-gun pussies are also
legalise-recreational-drug-proponants too
I'm pro-gun, & I'm very much in the legalize-recreational-drug camp. IMHO,
anyone with half a brain & an ounce of integrity is, too.
>Let the pussies pass whatever anti-gun laws they want. It's not going to
change anything
>for me.
Ah, well, it's nice to know that you don't give a shit.
Steve Canyon
<ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>Ah, well, it's nice to know that you don't give a shit.
Well, that's not what I was saying. I'd actually much prefer not to
have the feds interfering in gun laws, but I'm a realist too. I don't
waste my time trying to polish turds. There is no documented case of
an anti-gun pussy ever changing his mind. It should be obvious that
these guys are not operating on logical thought, so why waste any of
your good logical thinking on them. Anti-gun pussies are responding
to their own lack of testosterone. Since they realize that they could
never muster up enough courage to defend their family and loved ones,
their denial system will not allow them to believe that anyone else
could. For them, guns have no value for that purpose and allowing
others to posses them for that purpose is a constant reminder that
they are pussies and pussies do not like being reminded that they are
pussies. Pussies also have the fear that their women are going to see
how a real man is able to protect and defend himself and his family
and realize that her man is a pussy. There is also more than ample
evidence that liberal women have bigger balls than liberal men and so
the pussies are also afraid that their women are going to go out and
buy a gun for themselves and make them look like even bigger pussies
when the women use their guns to protect the family. You see, it's
not that I don't give a shit, it's just that these pussies aren't
worth my time.
Ace
Scott D. Erb
Some flametroll wrote (the name was omitted since this sort of thing could
have come from a variety of flametrolls):
>There is no documented case of
> an anti-gun pussy ever changing his mind. It should be obvious that
> these guys are not operating on logical thought, so why waste any of
> your good logical thinking on them. Anti-gun pussies are responding
> to their own lack of testosterone. Since they realize that they could
> never muster up enough courage to defend their family and loved ones,
> their denial system will not allow them to believe that anyone else
> could. For them, guns have no value for that purpose and allowing
> others to posses them for that purpose is a constant reminder that
> they are pussies and pussies do not like being reminded that they are
> pussies. Pussies also have the fear that their women a
Anti-nettiquette Part One: On Flametrolls
Above we have the classic example of a flametroll. A flametroll is
someone who does not want rational discourse, and instead just desires to
get people who disagree with their particular views mad.
Such folk have a few tactics: 1) they hope to draw you down to their
level; if a reasonable person gets in an insultathon with a flametroll,
the reasonable person will lose because the flame troll (this one has gone
by various names before, they never use their real name but try to find
something they think sounds tough) is usually anonymous, willing to do
whatever he or she can to attack or smear, and always avoids rational
discussion. 2) flametrolls lie; they'll assert people said things they
didn't, or that they won arguments they never made. Trying to correct
them brings more lies, its not worth it. 3) flametrolls yearn for
attention from reasonable folk, especially those they disagree with or
authority figures. Ultimately, I suspect they have low self-esteem, and
get some kind of rush from getting people to react to them (either that or
they are below the age of 15, which I suspect is the case given this one's
love of the word "pussy" -- a young teen's word if ever there was one).
The problem is they muck up the newsgroups. Sure, flamewars are fun now
and then, and little insults and snide comments can liven an argument.
Flametrolls exist only to try to provoke a reaction and get a rush from
trying to slam those with whom they disagree. Engaging them in real
discourse is usually impossible, they have no desire for such a thing. It
is better to ignore them, or else to throw off a quick condenscending
remark now and then, but NOT to start responding post for post. It goes
nowhere.
I'm compiling some examples of flametrolls and may even try to research
this phenomenon, I consider it similar to drivers who show road rage, or
other anti-social or psychopathic behaviors.
Oh, and by the way, for the record, I am not an advocate for gun control,
though I greatly respect the arguments of both gun control proponents and
opponents. My response to this was not a statement about the poster's
pro-gun sentiments, only the tactic used by the poster.
Steve Canyon
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>Oh, and by the way, for the record, I am not an advocate for gun control,
>though I greatly respect the arguments of both gun control proponents and
>opponents. My response to this was not a statement about the poster's
>pro-gun sentiments, only the tactic used by the poster.
Heh, heh, once again Erb demonstrates that his claims of not holding a
grudge are pure bullshit, but then everybody already knew that.
BTW, Just because you're not an anti-gun pussy doesn't mean you're not
a pussy, Erb
Ace
Bucky
> Obviously, I missed a crucial portion of this paragraph, somewhere.
>
> It seems to me that the primary reason -- as expressed in the paragraph --
> that Canadien gun-owners lost their rights, was they acknowledged that the
> purpose of a gun is to kill. The article flatly states that the public isn't
> going to sympathize with issues like heritage, sport, or hunting when the
> issue is something designed to kill. So, with that in mind, I'm told to
> avoid the gun-rights organizations that stress heritage, sport, & hunting, &
> de-emphasize the fact that guns are made to propel a dangerous projectile in
> a particular direction?
I meant that Canadian gun owners are in the pickle they're in because
they declined to politically defend the utility of something designed
to kill. They would not argue that personal protection and denying
the state a monopoly of violence are "valid reasons" to own firearms,
and thus allowed the prohibitionists to define, as a totally negative
attribute of guns, that they're designed to kill.
> I'm sorry -- but that simply makes *no* sense whatsoever. You're telling me
> to stay away from the very people who make the arguments that the public is
> most likely to support, in favor of the radicals the public is *least*
> likely to support, & tell me that's how I should preserve my gun rights?
>
> That's *insane*.
