! Charles Schumer--American Nazi!--Continued
william...@my-deja.com
York's junior Senator, Charles Schumer, is a committed Nazi. Another
report, just yesterday, tends clearly to confirm my previous analysis.
Yesterday, Schumer called for Governmental coercion in order to deny
the NRA the opportunity to open a restaurant, recreational facility on
Times Square in New York. Schumer claimed that the NRA facility did
not belong in an area being redeveloped as a "family friendly" district.
One has to go back to the earlier Nazi era, when German thugs with the
apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the shops
of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of that
era, to see the ugly parallel. In America, we have never equated a
right to do business with the public, with having to hold to the same
beliefs and value system as a particular United States Senator. But
you sure saw a lot of a very similar equation under Schumer's Nazi role
models.
Incidentally, the NRA is no more a threat to the family values of any
rational American, than were the German Jewish shop keepers a threat to
the family values of any rational German. In each case, the Nazi's
needed a demon to rally the susceptible; and no true demagogue cares a
whit as to the consequences to those falsely demonized.
William Flax, Esq.
<a href="http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa">Return Of The Gods
Website</a>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill
> I posted a piece a couple of weeks ago on the strong evidence that New
> York's junior Senator, Charles Schumer, is a committed Nazi. Another
> report, just yesterday, tends clearly to confirm my previous analysis.
>
> Yesterday, Schumer called for Governmental coercion in order to deny
> the NRA the opportunity to open a restaurant, recreational facility on
> Times Square in New York. Schumer claimed that the NRA facility did
> not belong in an area being redeveloped as a "family friendly" district.
>
> One has to go back to the earlier Nazi era, when German thugs with the
> apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the shops
> of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of that
> era, to see the ugly parallel.
Actually, we only need go back as far as the Mayor Giuliani era, during
which the 1st Amendment was suspended within the borders of New York City.
It was at that time that legal precedent was set allowing the government to
run politically incorrect businesses out of town.
AJB
>I posted a piece a couple of weeks ago on the strong evidence that New
>York's junior Senator, Charles Schumer, is a committed Nazi. Another
>report, just yesterday, tends clearly to confirm my previous analysis.
>
>Yesterday, Schumer called for Governmental coercion in order to deny
>the NRA the opportunity to open a restaurant, recreational facility on
>Times Square in New York. Schumer claimed that the NRA facility did
>not belong in an area being redeveloped as a "family friendly" district.
I think the last thing New York City needs is another goddamned theme
restaurant. I think the last thing Times Square needs is another
goddamned theme restaurant. Finally, I think the last thing New York
City needs is a goddamned NRA pro-gun, anti-gun-licensing,
anti-gun-registration theme restaurant.
>One has to go back to the earlier Nazi era, when German thugs with the
>apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the shops
>of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of that
>era, to see the ugly parallel.
The German thugs of which you speak were called the "Sturmabteilung",
a.k.a. "SA" or stormtroopers. The smashing and looting of shops of
which you speak was called "Kristallnacht." The shops that were
looted and smashed all had one thing in common - they were owned by
Jews. The SA didn't care what the Jews' political affiliations were.
The SA only cared that they were Jews. So, your attempt to compare a
zoning issue and a Senator's opinion, with a brutal anti-semitic Nazi
pogrom is not just disingenuous, but sickening.
> In America, we have never equated a
>right to do business with the public, with having to hold to the same
>beliefs and value system as a particular United States Senator. But
>you sure saw a lot of a very similar equation under Schumer's Nazi role
>models.
Charles Schumer is Jewish, for God's sake. I very much doubt that he
counts Nazis as his role models, seeing as the Jews would have
murdered Schumer in the street in cold blood merely because of his
religion.
>Incidentally, the NRA is no more a threat to the family values of any
>rational American, than were the German Jewish shop keepers a threat to
>the family values of any rational German. In each case, the Nazi's
>needed a demon to rally the susceptible; and no true demagogue cares a
>whit as to the consequences to those falsely demonized.
By the way - you don't have to use an apostrophe to render a noun
plural. Your so-called analysis, by the way, is the funniest piece of
gobbeldygook I've read all day. Thanks.
Travis Pahl
>william...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> I posted a piece a couple of weeks ago on the strong evidence that New
>> York's junior Senator, Charles Schumer, is a committed Nazi. Another
>> report, just yesterday, tends clearly to confirm my previous analysis.
>>
>> Yesterday, Schumer called for Governmental coercion in order to deny
>> the NRA the opportunity to open a restaurant, recreational facility on
>> Times Square in New York. Schumer claimed that the NRA facility did
>> not belong in an area being redeveloped as a "family friendly" district.
>>
>> One has to go back to the earlier Nazi era, when German thugs with the
>> apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the shops
>> of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of that
>> era, to see the ugly parallel.
>
>Actually, we only need go back as far as the Mayor Giuliani era, during
>which the 1st Amendment was suspended within the borders of New York City.
>It was at that time that legal precedent was set allowing the government to
>run politically incorrect businesses out of town.
>
Or we could go back a few months to the Mayor Schell era in Seattle where
the 1st admendment was suspended within a 50-60 block region in downtown
Seattle.
Travis
william...@my-deja.com
AJB <ajb...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 17:56:30 GMT, william...@my-deja.com trolled:
>
New
> >York's junior Senator, Charles Schumer, is a committed Nazi. Another
> >report, just yesterday, tends clearly to confirm my previous
analysis.
> >
> >Yesterday, Schumer called for Governmental coercion in order to deny
> >the NRA the opportunity to open a restaurant, recreational facility
on
> >Times Square in New York. Schumer claimed that the NRA facility did
> >not belong in an area being redeveloped as a "family friendly"
district.
>
> restaurant. I think the last thing Times Square needs is another
> goddamned theme restaurant. Finally, I think the last thing New York
> City needs is a goddamned NRA pro-gun, anti-gun-licensing,
> anti-gun-registration theme restaurant.
>
the
> >apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the
shops
> >of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of that
> >era, to see the ugly parallel.
>
Whether Charles Schumer is actually Jewish or merely claims a Jewish
ancestry in order to gain support among the large Jewish population in
New York is academic. This is a question that is totally irrelevant to
the point. (For example, to the Nazis Karl Marx was "Jewish," even
though his father had been converted away from Judaism, and Marx hated
the Jews, because the Nazis were in a battle for the German streets
with the Communists, and were out-doing Marx in demonizing the Jews in
order to appeal to a susceptible rabble.) The point is not who was the
demon in 1930--or in 1938, when thugs were breaking up the shops of the
people who had been demonized--but using the technique of demonization
by the big lie, of making decent people objects for the hatred of those
susceptible to the big lie, in order to rally those susceptible to the
collectivist agenda of the power seeking demogogues. Hitler used the
German Jews. Clinton, Gore and Schumer, have been employing similar
smear tactics against traditional American groups that do not buy their
power aggrandizing agenda--an agenda that has a lot in common with that
of the earlier Nazis. (Since you know the German terms, you quote, I
assume that you also know that one of Hitler's very first actions,
after the original power grab in a phony crisis, was to destroy States'
Rights in Germany. He also moved quickly to take over the installation
of values in even very young children. He encouraged the idea of
uniformity, of oneness, at every turn. There are so many aspects of
the whole thing that parallel Clinton/Gore and Schumer, you have to be
pretty blind not to see a pattern.)
This may amuse you. It does not amuse people who are being smeared
simply because they chose to celebrate their Southern Heritage, or
practice their traditional religion, or defend their Constitutional
Rights.
--
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>
>> I think the last thing New York City needs is another goddamned theme
>> restaurant. I think the last thing Times Square needs is another
>> goddamned theme restaurant. Finally, I think the last thing New York
>> City needs is a goddamned NRA pro-gun, anti-gun-licensing,
>> anti-gun-registration theme restaurant.
>
>Objection noted. But tell me: why should you (or I) have any say in what a
>property owner does with his land, even if we live in NYC?
That's the basis of zoning. It's what prevents your neighbor from
building a skyscraper next door to your single-family home. It's what
prevents a strip club from opening up across from a junior high
school.
>> >One has to go back to the earlier Nazi era, when German thugs with the
>> >apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the shops
>> >of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of that
>> >era, to see the ugly parallel.
>>
>> The German thugs of which you speak were called the "Sturmabteilung",
>> a.k.a. "SA" or stormtroopers. The smashing and looting of shops of
>> which you speak was called "Kristallnacht." The shops that were
>> looted and smashed all had one thing in common - they were owned by
>> Jews. The SA didn't care what the Jews' political affiliations were.
>> The SA only cared that they were Jews. So, your attempt to compare a
>> zoning issue and a Senator's opinion, with a brutal anti-semitic Nazi
>> pogrom is not just disingenuous, but sickening.
>
>If the Nazis had been civilized and passed zoning laws keeping all Jewish
>businesses out of Germany, it would have been better then?
Not at all. The Nazis didn't hate Jews because they disagreed with
Jews or didn't like the Jews' politics. The Nazis hated the Jews
because they thought that the Jews were not human beings, but animals
to be slaughtered. To compare a Senator's disagreement with the NRA
to the Nazis' treatment of and theories regarding Jews is disgusting.
>>
>> > In America, we have never equated a
>> >right to do business with the public, with having to hold to the same
>> >beliefs and value system as a particular United States Senator. But
>> >you sure saw a lot of a very similar equation under Schumer's Nazi role
>> >models.
>>
>> Charles Schumer is Jewish, for God's sake. I very much doubt that he
>> counts Nazis as his role models, seeing as the Jews would have
>> murdered Schumer in the street in cold blood merely because of his
>> religion.
>
>When the enemy is successful, his methods are worth study for use against
>your own enemies.
Schumer doesn't hate the NRA because they're all Jewish or Greek or
Black or White or any other reason like that. Schumer has a political
disagreement with the NRA and he would not like to see their
restaurant open up in Times Square. For people like the original
poster to allege that Schumer doesn't have the right to say whatever
he wants about the NRA is the true fascist sentiment.
Patrick Duffy
the NRA the opportunity to open a restaurant, recreational facility on
Times Square in New York. Schumer claimed that the NRA facility did
not belong in an area being redeveloped as a "family friendly" district.>>
Ahh yes those great Nazi institutions called zoning boards.
Please keep your arguments above name calling.
<william...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gjpg5$jem$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I posted a piece a couple of weeks ago on the strong evidence that New
> York's junior Senator, Charles Schumer, is a committed Nazi. Another
> report, just yesterday, tends clearly to confirm my previous analysis.
>
> Yesterday, Schumer called for Governmental coercion in order to deny
> the NRA the opportunity to open a restaurant, recreational facility on
> Times Square in New York. Schumer claimed that the NRA facility did
> not belong in an area being redeveloped as a "family friendly" district.
>
> One has to go back to the earlier Nazi era, when German thugs with the
> apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the shops
> of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of that
> era, to see the ugly parallel. In America, we have never equated a
> right to do business with the public, with having to hold to the same
> beliefs and value system as a particular United States Senator. But
> you sure saw a lot of a very similar equation under Schumer's Nazi role
> models.
>
> Incidentally, the NRA is no more a threat to the family values of any
> rational American, than were the German Jewish shop keepers a threat to
> the family values of any rational German. In each case, the Nazi's
> needed a demon to rally the susceptible; and no true demagogue cares a
> whit as to the consequences to those falsely demonized.
>
Travis Pahl
>On Thu, 25 May 2000 17:56:30 GMT, william...@my-deja.com trolled:
>
>>I posted a piece a couple of weeks ago on the strong evidence that New
>>York's junior Senator, Charles Schumer, is a committed Nazi. Another
>>report, just yesterday, tends clearly to confirm my previous analysis.
>>
>>Yesterday, Schumer called for Governmental coercion in order to deny
>>the NRA the opportunity to open a restaurant, recreational facility on
>>Times Square in New York. Schumer claimed that the NRA facility did
>>not belong in an area being redeveloped as a "family friendly" district.
>
>I think the last thing New York City needs is another goddamned theme
>restaurant. I think the last thing Times Square needs is another
>goddamned theme restaurant. Finally, I think the last thing New York
>City needs is a goddamned NRA pro-gun, anti-gun-licensing,
>anti-gun-registration theme restaurant.
Although I have not been to NYC, I probably agree. I think theme
restaruants are dumb. But the question is not whether there should be
one, but whether one should be allowed to set one up. What are your views
on that?
>>One has to go back to the earlier Nazi era, when German thugs with the
>>apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the shops
>>of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of that
>>era, to see the ugly parallel.
>
>The German thugs of which you speak were called the "Sturmabteilung",
>a.k.a. "SA" or stormtroopers. The smashing and looting of shops of
>which you speak was called "Kristallnacht." The shops that were
>looted and smashed all had one thing in common - they were owned by
>Jews. The SA didn't care what the Jews' political affiliations were.
>The SA only cared that they were Jews. So, your attempt to compare a
>zoning issue and a Senator's opinion, with a brutal anti-semitic Nazi
>pogrom is not just disingenuous, but sickening.
I do not think this is a zoning issue. Restaurants are allowed in time
square right?
Travis
AJB
[snip]
>Whether Charles Schumer is actually Jewish or merely claims a Jewish
>ancestry in order to gain support among the large Jewish population in
>New York is academic.
No - it's a fact that you're disputing because it's fun to dispute.
>This is a question that is totally irrelevant to
>the point. (For example, to the Nazis Karl Marx was "Jewish," even
>though his father had been converted away from Judaism, and Marx hated
>the Jews, because the Nazis were in a battle for the German streets
>with the Communists, and were out-doing Marx in demonizing the Jews in
>order to appeal to a susceptible rabble.)
Anti-semitism in Central Europe was practically a sport between 1919 -
1945. Marx was dead by the time of Weimar Germany when the Reds were
fighting the Browns on the streets. The Reds may or may not have been
anti-semites, but it wasn't central to their philosophy. The Reds
wanted to do away with the bourgeousie - regardless of religion.
> The point is not who was the
>demon in 1930--or in 1938, when thugs were breaking up the shops of the
>people who had been demonized--but using the technique of demonization
>by the big lie, of making decent people objects for the hatred of those
>susceptible to the big lie, in order to rally those susceptible to the
>collectivist agenda of the power seeking demogogues. Hitler used the
>German Jews. Clinton, Gore and Schumer, have been employing similar
>smear tactics against traditional American groups that do not buy their
>power aggrandizing agenda--an agenda that has a lot in common with that
>of the earlier Nazis. (Since you know the German terms, you quote, I
>assume that you also know that one of Hitler's very first actions,
>after the original power grab in a phony crisis, was to destroy States'
>Rights in Germany.
"States Rights" in Germany were first diminished under Bismarck, who
consolidated German Unification of its states and city-states under
one Germany.
The difference you don't seem to get about the Nazis and the Clintons
is that the Nazis espoused a theory - which they fervently believed -
that the Jews were subhuman and enjoyed no rights - human or otherwise
- whatsoever. To the Nazis, they couldn't technically be oppressing
the Jews because there was no such thing, since Jews weren't human
beings.
Are you really of the opinion that Clinton, Schumer and other
democrats believe that gun owners are subhuman or not human beings,
that they should be exterminated in gas chambers and in ovens, and
that racial purity laws should lead to the systematic, factory-like
murder of gun owners or NRA members? Of course not, and to suggest
that is to minimize the importance and horror of the holocaust and to
trivialize the amazing and incomprehensible human tragedy that befell
millions in Europe in the 1930s and 40s.
> He also moved quickly to take over the installation
>of values in even very young children. He encouraged the idea of
>uniformity, of oneness, at every turn. There are so many aspects of
>the whole thing that parallel Clinton/Gore and Schumer, you have to be
>pretty blind not to see a pattern.)
What a load of nonsense. You're comparing Civics class with the
Hitler Youth. The last thing the US government wants - the last thing
liberal democrats want - is some freakish homogeneous society where
everyone is the same. Do liberal democrats want you to agree with
their politics? Sure. the GOP also want people to agree with their
politics. To equate what kids in the US go through to what German kids
went through (or for that matter what Soviet or Cuban kids go/went
through) is comparing an ant to an elephant.
>This may amuse you. It does not amuse people who are being smeared
>simply because they chose to celebrate their Southern Heritage, or
>practice their traditional religion, or defend their Constitutional
>Rights.
I think that the South should have succeeded in its efforts to secede
in 1861. I think that the North would have done very well by
sloughing off that last bastion of feudalism and continuing on with
its industrialization. Had that happened, the Border Patrol would be
on watch on the US's southern border, stopping those damn rednecks
from crossing over. Religion? You have a constitutional right to
practice your religion without government interference. You have an
instant civil rights lawsuit should anyone prevent you from doing so.
Ditto constitutional rights.
Go watch Schindler's List. Go watch Shoah. Go watch the myriad
documentaries on HBO interviewing Holocaust survivors. That will put
the lie to your comparison of American Democrats to the National
Socialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei.
AJB
<tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>I do not think this is a zoning issue. Restaurants are allowed in time
>square right?
Yes, but I think NYC - a very large city which until recently had a
bad image viz. crime - doesn't need a pro-gun restaurant in the heart
of the city. New York ain't Texas. Open the NRA restaurant in
Houston.
Travis Pahl
What you made clear here is that YOU don't think that NYC needs a pro gun
restaraunt, yet you state that they have a right to build one.
The obvious solution would be for YOU not to visit this restaruant. If
enough people feel the same way as you, the restaraunt will lose money and
soon be shut down. If youare wrong and the idea is a popular one, it will
make money and stick around. But your personal opinion is only a very
very small determing factor in whether it stays of not.
Travis
Superdave the Wonderchemist
: On Thu, 25 May 2000 14:36:12 -0700, Travis Pahl
: <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
: [snip]
: >I do not think this is a zoning issue. Restaurants are allowed in time
: >square right?
: Yes, but I think NYC - a very large city which until recently had a
: bad image viz. crime - doesn't need a pro-gun restaurant in the heart
: of the city. New York ain't Texas. Open the NRA restaurant in
: Houston.
How does the NRA have anything to do with crime other than their law
enforcement officer training courses?
--
--"The gods do not deduct from man's allotted span the hours
spent in fishing." -- Babylonian proverb
-Superdave The Wonderchemist Ph.D. Candidate (end of slavery in sight)
Theoretical Quantum Chemist (fun, eh?)
NDSU Fargo, ND (read middle of nowhere)
Disclaimer:
I speak for no one but myself unless I am wrong, then I speak
on behalf of someone else. (read whatever)
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, §227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Flash
parallels to Nazi policies. Acting without ANY Constitutional authority or
mandate from the people, the government has defined, isolated, and violently
attacks groups of people to further its own power. The pretext is that drug
use is bad so it must destroy people to save them, supposedly for the "good"
of the public. Evidently...the thinking goes...is that it would be better
to have a violent, authoritarian government completely out of control than
to have people minding their own business entertaining themselves with
drugs. Someone minding their own business getting high, arguably poses no
threat to anyone but themselves. Storm troopers with machine guns and dogs,
breaking down doors and taking people away in the middle of the night is
very reminiscent of dark times in Germany. With the force of law, the
government can violate all civil rights and privacy and confiscate
properties, bank accounts, social standing, and imprison people. If there
is any resistence, they may even be killed! And what is really scary is
that it seems to be considered perfectly acceptable to much of the public.
Goebbles propaganda and indoctrination schemes are brilliantly being
employed to justify government actions. The last time the government tried
this was with prohibition. It was accepted then that it could not make
alcohol illegal without amending the Constitution...which it did.
Prohibition showed itself to be a total failure and Congress eventually
reversed it. This time, with drug prohibition, they didn't even bother with
the Constitution...they just put laws into place and are presently acting
without ANY Constitutional authority! The war on drugs is Constitutionally
illegal! But hardly anyone ever talks about that because of the fear the
government has created. Speaking out would defy government's real goal of
acquiring more power. Even if people don't want government doing this, it's
nearly impossible to be stopped because government doesn't want to give up
this power! It's not hard to think that this must be the helplessness the
German people felt when Hitler took power. With the government now
illegally disobeying the Constitution and pretense of a mandate from the
people, it is now doing whatever it wants. It has essentially become a
rogue government and has completely slipped it's leash. God help us all!
<william...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gjpg5$jem$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I posted a piece a couple of weeks ago on the strong evidence that New
> York's junior Senator, Charles Schumer, is a committed Nazi. Another
> report, just yesterday, tends clearly to confirm my previous analysis.
>
> Yesterday, Schumer called for Governmental coercion in order to deny
> the NRA the opportunity to open a restaurant, recreational facility on
> Times Square in New York. Schumer claimed that the NRA facility did
> not belong in an area being redeveloped as a "family friendly" district.
>
> One has to go back to the earlier Nazi era, when German thugs with the
> apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the shops
> of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of that
Flykiller
>enforcement officer training courses?
You don't get it.
To liberals, not following the liberal agenda is the crime. Anything which
contributes to the liberal agenda ( including killing Linda Tripp's cat ) is
not a crime. Period. Anything which opposes the liberal agenda ( including
following the Constitution ) is a crime. Period. No-one who is a liberal is a
criminal, no matter what they do. Period. Everyone who is not a liberal is a
criminal, no matter what they do. Period.
That's it. That's the extent of their ethics and morality and view of the law.
what we need right now is a full frontal assault.
Woody
news:3ZwX4.101$vP1....@ord-read.news.verio.net...
> The drug policy of our federal government continually shows frightening
> parallels to Nazi policies. Acting without ANY Constitutional authority
or
>
Ditto. But it goes even further than drugs. It is invading every part of our
privacy from drug testing to random road blocks. And it is crossing
boundaries into other parts of the "bad" things that people do. It is
amazing to me that the same people who cry out that the death penalty is
wrong if 1 innocent is killed, are deafly silent on the killing of innocents
in the many "drug raids" going on across the country in increasingly
alarming numbers. There are several bills in legislature now that could
potentially give law enforcement the "right" to enter your home and conduct
searches without a warrant. If they find anything, they have 90 days to get
a warrant. Is this the kind of government our forefathers dreamed we would
have?
Woody
Full bill: http://cryptome.org/s486rfh.txt
[DOCID: f:s486rfh.txt] 106th CONGRESS 2d Session
S. 486
[exerpt]
SEC. 301. NOTICE; CLARIFICATION.
(a) Notice of Issuance.--Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``With respect to
any issuance under this section or any other provision of law (including
section 3117 and any rule), any notice required, or that may be required, to
be given may be delayed pursuant to the standards, terms, and conditions set
forth in section 2705, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.''.
(b) Clarification.--(1) Section 2(e) of Public Law 95-78 (91 Stat. 320) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``Subdivision (d) of such rule,
as in effect on this date, is amended by inserting `tangible' before
`property' each place it occurs.''.
(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
mumblepod(i)
> Are you really of the opinion that Clinton, Schumer and other
> democrats believe that gun owners are subhuman or not human beings,
> that they should be exterminated in gas chambers and in ovens, and
> that racial purity laws should lead to the systematic, factory-like
> murder of gun owners or NRA members?
<snip>
YES. You should see the things that have been said to me personally based
soley on my desire to protect the 2nd Amendment. It's been suggested that
I; be tortured, raped, jump off Niagra falls, get in line to be executed,
put my family in hiding, etc. I have been labeled as a "nigger slaying
redneck", a "threat to all decent people everywhere", and a "Nazi waiting
for the next Reich". So, yes... I DO believe that those who disagree with
us gun-activists would GLEEFULLY stuff us into ovens. Thier hatred is pure.
I've inculded only a small list of the hateful things that have been said
and suggested, to ME, nevermind that which has been said to others.
--
-mumblepod(i)
Support your Right to Keep and Bear Arms
J. Randy Mitchell
> I've inculded only a small list of the hateful things that have been said
> and suggested, to ME, nevermind that which has been said to others.
I, too, have been subjected to undue harassment simply
because I believe in the 2nd amendment. However, I
think that the commie mommie march put a great deal
of the gun control issue into perspective for some people
who would normally be those that would vilify those
of us with CCW permits. The NRA has released the
numbers in the surge of membership requests that
usually follow a grandstanding event such as the
'march' (I'm sorry I don't have them in front of me, but
I'll post them as soon as I do). I do know that the
numbers are substantially higher than usual.
It seems to me that the gun control twits could
find a more credible spokesperson than Rosie
O'Donnell. She managed to spew enough lies
and contradictions to set their cause back a few
years.
Lets hope so, shall we?
Bill
> I see a lot of dodging of the issue here. Let's make it plain: if a type of
> business meets the normal criteria of zoning, e.g., if it is a restaurant
> where restaurants are allowed, is it not a violation of 1st Amendment
> rights to deny occupancy based on thematic content of the restaurant? the
> only precedent for such a thing I can think of is the difference in
> treatment between bookstores, and bookstores that specialize in sexual
> content. Are you equating guns with pornography?
I think it's a valid comparison. Mayor Giuliani and the NYC Council have set a
precedent in establishing that certain legal businesses may be discriminated
against based on the philisophical or artistic content of their products. The
same precendent could be used for all sorts of nefarious purposes. How about
"no more than one foreign-language bookstore per block"? Or "no Jewish
bookstores within 100 feet of a Christian house of worship"?
GLSilverdahl
Superdave the Wonderchemist <thw...@prairie.NoDak.edu> wrote in message
news:8gm2nr$116$7...@news.ndsu.nodak.edu...
> AJB (ajb...@yahoonope.com) wrote:
> : On Thu, 25 May 2000 14:36:12 -0700, Travis Pahl
> : <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> : [snip]
>
> : >I do not think this is a zoning issue. Restaurants are allowed in time
> : >square right?
>
> : Yes, but I think NYC - a very large city which until recently had a
> : bad image viz. crime - doesn't need a pro-gun restaurant in the heart
> : of the city. New York ain't Texas. Open the NRA restaurant in
> : Houston.
>
> enforcement officer training courses?
>
And more importantly, what does "need" have to do with it?
Isn't this still a free country or did I miss something yesterday?
william...@my-deja.com
ajb...@yahoonope.com (AJB) wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 21:19:53 GMT, william...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > The point is not who was the
> >demon in 1930--or in 1938, when thugs were breaking up the shops of
the
> >people who had been demonized--but using the technique of
demonization
> >by the big lie, of making decent people objects for the hatred of
those
> >susceptible to the big lie, in order to rally those susceptible to
the
> >collectivist agenda of the power seeking demogogues. Hitler used the
> >German Jews. Clinton, Gore and Schumer, have been employing similar
> >smear tactics against traditional American groups that do not buy
their
> >power aggrandizing agenda--an agenda that has a lot in common with
that
> >of the earlier Nazis. (Since you know the German terms, you quote, I
> >assume that you also know that one of Hitler's very first actions,
> >after the original power grab in a phony crisis, was to destroy
States'
> >Rights in Germany.
>
> "States Rights" in Germany were first diminished under Bismarck, who
> consolidated German Unification of its states and city-states under
> one Germany.
>
How misleading! Yes, he created a "unified" empire. But those ancient
States still had their separate and distinct royal families; still
honored their separate and distinct heritages, and differing cultures.
Their people were not paraded around in a lockstep, compulsory
uniformity, calling for a "classless, casteless" society, as Hitler did
at Nuremberg. (Like Clinton boasting that we are all 99.99% the same.)
> The difference you don't seem to get about the Nazis and the Clintons
> is that the Nazis espoused a theory - which they fervently believed -
> that the Jews were subhuman and enjoyed no rights - human or otherwise
> - whatsoever. To the Nazis, they couldn't technically be oppressing
> the Jews because there was no such thing, since Jews weren't human
> beings.
>
Come now! Have you tuned out the sort of things that have been said
about those who celebrate their Southern Heritage today--especially if
they are also believing Christians and gun bearers?
And do you really believe that Hitler really "fervently believed" that
the Jews were subhuman? For example, he accused them of corrupting
German music. Do you really think that he was unaware of the great
many Jews playing the sort of music Hitler loved, in symphonic
orchestras, for any one doing something experimental that he found
offensive? You need to understand the mind of the true demagogue. He
will say anything, he thinks will serve his power seeking purpose. The
game was power. Do you think that Al Gore really believes that the
Confederate flag is a symbol of hatred? The game is power!!
> Are you really of the opinion that Clinton, Schumer and other
> democrats believe that gun owners are subhuman or not human beings,
> that they should be exterminated in gas chambers and in ovens, and
> that racial purity laws should lead to the systematic, factory-like
> murder of gun owners or NRA members? Of course not, and to suggest
> that is to minimize the importance and horror of the holocaust and to
> trivialize the amazing and incomprehensible human tragedy that befell
> millions in Europe in the 1930s and 40s.
The Nazis did not start by putting anyone into gas ovens. Long before
that--many years--they made sure that those targetted were disarmed;
were shunned by all respectable people; isolated in an otherwise
collectivist State. If you look at the extreme acceleration of the
rhetoric of the Clinton/Gore/Schumer types against traditional American
Conservatives, in the last couple of years; just where do you think
they are planning to take this. Of course, they are not advocating
putting anyone in a gas oven. But they sure are doing the same job of
demonization that Hitler did on the way to power, and during the years
immediately following consolidation. And what happened at Waco was a
pretty grissly preview of how they want to treat gun owners who defy
them.
>
> > He also moved quickly to take over the installation
> >of values in even very young children. He encouraged the idea of
> >uniformity, of oneness, at every turn. There are so many aspects of
> >the whole thing that parallel Clinton/Gore and Schumer, you have to
be
> >pretty blind not to see a pattern.)
>
> What a load of nonsense. You're comparing Civics class with the
> Hitler Youth. The last thing the US government wants - the last thing
> liberal democrats want - is some freakish homogeneous society where
> everyone is the same. Do liberal democrats want you to agree with
> their politics? Sure. the GOP also want people to agree with their
> politics. To equate what kids in the US go through to what German kids
> went through (or for that matter what Soviet or Cuban kids go/went
> through) is comparing an ant to an elephant.
