Boycott any church that bans guns
Bill Velek
>
> Bill,
> My church has banned weapons. Want to boycott them?
Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in
many different churches of different denominations, but
I don't want to go to a church that is not Christian,
and it doesn't sound to me like your church is Christian.
Why do I say that? Well, let me ask the cliché: "What
would Jesus do?" Do you _really_ think that He would
turn away someone in need of religious influence because
that person was carrying a gun? Let's assume for a
minute that you believe that gun-totters are sinners
(aside from the fact that all men are sinners in the
general sense), ... we certainly know that Jesus would
not ostracize us because of that; He came for the sinners
and not for the righteous. Or do you think that Jesus
would not associate with gun-totters out of fear? You
and your church would do well to learn a little about
courage for your faith -- the kind of courage that the
martyrs had.
Now, you're probably going to come up with something
idiotic like: "Well, the gun-totter is the one making
a choice, and if he doesn't want to leave his gun at
home then that's his decision." Once again, I would
point out to you that anyone who is making that sort
of a decision simply on the basis of putting their own
personal interest (RKBA) above their love for God and
their desire to be with Him (as opposed to not wanting
to come into your building because you are really just
a bunch of hypocrites who have little Christianity to
offer), then that person is _particularly_ in need of
the gospel and you should be going out of your way to
find that person and encourage them to come to your
church -- with or without a gun. The other idiotic
thing that I would expect you to say in that regard is:
"Bringing a gun to church is disrespectful toward God",
to which I ask: "When did God tell you or your preacher
that this offends Him?" Remember, Jesus Christ Himself
told His disciples to arm themselves; Luke 22:36, says:
"He said to them, 'But now one who has a money bag
should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does
not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."
So why does your church prohibit guns? Are you judging
people when the Bible says not to? What other reason is
there, other than the nonsensical notion that criminals
will actually obey your sign when their intentions were
to do something illegal to begin with. Or are you
worried that the faithful Christians among you who do
_NOT_ have any criminal intent are going to turn into
demons in church just because they're armed? Idiots!
Yeah, I would boycott your church without a second
thought, even if it were the last church on earth, and
I'd go down to the firing range where I _would_ find
God (rather than in your "church") and I'd get down on
my knees and worship Him there.
Now, if you have the guts, print this out and take it
to your minister or preacher and let him read the truth.
By the way, my church doesn't exactly encourage people
to bear arms -- they just don't say anything about it
one way or the other, which is as it should be.
Finally, for the silly people out there that need me to
spell everything out in very fine detail: "No, I'm not
saying your should boycott a church if the state _law_
prohibits you from carrying into a church".
Okay, now everyone will tell me how I'm not a Christian
because I've called people "Idiots". Let God judge me!
Bill Velek
PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
ja...@mindspring.com
know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told to
sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
in a .40 caliber.
All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have to
get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
Any advice?
Jaxi
Lawrence Glickman
news:jaxi-16070...@nwf-nj24-26.ix.netcom.com...
just something you've heard before:
All guns are always loaded until proven otherwise. EVEN with the magazine
removed.
AND, never aim the barrel at -anything- you're not intending/willing to
destroy.
Be safe is #1 rule. Have fun is #2 rule ;-)
Lg
Phil
>
> <ja...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jaxi-16070...@nwf-nj24-26.ix.netcom.com...
> > Well, I finally went to a range yesterday afternoon. Told them I didn't
> > know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told to
> > sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
> > minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
> > semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
> > in a .40 caliber.
> >
> > All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have to
> > get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
> >
> >
> > Any advice?
> >
> > Jaxi
>
> just something you've heard before:
>
> All guns are always loaded until proven otherwise. EVEN with the
> magazine removed.
Always check a gun is unloaded before handing it to another, always
check it is unloaded when recieving it.
Phil
Peace, Bread, Land
Phil
>
> Well, I finally went to a range yesterday afternoon. Told them I didn't
> know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told to
> sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
> minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
> semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
> in a .40 caliber.
>
> All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have
> to get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
>
> Any advice?
Join whatever your national shooting organisation is and take some of
their courses on safe gun handling and marksmanship. Also, listen to the
other guys on the range. Most of them will know more than you and are a
resource that should be exploited to its fullest potential!
Phil
Peace, Bread, Land
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
1==> Now, Bill, you are quoting that out of context and you bloody
well know it. The sword was never bought, as it was discovered that
the disciples already had two. There was no instruction to use them.
When the servants of the high priest came for Jesus, Peter pulled out
a sword, and Jesus rebuked him, saying in Matthew 26:52 "Then said
Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they
that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Interesting little warning that one, eh? Perhaps better have it in
other translations:
"Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place, for all
who take the sword will perish by the sword." [RSV]
"Put your sword back into its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who
draw the sword will die by the sword." [NIV]
For more, see:
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
Subject: Does the Bible endorse violence?
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 01:21:53 +1000
Message-ID: <1s2slskh56ac42ua9...@4ax.com>
>
>So why does your church prohibit guns? Are you judging
>people when the Bible says not to? What other reason is
>there, other than the nonsensical notion that criminals
>will actually obey your sign when their intentions were
>to do something illegal to begin with. Or are you
>worried that the faithful Christians among you who do
>_NOT_ have any criminal intent are going to turn into
>demons in church just because they're armed? Idiots!
>Yeah, I would boycott your church without a second
>thought, even if it were the last church on earth, and
>I'd go down to the firing range where I _would_ find
>God (rather than in your "church") and I'd get down on
>my knees and worship Him there.
2==> Yes, Bill, you might. But I don't know if there is any "God of
the Gun" or not. The New Testament certainly doesn't condone
violence, and I still defy anyone to prove me wrong on that point by
quoting Scripture.
>
>Now, if you have the guts, print this out and take it
>to your minister or preacher and let him read the truth.
3==> And you might take this reply as well. I will also be more than
pleased to correspond with your pastor on this issue if he so desires.
>
>By the way, my church doesn't exactly encourage people
>to bear arms -- they just don't say anything about it
>one way or the other, which is as it should be.
4==> Perhaps your priest simply doesn't know you are carrying a
weapon? Have you told him? Obviously he isn't going to object if he
doesn't know. Pity that God has X-ray vision, though. *He* knows!
>
>Finally, for the silly people out there that need me to
>spell everything out in very fine detail: "No, I'm not
>saying your should boycott a church if the state _law_
>prohibits you from carrying into a church".
>
>Okay, now everyone will tell me how I'm not a Christian
>because I've called people "Idiots". Let God judge me!
5==> I don't know if he will judge you for calling people idiots, but
perhaps it is worth noting that Jesus says in Matthew 5:22
"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be
subject to judgement. Again anyone who says to his brother 'Raca' is
answerable to the Sanctifying. But anyone who says, "You fool!" will
be in danger of the fire of hell." [Matt. 5:22 NIV]
6==> A footnote says that "Raca" is an Aramaic term of contempt.
Whether God will think your calling people "idiots" is equivalent to
calling them "fools" is an interesting point.
7==> IMO, what He is more likely to judge you for is bending the words
of the New Testament to imply that Jesus approves of swords and
violence when the context makes it abundantly clear that he does
nothing of the sort.
The Bible tells us that there are penalties for misleading people into
sin, Bill.
6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to
sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around
his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
7 "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin!
Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!
8==> Why would you, or anyone else, want to carry a weapon into a
church anyway. Who do you think is gunning for you? Or are you just
doing it to show your independence?
I really think you should ask the advice of your priest on this issue,
if you haven't already done so. I would really hate to see you fail
the judgement and get sent to hell.
It would be nice to see our generation to be the first one to actually
get a lawyer into heaven, but if you persist with your present course
of action I fear we will be disappointed. ;-)
9==> Do you suppose they allow guns in the Vatican, Bill? We could
check and if we find out they don't you could list the Vatican on your
website.
An Arkansas judge suggesting on his website that people not visit the
Vatican because they don't allow guns could get you all the publicity
you want. I know just the editor who would be glad to handle the
story.
Would you like me to check with the Vatican to see what their policy
is? If I find out that the Vatican bans guns will you list it on your
website? ...Once this is done, will compose an e-mail to the editor,
and you and your site can have lots of publicity very quickly.
—larryn
Lawrence Glickman
news:hub3ns0qa5kqlbc1m...@4ax.com...
>
> 9==> Do you suppose they allow guns in the Vatican, Bill? We could
> check and if we find out they don't you could list the Vatican on your
> website.
>
> An Arkansas judge suggesting on his website that people not visit the
> Vatican because they don't allow guns could get you all the publicity
> you want. I know just the editor who would be glad to handle the
> story.
>
> Would you like me to check with the Vatican to see what their policy
> is? If I find out that the Vatican bans guns will you list it on your
> website? ...Once this is done, will compose an e-mail to the editor,
> and you and your site can have lots of publicity very quickly.
>
>
Sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, YES the Swiss Guard at the Vatican
is armed with submachine guns. They just keep them out of sight is all, but
they are under the uniforms of many. THAT'S A FACT JACK. Subguns.
And---they will use them if they need to, otherwise, why have them.
Furthermore, if they can have them, I want one too. But, nevertheless, I
will shortly have my semi-auto rifle. I was debating on an AK47 Russian, or
possibly an AR15. It is a hassle to decide which. Most likely, I will
forego the AR15's accuracy and capacity for the AK47 knockdown power.
Living where I do, an AK47 is just the right stuff for getting pillaging
Rats off my property.
Oh, my town Police? All 3 of them, well, they're busy handing out speeding
tickets right now ;-) If my neighborhood gets invaded, I want to light-up
the night with muzzle flash. " Happy 4th of July! Take this you bastards!
Blam..ratatatatatataat!!!!"
Lg
Boris Kupershmidt
> Well, I finally went to a range yesterday afternoon. Told them I didn't
> know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told to
> sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
> minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
> semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
> in a .40 caliber.
>
> All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have to
> get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
>
> Any advice?
Just keep up steady. You will find that the shooting community
consists of by the great far the best and the brightest people in the
country.
Also, one can't learn "the stuff" and quit. A regular practice is
required. There is a lot to learn.
Specific gun questions could be asked on the rec.guns news-group;
people there are extraordinary knowledgeble and helpful.
Boris.
Bill Velek
It's NOT out of context, and _you_ "bloody well know it".
I'm not going to debate religion with you Larry; we
already know that are views differ considerable, but I
don't appreciate you, with your anti-gun sentiments and
motives, trying to unfairly discredit what I said.
> The sword was never bought, as it was discovered that
> the disciples already had two.
Correct; I never said anything differently. I just
don't think that additional fact changes a damned thing
or I would have added; so, how in the hell is it out of
context to omit that other inconsequential info? Try
substituting this:
Jesus: Go out and buy a couple of guns.
Disciples: We already have two guns.
Jesus: Then you have enough.
Out of context my ass.
> When the servants of the high priest came for Jesus, Peter pulled out
> a sword, and Jesus rebuked him, saying in Matthew 26:52 "Then said
> Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they
> that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
So what. Are you saying that Jesus was contradicting
Himself? Are you trying to say that Jesus was saying
that we shouldn't try to defend ourselves? Did it ever
occur to you, Mr. Bible Scholar, that the reason Jesus
stopped Peter was because Jesus knew what He was going
to have to do -- what He already saw during the agony
in the garden -- and that Peter was interfering?
Larry I'm going to have to snip the rest of your post
for right now; I'm sure that you have lots of interesting
things to say, but I've got to leave right now to go to
church with my family -- honest.
Cheers.
rbo...@ticnet.com
>Well, I finally went to a range yesterday afternoon. Told them I didn't
>know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told to
>sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
>minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
>semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
>in a .40 caliber.
>
>All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have to
>get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
>
>
>Any advice?
Move to a state that doesn't require the bullshit.
Start with a .22 pistol. Low recoil, inexpensive ammo.
Look around for an NRA sponsored class for beginners.
(The instuctors are fellow shooters who are more concerned that
you learn to shoot, rather than they make a buck.)
Practice, practice, practice.
>Jaxi
Rick Bowen
May God bless Texas
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
Rex Tincher
<snip>
>Always check a gun is unloaded before handing it to another, always
>check it is unloaded when recieving it.
Read, memorize, understand, and *follow*
Jeff Cooper's Four Rules of Gun Safety
at
http://www.dnaco.net/~tinc/gunsafe.htm
Here are the two that Larry & Phil haven't mentioned yet:
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target
(and you are ready to shoot).
Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and
what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven't positively
identified.
--
Gun safety information:
http://www.dnaco.net/~tinc/guntips.htm
Lou Boyd
I'd recommend finding two clubs, one which shoots highpower (centerfire
rifle) and one which shoots "bullseye" which is both rimfire and
centerfire pistol. Both will teach you good shooting habits. After a
few years of that add other fun sports such as practical pistol, and
tactical rifle competition, and perhaps rifle benchrest to learn about
the mechanics of accurate shooting. Competition is a great way to have
fun, keep a regular practice schedule, to get a good idea of how you're
progressing, and to get help from people who actually know how to
shoot. You can do it on your own but it's much more difficult.
--
Lou Boyd
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Lou Boyd
continuously alert and thinking about what you're doing when in
possession of a firearm. "THINK" is the best safety rule. Most stated
rules have reasonable exceptions.
--
Lou Boyd
N9NWO
Bill Velek <ve...@cyberback.com> wrote ...
: > Bill,
: not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."
:
: So why does your church prohibit guns? Are you judging
: people when the Bible says not to? What other reason is
: there, other than the nonsensical notion that criminals
: will actually obey your sign when their intentions were
: to do something illegal to begin with. Or are you
: worried that the faithful Christians among you who do
: _NOT_ have any criminal intent are going to turn into
: demons in church just because they're armed? Idiots!
:
: Yeah, I would boycott your church without a second
: thought, even if it were the last church on earth, and
: I'd go down to the firing range where I _would_ find
: God (rather than in your "church") and I'd get down on
: my knees and worship Him there.
:
: Now, if you have the guts, print this out and take it
: to your minister or preacher and let him read the truth.
:
: By the way, my church doesn't exactly encourage people
: to bear arms -- they just don't say anything about it
: one way or the other, which is as it should be.
:
: Finally, for the silly people out there that need me to
: spell everything out in very fine detail: "No, I'm not
: saying your should boycott a church if the state _law_
: prohibits you from carrying into a church".
:
: Okay, now everyone will tell me how I'm not a Christian
: because I've called people "Idiots". Let God judge me!
:
: Bill Velek
: PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
: If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
: If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
Judge Velek, look at the number of churches who officially
forbid self defense as immoral. The United Methodists, the
Presbyterians and the Union of Hebrew Congregations.
Bill Velek
Then their membership is already anti-gun, and I certainly
don't expect anti-gun people to boycott themselves.
ja...@mindspring.com
<C3DCF2C4509B882F.E5CF2EF1...@lp.airnews.net>,
rbo...@ticnet.com wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 07:13:57 -0400, ja...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >Well, I finally went to a range yesterday afternoon. Told them I didn't
> >know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told to
> >sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
> >minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
> >semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
> >in a .40 caliber.
> >
> >All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have to
> >get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
> >
> >
> >Any advice?
>
> Move to a state that doesn't require the bullshit.
Love to. Unfortunately my situation doesn't allow me to.
>
> Start with a .22 pistol. Low recoil, inexpensive ammo.
Already considered that for both the expense and that it'll allow me more
chances to shoot since the nearest range only allows airguns and small
bores.
> Look around for an NRA sponsored class for beginners.
> (The instuctors are fellow shooters who are more concerned that
> you learn to shoot, rather than they make a buck.)
> Practice, practice, practice.
>
>
I am looking around for the NRA class. Not only for the safety class but
also to get the chance to handle a pistol which I wasn't allow to
previously.
Thanks for the reply.
Jaxi
P.Henry
wrote:
I think perhaps many churches that act in this manner are afraid of
lawsuits or are in inner city areas where the average member fears
guns.
"What would the gentlemen wish? What would they have?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased
at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty
God! I know not what course others may take, but as for
me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry
Scott Bennett
N9NWO <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Velek <ve...@cyberback.com> wrote ...
>: > Bill,
>: > My church has banned weapons. Want to boycott them?
>:
>: Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in
>:
>: Now, if you have the guts, print this out and take it
>: to your minister or preacher and let him read the truth.
>:
>: By the way, my church doesn't exactly encourage people
>: to bear arms -- they just don't say anything about it
>: one way or the other, which is as it should be.
At a bare minimum. Any church that, for example, does
not *advocate* that parents defend their youngsters from
criminal attackers, is a church that should be ignored.
>:
>: Finally, for the silly people out there that need me to
>: spell everything out in very fine detail: "No, I'm not
>: saying your should boycott a church if the state _law_
^^ Change "if" to "because".
No church gets off the hook for such a law unless that law is
the *only* reason for the church's prohibition.
>: prohibits you from carrying into a church".
>:
>: Okay, now everyone will tell me how I'm not a Christian
>: because I've called people "Idiots". Let God judge me!
>:
>: Bill Velek
>: PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
>: If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
>: If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
>
>
>Judge Velek, look at the number of churches who officially
>forbid self defense as immoral. The United Methodists, the
>Presbyterians and the Union of Hebrew Congregations.
>
And don't forget the Episcopalians!
Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
**********************************************************************
* Internet: sbennett at oce.orst.edu *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. *
* It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." *
* --William Pitt to the House of Commons, 18 November 1783 *
**********************************************************************
Strabo
ja...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Well, I finally went to a range yesterday afternoon. Told them I didn't
> know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told to
> sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
> minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
> semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
> in a .40 caliber.
>
> All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have to
> get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
>
> Any advice?
>
> Jaxi
Good to hear of your positive experience. I'd stay with the
.22 rifle for for a while and work on breath control, sighting
and the mechanics of loading and safety. Master those and then
you'll really have skills. Pistols are a different animal and
the rifle work is the best preparation. Then move on to larger
bores.
Why do you have to "get the paperwork in"? Do you want to go into
the BIG database. Sign nothing. All you're doing is shooting
a damn gun, not learning to fly a jet!
Learn the basics then leave civilization and practice all you want to.
ja...@mindspring.com
<str...@flashmail.net> wrote:
> ja...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > Well, I finally went to a range yesterday afternoon. Told them I didn't
> > know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told to
> > sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
> > minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
> > semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
> > in a .40 caliber.
> >
> > All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have to
> > get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
> >
> > Any advice?
> >
> > Jaxi
>
> Good to hear of your positive experience. I'd stay with the
> .22 rifle for for a while and work on breath control, sighting
> and the mechanics of loading and safety. Master those and then
> you'll really have skills. Pistols are a different animal and
> the rifle work is the best preparation. Then move on to larger
> bores.
Will do. Been planning to get a .22 rifle anyway.
>
> Why do you have to "get the paperwork in"? Do you want to go into
> the BIG database. Sign nothing. All you're doing is shooting
> a damn gun, not learning to fly a jet!
Tell that to Whitman and her ilk. Here you have to have and Firearms
Purchaser ID in order to get even a rifle. That paperwork I've been told
takes about 4 months. Also it's not possible for me to 'move' for the
forseeable future so I have to make do with what I have.
Jaxi
Lee Harrison
djvo...@ameritech.net wrote on 7/16/00 10:05 PM:
> I think perhaps many churches that act in this manner are afraid of
> lawsuits or are in inner city areas where the average member fears
> guns.
Yeah, Pee Henry, it would have nothing to do with those Judeo-Christian
values like "thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor as thyself," why
it's just because they're afraid of guns and lawsuits. There couldn't
possibly be a religious objection to gun violence. That wouldn't be
fundamentalist, wouldn't be Gingrich.
Even as a heathen, I have to marvel at the depth and stupidity of your gun
fanaticism.
Go ahead and boycott the churches you dumbasses. What a laugh.
__________________
A VOTE FOR THE SHRUB IS A VOTE AGAINST WOMENS' RIGHT TO CHOOSE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29485-2000Jun30.html
... Abortion remains the most volatile and divisive issue within the
Republican coalition. The Supreme Court decision by just one vote, 5-4, to
overturn Nebraska's ban on what opponents call "partial birth" abortions has
raised the stakes of the election for both antiabortion forces and
supporters of abortion rights. That could complicate a campaign strategy of
trying to suppress debate and public conflict over the issue.
The GOP abortion plank calls for enactment of a constitutional ban on the
procedure and for abortion-based litmus tests of judicial nominees; this
conflicts with Bush's opposition to litmus tests and his support for such
exceptions as protecting the life of the mother, rape and incest. But, said
a key Bush aide: "This is a fight that is a loser and the loser is always
the nominee. We ain't going to touch it."
The current language on abortion reads, in part: "The unborn child has a
fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a
human life amendment to the Constitution . . . We support the appointment of
judges who respect . . . the sanctity of innocent human life."
Thomas B. Edsall of the Washington Post, July 2, 2000
The Lone Weasel
Not-So-Secret-Hideout
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
My Weasel Board
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
Petition To Require NICS Background Checks On All Gun Sales
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/nics.mv
Lee Harrison
benn...@ucs.orst.edu wrote on 7/17/00 1:08 AM:
> At a bare minimum. Any church that, for example, does
> not *advocate* that parents defend their youngsters from
> criminal attackers, is a church that should be ignored.
Well, what about that saying by Jesus, if your neighbor slaps you in the
face, offer him the other cheek? I mean, I know Christianity has turned out
to be a pretty bloodthirsty religion, but theoretically aren't they supposed
to love their neighbors as they love themselves, and not kill people?
So what if the church says, self defense is okay, but no guns? You're aware
that the vast majority of situations in which you might need to defend
yourself don't involve guns, or any weapons?
So would you say that because the church nixed self-defense by gun, and
chose rather self-defense by the power of god, or common sense, or gun
control, they should be boycotted?
And except for the gun angle you really have no opinion about churches
teaching self defense, isn't that right Bentit?
________________
Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the
country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and
destructive. So while one can recognize the motivation that lies behind
some of the opposition to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided.
- Noam Chomsky, From "Secrets, Lies and Democracy" - Noam Chomsky
Interviewed by David Barsamian. Published by donian Press, Tucson AZ,
1994.
Johan Ingvelovitch
Handbook I got from Dillon Precision. When my kids are old enough to start
shooting, I'll make sure that they have these memorized.
1. ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. No exceptions. Don't pretend. Be deadly
serious about this.
2. NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER (OR POINT AT) ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO
DESTROY.
3. THE GOLDEN RULE: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE
ON TARGET.
4. BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET. Know what it is, what is in line with it and
what is behind it. Never shoot at anything you have not pisitively
identified.
Lawrence Glickman <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:KJgc5.474$w16.1...@nntp0.chicago.il.ameritech.net...
> <ja...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:jaxi-16070...@nwf-nj24-26.ix.netcom.com...
> > Well, I finally went to a range yesterday afternoon. Told them I didn't
> > know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told
to
> > sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
> > minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
> > semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
> > in a .40 caliber.
> >
> > All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have to
> > get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
> >
> >
> > Any advice?
> >
> > Jaxi
>
> just something you've heard before:
>
> All guns are always loaded until proven otherwise. EVEN with the magazine
> removed.
>
Bill Velek
>
> in article 8ku7st$bbh$1...@news.NERO.NET, Scott Bennett at
> benn...@ucs.orst.edu wrote on 7/17/00 1:08 AM:
>
> > At a bare minimum. Any church that, for example, does
> > not *advocate* that parents defend their youngsters from
> > criminal attackers, is a church that should be ignored.
>
> Well, what about that saying by Jesus, if your neighbor slaps you in the
> face, offer him the other cheek? I mean, I know Christianity has turned out
> to be a pretty bloodthirsty religion, but theoretically aren't they supposed
> to love their neighbors as they love themselves, and not kill people?
>
> So what if the church says, self defense is okay, but no guns? You're aware
> that the vast majority of situations in which you might need to defend
> yourself don't involve guns, or any weapons?
I started this thread, and I chose the word "boycott"
because someone had written to me first and asked if
I was going to boycott churches that ban guns; but to
be more precise, what I have been suggesting is that
if you do not agree with the dogma of a church, then
you should leave and find a church with which you DO
believe. That's not so unreasonable, is it. If you
folks would just think a bit about what I'm saying you
wouldn't find it so laughable.
Now, you are correct that some churches teach that sort
of dogma -- the Mennonites, Quakers, and Amish come to
mind. However, if you are a member of one of the more
mainstream Christian churches that never have, nor do
they now, _officially_ teach this as dogma of any sort,
but rather if you are just faced with a particular local
congregation and/or minister who have taken it upon
themselves to over-reach into an area that is beyond
their actual dogmatic teachings, then they are wrong to
do so for the reasons that I have previously stated. At
that point, I see absolutely nothing wrong with remaining
a member of that particular _denomination_, but finding
another church of the same denomination that _doesn't_ post.
Have I made myself clear? Self-defense has _never_ been
universally condemned by any mainstream denomination that
I am aware of, be it Catholic, Protestant, or for that
matter even Jewish or Muslim; I don't know about other
faiths, and I don't care because I am not going to become
a member. There are only a few Christian denominations,
like I have just mentioned, which comprise a very distinct
minority. If I am wrong, please correct me.
The problem as I see it is that all your anti-gun folks
are so rabid about the subject that you quickly jump to
false conclusions and are not willing to take the time to
read carefully those things that at a glance you disagree
with. It wouldn't surprise me at all if most of you
haven't even bothered to read my post -- just the subject
line. Real intelligent.
Bill Velek
snip
> 1==> Am not anti-gun, but I do think your goals are unrealistic. Why
> I posted in this particular case though is that I don't think that the
> average priest or minister would be at all happy if he found one of
> his parishioners bringing a gun to church.
Really? I'd have to disagree unless the minister
also had some serious concerns about the stability
of that person.
First, most states which permit carry also require
that it be _concealed_ carry; you don't have a
choice, so people won't easily be able to tell that
you have a gun unless you are doing something wrong
or happen to tell them. I would see no reason to
tell anyone, including the minister. That is not
being sneaky; it is complying with the law, minding
your own business, and maintaining your privacy. If
you are licensed, then it is _your_ business if you
have a gun, and where it is legal to carry in churches
you should be able to do so unless it is posted. I've
already explained my problems with posting.
Second, unless you are a new member of the congregation
your pastor/minister/priest should know you -- and what
sort of a person you are. If he is new, then he ought
to take the time to get to know you before he forms any
judgments. I believe that if I went to my priest, who
I happen to think likes me pretty well, and if I were to
explain to him all of the following, I don't have any
doubts at all that he would not be forming the sort of
negative opinions that have been expressed in replies
to my post; I would explain to him:
... that I have received threats as a judge and prosecutor,
so I carry a gun for self-defense;
... that I have been licensed after a background check and
safety training;
... that I would be carrying _concealed_ so that no one
will be frightened or disturbed by seeing it -- not
not even him -- but that I am just paying him the
courtesy of just telling him (actually, I don't see
the need and no doubt would never mention it unless
I got wind that the church was thinking of posting);
... that I really don't want to have to take it off and
lock it in my gun because it is safer if I keep
control of it;
... that it doesn't put anyone in jeopardy because if
any criminal was crazy enough to come into the church
to shoot me (or anyone else) in front of people, then
my gun is the least of their worries and it probably
wouldn't matter whether I have a gun or not; and
... that any would be killer might actually be encouraged
to do it inside the church if he was convinced that
this is the only place where I am disarmed.
My priest knows I am a religious man, a family man, and
a responsible member of the community as well as the
church; no, Larry, I _don't_ think he would tell me that
I can not carry _concealed_ in church.
> 3==> The mice can't read, humans can. Would agree that can't keep
> criminals from carrying guns to church or anywhere else for that
> matter. However, possibly criminals don't bother going to church all
> that often.
Which is all the more reason why it is silly to ban guns
there; you've already admitted that it is not going to
effect the criminals -- just the law-abiding folks who
are being _treated_ like the criminals. On the rare
occasions when a criminal might want to come to church
-- either to attack someone, which justifies me carrying
my gun -- or to seek Christ, in which case the church
should not put impediments before him (even a crook can
feel the need for a gun for self-defense, and decide to
not enter the church if he needs to leave it behind).
Larry, the only reason I've taken this time with you is
that I happened to have a bit of time, but now I need to
move on.
> 5==> You didn't answer my question about whether you carry a gun when
> you attend your local church, and if you do whether the priest knows
> about it or not.
Larry, I don't tell people when I am carrying; I don't
think it is prudent. Let them keep guessing. Now, I
will say that it is illegal to carry a gun into _any_
church or place of worship in Arkansas, and that is the
_law_ without any need for posting. So you see, Larry,
this has all been academic because there is nothing a
church can do, short of having the _law_ changed, to
_allow_ people to carry there in Arkansas, and therefor
there is never a reason here in Arkansas to boycott a
church because the churches no doubt don't go through
the redundant act of posting signs to ban what is
already illegal. The only reason I discussed it at all
is because I'm sure that it is probably legal in _other_
states somewhere, and because some anti-gun wiseass had
to bring that up in the first place thinking that he'd
stump me.
Bill Velek
snip
You should try learning the simple courtesy of snipping
once in awhile!
snip
> > Are you trying to say that Jesus was saying
> >that we shouldn't try to defend ourselves?
>
> 3==> By George, I think he's got it! Yes, Bill, only I'm not just
> trying to say it, I am saying it,
You are in a very distinct minority with the view that
we are not entitled, as Christians, to self-defense;
I prefer the _majority_ interpretation which makes a
whole heck of a lot more sense to me, too.
snip
> For those who aren't familiar with the NT, this
> is the same Peter that the RCs claim as founder of their church and
> the first pope.
What the RCs (Roman Catholics) claim as founder and
first pope; why is that relevant to anything discussed
in this thread? It's not; it is just one more time
that you gratuitously mention my church as you have
so often done in the past, and since you have amply
demonstrated that you are anti-Catholic, I really
don't appreciate your constant attempts to bait me
by your irreverent use of "RC", what it "claims", etc.,
and I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.
I don't know why I un-plonked you in the first place.
snipped the rest of your hot air
Velek
Lawrence Glickman
It is amazing the number of people who pull a magazine out of an *auto* and
forget to rack the slide to dump the round in the chamber.
Myself, I was taught by a retired Chicago Cop ( lady, nice as an Angel, and
she is with the Lord now because she was getting up in years ) how to *clear
a weapon to make it safe* before handing it to another.
Then the -recipient- is responsible to CLEAR THE WEAPON AGAIN to be -sure-
it really IS cleared.
So far, I have had to admonish a number of people about using this
technique. In fact, before I hand an auto to -anybody_ I just about damn
near take it apart and hand them the pieces !!! ;-))))
I *might* tell them how to put it back together again ;-0
Lg
Johan Ingvelovitch <jo...@fakeisp.com> wrote in message
news:9JCc5.1763$K04.1...@typhoon.snet.net...
Lawrence Glickman
news:bnu5ns4j7h4im9kem...@4ax.com...
Lg
> >Sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, YES the Swiss Guard at the
Vatican
> >is armed with submachine guns. They just keep them out of sight is all,
but
> >they are under the uniforms of many. THAT'S A FACT JACK. Subguns.
> >And---they will use them if they need to, otherwise, why have them.
Larryn
> Never suggested that the Swiss Guards weren't armed. The question I
> was asking is whether a visitor to the Vatican can walk in with a
> concealed weapon and will bet that he cannot.
>
> However, as I suggested, suggesting that tourists boycott the Vatican
> on the grounds that they won't allow a tourist to carry would
> certainly get Bill's site a lot of publicity. ;-)
>
well then, there is a dichotomy here isn't there? What about turning the
other cheek and all that? What about it? Evidently even the Pope Himself
believes in the right to Self Defense, by LETHAL FORCE if necessary. If the
Pope's Guard is heavily armed with -GUNZ- then what *message* does this send
to his *followers*???? ehhhhhh? huuuuuuuu?
If God's Incarnation on Earth can have a gatt, so can I. Evens Stevens
Lg
Lawrence Glickman
news:7106ns49hqm4gatmd...@4ax.com...
Judge Roy Beanhead
> > Are you trying to say that Jesus was saying
> >that we shouldn't try to defend ourselves?
>
Larryn
> 3==> By George, I think he's got it! Yes, Bill, only I'm not just
> trying to say it, I am saying it, and I am quoting the Bible and the
> words of Jesus correctly when I do say it.
well, I can't agree with any of this. Self Defense is Rule #1 for Survival
of -ANY- species. And almost -every- species on Earth has some *mechanism*
for self-defense ( I'm not talking about plankton here, but higher life
forms). Some are the *i'm going to hide myself* type of defense, such as
protective coloration, and others are more lethal, like *i'm going to kill
you with venom and or my serrated teeth.* But virtually ALL species that
wish to Survive, have some kind of defense mechanism.
Now why is that? Because GOD created a *Tooth and Claw* universe, a kill or
be killed universe, and eat or be eaten universe. That's Why.
Lg
Lawrence Glickman
Let me elaborate a little for some of you knuckleheads out there in
bitland.....
Your BODY has a killer defense mechanism. It is called the Immune System.
It, with impunity, hunts down and MURDERS anything it thinks is a threat to
the survival of the entire organism ( that's -you-, the organism ). Any
FUCKING LAW AGAINST THIS? GODDAMNIT? Make it ILLEGAL for immune systems to
MURDER WITH MALICE AND PREMEDITATION those *innocent* little virii and
bacteria !!!!
You fucking assholes out there who think that self-defense by LETHAL MEANS
is immoral, are brain damaged, poorly educated, and a threat to the safety
of those that depend on you.
Outlaw the Human Immune System. It by FAR is guilty of more murders than
can be counted. And it needs to be held accountable. After all, God
invented bacteria also, didn't HE? Don't THEY have a *right to survive*?
Some of you are sick in the head. Get help. And people question MY sanity.
My God. I have a certificate of Sanity that says I'm Sane. Where
is -yours- ???????
L:g
TDKozan
the immune system. . . Simple to work too. Infect anyone opposed to
self defense with AIDS!
You are totally sick and twisted; must be why I keep reading you.
Best,
--
TK
I don't practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm
preaching to.
"Lawrence Glickman" <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:y6Jc5.846$w16.3...@nntp0.chicago.il.ameritech.net...
<snip to the chase>
| Outlaw the Human Immune System. It by FAR is guilty of more murders
Lawrence Glickman
news:fSJc5.804$w4.5...@petpeeve.ziplink.net...