>
> BTW, I think it's ludicrous to argue that guns are *not* designed for
> killing. That *is* their primary purpose. It's utterly irrelevant to
> ownership, but it's also idiotic to claim that it's not what they're for. Be
> that as it may, IMHO it's the death knell for gun ownership, when gun owners
> allow the debate to be sidetracked into whether or not guns are designed to
> kill. We'll get a LOT farther when we argue about hunting, sport, tradition,
> etc., then we ever will talking "stopping power".
No, you won't. The next time some bozo with a Mini-14 goes out and
minus nines a bunch of lady engineers, see how far you'll get by
arguing that such tragedies are the price society pays for private
gun ownership for hunting and sport shooting. Go ahead, oppose new
restrictions that might save "just one life" on the basis that it
will inconvenience your hobby.
If you're going to make the utilitarian argument for private gun
ownership, you can't dodge the "designed to kill" argument. That's
the anti's strongest point in the minds of the unwashed masses.
Bucky
> >Billy, Bucky there was agreeing with my post.
>
> You're right, and I can see now how I misapprehended his word
> "conceded", but it doesn't matter: *he's* myopic, too.
>
> In the very same way that he suggests "run[ning] away" from the
> hunting crowd, etc., I cannot recommend too emphatically running away
> from the self-defense argument for exactly the same reason: the
> premise is far too narrow and contingent. There is *no way* around
> the principle of private property, unless it has to do with condemning
> property in general, at which point the whole battle is about a lot
> more than guns.
Sure. I'll buy that.
[...]
> To hell with "the framers". I would point out that the very fact
> that they codified the gun issue in the Second Amendment is the whole
> reason *why* this debate takes place today. Always remember: "If it
> can be written down, it can be erased." Well, they wrote it down, and
> that's exactly why the gun debate revolves around the focal-point of
> the Second Amendment - and its premises of self-defense against
> government (which is merely a single facet of self-defense against
> criminality) - instead of the right of private property.
I doubt it. Everywhere else in the world private gun ownership
is almost exclusively argued in utilitarian terms. Why would it
be any different here in the absence of the Second Amendment?
Steve Canyon
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
<snip example of Erb's name calling>
>
>Above we have the classic example
Geez, Erb, if you're going to show a classic example, the least you
can do is show the whole thing;
<Snip example of Erb's monotonous rhetoric>
Well, that's not what I was saying. I'd actually much prefer not to
have the feds interfering in gun laws, but I'm a realist too. I don't
waste my time trying to polish turds. There is no documented case of
an anti-gun pussy ever changing his mind. It should be obvious that
these guys are not operating on logical thought, so why waste any of
your good logical thinking on them. Anti-gun pussies are responding
to their own lack of testosterone. Since they realize that they could
never muster up enough courage to defend their family and loved ones,
their denial system will not allow them to believe that anyone else
could. For them, guns have no value for that purpose and allowing
others to posses them for that purpose is a constant reminder that
they are pussies and pussies do not like being reminded that they are
pussies. Pussies also have the fear that their women are going to see
how a real man is able to protect and defend himself and his family
and realize that her man is a pussy. There is also more than ample
evidence that liberal women have bigger balls than liberal men and so
the pussies are also afraid that their women are going to go out and
buy a gun for themselves and make them look like even bigger pussies
when the women use their guns to protect the family. You see, it's
not that I don't give a shit, it's just that these pussies aren't
worth my time.
Ace
Ace
Bucky
> I greatly respect the arguments of both gun control proponents and
> opponents.
Ick.
Steve Canyon
>this phenomenon, I consider it similar to drivers who show road rage, or
>other anti-social or psychopathic behaviors.
>
I'm not saying that all college professors seek that profession
because they fail to qualify for more prosperous positions. Many, in
fact most of them have a real desire to contribute something to
humanity. Than there are the inept ones that realize that the only
way they are ever going to command any respect is by having a captive
audience that are inhibited from disagreeing by having the grade book
held over their heads. There are professors of this type on the
internet who realize the respect they get in the classroom is
artificial and seek it by posting their nonesense in the newsgroups.
Scott Erb is one of these. Unable to convince the regents of even the
smallest and most obscure university of his competence and thus
forever locked into the entry level position of assistant professor,
he no doubt watched helplessly as new professors joined the staff and
soon were promoted ahead of him. Scott finds the newsgroups suitable
for his requirements for validation.
First of all, he discovers that he can complete an entire posting
without interruption. Secondly, he has developed a denial system
where he can "dismiss" any post that he disagrees with him by simply
eliminating any part of it that he cannot comfortably answer, and
answer only the small segments that he can respond to. And third, he
can claim status by referring to his PHD, which, have thus apparently
far failed to impress his superiors.
Persons of this type can be most easily identified by their inability
to respond to disagreement. Scott may respond to this posting, but if
he does, you can be certain that he will not address all the issues
and will probably snip most of it before responding. OTOH, he may
simply disregard the whole and pretend that he has not read it. In
that case, one or more of his bootlickers are likely respond with
insults and name calling.
Lets all wait and see what he does.
Ace
Hunter
cause it looks like people are reading what I write. Their comment
attracts other readers, which is good from the propagandists
standpoint.
So lets not discourage the flametrolls. I hope they keep commenting
on my posts.
hunter
On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 11:35:00 -0500, "Scott D. Erb"
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Some flametroll wrote (the name was omitted since this sort of thing could
>have come from a variety of flametrolls):
>
>
>Such folk have a few tactics: 1) they hope to draw you down to their
>level; if a reasonable person gets in an insultathon with a flametroll,
>the reasonable person will lose because the flame troll (this one has gone
>by various names before, they never use their real name but try to find
>something they think sounds tough) is usually anonymous, willing to do
>whatever he or she can to attack or smear, and always avoids rational
>discussion. 2) flametrolls lie; they'll assert people said things they
>didn't, or that they won arguments they never made. Trying to correct
>them brings more lies, its not worth it. 3) flametrolls yearn for
>attention from reasonable folk, especially those they disagree with or
>authority figures. Ultimately, I suspect they have low self-esteem, and
>get some kind of rush from getting people to react to them (either that or
>they are below the age of 15, which I suspect is the case given this one's
>love of the word "pussy" -- a young teen's word if ever there was one).