There is a great difference between the parties trying to persuade
adult voters to support their candidates, and trying to impose
educational guidelines for very young children--even those in private
schools--from Washington. This move has already been associated with
the Administration's concept of "Hate," which appears to equate with
anyone who does not accept their social values. Stop a moment, take a
breath, and just try to envision how the bold individualists who gave
us America would have reacted to this intrusion. They understood very
well that the moral and social values of young children are supposed to
come from their parents.
>
> >This may amuse you. It does not amuse people who are being smeared
> >simply because they chose to celebrate their Southern Heritage, or
> >practice their traditional religion, or defend their Constitutional
> >Rights.
>
> I think that the South should have succeeded in its efforts to secede
> in 1861. I think that the North would have done very well by
> sloughing off that last bastion of feudalism and continuing on with
> its industrialization. Had that happened, the Border Patrol would be
> on watch on the US's southern border, stopping those damn rednecks
> from crossing over. Religion? You have a constitutional right to
> practice your religion without government interference. You have an
> instant civil rights lawsuit should anyone prevent you from doing so.
> Ditto constitutional rights.
You have not been paying much attention to the Court cases on religious
matters, lately. The more "Liberal" Courts have been striking down one
religious observation after another. (Our religious freedoms were
never premised, before, on the idea that people had to observe their
faiths in secret.)
> Go watch Schindler's List. Go watch Shoah. Go watch the myriad
> documentaries on HBO interviewing Holocaust survivors. That will put
> the lie to your comparison of American Democrats to the National
> Socialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei.
>
I am not comparing American Democrats, generally, to Nazis. I am
comparing Clinton/Gore/Schumer to Nazis because they embrace the Nazi
style of demagoguery, in pursuit of a similar compulsive Statist
uniformity. My conclusion is based not on wathching a Hollywood or HBO
production, but on watching the men themselves--Hitler was recently on
at length on Turner's showing of Triumph of The Will; Clinton is always
on; so more and more are Gore and Schumer.
--
William Flax, Esq.
<a href=http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa>Return Of The Gods Website</a>
Superdave the Wonderchemist
: Superdave the Wonderchemist <thw...@prairie.NoDak.edu> wrote in message
: news:8gm2nr$116$7...@news.ndsu.nodak.edu...
: > AJB (ajb...@yahoonope.com) wrote:
: > : On Thu, 25 May 2000 14:36:12 -0700, Travis Pahl
: > : <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
: >
: > : [snip]
: >
: > : >I do not think this is a zoning issue. Restaurants are allowed in time
: > : >square right?
: >
: > : Yes, but I think NYC - a very large city which until recently had a
: > : bad image viz. crime - doesn't need a pro-gun restaurant in the heart
: > : of the city. New York ain't Texas. Open the NRA restaurant in
: > : Houston.
: >
: > How does the NRA have anything to do with crime other than their law
: > enforcement officer training courses?
: >
: And more importantly, what does "need" have to do with it?
: Isn't this still a free country or did I miss something yesterday?
You did not have a demonstrable need to post that follow-up. I will have
to check your papers. Do you have your Usenet posting license? Do you
have documentation that you passed our strict Usenet background
check? Are you aware of the new "one post per month" law?
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>> >
>> >Objection noted. But tell me: why should you (or I) have any say in what a
>> >property owner does with his land, even if we live in NYC?
>>
>> That's the basis of zoning. It's what prevents your neighbor from
>> building a skyscraper next door to your single-family home. It's what
>> prevents a strip club from opening up across from a junior high
>> school.
>
>You avoided the question. By what right does zoning exist?
Because zoning is the natural result of the common law doctrine of
public and private nuisance.
[snip]
>The violation of a person's property rights, their right to believe as they
>will, and their right to self-defence is disgusting and sickening, no
>matter what the reason, whether done by government-sponsored gangs (as on
>Kristallnacht or in Zimbabwe today) or by government directly. Race has
>nothing to do with it. Hitler could have had any negative opinion of Jews
>that he wanted. It is only when those opinions translated into action that
>he did evil.
No, actually, when he advocated the wholesale merciless slaughter of
Jews as subhuman he did evil.
>To disarm humans is to turn them into animals to be slaughtered. Might I
>remind you that every genocide of the 20th century happened in nations
>where civilian ownership of firearms was tightly controlled?
There is no such thing as tight control of anything in Kosovo or
Bosnia, and in fact many people had arms - either legal or illegal
-and weren't afraid to use them. If no one had been armed in either
instance, it would have been a big fistfight.
[snip]
>OK, I would like Schumer not to be a Senator, but I don't even get a vote.
>Fact is, he has no jurisdiction in this case either. Anyway, you ignored my
>point; the why of the Holocaust can be seperated from the how, and I
>believe that Chuckie has been studying Adolf's playbook.
That's nonsense. The why of the holocaust goes hand in hand with the
how and cannot be separated. It's one thing to say "I think Jewish
people control the banks and keep me down." It's a whole other thing
to say "I think Jews aren't people and should be rounded up like
cattle into camps and shot on sight."
> For people like the original
>> poster to allege that Schumer doesn't have the right to say whatever
>> he wants about the NRA is the true fascist sentiment.
>
>That's funny; I didn't get "no right to say" out of that. He can say what
>he wants, and pay the price politically. But is is clear that
>constitutionally, Schumer has no right to any of his anti-gun laws; they
>are all a violation of his oath of office. If he wants to be above-board
>and legal, he should work to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
I'm not going to get into the "well regulated militia" language that
the pro-gun folks like to ignore/explain away. Go to your nearest
revolutionary war memorial or museum and look at a musket or a cannon.
You want to be a strict constitutional constructionist? Then you have
an absolute right to pack up some flint, some gunpowder and some
homemade lead bullets and march off to town well-protected.
AJB
<mumbl...@REMOVEgoatlike.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> Are you really of the opinion that Clinton, Schumer and other
>> democrats believe that gun owners are subhuman or not human beings,
>> that they should be exterminated in gas chambers and in ovens, and
>> that racial purity laws should lead to the systematic, factory-like
>> murder of gun owners or NRA members?
>
><snip>
>
>YES. You should see the things that have been said to me personally based
>soley on my desire to protect the 2nd Amendment. It's been suggested that
>I; be tortured, raped, jump off Niagra falls, get in line to be executed,
>put my family in hiding, etc. I have been labeled as a "nigger slaying
>redneck", a "threat to all decent people everywhere", and a "Nazi waiting
>for the next Reich". So, yes... I DO believe that those who disagree with
>us gun-activists would GLEEFULLY stuff us into ovens. Thier hatred is pure.
Name names or cite from the Congressional Record.
AJB
[snip]
>>
>> "States Rights" in Germany were first diminished under Bismarck, who
>> consolidated German Unification of its states and city-states under
>> one Germany.
>>
>How misleading! Yes, he created a "unified" empire. But those ancient
>States still had their separate and distinct royal families; still
>honored their separate and distinct heritages, and differing cultures.
>Their people were not paraded around in a lockstep, compulsory
>uniformity, calling for a "classless, casteless" society, as Hitler did
>at Nuremberg. (Like Clinton boasting that we are all 99.99% the same.)
I think Clinton's boast that we're 99.99% the same, besides being
genetically accurate, is one that is meant to diminish racial, ethnic
and other types of hatreds and prejudices. It's quite a different
thing for Clinton to emphasize our similarities versus our differences
and for Hitler to undertake a social revolution in order to expel or
murder anyone whom he deemed different from his ideal.
>> The difference you don't seem to get about the Nazis and the Clintons
>> is that the Nazis espoused a theory - which they fervently believed -
>> that the Jews were subhuman and enjoyed no rights - human or otherwise
>> - whatsoever. To the Nazis, they couldn't technically be oppressing
>> the Jews because there was no such thing, since Jews weren't human
>> beings.
>>
>Come now! Have you tuned out the sort of things that have been said
>about those who celebrate their Southern Heritage today--especially if
>they are also believing Christians and gun bearers?
You know, you can go ahead and play the most popular victim on the
Limbaugh show - the White Southern Christian Gun Owner, but it's old
news - like the proverbial angry black man or an angry Quebecer. The
fact remains that the Federal Government of the United States does not
have a policy and has not taken action to commit genocide against
White Southern Christian Gun Owners. White Southern Christian Gun
Owners are not rounded up in the middle of the night by secret police,
herded into boxcars and taken to remote areas and imprisoned in work
camps. They aren't tortured, shot on sight, murdered, sent to gas
chambers, executed in mass graves they had dug, or burned alive for
the mere fact of their White Souther Christian Gun Ownerdom. Any such
comparison trivializes the holocaust and diminishes any credibility
you have. As far as Southern Heritage - you can pine away for your
old feudal ways all you want, but that's a social structure that our
founding fathers pretty much wanted to do away with in the first
place.
>And do you really believe that Hitler really "fervently believed" that
>the Jews were subhuman? For example, he accused them of corrupting
>German music. Do you really think that he was unaware of the great
>many Jews playing the sort of music Hitler loved, in symphonic
>orchestras, for any one doing something experimental that he found
>offensive?
Yes. Hitler's favorite composer was the ponderous, overbearing
Richard Wagner. To Hitler, any German art or music was decadent and
deviant. I'm not going to read Mein Kampf for you - go do it
yourself. Hitler indicts himself in that piece of garbage book and
you can read in his own words what he thought of Jews.
> You need to understand the mind of the true demagogue. He
>will say anything, he thinks will serve his power seeking purpose. The
>game was power. Do you think that Al Gore really believes that the
>Confederate flag is a symbol of hatred? The game is power!!
I don't care if Al Gore thinks the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol
of hatred or not. I personally think it represents three things:
1. It represents treachery against the United States of America, from
which the Confederacy seceded unilaterally.
2. It represents the Confederacy's desire to preserve its outdated
feudal plantation society, complete with slavery.
3. It represents the Confederacy's intention to murder citizens of the
United States of America which came to prevent the unilateral and
illegal secession of the Confederate states.
In other words, there is no reason why the battle flag remains the
symbol of "Southern Heritage". Why not the actual civilian flag of
the CSA? Why isn't that used? Because the battle flag more pointedly
represents rebellion against the United States and its Constitution.
[snip]
>The Nazis did not start by putting anyone into gas ovens. Long before
>that--many years--they made sure that those targetted were disarmed;
Actually, gun control was tightened under the 1919-1933 Weimar regime
mostly to prevent further rioting and bloodshed between Hitler's
brownshirts and the Communists.
>were shunned by all respectable people; isolated in an otherwise
>collectivist State. If you look at the extreme acceleration of the
>rhetoric of the Clinton/Gore/Schumer types against traditional American
>Conservatives, in the last couple of years; just where do you think
>they are planning to take this. Of course, they are not advocating
>putting anyone in a gas oven. But they sure are doing the same job of
>demonization that Hitler did on the way to power, and during the years
>immediately following consolidation. And what happened at Waco was a
>pretty grissly preview of how they want to treat gun owners who defy
>them.
You cite for me where Clinton or Schumer or any of the other liberal
democrats whom you so despise have ever written or spoken in favor of
the murder or final solution (endlosung) of the Conservative problem
(Judische frage). Where has Clinton railed against the evils of
international Conservativehood (Judentum). I don't have a problem
with you disagreeing with or even saying nasty things about elected
officials. What I do have a problem with is you equating politicians
with whom you disagree with Adolf Hitler and the holocaust. You
thusly render yourself without credibility and you trivialize the
worst genocide in recent history.
[snip]
>There is a great difference between the parties trying to persuade
>adult voters to support their candidates, and trying to impose
>educational guidelines for very young children--even those in private
>schools--from Washington. This move has already been associated with
>the Administration's concept of "Hate," which appears to equate with
>anyone who does not accept their social values. Stop a moment, take a
>breath, and just try to envision how the bold individualists who gave
>us America would have reacted to this intrusion. They understood very
>well that the moral and social values of young children are supposed to
>come from their parents.
Guess what? More and more parents are shunning their responsibilities
to their kids and those kids are growing up rudderless - with no
ethics, civic responsibility, morals or education. I don't give a
crap who comes in to fix that mess, as long as someone does it.
>> >This may amuse you. It does not amuse people who are being smeared
>> >simply because they chose to celebrate their Southern Heritage, or
>> >practice their traditional religion, or defend their Constitutional
>> >Rights.
>>
>> I think that the South should have succeeded in its efforts to secede
>> in 1861. I think that the North would have done very well by
>> sloughing off that last bastion of feudalism and continuing on with
>> its industrialization. Had that happened, the Border Patrol would be
>> on watch on the US's southern border, stopping those damn rednecks
>> from crossing over. Religion? You have a constitutional right to
>> practice your religion without government interference. You have an
>> instant civil rights lawsuit should anyone prevent you from doing so.
>> Ditto constitutional rights.
>You have not been paying much attention to the Court cases on religious
>matters, lately. The more "Liberal" Courts have been striking down one
>religious observation after another. (Our religious freedoms were
>never premised, before, on the idea that people had to observe their
>faiths in secret.)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That means - the government can't promote one religion over another, a
citizen can't be forced to observe any religion against his will, and
any person who wants to can observe any religion he wants to, provided
he doesn't do it in such a way that it infringes on another's right
NOT to practice that religion.
>> Go watch Schindler's List. Go watch Shoah. Go watch the myriad
>> documentaries on HBO interviewing Holocaust survivors. That will put
>> the lie to your comparison of American Democrats to the National
>> Socialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei.
>>
>I am not comparing American Democrats, generally, to Nazis. I am
>comparing Clinton/Gore/Schumer to Nazis because they embrace the Nazi
>style of demagoguery, in pursuit of a similar compulsive Statist
>uniformity. My conclusion is based not on wathching a Hollywood or HBO
>production, but on watching the men themselves--Hitler was recently on
>at length on Turner's showing of Triumph of The Will; Clinton is always
>on; so more and more are Gore and Schumer.
Your comparison of Clinton, Gore or Schumer to Hitler (or even Stalin,
for that matter) trivialize and make light of the true impact and evil
of the holocaust. It's as simple as that.
mumblepod(i)
AJB <ajb...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:p3b5jso4q66gb1251...@4ax.com...
have to do with my point? I don't understand. I'm not talking about public
figures here, I'm talking about people I've talked to personally, face to
face and on these internet forums.
You asked a question... I give you some direct quotes, and that's not
enough?
AJB
wrote:
>In article <39305b62...@news.mindspring.com>, ajb...@yahoonope.com
>(AJB) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 May 2000 14:36:12 -0700, Travis Pahl
>> <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >I do not think this is a zoning issue. Restaurants are allowed in time
>> >square right?
>>
>> Yes, but I think NYC - a very large city which until recently had a
>> bad image viz. crime - doesn't need a pro-gun restaurant in the heart
>> of the city. New York ain't Texas. Open the NRA restaurant in
>> Houston.
>
>Preach to the coverted? That's not the point. What better place to open a
>gun-sports theme restaurant than in a place where guns are banned?
>
>I see a lot of dodging of the issue here. Let's make it plain: if a type of
>business meets the normal criteria of zoning, e.g., if it is a restaurant
>where restaurants are allowed, is it not a violation of 1st Amendment
>rights to deny occupancy based on thematic content of the restaurant? the
>only precedent for such a thing I can think of is the difference in
>treatment between bookstores, and bookstores that specialize in sexual
>content. Are you equating guns with pornography?
No. I think guns are worse. Pornography doesn't kill people.
Pornography's sole purpose is not to place holes in people's bodies to
render them lifeless. The sole purpose of a gun. Its sole goddamn
purpose is to put holes in things to give them new holes or to kill
them.
New York City - a city that is violent enough, thank you, made a
homegrown decision a long time ago that guns ain't good and that less
is more when it comes to guns. I don't give a shit if people in Texas
or California or Washington agree or disagree. The point is a local
one, and as any good conservative will tell you, the government that
is closest to the people should have the primary say in these types of
social decisions.
apple
What a pussy!
Sometimes that thing you put a hole in is a guy
trying to stab you in the chest.
> New York City - a city that is violent enough, thank you, made a
> homegrown decision a long time ago that guns ain't good and that less
> is more when it comes to guns. I don't give a shit if people in Texas
> or California or Washington agree or disagree. The point is a local
> one, and as any good conservative will tell you, the government that
> is closest to the people should have the primary say in these types of
> social decisions.
A good conservative will tell you that we live in a republic not a
pure democracy and that there are some things the majority has
no right to vote away for the rest of us, including our constitutional
rights.
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>> No. I think guns are worse. Pornography doesn't kill people.
>> Pornography's sole purpose is not to place holes in people's bodies to
>> render them lifeless. The sole purpose of a gun. Its sole goddamn
>> purpose is to put holes in things to give them new holes or to kill
>> them.
>
>What a pussy!
>Sometimes that thing you put a hole in is a guy
>trying to stab you in the chest.
If that's a daily occurrence for you, you ought to consider moving.
>> New York City - a city that is violent enough, thank you, made a
>> homegrown decision a long time ago that guns ain't good and that less
>> is more when it comes to guns. I don't give a shit if people in Texas
>> or California or Washington agree or disagree. The point is a local
>> one, and as any good conservative will tell you, the government that
>> is closest to the people should have the primary say in these types of
>> social decisions.
>
>A good conservative will tell you that we live in a republic not a
>pure democracy and that there are some things the majority has
>no right to vote away for the rest of us, including our constitutional
>rights.
Unless you live in New York, and more particularly anywhere in the
vicinity of Times Square, the issue of what restaurant can and cannot
go in really doesn't concern you.
Duane Phinney
AJB <ajb...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:7mc5js40ea64929d1...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 09:35:38 -0400, j...@po.cwru.edu (Jeffrey Quick)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <39305b62...@news.mindspring.com>, ajb...@yahoonope.com
> >(AJB) wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 25 May 2000 14:36:12 -0700, Travis Pahl
> >> <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >I do not think this is a zoning issue. Restaurants are allowed in
time
> >> >square right?
> >>
> >> Yes, but I think NYC - a very large city which until recently had a
> >> bad image viz. crime - doesn't need a pro-gun restaurant in the heart
> >> of the city. New York ain't Texas. Open the NRA restaurant in
> >> Houston.
> >
> >Preach to the coverted? That's not the point. What better place to open a
> >gun-sports theme restaurant than in a place where guns are banned?
> >
> >I see a lot of dodging of the issue here. Let's make it plain: if a type
of
> >business meets the normal criteria of zoning, e.g., if it is a restaurant
> >where restaurants are allowed, is it not a violation of 1st Amendment
> >rights to deny occupancy based on thematic content of the restaurant? the
> >only precedent for such a thing I can think of is the difference in
> >treatment between bookstores, and bookstores that specialize in sexual
> >content. Are you equating guns with pornography?
>
> No. I think guns are worse. Pornography doesn't kill people.
> Pornography's sole purpose is not to place holes in people's bodies to
> render them lifeless. The sole purpose of a gun. Its sole goddamn
> purpose is to put holes in things to give them new holes or to kill
> them.
>
Duane Phinney
AJB <ajb...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
These three statements are pure b/s. Try reading a real history book.
apple
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 14:35:07 -0400, apple <app...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> No. I think guns are worse. Pornography doesn't kill people.
> >> Pornography's sole purpose is not to place holes in people's bodies to
> >> render them lifeless. The sole purpose of a gun. Its sole goddamn
> >> purpose is to put holes in things to give them new holes or to kill
> >> them.
> >
> >What a pussy!
> >Sometimes that thing you put a hole in is a guy
> >trying to stab you in the chest.
>
> If that's a daily occurrence for you, you ought to consider moving.
Actually everyday thousands of Americans defend
their lives with a handgun all over the country.....except in
cities that treat their citizens worse than pets.
> >> New York City - a city that is violent enough, thank you, made a
> >> homegrown decision a long time ago that guns ain't good and that less
> >> is more when it comes to guns. I don't give a shit if people in Texas
> >> or California or Washington agree or disagree. The point is a local
> >> one, and as any good conservative will tell you, the government that
> >> is closest to the people should have the primary say in these types of
> >> social decisions.
> >
> >A good conservative will tell you that we live in a republic not a
> >pure democracy and that there are some things the majority has
> >no right to vote away for the rest of us, including our constitutional
> >rights.
>
> Unless you live in New York, and more particularly anywhere in the
> vicinity of Times Square, the issue of what restaurant can and cannot
> go in really doesn't concern you.
When any man's rights are violated we are all one
step closer to chains.
Superdave the Wonderchemist
: I'm not going to get into the "well regulated militia" language that
: the pro-gun folks like to ignore/explain away. Go to your nearest
: revolutionary war memorial or museum and look at a musket or a cannon.
: You want to be a strict constitutional constructionist? Then you have
: an absolute right to pack up some flint, some gunpowder and some
: homemade lead bullets and march off to town well-protected.
Don't forget cannon, rockets, torpedoes (the 18th century word for
anti-ship mines), anti-personnel mines, bombs, and pretty much anything
else the people who could afford it had back in those days. Also do not
fail to mention the superiority of the American RIFLED long guns over the
British smoothe-bore long guns.
jaq...@en.com
<ajb...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 09:26:31 -0400, j...@po.cwru.edu (Jeffrey Quick)
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >> >
> >> >Objection noted. But tell me: why should you (or I) have any say in what a
> >> >property owner does with his land, even if we live in NYC?
> >>
> >> That's the basis of zoning. It's what prevents your neighbor from
> >> building a skyscraper next door to your single-family home. It's what
> >> prevents a strip club from opening up across from a junior high
> >> school.
> >
> >You avoided the question. By what right does zoning exist?
>
> Because zoning is the natural result of the common law doctrine of
> public and private nuisance.
Why natural? It replaces the case-by-case decisions of the courts, and adds
a great deal of trivial manipulation and expansion of the concept of
nuisance that no jury would ever buy. In short, it's a way to control other
people's property.
>
> [snip]
>
> >The violation of a person's property rights, their right to believe as they
> >will, and their right to self-defence is disgusting and sickening, no
> >matter what the reason, whether done by government-sponsored gangs (as on
> >Kristallnacht or in Zimbabwe today) or by government directly. Race has
> >nothing to do with it. Hitler could have had any negative opinion of Jews
> >that he wanted. It is only when those opinions translated into action that
> >he did evil.
>
> No, actually, when he advocated the wholesale merciless slaughter of
> Jews as subhuman he did evil.
I see you like the 1st Amendment about as well as the 2nd, don't you? Well,
I would tend to agree with you that speaking evil IS evil. But I'm not
convinced that it's an evil that government has any business limiting.
>
> >To disarm humans is to turn them into animals to be slaughtered. Might I
> >remind you that every genocide of the 20th century happened in nations
> >where civilian ownership of firearms was tightly controlled?
>
> There is no such thing as tight control of anything in Kosovo or
> Bosnia, and in fact many people had arms - either legal or illegal
> -and weren't afraid to use them. If no one had been armed in either
> instance, it would have been a big fistfight.
Well, I guess maybe 2000 Kosovars might count as a genocide if you tried
real hard. What about Armenia, Germany, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia?
>
> [snip]
>
> >OK, I would like Schumer not to be a Senator, but I don't even get a vote.
> >Fact is, he has no jurisdiction in this case either. Anyway, you ignored my
> >point; the why of the Holocaust can be seperated from the how, and I
> >believe that Chuckie has been studying Adolf's playbook.
>
> That's nonsense. The why of the holocaust goes hand in hand with the
> how and cannot be separated. It's one thing to say "I think Jewish
> people control the banks and keep me down." It's a whole other thing
> to say "I think Jews aren't people and should be rounded up like
> cattle into camps and shot on sight."
You just seperated why and how right there.
Why: "Jews oppress me"
How: "Let's get rid of the Jews"
Anti-Semitism is one thing, a bad thing...but there are costs to indulging
it, particularly indulging it to the point of murder. If the Jews were
armed, anti-semitic murder would be a capital offence. Instead, the
Schumers of the world insist that the government be the shabbos goy and
provide them the protection they refuse to provide themselves. Is this
right?
>
> > For people like the original
> >> poster to allege that Schumer doesn't have the right to say whatever
> >> he wants about the NRA is the true fascist sentiment.
> >
> >That's funny; I didn't get "no right to say" out of that. He can say what
> >he wants, and pay the price politically. But is is clear that
> >constitutionally, Schumer has no right to any of his anti-gun laws; they
> >are all a violation of his oath of office. If he wants to be above-board
> >and legal, he should work to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
> I'm not going to get into the "well regulated militia" language that
> the pro-gun folks like to ignore/explain away.
Good, because it's irrelevant to my point. If the language of the amendment
is so vague that we can really disagree on what it says, then it should be
amended.
Go to your nearest
> revolutionary war memorial or museum and look at a musket or a cannon.
> You want to be a strict constitutional constructionist? Then you have
> an absolute right to pack up some flint, some gunpowder and some
> homemade lead bullets and march off to town well-protected.
Fine. We'll get your type off the newsgroups. After all, the First
Amendment discusses freedom of the press and speech; it doesn't say a damn
thing about computers.
jaq...@en.com
<ajb...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> >How misleading! Yes, he created a "unified" empire. But those ancient
> >States still had their separate and distinct royal families; still
> >honored their separate and distinct heritages, and differing cultures.
> >Their people were not paraded around in a lockstep, compulsory
> >uniformity, calling for a "classless, casteless" society, as Hitler did
> >at Nuremberg. (Like Clinton boasting that we are all 99.99% the same.)
>
> I think Clinton's boast that we're 99.99% the same, besides being
> genetically accurate, is one that is meant to diminish racial, ethnic
> and other types of hatreds and prejudices. It's quite a different
> thing for Clinton to emphasize our similarities versus our differences
> and for Hitler to undertake a social revolution in order to expel or
> murder anyone whom he deemed different from his ideal.
We're the same over the divides that WJC would want to heal...race,class,
sex, even religion. Where we're not the same, and where he desperately
wants to convince us that we are, is in a basic worldview: some are
responsible for themselves, others want to be reponsible for others or not
for themselves. THAT'S the sense that Clinton wants us all to be
equal....equally powerless.
As far as Southern Heritage - you can pine away for your
> old feudal ways all you want, but that's a social structure that our
> founding fathers pretty much wanted to do away with in the first
> place.
Depending on how progressive they were and which state they came from.
>
> >And do you really believe that Hitler really "fervently believed" that
> >the Jews were subhuman? For example, he accused them of corrupting
> >German music. Do you really think that he was unaware of the great
> >many Jews playing the sort of music Hitler loved, in symphonic
> >orchestras, for any one doing something experimental that he found
> >offensive?
>
> Yes. Hitler's favorite composer was the ponderous, overbearing
> Richard Wagner. To Hitler, any German art or music was decadent and
> deviant.
Even Wagner??
Hitler had an issue with most post-Wagnerian music...a number of the major
composers of which were Jewish
> I don't care if Al Gore thinks the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol
> of hatred or not. I personally think it represents three things:
>
> 1. It represents treachery against the United States of America, from
> which the Confederacy seceded unilaterally.
You must not believe in divorce then.
If the states could come together to form a nation, then why couldn't they
leave?
> 2. It represents the Confederacy's desire to preserve its outdated
> feudal plantation society, complete with slavery.
>
Which was not a good thing, certainly. But does a nation have the right to
interfere in the internal affairs of another nation? Isn't this cure worse
than the disease?
> 3. It represents the Confederacy's intention to murder citizens of the
> United States of America which came to prevent the unilateral and
> illegal secession of the Confederate states.
Battle is not murder in any kind of historical context. It makes as much
sense to ban the American flag because it represented the US intention of
murdering Southerners seeking self-determination, or Indians, or
Phillippinos, or Vietnamese, or Serbs.
> In other words, there is no reason why the battle flag remains the
> symbol of "Southern Heritage". Why not the actual civilian flag of
> the CSA? Why isn't that used? Because the battle flag more pointedly
> represents rebellion against the United States and its Constitution.
Good point. More to the point, historically (and in the context that SC
began flying it) it is a symbol of segregation and white supremacy. Instead
of the ANV flag, they might use the Bonny Blue or one of the other 5 CSA
flags.
> [snip]
>
> >The Nazis did not start by putting anyone into gas ovens. Long before
> >that--many years--they made sure that those targetted were disarmed;
>
> Actually, gun control was tightened under the 1919-1933 Weimar regime
> mostly to prevent further rioting and bloodshed between Hitler's
> brownshirts and the Communists.
Worked really well, didn't it? It's interesting that Hitler didn't feel the
need for further gun control (or in the case of Jews, knife and truncheon
control) until 1938.
jaq...@en.com
<ajb...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
Ah, but the civil rights of New Yorkers IS my concern, as the civil rights
of Ohioans like myself is your concern.
jaq...@en.com
<ajb...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 09:35:38 -0400, j...@po.cwru.edu (Jeffrey Quick)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <39305b62...@news.mindspring.com>, ajb...@yahoonope.com
> >(AJB) wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 25 May 2000 14:36:12 -0700, Travis Pahl
> >> <tp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >I do not think this is a zoning issue. Restaurants are allowed in time
> >> >square right?
> >>
> >> Yes, but I think NYC - a very large city which until recently had a
> >> bad image viz. crime - doesn't need a pro-gun restaurant in the heart
> >> of the city. New York ain't Texas. Open the NRA restaurant in
> >> Houston.
> >
> >Preach to the coverted? That's not the point. What better place to open a
> >gun-sports theme restaurant than in a place where guns are banned?
> >
> >I see a lot of dodging of the issue here. Let's make it plain: if a type of
> >business meets the normal criteria of zoning, e.g., if it is a restaurant
> >where restaurants are allowed, is it not a violation of 1st Amendment
> >rights to deny occupancy based on thematic content of the restaurant? the
> >only precedent for such a thing I can think of is the difference in
> >treatment between bookstores, and bookstores that specialize in sexual
> >content. Are you equating guns with pornography?
>
> No. I think guns are worse. Pornography doesn't kill people.
> Pornography's sole purpose is not to place holes in people's bodies to
> render them lifeless. The sole purpose of a gun. Its sole goddamn
> purpose is to put holes in things to give them new holes or to kill
> them.
Or to convince people that you will do so if they don't cease their
initiation of force. Guns are most completely successful when you DON'T
fire them.
