Here comes Hitler!
Johnny-on-the-spot
>>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
>>>>>because you can't defend
>
> If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
>gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
>would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
>It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
>and it seems a little backward to us
You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is or is
not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the world
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
You are very much deluded. If Gestapo existed in America, it is certainly
true that the above poster owning a gun would not stop them. You are a
pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people owning guns would not have a
salutory effect for liberty however.
EdWIN
Johnny-on-the-spot <jo...@earth.com> wrote in message
news:01be9df1$8bb92b40$0381...@wport.wport.com...
> > >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
> >>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
> >>>>>because you can't defend
> >
> > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
> >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
> >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
> >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
> >and it seems a little backward to us
>
> You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is or is
> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the world
> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
And yet when Communism fell in Russia, it was not due to an armed populace!
When India achieved independence, the majority of its citizens were unarmed.
> You are very much deluded. If Gestapo existed in America, it is certainly
> true that the above poster owning a gun would not stop them. You are a
> pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people owning guns would not have
a
> salutory effect for liberty however.
If 100,000,000 people owned guns, and believed that their political rights
flowed from the barrels of those weapons, it is doubtful any government
could survive in the face of this. The world would descend into a state of
chaos much like it was in for much of its history. We don't need to return
to the age of private armies, with civil disputes settled by blood in the
streets, by feuding families.
Tom Potter
news:7hhell$mlb$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
>
> Johnny-on-the-spot <jo...@earth.com> wrote in message
> news:01be9df1$8bb92b40$0381...@wport.wport.com...
> > > >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
> > >>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
> > >>>>>because you can't defend
> > >
> > > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
> > >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
> > >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
> > >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
> > >and it seems a little backward to us
> >
> > You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is
or is
> > not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave
the world
> > Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
>
> And yet when Communism fell in Russia, it was not due to an armed
populace!
>
> When India achieved independence, the majority of its citizens were
unarmed
The poster ignores the fact,
that the masses in these nations were able to
retake their governments. BECAUSE the leaders at one
particular time did not choose to use the power of government
to restrain them. When the masses are disarmed, as they were
throughout much of history, the top of the government hierarchy
does as it pleases with them. Has them build palaces, pyramids, etc.
History clearly shows us,
that the masses began to achieve their freedom,
when firearms became available to them.
If the peasants do not have the capacity to kill tyrannically
and brutal government employees, they cannot achieve freedom.
As Mao said, "Power comes through the barrel of a gun."
If the masses don't have access to guns, they have no power.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting,
it has everything to do with the capacity of the masses
to defend themselves against foreign and domestic threats,
against wannabe tyrants, and
against greedy and oppressive government employees.
Although there will be more baseline deaths when firearms
are available to the masses, there will be far less death
and destruction over a hundred years or so. Just take at
how the nations in Europe and Asia have started wars,
and killed and brutalized folks who had no means to
oppose the rise of tyrants and war mongers like
NATO, Bill Clinton, Churchill, FDR, etc.
not to mention ones like Hitler, Stalin, Milosovic, Franco, etc.
--
Tom Potter http://jump.to/tp
EdWIN
Tom Potter <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7hhid8$nlv$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> EdWIN <ze...@aiur.org> wrote in message
> news:7hhell$mlb$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
> >
> > Johnny-on-the-spot <jo...@earth.com> wrote in message
> > news:01be9df1$8bb92b40$0381...@wport.wport.com...
> > > > >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
> > > >>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
> > > >>>>>because you can't defend
> > > >
> > > > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
> > > >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
> > > >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
> > > >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
> > > >and it seems a little backward to us
> > >
> > > You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is
> or is
> > > not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave
> the world
> > > Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
> >
> > And yet when Communism fell in Russia, it was not due to an armed
> populace!
> >
> > When India achieved independence, the majority of its citizens were
> unarmed
>
> The poster ignores the fact,
> that the masses in these nations were able to
> retake their governments.
I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't two
separate entities.
> BECAUSE the leaders at one
> particular time did not choose to use the power of government
> to restrain them. When the masses are disarmed, as they were
> throughout much of history, the top of the government hierarchy
> does as it pleases with them. Has them build palaces, pyramids, etc.
Your argument contradicts itself. Why did the leaders chose not to
restrain their unarmed populace, instead of doing what it pleased with them,
"build palaces, pyramids, etc?"
> History clearly shows us,
> that the masses began to achieve their freedom,
> when firearms became available to them.
Then perhaps you can explain how democracy began in ancient Greece without
the benefit of firearms?
> If the peasants do not have the capacity to kill tyrannically
> and brutal government employees, they cannot achieve freedom.
Who decides which people deserve to be killed?
> As Mao said, "Power comes through the barrel of a gun."
> If the masses don't have access to guns, they have no power.
So now Communist leaders are the authorities on freedom and democracy?