>
>The problem is they muck up the newsgroups. Sure, flamewars are fun now
>and then, and little insults and snide comments can liven an argument.
>Flametrolls exist only to try to provoke a reaction and get a rush from
>trying to slam those with whom they disagree. Engaging them in real
>discourse is usually impossible, they have no desire for such a thing. It
>is better to ignore them, or else to throw off a quick condenscending
>remark now and then, but NOT to start responding post for post. It goes
>nowhere.
>
>I'm compiling some examples of flametrolls and may even try to research
>this phenomenon, I consider it similar to drivers who show road rage, or
>other anti-social or psychopathic behaviors.
>
rose...@idt.net
>> Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
>> I greatly respect the arguments of both gun control proponents and
>> opponents.
>
>Ick.
I'll bet that what ALL your boyfriends say when they see yours, buckedup.
rose...@idt.net
>BTW, Just because you're not an anti-gun pussy doesn't mean you're not
>a pussy, Erb
Steve your middle name is "pussy"
I don't know if you "look" like one, but your posts damn sure point to the fact
that you ACT like one.
johnz'
not as he pleases)
Since this person wasn't attacking you personally, Mr. Erb, why are you
getting involved? More to the point, if you have now adopted a policy of
chastising general "flametrollism" on these newsgroups - whether you,
Scott Erb, are the one being flamed or not - can we look forward to
seeing you forthrightly taking issue with, to give just one example, Jim
Kennemur's loathesome religious bigotry?
Politely and helpfully,
JS
johnz'
<ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote in message <3854484c...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>"Bucky" <mfu...@somtel.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>>>> that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>>>> gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>>>> was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>>>> human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
>>>
>>>Many don't offer this defense because it's one which separates
>>>the wheat from the chaff among gun rights supporters.
>>>
>>>I found during my time in the Land of Compassion that this was
>>>the biggest difference between Canadian and American gun rights
>>>supporters. The former conceded the utilitarian arguments for
>>>gun ownership -- the ones which are based on the fact that guns
>>>are made for killing -- some twenty five years ago. Now they
>>>are left with no way to oppose new restrictions on their rights
>>>expect to whine about how it will inconvenience their hobby,
>>>tread upon tradition, or drain their wallets. Naturally, when
>>>the issue is over something "designed for killing," those dogs
>>>don't hunt among the general public.
>>>
>>>For those of you who are looking for a gun rights organization
>>>to support, run away with arms flailing from those which stress
>>>heritage, hunting and sport.
>
>Obviously, I missed a crucial portion of this paragraph, somewhere.
>
>It seems to me that the primary reason -- as expressed in the paragraph --
>that Canadien gun-owners lost their rights, was they acknowledged that the
>purpose of a gun is to kill.
I hardly think the Canadians made any such argument, as the tradition of
individual self-defense is much weaker there. But if you claim they did,
I have no counter-example saying they did not.
The article flatly states that the public
>isn't
>going to sympathize with issues like heritage, sport, or hunting when the
>issue is something designed to kill. So, with that in mind, I'm told to
>avoid the gun-rights organizations that stress heritage, sport, & hunting,
>&
>de-emphasize the fact that guns are made to propel a dangerous projectile
>in
>a particular direction?
The public who hates gun owners is absolutely indifferent to hunters and
sport.They certainly don't care about "heritage" - if they did, this
miserable situation would never have arisen.
>
>I'm sorry -- but that simply makes *no* sense whatsoever. You're telling
>me
>to stay away from the very people who make the arguments that the public
>is
>most likely to support, in favor of the radicals the public is *least*
>likely to support, & tell me that's how I should preserve my gun rights?
You are confusing two different things. Beck and Kennedy are not
providing whatthey think is the most clever way possible to convince
anybody, no matter how stupid or how indifferent to other's rights, not
to vote for gun control.They are talking about the principle involved,
which is that their right to their own property, whether it is "designed
to kill" or not, is not dependent on either the Constitution or what
everybody else votes on the matter.
>
>That's *insane*.
No it isn't. Beck is not a public relations or political consultant
(and neither am I). He is discussing the fundamental nature of
individual rights. There are orgnizations devoted to thinking up public
relations angles and plotting political strategy. Why not visit their
web sites and see what they are planning to do in the *political* arena?
This is a discussion of fundamental rights. (And, unless you think Wayne
LaPierre is reading USENET daily, searching for new political
strategies, what else do you expect?)
>
>BTW, I think it's ludicrous to argue that guns are *not* designed for
>killing. That *is* their primary purpose. It's utterly irrelevant to
>ownership, but it's also idiotic to claim that it's not what they're for.
>Be
>that as it may, IMHO it's the death knell for gun ownership, when gun
>owners
>allow the debate to be sidetracked into whether or not guns are designed
>to
>kill. We'll get a LOT farther when we argue about hunting, sport,
>tradition,
>etc., then we ever will talking "stopping power".