Are you saying here that IYO it is always wrong to kill somebody, in any
circumstances? If you're a real pacifist, I can respect that, though it
seems to me then you'd be better off disarming cops, who have a greater
rate of killing the innocent than civilian gun owners. But if you are in
fact a pacifist, you have no means of disarming others (since hiring
government as a shabbos goy to do it for you doesn't cut it ethically.) You
can choose to be unarmed yourself, as I do in daily life, but you can only
enforce that decision on others by arming yourself directly or indirectly.
And you can't even enforce it then, because the free market always exists
for those who don't mind breaking the law, a group that includes far more
theirves and murderers than moral caring citizens.
Further, we are not talking about guns here, we are talking about gun
culture. We are talking about information. And the purpose of information
is NOT to render people lifeless; it's to help people make informed moral
and practical choices. Do you object to this? On what grounds?
>
> New York City - a city that is violent enough, thank you, made a
> homegrown decision a long time ago that guns ain't good and that less
> is more when it comes to guns.
Has it helped? It sure as hell didn't in DC.
I don't give a shit if people in Texas
> or California or Washington agree or disagree. The point is a local
> one, and as any good conservative will tell you, the government that
> is closest to the people should have the primary say in these types of
> social decisions.
Funny, a couple posts ago you didn't feel that way about Negro slavery or
the right of secession. On what basis can I expect some consistency? After
all, we are talking about the same right: the right to self-ownership, the
right to defend oneself against those who would take your life, piecemeal
or all at once. (Would you deny that any slave had the right to kill his
master?) Since we're talking about civil rights, is it in fact a
local-option issue? It sure wasn't in Selma in the 60s, was it?
AJB
<geno...@hitter.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> I don't care if Al Gore thinks the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol
>> of hatred or not. I personally think it represents three things:
>>
>> 1. It represents treachery against the United States of America, from
>> which the Confederacy seceded unilaterally.
>>
>> 2. It represents the Confederacy's desire to preserve its outdated
>> feudal plantation society, complete with slavery.
>>
>> 3. It represents the Confederacy's intention to murder citizens of the
>> United States of America which came to prevent the unilateral and
>> illegal secession of the Confederate states.
>
>These three statements are pure b/s. Try reading a real history book.
You made us wade through the entire thread to seek out your gem of a
post?
[snip]
AJB
[snip]
>We're the same over the divides that WJC would want to heal...race,class,
>sex, even religion. Where we're not the same, and where he desperately
>wants to convince us that we are, is in a basic worldview: some are
>responsible for themselves, others want to be reponsible for others or not
>for themselves. THAT'S the sense that Clinton wants us all to be
>equal....equally powerless.
You can read into it what you want, but the genetic fact remains.
>> As far as Southern Heritage - you can pine away for your
>> old feudal ways all you want, but that's a social structure that our
>> founding fathers pretty much wanted to do away with in the first
>> place.
>
>Depending on how progressive they were and which state they came from.
Well, each state that wanted to join the US had to adopt the
Constitution, didn't it?
>> >And do you really believe that Hitler really "fervently believed" that
>> >the Jews were subhuman? For example, he accused them of corrupting
>> >German music. Do you really think that he was unaware of the great
>> >many Jews playing the sort of music Hitler loved, in symphonic
>> >orchestras, for any one doing something experimental that he found
>> >offensive?
>>
>> Yes. Hitler's favorite composer was the ponderous, overbearing
>> Richard Wagner. To Hitler, any German art or music was decadent and
>> deviant.
>
>Even Wagner??
>Hitler had an issue with most post-Wagnerian music...a number of the major
>composers of which were Jewish
Sorry - mistake. Meant to say "To Hitler, any Jewish art or music was
decadent and deviant."
>> I don't care if Al Gore thinks the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol
>> of hatred or not. I personally think it represents three things:
>>
>> 1. It represents treachery against the United States of America, from
>> which the Confederacy seceded unilaterally.
>
>You must not believe in divorce then.
>If the states could come together to form a nation, then why couldn't they
>leave?
They could - that's fine. It's still treason - they no longer pledge
allegiance to the US flag or Constitution.
>> 2. It represents the Confederacy's desire to preserve its outdated
>> feudal plantation society, complete with slavery.
>>
>Which was not a good thing, certainly. But does a nation have the right to
>interfere in the internal affairs of another nation? Isn't this cure worse
>than the disease?
Not necessarily. "Internal affairs" is a very convenient excuse used
by countries and leaders to justify the most amazing and awesome
violations of human rights. (China, Cambodia, Burma, etc.) In some
cases, such as genocide, internal affairs doesn't wash.
>> 3. It represents the Confederacy's intention to murder citizens of the
>> United States of America which came to prevent the unilateral and
>> illegal secession of the Confederate states.
>
>Battle is not murder in any kind of historical context. It makes as much
>sense to ban the American flag because it represented the US intention of
>murdering Southerners seeking self-determination, or Indians, or
>Phillippinos, or Vietnamese, or Serbs.
Don't start with Serbs. The Serbs have started four trans-border wars
in ten years and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
Murder is defined as the intentional killing of another human being.
Call it whatever you want, but it's the same thing.
>> In other words, there is no reason why the battle flag remains the
>> symbol of "Southern Heritage". Why not the actual civilian flag of
>> the CSA? Why isn't that used? Because the battle flag more pointedly
>> represents rebellion against the United States and its Constitution.
>
>Good point. More to the point, historically (and in the context that SC
>began flying it) it is a symbol of segregation and white supremacy. Instead
>of the ANV flag, they might use the Bonny Blue or one of the other 5 CSA
>flags.
>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >The Nazis did not start by putting anyone into gas ovens. Long before
>> >that--many years--they made sure that those targetted were disarmed;
>>
>> Actually, gun control was tightened under the 1919-1933 Weimar regime
>> mostly to prevent further rioting and bloodshed between Hitler's
>> brownshirts and the Communists.
>
AJB
Zoning does not equal civil rights. Re-read the history of the 1st
amendment and you'll find that the government has a right to limit
speech based on its time, place and/or manner.
AJB
<geno...@hitter.net> wrote:
>Yes, thank goodness none of the dead in Wendy's had any evil guns.
Yes. Then their assailants would be dead, too and could not be
brought to justice; i.e., rot in a cell for the next 80 years.
[snip]
AJB
[snip]
>> No. I think guns are worse. Pornography doesn't kill people.
>> Pornography's sole purpose is not to place holes in people's bodies to
>> render them lifeless. The sole purpose of a gun. Its sole goddamn
>> purpose is to put holes in things to give them new holes or to kill
>> them.
>
>Or to convince people that you will do so if they don't cease their
>initiation of force. Guns are most completely successful when you DON'T
>fire them.
>
>Are you saying here that IYO it is always wrong to kill somebody, in any
>circumstances? If you're a real pacifist, I can respect that, though it
>seems to me then you'd be better off disarming cops, who have a greater
>rate of killing the innocent than civilian gun owners. But if you are in
>fact a pacifist, you have no means of disarming others (since hiring
>government as a shabbos goy to do it for you doesn't cut it ethically.) You
>can choose to be unarmed yourself, as I do in daily life, but you can only
>enforce that decision on others by arming yourself directly or indirectly.
>And you can't even enforce it then, because the free market always exists
>for those who don't mind breaking the law, a group that includes far more
>theirves and murderers than moral caring citizens.
IMHO, it is sometimes right to kill somebody -- in self-defense or in
the defense of others. And then the force to be used in self-defense
should be proportional to and commensurate with the threatened force
of the aggressor. My point is that more guns means more shootings.
If an assailant pulls a gun on me, I'd rather just give him my
goddamned wallet and walk away alive than try to be a hero and pull a
gun on him, leaving both of us dead or wounded and rendering my wallet
therefore useless to anyone. I think it's high time that we no longer
resort to shootouts to solve problems.
>Further, we are not talking about guns here, we are talking about gun
>culture. We are talking about information. And the purpose of information
>is NOT to render people lifeless; it's to help people make informed moral
>and practical choices. Do you object to this? On what grounds?
Information is fine. The NRA, however, promotes the proliferation of
guns, and the gun culture, in our society. It's the kind of thing that
the people of NYC have every right to curtail within the bounds of the
law - whether it be 1st amendment time, place and manner restriction,
or simple zoning restriction.
>> New York City - a city that is violent enough, thank you, made a
>> homegrown decision a long time ago that guns ain't good and that less
>> is more when it comes to guns.
>
>Has it helped? It sure as hell didn't in DC.
NYC is enjoying its lowest crime rate in the past 30 years or so of
history.
>> I don't give a shit if people in Texas
>> or California or Washington agree or disagree. The point is a local
>> one, and as any good conservative will tell you, the government that
>> is closest to the people should have the primary say in these types of
>> social decisions.
>
>Funny, a couple posts ago you didn't feel that way about Negro slavery or
>the right of secession. On what basis can I expect some consistency? After
>all, we are talking about the same right: the right to self-ownership, the
>right to defend oneself against those who would take your life, piecemeal
>or all at once. (Would you deny that any slave had the right to kill his
>master?) Since we're talking about civil rights, is it in fact a
>local-option issue? It sure wasn't in Selma in the 60s, was it?
Because the issue of "Negro Slavery" is a basic human right question.
The issue of secession is one which directly affects the USA. You
can't have states seceding willy-nilly and not, at a bare minimum,
reimburse the USA for lost land, property, etc. Let's break it down -
we're talking about a restaurant that is applying to locate in a
neighborhood. Does the restaurant have a right to exist? Sure. I
think it does. Should it exist in Times Square? Maybe, if the
residents and businesses in the neighborhood agree. If not, the NRA
can open its restaurant in a neighborhood where it would be welcome.
Red Hook, Brooklyn comes to mind.
jaq...@en.com
(AJB) wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 19:29:51 -0400, jaq...@en.com wrote:
> >> As far as Southern Heritage - you can pine away for your
> >> old feudal ways all you want, but that's a social structure that our
> >> founding fathers pretty much wanted to do away with in the first
> >> place.
> >
> >Depending on how progressive they were and which state they came from.
>
> Well, each state that wanted to join the US had to adopt the
> Constitution, didn't it?
My point (not clearly made I'll admit) was that not all the Founding
Fathers (certainly not most of those from the South) wanted to do away with
the plantation/slavery system, and that the Constitution adopted was very
much a compromise document. One wonders how history might have played out
if there had been no compromise, and the slave states had continued to live
under the Articles of Confederation or something like them.
> >> I don't care if Al Gore thinks the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol
> >> of hatred or not. I personally think it represents three things:
> >>
> >> 1. It represents treachery against the United States of America, from
> >> which the Confederacy seceded unilaterally.
> >
> >You must not believe in divorce then.
> >If the states could come together to form a nation, then why couldn't they
> >leave?
>
> They could - that's fine. It's still treason - they no longer pledge
> allegiance to the US flag or Constitution.
Under the definition in the Constitution (Article III, sec.3), that's not
treason. Nor is secession. Arguably, the attack on Sumter WAS treason
("levying war against the United States")...which is possibly one reaon the
Federals didn't withdraw, which would have been the reasonable thing to do;
they were spoiling for a fight.
If a woman divorces a man, and he won't move out of the house, what are her
rights?
Lone Haranguer
They both had records a mile long but were out and about
doing their usual thing. Too bad some armed shopkeeper
didn't end their careers years earlier.
THAT is justice.
LZ
jaq...@en.com
(AJB) wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 19:47:44 -0400, jaq...@en.com wrote:
> IMHO, it is sometimes right to kill somebody -- in self-defense or in
> the defense of others. And then the force to be used in self-defense
> should be proportional to and commensurate with the threatened force
> of the aggressor. My point is that more guns means more shootings.
> If an assailant pulls a gun on me, I'd rather just give him my
> goddamned wallet and walk away alive than try to be a hero and pull a
> gun on him, leaving both of us dead or wounded and rendering my wallet
> therefore useless to anyone.
OK, that works for me. That's your right.
I think it's high time that we no longer
> resort to shootouts to solve problems.
Then we should, as a rule, cry to the police afterward, knowing that they
won't solve the crime? "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for
good men to do nothing". And that's what we have in some of our cities-
triumphant evil.
> >Further, we are not talking about guns here, we are talking about gun
> >culture. We are talking about information. And the purpose of information
> >is NOT to render people lifeless; it's to help people make informed moral
> >and practical choices. Do you object to this? On what grounds?
>
> Information is fine. The NRA, however, promotes the proliferation of
> guns, and the gun culture, in our society. It's the kind of thing that
> the people of NYC have every right to curtail within the bounds of the
> law - whether it be 1st amendment time, place and manner restriction,
> or simple zoning restriction.
Wrong- see below.
>
> >> New York City - a city that is violent enough, thank you, made a
> >> homegrown decision a long time ago that guns ain't good and that less
> >> is more when it comes to guns.
> >
> >Has it helped? It sure as hell didn't in DC.
>
> NYC is enjoying its lowest crime rate in the past 30 years or so of
> history.
So is the rest of the country. Post hoc non propter hoc. Cleveland's rate
is down to the early 60s, when we didn't feel we needed any gun control. I
guess we still don't.
>
> >> I don't give a shit if people in Texas
> >> or California or Washington agree or disagree. The point is a local
> >> one, and as any good conservative will tell you, the government that
> >> is closest to the people should have the primary say in these types of
> >> social decisions.
> >
> >Funny, a couple posts ago you didn't feel that way about Negro slavery or
> >the right of secession. On what basis can I expect some consistency? After
> >all, we are talking about the same right: the right to self-ownership, the
> >right to defend oneself against those who would take your life, piecemeal
> >or all at once. (Would you deny that any slave had the right to kill his
> >master?) Since we're talking about civil rights, is it in fact a
> >local-option issue? It sure wasn't in Selma in the 60s, was it?
>
> Because the issue of "Negro Slavery" is a basic human right question.
The right to self-defence is also a basic human right question. I notice
you didn't answer my question about the slave. Did he have a moral right to
kill his master, or not?
> The issue of secession is one which directly affects the USA. You
> can't have states seceding willy-nilly and not, at a bare minimum,
> reimburse the USA for lost land, property, etc.
I agree; the south should have reimbursed the North for lost Federal
property. Under a peaceful settlement, it probably would have happened.
OTOH, nobody in the south got reimbursed, either for their destroyed
property or their freed slaves. (I am willing to entertain the argument
that since slaves were not legitimate property, no compensation was
necessary, though I note to you that cultures that handled their
manumission more gradually- Brazil for example- have much better race
relations today than we do.)
Let's break it down -
> we're talking about a restaurant that is applying to locate in a
> neighborhood. Does the restaurant have a right to exist? Sure. I
> think it does. Should it exist in Times Square? Maybe, if the
> residents and businesses in the neighborhood agree.
You've been trying to frame this in terms of a zoning issue instead of a
civil rights issue. I'm saying that in this case, you can't seperate the
two. If this were a question of somebody wanting to build a 5-story
building in an area zoned for 4-story buildings, it would not be a free
speech issue, no matter what speech was planned for that 5th story. It's a
physical limitation, not an ideological limitation; arguably a violation of
the 5th amendment, but certainly not of the 1st. But when you claim the
right to zone an otherwise legally zoned business out of an area on the
basis of ideology, it's a speech issue. In your other post, you mentioned
time manner and place restrictions on speech. The Supremes have been pretty
parsimonious about such restrictions. Even by the standards of _Schenk v.
US_ (arguably the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, one that
Justice Holmes later regretted because it was used as ammunition by every
petty censor), this fails the test of a "clear and present danger", the
metaphorical "person falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". Are you
saying that NYC will break out into riots if the NRA opens its cafe? I'd
expect to see some protests maybe, for a little bit, but that's it. But if
this is the criterion, why haven't we closed down all abortion clinics,
which are constantly being picketed and are targets for violence?
If the property owners of Times Square want to sign restrictive deed
covenants saying that they will not rent to the NRA, that's their business;
I don't have to like it, but it's their right. But they are the only ones
who get a vote, not the residents nor the businesses. The owners.
Non-owning businesses who don't like it have the option of moving when
their lease is up. What they don't have the right to do is initiate the use
of force, either individually or through government proxy. If you really
think the people of NYC have a say, then be an honest socialist and have
the city seize the square through eminent domain.
If not, the NRA
> can open its restaurant in a neighborhood where it would be welcome.
> Red Hook, Brooklyn comes to mind.
Only been to NYC once, so this one went past me, but I would guess it to be
some class or ethnic slur.
william...@my-deja.com
AJB <ajb...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 16:14:56 -0400, j...@po.cwru.edu (Jeffrey Quick)
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> >> I think the last thing New York City needs is another goddamned
theme
> >> restaurant. I think the last thing Times Square needs is another
> >> goddamned theme restaurant. Finally, I think the last thing New
York
> >> City needs is a goddamned NRA pro-gun, anti-gun-licensing,
> >> anti-gun-registration theme restaurant.
> >
> >Objection noted. But tell me: why should you (or I) have any say in
what a
> >property owner does with his land, even if we live in NYC?
>
> That's the basis of zoning. It's what prevents your neighbor from
> building a skyscraper next door to your single-family home. It's what
> prevents a strip club from opening up across from a junior high
> school.
>
generations, Americans of all ages have been drawn to arcades where one
form or another of target practice is the theme. To suggest that a
restaurant, recreational facility in Times Square would constitute a
zoning violation is to engage in the sort of dissembling that one would
expect from a Schumer, Clinton or Gore (or, from an Adolph Hitler in
his era.)
> >> >One has to go back to the earlier Nazi era, when German thugs
with the
> >> >apparent Blessing of the Nazi leadership, smashed and looted the
shops
> >> >of those out of ideological favor with the Charles Schumer's of
that
> >> >era, to see the ugly parallel.
> >>
> >> The German thugs of which you speak were called
the "Sturmabteilung",
> >> a.k.a. "SA" or stormtroopers. The smashing and looting of shops
of
> >> which you speak was called "Kristallnacht." The shops that were
> >> looted and smashed all had one thing in common - they were owned by
> >> Jews. The SA didn't care what the Jews' political affiliations
were.
> >> The SA only cared that they were Jews. So, your attempt to
compare a
> >> zoning issue and a Senator's opinion, with a brutal anti-semitic
Nazi
> >> pogrom is not just disingenuous, but sickening.
> >
> >If the Nazis had been civilized and passed zoning laws keeping all
Jewish
> >businesses out of Germany, it would have been better then?
>
> Not at all. The Nazis didn't hate Jews because they disagreed with
> Jews or didn't like the Jews' politics. The Nazis hated the Jews
> because they thought that the Jews were not human beings, but animals
> to be slaughtered. To compare a Senator's disagreement with the NRA
> to the Nazis' treatment of and theories regarding Jews is disgusting.
>
The Nazi's demonized the Jews as a threat to German Society, by taking
the actions of individuals out of context, and ignoring every fact that
did not suit their demonization. This is very similar to the
Clinton/Gore/Schumer tactics, where every shooting incident is taken
out of context and blamed on those who insist on retaining their
traditional freedoms (not much different than taking questionable
conduct of a few individuals and blaming it on all who adhered to a
traditional faith.) If you really do not see the analogy, it is only
because you apparently think that Schumer is reasonable. There were
plenty of Germans who considered Hitler reasonable, also. But we can
recognize demagoguery in both cases.
> >>
> >> > In America, we have never equated a
> >> >right to do business with the public, with having to hold to the
same
> >> >beliefs and value system as a particular United States Senator.
But
> >> >you sure saw a lot of a very similar equation under Schumer's
Nazi role
> >> >models.
> >>
> >> Charles Schumer is Jewish, for God's sake. I very much doubt that
he
> >> counts Nazis as his role models, seeing as the Jews would have
> >> murdered Schumer in the street in cold blood merely because of his
> >> religion.
> >
> >When the enemy is successful, his methods are worth study for use
against
> >your own enemies.
>
> Schumer doesn't hate the NRA because they're all Jewish or Greek or
> Black or White or any other reason like that. Schumer has a political
> disagreement with the NRA and he would not like to see their
> restaurant open up in Times Square. For people like the original
> poster to allege that Schumer doesn't have the right to say whatever
> he wants about the NRA is the true fascist sentiment.
I have never suggested that Schumer does not have the right to say
whatever he wants to say about the NRA. He may. But others may
comment on the type of argument he uses; and the tactics he brings to
the debate. They are not the tactics of honest debate; but the tactics
of demonization. How else do you describe even one of his milder
suggestions that the the NRA are not "family friendly." Are you
ignorant of their long history of encouraging the sort of family
responsibility over guns, and heritage values, that George Washington
encouraged at our birth? How can you be more family friendly, than
that? (Few groups are more family conscious than the Jews, and yet
Schumer's model in Germany accused them also of being a threat to
family values. But, of course, you see no pattern!)
And when Schumer throws in a plea to the City officials to distort the
law in order to exclude the ideas he does not like, he crosses a very
definite line.
Incidentlly, I did not accuse him of being a "fascist," but a Nazi.
There is a difference. Mussolini was a demagogue, but he was not as
ruthless in his tactics of demonization. Hitler took demonization to a
more extreme level than anyone but the Communists. But he showed a
fine skill in his efforts, that even the Communists could not match.
That was how he won the battle in the German streets. He had the
uncanny ability to make the most outrageous lies appear believable.
And it is this art that Clinton/Gore and their New York sycophant are
practicing against the rest of us.
Your effort to make a point that Schumer has not focused on the ethnic
makeup of the NRA is no point at all. Hitler's tactic of demonization,
refined from Karl Marx and the French Revolution, picked a religious
group with strong ethnic ties. But what he was doing was not
appreciably different than what the Communists did in the same era,
when they demonized and starved the Kulaks, who were ethnically little
if any different than the Communists starving them. You simply show
that you do not understand the techniques of a power play that feeds on
the compulsion of many for Uniformity;--a uniformity that takes some of
the struggle out of life--the need to think and act for oneself--by
mobilizing the susceptible to support a Leadership that promises to
destroy those who threaten--or are falsely accused of threatening--the
new safe monolithic society.
You want to argue that the used targets are different! So what? We
lump serial killers into a class of evil, even though different seial
killers choose different victims. National Socialism is no more
defined by its victims than Communism is defined by its victims.
National Socialism was not about the Jews but totalitarian power.
Communism was not about the Kulaks but about totalitarian power. If
you are not being deliberately disengenuous, you are missing the forest
for the trees.
And as I pointed out before, if you want to see how far the Clinton
Administraton will go, just look back at Waco. The slaughter there was
provoked by religious dissidents, who dared to assert Second Amendment
Rights against the Federal Government. And why do we say that Schumer
is a Nazi? Why one of the reasons is that he was the chief
Congressional defender of that Holocaust, right here in Clinton's
America.
--
William Flax, Esq.
<a href="http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa>Return Of The Gods
AJB
[snip]
>The proposed NRA theme is very much a family friendly theme.
What's the last lobbying group that opened up a restaurant?
> For generations, Americans of all ages have been drawn to arcades where one
>form or another of target practice is the theme. To suggest that a
>restaurant, recreational facility in Times Square would constitute a
>zoning violation is to engage in the sort of dissembling that one would
>expect from a Schumer, Clinton or Gore (or, from an Adolph Hitler in
>his era.)
It's very simple. In New York City, neighborhood boards exist to
debate and decide what businesses get to open up in the neighborhood
(and get the requisite permits and licenses), and which don't. If the
business doesn't meet the community standards, it gets rejected and
needs to find another place to open up.
[snip]
>> Not at all. The Nazis didn't hate Jews because they disagreed with
>> Jews or didn't like the Jews' politics. The Nazis hated the Jews
>> because they thought that the Jews were not human beings, but animals
>> to be slaughtered. To compare a Senator's disagreement with the NRA
>> to the Nazis' treatment of and theories regarding Jews is disgusting.
>>
>
>The Nazi's demonized the Jews as a threat to German Society, by taking
>the actions of individuals out of context, and ignoring every fact that
>did not suit their demonization. This is very similar to the
>Clinton/Gore/Schumer tactics, where every shooting incident is taken
>out of context and blamed on those who insist on retaining their
>traditional freedoms (not much different than taking questionable
>conduct of a few individuals and blaming it on all who adhered to a
>traditional faith.) If you really do not see the analogy, it is only
>because you apparently think that Schumer is reasonable. There were
>plenty of Germans who considered Hitler reasonable, also. But we can
>recognize demagoguery in both cases.
The German Hitlerite Nazis did not want Jews to exist period. Why is
this difficult for you to comprehend? Hitler's racial purity laws
weren't the result of political thought, dialogue or expediency. They
were the product of a deranged, hateful, insane mind. Again, you can
call Clinton and Schumer anything you want to call them. My point
(for the 100th time) is that calling them Nazis does several things.
It trivializes the horror that was the Nazi era (an era that you
evidently don't fully comprehend), and it renders your otherwise valid
argument wholly incredible. Quite simply put, unless Clinton or
Schumer are openly advocating the genocide of a particular race,
religion or ethnicity of people, the comparison doesn't hold water.
[snip]
>> Schumer doesn't hate the NRA because they're all Jewish or Greek or
>> Black or White or any other reason like that. Schumer has a political
>> disagreement with the NRA and he would not like to see their
>> restaurant open up in Times Square. For people like the original
>> poster to allege that Schumer doesn't have the right to say whatever
>> he wants about the NRA is the true fascist sentiment.
>
>I have never suggested that Schumer does not have the right to say
>whatever he wants to say about the NRA. He may. But others may
>comment on the type of argument he uses; and the tactics he brings to
>the debate. They are not the tactics of honest debate; but the tactics
>of demonization.
Then call it that. Call him a demagogue. Call him a hypocrite. Call
him a proto-dictator. Hell, you can even call him fascist or
socialist. The point is that calling someone a Nazi is quite
different from calling them any other of the above. For the reason
why, see above where I say the Nazi comparison doesn't hold water
unless Schumer is advocating genocide.
>How else do you describe even one of his milder
>suggestions that the the NRA are not "family friendly." Are you
>ignorant of their long history of encouraging the sort of family
>responsibility over guns, and heritage values, that George Washington
>encouraged at our birth? How can you be more family friendly, than
>that? (Few groups are more family conscious than the Jews, and yet
>Schumer's model in Germany accused them also of being a threat to
>family values. But, of course, you see no pattern!)
Because Schumer is not advocating the murder of the NRA's membership.
Again - call him a fascist if you must, but the Nazi epithet is wholly
disproportionate to your disagreement with him.
>And when Schumer throws in a plea to the City officials to distort the
>law in order to exclude the ideas he does not like, he crosses a very
>definite line.
>
>Incidentlly, I did not accuse him of being a "fascist," but a Nazi.
>There is a difference. Mussolini was a demagogue, but he was not as
>ruthless in his tactics of demonization.
Mussolini was as ruthless as Hitler when it came to the demonization
of his POLITICAL enemies. The difference is that Mussolini did not
(at first, until Hitler bailed him out) come close to the evil hatred
and state-sponsored genocide of a race of people solely based on the
fact of their religion, as opposed to any of their political
activities against the state. Ask an Italian Communist whether
Mussolini was ruthless in his demonization of his political opponents
after 1929.
> Hitler took demonization to a
>more extreme level than anyone but the Communists. But he showed a
>fine skill in his efforts, that even the Communists could not match.
>That was how he won the battle in the German streets. He had the
>uncanny ability to make the most outrageous lies appear believable.
>And it is this art that Clinton/Gore and their New York sycophant are
>practicing against the rest of us.
>
>Your effort to make a point that Schumer has not focused on the ethnic
>makeup of the NRA is no point at all. Hitler's tactic of demonization,
>refined from Karl Marx and the French Revolution, picked a religious
>group with strong ethnic ties. But what he was doing was not
>appreciably different than what the Communists did in the same era,
>when they demonized and starved the Kulaks, who were ethnically little
>if any different than the Communists starving them.
A Kulak was a Russian farmer who was allowed to operate privately
during a very brief period of private farm operation under Lenin's
"New Economic Plan" of the 1920s. When Stalin came to power, his
secret police went about rounding up the Kulaks and submitting them to
show trials, after which they were executed as
counter-revolutionaries. This was during Stalin's forced
collectivization in the early 30s. In short, your attempt to poo-poo
the ethnic hatred that was at the heart of Nazi ideology is not served
by citing the Kulaks, because the ethnicity or religion or race of the
Kulaks had nothing to do with their repression.
>You simply show
>that you do not understand the techniques of a power play that feeds on
>the compulsion of many for Uniformity;--a uniformity that takes some of
>the struggle out of life--the need to think and act for oneself--by
>mobilizing the susceptible to support a Leadership that promises to
>destroy those who threaten--or are falsely accused of threatening--the
>new safe monolithic society.
It's a concept called totalitarianism that you describe - a concept
practiced by the Italian fascists, Soviet communists as well as the
Nazis -- the difference being that the Nazi model was based in large
part on a theory or racial superiority and purity - a theory not
central to either Italian fascism or Russian communism.
>You want to argue that the used targets are different! So what? We
>lump serial killers into a class of evil, even though different seial
>killers choose different victims. National Socialism is no more
>defined by its victims than Communism is defined by its victims.
>National Socialism was not about the Jews but totalitarian power.
>Communism was not about the Kulaks but about totalitarian power. If
>you are not being deliberately disengenuous, you are missing the forest
>for the trees.
You're wrong. See above re: racial purity being central to Nazi
ideology, in contrast with other regimes which were also totalitarian.
In a run-of-the-mill totalitarian society, you can expect arrest if
you challenge the supremacy of the state regime and power. In Nazi
totalitarianism, you also can expect arrest, and even death, if you do
not fit the racial or ethnic pure ideal, regardless of whether you
support or actively challenge state power. .
>And as I pointed out before, if you want to see how far the Clinton
>Administraton will go, just look back at Waco. The slaughter there was
>provoked by religious dissidents, who dared to assert Second Amendment
>Rights against the Federal Government. And why do we say that Schumer
>is a Nazi? Why one of the reasons is that he was the chief
>Congressional defender of that Holocaust, right here in Clinton's
>America.