Huh???
> The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting,
> it has everything to do with the capacity of the masses
> to defend themselves against foreign and domestic threats,
> against wannabe tyrants, and
> against greedy and oppressive government employees.
I thought you like Mao. Now you're back to the U.S.A? The two don't mix.
No, the Constitution never intended that wackos should be able to decide
they don't like the government, and just go down there and kill everyone.
No government or civilization could survive in those conditions.
> Although there will be more baseline deaths when firearms
> are available to the masses, there will be far less death
> and destruction over a hundred years or so. Just take at
> how the nations in Europe and Asia have started wars,
> and killed and brutalized folks who had no means to
> oppose the rise of tyrants and war mongers like
> NATO, Bill Clinton, Churchill, FDR, etc.
> not to mention ones like Hitler, Stalin, Milosovic, Franco, etc.
Why don't you look closer to home? There are a lot of armed people in
Haiti, yet it is hardly a shining example of freedom or democracy. Because
people have weapons, freedom and liberty do not follow as a matter of
course. On the contrary, the results are often brutally oppressive.
You are simply making too many unsupported opinions, based on generalizing
hundreds, if not thousands, of years of human history from around the globe,
and mashing it into one huge congolmeration.
mroeder
"Johnny-on-the-spot" <jo...@earth.com> wrote:
> > >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
> >>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
> >>>>>because you can't defend
> >
> > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
> >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
> >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
> >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
> >and it seems a little backward to us
>
> You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is or is
> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the world
> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
How about taking advice from a continent of people who gave the world Bach
and Beethoven, St. Francis of Assissi, Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Goethe, a
whole slew of philosophers, Einstein, and Elton John?
> You are very much deluded. If Gestapo existed in America, it is certainly
> true that the above poster owning a gun would not stop them. You are a
> pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people owning guns would not have a
> salutory effect for liberty however.
You are deluded. You are a pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people
owning guns would not encourage the government to buy more and faster
guns, as well as armored cars, tanks, Apache assault helicopters, ...
When the police come to your house with or without a search warrant for
whatever reason, they pretty much can do so freely. If you try to defend
yourself, they will call your house a compound, shoot it to bits, and hope
you set yourself on fire.
--
Michael Roeder - mroeder at macromedia dot com
Professional Idealist and Ice Hockey QA Engineer (Goalie)
"I'm in it for the fun, but it's more fun when you win!"
To email me, change "spam" to "mroeder". But don't send spam!
Jason S.
>> You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is or is
>> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the world
>> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
>How about taking advice from a continent of people who gave the world Bach
>and Beethoven, St. Francis of Assissi, Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Goethe, a
>whole slew of philosophers, Einstein, and Elton John?
How did Elton John sneak onto this list, if I may ask?
--
kook \'kük\ n [by shortening and alter. fr. cuckoo] (1960) : one whose ideas
or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane : screwball
-Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
By the dictionary definition I think (I don't give a flying fuck what you
consider irrelevant or not) that you are the walking talking personification
of the word.
-- Kelley Poag to Dave Tholen
Jason S.
>I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't two
>separate entities.
Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
Rick
>
>Johnny-on-the-spot <jo...@earth.com> wrote in message
>news:01be9df1$8bb92b40$0381...@wport.wport.com...
>> > >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
>> >>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
>> >>>>>because you can't defend
>> >
>> > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
>> >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
>> >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
>> >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
>> >and it seems a little backward to us
>>
>> You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is or is
>> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the world
>> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
>
>And yet when Communism fell in Russia, it was not due to an armed populace!
>
Czarist Russia fell to an armed revolutionary army
>When India achieved independence, the majority of its citizens were unarmed.
>
The revolutinaries were very armed.
>> You are very much deluded. If Gestapo existed in America, it is certainly
>> true that the above poster owning a gun would not stop them. You are a
>> pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people owning guns would not have
>a
>> salutory effect for liberty however.
>
>If 100,000,000 people owned guns, and believed that their political rights
>flowed from the barrels of those weapons, it is doubtful any government
>could survive in the face of this. The world would descend into a state of
>chaos much like it was in for much of its history. We don't need to return
>to the age of private armies, with civil disputes settled by blood in the
>streets, by feuding families.
>
We do need to let the criminal element know the general population
will fight back.
Joe Ragosta
jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM wrote:
> EdWIN posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
> >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't two
> >separate entities.
>
> Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
But EdWIN won't study the U.S. Constitution until he reached 4th grade.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
joe.r...@dol.net
EdWIN
Jason S. <jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:slrn7jot9c....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx...
> EdWIN posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
> >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't
two
> >separate entities.
>
> Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
The distinction is that any powers and rights not granted to the Federal
Government, or to the States, are retained by the people. But the U.S.
government comes from the people of United States, it isn't some remote,
detached entity. The government is the people, and the people are the
government. Of course, this is expressed indirectly, through elected
officials.