> Now THERE is a concept with a logical, moral conclusion I like! Ban
> the immune system. . . Simple to work too. Infect anyone opposed to
> self defense with AIDS!
>
> You are totally sick and twisted; must be why I keep reading you.
>
> Best,
> --
> TK
> I don't practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm
> preaching to.
Logic? Morals? You're missing the point ( which is NO surprise to me ).
In the Jungle, there ARE NO MORALS. Only the Quick and the Dead.
You may live long enough to figure this out, but I wouldn't put any money on
it; not even someone else's money....
Regards,
Lg
jaq...@en.com
In article <4kIc5.838$w16.3...@nntp0.chicago.il.ameritech.net>, "Lawrence
Glickman" <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> Yes, you are Correct On All Counts Johan ;-)
>
> It is amazing the number of people who pull a magazine out of an *auto* and
> forget to rack the slide to dump the round in the chamber.
>
> Myself, I was taught by a retired Chicago Cop ( lady, nice as an Angel, and
> she is with the Lord now because she was getting up in years ) how to *clear
> a weapon to make it safe* before handing it to another.
>
> Then the -recipient- is responsible to CLEAR THE WEAPON AGAIN to be -sure-
> it really IS cleared.
Sounds like the nurse who taught me to shoot in a NRA Personal Protection
class. I'd brought this .22 Sat. Night Special in. I'd never loaded it. She
had me check the action...empty. Then she had me set it down on the table.
Then she had me pick it up. "Is that gun empty?"
"Of course it's empty."
"Did you check it?"
"I just set it down empty."
"Did your eyes leave it? How do you knoe the BULLET FAIRY didn't come while
you weren't looking and put BULLETS in it?"
And later, I was shooting her Colt and my thumb kept riding up the grip.
"That slide's going to bite you, and you're going to drop my gun, and then
I'm the one who's going to have to patch you up after you dropped MY gun.
Do you really want that?"
Lee Harrison
ve...@cyberback.com wrote on 7/17/00 11:08 AM:
> Lee Harrison wrote:
>>
>> in article 8ku7st$bbh$1...@news.NERO.NET, Scott Bennett at
>> benn...@ucs.orst.edu wrote on 7/17/00 1:08 AM:
>>
>>> At a bare minimum. Any church that, for example, does
>>> not *advocate* that parents defend their youngsters from
>>> criminal attackers, is a church that should be ignored.
>>
>> Well, what about that saying by Jesus, if your neighbor slaps you in the
>> face, offer him the other cheek? I mean, I know Christianity has turned out
>> to be a pretty bloodthirsty religion, but theoretically aren't they supposed
>> to love their neighbors as they love themselves, and not kill people?
>>
>> So what if the church says, self defense is okay, but no guns? You're aware
>> that the vast majority of situations in which you might need to defend
>> yourself don't involve guns, or any weapons?
>
> I started this thread, and I chose the word "boycott"
> because someone had written to me first and asked if
> I was going to boycott churches that ban guns; but to
> be more precise, what I have been suggesting is that
> if you do not agree with the dogma of a church, then
> you should leave and find a church with which you DO
> believe. That's not so unreasonable, is it. If you
> folks would just think a bit about what I'm saying you
> wouldn't find it so laughable.
OIC, now you don't advocate boycotting specific churches like others in this
group advocate boycotting McDonalds, you advocate going to a church for gun
fanatics.
And that's not really a boycott, that's an exercise of religious freedom.
Then why did you say to Roger Perkins:
"Bill, My church has banned weapons. Want to boycott them?"
"Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in many different
churches of different denominations, but I don't want to go to a church that
is not Christian, and it doesn't sound to me like your church is Christian."
The only resemblance you bear to religionists is that you're a bigoted
dumbass. Why not join the a white supremacist church - Christopher Morton
can help you find one.
[snip]
> The problem as I see it is that all your anti-gun folks
> are so rabid about the subject that you quickly jump to
> false conclusions and are not willing to take the time to
> read carefully those things that at a glance you disagree
> with. It wouldn't surprise me at all if most of you
> haven't even bothered to read my post -- just the subject
> line. Real intelligent.
I read your post. You say that Christians who favor gun control are not
real Christians.
You're just another gun fanatic.
________________
ADAMS v. WILLIAMS, 407 U.S. 143 (1972):
J. Douglas (Dissenting)
The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but
because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby
dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are
constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, "A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the
purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason
why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no
reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a
psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to
everyone except the police.
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 , upholding a
federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a
sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a
sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment,
it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining
a "militia."
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in
contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent
of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies;
the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be [407
U.S. 143, 151] secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers
on occasion." Id., at 178-179.
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our
decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was
designed to keep alive the militia.
Bill Velek
snip
> I read your post. You say that Christians who favor gun control are not
> real Christians.
That's not true. You either didn't understand what I _clearly_
said, or you are not expressing yourself clearly in your above
sentence. I said that people who want to ban others from
entering into a house of God while they are lawfully carrying
a gun are not acting like Christians. There is an _enormous_
difference between what I said and what you think I said. Go
re-read my post.
You call me a dumbass (acting like a real Christian then,
are you?) and suggest that I am a bigoted rascist without
_any_ basis whatsoever, and then you wonder why I worry about
people like YOU wanting to take my guns from me and control
my life. How do you know what color I am? How do you know
whether I am married to someone of another race, and whether
we have children of mixed blood? Anyone who knows me would
be laughing in your face right now. And people are supposed
to think that you know what you are doing?
Steve Hix
<ve...@cyberback.com> wrote:
> Lee Harrison wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > I read your post. You say that Christians who favor gun control are not
> > real Christians.
>
> That's not true.
You used two- and three-syllable words. That confused Lee.
> You either didn't understand what I _clearly_
> said, or you are not expressing yourself clearly in your above
> sentence. I said that people who want to ban others from
> entering into a house of God while they are lawfully carrying
> a gun are not acting like Christians. There is an _enormous_
> difference between what I said and what you think I said. Go
> re-read my post.
>
> You call me a dumbass (acting like a real Christian then,
> are you?) and suggest that I am a bigoted rascist without
> _any_ basis whatsoever, and then you wonder why I worry about
> people like YOU wanting to take my guns from me and control
> my life. How do you know what color I am? How do you know
> whether I am married to someone of another race, and whether
> we have children of mixed blood? Anyone who knows me would
> be laughing in your face right now. And people are supposed
> to think that you know what you are doing?
>
> Bill Velek
> PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
> If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
> If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
--
--
Steve Hix <se...@mac.com>
lar...@ozemail.com.au
<lgli...@ameritech.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
><lar...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:hub3ns0qa5kqlbc1m...@4ax.com...
>>
>> 9==> Do you suppose they allow guns in the Vatican, Bill? We could
>> check and if we find out they don't you could list the Vatican on your
>> website.
>>
>> An Arkansas judge suggesting on his website that people not visit the
>> Vatican because they don't allow guns could get you all the publicity
>> you want. I know just the editor who would be glad to handle the
>> story.
>>
>> Would you like me to check with the Vatican to see what their policy
>> is? If I find out that the Vatican bans guns will you list it on your
>> website? ...Once this is done, will compose an e-mail to the editor,
>> and you and your site can have lots of publicity very quickly.
>>
>> -larryn
>>
>
>Sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, YES the Swiss Guard at the Vatican
>is armed with submachine guns. They just keep them out of sight is all, but
>they are under the uniforms of many. THAT'S A FACT JACK. Subguns.
>And---they will use them if they need to, otherwise, why have them.
Never suggested that the Swiss Guards weren't armed. The question I
was asking is whether a visitor to the Vatican can walk in with a
concealed weapon and will bet that he cannot.
However, as I suggested, suggesting that tourists boycott the Vatican
on the grounds that they won't allow a tourist to carry would
certainly get Bill's site a lot of publicity. ;-)
—larryn
>
>Furthermore, if they can have them, I want one too. But, nevertheless, I
>will shortly have my semi-auto rifle. I was debating on an AK47 Russian, or
>possibly an AR15. It is a hassle to decide which. Most likely, I will
>forego the AR15's accuracy and capacity for the AK47 knockdown power.
>Living where I do, an AK47 is just the right stuff for getting pillaging
>Rats off my property.
>
>Oh, my town Police? All 3 of them, well, they're busy handing out speeding
>tickets right now ;-) If my neighborhood gets invaded, I want to light-up
>the night with muzzle flash. " Happy 4th of July! Take this you bastards!
>Blam..ratatatatatataat!!!!"
>
>Lg
>
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>Lawrence Glickman wrote:
>>
>> <lar...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:hub3ns0qa5kqlbc1m...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > 9==> Do you suppose they allow guns in the Vatican, Bill? We could
>> > check and if we find out they don't you could list the Vatican on your
>> > website.
>> >
>> > An Arkansas judge suggesting on his website that people not visit the
>> > Vatican because they don't allow guns could get you all the publicity
>> > you want. I know just the editor who would be glad to handle the
>> > story.
>> >
>> > Would you like me to check with the Vatican to see what their policy
>> > is? If I find out that the Vatican bans guns will you list it on your
>> > website? ...Once this is done, will compose an e-mail to the editor,
>> > and you and your site can have lots of publicity very quickly.
>> >
>> > -larryn
>> >
>>
>> Sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, YES the Swiss Guard at the Vatican
>> is armed with submachine guns.
>
>Well, that might make me feel comfortable enough to not
>feel vulnerable without a gun, I suppose.
>
>I'm going to quite reading most of Larryn's stuff; he is
>way too long winded and consumes a lot of my valuable
>time that I could be using more productively to promote
>the RKBA cause and my website. All he and the other
>anti-gun folks are trying to do with such ridiculous
>examples is to make this look like a circus with very
>unrealistic goals, so they make unfair comparisons and
>ignore the fact that my web-site _ONLY_ deals with ...
1==> Am not anti-gun, but I do think your goals are unrealistic. Why
I posted in this particular case though is that I don't think that the
average priest or minister would be at all happy if he found one of
his parishioners bringing a gun to church.
I would hate to see anyone getting into trouble following your advice
on this issue.
>
>1. ... _businesses_ (not churches, the Boy Scouts of
>America, his bowling league, or anything similar) ...
>
>2. ... in the _U.S._ (not the Vatican, which Larryn
>no doubt threw in my face due to my past defenses of
>the Catholic church and his pretty clear anti-catholic
>sentiments) ...
2==> No, it just struck me as an excellent way for you to get
publicity if you really want publicity.
>
>3. ... where the _public_ is invited and affected
>(not inside factories, or prisons, or his house, and
>not regarding policy toward _employees_, although I
>do otherwise personally empathize with them) ...
>
>4. ... and not where guns are _ALREADY_ prohibited
>by _law_ as opposed to a voluntary choice by a business.
>
>The fact that I even started this thread about boycotting
>churches is because some anti-gun wise-ass, similar to
>Larry, just felt compelled to take the issue outside of
>the limits of my organized boycott to try to get in my
>face in what s/he thought would make me compromise, and
>I felt compelled to explain to that poor misguided soul
>that any church which would deny admission to someone in
>need of God because they were exercising their legal right
>to carry a gun is not, in my opinion, the sort of church
>where I would care to worship -- just not Christian; it
>isn't so much that I would be "boycotting" them as just
>finding a _better_ church. Now, illegal carry is another
>matter -- but posting a sign won't help dissuade someone
>who already carries illegally; these liberal folks just
>can't seem to grasp that very concept. It would be like
>putting a sign up in your barn: "No mice allowed" ;-)
3==> The mice can't read, humans can. Would agree that can't keep
criminals from carrying guns to church or anywhere else for that
matter. However, possibly criminals don't bother going to church all
that often.
>
>Note to Larryn: I haven't gotten back to finish reading
>your post, so I don't know what other little gems you've
>put in it ... but I just don't have the time. But I'll
>tell you what; why don't you put me down on record that
>I will boycott the Vatican if I can't carry my gun there,
>and then try to get me and my website all the publicity
>that you can ... please.
4==> No, if doing it, have to do it properly. A promise to list the
Vatican isn't good enough. No editor of a major newspaper is going to
run a story on what someone says they *might* do. Nor is an editor
going to print a story like this without proof that the Vatican is
indeed listed on your web site. Legitimate newspapers do worry about
credibility, you know. Am not talking about a sleazeball tabloid, am
talking about a major US city newspaper belonging to a chain of
newspapers.
5==> You didn't answer my question about whether you carry a gun when
you attend your local church, and if you do whether the priest knows
about it or not.
—larryn
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 04:33:05 -0500, Bill Velek <ve...@cyberback.com> ,
>> sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
>> comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
>> monitors:
>>
>> >Roger Perkins wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bill,
>> >> My church has banned weapons. Want to boycott them?
>> >
>> >Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in
>> >many different churches of different denominations, but
>> >I don't want to go to a church that is not Christian,
>> >and it doesn't sound to me like your church is Christian.
>> >
>> >should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does
>> >not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."
>>
>> 1==> Now, Bill, you are quoting that out of context and you bloody
>> well know it.
>
>It's NOT out of context, and _you_ "bloody well know it".
>I'm not going to debate religion with you Larry; we
>already know that are views differ considerable, but I
>don't appreciate you, with your anti-gun sentiments and
>motives, trying to unfairly discredit what I said.
1==> I am not anti-gun, and have no hidden motives. I am not trying
to "unfairly discredit" what you said, I am protesting at you
misleading people over what the Bible clearly says.
>
>> The sword was never bought, as it was discovered that
>> the disciples already had two.
>
>Correct; I never said anything differently. I just
>don't think that additional fact changes a damned thing
>or I would have added; so, how in the hell is it out of
>context to omit that other inconsequential info? Try
>substituting this:
>
>Jesus: Go out and buy a couple of guns.
>Disciples: We already have two guns.
>Jesus: Then you have enough.
>
>Out of context my ass.
>
>> When the servants of the high priest came for Jesus, Peter pulled out
>> a sword, and Jesus rebuked him, saying in Matthew 26:52 "Then said
>> Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they
>> that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
>
>So what. Are you saying that Jesus was contradicting
>Himself?
2==> You haven't read my past posts on this subject have you? No,
Jesus was not contradicting himself in any way. There was no mention
of buying any swords for the purpose of self protection. Since he had
been teaching non-violence for most of his ministry and no doubt knew
he was heading for his death, I suspect he wanted to emphasize that
non-violence.
If you read my posts on the subject, or even read the Bible, you will
see that he gave no instructions for using the swords in self defense
at all. When Peter cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest,
Jesus healed the servant and rebuked Peter for using the sword.
> Are you trying to say that Jesus was saying
>that we shouldn't try to defend ourselves?
3==> By George, I think he's got it! Yes, Bill, only I'm not just
trying to say it, I am saying it, and I am quoting the Bible and the
words of Jesus correctly when I do say it.
> Did it ever
>occur to you, Mr. Bible Scholar, that the reason Jesus
>stopped Peter was because Jesus knew what He was going
>to have to do -- what He already saw during the agony
>in the garden -- and that Peter was interfering?
4==> Someone else already tried using that excuse, but I consider it a
deliberate attempt to pervert the clear meaning of what Jesus is
saying. Jesus wanted to teach Peter a lesson, and it wasn't the only
lesson Peter learned. For those who aren't familiar with the NT, this
is the same Peter that the RCs claim as founder of their church and
the first pope.
However, that didn't mean that Peter was automatically perfect. Lets
look at another lesson for Peter's. In Matthew chapter 16 Jesus had
asked his disciples who people thought he was, then asked the
disciples what they thought. Matthew 16:16 says "Simon Peter
answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus then
confirms this, praises Peter, warns the disciples to tell no one else.
Then he tells the disciples of his coming death. Will quote both NIV
and KJV.
21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he
must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders
and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third
day raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he
said "This shall never happen to you!"
23 Jesus turned and said "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling
block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God but the things
of men."
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me he
must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses
his life for me will find it.
26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet
forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
21: From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how
that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders
and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the
third day.
22: Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far
from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23: But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:
thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be
of God, but those that be of men.
24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me,
let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25: For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will
lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26: For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and
lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
[Matthew 16:21-26 KJV]
5==> Now that seems pretty straightforward to me. Peter obviously
doesn't want Jesus to sacrifice himself. Is Jesus grateful for
Peter's concern? No, he isn't. He is clearly annoyed with Peter for
seeing things from an earthly point of view, not God's point of view.
[see also Mark 8:31-38 ]
>
>Larry I'm going to have to snip the rest of your post
>for right now; I'm sure that you have lots of interesting
>things to say, but I've got to leave right now to go to
>church with my family -- honest.
>
6==> That's OK, I believe you. :-) I realise that we probably aren't
going to agree on this issue. You argue your side of it and I'll
argue mine. I think that perhaps some on the group will see my side
of the argument.
—larryn
azazel
> people when the Bible says not to? What other reason is
> there, other than the nonsensical notion that criminals
> will actually obey your sign when their intentions were
> to do something illegal to begin with. Or are you
> worried that the faithful Christians among you who do
> _NOT_ have any criminal intent are going to turn into
> demons in church just because they're armed? Idiots!
>
> Yeah, I would boycott your church without a second
> thought, even if it were the last church on earth, and
> I'd go down to the firing range where I _would_ find
> God (rather than in your "church") and I'd get down on
> my knees and worship Him there.