The Branch Davidians were burned alive as a direct and proximate
result of their leader's refusal to obey an arrest warrant. All he
had to do was give himself up at the police station - if the warrant
was defective, that's what courts are for. He didn't do it, he defied
the government agents who came in to execute the warrant and in the
process, by causing a standoff with the government, got himself and
his innocent followers killed.
AJB
[snip]
>
> I think it's high time that we no longer
>> resort to shootouts to solve problems.
>
>Then we should, as a rule, cry to the police afterward, knowing that they
>won't solve the crime? "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for
>good men to do nothing". And that's what we have in some of our cities-
>triumphant evil.
Swearing out a criminal complaint or calling the police is doing
something.
[snip]
>>
>> NYC is enjoying its lowest crime rate in the past 30 years or so of
>> history.
>
>So is the rest of the country. Post hoc non propter hoc. Cleveland's rate
>is down to the early 60s, when we didn't feel we needed any gun control. I
>guess we still don't.
Too simplistic. There're lots of societal reasons why crime goes up
and down at different times. IMHO, a lot of what's going on now is
full employment, thus rendering crime irrelevant to many people who
might otherwise resort to it. My anti-gun stance is based on two
facts: 1. More guns means more shootings. It's really quite
elementary. 2. To be a true strict constructionist, a Second
Amendment advocate must concede the point that we're only talking
about muskets and cannons, since the Constitution is not a "living
document" to those strict constructionists, and the intent of the
framers would have been to not regulate those particular firearms then
in existance. Therefore, controlling semi-autos and autos, etc. is
quite within the government's power without running afoul of 2nd
amendment issues.
[snip]
>
>The right to self-defence is also a basic human right question. I notice
>you didn't answer my question about the slave. Did he have a moral right to
>kill his master, or not?
I don't see the point of the question. Did the slave have a right to
kill his master? It depends. If the master was physically abusing
the slave, yes. Otherwise, slavery would be akin to a kidnapping or
unlawful imprisonment case, and the slave would have a moral right to
take whatever reasonable force necessary to free himself.
>> The issue of secession is one which directly affects the USA. You
>> can't have states seceding willy-nilly and not, at a bare minimum,
>> reimburse the USA for lost land, property, etc.
>
>I agree; the south should have reimbursed the North for lost Federal
>property. Under a peaceful settlement, it probably would have happened.
>OTOH, nobody in the south got reimbursed, either for their destroyed
>property or their freed slaves. (I am willing to entertain the argument
>that since slaves were not legitimate property, no compensation was
>necessary, though I note to you that cultures that handled their
>manumission more gradually- Brazil for example- have much better race
>relations today than we do.)
To put it simply, the South started it and we won. Losers generally
aren't entitled to reparations.
> Let's break it down -
>> we're talking about a restaurant that is applying to locate in a
>> neighborhood. Does the restaurant have a right to exist? Sure. I
>> think it does. Should it exist in Times Square? Maybe, if the
>> residents and businesses in the neighborhood agree.
>
>You've been trying to frame this in terms of a zoning issue instead of a
>civil rights issue. I'm saying that in this case, you can't seperate the
>two. If this were a question of somebody wanting to build a 5-story
>building in an area zoned for 4-story buildings, it would not be a free
>speech issue, no matter what speech was planned for that 5th story. It's a
>physical limitation, not an ideological limitation; arguably a violation of
>the 5th amendment, but certainly not of the 1st. But when you claim the
>right to zone an otherwise legally zoned business out of an area on the
>basis of ideology, it's a speech issue. In your other post, you mentioned
>time manner and place restrictions on speech. The Supremes have been pretty
>parsimonious about such restrictions. Even by the standards of _Schenk v.
>US_ (arguably the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, one that
>Justice Holmes later regretted because it was used as ammunition by every
>petty censor), this fails the test of a "clear and present danger", the
>metaphorical "person falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". Are you
>saying that NYC will break out into riots if the NRA opens its cafe? I'd
>expect to see some protests maybe, for a little bit, but that's it. But if
>this is the criterion, why haven't we closed down all abortion clinics,
>which are constantly being picketed and are targets for violence?
We don't have to shut down abortion clinics. The proper analogy would
be a question where an abortion clinic theme restaurant wanted to open
up in a NYC neighborhood. Would the neighborhood vote to allow the
requisite food and alcohol permits and licenses to go to a store that
had abortion-related material hanging on the wall or sold in the gift
shop? I doubt it very highly. NYC is very strict zoning-wise and
those zoning restrictions are almost invariably held up in court -
witness the wholesale running-out of sex-related businesses from the
area.
>If the property owners of Times Square want to sign restrictive deed
>covenants saying that they will not rent to the NRA, that's their business;
>I don't have to like it, but it's their right. But they are the only ones
>who get a vote, not the residents nor the businesses. The owners.
>Non-owning businesses who don't like it have the option of moving when
>their lease is up. What they don't have the right to do is initiate the use
>of force, either individually or through government proxy. If you really
>think the people of NYC have a say, then be an honest socialist and have
>the city seize the square through eminent domain.
I'll say it again. All you need to do is pick up a copy (or check out
online) a copy of the New York Observer to see just how powerful and
restrictive community zoning boards are in NYC.
> If not, the NRA
>> can open its restaurant in a neighborhood where it would be welcome.
>> Red Hook, Brooklyn comes to mind.
>
>Only been to NYC once, so this one went past me, but I would guess it to be
>some class or ethnic slur.
Nope. It's a warehouse district I have in mind - the location where
Home Depot and Costco have been allowed to open up. Lots of
warehouses and piers and commercial parks. Very convenient to the BQE
and Subways. The part of town I'm thinking of doesn't have an ethnic
or class identity, per se, because it's not a predominately
residential neighborhood. Don't presume so much.
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Swearing out a criminal complaint or calling the police is doing
>> something.
>
>Not bloody much.
I reject the idea that there is no remedy between doing nothing in
response to a wrong and shooting someone in response to a wrong.
>>
>> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> NYC is enjoying its lowest crime rate in the past 30 years or so of
>> >> history.
>> >
>> >So is the rest of the country. Post hoc non propter hoc. Cleveland's rate
>> >is down to the early 60s, when we didn't feel we needed any gun control. I
>> >guess we still don't.
>>
>> Too simplistic. There're lots of societal reasons why crime goes up
>> and down at different times.
>
>Then why did you cite this in support of NYC's gun laws? You can't have it
>both ways.
Because we're getting away from the topic at hand, which really has to
do with NY's tight community board/zoning restrictions.
> IMHO, a lot of what's going on now is
>> full employment, thus rendering crime irrelevant to many people who
>> might otherwise resort to it. My anti-gun stance is based on two
>> facts: 1. More guns means more shootings. It's really quite
>> elementary.
>
>And more chain saws mean more chain saw massacres?
No. More chain saws mean more downed trees. Chain saws are created
to down trees, see. Handguns exist primarily to shoot people.
>Your simplistic analysis
>ignores all moral and causal factors in gun crime. A gun collector might
>have 100 guns. Does this make him 100 times more likely to shoot somebody
>than 1 hood with a crappy little Lorcin? Of course not. When you ban guns,
>you remove them from the hands of the moral, and not the immoral, leading
>to the further demonization of hardware. The guns don't shoot themselves.
>Ever.
Ugh. Guns don't kill people. People kill people, is that it? Let me
give you an example of why more guns isn't the solution. Remember a
few weeks ago, a deranged, armed man took over control of a bus and
took the occupants and the driver hostage for an hours-long joyride.
The country was Japan - tight gun laws. The man was armed with a
knife. Do you think it was easier or harder for law enforcement to
subdue the man and get the hostages out alive because the deranged man
had no gun? BTW - they just had to gas the bus, and everyone got out
without one bullet being fired.
> 2. To be a true strict constructionist, a Second
>> Amendment advocate must concede the point that we're only talking
>> about muskets and cannons, since the Constitution is not a "living
>> document" to those strict constructionists, and the intent of the
>> framers would have been to not regulate those particular firearms then
>> in existance. Therefore, controlling semi-autos and autos, etc. is
>> quite within the government's power without running afoul of 2nd
>> amendment issues.
>
>Well, I'M not a strict constructionist. YOU'RE not a strict
>constructionist; I noticed you had nothing to say when I applied your
>notion to the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court is not a strict
>constructionist in these matters (at least they weren't in Miller v. US).
>In fact, I don't know anyone on the planet who seriously makes the argument
>you're advancing, except perhaps from Kumar Yalubandi, and I'm not sure
>sometimes which planet he's posting from.
That's right - the Supremes aren't strict constructionists and they do
see the Constitution as a living document subject to change as society
progresses and changes. That said, the Supremes have never struck
down a gun control law on second amendment grounds. BTW - Scalia and
his clone, Thomas, are strict constructionists and the musket argument
works quite nicely in response to that. As far as the first amendment
is concerned, prior restraint of speech by the government is pretty
rare nowadays.
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >The right to self-defence is also a basic human right question. I notice
>> >you didn't answer my question about the slave. Did he have a moral right to
>> >kill his master, or not?
>>
>> I don't see the point of the question. Did the slave have a right to
>> kill his master? It depends. If the master was physically abusing
>> the slave, yes. Otherwise, slavery would be akin to a kidnapping or
>> unlawful imprisonment case, and the slave would have a moral right to
>> take whatever reasonable force necessary to free himself.
>
>How are you drawing your distinctions? They make no sense to me. Slavery
>itself is physical abuse, imposing unpleasant conditions in food housing
>and servitude on the physical body. Master/slave sex is rape, and
>physically abusive, because the slave is not free to consent.
So, there's your answer. You asked me if a slave has a right to kill
his master. My answer, in a nutshell, is sometimes yes, sometimes no.
It depends on the facts of a given situation.
>> > Let's break it down -
>> >> we're talking about a restaurant that is applying to locate in a
>> >> neighborhood. Does the restaurant have a right to exist? Sure. I
>> >> think it does. Should it exist in Times Square? Maybe, if the
>> >> residents and businesses in the neighborhood agree.
>
>In your other post, you mentioned
>> >time manner and place restrictions on speech. The Supremes have been pretty
>> >parsimonious about such restrictions. Even by the standards of _Schenk v.
>> >US_ (arguably the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott, one that
>> >Justice Holmes later regretted because it was used as ammunition by every
>> >petty censor), this fails the test of a "clear and present danger", the
>> >metaphorical "person falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". Are you
>> >saying that NYC will break out into riots if the NRA opens its cafe? I'd
>> >expect to see some protests maybe, for a little bit, but that's it. But if
>> >this is the criterion, why haven't we closed down all abortion clinics,
>> >which are constantly being picketed and are targets for violence?
>>
>> We don't have to shut down abortion clinics. The proper analogy
>
>NOT in a 1st-amendment-exception context...where is your "clear and present
>danger"?
>
> would
>> be a question where an abortion clinic theme restaurant wanted to open
>> up in a NYC neighborhood. Would the neighborhood vote to allow the
>> requisite food and alcohol permits and licenses to go to a store that
>> had abortion-related material hanging on the wall or sold in the gift
>> shop? I doubt it very highly. NYC is very strict zoning-wise and
>> those zoning restrictions are almost invariably held up in court -
>> witness the wholesale running-out of sex-related businesses from the
>> area.
>
>It's quite possible that the 1st Amendment is as null and void in NYC as
>the 2nd; certainly Mayor Giuliani thought so in the recent art flap. That
>doesn;t justify it.
You're talking about a city of eight million people packed in kind of
tight. It's pretty unique. It, therefore, has a pretty unique way of
handling the cards it's dealt. Getting input from the neighborhoods
is one way it does that. Pretty progressive, if you ask me. Also
pretty respectful of people's speech rights.
> >If the property owners of Times Square want to sign restrictive deed
>> >covenants saying that they will not rent to the NRA, that's their business;
>> >I don't have to like it, but it's their right. But they are the only ones
>> >who get a vote, not the residents nor the businesses. The owners.
>> >Non-owning businesses who don't like it have the option of moving when
>> >their lease is up. What they don't have the right to do is initiate the use
>> >of force, either individually or through government proxy. If you really
>> >think the people of NYC have a say, then be an honest socialist and have
>> >the city seize the square through eminent domain.
>>
>> I'll say it again. All you need to do is pick up a copy (or check out
>> online) a copy of the New York Observer to see just how powerful and
>> restrictive community zoning boards are in NYC.
>
>That fact that it's done does not make it right or constitutionally legal.
But the fact that it's been done for so long, presumably in the face
of myriad challenges, and has not been overturned, speaks volumes.
william...@my-deja.com
ajb...@yahoonope.com (AJB) wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2000 00:09:00 GMT, william...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >The proposed NRA theme is very much a family friendly theme.
>
> What's the last lobbying group that opened up a restaurant?
You beg the question by calling the NRA a lobbying group. For what are
they lobbying? The American heritage; American Freedom? They are a
civic minded group that has always been as we suggested.
> > For generations, Americans of all ages have been drawn to arcades
where one
> >form or another of target practice is the theme. To suggest that a
> >restaurant, recreational facility in Times Square would constitute a
> >zoning violation is to engage in the sort of dissembling that one
would
> >expect from a Schumer, Clinton or Gore (or, from an Adolph Hitler in
> >his era.)
>
> It's very simple. In New York City, neighborhood boards exist to
> debate and decide what businesses get to open up in the neighborhood
> (and get the requisite permits and licenses), and which don't. If the
> business doesn't meet the community standards, it gets rejected and
> needs to find another place to open up.
>
This sounds very much like the neighborhood Courts set up in Soviet
Russia in the early days. But the application, here, against Schumer's
selected demon is indeed very much after the manner in which the Nazis
systematically isolated the Jews--adopting special rules for their
containment--in the early 1930s--the very parallel you keep refusing to
accept.
The "Final Solution" idea did not come for another decade. In the
interval, the Jews had been made to seem beyond the pale by the same
tactics of demonization as Clinton/Gore/Schumer practice with a
vengeance. I think that you are trivializing the outrageous smearing
of those who are closest to the intentions of the Founding Fathers, by
men who swore to defend their heritage! They are advocating the
destruction of the traditional American culture, across a wide spectrum
of issues. Beside that, all else pales.
>
> >> Schumer doesn't hate the NRA because they're all Jewish or Greek or
> >> Black or White or any other reason like that. Schumer has a
political
> >> disagreement with the NRA and he would not like to see their
> >> restaurant open up in Times Square. For people like the original
> >> poster to allege that Schumer doesn't have the right to say
whatever
> >> he wants about the NRA is the true fascist sentiment.
> >
> >I have never suggested that Schumer does not have the right to say
> >whatever he wants to say about the NRA. He may. But others may
> >comment on the type of argument he uses; and the tactics he brings to
> >the debate. They are not the tactics of honest debate; but the
tactics
> >of demonization.
>
> Then call it that. Call him a demagogue. Call him a hypocrite. Call
> him a proto-dictator. Hell, you can even call him fascist or
> socialist. The point is that calling someone a Nazi is quite
> different from calling them any other of the above. For the reason
> why, see above where I say the Nazi comparison doesn't hold water
> unless Schumer is advocating genocide.
The Nazis did not advocate genocide. In their ruthless utilitarianism,
they ended up practicing it in some of their conquered territories, but
it was not the program on which Hitler ran and obtained office.
> >How else do you describe even one of his milder
> >suggestions that the the NRA are not "family friendly." Are you
> >ignorant of their long history of encouraging the sort of family
> >responsibility over guns, and heritage values, that George Washington
> >encouraged at our birth? How can you be more family friendly, than
> >that? (Few groups are more family conscious than the Jews, and yet
> >Schumer's model in Germany accused them also of being a threat to
> >family values. But, of course, you see no pattern!)
>
> Because Schumer is not advocating the murder of the NRA's membership.
> Again - call him a fascist if you must, but the Nazi epithet is wholly
> disproportionate to your disagreement with him.
And Hitler, in the politicking stages was not advocating murder,
either; although his homosexual thugs under his First Lieutenant
certainly practiced it. And while I do not want to broaden this
argument to the point where Schumer's effort to silence the NRA in New
York City is obscured, you are surely aware of the extensive list of
mysterious deaths that have occurred among those who could embarrass
the Clintons. While I find the "coincidences," if that is all they are
unnerving, I am not ready to point a finger in accusation. But how
confident are you, that you are right about these people?
> >And when Schumer throws in a plea to the City officials to distort
the
> >law in order to exclude the ideas he does not like, he crosses a very
> >definite line.
> >
> >Incidentlly, I did not accuse him of being a "fascist," but a Nazi.
> >There is a difference. Mussolini was a demagogue, but he was not as
> >ruthless in his tactics of demonization.
>
> Mussolini was as ruthless as Hitler when it came to the demonization
> of his POLITICAL enemies. The difference is that Mussolini did not
> (at first, until Hitler bailed him out) come close to the evil hatred
> and state-sponsored genocide of a race of people solely based on the
> fact of their religion, as opposed to any of their political
> activities against the state. Ask an Italian Communist whether
> Mussolini was ruthless in his demonization of his political opponents
> after 1929.
When I attack Hitler's demonization, I am not criticizing his anti-
Communism. The Communists were also at war with our Civilization;
indeed, even more clearly than were the Nazis--who operated more in the
Fabian Socialist manner. The Communists were fair game. But note,
Mussolini did not over-throw the Monarchy. For all his demagoguish
strut, he was still dependent upon aspects of traditional Italian
culture and society. When his folly led to the invasion of Italy, the
King simply fired him. No one could fire Hitler!
You have accepted one of the most easily refuted of the many "Big Lies"
of National Socialism: The idea that they were defending "racial
purity." Any serious physical anthropological text of the era would
have made it very clear that the German population was much more varied
racially than was, say, the population of Great Britain. In treating
all Germans--except for the few chosen for demonization--as one people,
racially, Hitler actually promoted a racial homogenization of the
German population, which was neither scientific, nor did it make any
sense except in the same propagandistic one that Clinton was employing
when he announced that we all had 99.99% the same DNA. These
totalitarians, Nazis no less than the Communists, cannot stand the idea
of true diversity; and whether they attack on a racial front, economic
or social class front, religious front, or whatever, depends only on
their perceived exigencies of a moment in time.
Incidentally, being proud of one's own race does not equate in anyway
with being cruel to other races. Cruelty is more apt to appeal to
those who feel inadequate themselves--as the unemployed in the German
streets, who could be persuaded to hate Jews not because they thought
the Jews were inferior, but because they resented the Jews success.
(It was the anti-Huguenot syndrome of 1684, revived by the Nazi
demagogues as part of their power play.)
> >You simply show
> >that you do not understand the techniques of a power play that feeds
on
> >the compulsion of many for Uniformity;--a uniformity that takes some
of
> >the struggle out of life--the need to think and act for oneself--by
> >mobilizing the susceptible to support a Leadership that promises to
> >destroy those who threaten--or are falsely accused of threatening--
the
> >new safe monolithic society.
>
> It's a concept called totalitarianism that you describe - a concept
> practiced by the Italian fascists, Soviet communists as well as the
> Nazis -- the difference being that the Nazi model was based in large
> part on a theory or racial superiority and purity - a theory not
> central to either Italian fascism or Russian communism.
You just do not understand these demagogues--or do not choose to
understand. Hitler adopted a popular fiction of an "Aryan" race--
really only a great language group--rather than study or even allow the
study of the several major caucasian sub-races represented in the
German population. His comments on the subject were only so much
hyperbole from there on. Unless you believe the people who ran a war
effort that even in losing launched the jet and rocket ages were
totally insane, you need to stop and take a longer look. Do you really
believe that Hitler's application of National Socialism--as opposed to
Clinton/Gore/Schumer's--was really about race? Well, then, explain
some of those very non-Nordic types in high positions. Explain why the
Nazis disrupted traditional anthropological studies in German
Universities? Explain Hitler's devotion to Mussolini?
>
> >You want to argue that the used targets are different! So what? We
> >lump serial killers into a class of evil, even though different seial
> >killers choose different victims. National Socialism is no more
> >defined by its victims than Communism is defined by its victims.
> >National Socialism was not about the Jews but totalitarian power.
> >Communism was not about the Kulaks but about totalitarian power. If
> >you are not being deliberately disengenuous, you are missing the
forest
> >for the trees.
>
> You're wrong. See above re: racial purity being central to Nazi
> ideology, in contrast with other regimes which were also totalitarian.
> In a run-of-the-mill totalitarian society, you can expect arrest if
> you challenge the supremacy of the state regime and power. In Nazi
> totalitarianism, you also can expect arrest, and even death, if you do
> not fit the racial or ethnic pure ideal, regardless of whether you
> support or actively challenge state power.
As I observed above, it just isn't true. The Jews were picked, not
because Hitler considered them racially so different, but because they
had been demonized before by those with whom he was competing, and
because they, as superior achievers, were a natural target for a
demagogue seeking to blame the woes of those economically ruined in
post World War I Germany on a scapegoat. It is exactly what
Clinton/Gore and Schumer do when they vilify Southern Whites by trying
to blame the woes of American Negroes on White Racism. It is the same
game, with different demons, but to the same purpose.
>
> >And as I pointed out before, if you want to see how far the Clinton
> >Administraton will go, just look back at Waco. The slaughter there
was
> >provoked by religious dissidents, who dared to assert Second
Amendment
> >Rights against the Federal Government. And why do we say that
Schumer
> >is a Nazi? Why one of the reasons is that he was the chief
> >Congressional defender of that Holocaust, right here in Clinton's
> >America.
>
> The Branch Davidians were burned alive as a direct and proximate
> result of their leader's refusal to obey an arrest warrant. All he
> had to do was give himself up at the police station - if the warrant
> was defective, that's what courts are for. He didn't do it, he defied
> the government agents who came in to execute the warrant and in the
> process, by causing a standoff with the government, got himself and
> his innocent followers killed.
>
And why was this group of religious mavericks any business of the
Federal Government?! Under what provision of the Constitution, was it
any business of the Federal Government? But then, Clinton, like
Hitler, never let a little thing like lack of legal authority inhibit
his "idealism." And Charles Schumer was there to defend him every step
of the way.
Would the Jews failure to cooperate with the then Government over the
Warsaw Ghetto be viewed by you in the same light? I suspect that many
of them died cursing the Charles Schumer's in Poland, if such there had
been, who had kept them virtually unarmed.
You may persist in failing to see patterns here. But one does not post
on the internet for the joy of arguing. One hopes to persuade those
surfing by, and perhaps you have helped me to better formulate the
issues. If so, I thank you.
Lone Haranguer
By posting this discredited lie we know that all the rest of
your argument is also bogus. Stop wasting our time.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2000 19:57:41 -0400, jaq...@en.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >
> > I think it's high time that we no longer
> >> resort to shootouts to solve problems.
> >
> >Then we should, as a rule, cry to the police afterward, knowing that they
> >won't solve the crime? "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for
> >good men to do nothing". And that's what we have in some of our cities-
> >triumphant evil.
>
> Swearing out a criminal complaint or calling the police is doing
> something.
>
Tell it to the people living along the Mexican border.
> [snip]
> >>
> >> NYC is enjoying its lowest crime rate in the past 30 years or so of
> >> history.
> >
> >So is the rest of the country. Post hoc non propter hoc. Cleveland's rate
> >is down to the early 60s, when we didn't feel we needed any gun control. I
> >guess we still don't.
>
> Too simplistic. There're lots of societal reasons why crime goes up
> and down at different times. IMHO, a lot of what's going on now is
> full employment, thus rendering crime irrelevant to many people who
> might otherwise resort to it. My anti-gun stance is based on two
> facts: 1. More guns means more shootings. It's really quite
> elementary.
Facts say otherwise Dr. Watson. Guns, especially handguns
have doubled in number in the past 30 years but shootings,
both criminal and accidental has dropped despite the
population increase.
2. To be a true strict constructionist, a Second
> Amendment advocate must concede the point that we're only talking
> about muskets and cannons, since the Constitution is not a "living
> document" to those strict constructionists, and the intent of the
> framers would have been to not regulate those particular firearms then
> in existance. Therefore, controlling semi-autos and autos, etc. is
> quite within the government's power without running afoul of 2nd
> amendment issues.
Chicken poop. Then Native Americans "exercising" their
treaty rights have to do so with birch bark canoes and
wooden spears.
>
> [snip]
> >
> >The right to self-defence is also a basic human right question. I notice
> >you didn't answer my question about the slave. Did he have a moral right to
> >kill his master, or not?
>
> I don't see the point of the question. Did the slave have a right to
> kill his master? It depends. If the master was physically abusing
> the slave, yes. Otherwise, slavery would be akin to a kidnapping or
> unlawful imprisonment case, and the slave would have a moral right to
> take whatever reasonable force necessary to free himself.
>
> >> The issue of secession is one which directly affects the USA. You
> >> can't have states seceding willy-nilly and not, at a bare minimum,
> >> reimburse the USA for lost land, property, etc.
> >
> >I agree; the south should have reimbursed the North for lost Federal
> >property. Under a peaceful settlement, it probably would have happened.
> >OTOH, nobody in the south got reimbursed, either for their destroyed
> >property or their freed slaves. (I am willing to entertain the argument
> >that since slaves were not legitimate property, no compensation was
> >necessary, though I note to you that cultures that handled their
> >manumission more gradually- Brazil for example- have much better race
> >relations today than we do.)
>
> To put it simply, the South started it and we won. Losers generally
> aren't entitled to reparations.
A sure way to keep animosities going for generations.
If the NRA plays it cool, they will use the "stealth"
method. Purchase an existing restaurant through a "straw"
buyer and keep running it as usual. Gradually add various
video games, including shooting games. Once the crowds are
flocking in they can unveil the NRA logo. Much harder to
shoot down that way.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
BZZZZZZZZZZZTTT! IGNORANCE ALERT. Since millions of rounds
are shot at targets each year and only a few at people this
is obviously baloney.
How many pistols are sold with target sights?
>
> >Your simplistic analysis
> >ignores all moral and causal factors in gun crime. A gun collector might
> >have 100 guns. Does this make him 100 times more likely to shoot somebody
> >than 1 hood with a crappy little Lorcin? Of course not. When you ban guns,
> >you remove them from the hands of the moral, and not the immoral, leading
> >to the further demonization of hardware. The guns don't shoot themselves.
> >Ever.
>
> Ugh. Guns don't kill people. People kill people, is that it? Let me
> give you an example of why more guns isn't the solution. Remember a
> few weeks ago, a deranged, armed man took over control of a bus and
> took the occupants and the driver hostage for an hours-long joyride.
> The country was Japan - tight gun laws. The man was armed with a
> knife. Do you think it was easier or harder for law enforcement to
> subdue the man and get the hostages out alive because the deranged man
> had no gun? BTW - they just had to gas the bus, and everyone got out
> without one bullet being fired.
>
Last week it was Norway, a country with very strict gun laws
and a guy holding a whole Kindergarten hostage with a gun.
Today it's Luxembourg, another place with tight gun laws and
a guy with a gun, grenades and gasoline bombs holding a
whole batch of kids hostage.
What kind of blinding flash does it take to make you realize
that guns will always be obtained by someone who wants one?
Molotov cocktails also take only moments to manufacture and
can be very deadly. So you think you can eliminate crime by
passing laws against guns but ignoring gasoline? Are you
really serious?
jaq...@en.com
> If the NRA plays it cool, they will use the "stealth"
> method. Purchase an existing restaurant through a "straw"
> buyer and keep running it as usual. Gradually add various
> video games, including shooting games. Once the crowds are
> flocking in they can unveil the NRA logo. Much harder to
> shoot down that way.
I like the way you think.
Why not adopt the enemy's own tactics? "We're just going to put in a couple
video games...for the children, don'tcha know?"
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> The Branch Davidians were burned alive as a direct and proximate
>> result of their leader's refusal to obey an arrest warrant. All he
>> had to do was give himself up at the police station - if the warrant
>> was defective, that's what courts are for. He didn't do it, he defied
>> the government agents who came in to execute the warrant and in the
>> process, by causing a standoff with the government, got himself and
>> his innocent followers killed.
>
>By posting this discredited lie we know that all the rest of
>your argument is also bogus. Stop wasting our time.
>LZ
Glad you liked it so much. Here it is again. (BTW - check out
Drudge's page where bugs placed in the Davidian compound reveal
Koresh's plan for suicide through various means, including fire.
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>> No. More chain saws mean more downed trees. Chain saws are created
>> to down trees, see. Handguns exist primarily to shoot people.
>
>BZZZZZZZZZZZTTT! IGNORANCE ALERT. Since millions of rounds
>are shot at targets each year and only a few at people this
>is obviously baloney.
A few?! You're obviously mistaken, seeing as I think more than three
or four people were shot with firearms last year in this country.
[snip]
>Last week it was Norway, a country with very strict gun laws
>and a guy holding a whole Kindergarten hostage with a gun.
>
>Today it's Luxembourg, another place with tight gun laws and
>a guy with a gun, grenades and gasoline bombs holding a
>whole batch of kids hostage.
>
>What kind of blinding flash does it take to make you realize
>that guns will always be obtained by someone who wants one?
So...maybe we should drop ALL laws, because ALL laws can and will be
broken. We should repeal our murder laws, because hell, someone can
always murder someone.
>Molotov cocktails also take only moments to manufacture and
>can be very deadly. So you think you can eliminate crime by
>passing laws against guns but ignoring gasoline? Are you
>really serious?
Got any rapid-fire, automatic molotov cocktails I can use to massacre
a whole mess of people at once? Didn't think so.
[snip]
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>> >And more chain saws mean more chain saw massacres?
>>
>> No. More chain saws mean more downed trees. Chain saws are created
>> to down trees, see. Handguns exist primarily to shoot people.
>
>Uh-huh. In the aftermath of a hurricane, more chain saws mean more cleared
>roads, power lines, and order. In the aftermath of moral and societal
>breakdown, more guns means more order. Both good things. And since this is
>NYC, perhaps we should look at who is shooting innocent people (cops) and
>take their guns first.
I also reject the idea that order and civic society can only be
achieved by the barrel of a gun. Or guns plural.
[snip]
>> Ugh. Guns don't kill people. People kill people, is that it?