[snip]
Daniel Buettner
> mroeder posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>>> You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is or is
>>> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the world
>>> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
>>How about taking advice from a continent of people who gave the world Bach
>>and Beethoven, St. Francis of Assissi, Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Goethe, a
>>whole slew of philosophers, Einstein, and Elton John?
> How did Elton John sneak onto this list, if I may ask?
Give him a break. Clearly, he meant Arnold Schwartzenager, the definitive
actor of the twentieth century.
--
~
~
~
"Daniel Buettner" line 4 of 4 --100%--
Jason S.
>> EdWIN posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>> >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't two
>> >separate entities.
>> Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
>> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
>> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>But EdWIN won't study the U.S. Constitution until he reached 4th grade.
Don't you mean until he *reaches* the fourth grade, Joe? ;)
Joe Ragosta
> Jason S. <jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:slrn7jot9c....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx...
> > EdWIN posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
> >
> > >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't
> two
> > >separate entities.
> >
> > Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
> > between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
> > States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>
> The distinction is that any powers and rights not granted to the Federal
> Government, or to the States, are retained by the people. But the U.S.
> government comes from the people of United States, it isn't some remote,
> detached entity. The government is the people, and the people are the
> government. Of course, this is expressed indirectly, through elected
> officials.
So, according to EdLOSE logic,
Any powers and rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government
or to the States belong to the People.
But the Federal Government _is_ the people, so all those rights revert
back to the Federal Government?
I can see the framers of the Constitution spinning in their graves.
Why not wait until you get to 4th grade when you'll be able to study the
Constitution to see what it's all about?
Joe Ragosta
jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM wrote:
> Joe Ragosta posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
> >> EdWIN posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
> >> >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't two
> >> >separate entities.
>
> >> Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
> >> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
> >> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>
> >But EdWIN won't study the U.S. Constitution until he reached 4th grade.
>
> Don't you mean until he *reaches* the fourth grade, Joe? ;)
Yep. Sorry.
EdWIN
Rick <nospam...@aug.com> wrote in message
news:373c756f....@news.aug.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 1999 10:19:07 -0500, "EdWIN" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >Johnny-on-the-spot <jo...@earth.com> wrote in message
> >news:01be9df1$8bb92b40$0381...@wport.wport.com...
> >> > >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
> >> >>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
> >> >>>>>because you can't defend
> >> >
> >> > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
> >> >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
> >> >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
> >> >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
> >> >and it seems a little backward to us
> >>
is
> >> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the
world
> >> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
> >
populace!
> >
> Czarist Russia fell to an armed revolutionary army
So how does this support arming the populace?
> >When India achieved independence, the majority of its citizens were
unarmed.
> >
> The revolutinaries were very armed.
No they weren't. Indians employed passive resistance.
> >> You are very much deluded. If Gestapo existed in America, it is
certainly
> >> true that the above poster owning a gun would not stop them. You are a
> >> pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people owning guns would not
have
> >a
> >> salutory effect for liberty however.
> >
> >If 100,000,000 people owned guns, and believed that their political
rights
> >flowed from the barrels of those weapons, it is doubtful any government
> >could survive in the face of this. The world would descend into a state
of
> >chaos much like it was in for much of its history. We don't need to
return
> >to the age of private armies, with civil disputes settled by blood in the
> >streets, by feuding families.
> >
>
> We do need to let the criminal element know the general population
> will fight back.
Sure, that's why we have neighborhood watches, security systems, and police
departments. We don't need a gun in everybody's hand to be secure from
crime, and even that would not eliminate all crime.
There was a case in Chicago were an officer writing a ticket was run over by
the offender. Did the criminal think the armed uniformed officer wouldn't
fight back?
Jason S.
>> >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't
>two
>> >separate entities.
>> Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
>> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
>> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>The distinction is that any powers and rights not granted to the Federal
>Government, or to the States, are retained by the people. But the U.S.
>government comes from the people of United States, it isn't some remote,
>detached entity. The government is the people, and the people are the
>government. Of course, this is expressed indirectly, through elected
>officials.
No, that's the Tenth Amendment. I am talking about a basic
textual pattern in the document.
Rick
> Rick <nospam...@aug.com> wrote in message
> news:373c756f....@news.aug.com...
> > On Fri, 14 May 1999 10:19:07 -0500, "EdWIN" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Johnny-on-the-spot <jo...@earth.com> wrote in message
> > >news:01be9df1$8bb92b40$0381...@wport.wport.com...
> > >> > >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
> > >> >>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
> > >> >>>>>because you can't defend
> > >> >
> > >> > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
> > >> >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
> > >> >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
> > >> >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
> > >> >and it seems a little backward to us
> > >>
> > >> You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is or
> is
> > >> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the
> world
> > >> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
> > >
> > >And yet when Communism fell in Russia, it was not due to an armed
> populace!