>
> to your minister or preacher and let him read the truth.
>
> By the way, my church doesn't exactly encourage people
> to bear arms -- they just don't say anything about it
> one way or the other, which is as it should be.
>
> spell everything out in very fine detail: "No, I'm not
> saying your should boycott a church if the state _law_
>
> Okay, now everyone will tell me how I'm not a Christian
> because I've called people "Idiots". Let God judge me!
>
> PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
> If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
> If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
>
by all means mr. velek boycott boycott boycott.. but do not be a hypocrite,
my freinds, and not boycott paul, peter and the jerusalem church while
boycotting any other church.. the stance of pacifism in christianity is very
well known.. if you boycott a church then boycott it's fathers..... i dare
you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
azazel
like i said don't be a hypocrite... if you are going to leave a church then
by all mean leave the religion.. every person who went to sunday school knows
what a bit of what the scriptures say. so, by all means if you are going to
leave church because of it's stance on weapons.. then leave the entire
religion. "turn the other cheek" brings a thought to mind... yes, whether you
like or not... self defense is best by turning the other cheek... "please
take by virgin daughters" says lot... yes whether you like or not... i think
you get the picture, violence justified to counter violence is vegeance and
jealousy.. what does the scripture say on vengeance and jealousy? thank you
very much.. have a good day.
>
> I started this thread, and I chose the word "boycott"
> because someone had written to me first and asked if
> I was going to boycott churches that ban guns; but to
> be more precise, what I have been suggesting is that
> if you do not agree with the dogma of a church, then
> you should leave and find a church with which you DO
> believe. That's not so unreasonable, is it. If you
> folks would just think a bit about what I'm saying you
> wouldn't find it so laughable.
>
> Now, you are correct that some churches teach that sort
> of dogma -- the Mennonites, Quakers, and Amish come to
> mind. However, if you are a member of one of the more
> mainstream Christian churches that never have, nor do
> they now, _officially_ teach this as dogma of any sort,
> but rather if you are just faced with a particular local
> congregation and/or minister who have taken it upon
> themselves to over-reach into an area that is beyond
> their actual dogmatic teachings, then they are wrong to
> do so for the reasons that I have previously stated. At
> that point, I see absolutely nothing wrong with remaining
> a member of that particular _denomination_, but finding
> another church of the same denomination that _doesn't_ post.
>
> Have I made myself clear? Self-defense has _never_ been
> universally condemned by any mainstream denomination that
> I am aware of, be it Catholic, Protestant, or for that
> matter even Jewish or Muslim; I don't know about other
> faiths, and I don't care because I am not going to become
> a member. There are only a few Christian denominations,
> like I have just mentioned, which comprise a very distinct
> minority. If I am wrong, please correct me.
>
> The problem as I see it is that all your anti-gun folks
> are so rabid about the subject that you quickly jump to
> false conclusions and are not willing to take the time to
> read carefully those things that at a glance you disagree
> with. It wouldn't surprise me at all if most of you
> haven't even bothered to read my post -- just the subject
> line. Real intelligent.
>
> Bill Velek
> PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
> If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
> If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
P.Henry
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>in article 39727774...@news.ind.ameritech.net, P.Henry at
>djvo...@ameritech.net wrote on 7/16/00 10:05 PM:
>
>> I think perhaps many churches that act in this manner are afraid of
>> lawsuits or are in inner city areas where the average member fears
>> guns.
>
>Yeah, Pee Henry, it would have nothing to do with those Judeo-Christian
>values like "thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor as thyself," why
>it's just because they're afraid of guns and lawsuits. There couldn't
>possibly be a religious objection to gun violence. That wouldn't be
>fundamentalist, wouldn't be Gingrich.
Yes, it could be an honest religious conviction, though it is to my
mind unlikely. But you I think would still despise it as you apear to
despise all religious convictions, so why do you bother to mention it?
Only to be contrary.
>Even as a heathen, I have to marvel at the depth and stupidity of your gun
>fanaticism.
Yes, as a heathen you dare to speak of religious matters of which you
are ignorant, as you seem also to do on other topics.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt
thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou
shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that
which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he
is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that
doeth evil."
Rom. 13:3-4
"We the people ..." are the ruler in the U.S. Our government acts
only by delegated authority. The people remain the highest level of
government. Absolute control of the coersive power of the nation was
not delegated. As our power was established in armed revolution, so
our founders intended that in arms we should be able to maintain
ourselves, the people, soveriegn. As we are the government, the ruler,
it behooves us to be armed.
>Go ahead and boycott the churches you dumbasses. What a laugh.
I'm not boycotting churches, Sir. I would not separate from my
bretheren in the faith for a political issue. You have only presumed
to know, as I think is typical.
>
>__________________
>
>A VOTE FOR THE SHRUB IS A VOTE AGAINST WOMENS' RIGHT TO CHOOSE
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29485-2000Jun30.html
>
>... Abortion remains the most volatile and divisive issue within the
>Republican coalition. The Supreme Court decision by just one vote, 5-4, to
>overturn Nebraska's ban on what opponents call "partial birth" abortions has
>raised the stakes of the election for both antiabortion forces and
>supporters of abortion rights. That could complicate a campaign strategy of
>trying to suppress debate and public conflict over the issue.
>
>The GOP abortion plank calls for enactment of a constitutional ban on the
>procedure and for abortion-based litmus tests of judicial nominees; this
>conflicts with Bush's opposition to litmus tests and his support for such
>exceptions as protecting the life of the mother, rape and incest. But, said
>a key Bush aide: "This is a fight that is a loser and the loser is always
>the nominee. We ain't going to touch it."
>
>The current language on abortion reads, in part: "The unborn child has a
>fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a
>human life amendment to the Constitution . . . We support the appointment of
>judges who respect . . . the sanctity of innocent human life."
>
>Thomas B. Edsall of the Washington Post, July 2, 2000
>
>
>
>
>The Lone Weasel
>
>Not-So-Secret-Hideout
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
>
>My Weasel Board
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
>
>Petition To Require NICS Background Checks On All Gun Sales
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/nics.mv
>
>
>
>
>
P.Henry
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>in article 39732F67...@cyberback.com, Bill Velek at
>ve...@cyberback.com wrote on 7/17/00 11:08 AM:
>
>> Lee Harrison wrote:
>>>
>>> in article 8ku7st$bbh$1...@news.NERO.NET, Scott Bennett at
>>> benn...@ucs.orst.edu wrote on 7/17/00 1:08 AM:
>>>
>>>> At a bare minimum. Any church that, for example, does
>>>> not *advocate* that parents defend their youngsters from
>>>> criminal attackers, is a church that should be ignored.
>>>
>>> Well, what about that saying by Jesus, if your neighbor slaps you in the
>>> face, offer him the other cheek? I mean, I know Christianity has turned out
>>> to be a pretty bloodthirsty religion, but theoretically aren't they supposed
>>> to love their neighbors as they love themselves, and not kill people?
To offer ones own cheek is somewhat different from offering the
cheek of ones child, if I might mention it; if only to stay within the
context of Mr. Valeks post.
Were we good neighbors to the Jews when we liberated Auschwitz? From
a scriptural point of veiw this issue is very complex. Honest men find
room to disagree.
>>>
>>> So what if the church says, self defense is okay, but no guns? You're aware
>>> that the vast majority of situations in which you might need to defend
>>> yourself don't involve guns, or any weapons?
>>
>> I started this thread, and I chose the word "boycott"
>> because someone had written to me first and asked if
>> I was going to boycott churches that ban guns; but to
>> be more precise, what I have been suggesting is that
>> if you do not agree with the dogma of a church, then
>> you should leave and find a church with which you DO
>> believe. That's not so unreasonable, is it. If you
>> folks would just think a bit about what I'm saying you
>> wouldn't find it so laughable.
>
>OIC, now you don't advocate boycotting specific churches like others in this
>group advocate boycotting McDonalds, you advocate going to a church for gun
>fanatics.
>
>And that's not really a boycott, that's an exercise of religious freedom.
>
>Then why did you say to Roger Perkins:
>
>"Bill, My church has banned weapons. Want to boycott them?"
>
>"Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in many different
>churches of different denominations, but I don't want to go to a church that
>is not Christian, and it doesn't sound to me like your church is Christian."
>
>The only resemblance you bear to religionists is that you're a bigoted
>dumbass. Why not join the a white supremacist church - Christopher Morton
>can help you find one.
>
>[snip]
>
>> The problem as I see it is that all your anti-gun folks
>> are so rabid about the subject that you quickly jump to
>> false conclusions and are not willing to take the time to
>> read carefully those things that at a glance you disagree
>> with. It wouldn't surprise me at all if most of you
>> haven't even bothered to read my post -- just the subject
>> line. Real intelligent.
>
>I read your post. You say that Christians who favor gun control are not
>real Christians.
>
>You're just another gun fanatic.
>
>________________
Lee Harrison
wrote on 7/17/00 9:41 PM:
> Lee Harrison wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> I read your post. You say that Christians who favor gun control are not
>> real Christians.
>
> That's not true.
Yes, it's true.
Message-ID: <3971804C...@cyberback.com>
From: Bill Velek <ve...@cyberback.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Boycott any church that bans guns
[begin repost]
Roger Perkins wrote:
>
> Bill,
> My church has banned weapons. Want to boycott them?
Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in
many different churches of different denominations, but
I don't want to go to a church that is not Christian,
and it doesn't sound to me like your church is Christian.
[end repost]
> You either didn't understand what I _clearly_
> said, or you are not expressing yourself clearly in your above
> sentence. I said that people who want to ban others from
> entering into a house of God while they are lawfully carrying
> a gun are not acting like Christians.
No, you said Roger's church wasn't Christian, because his church banned
weapons.
You're just an arrogant gun fanatic who thinks carrying a gun means you can
push people around and make unreasonable demands.
I'm an atheist myself, but sounds to me like Roger's church is Christian,
and you need to apologize for making mean and stupid comments about his
church.
> There is an _enormous_
> difference between what I said and what you think I said. Go
> re-read my post.
It's posted above. I see you deleted those comments in your post.
> You call me a dumbass (acting like a real Christian then,
> are you?)
Nah, I'm a heathen. We can tell assholes like you to go fuck yourselves.
> and suggest that I am a bigoted rascist without
> _any_ basis whatsoever,
How about boycotting Christian churches just because they don't allow guns?
Sounds like bigotry to me.
I'm an atheist and I'd never boycott churches even if they all carried BARs.
Just apologize to the Christians and move on.
> and then you wonder why I worry about
> people like YOU wanting to take my guns from me and control
> my life. How do you know what color I am?
What difference does it make? You're just a dumbass who got caught lying.
POINT PROVEN!
________________
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said
about war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the
generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But
today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the
time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no
longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination,
Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and
impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
- From Dr. Strangelove
Lee Harrison
se...@mac.com wrote on 7/18/00 12:35 AM:
>>> I read your post. You say that Christians who favor gun control are not
>>> real Christians.
>>
>> That's not true.
>
> You used two- and three-syllable words. That confused Lee.
Read this, Hick:
Message-ID: <3971804C...@cyberback.com>
From: Bill Velek <ve...@cyberback.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Boycott any church that bans guns
[begin repost]
Roger Perkins wrote:
>
> Bill,
> My church has banned weapons. Want to boycott them?
Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in
many different churches of different denominations, but
I don't want to go to a church that is not Christian,
and it doesn't sound to me like your church is Christian.
[end repost]
So do you think Buffalo Bill meant anything besides what he said, that
Roger's church wasn't Christian because it banned guns?
I'd ask the Buffalo Boy hisself but he's killfiled me for making him face
his own lies...
POINT PROVEN!
_______________
Cut to: int. War Room
Strangelove:
[Executes an about face from the big board to face the camera.]
Mr. President, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of
human specimens. It would be quite easy... heh heh...
[rolls forward into the light]
at the bottom of ah ... some of our deeper mineshafts. The radioactivity
would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of
weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided.
Muffley: How long would you have to stay down there?
Strangelove:
Well let's see now ah,
[searches within his lapel]
cobalt thorium G.
[notices circular slide rule in his gloved hand]
aa... nn... Radioactive halflife of uh,... hmm.. I would think that uh...
possibly uh... one hundred years.
[On finishing his calculations, he pulls the slide rule roughly from his
gloved hand, and returns it to within his jacket.]
Muffley:
You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?
Strangelove:
It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh... I'm
sorry. Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost
indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred
and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available
mine sites in the country. But I would guess... that ah, dwelling space for
several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.
Muffley:
Well I... I would hate to have to decide.. who stays up and.. who goes down.
Strangelove:
Well, that would not be necessary Mr. President. It could easily be
accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to
accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a
cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital
that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart
the required principles of leadership and tradition.
[Slams down left fist. Right arm rises in stiff Nazi salute.]
Arrrrr!
[Restrains right arm with left.]
Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and
little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say,
ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way
back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years.
Muffley:
But look here doctor, wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief
stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go
on living?
Strangelove:
No sir...
[Right arm rolls his wheelchair backwards.]
Excuse me.
[Struggles with wayward right arm, ultimately subduing it with a beating
from his left.]
Also when... when they go down into the mine everyone would still be alive.
There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one
of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity
for the adventure ahead! Ahhhh!
[Right arm reflexes into Nazi salute. He pulls it back into his lap and
beats it again. Gloved hand attempts to strangle him.]
N9NWO
: > lawsuits or are in inner city areas where the average member fears
: > guns.
:
: Yeah, Pee Henry, it would have nothing to do with those Judeo-Christian
: values like "thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor as thyself," why
: it's just because they're afraid of guns and lawsuits. There couldn't
: possibly be a religious objection to gun violence. That wouldn't be
: fundamentalist, wouldn't be Gingrich.
: Even as a heathen, I have to marvel at the depth and stupidity of your
gun
: fanaticism.
:
: Go ahead and boycott the churches you dumbasses. What a laugh.
The law, which applies to Israel not the Body of Christ, states that
"one is forbidden to unjustly take life (murder)". Thou shall not kill
is a less than actuate translation. And goes in the face of God having
people put to death all throughout the Bible.
N9NWO
: >> :
: >> : Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in
: >> : many different churches of different denominations, but
: >> : I don't want to go to a church that is not Christian,
: >> : and it doesn't sound to me like your church is Christian.
: >> : Why do I say that? Well, let me ask the cliché: "What
: >> : would Jesus do?" Do you _really_ think that He would
: >> : turn away someone in need of religious influence because
: >> : that person was carrying a gun? Let's assume for a
: >> : minute that you believe that gun-totters are sinners
: >> : (aside from the fact that all men are sinners in the
: >> : general sense), ... we certainly know that Jesus would
: >> : not ostracize us because of that; He came for the sinners
: >> : and not for the righteous. Or do you think that Jesus
: >> : would not associate with gun-totters out of fear? You
: >> : and your church would do well to learn a little about
: >> : courage for your faith -- the kind of courage that the
: >> : martyrs had.
: >> :
: >> : Now, you're probably going to come up with something
: >> : idiotic like: "Well, the gun-totter is the one making
: >> : a choice, and if he doesn't want to leave his gun at
: >> : home then that's his decision." Once again, I would
: >> : point out to you that anyone who is making that sort
: >> : of a decision simply on the basis of putting their own
: >> : Bill Velek
: >> : PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
: >> : If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
: >> : If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
: >> Judge Velek, look at the number of churches who officially
: >> forbid self defense as immoral. The United Methodists, the
: >> Presbyterians and the Union of Hebrew Congregations.
: >
: >Then their membership is already anti-gun, and I certainly
: >don't expect anti-gun people to boycott themselves.
: >
: >Bill Velek
: >PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
: >If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
: >If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
: I think perhaps many churches that act in this manner are afraid of
: lawsuits or are in inner city areas where the average member fears
: guns.
Most of these churches are national churches with large suburban
congregations. No the problem that they are left wing (social
Christians) and most do not serve in the military or law enforcement.
Just a bunch of rich suburbanites.
N9NWO
then
: by all mean leave the religion.. every person who went to sunday school
knows
: what a bit of what the scriptures say. so, by all means if you are going
to
: leave church because of it's stance on weapons.. then leave the entire
: religion. "turn the other cheek" brings a thought to mind... yes, whether
you
: like or not... self defense is best by turning the other cheek... "please
: take by virgin daughters" says lot... yes whether you like or not... i
think
: you get the picture, violence justified to counter violence is vegeance
and
: jealousy.. what does the scripture say on vengeance and jealousy? thank
you
: very much.. have a good day.
Turn the check refers to being insulted. It was an insult in that day
for a man to touch you on the check, sort of his way of pushing you.
Jesus was only saying to let them insult you and ignore it. That is not
the same as saying that it is wrong to defend yourself if they try to kill
you.
N9NWO
: >
: > > I read your post. You say that Christians who favor gun control are
not
: > > real Christians.
: >
: > That's not true.
:
: You used two- and three-syllable words. That confused Lee.
Lee isn't used to having to debate a Judge. We need
more lawyers in here anyway.
azazel
>
> Turn the check refers to being insulted. It was an insult in that day
> for a man to touch you on the check, sort of his way of pushing you.
> Jesus was only saying to let them insult you and ignore it. That is not
> the same as saying that it is wrong to defend yourself if they try to kill
> you.