>Yep.
Well, it's substantially easier for a person to kill more people in a
short period of time if he's got an automatic rifle than if he has a
machete.
> Let me
>> give you an example of why more guns isn't the solution. Remember a
>> few weeks ago, a deranged, armed man took over control of a bus and
>> took the occupants and the driver hostage for an hours-long joyride.
>> The country was Japan - tight gun laws. The man was armed with a
>> knife. Do you think it was easier or harder for law enforcement to
>> subdue the man and get the hostages out alive because the deranged man
>> had no gun? BTW - they just had to gas the bus, and everyone got out
>> without one bullet being fired.
>
>With an armed population, it wouldn't have taken hours. And even a crazy
>man can find better means of suicide.
So, schlub on the bus or outside it who isn't law enforcement should
have tried to be a hero and come out guns a blazin'?
[snip]
>You think...I'd like to see you present that case; I like to see black
>robes jiggle with laughter. True, they'd like to see a good gun case, since
>there has never been one presented that really defines the limits of the
>2nd.
They can't have it both ways.
> As far as the first amendment
>> is concerned, prior restraint of speech by the government is pretty
>> rare nowadays.
>
>Unless of course it's speech from NRA cafes, porno shops, or other business
>regulated under the name of "zoning".
Going back full circle to the enforcement of common law nuisance
doctrines which form the basis of zoning. If I live in a tree lined
residential community, you bet your ass I don't have to let a strip
club or a theme restaurant, or a Disney Store for that matter, open up
next door.
[snip]
>> So, there's your answer. You asked me if a slave has a right to kill
>> his master. My answer, in a nutshell, is sometimes yes, sometimes no.
>> It depends on the facts of a given situation.
>
>Bullshit.
>AJB: "The slave is justified in killing his master if physically abused."
>JAQ: "All slavery is physical abuse, therefore all slaves are justified in
>killing their masters."
Well, all slavery is unlawful imprisonment of a human being under
threat of harm. It's very slippery of you to say it's always physical
abuse, because I can say, "no, it's not unless the master hits or
beats the slave" and then you can retort, "aha - you don't think
slavery is a brutal repression of your fellow man", etc. So, if a
slave was beaten or stabbed or shot or smacked, the slave would have
the right to react in proportion to the violence he received.
Likewise, a slave has a moral right to take whatever action necessary
to free himself. Does that pin it down enough for you?
>You dodged my argument, yet again. Are all you New Yorkers this slippery?
>OK, let's make it personal: if I enslave YOU, do I deserve to die? Even if
>I treat you well? (gotta preserve my investment ya know)
No. You don't deserve to die. You deserve whatever it takes for me
to get out. If that means stomping your foot and hitting you in the
mouth with a rake, that'll do.
>> >It's quite possible that the 1st Amendment is as null and void in NYC as
>> >the 2nd; certainly Mayor Giuliani thought so in the recent art flap. That
>> >doesn;t justify it.
>>
>> You're talking about a city of eight million people packed in kind of
>> tight. It's pretty unique. It, therefore, has a pretty unique way of
>> handling the cards it's dealt. Getting input from the neighborhoods
>> is one way it does that. Pretty progressive, if you ask me.
>
>If a city of 8 million needs to systematically violate the rights of its
>citizens in order to work, maybe it shouldn't exist.
So.....nuke it? Hell, under your hypothesis, I have an absolute
constitutional right to bear nuclear weapons. Unregulated, at that.
Otherwise, see argument re: nuisance, supra.
>
> Also
>> pretty respectful of people's speech rights.
>
>How?
Because the City's community boards allow for debate and input from
all sides of a particular issue.
>> But the fact that it's been done for so long, presumably in the face
>> of myriad challenges, and has not been overturned, speaks volumes.
>
>...about the citizens of NYC.
Who live in the best goddamn city in the world...one in which you
can't even find a studio apartment for under $1500 per month.
J. Randy Mitchell
> >BZZZZZZZZZZZTTT! IGNORANCE ALERT. Since millions of rounds
> >are shot at targets each year and only a few at people this
> >is obviously baloney.
>
> A few?! You're obviously mistaken, seeing as I think more than three
> or four people were shot with firearms last year in this country.
>
How many people drowned in swimming pools?
How many were killed by cars?
People seem to have their priorities out of order.
AJB
<mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>AJB wrote:
>
>> >BZZZZZZZZZZZTTT! IGNORANCE ALERT. Since millions of rounds
>> >are shot at targets each year and only a few at people this
>> >is obviously baloney.
>>
>> A few?! You're obviously mistaken, seeing as I think more than three
>> or four people were shot with firearms last year in this country.
>>
>
>How many people drowned in swimming pools?
The primary purpose of which is swimming. Not killing.
>How many were killed by cars?
The primary purpose of which is driving. Not killing.
>People seem to have their priorities out of order.
People seem to have a problem distinguishing apples from oranges.
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2000 18:54:29 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> No. More chain saws mean more downed trees. Chain saws are created
> >> to down trees, see. Handguns exist primarily to shoot people.
> >
> >BZZZZZZZZZZZTTT! IGNORANCE ALERT. Since millions of rounds
> >are shot at targets each year and only a few at people this
> >is obviously baloney.
>
> A few?! You're obviously mistaken, seeing as I think more than three
> or four people were shot with firearms last year in this country.
>
> [snip]
>
All relative. Your point that guns are only made to shoot
people is obviously bogus.
> >Last week it was Norway, a country with very strict gun laws
> >and a guy holding a whole Kindergarten hostage with a gun.
> >
> >Today it's Luxembourg, another place with tight gun laws and
> >a guy with a gun, grenades and gasoline bombs holding a
> >whole batch of kids hostage.
> >
> >What kind of blinding flash does it take to make you realize
> >that guns will always be obtained by someone who wants one?
>
> So...maybe we should drop ALL laws, because ALL laws can and will be
> broken. We should repeal our murder laws, because hell, someone can
> always murder someone.
Very tired Liberal argument. The big hoopla about the
provisions of the Brady Bill resulted in a dozen people
being prosecuted for a supposed 400,000 breaking the law.
Given that track record, care to tell us again what the
point was?
>
> >Molotov cocktails also take only moments to manufacture and
> >can be very deadly. So you think you can eliminate crime by
> >passing laws against guns but ignoring gasoline? Are you
> >really serious?
>
> Got any rapid-fire, automatic molotov cocktails I can use to massacre
> a whole mess of people at once? Didn't think so.
>
> [snip]
Perhaps you have forgotten that night club fire in NYC a few
years back started with a gas bomb that killed a bunch of
people?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 06:43:53 -0500, "J. Randy Mitchell"
> <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >AJB wrote:
> >
> >> >BZZZZZZZZZZZTTT! IGNORANCE ALERT. Since millions of rounds
> >> >are shot at targets each year and only a few at people this
> >> >is obviously baloney.
> >>
> >> A few?! You're obviously mistaken, seeing as I think more than three
> >> or four people were shot with firearms last year in this country.
> >>
> >
> >How many people drowned in swimming pools?
>
> The primary purpose of which is swimming. Not killing.
>
> >How many were killed by cars?
>
> The primary purpose of which is driving. Not killing.
>
> >People seem to have their priorities out of order.
>
> People seem to have a problem distinguishing apples from oranges.
You seem to invent statements and view them as fact. Check
out how many rounds of ammunition are sold for target
shooting annually, how many guns are sold with target sights
or hunting scopes etc and never used in a crime.
Don't you feel stupid now? Well you should.
LZ
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>You seem to invent statements and view them as fact. Check
>out how many rounds of ammunition are sold for target
>shooting annually, how many guns are sold with target sights
>or hunting scopes etc and never used in a crime.
>
>Don't you feel stupid now? Well you should.
Is there some sort of survey one fills out when buying ammunition
where they pledge under pains and penalties of perjury not to use it
on anything but a target?
Didn't think so.
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>>
>All relative. Your point that guns are only made to shoot
>people is obviously bogus.
You're right. They are also made to shoot animals, vegetables, tin
cans, and to place holes in pieces of paper. Can't think of anything
more productive for a gun than placing a hole in something or
somebody, though.
[snip]
>> >What kind of blinding flash does it take to make you realize
>> >that guns will always be obtained by someone who wants one?
>>
>> So...maybe we should drop ALL laws, because ALL laws can and will be
>> broken. We should repeal our murder laws, because hell, someone can
>> always murder someone.
>
>Very tired Liberal argument.
Is that your counterpoint?
>The big hoopla about the
>provisions of the Brady Bill resulted in a dozen people
>being prosecuted for a supposed 400,000 breaking the law.
>Given that track record, care to tell us again what the
>point was?
No point, I guess. Except that those 400,000 people were unable
legally to obtain a firearm. I personally don't need convicted
felons or the mentally ill to carry firearms. Here's the scenario -
Joe Exfelon goes to his local gun store and wants to buy a nice 9mm.
They run a Brady background check. It says - Joe Exfelon can't have a
gun. Sorry, Joe. Can't sell you a gun. The law worked. As for
waiting periods, I harken back to a Simpsons episode where Homer goes
to the gun store and is told that there was a 7 day waiting period, to
which Homer replies, "But I'm angry NOW."
>> >Molotov cocktails also take only moments to manufacture and
>> >can be very deadly. So you think you can eliminate crime by
>> >passing laws against guns but ignoring gasoline? Are you
>> >really serious?
>>
>> Got any rapid-fire, automatic molotov cocktails I can use to massacre
>> a whole mess of people at once? Didn't think so.
>>
>> [snip]
>
>Perhaps you have forgotten that night club fire in NYC a few
>years back started with a gas bomb that killed a bunch of
>people?
So, what's your point? The guy should have been exercizing his 2nd
amendment rights and been carrying some serious hardware?
AJB
wrote:
>In article <39381090...@news.mindspring.com>, ajb...@yahoonope.com
>(AJB) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2000 18:54:29 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net>
>> wrote:
>> >Today it's Luxembourg, another place with tight gun laws and
>> >a guy with a gun, grenades and gasoline bombs holding a
>> >whole batch of kids hostage.
>
>And the perp shot by a gun.
Brandished by law enforcement, which means it was legal and licensed
and the guy who pulled the trigger was well-trained. Hey, if the NRA
wants to say, "you can buy a gun, but you have to pass a 40-hour gun
safety course", that's something I can get behind. The NRA, however,
supports 2nd amendment rights for convicted felons and the clinically
insane.
> >What kind of blinding flash does it take to make you realize
>> >that guns will always be obtained by someone who wants one?
>>
>> So...maybe we should drop ALL laws, because ALL laws can and will be
>> broken. We should repeal our murder laws, because hell, someone can
>> always murder someone.
>
>Here's a much better idea: let's repeal all laws defining victimless
>crimes. No injury, hency no crime. That would get rid of gun control laws,
>the War on Drugs (which would get a helluva lotta guns off the streets),
>the war on sex workers, and the war on an NRA restaurant on Times Square.
>With the prison space freed up, we could lock up murderers and throw away
>the key. Sound like an idea?
I'm for legalizing any drug that you ingest in a form substantially
similar to the way in which it leaves the ground. (Pot, psylocybin).
Prostitution? Only if very tightly regulated, with periodic AIDS
tests, etc. Also limited to certain areas. Don't want a brothel next
to the day care. Gun control laws? Reasonable gun control is an
absolute necessity. Again, I don't want released felons and the
insane being able to pick up an AK at the K Mart.
>> >Molotov cocktails also take only moments to manufacture and
>> >can be very deadly. So you think you can eliminate crime by
>> >passing laws against guns but ignoring gasoline? Are you
>> >really serious?
>>
>> Got any rapid-fire, automatic molotov cocktails I can use to massacre
>> a whole mess of people at once? Didn't think so.
>
>No, but propane tanks, ANFO, and homemade explosives will do just that
>without the perp having to risk injury.
Ever see anyone carrying a concealed propane tank and spraying a bank
lobby with it?
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>> I also reject the idea that order and civic society can only be
>> achieved by the barrel of a gun. Or guns plural.
>
>Of course you're right. By the time you have to resort to force, you've
>already lost the war. But that is in fact how our government seeks to
>achieve a civic society...how even your much-vaunted NYC zoning board would
>achieve it, if property owners and the NRA were to ignore their
>"recommendation" about whether they could open. Guns are necessary for any
>governmental action.
Tell it to the Metropolitan London Constabulary.
>Keeping them in citizen hands simply levels the
>playing field.
They are in citizens' hands, so what's your point? I'm not for
abolition of all guns. I'm for gun control. If you're a responsible
citizen and want to keep a gun at home, fine. But if you have a child
under the age of 18, lock it or keep it out of the kid's hands some
other way. If the kid takes the gun and sprays his classroom with it,
you're going to jail. No mental illness. No criminal record of
violence.
[snip]
>Though bombs are more efficient still, as Harris and Klebold knew. Are we
>going to licence propane tanks next?
Propane's primary use is not as a weapon.
> >Unless of course it's speech from NRA cafes, porno shops, or other business
>> >regulated under the name of "zoning".
>>
>> Going back full circle to the enforcement of common law nuisance
>> doctrines which form the basis of zoning. If I live in a tree lined
>> residential community, you bet your ass I don't have to let a strip
>> club or a theme restaurant, or a Disney Store for that matter, open up
>> next door.
>
>Then buy their property.
I don't have to. If you don't have zoning, then I'd be in court suing
them for damages relating to the nuisance they are creating, and
asking for injunctive relief abating the nuisance. Why bother if
zoning'll nip it in the bud?
[snip]
>Not slippery at all. And it's not just "unlawful imprisonment"; it's WORK.
>While a certain amount of physical activity is healthy, those of us who
>have done physical labor know that it stresses the body in all kinds of
>ways, particularly when a higher output is being coerced with a whip.
>Slavery IS physical abuse; it's a PHYSICAL BODY being enslaved.
>
> So, if a
>> slave was beaten or stabbed or shot or smacked, the slave would have
>> the right to react in proportion to the violence he received.
>> Likewise, a slave has a moral right to take whatever action necessary
>> to free himself. Does that pin it down enough for you?
>
>Yes. But I can see that you are deathly afraid to admit that a person who
>has had his freedom (and thus his life) taken from him has a moral right to
>kill to regain that freedom. Tell me, why is that?
Because when one uses force, he must use only so much force as is
necessary to remedy the wrong / proportionality. Therefore, like I
said, if all it takes is a stubbed toe for a slave to escape, that's
all that is morally wrong. If the slave's freedom is blocked by
deadly force, then it is morally right for him to react with equal or
greater force. He doesn't, however, have a right to kill the
wrongdoer without more.
>> >You dodged my argument, yet again. Are all you New Yorkers this slippery?
>> >OK, let's make it personal: if I enslave YOU, do I deserve to die? Even if
>> >I treat you well? (gotta preserve my investment ya know)
>>
>> No. You don't deserve to die. You deserve whatever it takes for me
>> to get out. If that means stomping your foot and hitting you in the
>> mouth with a rake, that'll do.
>
>While I would appreciate your restraint if I were in that situation (which
>I wouldn't be), it's quite unnecessary. Slavekeeping is the moral
>equivalent of murder, and similar punishments are justified.
We'll agree to disagree. Taking one's life is not the same as
stealing one's labor.
[snip]
>> >If a city of 8 million needs to systematically violate the rights of its
>> >citizens in order to work, maybe it shouldn't exist.
>>
>> So.....nuke it?
>No, that would violate the rights of the people who choose to live there.
>But in a free society, nobody would agree to live under the procedures
>you've outlined, hence no NYC...or a NYC organized differently.
A chaotic, anarchic NYC where no one would live for fear of having a
crack house open up next door because you can't tell someone what they
can do with their property. There'd also be no Grand Central Station,
and any other landmark would be subject to demolition.
> Hell, under your hypothesis, I have an absolute
>> constitutional right to bear nuclear weapons. Unregulated, at that.
>
>"Arms" are things carried. And I don't believe that citizens have a right
>to things that governments should not have the right to.
"arm": [n] ... 1a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; esp:
FIREARM ..." Ninth Webster Collegiate. Nothing in there about it
being large enough to fit in one's arms.
>
>> > Also
>> >> pretty respectful of people's speech rights.
>> >
>> >How?
>>
>> Because the City's community boards allow for debate and input from
>> all sides of a particular issue.
>
>In other words, you can say what you want in NYC, as long as your neighbors
>approve. How wonderful!
You can say anything you want at all, under the sun. The neighbors
debate and decide. If the majority decides against a particular
project, it's over. So, you can say whatever you want in NYC,
regardless of whether your neighbors approve. You cannot, however,
build whatever you want in NYC unless your neighbors approve. And I
didn't see anything in the bill of rights concerning freedom of
building.
>> >> But the fact that it's been done for so long, presumably in the face
>> >> of myriad challenges, and has not been overturned, speaks volumes.
>> >
>> >...about the citizens of NYC.
>>
>> Who live in the best goddamn city in the world...one in which you
>> can't even find a studio apartment for under $1500 per month.
>
>As if I'd want to. Since such an apartment is 1/8 the price in Cleveland,
>and NYC wages are I'm sure not 8x higher, just what does make this the
>"best" city in the world? The fact that it's also the best nuclear target
>in the world?
Cleveland: Browns. Indians. Docklands. Lake. Rock & Roll Hall of
Fame. Drew Carey.
New York (tri-state area): Yankees. Mets. Jets. Giants. Islanders.
Rangers. Knicks. Nets. Devils. Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Guggenheim Museum. Whitney Gallery of Art. Natural History Museum and
Hayden Planetarium. Opera of the City of New York. Metropolitan
Opera. Alice Tulley Hall. New York City Ballet. Broadway.
Off-Broadway. Fifth Avenue in Christmastime. Fifth Avenue anytime.
Empire State Building. World Trade Center. Rockefeller Center. Radio
City Music Hall. Times Square. Greenwich Village. SoHo. TriBeCa.
Chinatown. Little Italy. Wall Street. Restaurant Row. Zabar's to
the West. Eli's to the East. Central Park on a warm summer's day.
Wollman Rink on a cold winter's day. Tea at the Plaza. Statue of
Liberty. Ellis Island. Staten Island Ferry.
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Brandished by law enforcement, which means it was legal and licensed
>> and the guy who pulled the trigger was well-trained. Hey, if the NRA
>> wants to say, "you can buy a gun, but you have to pass a 40-hour gun
>> safety course", that's something I can get behind. The NRA, however,
>> supports 2nd amendment rights for convicted felons and the clinically
>> insane.
>
>Citation, please? I have been an NRA member (currently GOA member) and have
>never seen this.
Their opposition to and lobbying against the Brady Bill, the primary
purpose of which is to prohibit the sale of firearms to felons and the
insane.
>> >> So...maybe we should drop ALL laws, because ALL laws can and will be
>> >> broken. We should repeal our murder laws, because hell, someone can
>> >> always murder someone.
>> >
>> >Here's a much better idea: let's repeal all laws defining victimless
>> >crimes. No injury, hency no crime. That would get rid of gun control laws,
>> >the War on Drugs (which would get a helluva lotta guns off the streets),
>> >the war on sex workers, and the war on an NRA restaurant on Times Square.
>> >With the prison space freed up, we could lock up murderers and throw away
>> >the key. Sound like an idea?
>>
>> I'm for legalizing any drug that you ingest in a form substantially
>> similar to the way in which it leaves the ground. (Pot, psylocybin).
>
>Why these and not others?
Because I don't have a problem with stuff that appears naturally in
nature. Kat comes to mind, too - that chewy leaf used in Yemen. I do
have a problem with stuff that needs to be built in a lab. Like acid.
Or crack. Or heroin.
>> Prostitution? Only if very tightly regulated, with periodic AIDS
>> tests, etc.
>
>I'd like to see that done on a voluntary basis, administered by an
>independent agency such as Underwriters Laboratories. Certified pussy would
>cost more, but those who wanted it could pay the price. Meanwhile, you
>won't be taxing good Christians to pay for something they don't approve of.
Don't have to tax good Christians. Tax the whores themselves (they
could pass the cost on to the johns). 5% of every "transaction" would
be charged as clean puss tax.
> Gun control laws? Reasonable gun control is an
>> absolute necessity. Again, I don't want released felons and the
>> insane being able to pick up an AK at the K Mart.
>
>Well, they can't now, so why are your knickers in a twist?
They're not. But NRA types and other 2nd amendment absolutists don't
have a problem with the idea of felonius insane gun owners.
>But it's interesting...you refuse to see these things as all being bound by
>the same principle of self-ownership. Instead, it's a restaurant menu:
>"I'll take that, and that...but hold the pickles and lettuce."
That's right. Some things are good (or relatively harmless) while
other things are bad. Law abiding citizens obtaining licenses for
guns = good. Just released child molester obtaining license for gun =
bad.
>> >> >Molotov cocktails also take only moments to manufacture and
>> >> >can be very deadly. So you think you can eliminate crime by
>> >> >passing laws against guns but ignoring gasoline? Are you
>> >> >really serious?
>> >>
>> >> Got any rapid-fire, automatic molotov cocktails I can use to massacre
>> >> a whole mess of people at once? Didn't think so.
>> >
>> >No, but propane tanks, ANFO, and homemade explosives will do just that
>> >without the perp having to risk injury.
>>
>> Ever see anyone carrying a concealed propane tank and spraying a bank
>> lobby with it?
>
>No, but then I've never seen anyone spray a bank lobby with a gun either.
>Generally, people in bank lobbies are looking for money, not body counts;
>killing raises the costs of doing business.
Travis Pahl
>>> similar to the way in which it leaves the ground. (Pot, psylocybin).
>>
>>Why these and not others?
>
>Because I don't have a problem with stuff that appears naturally in
>nature. Kat comes to mind, too - that chewy leaf used in Yemen. I do
>have a problem with stuff that needs to be built in a lab. Like acid.
>Or crack. Or heroin.
You did not answer the question. You just restated your oposition and
gave examples. But the question is WHY you do not have a problem with
natural drugs but not manufactured drugs.
>>> Prostitution? Only if very tightly regulated, with periodic AIDS
>>> tests, etc.
>>
>>I'd like to see that done on a voluntary basis, administered by an
>>independent agency such as Underwriters Laboratories. Certified pussy would
>>cost more, but those who wanted it could pay the price. Meanwhile, you
>>won't be taxing good Christians to pay for something they don't approve of.
>
>Don't have to tax good Christians. Tax the whores themselves (they
>could pass the cost on to the johns). 5% of every "transaction" would
>be charged as clean puss tax.
Why bother with a tax then? Why not have it done privately?
k
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 11:05:34 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >You seem to invent statements and view them as fact. Check
> >out how many rounds of ammunition are sold for target
> >shooting annually, how many guns are sold with target sights
> >or hunting scopes etc and never used in a crime.
> >
> >Don't you feel stupid now? Well you should.
>
> Is there some sort of survey one fills out when buying ammunition
> where they pledge under pains and penalties of perjury not to use it
> on anything but a target?
>
> Didn't think so.
Can I borrow the world's most powerful microscope to check
for this booby's brain?
BILLIONS of rounds of ammo are shot each year. What
percentage of that is used in gun crimes?
Excuse me while I have a laughing attack.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 08:40:24 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >>
> >All relative. Your point that guns are only made to shoot
> >people is obviously bogus.
>
> You're right. They are also made to shoot animals, vegetables, tin
> cans, and to place holes in pieces of paper. Can't think of anything
> more productive for a gun than placing a hole in something or
> somebody, though.
>
> [snip]
Hopefully through someone who is about to murder you with
some weapon of his own. What tool would you prefer then?
>
> >> >What kind of blinding flash does it take to make you realize
> >> >that guns will always be obtained by someone who wants one?
> >>
> >> So...maybe we should drop ALL laws, because ALL laws can and will be
> >> broken. We should repeal our murder laws, because hell, someone can
> >> always murder someone.
> >
> >Very tired Liberal argument.
>
> Is that your counterpoint?
>
That's all it deserved.
> >The big hoopla about the
> >provisions of the Brady Bill resulted in a dozen people
> >being prosecuted for a supposed 400,000 breaking the law.
> >Given that track record, care to tell us again what the
> >point was?
>
> No point, I guess. Except that those 400,000 people were unable
> legally to obtain a firearm. I personally don't need convicted
> felons or the mentally ill to carry firearms. Here's the scenario -
> Joe Exfelon goes to his local gun store and wants to buy a nice 9mm.
>
Yeah, right. Joe ex-felon doesn't know that since 1968 it
is illegal for him to purchase a firearm and that just
picking one up in the store or telling a lie on the ATF form
can get him 5 years in the slammer.
Do you REALLY think that felons in jail don't know all about
this law?
They run a Brady background check. It says - Joe Exfelon
can't have a
> gun. Sorry, Joe. Can't sell you a gun. The law worked.
If he has already filled out the ATF 4473 he is now due for
5 years in the slammer. How come out of 400,000 only a
dozen were prosecuted?
Can't answer, huh? Reno claims it would clog the courts.
Now Joe ex-felon has lots of friends. Most of them are into
one type of crime or another. Does he go to Hank's Sporting
Goods to buy a $400 pistola? Heck no. He picks up the
phone to his favorite fence and asks who has what for sale.
Then he meets someone on the street and gives him $100 for
the same gun, freshly stolen from a house burglary.
As for
> waiting periods, I harken back to a Simpsons episode where Homer goes
> to the gun store and is told that there was a 7 day waiting period, to
> which Homer replies, "But I'm angry NOW."
You and Homer sound like 2 peas in the same pod.
>
> >> >Molotov cocktails also take only moments to manufacture and
> >> >can be very deadly. So you think you can eliminate crime by
> >> >passing laws against guns but ignoring gasoline? Are you
> >> >really serious?
> >>
> >> Got any rapid-fire, automatic molotov cocktails I can use to massacre
> >> a whole mess of people at once? Didn't think so.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >
> >Perhaps you have forgotten that night club fire in NYC a few
> >years back started with a gas bomb that killed a bunch of
> >people?
>
> So, what's your point? The guy should have been exercizing his 2nd
> amendment rights and been carrying some serious hardware?
That's your counterpoint? You were just hinting that
Molotov Cocktails are harmless compared to a firearm.
You are a clueless wussy who still wets the bed when he
dreams about those baaaaaaaaaddddddddd guns.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:45:46 -0400, j...@po.cwru.edu (Jeffrey Quick)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <39381090...@news.mindspring.com>, ajb...@yahoonope.com
> >(AJB) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 31 May 2000 18:54:29 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Today it's Luxembourg, another place with tight gun laws and
> >> >a guy with a gun, grenades and gasoline bombs holding a
> >> >whole batch of kids hostage.
> >
> >And the perp shot by a gun.
>
> Brandished by law enforcement, which means it was legal and licensed
> and the guy who pulled the trigger was well-trained. Hey, if the NRA
> wants to say, "you can buy a gun, but you have to pass a 40-hour gun
> safety course", that's something I can get behind. The NRA, however,
> supports 2nd amendment rights for convicted felons and the clinically
> insane.
>
Gee that means you get to have one. NOW I'm REALLY worried.
> > >What kind of blinding flash does it take to make you realize
> >> >that guns will always be obtained by someone who wants one?
> >>
> >> So...maybe we should drop ALL laws, because ALL laws can and will be
> >> broken. We should repeal our murder laws, because hell, someone can
> >> always murder someone.
Who needs a means of self defense anyhow? Just call 911 and
a half hour later they will show up with the body bag.
Unfortunately without a means of self defense the bag will
be for you and not the perpetrator.
> >
> >Here's a much better idea: let's repeal all laws defining victimless
> >crimes. No injury, hency no crime. That would get rid of gun control laws,
> >the War on Drugs (which would get a helluva lotta guns off the streets),
> >the war on sex workers, and the war on an NRA restaurant on Times Square.
> >With the prison space freed up, we could lock up murderers and throw away
> >the key. Sound like an idea?
>
> I'm for legalizing any drug that you ingest in a form substantially
> similar to the way in which it leaves the ground. (Pot, psylocybin).
> Prostitution? Only if very tightly regulated, with periodic AIDS
> tests, etc. Also limited to certain areas. Don't want a brothel next
> to the day care. Gun control laws? Reasonable gun control is an
> absolute necessity. Again, I don't want released felons and the
> insane being able to pick up an AK at the K Mart.
>
Which they have not been able to do since the gun control
act of 1968 by the way.
> >> >Molotov cocktails also take only moments to manufacture and
> >> >can be very deadly. So you think you can eliminate crime by
> >> >passing laws against guns but ignoring gasoline? Are you
> >> >really serious?
> >>
> >> Got any rapid-fire, automatic molotov cocktails I can use to massacre
> >> a whole mess of people at once? Didn't think so.
> >
> >No, but propane tanks, ANFO, and homemade explosives will do just that
> >without the perp having to risk injury.
>
> Ever see anyone carrying a concealed propane tank and spraying a bank
> lobby with it?
Propane bombs can be made from the small camp stove variety
also. Flame throwers, no problem.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:40:06 -0400, j...@po.cwru.edu (Jeffrey Quick)
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I also reject the idea that order and civic society can only be
> >> achieved by the barrel of a gun. Or guns plural.
> >
Bubber thought so too. He liked laser bombs and Tomahawk
missiles better. That way you get to kill without
consequences.
Tell it to those Serb civilians Bubber bombed. Kill
civilians to convince their leader to take a different
path. Don't think we would appreciate it if Iraqi
terrorists did that here.
Crime, air pollution, noise pollution, more crime, traffic
jams, rude slobs, more crime, more air pollution, fear, more
noise pollution, more crime, more rude slobs, crowds,
recycled sewage for drinking water, dirt, filth, ugly
neighborhoods, more crime, more noise pollution.
You can have it, I'll keep my peaceful orchard with the
birds singing and fresh air.
LZ
J. Randy Mitchell
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 06:43:53 -0500, "J. Randy Mitchell"
> <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >AJB wrote:
> >
> >> >BZZZZZZZZZZZTTT! IGNORANCE ALERT. Since millions of rounds
> >> >are shot at targets each year and only a few at people this
> >> >is obviously baloney.