However, to comment on a strategic - not a principled - level - you are
quite wrong here. You are describing, almost exactly, the positions and
the attitudes taken by the gun rights organizations of Great Britain and
Australia. Did they do the slightest bit of good? No. The fact is if you
sell the self-defense owners down the river, you've just allowed the
enemy to win half of his argument."People who want concealed weapons
permits, or women who want guns because they've been threatened are
obviously misguided or insane, because, after all, the main gun rights
organization made up of hunters and targetshooters doesn't want to say
anything about them." It is no accident that a "counter-NRA" - whose
name I forgot but was something like the "American Firearms
Association", as I remember - which took exactly this kind of line:
"bolt action hunting rifles good, 'cheap handguns' and 'assault weapons'
bad". It was, more or less, a front for one of the major anti-Second
Amendment groups - possibly Brady's organization. They cobbled this
together because they were trying to split theopposition. Furthurmore,in
a society where fewer and fewwer people either want to or can go hunting
every year, isn't it "insane" to tie yourself to a necessarily dwindling
group when the market for defensive weapons - and therefore the
potential opposition against gun control - is not dwindling at all?
I don't mind political gambits, if they arn't just throwing one group
to the wolves. The NRA (generally) stopped doing this and seems somewhat
effective. I have no objection to this kind of thing, but I don't intend
to allow my liberties to be ultimately decided by what is or is not
voted into law by spiteful morons and whining cowards. Intransigence is,
frankly, the best *political* course because it has to made clear that a
"War on Guns" will be a very costly proposition.Of course, this message
is sent loud and clear everytime a particular weapon is banned, and
hundreds of people jam gun stores to buy exactly *that weapon* before
the law takes effect.
What I always wonder is why those who advocate this nonsense never
ask themselves "Huh. People are paying top dollar to buy weapons that
wil either be banned or registered in a month or so. Gosh. I mean,
won't they just have to turn them in later?"
People who assumed that Brady and the AW ban *inevitably* meant the
total banning of firerarms in the near future were most likely to be
those who were buying as many guns as possible. I would suggest that
this indicates that a sizeable porportion - perhaps a minority, but a
sizeable minority - are intending to disregard future bans. Sweet reason
is meaningless, patient explanations of target-shooting, moose-hunting,
etc, etc is pointless - the real "political" message, if you insist on
wanting one, has to be "If you pass these laws, here is the cost you
will pay to enforce them." That is, if any argument at all will work,
which I doubt.
JS
Steve Canyon
I think Roselly Belly is the queen of the pussies. He even smells
like one.
Ace
Billy Beck
johnz' <jo...@remove.aa.net> wrote:
<snicker>
Jeez, John, I'll bet you went and ruined it. No doubt The Maine
Mosquito was working up an epic buzz on that very topic, but, now,
he's just going to have to express his 'great respect' for both sides
of that particular dispute on which people *can* come to a consensus.
Thanks a lot.
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>(snip long post for reasons of bandwidth only: Mr. Erb can replace or
>not as he pleases)
>
>Since this person wasn't attacking you personally, Mr. Erb, why are you
>getting involved?
But that's just it, Erb saw a post that presented pussies in a bad
light, and knowing that he himself is a pussy, he felt that he was
being attacked. BTW, Erb, it's not all pussies that I have no respect
for, it's only the male variety, such as yourself.
Ace
rose...@idt.net
>Well, that's not what I was saying. I'd actually much prefer not to
>have the feds interfering in gun laws, but I'm a realist too.
No, there you go again.
We've proven time after time that YOUR intellectual capacity isn't made for
credible conclusions, and what you "think" is irrelevant.
Besides, IF you were a "realist" you'd recognize that you were a fucking loon.
rose...@idt.net
> Jeez, John, I'll bet you went and ruined it. No doubt The Maine
>Mosquito was working up an epic buzz
Speaking of "buzz" beckloonpondscum
You still "buzzin" about killing someone?
How about that false claim of "not paying any taxes"??
You're a fucking lying coward.
Steve Canyon
Roselly needs only to lower his IQ a couple of more points and he will
be able to match Kennemur's drivel word for word.
Ace
Billy Beck
"Bucky" <mfu...@somtel.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Billy, Bucky there was agreeing with my post.
>>
>> You're right, and I can see now how I misapprehended his word
>> "conceded", but it doesn't matter: *he's* myopic, too.
>>
>> In the very same way that he suggests "run[ning] away" from the
>> hunting crowd, etc., I cannot recommend too emphatically running away
>> from the self-defense argument for exactly the same reason: the
>> premise is far too narrow and contingent. There is *no way* around
>> the principle of private property, unless it has to do with condemning
>> property in general, at which point the whole battle is about a lot
>> more than guns.
>
>Sure. I'll buy that.
>
>[...]
>
>> To hell with "the framers". I would point out that the very fact
>> that they codified the gun issue in the Second Amendment is the whole
>> reason *why* this debate takes place today. Always remember: "If it
>> can be written down, it can be erased." Well, they wrote it down, and
>> that's exactly why the gun debate revolves around the focal-point of
>> the Second Amendment - and its premises of self-defense against
>> government (which is merely a single facet of self-defense against
>> criminality) - instead of the right of private property.
>
>I doubt it. Everywhere else in the world private gun ownership
>is almost exclusively argued in utilitarian terms. Why would it
>be any different here in the absence of the Second Amendment?
"Quick: don't think about a green & purple seagull."
johnz'
wrote:
>johnz' <jo...@remove.aa.net> wrote:
>
>>(snip long post for reasons of bandwidth only: Mr. Erb can replace or
>>not as he pleases)
>>
>>Since this person wasn't attacking you personally, Mr. Erb, why are you
>>getting involved? More to the point, if you have now adopted a policy of
>>chastising general "flametrollism" on these newsgroups - whether you,
>>Scott Erb, are the one being flamed or not - can we look forward to
>>seeing you forthrightly taking issue with, to give just one example, Jim
>>Kennemur's loathesome religious bigotry?