No, I afraid not. Considering how the apostles died, I'd have to disagree. Of
course, like all of mainstream Christianity anything and everything will be
taken out of context to ensure an individuals selfish desires. See you are
forgetting the role of the martyr. The martyr was an extremely important part
of Christianity until the Protestant Reformation. Also, vegeance and jealousy
, it should be noted, is wrong.
--
"When an anarchist is taken seriously, the NRA will believe
guns are evil."- the old punks webzine
"The violence associated with alcohol Prohibition, and the threat of
Communist and anarchist subversion during the 1930s, prompted in 1934
the restriction of so-called "gangster weapons" from availability
to the general public. "-talk.politics.guns FAQ
Why the Left fears the Right http://www.duke.org
Why the Right fears the left http://flag.blackened.net/anarpics/blkred2.gif
Lee Harrison
wrote on 7/18/00 7:01 AM:
> Lee isn't used to having to debate a Judge. We need
> more lawyers in here anyway.
And yet Buffalo Bill can't deny he said the following:
[begin repost]
Roger Perkins wrote:
>
> Bill,
> My church has banned weapons. Want to boycott them?
Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in
many different churches of different denominations, but
I don't want to go to a church that is not Christian,
and it doesn't sound to me like your church is Christian.
[end repost]
He says Roger's church isn't Christian because they don't allow guns in
there. You said about Christians who don't want guns in church:
"No the problem that they are left wing (social Christians) and most do not
serve in the military or law enforcement. Just a bunch of rich
suburbanites."
Personal attacks on your Christian brothers - their problem is they're "left
wing," not that they have a conscience." Their problem is most don't serve
in the military or law enforcement - just so happens the vast majority of
people never serve in the military of law enforcement, including gunloon
Christians and all other American citizens regardless of political or
religious values - isn't that right, dumbass?
"Rich suburbanites?"
According to a recent Gallup poll, 34% of Americans own guns. That's about
92 million gun owners, out of 270 million Americans, or about a third of the
populace.
That means two-thirds of Americans don't own guns. And among gun owners,
most say they favor tougher gun control.
So who the fuck are you to launch personal attacks on people because they
don't want guns in their church? You're a bigot, attacking the right of
people to the free exercise of their religion.
Go ahead and boycott these churches, with Buffalo Bill. I hope it gets on
CNN, so the whole country can see what bigoted dumbasses gunloons are.
POINT PROVEN!
________________
May 25, 2000 New York Times
Gun Control a Women's Issue, Not a Mother's Issue
By MARJORIE CONNELLY
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/052500poll-watch.html
While most men and women favor making gun control laws more strict, women
support stricter gun control by a much larger proportion. In a recent Gallup
Poll conducted for Women.com, 52 percent of men said the laws covering the
sale of firearms should be made more strict. Among women, that figure jumps
to 72 percent. Only a quarter of women said the laws should made less strict
or kept as they are now. Among men, 47 percent said gun control laws should
be made less strict or kept the same.
When questioned more specifically about handguns, 78 percent of women in the
latest New York Times/CBS poll said laws covering the sale of handguns
should be made stricter, compared with 62 percent of the men.
In the Times/CBS poll, large majorities of both men and women support a ban
on assault weapons and favor compelling gun manufacturers to install child
safety locks on handguns.
Even most gun owners support these measures, although they are less inclined
to say gun control laws need to be made more strict.
TDKozan
case of terminal smart-ass so maybe my agreement didn't come through
clearly.
The point I was trying (poorly) to make was that someone who holds the
view that there is no right to defend themselves with lethal force
should be willing to put their money where their mouth is, as it were;
and stop killing all the poor little microorganisms in their body on a
daily basis. That is the 'logical' extension of their 'reasoned',
'moral' position. Voluntary infection with HIV would be the most
effective way to do this.
Is the above sick, absurd, or totally deranged? Not nearly as much as
having some swinging Richard tell me I can't defend myself and my
family with _whatever_ means I have available!
BTW, the smart money was on me not making it to puberty. With that
having faded into the misty past, I'm forced to conclude that rats
will always find a way to make it.
Regards,
--
TK
I don't practice what I preach 'cause I'm not the kind of person I'm
preaching to.
"Lawrence Glickman" <lgli...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:neNc5.871$w16.3...@nntp0.chicago.il.ameritech.net...
| TDKozan <TDK...@uswest.net> wrote in message
| news:fSJc5.804$w4.5...@petpeeve.ziplink.net...
| > Now THERE is a concept with a logical, moral conclusion I like!
Ban
| > the immune system. . . Simple to work too. Infect anyone opposed
to
| > self defense with AIDS!
| >
<snip>
Bill Velek
>
> >
> > Turn the check refers to being insulted. It was an insult in that day
> > for a man to touch you on the check, sort of his way of pushing you.
> > Jesus was only saying to let them insult you and ignore it. That is not
> > the same as saying that it is wrong to defend yourself if they try to kill
> > you.
>
> No, I afraid not. Considering how the apostles died, I'd have to disagree. Of
> course, like all of mainstream Christianity anything and everything will be
> taken out of context to ensure an individuals selfish desires. See you are
> forgetting the role of the martyr. The martyr was an extremely important part
> of Christianity until the Protestant Reformation. Also, vegeance and jealousy
> , it should be noted, is wrong.
Here's a quote from a recent article in the Washington Post,
quoting Fr. Duesterhaus, a Catholic priest who shot a man in
self-defense:
****
But Duesterhaus, the priest who shot at his intruder, said
one should not confuse martyrdom with "being mugged for
petty cash." "I would love to die for the Lord Jesus
Christ and His Church," ... "dying due to crime is not
martyrdom; it is just a tragedy. And dying when it can
be avoided is just a waste of a life."
**** end of quote ****
Old Biker
> > > > Are you trying to say that Jesus was saying
> > > >that we shouldn't try to defend ourselves?
> >
> > > 3==> By George, I think he's got it! Yes, Bill, only I'm not just
> > > trying to say it, I am saying it, and I am quoting the Bible and the
> > > words of Jesus correctly when I do say it.
You quote the Paulist Bible, not "the words of Jesus". There is no
evidence that the man we call Jesus said any such thing except Pauline
propaganda designed to distance Paul's new church from the real Jesus.
OTOH, there is considerable evidence both in and outside the Bible that
make it very unlikely. Remember, Jesus was thought by many to be the new
Messiah and guess what: a messiah is a soldier/king like David who
killed people regularly, not some belly-up wuss. Hell, Jesus' real
desciples, who knew him personally, even tried to kill the author of
Pauline Christianity (Saul) for heresy! That's why he had to leave town
and change his name to Paul. Turn the other cheek my arse, these dudes
were radicals willing to kill over religious dogma, and Jesus had been
their leader.
So where did this take-any-crap BS come from? As you know,
Saul-turned-Paul's new religion, tho based on Greek mythos, used Jesus
as its figurehead. Jesus' reputation (crucified for sedition) became a
threat and an embarassment when Rome decided to crush Jewish militancy
so Paul's Christians adopted the same camoflage as Ghandi to distance
themselves from both Judaism and Jesus' real followers back in
Jerusalem. Thus Pauline Christianity survived whilst Jesus' real church
did not. That's why it is the words that apologists put into his mouth
to save their own bacon that Larryn quotes, believing he is quoting
Jesus. He means well and believes what he says but .. :o(. There used to
be a lot of historical info in the archives at <www.qumran.com> but be
prepared to wade thru much dogma.
Peter H. Proctor
>From: "N9NWO" <21...@gte.net>
>Subject: Re: Boycott any church that bans guns
>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:54:54 GMT
>
>The law, which applies to Israel not the Body of Christ, states that
>"one is forbidden to unjustly take life (murder)". Thou shall not kill
>is a less than actuate translation. And goes in the face of God having
>people put to death all throughout the Bible.
Gimme that old time religion<G>
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to
death (Exodus 21:17)."
One of the Prophets: "And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was
going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and
mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the
Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and
two children of them" (2 Kings 2:23-24).
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the
whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire (Leviticus
21:9)."
Then don't forget that God terminates most pregnancies before term.....
Dr P
Lawrence Glickman
DEATH is a constant and a certainty in this life. As the saying goes, the
only 3 things you can count on are Death, taxes, and I forgot the other one
;-)
We kill all the time, to Survive. Millions of animals are slaughtered each
morning, beginning around 4 a.m. to keep the bellies of America full of
meat. Out of sight, out of mind? DEATH is not an accepted part of the
American Culture, there seems to be a taboo about it, and that's why we, as
a culture, go to such tremendous effort to -keep- it Sterile and out of
sight.
Nobody seems to want to look the ugly truth in the face. That in order
for -they- as an individual to survive, many animals each year are going to
have to be Murdered ( 1st Degree, with forethought and possibly malice ), in
order that they can survive.
It is a case of eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. Kill and animal/human
so WE don't die, from starvation or depravity.
Many find this idea completely distasteful, and i myself, whenever passing a
tractor trailer full of animals on the way to the slaughterhouse, get a bit
of a cringe in my stomach myself; nevertheless, I'm always home in time for
a delicious steak!
It is a cultural thing, and American thing, and I suggest we Americans *get
over it.* Until we face up to the fact that Death is a part of Life, we're
always turning our heads away from Reality, and that can be dangerous. When
it comes time to defend ourselves, maybe we have hesitation to confront the
blood and guts that will inveitably follow.
AFAIK, there is literally NO death education in the school systems ( outside
of Columbine-type field experiments ). Billions of pounds of animals are
made into steaks and meat patties every year to keep us happy and content;
as long as WE don't see it, the dirty details, we can believe they were just
made in a factory and not taken at the pain and suffering of an animal.
It is GOD HIMSELF that created this *system* of death/life/death. We all
live at the expense of something else.
Now how far is it to move from that perception to realizing that it may be
necessary to prolong our lives by doing some of the dirty work ourselves. I
think it should be mandatory that everyone, at some time before they finish
schooling, slaughter an animal for human consumption, and prepare it for the
dining table. And then EAT it.
Milk doesn't come from factories, it comes from cows. Meat doesn't come
from Super K-Mart, it comes from slaughtered sheep and cattle, and so forth.
Take the *class* out to a farm and say, OK kids, hungry? Wanna eat? Here's
some knives, and etcetera, and there's Bessie. Figure out what you're going
to do and have at it, less you go hungry for the next few days.
When it comes to self defense, I put no limitations on what might have to be
done to preserve myself and my family. If that means slaughtering lambs,
then the lambs will die. If it means slaughtering humans, then the humans
will die, if it means catching and slaughtering fish, then the fish will
die. The only morality I subscribe to is the one God put on earth with HIS
system of Kill or be killed.
Lg
Lee Harrison
wrote on 7/18/00 9:24 AM:
> azazel wrote:
>>> Turn the check refers to being insulted. It was an insult in that day
>>> for a man to touch you on the check, sort of his way of pushing you.
>>> Jesus was only saying to let them insult you and ignore it. That is not
>>> the same as saying that it is wrong to defend yourself if they try to kill
>>> you.
>>
>> No, I afraid not. Considering how the apostles died, I'd have to disagree. Of
>> course, like all of mainstream Christianity anything and everything will be
>> taken out of context to ensure an individuals selfish desires. See you are
>> forgetting the role of the martyr. The martyr was an extremely important part
>> of Christianity until the Protestant Reformation. Also, vegeance and jealousy
>> , it should be noted, is wrong.
>
> Here's a quote from a recent article in the Washington Post,
> quoting Fr. Duesterhaus, a Catholic priest who shot a man in
> self-defense:
>
> ****
>
> But Duesterhaus, the priest who shot at his intruder, said
> one should not confuse martyrdom with "being mugged for
> petty cash." "I would love to die for the Lord Jesus
> Christ and His Church," ... "dying due to crime is not
> martyrdom; it is just a tragedy. And dying when it can
> be avoided is just a waste of a life."
>
> **** end of quote ****
What's your cite on that story, Buffalo Bill? I think you're lying again -
sounds like something a dumbass would make up to cover his ass.
That is, it shows the level of your ignorance. You don't know anything
about martyrdom. Your fictional priest would be familiar with the martyrdom
of the saints, like St. Ignatius - just one among millions of examples of
martyred Christians, almost all of them anonymous -
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-38.htm#P3076_500844
Devoured by wild beasts. Just for the record, my sympathies are with
Trajan.
POINT PROVEN!
__________________
A VOTE FOR THE SHRUB IS A VOTE AGAINST WOMENS' RIGHT TO CHOOSE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29485-2000Jun30.html
... Abortion remains the most volatile and divisive issue within the
Republican coalition. The Supreme Court decision by just one vote, 5-4, to
overturn Nebraska's ban on what opponents call "partial birth" abortions has
raised the stakes of the election for both antiabortion forces and
supporters of abortion rights. That could complicate a campaign strategy of
trying to suppress debate and public conflict over the issue.
The GOP abortion plank calls for enactment of a constitutional ban on the
procedure and for abortion-based litmus tests of judicial nominees; this
conflicts with Bush's opposition to litmus tests and his support for such
exceptions as protecting the life of the mother, rape and incest. But, said
a key Bush aide: "This is a fight that is a loser and the loser is always
the nominee. We ain't going to touch it."
The current language on abortion reads, in part: "The unborn child has a
fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a
human life amendment to the Constitution . . . We support the appointment of
judges who respect . . . the sanctity of innocent human life."
Thomas B. Edsall of the Washington Post, July 2, 2000
Lawrence Glickman
news:3975174...@news.santafe.edu...
>
> >Logic? Morals? You're missing the point ( which is NO surprise to me ).
> >In the Jungle, there ARE NO MORALS. Only the Quick and the Dead.
> >
> >You may live long enough to figure this out, but I wouldn't put any mone
>
> that are generally species specific.
>
> For example, the norm of reciprocity for allogrooming with Antelope,
> or blood sharing with Vampire bats, or the norms governing use of
> lethal force for lions, tigers, and bears, (one with another).
>
> Wolves, dogs, and such have ROE they follow (usually) just like people
> do.
>
> From: A chaplain who understands that the faith does not disallow
> self-defense as a last resort (check out Augustine's Just War Theory).
What a s-t-r-e-t-c-h, but I don't blame you for trying to get away with it.
What you are talking about are the biological mandates that are imperatives
for the survival of a species. Behavior that has developed to foster
longevity. Symbiosis, cooperation, dominance-submission, gathering in
packs, and so forth. This has nothing to do with morality. Except in your
anthropomorphic thinking.
Animals that behave certain ways live longer than animals that behave
differently. This means that the ones that come up with the best plan for
survival < through trial and error > are the ones that Survive and
replicate, while those that tried less adaptive behaviors perished.
Where is the *morality* in a card game? Nice try, but you don't get in.....
Lg
asdfr...@hotmail.com
Bill Velek
snip
> Bill Velek wrote:
> > Here's a quote from a recent article in the Washington Post,
> > quoting Fr. Duesterhaus, a Catholic priest who shot a man in
> > self-defense:
> >
> > ****
> >
> > But Duesterhaus, the priest who shot at his intruder, said
> > one should not confuse martyrdom with "being mugged for
> > petty cash." "I would love to die for the Lord Jesus
> > Christ and His Church," ... "dying due to crime is not
> > martyrdom; it is just a tragedy. And dying when it can
> > be avoided is just a waste of a life."
> >
> > **** end of quote ****
>
> What's your cite on that story, Buffalo Bill? I think you're lying again -
> sounds like something a dumbass would make up to cover his ass.
First of all, I prefer "Wild Bill", okay? ;-)
Here ya go, Lee:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48151-2000Jul15.html
Now I'll wait for an apology for you calling me a liar.
Let's see what sort of a person you are. Here ... I'll
show you right here how it's done; look at the end of this:
news://news.cyberback.com/39753D47.7FC97850%40cyberback.com
Crow doesn't taste too bad with a bit of salt --
Lee Harrison
ve...@cyberback.com wrote on 7/19/00 2:54 AM:
>>> But Duesterhaus, the priest who shot at his intruder, said
>>> one should not confuse martyrdom with "being mugged for
>>> petty cash." "I would love to die for the Lord Jesus
>>> Christ and His Church," ... "dying due to crime is not
>>> martyrdom; it is just a tragedy. And dying when it can
>>> be avoided is just a waste of a life."
>> What's your cite on that story, Buffalo Bill? I think you're lying again -
>> sounds like something a dumbass would make up to cover his ass.
>
> First of all, I prefer "Wild Bill", okay? ;-)
Too bad, Buffalo Bill.
> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48151-2000Jul15.html
And we find another Washington Post "reporter" writing propaganda for the
gun lobby. Why in the world would he include the opinions of gun lobbyists
like this Snyder, who has no policy making authority in the Catholic church,
or any sense of morality apart from gun fanaticism?
Here's what the real Catholic authorities said about Snyder's arrogant and
stupid "boilerplate" that a priest who was murdered would still be alive if
he'd been carrying a gun:
[begin exerpt]
Washington Auxiliary Bishop William E. Lori objected strongly. He called the
suggestion that priests be encouraged to own handguns for self-defense
"unworthy of Monsignor Wells's memory."
The Rev. Aaron Joseph Coty, administrator of Mother Seton parish, finds
abhorrent the idea that priests--or anyone, for that matter--own handguns.
"You don't need weapons to defend yourself," he said. "There are other ways.