> >>
> >> A few?! You're obviously mistaken, seeing as I think more than three
> >> or four people were shot with firearms last year in this country.
> >>
> >
> >How many people drowned in swimming pools?
>
> The primary purpose of which is swimming. Not killing.
>
> >How many were killed by cars?
>
> The primary purpose of which is driving. Not killing.
>
> >People seem to have their priorities out of order.
>
> People seem to have a problem distinguishing apples from oranges.
Okay then, let me try something that even your feeble
little tree-hugging mind can absorb.
How many are killed by a crossbow or arrows?
You're not raising hell about that, are you?
How many are killed by harpoons each year?
You're not raising hell about that, are you?
How many people in the US are killed by tanks?
You're not raising hell about that, are you?
All of the above are instruments of death and two of them
are readily available without background checks or any
of the other commie rules you seem to think are necessary.
I know the difference between apples and oranges and
most any other fruits. I also know when a fruit thinks
more gun laws are the answer, but wouldn't know which
end of a pistol was the barrel and which was the handle.
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>> >> I also reject the idea that order and civic society can only be
>> >> achieved by the barrel of a gun. Or guns plural.
>> >
>Bubber thought so too. He liked laser bombs and Tomahawk
>missiles better. That way you get to kill without
>consequences.
How droll. And silly.
[snip
]
>> Because when one uses force, he must use only so much force as is
>> necessary to remedy the wrong / proportionality. Therefore, like I
>> said, if all it takes is a stubbed toe for a slave to escape, that's
>> all that is morally wrong. If the slave's freedom is blocked by
>> deadly force, then it is morally right for him to react with equal or
>> greater force. He doesn't, however, have a right to kill the
>> wrongdoer without more.
>>
>Tell it to those Serb civilians Bubber bombed. Kill
>civilians to convince their leader to take a different
>path. Don't think we would appreciate it if Iraqi
>terrorists did that here.
Boy, that's the most non non-sequitur I've seen in quite some time.
And you can tell it to the Croats in Karlovac, Gospic, Zagreb,
Dubrovnik, Zadar, Knin, and especially Vukovar, whom your heroes, the
Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
that they were Croats. Then tell it to the Bosnians in Sarajevo,
Srebrenica, Gorazde, Jajce, and Banja Luka, whom your heroes, the
Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
that they were Muslim or Croat. Then tell the Slovenians, whom the
Serbs shot at for ten days for really no good reason. Then tell the
Kosovar Albanians, whom your heroes, the Serbs, repressed for 20 plus
years, then murdered and deported. If you're going to apologize for a
Communist dictator who has started and lost four wars in ten years,
then you are obviously a communist sympathizing sheep who is easily
taken in by communist propaganda. Real estate's really cheap in
Beograd, and I might suggest you look into it. I know for a fact that
Arkan's house is available. He was among the worst of the war
criminals, and I'm sure you wept when he was murdered because the
Serbian government is so goddamned innocent and pure and wonderful.
[snip]
>> New York (tri-state area): Yankees. Mets. Jets. Giants. Islanders.
>> Rangers. Knicks. Nets. Devils. Metropolitan Museum of Art.
>> Guggenheim Museum. Whitney Gallery of Art. Natural History Museum and
>> Hayden Planetarium. Opera of the City of New York. Metropolitan
>> Opera. Alice Tulley Hall. New York City Ballet. Broadway.
>> Off-Broadway. Fifth Avenue in Christmastime. Fifth Avenue anytime.
>> Empire State Building. World Trade Center. Rockefeller Center. Radio
>> City Music Hall. Times Square. Greenwich Village. SoHo. TriBeCa.
>> Chinatown. Little Italy. Wall Street. Restaurant Row. Zabar's to
>> the West. Eli's to the East. Central Park on a warm summer's day.
>> Wollman Rink on a cold winter's day. Tea at the Plaza. Statue of
>> Liberty. Ellis Island. Staten Island Ferry.
>
>Crime
lowest in 30 years.
>air pollution
pales in comparison to LA or GWB's Houston.
>noise pollution
whatever that is.
>more crime
actually, less.
>traffic jams
pales in comparison to LA.
>rude slobs
so you say.
>more crime
less and less.
>more air pollution, fear, more
>noise pollution, more crime, more rude slobs
air is pretty clean when you're on flat land by the ocean. Less crime.
So you say about rudeness.
>crowds
that's right - there's so much to do and it's THE tourist destination.
>recycled sewage for drinking water
Among the cleanest, purest drinking water in the nation. Piped down
from reservoirs upstate through a state-of-the-art system. Actually
tested cleaner than the tap water in Clearwater, Florida.
>dirt, filth,
cleaned up by neighborhood associations.
>ugly neighborhoods
Like the UW Side, UE Side, Greenwich Village, Gramercy Park, Park Ave,
Chelsea, TriBeCa, SoHo?
>more crime, more noise pollution.
>You can have it, I'll keep my peaceful orchard with the
>birds singing and fresh air.
And staring at the wall watching the paint dry, drinking well water
from Christ-knows-where and a septic tank in the yard. Enjoy.
AJB
<mi...@mail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> People seem to have a problem distinguishing apples from oranges.
>
>Okay then, let me try something that even your feeble
>little tree-hugging mind can absorb.
Ahh..name calling. The last resort of the desperate.
>How many are killed by a crossbow or arrows?
>
>You're not raising hell about that, are you?
>
>How many are killed by harpoons each year?
>
>You're not raising hell about that, are you?
>
>How many people in the US are killed by tanks?
>
>You're not raising hell about that, are you?
>
>All of the above are instruments of death and two of them
>are readily available without background checks or any
>of the other commie rules you seem to think are necessary.
>
>I know the difference between apples and oranges and
>most any other fruits. I also know when a fruit thinks
>more gun laws are the answer, but wouldn't know which
>end of a pistol was the barrel and which was the handle.
Thanks for calling me a fruit. Since you resort to name-calling in an
attempt to make an otherwise valid point, you can blow me.
brij2far
pro law enforcement, family freindly ,safety aware and willing
to educate the public for free on the facts in gun issues. I
think this is a great idea and should spread nationwide.In fact
I think this could catch on around the country in a similar
fashion like other nationwide coffee shops. I believe their
would be a real demand for franchises across the country.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 16:45:17 -0400, j...@po.cwru.edu (Jeffrey Quick)
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >>
> >> Brandished by law enforcement, which means it was legal and licensed
> >> and the guy who pulled the trigger was well-trained. Hey, if the NRA
> >> wants to say, "you can buy a gun, but you have to pass a 40-hour gun
> >> safety course", that's something I can get behind. The NRA, however,
> >> supports 2nd amendment rights for convicted felons and the clinically
> >> insane.
> >
> >Citation, please? I have been an NRA member (currently GOA member) and have
> >never seen this.
>
> Their opposition to and lobbying against the Brady Bill, the primary
> purpose of which is to prohibit the sale of firearms to felons and the
> insane.
>
Ummmm! You forgot to mention that it was the NRA who
INSISTED that the NICS be put in place. The Democrats
fought it tooth and nail, finally agreed to sunset the 7 day
waiting period after 5 years and phase in NICS. No sooner
did the phase out day get close the Democrats tried to
renege and sink the NICS program. Also MANY states already
had the background check and waiting period (MN since 1980)
and it had no effect on crime. The 1968 gun control act
already prohibited felons and the insane from buying guns.
Keep posting proof of your ignorance in these matters. It
just shows what a bunch of mindless twits make up the
gun-grabbing fraternity.
LZ
> >> >> So...maybe we should drop ALL laws, because ALL laws can and will be
> >> >> broken. We should repeal our murder laws, because hell, someone can
> >> >> always murder someone.
> >> >
> >> >Here's a much better idea: let's repeal all laws defining victimless
> >> >crimes. No injury, hency no crime. That would get rid of gun control laws,
> >> >the War on Drugs (which would get a helluva lotta guns off the streets),
> >> >the war on sex workers, and the war on an NRA restaurant on Times Square.
> >> >With the prison space freed up, we could lock up murderers and throw away
> >> >the key. Sound like an idea?
> >>
> >> I'm for legalizing any drug that you ingest in a form substantially
> >> similar to the way in which it leaves the ground. (Pot, psylocybin).
> >
> >Why these and not others?
>
> Because I don't have a problem with stuff that appears naturally in
> nature. Kat comes to mind, too - that chewy leaf used in Yemen. I do
> have a problem with stuff that needs to be built in a lab. Like acid.
> Or crack. Or heroin.
>
> >> Prostitution? Only if very tightly regulated, with periodic AIDS
> >> tests, etc.
> >
> >I'd like to see that done on a voluntary basis, administered by an
> >independent agency such as Underwriters Laboratories. Certified pussy would
> >cost more, but those who wanted it could pay the price. Meanwhile, you
> >won't be taxing good Christians to pay for something they don't approve of.
>
> Don't have to tax good Christians. Tax the whores themselves (they
> could pass the cost on to the johns). 5% of every "transaction" would
> be charged as clean puss tax.
>
> > Gun control laws? Reasonable gun control is an
> >> absolute necessity. Again, I don't want released felons and the
> >> insane being able to pick up an AK at the K Mart.
> >
> >Well, they can't now, so why are your knickers in a twist?
>
> They're not. But NRA types and other 2nd amendment absolutists don't
> have a problem with the idea of felonius insane gun owners.
>
> >But it's interesting...you refuse to see these things as all being bound by
> >the same principle of self-ownership. Instead, it's a restaurant menu:
> >"I'll take that, and that...but hold the pickles and lettuce."
>
> That's right. Some things are good (or relatively harmless) while
> other things are bad. Law abiding citizens obtaining licenses for
> guns = good. Just released child molester obtaining license for gun =
> bad.
>
> >> >> >Molotov cocktails also take only moments to manufacture and
> >> >> >can be very deadly. So you think you can eliminate crime by
> >> >> >passing laws against guns but ignoring gasoline? Are you
> >> >> >really serious?
> >> >>
> >> >> Got any rapid-fire, automatic molotov cocktails I can use to massacre
> >> >> a whole mess of people at once? Didn't think so.
> >> >
> >> >No, but propane tanks, ANFO, and homemade explosives will do just that
> >> >without the perp having to risk injury.
> >>
> >> Ever see anyone carrying a concealed propane tank and spraying a bank
> >> lobby with it?
> >
J. Randy Mitchell
Good answer.
In other words...you can't dispute what I'm saying so
you cop out on me. That's typical.
You know I made a valid point and that's why you won't
respond. You don't have the balls to admit when someone
else is right.
Admit it, you've been outdone and proven wrong.
If you can't run with the big dogs then you better stay on
the porch or you'll get bit again
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:55:29 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >> >> I also reject the idea that order and civic society can only be
> >> >> achieved by the barrel of a gun. Or guns plural.
> >> >
> >Bubber thought so too. He liked laser bombs and Tomahawk
> >missiles better. That way you get to kill without
> >consequences.
>
> How droll. And silly.
>
> [snip
> ]
> >> Because when one uses force, he must use only so much force as is
> >> necessary to remedy the wrong / proportionality. Therefore, like I
> >> said, if all it takes is a stubbed toe for a slave to escape, that's
> >> all that is morally wrong. If the slave's freedom is blocked by
> >> deadly force, then it is morally right for him to react with equal or
> >> greater force. He doesn't, however, have a right to kill the
> >> wrongdoer without more.
> >>
> >Tell it to those Serb civilians Bubber bombed. Kill
> >civilians to convince their leader to take a different
> >path. Don't think we would appreciate it if Iraqi
> >terrorists did that here.
>
> Boy, that's the most non non-sequitur I've seen in quite some time.
> And you can tell it to the Croats in Karlovac, Gospic, Zagreb,
> Dubrovnik, Zadar, Knin, and especially Vukovar, whom your heroes, the
> Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
> that they were Croats. Then tell it to the Bosnians in Sarajevo,
> Srebrenica, Gorazde, Jajce, and Banja Luka, whom your heroes, the
> Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
> that they were Muslim or Croat. Then tell the Slovenians, whom the
> Serbs shot at for ten days for really no good reason. Then tell the
> Kosovar Albanians, whom your heroes, the Serbs, repressed for 20 plus
> years, then murdered and deported. If you're going to apologize for a
> Communist dictator who has started and lost four wars in ten years,
> then you are obviously a communist sympathizing sheep who is easily
> taken in by communist propaganda. Real estate's really cheap in
> Beograd, and I might suggest you look into it. I know for a fact that
> Arkan's house is available. He was among the worst of the war
> criminals, and I'm sure you wept when he was murdered because the
> Serbian government is so goddamned innocent and pure and wonderful.
>
Heh, heh! Methinks I have struck a tender nerve amongst
Liberal sheep. They spout the "no violence" line until they
use it and then it is okay. If you find fault with this
hypocrisy they immediately rant about you being a supporter
of whomever the target is.
This ploy has been standard procedure to demonize the
detractors of Bubber the War Hero.
> [snip]
>
> >> New York (tri-state area): Yankees. Mets. Jets. Giants. Islanders.
> >> Rangers. Knicks. Nets. Devils. Metropolitan Museum of Art.
> >> Guggenheim Museum. Whitney Gallery of Art. Natural History Museum and
> >> Hayden Planetarium. Opera of the City of New York. Metropolitan
> >> Opera. Alice Tulley Hall. New York City Ballet. Broadway.
> >> Off-Broadway. Fifth Avenue in Christmastime. Fifth Avenue anytime.
> >> Empire State Building. World Trade Center. Rockefeller Center. Radio
> >> City Music Hall. Times Square. Greenwich Village. SoHo. TriBeCa.
> >> Chinatown. Little Italy. Wall Street. Restaurant Row. Zabar's to
> >> the West. Eli's to the East. Central Park on a warm summer's day.
> >> Wollman Rink on a cold winter's day. Tea at the Plaza. Statue of
> >> Liberty. Ellis Island. Staten Island Ferry.
> >
> >Crime
> lowest in 30 years.
Thanks to Guliani.
>
> >air pollution
> pales in comparison to LA or GWB's Houston.
>
Still gross.
> >noise pollution
> whatever that is.
Obviously a poor slob who doesn't know what nature sounds
like.
>
> >more crime
> actually, less.
Less than before, more than most.
>
> >traffic jams
> pales in comparison to LA.
>
Just watch the traffic chopper. We don't think LA is great
either nor have we said so.
> >rude slobs
> so you say.
Met plenty.
>
> >more crime
> less and less.
More than many.
>
> >more air pollution, fear, more
> >noise pollution, more crime, more rude slobs
> air is pretty clean when you're on flat land by the ocean. Less crime.
> So you say about rudeness.
>
> >crowds
> that's right - there's so much to do and it's THE tourist destination.
>
> >recycled sewage for drinking water
> Among the cleanest, purest drinking water in the nation. Piped down
> from reservoirs upstate through a state-of-the-art system. Actually
> tested cleaner than the tap water in Clearwater, Florida.
By the people who work there and buy bottled water to drink.
>
> >dirt, filth,
> cleaned up by neighborhood associations.
Here and there.
>
> >ugly neighborhoods
> Like the UW Side, UE Side, Greenwich Village, Gramercy Park, Park Ave,
> Chelsea, TriBeCa, SoHo?
>
Outnumbered by places where only police with a tank would go
after dark.
> >more crime, more noise pollution.
>
> >You can have it, I'll keep my peaceful orchard with the
> >birds singing and fresh air.
>
> And staring at the wall watching the paint dry, drinking well water
> from Christ-knows-where and a septic tank in the yard. Enjoy.
Trout lakes right down the road. Hundreds of lakes in a 30
mile radius. Millions of trees, peaceful roads, friendly
neighbors, I wouldn't trade for several million.
LZ
jaq...@en.com
> AJB wrote:
I seem to have missed the original on this.
> > On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:40:06 -0400, j...@po.cwru.edu (Jeffrey Quick)
> > >Of course you're right. By the time you have to resort to force, you've
> > >already lost the war. But that is in fact how our government seeks to
> > >achieve a civic society...how even your much-vaunted NYC zoning board would
> > >achieve it, if property owners and the NRA were to ignore their
> > >"recommendation" about whether they could open. Guns are necessary for any
> > >governmental action.
> >
> > Tell it to the Metropolitan London Constabulary.
I've heard that the Brits are arming their cops at a rapid rate...all those
automatic weapons coming into the country since the gun ban.
> >
> > >Keeping them in citizen hands simply levels the
> > >playing field.
> >
> > They are in citizens' hands, so what's your point? I'm not for
> > abolition of all guns. I'm for gun control. If you're a responsible
> > citizen and want to keep a gun at home, fine. But if you have a child
> > under the age of 18, lock it or keep it out of the kid's hands some
> > other way. If the kid takes the gun and sprays his classroom with it,
> > you're going to jail. No mental illness. No criminal record of
> > violence.
We've got those laws now. They haven't helped. But your thinking is useful
to the powers that be. Lots of ways we could extend this principle:
1. Your kid closes a drug deal using your home phone....cops seize the house.
2. Your son rapes somebody...castrate the father
3. Your kid cheats on a test...revoke the parents' degrees.
4. Kid gets a ticket...points go on the parents' plates.
Yes this is a really good way to teach children to be responsible for
themselves. How's this: "kid takes the gun and sprays his
classroom"...government puts the kid to sleep like a dog.
> > >> Going back full circle to the enforcement of common law nuisance
> > >> doctrines which form the basis of zoning. If I live in a tree lined
> > >> residential community, you bet your ass I don't have to let a strip
> > >> club or a theme restaurant, or a Disney Store for that matter, open up
> > >> next door.
> > >
> > >Then buy their property.
> >
> > I don't have to. If you don't have zoning, then I'd be in court suing
> > them for damages relating to the nuisance they are creating, and
> > asking for injunctive relief abating the nuisance. Why bother if
> > zoning'll nip it in the bud?
Because zoning can do too many other things unrelated to justice.
> > Because when one uses force, he must use only so much force as is
> > necessary to remedy the wrong / proportionality. Therefore, like I
> > said, if all it takes is a stubbed toe for a slave to escape, that's
> > all that is morally wrong. If the slave's freedom is blocked by
> > deadly force, then it is morally right for him to react with equal or
> > greater force. He doesn't, however, have a right to kill the
> > wrongdoer without more.
Show me a slave whose freedom is not blocked with deadly force somewhere
along the line. I assume that you think the Southern slave patrols were
unarmed??
> > We'll agree to disagree. Taking one's life is not the same as
> > stealing one's labor.
No, it's worse. When you're dead, you're dead. When you're a slave, you
live to experience the lash.
> > >> > Also
> > >> >> pretty respectful of people's speech rights.
> > >> >
> > >> >How?
> > >>
> > >> Because the City's community boards allow for debate and input from
> > >> all sides of a particular issue.
> > >
> > >In other words, you can say what you want in NYC, as long as your neighbors
> > >approve. How wonderful!
> >
> > You can say anything you want at all, under the sun. The neighbors
> > debate and decide. If the majority decides against a particular
> > project, it's over. So, you can say whatever you want in NYC,
> > regardless of whether your neighbors approve. You cannot, however,
> > build whatever you want in NYC unless your neighbors approve. And I
> > didn't see anything in the bill of rights concerning freedom of
> > building.
Ah, but nobody has been talking about building anything, just using
existing retail space for a retail purpose. Ergo, it's out of the perview
of zoning.
> >
> > >> >> But the fact that it's been done for so long, presumably in the face
> > >> >> of myriad challenges, and has not been overturned, speaks volumes.
> > >> >
> > >> >...about the citizens of NYC.
> > >>
> > >> Who live in the best goddamn city in the world...one in which you
> > >> can't even find a studio apartment for under $1500 per month.
> > >
> > >As if I'd want to. Since such an apartment is 1/8 the price in Cleveland,
> > >and NYC wages are I'm sure not 8x higher, just what does make this the
> > >"best" city in the world? The fact that it's also the best nuclear target
> > >in the world?
> >
> > Cleveland: Browns. Indians. Docklands. Lake. Rock & Roll Hall of
> > Fame. Drew Carey.
Cavaliers, Lumberjacks, Science Center, Emerald Necklace, Cultural Gardens,
Cleveland Museum of Art ("Faces of Impressionism" there now), Cleveland
Orchestra (which sometimes deigns to visit NYC), Cleveland Chamber Symphony
(put them up against American Composers Orchestra anyday), Ohio Chamber
Orchestra, Cleveland Pops, Cleveland Opera, Cleveland Lyric Opera,
Clevland-San Jose ballet, Ohio Ballet, Severence Hall (newly renovated),
TWO new stadiums and a new arena, Theater District, Tremont, the Flats,
Little Italy, Chinatown, Slavic Village. We've got the restaurants, the
plays, the concerts...and a small fraction of the rents....and gun laws not
yet as strict as NYC...and cops that don't ventilate unarmed civilians.
And I barely had to leave the county, let alone the state.
> >
> > New York (tri-state area): Yankees. Mets. Jets. Giants. Islanders.
> > Rangers. Knicks. Nets. Devils. Metropolitan Museum of Art.
> > Guggenheim Museum. Whitney Gallery of Art. Natural History Museum and
> > Hayden Planetarium. Opera of the City of New York. Metropolitan
> > Opera. Alice Tulley Hall. New York City Ballet. Broadway.
> > Off-Broadway. Fifth Avenue in Christmastime. Fifth Avenue anytime.
> > Empire State Building. World Trade Center. Rockefeller Center. Radio
> > City Music Hall. Times Square. Greenwich Village. SoHo. TriBeCa.
> > Chinatown. Little Italy. Wall Street. Restaurant Row. Zabar's to
> > the West. Eli's to the East. Central Park on a warm summer's day.
> > Wollman Rink on a cold winter's day. Tea at the Plaza. Statue of
> > Liberty. Ellis Island. Staten Island Ferry.
>
> Crime, air pollution, noise pollution, more crime, traffic
> jams, rude slobs, more crime, more air pollution, fear, more
> noise pollution, more crime, more rude slobs, crowds,
> recycled sewage for drinking water, dirt, filth, ugly
> neighborhoods, more crime, more noise pollution.
>
> You can have it, I'll keep my peaceful orchard with the
> birds singing and fresh air.
Sounds like my back yard in the Cleveland City Limits...my friends in
Brooklyn proudly showed off their "garden"...just enough shaded earth to
bury both of them.
AJB
>> Boy, that's the most non non-sequitur I've seen in quite some time.
>> And you can tell it to the Croats in Karlovac, Gospic, Zagreb,
>> Dubrovnik, Zadar, Knin, and especially Vukovar, whom your heroes, the
>> Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
>> that they were Croats. Then tell it to the Bosnians in Sarajevo,
>> Srebrenica, Gorazde, Jajce, and Banja Luka, whom your heroes, the
>> Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
>> that they were Muslim or Croat. Then tell the Slovenians, whom the
>> Serbs shot at for ten days for really no good reason. Then tell the
>> Kosovar Albanians, whom your heroes, the Serbs, repressed for 20 plus
>> years, then murdered and deported. If you're going to apologize for a
>> Communist dictator who has started and lost four wars in ten years,
>> then you are obviously a communist sympathizing sheep who is easily
>> taken in by communist propaganda. Real estate's really cheap in
>> Beograd, and I might suggest you look into it. I know for a fact that
>> Arkan's house is available. He was among the worst of the war
>> criminals, and I'm sure you wept when he was murdered because the
>> Serbian government is so goddamned innocent and pure and wonderful.
>Heh, heh! Methinks I have struck a tender nerve amongst
>Liberal sheep.
Ugh. Another one who finds it necessary to pepper his "argument" with
name-calling and labels.
>They spout the "no violence" line until they
>use it and then it is okay.
Umm... when exactly did I spout a "no violence" line?
>If you find fault with this
>hypocrisy they immediately rant about you being a supporter
>of whomever the target is.
You can like Milosevic all you want. Hell, go ahead and like Pol Pot and
Hitler, too. I really don't care.
>This ploy has been standard procedure to demonize the
>detractors of Bubber the War Hero.
The Clinton pseudonyms get more and more droll. What, pray, will the
supporters of GW Bush have to say about his evidently incomplete National
Guard record? Very, very little I suppose.
[snip]
>> >Crime
>> lowest in 30 years.
>
>Thanks to Guliani.
And Billy Bratton and Howard Safir. (It's Giuliani, BTW)
>> >air pollution
>> pales in comparison to LA or GWB's Houston.
>>
>Still gross.
Is that a technical term employed by the EPA or NY DEP?
>> >noise pollution
>> whatever that is.
>
>Obviously a poor slob who doesn't know what nature sounds
>like.
Awww. Slob. Isn't that precious.
>> >more crime
>> actually, less.
>
>Less than before, more than most.
Most what?
>>
>> >traffic jams
>> pales in comparison to LA.
>>
>Just watch the traffic chopper. We don't think LA is great
>either nor have we said so.
Who's "we", kimosabe?
>> >rude slobs
>> so you say.
>
>Met plenty.
Didn't realize NYC had the market on rudeness cornered. Hell, all I have to
do is scroll up to find some good ole down-home country rudeness, courtesy
of you.
[snip]
>> >recycled sewage for drinking water
>> Among the cleanest, purest drinking water in the nation. Piped down
>> from reservoirs upstate through a state-of-the-art system. Actually
>> tested cleaner than the tap water in Clearwater, Florida.
>
>By the people who work there and buy bottled water to drink.
By the NY DEP.
[snip]
>> >ugly neighborhoods
>> Like the UW Side, UE Side, Greenwich Village, Gramercy Park, Park Ave,
>> Chelsea, TriBeCa, SoHo?
>>
>Outnumbered by places where only police with a tank would go
>after dark.
Scaredy cat.
[snip]
>Trout lakes right down the road. Hundreds of lakes in a 30
>mile radius. Millions of trees, peaceful roads, friendly
>neighbors, I wouldn't trade for several million.
What do your friendly neighbors think of your unfriendliness online?
Chacun a son gout.
AJB
The evidently bigoted J. Randy Mitchell wrote in message
<3939259F...@mail.com>...
[snip]
>> >> People seem to have a problem distinguishing apples from oranges.
>> >
>> >Okay then, let me try something that even your feeble
>> >little tree-hugging mind can absorb.
>>
>> Ahh..name calling. The last resort of the desperate.
>>
>> >How many are killed by a crossbow or arrows?
Not quite a whole hell of a lot of people are killed by crossbow or arrows.
Except perhaps in predictable hunting accidents. ("I mistook Billy for a
deer" and such). It's otherwise been a long time since a deranged man
brandishing a crossbow and arrows has held schoolchildren at gunpoint.
>> >You're not raising hell about that, are you?
Doesn't seem to be much to raise hell about, does there?
>> >How many are killed by harpoons each year?
>> >
>> >You're not raising hell about that, are you?
Probably because the number of people killed by harpoons each year is
laughably small, if it occurs at all.
"Tonight at ten - a child brought his grandfather's harpoon to school today
and shot his teacher with it because the teacher had suspended him for
chewing gum." Nope. Doesn't ring a bell.
>> >How many people in the US are killed by tanks?
>> >
>> >You're not raising hell about that, are you?
That's just about the funniest idea yet. I'm sure, of course, that you
advocate private ownership of tanks pursuant to the second amendment because
the framers expected that people arm themselves with tanks to protect
against government tyranny, etc. etc. In short, another example you've
raised about which you expect me to "raise hell" when there is no reason,
factual and/or statistical to raise said hell.
>> >All of the above are instruments of death and two of them
>> >are readily available without background checks or any
>> >of the other commie rules you seem to think are necessary.
Funny I missed that "commie rules" phrase. That's as funny as the idea of
people driving around towns with tanks killing people for various reasons.
Well, I think you should personally supply guns to all the mentally ill and
clinically and criminally insane throughout the country. Don't forget the
homicidal maniacs in ward 7! Then, make sure and distribute a firearm to
each inmate being released from prison. Only then, I presume, will our
country truly be free.
>> >I know the difference between apples and oranges and
>> >most any other fruits. I also know when a fruit thinks
>> >more gun laws are the answer, but wouldn't know which
>> >end of a pistol was the barrel and which was the handle.
>>
>> Thanks for calling me a fruit. Since you resort to name-calling in an
>> attempt to make an otherwise valid point, you can blow me.
>
>Good answer.
>In other words...you can't dispute what I'm saying so
>you cop out on me. That's typical.
Ok. I respond to your absolutely ludicrous and simplistic "counter-points"
above.
>You know I made a valid point and that's why you won't
>respond. You don't have the balls to admit when someone
>else is right.
A. You wouldn't know a valid point if it were on the end of an arrow or
harpoon.
B. I have plenty of balls to admit when someone else is right. You're
wrong, unfortunately. And your arguments are childlike and simplistic, and
you are a rude individual who can't make an argument without basically
calling someone who disagrees with you a faggot.
>Admit it, you've been outdone and proven wrong.
>
>If you can't run with the big dogs then you better stay on
>the porch or you'll get bit again
And a good day to you, too, my deluded and somewhat homophobic pal.
AJB
Lone Haranguer wrote in message <393913D6...@uswest.net>...
[snip]
>> >Citation, please? I have been an NRA member (currently GOA member) and
have
>> >never seen this.
>>
>> Their opposition to and lobbying against the Brady Bill, the primary
>> purpose of which is to prohibit the sale of firearms to felons and the
>> insane.
>>
>Ummmm! You forgot to mention that it was the NRA who
>INSISTED that the NICS be put in place. The Democrats
>fought it tooth and nail, finally agreed to sunset the 7 day
>waiting period after 5 years and phase in NICS. No sooner
>did the phase out day get close the Democrats tried to
>renege and sink the NICS program. Also MANY states already
>had the background check and waiting period (MN since 1980)
>and it had no effect on crime.
So, the NRA demanded that Brady be modified to an instant background check
as opposed to a waiting period. I guess the NRA thinks its members to
disorganized to be able to plan ahead when planning a firearms purchase.
In any event, here's a link to the an NRA page where they badmouth the Brady
law. http://www.nraila.org/research/20000411-RegistrationLicensing-001.shtml
and this: http://www.nraila.org/research/19990728-WaitingPeriods-001.html
Still say NRA supports it?