>
> <snicker>
>
> Jeez, John, I'll bet you went and ruined it. No doubt The Maine
>Mosquito was working up an epic buzz on that very topic, but, now,
>he's just going to have to express his 'great respect' for both sides
>of that particular dispute on which people *can* come to a consensus.
I was just being helpful and asking a question in a polite, respectful
tone, to facilitate a shared learning experience.
Politeness, respect, and a committment to an active newsgroup discourse
environment, are my watchwords.
Gee, I wonder if he'll answer my question.
(hums tunelessly)
Yours in substatiative meaningful win/win discussion,
JS
>
> Thanks a lot.
Bucky
> Bucky wrote:
> >I doubt it. Everywhere else in the world private gun ownership
> >is almost exclusively argued in utilitarian terms. Why would it
> >be any different here in the absence of the Second Amendment?
>
> "Quick: don't think about a green & purple seagull."
Damn...Too late. Now I have to imagine myself feeding it Alka-
Seltzer.
Just imagine if Jefferson hadn't crossed out "property" in the
Declaration of Independence and replaced it with "pursuit of
happiness."
Christopher Morton
So you're saying that if he was a homosexual, he'd be a BAD person,
right?
---
Gun control, the theory that Black people will be
better off when only Justin Volpe has a gun.
Check out:
Christopher Morton
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Some flametroll wrote (the name was omitted since this sort of thing could
>have come from a variety of flametrolls):
"You must be a big hit at every GOP party! You can be their
token nigger and token faggot. You must be so proud." - Shawn Smith
So Erb, do you think the above counts as an example?
Allen James
> On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:15:08 -0500, "track9" <yeah...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Take your heads out of your pants when you talk...you are embarrassing
> >yourselves
>
> Oooh! Such a witty remark! I'll bet you had to hang around a third
> grader for about 10 minutes to come up with that one!
>
> Robb
I'm pretty sure he is forbidden to be within a hundred feet of third
graders....
Billy Beck
rose...@idt.net wrote:
>Speaking of "buzz" beckloonpondscum
>
>You still "buzzin" about killing someone?
>
>How about that false claim of "not paying any taxes"??
>
>You're a fucking lying coward.
Come visit me, Rosie, and all will be made clear to you.
Robb
wrote:
>Convenient how you justify your ownership of guns, that kill. Do you
>support abortions too?
I'm beginning to believe that I would have supported YOUR abortion.
Too bad your Mom wanted you....
Robb
Robb
wrote:
>You guys need to stop playing video games... guns are made, designed, with
>the bullet, the projectile, to kill... That's why their made.
1st off, it's "they're", not "their." Secondly, repeating a lie over
and over doesn't make it true. Guns are designed to send bullets out
at high velocities. Literally millions of bullets a year are sent out
without ever harming a thing. Something like 13,000 bullets had
something to do with killing last year. So, are these millions of
bullets being thrown out being horribly misused? Doubtful. Your lie is
just that. A lie. You are an emotive little troll that really needs to
do his homework.
> If the gun
>manufacturers stopped making guns that would kill you clowns would stop
>buying them. So supporting guns = supporting killing.
If guns were to magically disappear tomorrow, do you seriously think
that the world would immediately become some sort of Utopia with
people holding hands and singing about buying the world a coke? Again,
doubtful. This is your second lie in one paragraph. You really ought
to keep the lies down to one per paragraph.
Robb
<kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:10:50 -0500, "track9" <yeah...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You can't be that stupid. Of course, every time I say that someone proves
>>me wrong. Guns are made for one reason... to kill.
>
>Is there never a good reason to kill?
I can think of quite a few good reasons to kill.
Robb
>
>> They are not made to be
>>imbibed like drinks. They are not made to drive busses. They are made to
>>kill. And if you support guns, then you support killing... pull your pants
>>up... your brains are showing...
>
>
>-
>
>John Kennedy
>The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
>http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
>Updated 12/5/99
>
Doug Berry
(Steve Canyon) found stone tablets, which when translated read:
>Well, that's not what I was saying. I'd actually much prefer not to
>have the feds interfering in gun laws, but I'm a realist too. I don't
>waste my time trying to polish turds. There is no documented case of
>an anti-gun pussy ever changing his mind.
Get out your Brasso and a cloth.
Last weekend I attended a full auto shoot in Oregon. The people
at that shoot convinced me through their devotion to safety and
skilled handling of firearms that my earlier positions on gun
control were wrong. While I still believe that some sort of
skill requirement needs to be in place for those who would buy
guns, my objections to private ownership of military grade
weapons have vanished.
Besides, the MP-5 is far to much fun to shoot...
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/mp5-02.gif
..and yes anti-semites and shut-ins, that is an Israeli Defense
Forces t-shirt I'm wearing.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/index.html
"Conspiracy theory is the sophistication of the ignorant."
-Richard Grenier
Hi! I'm a .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours! :)
Steve Canyon
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:28:49 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
>(Steve Canyon) found stone tablets, which when translated read:
>
>
>>Well, that's not what I was saying. I'd actually much prefer not to
>>have the feds interfering in gun laws, but I'm a realist too. I don't
>>waste my time trying to polish turds. There is no documented case of
>>an anti-gun pussy ever changing his mind.
>
>Get out your Brasso and a cloth.
>
>Last weekend I attended a full auto shoot in Oregon. The people
>at that shoot convinced me through their devotion to safety and
>skilled handling of firearms that my earlier positions on gun
>control were wrong. While I still believe that some sort of
>skill requirement needs to be in place for those who would buy
>guns, my objections to private ownership of military grade
>weapons have vanished.
Well, then you were obviously not an anti-gun pussy, although if you
think you were, then maybe so.....