You can talk with the person, reason with the person, get into a fistfight."
[end excerpt]
And the actual Catholic expert on ethics was barely allowed his opinion:
"Berkman, the ethicist, sees a "profound inappropriateness" in a priest
owning a handgun, especially going to a firing range to practice. If
nonviolent response to brutality is not the goal, "why are the martyrs the
highest ideal?" he asked. "Were they stupid?"
Are you a religious guy, Buffalo Bill? Wait, we know you are - your
religion is guns. But other religious people take the Christian mythology
and the historical record of martyrs seriously. Those Catholic martyrs
suffered horribly, presumably as models of Christian love and faith in god
and such stuff.
But you gunloons don't recognize any of that stuff. You got guns. With
guns you can just threaten people to make them do what you want.
When Roger said that his church didn't allow guns, you drew down on him,
insisting that Roger's church wasn't Christian because it doesn't recognize
your demand to take guns to church.
Typical fascistic hostility to religious freedom.
> Now I'll wait for an apology for you calling me a liar.
Nah, this article's just another "boilerplate" addition to gun lobby
propaganda. Pithy description of a harrowing experience in which a gun
saves life (although we're told that guns don't kill, etc). Then the
standard gun lobby slogans, this murder victim would undoubtedly still be
alive if he/she had had a gun and been intensely trained in killing people.
The opposition is portrayed as weak-kneed, while the gun fanatics are
portrayed as patriotic, cool-headed, kinda like movie stars from B-westerns.
The reporter's gun bias is obvious.
Excluding the opposing religious view was dishonest, but predictable -
that's why you're called Buffalo Bill, and a dumbass...
POINT PROVEN!
_________________
Articles of Confederation - VI.
"No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except
such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in
Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall
any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such
number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled,
shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of
such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and
disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide
and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed
pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp
equipage."
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>snip
>
>> 1==> Am not anti-gun, but I do think your goals are unrealistic. Why
>> I posted in this particular case though is that I don't think that the
>> average priest or minister would be at all happy if he found one of
>> his parishioners bringing a gun to church.
>
>Really? I'd have to disagree unless the minister
>also had some serious concerns about the stability
>of that person.
>
>First, most states which permit carry also require
>that it be _concealed_ carry; you don't have a
>choice, so people won't easily be able to tell that
>you have a gun unless you are doing something wrong
>or happen to tell them. I would see no reason to
>tell anyone, including the minister. That is not
>being sneaky; it is complying with the law, minding
>your own business, and maintaining your privacy. If
>you are licensed, then it is _your_ business if you
>have a gun, and where it is legal to carry in churches
>you should be able to do so unless it is posted. I've
>already explained my problems with posting.
>
>Second, unless you are a new member of the congregation
>your pastor/minister/priest should know you -- and what
>sort of a person you are. If he is new, then he ought
>to take the time to get to know you before he forms any
>judgments. I believe that if I went to my priest, who
>I happen to think likes me pretty well, and if I were to
>explain to him all of the following, I don't have any
>doubts at all that he would not be forming the sort of
>negative opinions that have been expressed in replies
>to my post; I would explain to him:
>
>... that I have received threats as a judge and prosecutor,
>so I carry a gun for self-defense;
>
>... that I have been licensed after a background check and
>safety training;
>
>... that I would be carrying _concealed_ so that no one
>will be frightened or disturbed by seeing it -- not
>not even him -- but that I am just paying him the
>courtesy of just telling him (actually, I don't see
>the need and no doubt would never mention it unless
>I got wind that the church was thinking of posting);
>
>... that I really don't want to have to take it off and
>lock it in my gun because it is safer if I keep
>control of it;
>
>... that it doesn't put anyone in jeopardy because if
>any criminal was crazy enough to come into the church
>to shoot me (or anyone else) in front of people, then
>my gun is the least of their worries and it probably
>wouldn't matter whether I have a gun or not; and
>
>... that any would be killer might actually be encouraged
>to do it inside the church if he was convinced that
>this is the only place where I am disarmed.
>
>My priest knows I am a religious man, a family man, and
>a responsible member of the community as well as the
>church; no, Larry, I _don't_ think he would tell me that
>I can not carry _concealed_ in church.
1==> I know a really easy way to find out. Simply ask. Or are you
worried that he will say "no". It just could be that he has religious
objections to having guns in a church. I must admit it sounds pretty
strange to me.
>
>> 3==> The mice can't read, humans can. Would agree that can't keep
>> criminals from carrying guns to church or anywhere else for that
>> matter. However, possibly criminals don't bother going to church all
>> that often.
>
>Which is all the more reason why it is silly to ban guns
>there; you've already admitted that it is not going to
>effect the criminals -- just the law-abiding folks who
>are being _treated_ like the criminals. On the rare
>occasions when a criminal might want to come to church
>-- either to attack someone, which justifies me carrying
>my gun -- or to seek Christ, in which case the church
>should not put impediments before him (even a crook can
>feel the need for a gun for self-defense, and decide to
>not enter the church if he needs to leave it behind).
>
>Larry, the only reason I've taken this time with you is
>that I happened to have a bit of time, but now I need to
>move on.
>
>> 5==> You didn't answer my question about whether you carry a gun when
>> you attend your local church, and if you do whether the priest knows
>> about it or not.
>
>Larry, I don't tell people when I am carrying; I don't
>think it is prudent. Let them keep guessing. Now, I
>will say that it is illegal to carry a gun into _any_
>church or place of worship in Arkansas, and that is the
>_law_ without any need for posting.
2==> Do you consider laws as optional, that we should only follow the
ones we agree with?
—larryn
> So you see, Larry,
>this has all been academic because there is nothing a
>church can do, short of having the _law_ changed, to
>_allow_ people to carry there in Arkansas, and therefor
>there is never a reason here in Arkansas to boycott a
>church because the churches no doubt don't go through
>the redundant act of posting signs to ban what is
>already illegal.
>The only reason I discussed it at all
>is because I'm sure that it is probably legal in _other_
>states somewhere, and because some anti-gun wiseass had
>to bring that up in the first place thinking that he'd
>stump me.
>
>Bill Velek
>PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
>If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
>If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
[Posting from misc.survivalism]
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
>snip
>
>You should try learning the simple courtesy of snipping
>once in awhile!
>
>snip
>
>> > Are you trying to say that Jesus was saying
>> >that we shouldn't try to defend ourselves?
>>
>> 3==> By George, I think he's got it! Yes, Bill, only I'm not just
>> trying to say it, I am saying it,
>
>You are in a very distinct minority with the view that
>we are not entitled, as Christians, to self-defense;
>> For those who aren't familiar with the NT, this
>> is the same Peter that the RCs claim as founder of their church and
>> the first pope.
>
>What the RCs (Roman Catholics) claim as founder and
>first pope; why is that relevant to anything discussed
>in this thread?
2==> The implication was that if Jesus wasn't afraid to criticize
Peter for his attitude that He isn't going to provide you any more
leeway than He provided Peter.
>It's not; it is just one more time
>that you gratuitously mention my church as you have
>so often done in the past, and since you have amply
>demonstrated that you are anti-Catholic, I really
>don't appreciate your constant attempts to bait me
>by your irreverent use of "RC", what it "claims", etc.,
>and I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.
>I don't know why I un-plonked you in the first place.
3==> I don't have anything in particular against RCs, have some good
friends who are RCs. I will admit that there are RCC beliefs and
practices that I disagree with.
—larryn
[Posting from misc.survivalism]
lar...@ozemail.com.au
<lgli...@ameritech.net> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
><lar...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:7106ns49hqm4gatmd...@4ax.com...
>
>Judge Roy Beanhead
>> > Are you trying to say that Jesus was saying
>> >that we shouldn't try to defend ourselves?
>>
>
>Larryn
>> 3==> By George, I think he's got it! Yes, Bill, only I'm not just
>> trying to say it, I am saying it, and I am quoting the Bible and the
>> words of Jesus correctly when I do say it.
>
>well, I can't agree with any of this. Self Defense is Rule #1 for Survival
>of -ANY- species. And almost -every- species on Earth has some *mechanism*
>for self-defense ( I'm not talking about plankton here, but higher life
>forms). Some are the *i'm going to hide myself* type of defense, such as
>protective coloration, and others are more lethal, like *i'm going to kill
>you with venom and or my serrated teeth.* But virtually ALL species that
>wish to Survive, have some kind of defense mechanism.
>Now why is that? Because GOD created a *Tooth and Claw* universe, a kill or
>be killed universe, and eat or be eaten universe. That's Why.
Yes, Lawrence, but humans are supposedly superior to animals and more
capable of self-control. They also don't have to worry about the
fate of their souls.
However, in an issue such as this, everyone has to make up their own
mind.
I would feel guilty if I didn't warn people of what the Bible says on
the issue. They can either heed what it says or not.
—larryn
[Posting from misc.survivalism]
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 06:41:15 -0500, Lee Harrison
><lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>
>>in article 39727774...@news.ind.ameritech.net, P.Henry at
>>djvo...@ameritech.net wrote on 7/16/00 10:05 PM:
>>
>>> I think perhaps many churches that act in this manner are afraid of
>>> lawsuits or are in inner city areas where the average member fears
>>> guns.
>>
>>Yeah, Pee Henry, it would have nothing to do with those Judeo-Christian
>>values like "thou shalt not kill" and "love thy neighbor as thyself," why
>>it's just because they're afraid of guns and lawsuits. There couldn't
>>possibly be a religious objection to gun violence. That wouldn't be
>>fundamentalist, wouldn't be Gingrich.
>
> Yes, it could be an honest religious conviction, though it is to my
>mind unlikely. But you I think would still despise it as you apear to
>despise all religious convictions, so why do you bother to mention it?
>Only to be contrary.
>
>>Even as a heathen, I have to marvel at the depth and stupidity of your gun
>>fanaticism.
>
> Yes, as a heathen you dare to speak of religious matters of which you
>are ignorant, as you seem also to do on other topics.
>
> 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt
>thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou
>shalt have praise of the same:
> 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that
>which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he
>is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that
>doeth evil."
>
>Rom. 13:3-4
>
Actually, this the chapter deals with the duty of the Christian to
respect the authority of the Government. Verses 3 and 4 refer to the
Roman soldiers occupying Jerusalem, and those soldiers are almost
certainly not Christians but pagan. To save people having to look it
up will provide the first six verses here:
=============================================
Submission to the Authorities [Romans 13:1-6]
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there
is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities
that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling
against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring
judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who
do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?
Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be
afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's
servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only
because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's
servants, who give their full time to governing.
7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if
revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
====================================================
—larryn
[Posting from misc.survivalism]
lar...@ozemail.com.au
<lee...@amaonline.com> , sharing an opinion worldwide on
misc.survivalism, and inviting comments from others, caused the
following words to appear on our monitors:
>in article 8ku7st$bbh$1...@news.NERO.NET, Scott Bennett at
>benn...@ucs.orst.edu wrote on 7/17/00 1:08 AM:
>
>> At a bare minimum. Any church that, for example, does
>> not *advocate* that parents defend their youngsters from
>> criminal attackers, is a church that should be ignored.
>
>Well, what about that saying by Jesus, if your neighbor slaps you in the
>face, offer him the other cheek? I mean, I know Christianity has turned out
>to be a pretty bloodthirsty religion, but theoretically aren't they supposed
>to love their neighbors as they love themselves, and not kill people?
1==> You are correct, Lee, but consider that churches don't
necessarily pay much attention to the New Testament when they want to
do something.
It is not only difficult to find any endorsement of violence in the
NT, or even permission to resist a foreign oppressor. Usually the
excuse for violence is an out-of-context verse about Jesus instructing
his disciples to buy a sword. However, turns out the sword was never
bought, as they already had two. Jesus gives no further instructions
as to whether they are to be used for anything or not.
When the servants of the high priest arrest Jesus, Peter pulls out a
sword and slices an ear of a servant of the high priest. Jesus
restores the ear, rebukes Peter for using the sword
[51] And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched
out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high
priest's, and smote off his ear. [52] Then said Jesus unto him, Put up
again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword. [Matthew 26: 51-52]
You can find more on this same quote in my post
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism // Subject: Does the Bible endorse
violence? // Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 01:21:53 +1000 //
Message-ID: <1s2slskh56ac42ua9...@4ax.com>
Discussion on this particular quote starts around #26==> in the post]
>
>So what if the church says, self defense is okay, but no guns? You're aware
>that the vast majority of situations in which you might need to defend
>yourself don't involve guns, or any weapons?
>
>So would you say that because the church nixed self-defense by gun, and
>chose rather self-defense by the power of god, or common sense, or gun
>control, they should be boycotted?
2==> I've only been told of one case where a bloke actually tried
turning the other cheek when attacked. Didn't know him well but he
seemed truthful and honest. Claimed he had been out drinking one
night, came out of the pub ["bar"] and was knocked down by a bloke.
Said when he got up he deliberately turned the other cheek, whereupon
the attacker gave him a frightened look, screamed, then ran away.
The bloke I knew admitted he was half drunk at the time or probably
wouldn't have tried the response. Why should the assailant be
frightened? ...Dunno, but could theorize that perhaps the turn the
cheek response is so rare that the assailant may have wondered just
who it was that he struck. :-)
—larryn
>
>And except for the gun angle you really have no opinion about churches
>teaching self defense, isn't that right Bentit?
>________________
>
>Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the
>country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and
>destructive. So while one can recognize the motivation that lies behind
>some of the opposition to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided.
>
>- Noam Chomsky, From "Secrets, Lies and Democracy" - Noam Chomsky
>Interviewed by David Barsamian. Published by donian Press, Tucson AZ,
>1994.
>
>
>
>The Lone Weasel
>
>Not-So-Secret-Hideout
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
>
>My Weasel Board
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
>
>Petition To Require NICS Background Checks On All Gun Sales
>http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/nics.mv
[Posting from misc.survivalism]
lar...@ozemail.com.au
sharing an opinion worldwide on misc.survivalism, and inviting
comments from others, caused the following words to appear on our
monitors:
>Lee Harrison wrote:
>>
>> in article 8ku7st$bbh$1...@news.NERO.NET, Scott Bennett at
>> benn...@ucs.orst.edu wrote on 7/17/00 1:08 AM:
>>
>> > At a bare minimum. Any church that, for example, does
>> > not *advocate* that parents defend their youngsters from
>> > criminal attackers, is a church that should be ignored.
>>
>> Well, what about that saying by Jesus, if your neighbor slaps you in the
>> face, offer him the other cheek? I mean, I know Christianity has turned out
>> to be a pretty bloodthirsty religion, but theoretically aren't they supposed
>> to love their neighbors as they love themselves, and not kill people?
>>
>> So what if the church says, self defense is okay, but no guns? You're aware
>> that the vast majority of situations in which you might need to defend
>> yourself don't involve guns, or any weapons?
>
>I started this thread, and I chose the word "boycott"
>because someone had written to me first and asked if
>I was going to boycott churches that ban guns; but to
>be more precise, what I have been suggesting is that
>if you do not agree with the dogma of a church, then
>you should leave and find a church with which you DO
>believe. That's not so unreasonable, is it. If you
>folks would just think a bit about what I'm saying you
>wouldn't find it so laughable.
>
>Now, you are correct that some churches teach that sort
>of dogma -- the Mennonites, Quakers, and Amish come to
>mind. However, if you are a member of one of the more
>mainstream Christian churches that never have, nor do
>they now, _officially_ teach this as dogma of any sort,
>but rather if you are just faced with a particular local
>congregation and/or minister who have taken it upon
>themselves to over-reach into an area that is beyond
>their actual dogmatic teachings, then they are wrong to
>do so for the reasons that I have previously stated. At
>that point, I see absolutely nothing wrong with remaining
>a member of that particular _denomination_, but finding
>another church of the same denomination that _doesn't_ post.
>
>Have I made myself clear? Self-defense has _never_ been
>universally condemned by any mainstream denomination that
>I am aware of, be it Catholic, Protestant, or for that
>matter even Jewish or Muslim; I don't know about other
>faiths, and I don't care because I am not going to become
>a member. There are only a few Christian denominations,
>like I have just mentioned, which comprise a very distinct
>minority. If I am wrong, please correct me.
1==> Well, Bill, firstly it doesn't really matter a damn what any
church teaches. What matters to the Christian is whether he is
following the teachings of Jesus as given in the Bible. If he gets
it wrong, he is the one that goes to hell, his church doesn't.
2==> Secondly, I don't belong to any church, so won't claim
to be an expert, but have attended a some over the years and talked a
lot to members of others. Now the Protestant churches may not preach
non-violence every sunday because they assume that their members are
familiar enough with the Bible to be well aware what the Bible says on
the matter.
Your church was the one the ones where the Pope had to tell his
priests in South America to abandon their "liberation theology" line
and stop helping and fighting with anti-government guerilla groups. I
don't know of any case where any Protestant missionaries were ever
involved in such an effort. [Not a criticism of your church in this
case, criticism of some of its priests. At least the pope did the
right thing when he found out what was going on.
3==> Offhand, can only think of one occasion mentioned in NT when
Jesus seemed to be actually angry. This was, of course, when he went
into the courtyard of the temple and kicked over the tables of the
money changers.
Matthew 21:13 "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be
called a house of prayer, but you are making it a 'den of robbers'.