As far as the Second Amendment's interpretation, check out Massachusetts'
Declaration of Rights, which preceded the Constitution:
"The people have a right to keep and bear arms _for the common defense._ And
as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be
maintained without the consent of the legislature, and the military power
shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and
be governed by it." Declaration of Rights, Article 17.
Interesting, isn't it?
>The 1968 gun control act
>already prohibited felons and the insane from buying guns.
I wonder what the NRA's position on that was.
>Keep posting proof of your ignorance in these matters. It
>just shows what a bunch of mindless twits make up the
>gun-grabbing fraternity.
Thank you for calling me a mindless twit. It makes me contemplate the words
to describe your wit and wisdom.
AJB
jaq...@en.com wrote in message <39394a1e$0$20...@news.erinet.com>...
[snip]
>> >
>> > Tell it to the Metropolitan London Constabulary.
>
>I've heard that the Brits are arming their cops at a rapid rate...all those
>automatic weapons coming into the country since the gun ban.
Do they have SWAT teams? Sure. But in a country that's been plagued by,
among other things, IRA terrorism for 30 years, the street cops are still
unarmed.
[snip]
>> >If the kid takes the gun and sprays his classroom with it,
>> > you're going to jail. No mental illness. No criminal record of
>> > violence.
>
>We've got those laws now. They haven't helped. But your thinking is useful
>to the powers that be. Lots of ways we could extend this principle:
>1. Your kid closes a drug deal using your home phone....cops seize the
house.
>2. Your son rapes somebody...castrate the father
>3. Your kid cheats on a test...revoke the parents' degrees.
>4. Kid gets a ticket...points go on the parents' plates.
1. Cops do seize the house when a kid closes a drug deal on the home phone.
2. I don't see how the father's dick is involved in the son's rape. The
father's negligently stored dick wasn't the instrumentality in the crime.
3. The parent's degrees are irrelevant to the crime (if it is a crime).
4. Parents' licenses are not instrumentalities of or in any way related to
the crime.
So for three out of your four examples, there's no nexus between the thing
you propose the government seize, etc. and the commission of the child's
wrong.
On the other hand, if there's a child in the house and Uncle Jimmy leaves
his 9mm on the kitchen table one morning, knowing that that's where the
child will be eating his Life cereal that morning, Uncle Jimmy shares the
rap for anything the kid does with that gun - including accidentally
shooting himself.
>Yes this is a really good way to teach children to be responsible for
>themselves. How's this: "kid takes the gun and sprays his
>classroom"...government puts the kid to sleep like a dog.
Only extremely reactionary Southern states have ever dared to execute minors
for crimes. This is partly due to the fact that minors are presumed to be
unable to muster up criminal intent. For kids under 7, it's an irrebuttable
presumption. From 7-18, it depends on the kid, the crime and the
premeditation (case-by-case). The older, more brutal and more thought-out,
the better chance the kid's going to be tried as an adult.
[snip]
>> > I don't have to. If you don't have zoning, then I'd be in court suing
>> > them for damages relating to the nuisance they are creating, and
>> > asking for injunctive relief abating the nuisance. Why bother if
>> > zoning'll nip it in the bud?
>
>Because zoning can do too many other things unrelated to justice.
So can lawsuits, and it's one or the other, not neither.
>> > Because when one uses force, he must use only so much force as is
>> > necessary to remedy the wrong / proportionality. Therefore, like I
>> > said, if all it takes is a stubbed toe for a slave to escape, that's
>> > all that is morally wrong. If the slave's freedom is blocked by
>> > deadly force, then it is morally right for him to react with equal or
>> > greater force. He doesn't, however, have a right to kill the
>> > wrongdoer without more.
>
>Show me a slave whose freedom is not blocked with deadly force somewhere
>along the line. I assume that you think the Southern slave patrols were
>unarmed??
Circular now. I already said - slave threatened with force, slave may
morally use force to effect his freedom.
[snip]
>> > >> > Also
>> > >> >> pretty respectful of people's speech rights.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >How?
>> > >>
>> > >> Because the City's community boards allow for debate and input from
>> > >> all sides of a particular issue.
>> > >
>> > >In other words, you can say what you want in NYC, as long as your
neighbors
>> > >approve. How wonderful!
>> >
>> > You can say anything you want at all, under the sun. The neighbors
>> > debate and decide. If the majority decides against a particular
>> > project, it's over. So, you can say whatever you want in NYC,
>> > regardless of whether your neighbors approve. You cannot, however,
>> > build whatever you want in NYC unless your neighbors approve. And I
>> > didn't see anything in the bill of rights concerning freedom of
>> > building.
>
>Ah, but nobody has been talking about building anything, just using
>existing retail space for a retail purpose. Ergo, it's out of the perview
>of zoning.
Nice try, but you didn't get me on a technicality there. The community
boards debate not only buildings, but also businesses if there is a
licensing aspect involved (liquor, food, etc.)
[snip]
Sounds like my backyard in the Boston city limits. Also sounds like Kew
Gardens, Queens, Riverdale, the Bronx, City Island, the Bronx, Douglaston,
Queens, all of which are within NYC limits and a short subway or bus ride
away from the most amazing places on Earth.
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Boy, that's the most non non-sequitur I've seen in quite some time.
> >> And you can tell it to the Croats in Karlovac, Gospic, Zagreb,
> >> Dubrovnik, Zadar, Knin, and especially Vukovar, whom your heroes, the
> >> Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
> >> that they were Croats. Then tell it to the Bosnians in Sarajevo,
> >> Srebrenica, Gorazde, Jajce, and Banja Luka, whom your heroes, the
> >> Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
> >> that they were Muslim or Croat. Then tell the Slovenians, whom the
> >> Serbs shot at for ten days for really no good reason. Then tell the
> >> Kosovar Albanians, whom your heroes, the Serbs, repressed for 20 plus
> >> years, then murdered and deported. If you're going to apologize for a
> >> Communist dictator who has started and lost four wars in ten years,
> >> then you are obviously a communist sympathizing sheep who is easily
> >> taken in by communist propaganda. Real estate's really cheap in
> >> Beograd, and I might suggest you look into it. I know for a fact that
> >> Arkan's house is available. He was among the worst of the war
> >> criminals, and I'm sure you wept when he was murdered because the
> >> Serbian government is so goddamned innocent and pure and wonderful.
>
> >Heh, heh! Methinks I have struck a tender nerve amongst
> >Liberal sheep.
>
> Ugh. Another one who finds it necessary to pepper his "argument" with
> name-calling and labels.
>
Methinks I have struck a sensitive nerve amongst Clinton
Apologists.
> >They spout the "no violence" line until they
> >use it and then it is okay.
>
> Umm... when exactly did I spout a "no violence" line?
>> I also reject the idea that order and civic society can
only be
> >> >> achieved by the barrel of a gun. Or guns plural.
> >>
I would say this qualifies. Order and civic society can't
be achieved by the barrel of a gun but you approve of
Tomahawk missiles and laser guided bombs.
>
> >If you find fault with this
> >hypocrisy they immediately rant about you being a supporter
> >of whomever the target is.
>
> You can like Milosevic all you want. Hell, go ahead and like Pol Pot and
> Hitler, too. I really don't care.
>
Thanks for making my point.
> >This ploy has been standard procedure to demonize the
> >detractors of Bubber the War Hero.
>
> The Clinton pseudonyms get more and more droll. What, pray, will the
> supporters of GW Bush have to say about his evidently incomplete National
> Guard record? Very, very little I suppose.
Were we discussing GW?
> [snip]
> >> >Crime
> >> lowest in 30 years.
> >
> >Thanks to Guliani.
> And Billy Bratton and Howard Safir. (It's Giuliani, BTW)
Thanks. At any rate a determined effort to enforce EXISTING
laws worked for Giuliani and in Richmond VA yet Democrats
don't blame the people who didn't enforce the law, instead
they ask for more laws. Either their brains aren't working
or they are in denial of reality.
>
> >> >air pollution
> >> pales in comparison to LA or GWB's Houston.
> >>
> >Still gross.
>
> Is that a technical term employed by the EPA or NY DEP?
>
For those who don't like breathing exhaust fumes instead of
air.
> >> >noise pollution
> >> whatever that is.
> >
> >Obviously a poor slob who doesn't know what nature sounds
> >like.
>
> Awww. Slob. Isn't that precious.
Sorry, my feelings for people who don't appreciate the gifts
of nature.
>
> >> >more crime
> >> actually, less.
> >
> >Less than before, more than most.
>
> Most what?
>
Cities, places.
> >>
> >> >traffic jams
> >> pales in comparison to LA.
> >>
> >Just watch the traffic chopper. We don't think LA is great
> >either nor have we said so.
>
> Who's "we", kimosabe?
We rural dwellers.
>
> >> >rude slobs
> >> so you say.
> >
> >Met plenty.
>
> Didn't realize NYC had the market on rudeness cornered. Hell, all I have to
> do is scroll up to find some good ole down-home country rudeness, courtesy
> of you.
>
Dishonest debaters get what they deserve.
> [snip]
> >> >recycled sewage for drinking water
> >> Among the cleanest, purest drinking water in the nation. Piped down
> >> from reservoirs upstate through a state-of-the-art system. Actually
> >> tested cleaner than the tap water in Clearwater, Florida.
> >
> >By the people who work there and buy bottled water to drink.
>
> By the NY DEP.
>
Whose jobs depend on people believing them.
> [snip]
>
> >> >ugly neighborhoods
> >> Like the UW Side, UE Side, Greenwich Village, Gramercy Park, Park Ave,
> >> Chelsea, TriBeCa, SoHo?
> >>
> >Outnumbered by places where only police with a tank would go
> >after dark.
>
> Scaredy cat.
>
Send us pictures YOU have taken there.
> [snip]
>
> >Trout lakes right down the road. Hundreds of lakes in a 30
> >mile radius. Millions of trees, peaceful roads, friendly
> >neighbors, I wouldn't trade for several million.
>
> What do your friendly neighbors think of your unfriendliness online?
>
They thought you had it coming.
> snip.
Likewise.
LZ
J. Randy Mitchell
> Not quite a whole hell of a lot of people are killed by crossbow or arrows.
> Except perhaps in predictable hunting accidents. ("I mistook Billy for a
> deer" and such). It's otherwise been a long time since a deranged man
> brandishing a crossbow and arrows has held schoolchildren at gunpoint.
>
And the incidents of a anyone holding a class hostage
with a gun has dramatically dropped in the past twenty
years. You might hear more about it due to Columbine
and the gun control pussies in the liberal press, but
look at the statistics.
> Probably because the number of people killed by harpoons each year is
> laughably small, if it occurs at all.
> "Tonight at ten - a child brought his grandfather's harpoon to school today
> and shot his teacher with it because the teacher had suspended him for
> chewing gum." Nope. Doesn't ring a bell.
It's no more ridiculous than your claim. Harpoons were made
for killing. That's what you said about guns. I was illustrating
how asinine that sounds.
> >> >How many people in the US are killed by tanks?
> >> >
> >> >You're not raising hell about that, are you?
>
> That's just about the funniest idea yet. I'm sure, of course, that you
> advocate private ownership of tanks pursuant to the second amendment because
> the framers expected that people arm themselves with tanks to protect
> against government tyranny, etc. etc. In short, another example you've
> raised about which you expect me to "raise hell" when there is no reason,
> factual and/or statistical to raise said hell.
Now you're trying to read my mind, eh?
As I said before, using a tank as an example is no more
ludicrous as your statement about guns are made
for killing, so you ASSUME that's all they will be used for.
BUZZZZ...Wrong, Sparky, but thanks for playing.
> >> >All of the above are instruments of death and two of them
> >> >are readily available without background checks or any
> >> >of the other commie rules you seem to think are necessary.
>
> Funny I missed that "commie rules" phrase. That's as funny as the idea of
> people driving around towns with tanks killing people for various reasons.
> Well, I think you should personally supply guns to all the mentally ill and
> clinically and criminally insane throughout the country. Don't forget the
> homicidal maniacs in ward 7! Then, make sure and distribute a firearm to
> each inmate being released from prison. Only then, I presume, will our
> country truly be free.
>
You can't argue about something so you think a smart-assed
remark like the one above helps your cause? You have no
credibility in this newsgroup and you keep being put in your
place, but you keep coming back for more. Now, you have no
ammunition to work with, so you have resorted to the simply
making things up.
> >> >I know the difference between apples and oranges and
> >> >most any other fruits. I also know when a fruit thinks
> >> >more gun laws are the answer, but wouldn't know which
> >> >end of a pistol was the barrel and which was the handle.
> >>
> >> Thanks for calling me a fruit. Since you resort to name-calling in an
> >> attempt to make an otherwise valid point, you can blow me.
> >
> >Good answer.
> >In other words...you can't dispute what I'm saying so
> >you cop out on me. That's typical.
>
> Ok. I respond to your absolutely ludicrous and simplistic "counter-points"
> above.
>
Is that what that was? I sure wish you would point out where you
responded intelligently. Oh, that's right...you preferred to play
adolescent games instead.
>
> >You know I made a valid point and that's why you won't
> >respond. You don't have the balls to admit when someone
> >else is right.
>
> A. You wouldn't know a valid point if it were on the end of an arrow or
> harpoon.
> B. I have plenty of balls to admit when someone else is right. You're
> wrong, unfortunately. And your arguments are childlike and simplistic, and
> you are a rude individual who can't make an argument without basically
> calling someone who disagrees with you a faggot.
I never called you a faggot.
No...you don't have the balls or the intellect to even post
in this newsgroup. You have no credibility. I have seen
the other posts to you and I see that I'm not the only
one that can see how your uninformed opinion doesn't
count for very much here.
>
> >Admit it, you've been outdone and proven wrong.
By several people.
Go take some more of your medication and don't forget
to turn off your mama's computer when you get through
playing a grown up.
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote in message <393913D6...@uswest.net>...
> [snip]
>
> >> >Citation, please? I have been an NRA member (currently GOA member) and
> have
> >> >never seen this.
> >>
> >> Their opposition to and lobbying against the Brady Bill, the primary
> >> purpose of which is to prohibit the sale of firearms to felons and the
> >> insane.
> >>
> >Ummmm! You forgot to mention that it was the NRA who
> >INSISTED that the NICS be put in place. The Democrats
> >fought it tooth and nail, finally agreed to sunset the 7 day
> >waiting period after 5 years and phase in NICS. No sooner
> >did the phase out day get close the Democrats tried to
> >renege and sink the NICS program. Also MANY states already
> >had the background check and waiting period (MN since 1980)
> >and it had no effect on crime.
>
> So, the NRA demanded that Brady be modified to an instant background check
> as opposed to a waiting period. I guess the NRA thinks its members to
> disorganized to be able to plan ahead when planning a firearms purchase.
>
Why make two trips when one will do? With technology
available the NICS makes it possible to arrest the felons
when they attempt the purchase. However this administration
fails to enforce the most important advantage of Brady, the
ability to arrest a felon in the commission of another
crime. Why do you defend this nonsense?
> In any event, here's a link to the an NRA page where they badmouth the Brady
> law. http://www.nraila.org/research/20000411-RegistrationLicensing-001.shtml
>
> and this: http://www.nraila.org/research/19990728-WaitingPeriods-001.html
>
> Still say NRA supports it?
>
The Brady law was intended to harass. The proof is that the
felons violating it were not prosecuted. The 1968 law
already prohibited the purchase of firearms by felons and
nut cases.
> As far as the Second Amendment's interpretation, check out Massachusetts'
> Declaration of Rights, which preceded the Constitution:
>
> "The people have a right to keep and bear arms _for the common defense._ And
> as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be
> maintained without the consent of the legislature, and the military power
> shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and
> be governed by it." Declaration of Rights, Article 17.
>
> Interesting, isn't it?
Not very.
>
> >The 1968 gun control act
> >already prohibited felons and the insane from buying guns.
>
> I wonder what the NRA's position on that was.
There were a lot of stupid provisions, some of which were
later repealed. It didn't reduce crime and certainly did
nothing to prevent assassinations.
>
> >Keep posting proof of your ignorance in these matters. It
> >just shows what a bunch of mindless twits make up the
> >gun-grabbing fraternity.
>
> Thank you for calling me a mindless twit. It makes me contemplate the words
> to describe your wit and wisdom.
I call them as I see them.
LZ
J. Randy Mitchell
> What do your friendly neighbors think of your unfriendliness online?
>
> They thought you had it coming.
Bingo! We certainly do.
None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
AJB
<mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>AJB wrote:
>
>> Not quite a whole hell of a lot of people are killed by crossbow or arrows.
>> Except perhaps in predictable hunting accidents. ("I mistook Billy for a
>> deer" and such). It's otherwise been a long time since a deranged man
>> brandishing a crossbow and arrows has held schoolchildren at gunpoint.
>>
>
>And the incidents of a anyone holding a class hostage
>with a gun has dramatically dropped in the past twenty
>years. You might hear more about it due to Columbine
>and the gun control pussies in the liberal press, but
>look at the statistics.
Which statistics would those be? I don't recall reading about a spate
of school shootings, but maybe you have information concerning same
in, say, the 20s, 30s, 40s or 50s?
>> Probably because the number of people killed by harpoons each year is
>> laughably small, if it occurs at all.
>> "Tonight at ten - a child brought his grandfather's harpoon to school today
>> and shot his teacher with it because the teacher had suspended him for
>> chewing gum." Nope. Doesn't ring a bell.
>
>It's no more ridiculous than your claim. Harpoons were made
>for killing. That's what you said about guns. I was illustrating
>how asinine that sounds.
Harpoons were made for killing sea creatures. Are you saying guns
aren't made to kill things? Then what is their purpose, and why ARE
you taking so much target practice?
>> >> >How many people in the US are killed by tanks?
>> >> >
>> >> >You're not raising hell about that, are you?
>>
>> That's just about the funniest idea yet. I'm sure, of course, that you
>> advocate private ownership of tanks pursuant to the second amendment because
>> the framers expected that people arm themselves with tanks to protect
>> against government tyranny, etc. etc. In short, another example you've
>> raised about which you expect me to "raise hell" when there is no reason,
>> factual and/or statistical to raise said hell.
>
>Now you're trying to read my mind, eh?
Not necessarily, but it's quite telling that you don't disagree with
the statement that purports to read your mind.
>As I said before, using a tank as an example is no more
>ludicrous as your statement about guns are made
>for killing, so you ASSUME that's all they will be used for.
>
>BUZZZZ...Wrong, Sparky, but thanks for playing.
Tee hee.
>> >> >All of the above are instruments of death and two of them
>> >> >are readily available without background checks or any
>> >> >of the other commie rules you seem to think are necessary.
>>
>> Funny I missed that "commie rules" phrase. That's as funny as the idea of
>> people driving around towns with tanks killing people for various reasons.
>> Well, I think you should personally supply guns to all the mentally ill and
>> clinically and criminally insane throughout the country. Don't forget the
>> homicidal maniacs in ward 7! Then, make sure and distribute a firearm to
>> each inmate being released from prison. Only then, I presume, will our
>> country truly be free.
>>
>
>You can't argue about something so you think a smart-assed
>remark like the one above helps your cause?
What cause? You're either for gun control or you're not. You've made
it evident that you're not, and you called me a fruit for being for
it, and you've referred to them as commie gun control laws and that
gun control advocates are pussies. So, excuse me for leaping to the
conclusion that you are anti-gun control. So, if you are against gun
control, one must presume that you are for a well-armed populace and
that every citizen, regardless of class, background, education,
training, criminal history or sanity, has an inviolable right to own
and carry firearms. Unless, of course, you're proposing that a middle
ground exists, which you're not.
>You have no
>credibility in this newsgroup and you keep being put in your
>place, but you keep coming back for more. Now, you have no
>ammunition to work with, so you have resorted to the simply
>making things up.
Nice choice of words, ammunition. Otherwise, I consider myself very
fortunate to be able to live my life happily and healthfully without
seeking or requiring a newsgroup's opinion of my "credibility." The
day I seek to have a newsgroup population find me credible or
otherwise to approve of my postings is the day the sun stops rising.
You, on the other hand, resort to name-calling and otherwise being an
all-around jackass in your quest for that grail of " credibility" in
the hallowed territory of a newsgroup, and I wish you luck in your
quest.
>> >> >I know the difference between apples and oranges and
>> >> >most any other fruits. I also know when a fruit thinks
>> >> >more gun laws are the answer, but wouldn't know which
>> >> >end of a pistol was the barrel and which was the handle.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for calling me a fruit. Since you resort to name-calling in an
>> >> attempt to make an otherwise valid point, you can blow me.
>> >
>> >Good answer.
>> >In other words...you can't dispute what I'm saying so
>> >you cop out on me. That's typical.
>>
>> Ok. I respond to your absolutely ludicrous and simplistic "counter-points"
>> above.
>
>Is that what that was? I sure wish you would point out where you
>responded intelligently. Oh, that's right...you preferred to play
>adolescent games instead.
Whatever you say, charlie. You don't have to like my responses, you
don't have to agree with them and you can think they're as silly as
you like. The point remains that you called me a fruit for really no
good reason, and that plus calling people commies and pussies is where
your arguments tend to go when you run out of "facts." Sorry the
sarcasm upsets you so.
>> >You know I made a valid point and that's why you won't
>> >respond. You don't have the balls to admit when someone
>> >else is right.
>>
>> A. You wouldn't know a valid point if it were on the end of an arrow or
>> harpoon.
>> B. I have plenty of balls to admit when someone else is right. You're
>> wrong, unfortunately. And your arguments are childlike and simplistic, and
>> you are a rude individual who can't make an argument without basically
>> calling someone who disagrees with you a faggot.
>
>I never called you a faggot.
No, but you called me a synonymous fruit, and it doesn't make you a
better person not to have used the term faggot and it doesn't bring
your angry tirades any closer to that credibility you treasure.
>No...you don't have the balls or the intellect to even post
>in this newsgroup.
Umm. I wonder what this all is, then. Also, what is this fascination
you have with one's balls? Why are you concerned with what I do and
don't have the balls to do?
>You have no credibility. I have seen
>the other posts to you and I see that I'm not the only
>one that can see how your uninformed opinion doesn't
>count for very much here.
Again, the day I give a flying fuck what my opinion "counts for" in a
newsgroup is the day I check myself in to Bellevue.
>> >Admit it, you've been outdone and proven wrong.
>
>By several people.
Responding to yourself?
>Go take some more of your medication and don't forget
>to turn off your mama's computer when you get through
>playing a grown up.
Spoken like a true "grown-up". Wanna call me a fruit, commie or pussy
now? I think it's high time for some more of your ingenius,
credibility-building points.
AJB
How inspirational. This coming from the guy who called me a fruit
because I dared to disagree with him.
AJB
wrote:
>
>
>AJB wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Boy, that's the most non non-sequitur I've seen in quite some time.
>> >> And you can tell it to the Croats in Karlovac, Gospic, Zagreb,
>> >> Dubrovnik, Zadar, Knin, and especially Vukovar, whom your heroes, the
>> >> Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
>> >> that they were Croats. Then tell it to the Bosnians in Sarajevo,
>> >> Srebrenica, Gorazde, Jajce, and Banja Luka, whom your heroes, the
>> >> Serbs, bombed, murdered, executed, and deported for the simple reason
>> >> that they were Muslim or Croat. Then tell the Slovenians, whom the
>> >> Serbs shot at for ten days for really no good reason. Then tell the
>> >> Kosovar Albanians, whom your heroes, the Serbs, repressed for 20 plus
>> >> years, then murdered and deported. If you're going to apologize for a
>> >> Communist dictator who has started and lost four wars in ten years,
>> >> then you are obviously a communist sympathizing sheep who is easily
>> >> taken in by communist propaganda. Real estate's really cheap in
>> >> Beograd, and I might suggest you look into it. I know for a fact that
>> >> Arkan's house is available. He was among the worst of the war
>> >> criminals, and I'm sure you wept when he was murdered because the
>> >> Serbian government is so goddamned innocent and pure and wonderful.
>>
>> >Heh, heh! Methinks I have struck a tender nerve amongst
>> >Liberal sheep.
>>
>> Ugh. Another one who finds it necessary to pepper his "argument" with
>> name-calling and labels.
>Methinks I have struck a sensitive nerve amongst Clinton
>Apologists.
Actually, you struck a sensitive nerve with a Croatian-American who
personally experienced many members of his own family suffer through
months of Serbian shelling and bombing. What my views on Clinton
(which I haven't raised) have to do with your defense of the communist
Serbian dictatorship is beyond me.
[snip]
>
>I would say this qualifies. Order and civic society can't
>be achieved by the barrel of a gun but you approve of
>Tomahawk missiles and laser guided bombs.
When used against rogue states who forment, start and cause war and
genocide in neighboring states? In Europe? Absolutely I do, because
the United States still remains the most significant European power
even though it isn't even located there.
>> >If you find fault with this
>> >hypocrisy they immediately rant about you being a supporter
>> >of whomever the target is.
>>
>> You can like Milosevic all you want. Hell, go ahead and like Pol Pot and
>> Hitler, too. I really don't care.
>>
>Thanks for making my point.
If you're not against them, you're for them. Deal with it.
>> >This ploy has been standard procedure to demonize the
>> >detractors of Bubber the War Hero.
>>
>> The Clinton pseudonyms get more and more droll. What, pray, will the
>> supporters of GW Bush have to say about his evidently incomplete National
>> Guard record? Very, very little I suppose.
>
>Were we discussing GW?
Nope. Didn't say we were, either, did I? I'm just curious what
you'll call GW when you don't have "Bubber the War Hero" to make up
cutesy names about anymore.
>
>> [snip]
>> >> >Crime
>> >> lowest in 30 years.
>> >
>> >Thanks to Guliani.
>> And Billy Bratton and Howard Safir. (It's Giuliani, BTW)
>
>Thanks. At any rate a determined effort to enforce EXISTING
>laws worked for Giuliani and in Richmond VA yet Democrats
>don't blame the people who didn't enforce the law, instead
>they ask for more laws. Either their brains aren't working
>or they are in denial of reality.
New York has always been excellent and merciless in enforcing existing
state statutes concerning gun control. That's partly because NYC has
had the same DA - Morgenthau - for as long as I can remember. As far
as Richmond's program, it's excellent and I think you're right, it
SHOULD be expanded to and used in other parts of the country - in
every part of the country. I believe that part of the reason why
that's not happening is because the ATF would be involved in the
referrals of Brady violations, and the ATF has been really hammered
since Waco. Remember - it was LaPierre who referred to the ATF as
jackbooted thugs.
[snip]
>> >> >more crime
>> >> actually, less.
>> >
>> >Less than before, more than most.
>>
>> Most what?
>>
>Cities, places.
I think New Orleans, Washington DC and Richmond, VA have the highest
per capita murder rates in the nation. Baltimore's up there, too.
[snip]
>> Didn't realize NYC had the market on rudeness cornered. Hell, all I have to
>> do is scroll up to find some good ole down-home country rudeness, courtesy
>> of you.
>>
>Dishonest debaters get what they deserve.
Dishonesty? Where? I don't agree with you, so I'm a dishonest
debater because I haven't "admitted" that you've "won"? God forbid
someone hold a different opinion than you.
[snip]
>> >Outnumbered by places where only police with a tank would go
>> >after dark.
>>
>> Scaredy cat.
>>
>Send us pictures YOU have taken there.
Didn't take any. Not very picturesque. But good people still live in
those places, and they're a lot better off than they were even 7 years
ago.
[snip]
>> What do your friendly neighbors think of your unfriendliness online?
>>
>They thought you had it coming.
Sorry they don't have minds open enough to comprehend that not
everyone has to agree with them to deserve to be treated with a
modicum of respect. If that's how you folks treat people with
differing opinions, you can have your rural life.
AJB
wrote:
[snip]
>> >None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
>>
>> How inspirational. This coming from the guy who called me a fruit
>> because I dared to disagree with him.
>
>Take it as a compliment. The truth would be a lot more
>derogatory.
That's because personal attacks are your last resort and the best you
and your buddy can do. Cheerio!
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:00:07 -0500, "J. Randy Mitchell"
> <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> >> What do your friendly neighbors think of your unfriendliness online?
> >>
> >> They thought you had it coming.
> >
> >Bingo! We certainly do.
> >
> >None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
>
> How inspirational. This coming from the guy who called me a fruit
> because I dared to disagree with him.
Take it as a compliment. The truth would be a lot more
derogatory.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Ummmm! What defense?
> [snip]
> >
> >I would say this qualifies. Order and civic society can't
> >be achieved by the barrel of a gun but you approve of
> >Tomahawk missiles and laser guided bombs.
>
> When used against rogue states who forment, start and cause war and
> genocide in neighboring states? In Europe? Absolutely I do, because
> the United States still remains the most significant European power
> even though it isn't even located there.
Then we should have taken it to the UN. As a UN member and
supposedly a civilized nation we did the same or worse than
Milosevic.
According to the Hague Convention (which we signed) we are
technically war criminals, no better than old Slobo. The
fact that we have leveraged the Tribunal to let us off the
hook really doesn't change anything except to add judge
bribing and jury tampering to the crimes.
> >> >If you find fault with this
> >> >hypocrisy they immediately rant about you being a supporter
> >> >of whomever the target is.
> >>
> >> You can like Milosevic all you want. Hell, go ahead and like Pol Pot and
> >> Hitler, too. I really don't care.
> >>
> >Thanks for making my point.
>
> If you're not against them, you're for them. Deal with it.
>
One can be "against" something without condoning a greater
evil. Trade in that childlike brain for the grownup model.
> >> >This ploy has been standard procedure to demonize the
> >> >detractors of Bubber the War Hero.
> >>
> >> The Clinton pseudonyms get more and more droll. What, pray, will the
> >> supporters of GW Bush have to say about his evidently incomplete National
> >> Guard record? Very, very little I suppose.
> >
> >Were we discussing GW?
>
> Nope. Didn't say we were, either, did I? I'm just curious what
> you'll call GW when you don't have "Bubber the War Hero" to make up
> cutesy names about anymore.
>
There are a whole list of cutesy names to pin on Bubber.