>Besides, the MP-5 is far to much fun to shoot...
>
>http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/mp5-02.gif
>
>..and yes anti-semites and shut-ins, that is an Israeli Defense
>Forces t-shirt I'm wearing.
Ace
Billy Beck
"Bucky" <mfu...@somtel.com> wrote:
<context preservation act>
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>> To hell with "the framers". I would point out that the very fact
>>> that they codified the gun issue in the Second Amendment is the whole
>>> reason *why* this debate takes place today. Always remember: "If it
>>> can be written down, it can be erased." Well, they wrote it down, and
>>> that's exactly why the gun debate revolves around the focal-point of
>>> the Second Amendment - and its premises of self-defense against
>>> government (which is merely a single facet of self-defense against
>>> criminality) - instead of the right of private property.
>> >I doubt it. Everywhere else in the world private gun ownership
>> >is almost exclusively argued in utilitarian terms. Why would it
>> >be any different here in the absence of the Second Amendment?
>>
>> "Quick: don't think about a green & purple seagull."
>
>Damn...Too late.
I'll say.
>Just imagine if Jefferson hadn't crossed out "property" in the
>Declaration of Independence and replaced it with "pursuit of
>happiness."
<shrug> It's no sweat. That's what that "general welfare" gag
is all about.
Billy Beck
grid...@mindspring.com (Doug Berry) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:28:49 GMT, cirrus_ai...@hotmail.com
>(Steve Canyon) found stone tablets, which when translated read:
>>Well, that's not what I was saying. I'd actually much prefer not to
>>have the feds interfering in gun laws, but I'm a realist too. I don't
>>waste my time trying to polish turds. There is no documented case of
>>an anti-gun pussy ever changing his mind.
>
>Get out your Brasso and a cloth.
>
>Last weekend I attended a full auto shoot in Oregon. The people
>at that shoot convinced me through their devotion to safety and
>skilled handling of firearms that my earlier positions on gun
>control were wrong. While I still believe that some sort of
>skill requirement needs to be in place for those who would buy
>guns, my objections to private ownership of military grade
>weapons have vanished.
>
>Besides, the MP-5 is far to much fun to shoot...
>
>http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/mp5-02.gif
>
>..and yes anti-semites and shut-ins, that is an Israeli Defense
>Forces t-shirt I'm wearing.
Lookin' fairly tactical for a gun pussy, Berry. I'm surprised.
Now, then: you were wrong before, and you're still wrong if
you're calling for enforced "skill requirements". At this point, I'm
convinced that you're no weezil. After all, you copped to your
previous errors like grown-up. Anyone with that much honesty could
figure out the rest of it, with a bit of effort.
Billy Beck
"Andrew Northbrook" <ruthe...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote in message <38544b07...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>John Kennedy <kenne...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>I don't know why people offer such a defense against track9's charge
>>>>>that guns are made for killing. It *is* the most important use of a
>>>>>gun. The reason the framers wanted to guarantee the right to bear arms
>>>>>was because of this special utility of the weapon: the ability to kill
>>>>>human beings. It had zero to do with any other use of guns.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why anyone argues this matter on any grounds but the
>>>>right of private property. It doesn't matter whether I like to set up
>>>>chromed .50's in my living room just to polish them and admire the
>>>>gleam, or let 'em rip in my back yard just to howl at the noise.
>>>>
>>>> "Ain't nobody's business if I do."
>>>
>>>The right to private property and the right to self defense are at
>>>bottom one and the same.
>>
>> No, they're not. I could spend a fortune at buying every gun I
>>could possibly lay my hands on, with the purpose of melting them all
>>down in a furnace, and I would still be within my rights. So would
>>Sarah Brady.
>
>Yea, Sarah Brady would argue that she was defending herself by making every
>gun she could grab her personal, private property.
Excuse me, Andrew, but I think I'd really like to know just
exactly what part of "buying" it was that you did not understand. It
might be that I don't have to expound on this point for you, but
"grabbing" isn't anywhere near the same thing as "buying", which is an
honest exhange of values, having nothing at all to do with the
thuggish behavior that Brady is currently involved with. Unlike the
latter, I could respect the former, and I certainly would have to
endorse it as a matter of liberty, which is really what all of this is
about.
>> Who the hell *cares* about the Second Amendment?
>
>I do. Yea, so maybe that means Jack-Diddley-Shit to you, but -- you asked,
>&, frankly, if you don't give a shit about the answer, you shouldn't ask the
>question.
Look: I've handled you civily in the past, mainly because I see
something in you that I never see in lots of others around here.
Here's a rule of thumb about me that you might want to keep in mind:
People get things their way from me, and I always take 'em to the
wall.
Now, in re the 2nd Amendment, if you're interested, then I would
be a tad more than idly curious to see the look on your face and hear
the words from your mouth if the Brady types ever succeeded in
repealing it.
Didja get that? You're standing on an authority for your right
to bear arms that has always been, and still is, contingent on the
opinion of a majority, subject to the processes of constitutional
amendment, that could turn on a dime at any historical moment.
If *that* sort of thing impresses you as sufficient foundation
for your rights, well, then you're easily impressed, and that's a pun
for you to figure out.
TimeR...@lvcm.com
<scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
<scotts off topic babblings snipped>
I don't know how old you are, but I am over 40 and I LOVE "pussy".
Now, other than wasting valuable bandwidth, what WAS your point?
--
The original point and click interface was a Smith & Wesson.
Straight Shootin Y'all.
Hunter
United Nations, Dec 13-- The United States has long been criticized
in the Arab world for barring flights from Iraq for the Hajj, an
annual religious pilgrimage that draws Muslims from around the world
to the holy city of Mecca, in Saudi Arabia.