[cf Mark 11:17, Luke 19:46]
If Jesus was that upset about moneychangers in the temple, it is
interesting to speculate what He might say if he walked into a church
today and found some of the parishioners packing pistols. I suspect
that he might even be more upset at this than He would at the money.
" My house is a house of peace and you have turned it into ___?___
>The problem as I see it is that all your anti-gun folks
>are so rabid about the subject that you quickly jump to
>false conclusions and are not willing to take the time to
>read carefully those things that at a glance you disagree
>with.
4==> The problem that some of us see with you is that you tend to make
baseless "anti-gun" accusations when someone disagrees with you.
You know that I am going to disagree about the verse of asking his
disciples to buy a sword, as it is misleading people about what the
Bible says.
I've been a sporting shooter all my life and have never argued for
gun control. The only thing I've argued against is the hysterical
threatening statements made by gun owners such as "You can have my
gun...bullets first", "you can have my gun, but you will have to kill
me for it.", etc.
All these macho, extremist statements accomplish is to lead the people
who use them into thinking that the veiled threats will scare the
government. They won't. All they will do is scare the other people ,
though, which will lead them to then consider all gun owners as
fanatic extremists.
5==> I find it very hard to believe that there many people on the
group that would choose to have a shootout with police rather than
surrender a gun. Having a shootout with police is a pretty suicidal
thing to do. Now where there may sometimes be arguments for in favor
of suicide, to threaten to suicide over loss of some item of personal
property. I think that would strike most people as an over-reaction.
—larryn
asdfr...@hotmail.com
Not at all anthropomorphic at all, you are reading it that direction.
Take it the other direction. Where do we get our morals if we have
morals? They stem from biological norms. Chimps have been known to
punish other chimps that don't "share" and in one case, chimps beat up
2 younger chimps who held their dinner up by goofing around.
The roots of morality are embedded in the norms manifest in social
creatures. We have expanded our biological norms to social norms
(that sometimes contradict biological norms), and to spiritual norms
(that sometimes conflct with both biological and social norms).
Unless you believe the people either sprang from the head of Zeus or
were instantly created, the evidence is that our morality is based on
and an outgrowth of our biological norms, as we too are "animals."
asdfr...@hotmail.com
Where is the *morality* in a card game? Nice try, but you don't get
in...
Actually, I do get in. I get in because instead of pulling my info
from my rear, I have actually studied this. I do know a little bit
about this subject. The following contains some basic information
that establishes the biological roots and precursors of human
morality.
Harnden and Warwick (1997) believe that social regulation is a form of
morality that can be seen in the organizations of chimpanzees. Dutch
ethnologist Frans de Waal makes the claim that the basis for morality
and justice stems from the sense of reciprocity (among others)
(Powledge, 1996). Chimpanzees are social creatures with some
self-awareness. One measure of social regulation within chimpanzee
troops is calculated reciprocity (Harden-Warwick, 1997). Apparently,
chimpanzee researchers have noted that chimps possess a set of rules
for reciprocity (Powledge, 1996, p. 396). As a social norm,
reciprocity functions to provide rules of conduct of how an individual
should behave in a social pack. Surprisingly, reciprocity functions
in chimpanzee troops very similar to human groups; chimpanzees also
feel a sense of obligation to return favors and do not seem to like
the "a one-sided accumulation of benefits" (Harnden and Warwick,
1997). Chimpanzees also remember who reciprocates and who does not,
and will exercise negative reciprocity with those who do not (Harnden
and Warwick, 1997; Powledge, 1996).
Cooperation is increasingly being seen as being adaptive behavior as
the individuals that reciprocate are more successful. In this sense,
altruistic behavior would pay off as "…the minor cost that one
individual might pay to help another could be more than made up for
if, sometime in the future, the second individual helps the first"
(Dugatkin, 1997, p. 356). This sort of "banking" of obligations is
reminiscent of the Ik of Uganda or in Coleman's understanding of
social capital as a asset to be withdrawn in time of need (addressed
later).
Surprisingly, not only do chimpanzees reciprocate, but so do impala
and even vampire bats! For impala, reciprocity takes the form of
grooming behavior, in which ticks are picked off another impala. This
grooming is typically followed by a responding in kind (Dugatkin,
1997). Even neonatal fawns three days old display this behavior
(Dugatkin, 1997). Ridley address the cooperative nature of vampire
bats who "donate" surplus blood (it seems that bats can hold more than
they currently need). Apparently, vampire bats, which live up to 18
years, are good at sharing with other bats that share and not sharing
with those who do not (Ridley, 1996, p. 62-63). It seems that many
animals will cooperate and share resources with nonrelatives, although
according to the norm of reciprocity. The Anthropologist William
Irons believes that this sort of indirect reciprocity allowed the
formation of "better and more unified groups" (Irons, 1991, p. 67).
Psychology
Pierce and White (1999) write that "Psychological mechanisms have
their origins deep in the shadows of our ancestral past (p. 843). The
ancestral past for the most part was "…the highly social clan life of
mobile hunter-gatherer existence,…" Nicholson, 1999, p. 1055).
Because of this past, Hoffman, McCabe, and Smith write that "We
inherit a circuitry which is modularized for solving social exchange
problems" (1998, p. 350). One of these social exchange problem would
be cooperation and reciprocity. The norm of reciprocity is therefore
understood as "the product of culture interacting with mental modules
in order to solve specific problems of social exchange." (Hoffman,
McCabe, and Smith, 1998, p. 341). In a simple sense, not unlike the
chimpanzees cited earlier, reciprocity for human hunters may have
taken the form of "I share my meat with you when I am lucky at the
hunt, and you share yours with me when you are lucky" (Hoffman,
McCabe, and Smith, 1998, p. 338). It is important to note that, while
build upon the foundation of inheritable psychological mechanisms, and
innate, norms, like reciprocity, do not determine specific behaviors,
and human behavioral flexibility allows us to retain our ancient
psychology but use it in new ways for our current circumstances
(Nicholson, 1054, 1997). This ability would explain the variety of
rules and behavioral specifics throughout history and between cultures
regarding reciprocity.
Bill Velek
snipped my quote from a Washington Post news article
> >> What's your cite on that story, Buffalo Bill? I think you're lying again -
> >> sounds like something a dumbass would make up to cover his ass.
snip
> > http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48151-2000Jul15.html
>
> And we find another Washington Post "reporter" writing propaganda for the
> gun lobby.
snipped all sorts of criticism of the article
Lee, you called me a liar in regard to my quote from
the article, and I showed you the article; I don't
care whether you agree with the article or not, and
I don't care if you think the article is an accurate
reflection of the 'official' Catholic Church position
on the issue because I never said anything about
those things. But I did prove that I was not lying,
and any gentleman, let alone a Christian, would at
least give me an apology for that. Your failure to
do so says something about your character, but perhaps
in your vigor to attack the article you just overlooked
that you do owe me an apology. You still have a chance
to do the right thing, and I think that anyone here on
this group that is not already blinded by their rage
toward me would have to agree. Now, as I have already
shown to you by a link to another post of mine, I have
enough manners and proper upbringing to acknowledge
when I've made a mistake and apologize for it. I don't
really care if you apologize to me or not; I won't lose
any sleep over it, but if you strive to be as good a
person as you can -- sainthood -- doing the right thing
now is a good step on that journey.
> Excluding the opposing religious view was dishonest, but predictable -
> that's why you're called Buffalo Bill, and a dumbass...
Why is it impossible for you to be civil toward me,
even though we disagree on an issue that by its very
nature really ought to not be as divisive and
inflammatory as this has become.
> POINT PROVEN!
If it makes you feel superior, ... okay. Whatever.
Any 'men of the clothe' ever read this group; will any
of your speak up for the general attitude and treatment
here (I should say "mistreatment")?
Lee Harrison
ve...@cyberback.com wrote on 7/19/00 9:55 AM:
> Lee Harrison wrote:
>
> snipped my quote from a Washington Post news article
>
>>>> What's your cite on that story, Buffalo Bill? I think you're lying again -
>>>> sounds like something a dumbass would make up to cover his ass.
> snip
>>> http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48151-2000Jul15.html
>>
>> And we find another Washington Post "reporter" writing propaganda for the
>> gun lobby.
It's the same old NRA "boilerplate" I've read in dozens of self-described
"news articles." It's really just a billboard for the gun lobby.
> ...perhaps
> in your vigor to attack the article you just overlooked
> that you do owe me an apology.
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
> I have
> enough manners and proper upbringing to acknowledge
> when I've made a mistake and apologize for it.
No you don't, Buffalo Bill. You still say that Christians who advocate gun
control are no Christians at all.
You gunloons have a problem accepting responsibility for your bullshit.
> I don't
> really care if you apologize to me or not; I won't lose
> any sleep over it, but if you strive to be as good a
> person as you can -- sainthood -- doing the right thing
> now is a good step on that journey.
I don't believe in saints or woodland fairies, dipshit. You owe the apology
to Roger.
>> Excluding the opposing religious view was dishonest, but predictable -
>> that's why you're called Buffalo Bill, and a dumbass...
>
> Why is it impossible for you to be civil toward me,
> even though we disagree on an issue that by its very
> nature really ought to not be as divisive and
> inflammatory as this has become.
"Berkman, the ethicist, sees a "profound inappropriateness" in a priest
owning a handgun, especially going to a firing range to practice. If
nonviolent response to brutality is not the goal, "why are the martyrs the
highest ideal?" he asked. "Were they stupid?"
Were the holy martyrs stupid, Buffalo Bill? Your attitude is that
Christians who are not gun fanatics are not really Christians.
I'm an atheist and I wouldn't attack Christians like that. You need to
apologize to Roger and his congregation, bigot.
> Any 'men of the clothe' ever read this group; will any
> of your speak up for the general attitude and treatment
> here (I should say "mistreatment")?
Yeah, all the gunloon fundie preachers and white supremacists, help out your
bigoted buddy here who says churches that disallow guns are not really
Christian.
And why would priests who aren't gun fanatics respond to your post, Buffalo
Bill? They're busy being priests.
POINT PROVEN!
_________________
Articles of Confederation - VI.
"No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except
such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in
Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall
any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such
number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled,
shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of
such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and
disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide
and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed
pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp
equipage."
The Lone Weasel
Noah Simoneaux
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
(snip)
>You gunloons have a problem accepting responsibility for your bullshit.
Unlike those propagandists trying to ban guns who want to give
responsibility for gun crime to the guns. :/
(snip)
>Yeah, all the gunloon fundie preachers and white supremacists, help out your
>bigoted buddy here who says churches that disallow guns are not really
>Christian.
The opinion of who is REALLY christian goes and, and has gone on for a
long time. Those of us who own guns and support the right to own guns
aren't all fundie preachers or white supremacists, but in case you're
interested, that sounds suspiciously like the Poison Label Fallacy.
>
>And why would priests who aren't gun fanatics respond to your post, Buffalo
>Bill? They're busy being priests.
And since priests, by YOUR definition, wouldn't support the right to
keep and bear arms, they'd never be here, eh?
I'm wondering why anyone who opposes private ownership of firearms
would even come to the misc.survivalism newsgroup. Trolling, perhaps?
Noah Simoneaux
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Lawrence Glickman
All very interesting, and boring. Not to the point either, as you
limit your argument to *higher life forms,* whereas I am arguing about
ALL LIFE FORMS.
Are you telling me that periwinkles have a moral value system? Yet
they have developed behaviors that have allowed them to survive for
millions of years.
This is pulling information out of my ass? Au Contraire my misguided
and miseducated friend. This is what can happen to somebody like
yourself who spends most of his life with his head in a book reading
other people's beliefs, rather than looking at the world for yourself
and drawing your own conclusions.
No, any species without higher congnitive abilities, highly developed
enough to harbor a *value system* have no morals, they only have
behaviors. This is because they can not reason. They cannot make
choices, except as dictated by their genes and dna.
We higher life forms can chew our mental cud until it is the
consistency of vomit, and then write it down in the Tomes of
Knowledge, but oftentimes it is nothing but vomit, on guilded pages.
The reality says, until an organism can think, rationalize, make
choices, rather than just act out animal instincts, it can't, by
definition, have a system of *morality,* it can only have biological
imperatives driven by genetic factors.
How else do you explain a bird of a few days old learning how to fly?
Or the homing instinct for kittens to find the Queen and suckle? You
really are lost, and the WORST part of it is that you think you're on
the money.
Until one can have a cognitive value system, and rationate, morality
isn't a part of the constructs that dictates behavior.
Lg
N9NWO
: > for a man to touch you on the check, sort of his way of pushing you.
: > Jesus was only saying to let them insult you and ignore it. That is
not
: > the same as saying that it is wrong to defend yourself if they try to
kill
: > you.
:
: No, I afraid not. Considering how the apostles died, I'd have to
disagree. Of
: course, like all of mainstream Christianity anything and everything will
be
: taken out of context to ensure an individuals selfish desires. See you
are
: forgetting the role of the martyr. The martyr was an extremely important
part
: of Christianity until the Protestant Reformation. Also, vegeance and
jealousy
: , it should be noted, is wrong.
The apostles were mostly old men when put to death by a powerful
government. That is not the same as letting any punk kick the shit out
of you.
Martyrdom also denies the power of God. Remember, the apostles
were able to avoid death, most lived until old age when they just gave
up and allowed the forces of the world to overcome them.
N9NWO
day
: >>> for a man to touch you on the check, sort of his way of pushing you.
: >>> Jesus was only saying to let them insult you and ignore it. That is
not
: >>> the same as saying that it is wrong to defend yourself if they try to
kill
: >>> you.
: >>
: >> No, I afraid not. Considering how the apostles died, I'd have to
disagree. Of
: >> course, like all of mainstream Christianity anything and everything
will be
: >> taken out of context to ensure an individuals selfish desires. See you
are
: >> forgetting the role of the martyr. The martyr was an extremely
important part
: >> of Christianity until the Protestant Reformation. Also, vegeance and
jealousy
: >> , it should be noted, is wrong.
: > Here's a quote from a recent article in the Washington Post,
: > quoting Fr. Duesterhaus, a Catholic priest who shot a man in
: > self-defense:
: >
: > ****
: > But Duesterhaus, the priest who shot at his intruder, said
: > one should not confuse martyrdom with "being mugged for
: > petty cash." "I would love to die for the Lord Jesus
: > Christ and His Church," ... "dying due to crime is not
: > martyrdom; it is just a tragedy. And dying when it can
: > be avoided is just a waste of a life."
: > **** end of quote ****
:
: What's your cite on that story, Buffalo Bill? I think you're lying
again -
: sounds like something a dumbass would make up to cover his ass.
He is a judge and your are what, a loser?
: That is, it shows the level of your ignorance. You don't know anything
: about martyrdom. Your fictional priest would be familiar with the
martyrdom
: of the saints, like St. Ignatius - just one among millions of examples of
: martyred Christians, almost all of them anonymous -
:
: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-38.htm#P3076_500844
:
: Devoured by wild beasts. Just for the record, my sympathies are with
: Trajan.
:
: POINT PROVEN!
No, it just means that you are an idiot.
A loser.
Strabo
ja...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> In article <3972ABE3...@flashmail.net>, Strabo
> <str...@flashmail.net> wrote:
>
> > ja...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, I finally went to a range yesterday afternoon. Told them I didn't
> > > know anything about guns. Since I didn't have a pistol permit, was told to
> > > sign up for a rifle shooting class. I signed up right away and forty
> > > minutes later took the class. Start out with a rented .22 Ruger<I think>
> > > semi-auto rifle. Did pretty decently on it. Also tried another semi-auto
> > > in a .40 caliber.
> > >
> > > All in all, I liked it. Will go back and shoot some more. Gonna have to
> > > get the paperwork in so I can expand my shooting "skills".
> > >
> > > Any advice?
> > >
> > > Jaxi
> >
> > Good to hear of your positive experience. I'd stay with the
> > .22 rifle for for a while and work on breath control, sighting
> > and the mechanics of loading and safety. Master those and then
> > you'll really have skills. Pistols are a different animal and
> > the rifle work is the best preparation. Then move on to larger
> > bores.
>
> Will do. Been planning to get a .22 rifle anyway.
>
> >
> > Why do you have to "get the paperwork in"? Do you want to go into
> > the BIG database. Sign nothing. All you're doing is shooting
> > a damn gun, not learning to fly a jet!
>
> Tell that to Whitman and her ilk. Here you have to have and Firearms
> Purchaser ID in order to get even a rifle. That paperwork I've been told
> takes about 4 months. Also it's not possible for me to 'move' for the
> forseeable future so I have to make do with what I have.
>
> Jaxi
You are kidding? Something doesn't sound right. Well, buy it
privately then. Avoid getting put into any government database.
You won't be sorry.
Strabo
asdfr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Glickman
>
> Where is the *morality* in a card game? Nice try, but you don't get
> in...
>
> Actually, I do get in. I get in because instead of pulling my info
> from my rear, I have actually studied this. I do know a little bit
> about this subject. The following contains some basic information
> that establishes the biological roots and precursors of human
> morality.