He's earned them all. The great prevaricator, the great
emoter, the great philanderer, the great ejaculator, the
list is endless.
> >
> >> [snip]
> >> >> >Crime
> >> >> lowest in 30 years.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks to Guliani.
> >> And Billy Bratton and Howard Safir. (It's Giuliani, BTW)
> >
> >Thanks. At any rate a determined effort to enforce EXISTING
> >laws worked for Giuliani and in Richmond VA yet Democrats
> >don't blame the people who didn't enforce the law, instead
> >they ask for more laws. Either their brains aren't working
> >or they are in denial of reality.
>
> New York has always been excellent and merciless in enforcing existing
> state statutes concerning gun control. That's partly because NYC has
> had the same DA - Morgenthau - for as long as I can remember. As far
> as Richmond's program, it's excellent and I think you're right, it
> SHOULD be expanded to and used in other parts of the country - in
> every part of the country. I believe that part of the reason why
> that's not happening is because the ATF would be involved in the
> referrals of Brady violations, and the ATF has been really hammered
> since Waco. Remember - it was LaPierre who referred to the ATF as
> jackbooted thugs.
>
And he was right. They earned the title.
> [snip]
> >> >> >more crime
> >> >> actually, less.
> >> >
> >> >Less than before, more than most.
> >>
> >> Most what?
> >>
> >Cities, places.
>
> I think New Orleans, Washington DC and Richmond, VA have the highest
> per capita murder rates in the nation. Baltimore's up there, too.
>
More than most is still appropriate then.
> [snip]
> >> Didn't realize NYC had the market on rudeness cornered. Hell, all I have to
> >> do is scroll up to find some good ole down-home country rudeness, courtesy
> >> of you.
> >>
> >Dishonest debaters get what they deserve.
>
> Dishonesty? Where? I don't agree with you, so I'm a dishonest
> debater because I haven't "admitted" that you've "won"? God forbid
> someone hold a different opinion than you.
>
Demonizing when your idol's clay feet are exposed.
> [snip]
>
> >> >Outnumbered by places where only police with a tank would go
> >> >after dark.
> >>
> >> Scaredy cat.
> >>
> >Send us pictures YOU have taken there.
>
> Didn't take any. Not very picturesque. But good people still live in
> those places, and they're a lot better off than they were even 7 years
> ago.
>
When Democratic mayors WERE NOT enforcing the laws.
> [snip]
>
> >> What do your friendly neighbors think of your unfriendliness online?
> >>
> >They thought you had it coming.
>
> Sorry they don't have minds open enough to comprehend that not
> everyone has to agree with them to deserve to be treated with a
> modicum of respect. If that's how you folks treat people with
> differing opinions, you can have your rural life.
They find folks like you supercilious and arrogant. In their
experience when city folk move out to a rural lifestyle they
are as ignorant as toddlers. It usually takes them 6-12
months before they admit this, even to themselves. The
neighborhood is crawling with professors who are so smart it
takes them 6 weeks to erect a mailbox.
LZ
AJB
wrote:
>> >> >> Boy, that's the most non non-sequitur I've seen in quite some time.
Where you decry the NATO bombing of a rogue state that is more
dangerous to European security than Iraq, Syria, North Korea and Cuba
combined.
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >I would say this qualifies. Order and civic society can't
>> >be achieved by the barrel of a gun but you approve of
>> >Tomahawk missiles and laser guided bombs.
>>
>> When used against rogue states who forment, start and cause war and
>> genocide in neighboring states? In Europe? Absolutely I do, because
>> the United States still remains the most significant European power
>> even though it isn't even located there.
>
>Then we should have taken it to the UN. As a UN member and
>supposedly a civilized nation we did the same or worse than
>Milosevic.
The UN is a salon.
>According to the Hague Convention (which we signed) we are
>technically war criminals, no better than old Slobo.
How so?
>The
>fact that we have leveraged the Tribunal to let us off the
>hook really doesn't change anything except to add judge
>bribing and jury tampering to the crimes.
Which judge was bribed by whom for how much?
There is no jury on the ICTY.
[snip]
>> If you're not against them, you're for them. Deal with it.
>>
>One can be "against" something without condoning a greater
>evil. Trade in that childlike brain for the grownup model.
Really, now. It's a greater evil to wage war to stop a Hitler than it
is for Hitler to annihilate 6 million Jews? You can't possibly
believe that. If you do, I'm truly sorry for you.
[snip]
>> Nope. Didn't say we were, either, did I? I'm just curious what
>> you'll call GW when you don't have "Bubber the War Hero" to make up
>> cutesy names about anymore.
>>
>There are a whole list of cutesy names to pin on Bubber.
>He's earned them all. The great prevaricator, the great
>emoter, the great philanderer, the great ejaculator, the
>list is endless.
What, oh what will you do come November?
[snip]
>> New York has always been excellent and merciless in enforcing existing
>> state statutes concerning gun control. That's partly because NYC has
>> had the same DA - Morgenthau - for as long as I can remember. As far
>> as Richmond's program, it's excellent and I think you're right, it
>> SHOULD be expanded to and used in other parts of the country - in
>> every part of the country. I believe that part of the reason why
>> that's not happening is because the ATF would be involved in the
>> referrals of Brady violations, and the ATF has been really hammered
>> since Waco. Remember - it was LaPierre who referred to the ATF as
>> jackbooted thugs.
>>
>And he was right. They earned the title.
Ha ha. So, you WOULDN'T want them referring Brady cases to the DOJ
for prosecution...WOULD you?
[snip]
>> I think New Orleans, Washington DC and Richmond, VA have the highest
>> per capita murder rates in the nation. Baltimore's up there, too.
>>
>More than most is still appropriate then.
When you have more people than most, it follows that you will
experience more problems than most in raw numbers. The real test
comes in per capita problems, and NY is a comparative Disneyland.
[snip]
>> >>
>> >Dishonest debaters get what they deserve.
>>
>> Dishonesty? Where? I don't agree with you, so I'm a dishonest
>> debater because I haven't "admitted" that you've "won"? God forbid
>> someone hold a different opinion than you.
>>
>Demonizing when your idol's clay feet are exposed.
Whom have I demonized and who is my alleged idol?
[snip]
>> Didn't take any. Not very picturesque. But good people still live in
>> those places, and they're a lot better off than they were even 7 years
>> ago.
>>
>When Democratic mayors WERE NOT enforcing the laws.
See above re: DA. Morgenthau (a democrat) who has been DA all along
and has, during Beame's, Koch's and Dinkin's administration very
vigorously enforced all available gun laws, most of which (if not all)
are more stringent than the federal ones the NRA calls upon the DOJ to
enforce.
"Enforcement of gun laws" had very little to do with the drop in NY's
crime rate. A modern way of policing championed by Bill Bratton and
continued by Safir have had everything to do with that drop.
> [snip]
>>
>> >> What do your friendly neighbors think of your unfriendliness online?
>> >>
>> >They thought you had it coming.
>>
>> Sorry they don't have minds open enough to comprehend that not
>> everyone has to agree with them to deserve to be treated with a
>> modicum of respect. If that's how you folks treat people with
>> differing opinions, you can have your rural life.
>
>They find folks like you supercilious and arrogant. In their
>experience when city folk move out to a rural lifestyle they
>are as ignorant as toddlers. It usually takes them 6-12
>months before they admit this, even to themselves. The
>neighborhood is crawling with professors who are so smart it
>takes them 6 weeks to erect a mailbox.
I find it amusing that you've taken so seriously what began as really
a silly back and forth between Mr. Quick of Cleveland and me (I'm in
Boston) about the comparative tourist-trapiness of NYC and Cleveland.
And the beauty of rich, supercilious, arrogant city folk who are
moving to the country is that they usually have enough cash on hand to
hire someone to erect their mailbox.
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:48:38 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
> >>
> >> How inspirational. This coming from the guy who called me a fruit
> >> because I dared to disagree with him.
> >
> >Take it as a compliment. The truth would be a lot more
> >derogatory.
>
> That's because personal attacks are your last resort and the best you
> and your buddy can do. Cheerio!
Har, fruit is sweet compared to what your pal John Pubic
uses.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
NATO is the propaganda word. 85-90% U.S. the rest mostly
Brits. TOKEN support by other NATO allies.
The rogue state bombing killed mostly civilians, hardly any
military. The civilians have no voice in military policy so
why were they targeted? When Milosevic targeted civilians
it was a war crime. Now the Albanian Kosovars are killing
other ethnic groups with our protection. According to your
logic since you defend our intervention, you must support
these ethnic killings.
> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> >I would say this qualifies. Order and civic society can't
> >> >be achieved by the barrel of a gun but you approve of
> >> >Tomahawk missiles and laser guided bombs.
> >>
> >> When used against rogue states who forment, start and cause war and
> >> genocide in neighboring states? In Europe? Absolutely I do, because
> >> the United States still remains the most significant European power
> >> even though it isn't even located there.
> >
> >Then we should have taken it to the UN. As a UN member and
> >supposedly a civilized nation we did the same or worse than
> >Milosevic.
>
> The UN is a salon.
It is a graft-ridden hole in which we pour money and
bullshit.
>
> >According to the Hague Convention (which we signed) we are
> >technically war criminals, no better than old Slobo.
>
> How so?
Read the articles of the Hague Convention. It is obvious
that we broke them.
>
> >The
> >fact that we have leveraged the Tribunal to let us off the
> >hook really doesn't change anything except to add judge
> >bribing and jury tampering to the crimes.
>
> Which judge was bribed by whom for how much?
>
> There is no jury on the ICTY.
Have you read the whitewash report? Really laughable.
Makes a joke out of the court's prosecution of Milosevic or
any other war criminal.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> If you're not against them, you're for them. Deal with it.
> >>
> >One can be "against" something without condoning a greater
> >evil. Trade in that childlike brain for the grownup model.
>
> Really, now. It's a greater evil to wage war to stop a Hitler than it
> is for Hitler to annihilate 6 million Jews? You can't possibly
> believe that. If you do, I'm truly sorry for you.
>
> [snip]
>
I see you swallowed all the bogus propaganda the clinton
team dished out.
This was not Hitler, since he was dealing with rebels within
his borders not invading sovereign countries. Try to stick
nearer the truth instead of the hysterical rant.
> >> Nope. Didn't say we were, either, did I? I'm just curious what
> >> you'll call GW when you don't have "Bubber the War Hero" to make up
> >> cutesy names about anymore.
> >>
> >There are a whole list of cutesy names to pin on Bubber.
> >He's earned them all. The great prevaricator, the great
> >emoter, the great philanderer, the great ejaculator, the
> >list is endless.
>
> What, oh what will you do come November?
>
Hopefully ruin my liver by indulging in Champagne!
> [snip]
>
> >> New York has always been excellent and merciless in enforcing existing
> >> state statutes concerning gun control. That's partly because NYC has
> >> had the same DA - Morgenthau - for as long as I can remember. As far
> >> as Richmond's program, it's excellent and I think you're right, it
> >> SHOULD be expanded to and used in other parts of the country - in
> >> every part of the country. I believe that part of the reason why
> >> that's not happening is because the ATF would be involved in the
> >> referrals of Brady violations, and the ATF has been really hammered
> >> since Waco. Remember - it was LaPierre who referred to the ATF as
> >> jackbooted thugs.
> >>
> >And he was right. They earned the title.
>
> Ha ha. So, you WOULDN'T want them referring Brady cases to the DOJ
> for prosecution...WOULD you?
Then why pass it? More symbolism over substance?
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I think New Orleans, Washington DC and Richmond, VA have the highest
> >> per capita murder rates in the nation. Baltimore's up there, too.
> >>
> >More than most is still appropriate then.
>
> When you have more people than most, it follows that you will
> experience more problems than most in raw numbers. The real test
> comes in per capita problems, and NY is a comparative Disneyland.
>
> [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >Dishonest debaters get what they deserve.
> >>
> >> Dishonesty? Where? I don't agree with you, so I'm a dishonest
> >> debater because I haven't "admitted" that you've "won"? God forbid
> >> someone hold a different opinion than you.
> >>
> >Demonizing when your idol's clay feet are exposed.
>
> Whom have I demonized and who is my alleged idol?
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Didn't take any. Not very picturesque. But good people still live in
> >> those places, and they're a lot better off than they were even 7 years
> >> ago.
> >>
> >When Democratic mayors WERE NOT enforcing the laws.
>
> See above re: DA. Morgenthau (a democrat) who has been DA all along
> and has, during Beame's, Koch's and Dinkin's administration very
> vigorously enforced all available gun laws, most of which (if not all)
> are more stringent than the federal ones the NRA calls upon the DOJ to
> enforce.
>
Strange that the gun crimes didn't drop then until Guiliani
came along.
BTW the Brady Bill is Federal so any violations would have
to be prosecuted by the Feds.
> "Enforcement of gun laws" had very little to do with the drop in NY's
> crime rate. A modern way of policing championed by Bill Bratton and
> continued by Safir have had everything to do with that drop.
>
The modern way of policing was removing guns from criminals
hands by using existing laws. Democratic mayors wouldn't
use this method because it alienated their voting base.
Just admit it.
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> >> What do your friendly neighbors think of your unfriendliness online?
> >> >>
> >> >They thought you had it coming.
> >>
> >> Sorry they don't have minds open enough to comprehend that not
> >> everyone has to agree with them to deserve to be treated with a
> >> modicum of respect. If that's how you folks treat people with
> >> differing opinions, you can have your rural life.
> >
> >They find folks like you supercilious and arrogant. In their
> >experience when city folk move out to a rural lifestyle they
> >are as ignorant as toddlers. It usually takes them 6-12
> >months before they admit this, even to themselves. The
> >neighborhood is crawling with professors who are so smart it
> >takes them 6 weeks to erect a mailbox.
>
> I find it amusing that you've taken so seriously what began as really
> a silly back and forth between Mr. Quick of Cleveland and me (I'm in
> Boston) about the comparative tourist-trapiness of NYC and Cleveland.
Oh I believe I was in the thread before that.
>
> And the beauty of rich, supercilious, arrogant city folk who are
> moving to the country is that they usually have enough cash on hand to
> hire someone to erect their mailbox.
Oh they COULD but they don't. For one thing they are
cheapskates and except for teenagers you don't find people
who do these odd jobs anymore. Naturally these people are
so educated they know everything so it is fairly amusing to
watch their efforts.
LZ
J. Randy Mitchell
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:00:07 -0500, "J. Randy Mitchell"
> <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> >> What do your friendly neighbors think of your unfriendliness online?
> >>
> >> They thought you had it coming.
> >
> >Bingo! We certainly do.
> >
> >None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
>
> How inspirational. This coming from the guy who called me a fruit
> because I dared to disagree with him.
I called you a fruit because every gun control advocate
I've ever met was a fruit.
J. Randy Mitchell
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:48:38 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> >None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
> >>
> >> How inspirational. This coming from the guy who called me a fruit
> >> because I dared to disagree with him.
> >
> >Take it as a compliment. The truth would be a lot more
> >derogatory.
>
> That's because personal attacks are your last resort and the best you
> and your buddy can do. Cheerio!
If there were any personal attacks it was simply reciprocation.
You easily spout of a lot of rhetoric, but can back nothing
up. Maybe you agree with Rosie that the NRA is "clouding
the issue with facts".
Lone Haranguer
AJB wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 19:15:15 -0500, Lone Haranguer <lin...@uswest.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> >>
> >> Where you decry the NATO bombing of a rogue state that is more
> >> dangerous to European security than Iraq, Syria, North Korea and Cuba
> >> combined.
> >>
> >NATO is the propaganda word. 85-90% U.S. the rest mostly
> >Brits. TOKEN support by other NATO allies.
> >
> >The rogue state bombing killed mostly civilians, hardly any
> >military. The civilians have no voice in military policy so
> >why were they targeted?
>
> There's a difference between targeting civilians and so-called
> "collateral damage." I don't think the US or NATO has a Serb-killing
> policy, do you?
They certainly did during the bombing campaign. Even Human
Rights Watch documented the cases where civilian targets
were chosen. Anyone who knows what was going on KNOWS that
Clinton was desperate when Slobo didn't cave in the first
few days. Civilian targets, utilities, public projects etc.
were deliberately CHOSEN to damage the infrastructure and
terrorize the population. It was Guernica all over again.
How you can gloat about terror bombing is beyond me and I
flew 50 missions over Korea. We were restricted by the UN
to military targets ONLY. The Air Force Pilots should have
refused these missions as they are REQUIRED to do by law.
>
> >When Milosevic targeted civilians
> >it was a war crime. Now the Albanian Kosovars are killing
> >other ethnic groups with our protection. According to your
> >logic since you defend our intervention, you must support
> >these ethnic killings.
>
> Absolutely not. Firstly, the Albanian Kosovars have been repressed
> for in excess of fifty years - first by the Communist dictatorship,
> and since 1987 by the socialist-in-name-fascist-in-reality Milosevic
> regime. Milosevic's army and the Serb paramilitary groups began
> ethnic cleansing of Kosovo in earnest in 1998 so that Kosovo was, for
> all intents and purposes, devoid of ethnic Albanians by April 1999.
> (I know you'll blame the bombings for this, but the bombs didn't come
> village to village wearing black masks ordering people to gather up
> their belongings and move out within 30 minutes or suffer instant
> execution. I also figure that you'll take up the pro-Milosevic
> argument that the Serbs were somehow justified in cleansing Kosovo
> Albanians as a rational response to the bombing.) In any event, I do
> defend our intervention in Kosovo, but I don't support killings by any
> ethnic group against any ethnic group, except in self-defense. By the
> logic you cite with which you don't agree, since I'm for the Kosovo
> Albanians, I'm against the Serbs. And that would be accurate.
>
Maybe you should go back further than 50 years then. During
Hitler's occupation the Kosovar Albanians allied themselves
with Hitler and killed off their Serbian neighbors. This
back and forth blood feud has been going on for hundreds of
years. We were and are STUPID to get involved.
We will either be there forever or the feud starts the
second we leave.
> [snip]
>
> >> >The
> >> >fact that we have leveraged the Tribunal to let us off the
> >> >hook really doesn't change anything except to add judge
> >> >bribing and jury tampering to the crimes.
> >>
> >> Which judge was bribed by whom for how much?
> >>
> >> There is no jury on the ICTY.
> >
> >Have you read the whitewash report? Really laughable.
> >Makes a joke out of the court's prosecution of Milosevic or
> >any other war criminal.
>
> Which judge was bribed by whom for how much? And there is no jury on
> the ICTY. And why shouldn't Milosevic be prosecuted as a war
> criminal?
>
Read the report and you may be able to ascertain the answer.
Why shouldn't Bill Clinton and Blair be prosecuted as war
criminals?
> [snip]
>
> >> Really, now. It's a greater evil to wage war to stop a Hitler than it
> >> is for Hitler to annihilate 6 million Jews? You can't possibly
> >> believe that. If you do, I'm truly sorry for you.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >I see you swallowed all the bogus propaganda the clinton
> >team dished out.
>
> I didn't equate Milosevic with Hitler, you brought it up. I'm merely
> using Hitler as an example of an instance where military action is
> justified and moral when used to halt a greater injustice. But since
> you're about to bring it up...
>
> >This was not Hitler, since he was dealing with rebels within
> >his borders not invading sovereign countries. Try to stick
> >nearer the truth instead of the hysterical rant.
>
> Let's see now. Sticking to the truth...
>
> 1980. Tito dies. A rotating presidency succeeds him.
> 1987. Slobodan Milosevic becomes head of the Serbian League of
> Communists.
> 1989. The anniversary of the Serbs' defeat to the Turks on Kosovo
> Polje in Kosovo. Milosevic holds a huge demonstration, threatening
> war to prevent the break-up of Yugoslavia. Serb nationalism formented
> and rising. Inter-republic relations in Yugoslavia deteriorating
> rapidly. Eastern European democratic revolution sparking cries for
> democracy in Yugoslavia.
> 1990. Slovenia and Croatia seek greater autonomy from Belgrade.
> Free elections held in Slovenia and Croatia. Center-right parties
> win. A confederation is proposed. Milosevic refuses. Croatia
> ascends to the rotating presidency. Milosevic (joined by Montenegro,
> Kosovo and Vojvodina) vote to prevent Croatian delegate Stipe Mesic
> (now Pres. of Croatia) from becoming president of YU.
> 1991. Slovenia declares independence from Yugoslavia after a
> referendum. The Yugoslav People's Army (with five-pointed red stars
> on their caps and Marx in their hearts) provoke a 10-day battle for
> independence.
> 1991. Croatia declares independence from Yugoslavia after a
> referendum. The Yugoslav People's Army wages war upon Croatia,
> shelling cities and bombing the capital, Zagreb. The retreating Army
> leaves its armament behind for the ethnic Serbs to continue the battle
> for an additional several years. City of Vukovar leveled and first
> reports of mass killings by Serb paramilitaries (led by Arkan)
> reported.
> 1992. Cease-fire in Croatia. Serbs hold 1/3 of territory.
> 1992. Bosnia declares independence. Ethnic Serbs revolt. First
> shots fired by a sniper in Sarajevo during a rally for Bosnian
> independence. Sarajevo suffers through three years of complete
> isolation, cut off from the rest of the world and shelled, bombed and
> subjected to snipers from "Republika Srpska", which is funded and
> armed from Belgrade.
>
> So. In 1991, 1992 and 1992, Slobodan Milosevic had, in fact, invaded
> nations whose populace had chosen by majority democratic vote to
> declare independence from a country that had become nothing more than
> a Milosevic-run fiefdom. He did attack and target civilians in these
> sovereign countries. No acts of genocide had been seen in Europe
> since Hitler. Name another European genocide since the 1940s if you
> dislike the comparison.
>
> Try to stick nearer to the facts before spouting unsupported and
> untrue conclusions.
>
Sounds like Lincoln when the Confederate States seceded.
Lincoln was obviously a criminal like Milosevic then for
keeping the country together by force.
> [snip]
>
> >> Ha ha. So, you WOULDN'T want them referring Brady cases to the DOJ
> >> for prosecution...WOULD you?
> >
> >Then why pass it? More symbolism over substance?
>
> Brady preceded Waco.
>
False. Waco was Feb-Apr 1993. I believe Brady came later.
> [snip]
>
> >> >> >Dishonest debaters get what they deserve.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dishonesty? Where? I don't agree with you, so I'm a dishonest
> >> >> debater because I haven't "admitted" that you've "won"? God forbid
> >> >> someone hold a different opinion than you.
> >> >>
> >> >Demonizing when your idol's clay feet are exposed.
> >>
> >> Whom have I demonized and who is my alleged idol?
>
> Hello?
Your idol is obviously Bubber Clinton and like all his
apologists you demonize anyone who attacks him or his
policies.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> See above re: DA. Morgenthau (a democrat) who has been DA all along
> >> and has, during Beame's, Koch's and Dinkin's administration very
> >> vigorously enforced all available gun laws, most of which (if not all)
> >> are more stringent than the federal ones the NRA calls upon the DOJ to
> >> enforce.
> >>
> >Strange that the gun crimes didn't drop then until Guiliani
> >came along.
>
> I've said it about three times now. Bill Bratton. Howard Safir.
>
> >BTW the Brady Bill is Federal so any violations would have
> >to be prosecuted by the Feds.
>
> But why bother if state law is stricter?
Does state law immediately identify felons who try to
purchase a gun?
>
> >> "Enforcement of gun laws" had very little to do with the drop in NY's
> >> crime rate. A modern way of policing championed by Bill Bratton and
> >> continued by Safir have had everything to do with that drop.
> >>
> >The modern way of policing was removing guns from criminals
> >hands by using existing laws. Democratic mayors wouldn't
> >use this method because it alienated their voting base.
> >Just admit it.
>
> Can't admit it because it's not true. (Nice one, though, getting in
> the dig that criminals make up the Dem voting base. Such ridiculous
> Limbaughisms render your argument all the more invalid.)
>
Yes we have seen statistics that 85% of confined criminals
consider themselves Democrats. Is that news to you? (P.S.
I don't listen to Rush since he left TV.)
LZ
> [snip]
J. Randy Mitchell
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 19:22:44 -0500, "J. Randy Mitchell"
> <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> How inspirational. This coming from the guy who called me a fruit
> >> because I dared to disagree with him.
> >
> >I called you a fruit because every gun control advocate
> >I've ever met was a fruit.
>
> Doesn't matter WHY you did it. It just matters that you did it to
> cover up your inability to carry on an intelligent debate or
> conversation. Thanks for confirming the shallow, juvenile reasoning
> behind your use of that epithet, though.
You don't want to get into a flame war with me, pal, you
wouldn't have a chance. If you had been paying attention to
my posts, you would have understood what I was saying.
You obviously are too fucking stupid to understand anything.
If you think your avoiding responding to my post with facts,
which you have yet to do for anyone in this NG, is garnering
you any support, you're wrong. You don't know how to
respond, you simply choose something about my posts to
direct your bullshit to rather than reply with forethought
and facts. Give it up little man, you are clueless. I'll be glad
to debate the gun control issue with you, but we'll get
nowhere if you can't respond to the issues at hand. I keep
having to respond to your dancing away from the issues and
frankly, it's wasting my time.
I have some gun control facts, what do you have other than
a bad attitude?
Don't play games with me, I have better things to do than
to prove how stupid you are.
J. Randy Mitchell
> >And the incidents of a anyone holding a class hostage
> >with a gun has dramatically dropped in the past twenty
> >years. You might hear more about it due to Columbine
> >and the gun control pussies in the liberal press, but
> >look at the statistics.
>
> Which statistics would those be? I don't recall reading about a spate
> of school shootings, but maybe you have information concerning same
> in, say, the 20s, 30s, 40s or 50s?
You were the one that brought up schools being held hostage, not I.
Here we go again...
> >It's no more ridiculous than your claim. Harpoons were made
> >for killing. That's what you said about guns. I was illustrating
> >how asinine that sounds.
>
> Harpoons were made for killing sea creatures. Are you saying guns
> aren't made to kill things? Then what is their purpose, and why ARE
> you taking so much target practice?
You were the one that said the gun was an instrument for killing. I
was illustrating that a harpoon is a instrument for killing, but there
are no 'harpoon control advocates'. God, do I have to explain
every little detail?
>
> >> That's just about the funniest idea yet. I'm sure, of course, that you
> >> advocate private ownership of tanks pursuant to the second amendment because
> >> the framers expected that people arm themselves with tanks to protect
> >> against government tyranny, etc. etc. In short, another example you've
> >> raised about which you expect me to "raise hell" when there is no reason,
> >> factual and/or statistical to raise said hell.
> >
> >Now you're trying to read my mind, eh?
>
> Not necessarily, but it's quite telling that you don't disagree with
> the statement that purports to read your mind.
You claimed that I advocated ownership of tanks. I never said that and you
know that's not what I meant. This is what I mean about you not being
able to respond to my posts. Instead of trying to understand what I'm
saying, you read things into them that are not there. That makes it appear
that you can't respond intelligently.
> >You can't argue about something so you think a smart-assed
> >remark like the one above helps your cause?
>
> What cause? You're either for gun control or you're not. You've made
> it evident that you're not, and you called me a fruit for being for
> it, and you've referred to them as commie gun control laws and that
> gun control advocates are pussies. So, excuse me for leaping to the
> conclusion that you are anti-gun control. So, if you are against gun
> control, one must presume that you are for a well-armed populace and
> that every citizen, regardless of class, background, education,
> training, criminal history or sanity, has an inviolable right to own
> and carry firearms. Unless, of course, you're proposing that a middle
> ground exists, which you're not.
I didn't say I wasn't anti-gun control. What the hell are reading into what
I said now? I was trying to tell you that by not trying to offer any facts
and logic for gun control, and attacked something I didn't even say is
not going to help anybody understand what you are trying to say either..
How does attacking my words help you to convince me or anyone else
that gun control IS necessary?
> Nice choice of words, ammunition. Otherwise, I consider myself very
> fortunate to be able to live my life happily and healthfully without
> seeking or requiring a newsgroup's opinion of my "credibility." The
> day I seek to have a newsgroup population find me credible or
> otherwise to approve of my postings is the day the sun stops rising.
> You, on the other hand, resort to name-calling and otherwise being an
> all-around jackass in your quest for that grail of " credibility" in
> the hallowed territory of a newsgroup, and I wish you luck in your
> quest.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have no "quest". I would like to
discuss my views on gun control, but not to have someone dance
away from the issue to cover up the inability to offer facts and/or
logic.
> >Is that what that was? I sure wish you would point out where you
> >responded intelligently. Oh, that's right...you preferred to play
> >adolescent games instead.
>
> Whatever you say, charlie. You don't have to like my responses, you
> don't have to agree with them and you can think they're as silly as
> you like. The point remains that you called me a fruit for really no
> good reason, and that plus calling people commies and pussies is where
> your arguments tend to go when you run out of "facts." Sorry the
> sarcasm upsets you so.
As I said in a prior message, I was reciprocating to your comments.
> >I never called you a faggot.
>
> No, but you called me a synonymous fruit, and it doesn't make you a
> better person not to have used the term faggot and it doesn't bring
> your angry tirades any closer to that credibility you treasure.
Sensitive, aren't you? You can take it anyway you like, but that's not the
way I meant it. I meant it as in weak, sheeple type, liberal tree hugging,
uninformed whiner.
> >No...you don't have the balls or the intellect to even post
> >in this newsgroup.
>
> Umm. I wonder what this all is, then. Also, what is this fascination
> you have with one's balls? Why are you concerned with what I do and
> don't have the balls to do?
There you go again. You know perfectly well what I mean, but
instead of facing off on that, you attack my words. It doesn't
make much sense to me.
> >You have no credibility. I have seen
> >the other posts to you and I see that I'm not the only
> >one that can see how your uninformed opinion doesn't
> >count for very much here.
>
> Again, the day I give a flying fuck what my opinion "counts for" in a
> newsgroup is the day I check myself in to Bellevue.
On the contrary, it's ALL you're trying to do.
When you get ready to discuss the issues instead of trying to pick
apart sentences, let me know.