This UN authority over religious travel will be a great precedent to
use in the future to restrict travel of Christian Missionaries
throughout the world.
hunter
Hunter
Clinton has promised Barak a blank check for funds he requires to make
peace in the middle east. Clinton has agreed to provide
approximately 10+ billion to compensate the 17,000 Israeli living in
the Golan Heights for their houses, lands, businesses, and relocation
expenses. In addition, Clinton has agreed to provide Barak funds to
pay the cost of an Israeli referendum that will be necessary for
Israel to give up the Golan territory. Barak plans to enlist James
Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum, American political
consultants, to help the Israeli government win the referendum. The
cost of such a referendum could exceed and additional $2 billion
dollars.
So far the Wye Peace accord is estimated to cost the US $20 billion.
Buckaroos! The cost of the Clinton legacy is not going to be cheap.
OTOH it may be worth any price to get him out of office.
hunter
Hunter
ZOG has contracted for an Oil Services Deep Sea rig called the SMIT
PIONEER. The ship is performing salvage work at the sight of the
crash hauling up wreckage.
The largest piece recovered so far is an eight-foot section of the
aircraft with three windows.
ZOG has already decided that the cause of the crash was criminal
activity on the part of the crew, but is having difficult in
persuading the Egyptian government of this fact. ZOG hopes that
physical evidence will prove its case to the Egyptians.
In the meantime the US taxpayers are bearing the burden of paying the
millions of dollars of day-rates for the contract of the salvage ship.
Do you think that any amount of money spent on this crash is going to
convince the Egyptians that one of their crew members intentionally
crashed the plane?
hunter
Allen James
<hdhu...@netkonnect.net> wrote:
> ZOG ....
Right. You're yet another net.loony who believes in some giant Jewish
Conspiracy. Uh huh. Y'know, your medication works lots better when you
take it the way it is prescribed....
*PLONK*
Doug Berry
(Steve Canyon) found stone tablets, which when translated read:
>Well, then you were obviously not an anti-gun pussy, although if you
>think you were, then maybe so.....
Do a search both on this address and my old one dbe...@hooked.net
Mimi Weasel
> ZOG has
You are a vile, filthy, disgusting, paranoid and delusional LIAR:
The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Freemasonry and
anti-Semitism It is most disturbing in these days of renascent
Nazism in Germany, and of anti-Semitism in Europe at large, that
the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is still being used in
academic circles. What people who quote this "book" fail to
mention, and apparently fail to realize, is that the Protocols
is a fake redacted by the Russian secret police nearly 100 years
ago, even before Zionism existed as a political movement. This
essay presents a brief story of the Protocols and their place in
modern Arab nationalism. The "Protocols of the Elders of
Zion", the most notorious and most successful work of modern
anti-Semitism, draws on popular anti-Semitic notions which have
their roots in medieval Europe from the time of the Crusades.
The libels that the Jews used blood of Christian children for
the Feast of Passover, poisoned the wells and spread the plague
were pretexts for the wholesale destruction of Jewish
communities throughout Europe. Tales were circulated among the
masses of secret rabbinical conferences whose aim was to
subjugate and exterminate the Christians, and motifs like these
are found in early anti-Semitic literature. The conceptual
inspiration for the Protocols can be traced back to the time of
the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. At that
time, a French Jesuit named Abbe Barruel, representing
reactionary elements opposed to the revolution, published in
1797 a treatise blaming the Revolution on a secret conspiracy
operating through the Order of Freemasons. Barruel's idea was
nonsense, since the French nobility at the time was heavily
Masonic, but he was influenced by a Scottish mathematician named
Robison who was opposed to the Masons. In his treatise, Barruel
did not himself blame the Jews, who were emancipated as a result
of the Revolution. However, in 1806, Barruel circulated a forged
letter, probably sent to him by members of the state police
opposed to Napoleon Bonaparte's liberal policy toward the Jews,
calling attention to the alleged part of the Jews in the
conspiracy he had earlier attributed to the Masons. This myth of
an international Jewish conspiracy reappeared later on in 19th
century Europe in places such as Germany and Poland. The
direct predecessor of the Protocols can be found in the pamphlet
"Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu",
published by the non-Jewish French satirist Maurice Joly in
1864. In his "Dialogues", which make no mention of the Jews,
Joly attacked the political ambitions of the emperor Napoleon
III using the imagery of a diabolical plot in Hell. The
"Dialogues" were caught by the French authorities soon after
their publication and Joly was tried and sentenced to prison for
his pamphlet. Joly's "Dialogues", while intended as a
political satire, soon fell into the hands of a German
antisemite named Hermann Goedsche writing under the name os Sir
John Retcliffe. Goedsche was a postal clerk and a spy for the
Prussian secret police. He had been forced to leave the postal
work due to his part in forging evidence in the prosecution
against the Democratic leader Benedict Waldeck in 1849. Goedsche
adapted Joly's "Dialogues" into a mythical tale of a Jewish
conspiracy as part of a series of novels entitled "Biarritz",
which appeared in 1868. In a chapter called "The Jewish Cemetery
in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve
Tribes of Israel", he spins the fantasy of a secret centennial
rabbinical conference which meets at midnight and whose purpose
is to review the past hundred years and to make plans for the
next century. Goedsche's plagiary of Joly's "Dialogues" soon
found its way to Russia. It was translated into Russian in 1872,
and a consolidation of the "council of representatives" under
the name "Rabbi's Speech" appeared in Russian in 1891. These
works no doubt furnished the Russian secret police (Okhrana)
with a means with which to strengthen the position of the weak
Czar Nicholas II and discredit the reforms of the liberals who
sympathized with the Jews. During the Dreyfus case of 1893-1895,
agents of the Okhrana in Paris redacted the earlier works of
Joly and Goedsche into a new edition which they called the
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion". The manuscript of the
Protocols was brought to Russia in 1895 and was printed