>
<snipped Anthropology 101>
>
> Cooperation is increasingly being seen as being adaptive behavior as
> the individuals that reciprocate are more successful. In this sense,
> altruistic behavior would pay off as "…the minor cost that one
> individual might pay to help another could be more than made up for
> if, sometime in the future, the second individual helps the first"
> (Dugatkin, 1997, p. 356). This sort of "banking" of obligations is
> reminiscent of the Ik of Uganda or in Coleman's understanding of
> social capital as a asset to be withdrawn in time of need (addressed
> later).
I'm sure Karl Marx would agree that "Cooperation is increasingly
being seen as being adaptive behavior as the individuals that
reciprocate are more successful." As would the Congress. After all
that is what they do best.
Do some people really get $70,000 a year reinventing the wheel?
As in, "When in Rome do as the Romans do".
Is your purpose to convince survivalists that altruism exists?
Or that we should "cooperate" as the best route to success?
Or that cooperation is inherently a virtue?
That which distinguishes man from everything else is not
observable or quantifiable. These qualities exhibited by
other animals may be similar to those of humans but
reciprocity, no matter how sophisticated, is not that
distinction.
ja...@mindspring.com
lar...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >Larry, I don't tell people when I am carrying; I don't
> >think it is prudent. Let them keep guessing. Now, I
> >will say that it is illegal to carry a gun into _any_
> >church or place of worship in Arkansas, and that is the
> >_law_ without any need for posting.
>
> 2==> Do you consider laws as optional, that we should only follow the
> ones we agree with?
That would work for me. : )
Jaxi
ja...@mindspring.com
<str...@flashmail.net> wrote:
> > Tell that to Whitman and her ilk. Here you have to have and Firearms
> > Purchaser ID in order to get even a rifle. That paperwork I've been told
> > takes about 4 months. Also it's not possible for me to 'move' for the
> > forseeable future so I have to make do with what I have.
> >
> > Jaxi
>
> You are kidding? Something doesn't sound right. Well, buy it
> privately then. Avoid getting put into any government database.
> You won't be sorry.
Nope, not kidding. I have in front of me a copy of the application for
firearms purchaser identification card. There is even a checkbox for a
permit application for a handgun using the same form along with a space
for a number of permit wanted. If I want a handgun through a FFL, I would
have to get a purchaser ID anyway. Probably will crossover to NY to get
the .22 rifle without having to wait.
Jaxi
Terry Flanagan
gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
Flanagan
N9NWO wrote:
> Bill Velek <ve...@cyberback.com> wrote ...
> : > Bill,
> : > My church has banned weapons. Want to boycott them?
> :
> : Very definitely so. I am a Christian, and I've been in
> : many different churches of different denominations, but
> : I don't want to go to a church that is not Christian,
> : and it doesn't sound to me like your church is Christian.
> :
> : Why do I say that? Well, let me ask the cliché: "What
> : would Jesus do?" Do you _really_ think that He would
> : turn away someone in need of religious influence because
> : that person was carrying a gun? Let's assume for a
> : minute that you believe that gun-totters are sinners
> : (aside from the fact that all men are sinners in the
> : general sense), ... we certainly know that Jesus would
> : not ostracize us because of that; He came for the sinners
> : and not for the righteous. Or do you think that Jesus
> : would not associate with gun-totters out of fear? You
> : and your church would do well to learn a little about
> : courage for your faith -- the kind of courage that the
> : martyrs had.
> :
> : Now, you're probably going to come up with something
> : idiotic like: "Well, the gun-totter is the one making
> : a choice, and if he doesn't want to leave his gun at
> : home then that's his decision." Once again, I would
> : point out to you that anyone who is making that sort
> : of a decision simply on the basis of putting their own
> : personal interest (RKBA) above their love for God and
> : their desire to be with Him (as opposed to not wanting
> : to come into your building because you are really just
> : a bunch of hypocrites who have little Christianity to
> : offer), then that person is _particularly_ in need of
> : the gospel and you should be going out of your way to
> : find that person and encourage them to come to your
> : church -- with or without a gun. The other idiotic
> : thing that I would expect you to say in that regard is:
> : "Bringing a gun to church is disrespectful toward God",
> : to which I ask: "When did God tell you or your preacher
> : that this offends Him?" Remember, Jesus Christ Himself
> : told His disciples to arm themselves; Luke 22:36, says:
> :
> : "He said to them, 'But now one who has a money bag
> : should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does
> : not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one."
> :
> : So why does your church prohibit guns? Are you judging
> : people when the Bible says not to? What other reason is
> : there, other than the nonsensical notion that criminals
> : will actually obey your sign when their intentions were
> : to do something illegal to begin with. Or are you
> : worried that the faithful Christians among you who do
> : _NOT_ have any criminal intent are going to turn into
> : demons in church just because they're armed? Idiots!
> :
> : Yeah, I would boycott your church without a second
> : thought, even if it were the last church on earth, and
> : I'd go down to the firing range where I _would_ find
> : God (rather than in your "church") and I'd get down on
> : my knees and worship Him there.
> :
> : Now, if you have the guts, print this out and take it
> : to your minister or preacher and let him read the truth.
> :
> : By the way, my church doesn't exactly encourage people
> : to bear arms -- they just don't say anything about it
> : one way or the other, which is as it should be.
> :
> : Finally, for the silly people out there that need me to
> : spell everything out in very fine detail: "No, I'm not
> : saying your should boycott a church if the state _law_
> : prohibits you from carrying into a church".
> :
> : Okay, now everyone will tell me how I'm not a Christian
> : because I've called people "Idiots". Let God judge me!
> :
> : Bill Velek
> : PLEASE recommend my web-site to one pro-gun person today.
> : If you're Pro-Gun: http://www.velek.com/gun
> : If you're Anti-Gun: http://www.velek.com/bill/boycott
>
> Judge Velek, look at the number of churches who officially
> forbid self defense as immoral. The United Methodists, the
> Presbyterians and the Union of Hebrew Congregations.
Noah Simoneaux
<te...@consultink.com> wrote:
>The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
>gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
>going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
That may be the "real" question to you, but to me that's just another
slanted question betraying typical ignorance of gun owners' thinking.
For most anti-gunners that's enough to substitute for logical
thinking.
Lawrence Glickman
<pb...@sans.spam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>Terry Flanagan in <3976FBFD...@consultink.com>:
>
>>The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
>>gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
>>going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
>
>Well, I don't think that's exactly it.
>
>I'm Presbyterian, and I *don't* want to bring my gun to church.
>However, at the same time, I don't want my weekly contributions to
>support anti-second amendment campaigns, which they do.
>
>I've decided to live with it for the time being, but at the same time,
>I'm not afraid to voice my opinions on the church's national social
>policies.
>
>I figure if a place doesn't support my rights, maybe I shouldn't run
>away, I should speak up.
There are Blue Laws on the books in Massachusetts < of all States >
that require one to carry to their House of Worship. Of course, don't
try to use that as a defense ;-(
If you look at the recent killings in Rwanda, many headed for their
House of Worship for sanctuary, and ended up being gunned down and
burned alive by Rebel Forces, because they were not armed.
In the US, this isn't likely to happen. Is it. Not at the moment,
anyhow. At least not this week, for sure not today, anyhow, not this
minute.....
Lg
Terry Flanagan
Noah Simoneaux wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:18:27 GMT, Terry Flanagan
> <te...@consultink.com> wrote:
>
> >The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
> >gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
> >going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
>
> That may be the "real" question to you, but to me that's just another
> slanted question betraying typical ignorance of gun owners' thinking.
> For most anti-gunners that's enough to substitute for logical
> thinking.
>
> Noah Simoneaux
Translation from Noahspeak:
I have no answer to this very good question, therefore, I will obfuscate...
Flanagan
Gary
Terry Flanagan wrote:
>
> The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
> gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
> going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
You take it with you because of the possibility of what may happen going
to or from. Or even worse yet there have been some recent incidences of
assaults IN churches.
Gary
Strabo
Terry Flanagan wrote:
>
> The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
> gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
> going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
>
Maybe, someone's out to get something you care about. Not
necessarily emptiness, more likely fear, and then there's
the novelty.
The significance today is that you are concerned about it.
You're making a judgment about a very basic responsibility,
your protection and that of your family. Would you also
make fun of a fire drill at home? Fires occur far less
than burglaries and assaults. Your attitude is a bit,
weird.
Why do you care? In days past men were always armed and
the habit went with them to church. It is not as dangerous
today as then, but things will get worse so it is good
to be aware of what you can do. And learning how to
carry a pistol can be part of that.
Strabo
asdfr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:29:42 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashmail.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm sure Karl Marx would agree that "Cooperation is increasingly
> >being seen as being adaptive behavior as the individuals that
> >reciprocate are more successful." As would the Congress. After all
> >that is what they do best.
> >
> My purpose was to demonstrate the roots of human morality lie in
> biological norms of social creatures.
That's what I thought you meant. And you did a good job of
illustrating it. So, monkeys may be moral. Or have a moral code
that can be observed. And the implication then is that
humans may also have a moral code that has developed in a way
similar to that of the monkey. And the basis of this code, or its
foundation, lies in social reciprocity. And then you find
reciprocity in other species which leads one to question
if birds have morals.
So the operative terms here are "social creature" and
"reciprocity". That would pretty much exclude lizards
and the home sapien reptilian brain. So moral
evolution, for humans anyway, would have to occur in
something other than the brain stem.
I suppose that it comes down to the definition of a moral.
There are simplistic lessons in "fairy tales" as transmitted
by the brothers Grimm, which some might say are morals, or at
least, moral.
And there are sophisticated morals such as found in social
philosophy or the Psalms, that I believe are too abstract
for the monkey.
Something to think about.
>
> That is not the same as socialism or communism which is a political
> enforced cooperation, enforced being the operative word here.
Right.
>
> That we are social creatures is a fact. We are not solitary
> creatures, but like to congregate and have hierarchy and webs of
> relationships. Every culture, every time, every place. It is in our
> nature.
Very true.
asdfr...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>I'm sure Karl Marx would agree that "Cooperation is increasingly
>being seen as being adaptive behavior as the individuals that
>reciprocate are more successful." As would the Congress. After all
>that is what they do best.
>
My purpose was to demonstrate the roots of human morality lie in
biological norms of social creatures.
That is not the same as socialism or communism which is a political
enforced cooperation, enforced being the operative word here.
That we are social creatures is a fact. We are not solitary
asdfr...@hotmail.com
Where is the *morality* in a card game?
Plenty of morality in a card game. It is ok to bluff. It is not ok to
shoot the winner. It is not ok to rob the winner of your lost money, I
could go on forever.
rbo...@ticnet.com
>The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
>gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
>going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
See Wedgewood Baptist Church, Ft. Worth, Texas.
They're on the web.
Rick Bowen
May God bless Texas
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
Noah Simoneaux
(snip)
>That we are social creatures is a fact.
Only a partial fact. Humans are not just social creatures. We have
social elements in our makeup and we have individualist elements in
there.
We are not solitary
>creatures, but like to congregate and have hierarchy and webs of
>relationships.
Some do, some don't. Others do sometimes, but not at other times.
Every culture, every time, every place. It is in our
>nature.
People have argued that just about everything(including opposites) is
in our nature. Human nature seems to be very complicated.
Noah Simoneaux
<te...@consultink.com> wrote:
(snip)
>Translation from Noahspeak:
>
>I have no answer to this very good question, therefore, I will obfuscate...
See how the liberals hate it when you see through their attempts to
put up bullshit smokescreens. ;)
Lee Harrison
FFAB74B3DA300D33.03DA4B80...@lp.airnews.net,
rbo...@ticnet.com at rbo...@ticnet.com wrote on 7/20/00 10:05 PM:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:18:27 GMT, Terry Flanagan
> <te...@consultink.com> wrote:
>
>> The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
>> gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
>> going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
>
> See Wedgewood Baptist Church, Ft. Worth, Texas.
Isn't that the church where a guy murdered a bunch of people then committed
suicide?
Down at NRA-HQ, see if you can get the murderers to do the suicide thing
first.
________________
May 25, 2000 New York Times
Gun Control a Women's Issue, Not a Mother's Issue
By MARJORIE CONNELLY
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/052500poll-watch.html
While most men and women favor making gun control laws more strict, women
support stricter gun control by a much larger proportion. In a recent Gallup
Poll conducted for Women.com, 52 percent of men said the laws covering the
sale of firearms should be made more strict. Among women, that figure jumps
to 72 percent. Only a quarter of women said the laws should made less strict
or kept as they are now. Among men, 47 percent said gun control laws should
be made less strict or kept the same.
When questioned more specifically about handguns, 78 percent of women in the
latest New York Times/CBS poll said laws covering the sale of handguns
should be made stricter, compared with 62 percent of the men.
In the Times/CBS poll, large majorities of both men and women support a ban
on assault weapons and favor compelling gun manufacturers to install child
safety locks on handguns.
Even most gun owners support these measures, although they are less inclined
to say gun control laws need to be made more strict.
Lawrence Glickman
I was referring to Natural Selection as a card game < should have been
more clear about that >.
There isn't any morality in Natural Selection is there? That was/is
my point.
Thanks,
Lg
Terry Flanagan
Noah Simoneaux wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:19:47 GMT, Terry Flanagan
> <te...@consultink.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >Translation from Noahspeak:
> >
> >I have no answer to this very good question, therefore, I will obfuscate...
>
> See how the liberals hate it when you see through their attempts to
> put up bullshit smokescreens. ;)
>
> Noah Simoneaux
>
> Poor Noah needs to look in the dictionary under "satire"...
Flanagan
Terry Flanagan
Strabo wrote:
> Terry Flanagan wrote:
> >
> > The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
> > gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
> > going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
> >
> > Flanagan
>
> Maybe, someone's out to get something you care about. Not
> necessarily emptiness, more likely fear, and then there's
> the novelty.
>
> The significance today is that you are concerned about it.
>
> You're making a judgment about a very basic responsibility,
> your protection and that of your family. Would you also
> make fun of a fire drill at home? Fires occur far less
> than burglaries and assaults. Your attitude is a bit,
> weird.
I don't conduct family fire drills in church.
>
>
> Why do you care? In days past men were always armed and
> the habit went with them to church.
Not in the world that my ancestors lived in...
Flanagan
antisdolie
Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:18:27 GMT, Terry Flanagan
> > <te...@consultink.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring
> >> their gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them
> >> think "hmm, going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
> > See Wedgewood Baptist Church, Ft. Worth, Texas.
> Isn't that the church where a guy murdered a bunch of people then
> committed suicide?
Yeah, lee, that one. The one where everybody else left their guns at
home because they weren't allowed to bring them.
Geelee, if only the homicidal-suicidal maniacs would respect the law
like their victims do, things would be oh-so much better for us all.
POINT PROVEN!!!
Jim
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill Velek
That is the only _logical_ conclusion that anyone with
common-sense could come to, but we know that there is
always a severe shortage of that among anti-gunners.
Bill Velek
>
> Strabo wrote:
>
> > Terry Flanagan wrote:
> > >
> > > The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
> > > gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
> > > going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
> > >
> > > Flanagan
> >
> > Maybe, someone's out to get something you care about. Not
> > necessarily emptiness, more likely fear, and then there's
> > the novelty.
> >
> > The significance today is that you are concerned about it.
> >
> > You're making a judgment about a very basic responsibility,
> > your protection and that of your family. Would you also
> > make fun of a fire drill at home? Fires occur far less
> > than burglaries and assaults. Your attitude is a bit,
> > weird.
>
And you no doubt don't conduct religious services at home.
Never want to confuse the two places.
Noah Simoneaux
<lee...@amaonline.com> wrote:
>in article
>FFAB74B3DA300D33.03DA4B80...@lp.airnews.net,
>rbo...@ticnet.com at rbo...@ticnet.com wrote on 7/20/00 10:05 PM:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:18:27 GMT, Terry Flanagan
>> <te...@consultink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
>>> gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
>>> going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
>>
>> See Wedgewood Baptist Church, Ft. Worth, Texas.
>
>Isn't that the church where a guy murdered a bunch of people then committed
>suicide?
>
>Down at NRA-HQ, see if you can get the murderers to do the suicide thing
>first.
Oooh, the Fallacy of Argument by Innuendo. No wonder the liberals get
such good results from their arguments. They're so skillful at
crafting a carefully thought-out logical argument. :/
D. Staples
mean New York, that safe haven on the eastern seaboard.
Terry Flanagan wrote:
> Strabo wrote:
>
> > Terry Flanagan wrote:
> > >
> > > The real question here is why would anyone feel compelled to bring their
> > > gun to church? What emptiness in ones life could make them think "hmm,
> > > going to church - better bring my six-shooter..."
> > >
> > > Flanagan
> >
> > Maybe, someone's out to get something you care about. Not
> > necessarily emptiness, more likely fear, and then there's
> > the novelty.
> >
> > The significance today is that you are concerned about it.
> >
> > You're making a judgment about a very basic responsibility,
> > your protection and that of your family. Would you also
> > make fun of a fire drill at home? Fires occur far less
> > than burglaries and assaults. Your attitude is a bit,
> > weird.
>
> I don't conduct family fire drills in church.
>
> >
> >
> > Why do you care? In days past men were always armed and
> > the habit went with them to church.
>
> Not in the world that my ancestors lived in...
>
> Flanagan
--
The door to my web page: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
For forestry commentary see bionet.agroforestry and alt.forestry news groups, as
well as http://www.delphi.com/ab-forestry/ for a continuing conversation on
forestry.