privately in 1897. The Protocols did not become public until
1905, when Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War was
followed by the Revolution in the same year, leading to the
promulgation of a constitution and institution of the Duma. In
the wake of these events, the reactionary "Union of the Russian
Nation" or Black Hundreds organization sought to incite popular
feeling against the Jews, who they blamed for the Revolution and
the Constitution. To this end they used the Protocols, which was
first published in a public edition by the mystic priest Sergius
Nilus in 1905. The Protocols were part of propaganda campaign
which accompanied the pogroms of 1905 inspired by the Okhrana. A
variant text of the Protocols was published by George Butmi in
1906 and again in 1907. The edition of 1906 was found among the
Czar's collection, even though he had already recognized the
work as a forgery. In his later editions, Nilus claimed that the
Protocols had been read secretly at the First Zionist Congress
at Basle in 1897, while Butmi in his edition wrote that they had
no connection with the new Zionist movement, but rather were
part of the Masonic conspiracy. In the civil war following
the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the reactionary White Armies
made extensive use of the Protocols to incite widespread
slaughters of Jews. At the same time, Russian emigrants brought
the Protocols to western Europe, where the Nilus edition served
as the basis for many translations, starting in 1920. Just after
its appearance in London in 1920, Lucien Wolf exposed the
Protocols as a plagiary of the earlier work of Joly and
Goedsche, in a pamphlet of the Jewish Board of Deputies. The
following year, in 1921, the story of the forgery was published
in a series of articles in the London Times by Philip Grave, the
paper's correspondent in Constantinople. A whole book
documenting the forgery was also published in the same year in
America by Herman Bernstein. Nevertheless, the Protocols
continued to circulate widely. They were even sponsored by Henry
Ford in the United States until 1927, and formed an important
part of the Nazis' justification of genocide of the Jews in
World War II. After World War II and the attendant Holocaust,
the Protocols ceased being part of the popular conscience in
Europe in the United States. However, with the birth of the
State of Israel and the eruption of the Arab-Israeli conflict,
they became part of state-sponsored anti-Semitism throughout the
Arab world. anti-Semitic ideas had already been spread by
Christian missionaries in the Middle East since the early 19th
century. This activity erupted in the Damascus blood libel in
1840, which was followed by many recurrences of the libel in
other Arab countries in the latter half of the 19th century.
European anti-Semitic works were already being published in
Cairo in Arabic before the turn of the century. The Protocols
were translated into Arabic from the French edition by al-Khuri
Antun Yamin, probably in the late 1920's. Many editions appeared
starting in the 1950's, mostly in Cairo and Beirut. President
Nasser publicly asserted their authenticity, and his brother,
Shawqi Abd' al-Nasir, published an edition in 1968 entitled
"Brutukulat Hukama Sahyun wa-Ta`alim at-Talmud" ("Protocols of
the Learned Men of Zion and Teachings of the Talmud"). In the
same year, an Islamic congress which convened in Cairo produced
some papers containing anti-Semitic themes which had been
rampant in prewar Europe. Unlike its counterpart in Europe,
antisemitism in the Arab world seems to be officially sanctioned
and promoted. It forms part of religious sermons and appears to
be part of public education. The Protocols today form part of
the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied Islamic
Resistance Movement (Hamas), whose part in the Palestinian
intifada is well known. The statement that the "enemies" or the
"Zionist invasion" are behind "secret societies" such as the
"Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others" around the
world for purposes of sabotage is repeated three times in the
Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Mention of these
organizations, together with the claim that the "enemies" were
"behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most
of the revolutions we heard and hear about", reveals direct
borrowing from the Protocols and its predecessors. The Protocols
are finally mentioned by name in Article 32: ... The Zionist
plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to
expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have
digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further
expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols
of the Elders of Zion" ("Brutukulat Hukama Sahyun" in the
Arabic original), and their present conduct is the best proof
of what we are saying. In summary, use of the Protocols by
modern day Arabs is living testimony to the transplanting of
classical European anti-Semitism into present-day Arab society.
Bibliography Lucien Wolf. The Jewish
Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
Press Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies, London
(1920). The Truth About "The Protocols": A Literary Forgery.
From The Times of August 16, 17, and 18, 1921. Printing House
Square, London. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Keter Publishing House,
Jerusalem (1971), entries on Anti-Semitism and Elders of Zion,
Protocols of the Learned. Herman Bernstein. The Truth About "The
Protocols of Zion" (reprinted with introduction by Norman
Cohn). Ktav Publishing House, New York (1971). D. F. Green.
Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel: Extracts from the
Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic
Research. Editions de l'Avenir, Geneve (1971). Yehoshua Harkabi.
Arab Attitudes Toward Israel. Israel Universities Press,
Jerusalem (1972). Norman Cohn. Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of
the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion (Brown Judaic Studies, No. 23). Scholars Press, Chico, CA
(1981). Bernard Lewis. The Jews of Islam. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ (1984). Mithaq Harakat al-Muqawama
al-Islamiyya - Filastin (Hamas). Filastin, 1 Muharam 1409
A.H.. English version: The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance
Movement, 18 August 1988. Rafi Israeli. The Impact of Islamic
Fundamentalism in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Survey of Arab
Affairs: A periodic supplement to Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints
(Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem), No. 13 (2
Elul 5748/15 August 1988). Raphael Israeli. Islamic
Fundamentalism Among the Palestinian Arabs. ibid., No. 17 (14
Av 5749/15 August 1989). Shaul Wallach
Mimi Weasel