> > >
> > Czarist Russia fell to an armed revolutionary army
>
> So how does this support arming the populace?
It allowed the population to get rid of the Czar.
>
> > >When India achieved independence, the majority of its citizens were
> unarmed.
> > >
> > The revolutinaries were very armed.
>
> No they weren't. Indians employed passive resistance.
>
You might want to tell the British Army that. Not all Indian
Revolutionaries were passivlty resistant.
> > >> You are very much deluded. If Gestapo existed in America, it is
> certainly
> > >> true that the above poster owning a gun would not stop them. You are a
> > >> pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people owning guns would not
> have
> > >a
> > >> salutory effect for liberty however.
> > >
> > >If 100,000,000 people owned guns, and believed that their political
> rights
> > >flowed from the barrels of those weapons, it is doubtful any government
> > >could survive in the face of this. The world would descend into a state
> of
> > >chaos much like it was in for much of its history. We don't need to
> return
> > >to the age of private armies, with civil disputes settled by blood in the
> > >streets, by feuding families.
> > >
> >
> > We do need to let the criminal element know the general population
> > will fight back.
>
> Sure, that's why we have neighborhood watches, security systems, and police
> departments. We don't need a gun in everybody's hand to be secure from
> crime, and even that would not eliminate all crime.
>
Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
right guaranteed in the Constitution?
> There was a case in Chicago were an officer writing a ticket was run over by
> the offender. Did the criminal think the armed uniformed officer wouldn't
> fight back?
Im not psychic. How would I know?
Johnny-on-the-spot
>world Bach and Beethoven, St. Francis of Assissi, Leonardo,
>Michaelangelo, Goethe, a whole slew of philosophers, Einstein,
>and Elton John?
First of all, ELTON JOHN????!!!! God, you are pathetic.
Second, you are a moron to equate political stability with cultural
heritage. Europe proves that one is not at all related to the other.
Third, I am every bit as much an heir of European culture as anyone here.
You speak for the dirt of Europe, that soaked up so much blood. I'll speak
for its cultural heritage.
Chris Franks
>
> Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
But it also correctly states that the power to govern is derived from
the consent of the governed.
--
Less than 20 months until the start of the 3rd millenium!
mroeder
"Johnny-on-the-spot" <jo...@earth.com> wrote:
> > How about taking advice from a continent of people who gave the
> >world Bach and Beethoven, St. Francis of Assissi, Leonardo,
> >Michaelangelo, Goethe, a whole slew of philosophers, Einstein,
> >and Elton John?
>
>
> First of all, ELTON JOHN????!!!! God, you are pathetic.
Ad-hominem.
> Second, you are a moron
Ad-hominem
to equate political stability with cultural
> heritage.
Quoted out of context.
>Europe proves that one is not at all related to the other.
>
> Third, I am every bit as much an heir of European culture as anyone here.
> You speak for the dirt of Europe,
Ad-hominem
>that soaked up so much blood.
Ad-hominem, guilt by association. The US soaked up blood as well, in its
westward and southward expansion.
>I'll speak
> for its cultural heritage.
Fine, but I'll remember who appointed you.
bod...@my-dejanews.com
Whatever you're on about, The English and Hispanic empires settled the
Americas, USA and central America having a massive amount of negroids
mixed in the population causing a unique blend that is bound to cause
friction due to religious, philosophical and moral disagreements.
USA's liberty was due to one group of European settlers telling another
lot not to be racist. It doesn't seem to have made much difference to
my european eyes. We do love America 'though, although we wish you'd
stop winning the olympics all of the time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, if you've any comments on STAR TREK, this is the place to be
Daniel Buettner <buet...@cse.unl.edu> wrote:
> In alt.religion.kibology Jason S. <jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM>
wrote:
> > mroeder posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
> >>> You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what
is or is
> >>> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave
the world
> >>> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
>
> >>How about taking advice from a continent of people who gave the
world Bach
> >>and Beethoven, St. Francis of Assissi, Leonardo, Michaelangelo,
Goethe, a
> >>whole slew of philosophers, Einstein, and Elton John?
>
> > How did Elton John sneak onto this list, if I may ask?
> Give him a break. Clearly, he meant Arnold Schwartzenager, the
definitive
> actor of the twentieth century.
>
> --
> ~
> ~
> ~
> "Daniel Buettner" line 4 of 4 --100%--
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Jim String
>EdWIN posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
>>I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't two
>>separate entities.
>
>between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
>States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
of the people, by the people, for the people...
Best,
Jim
Michael Cidras
therefore really has no clue about RKBA in the United States, or for that
matter, any input.
Paul Turner wrote in message <7hia27$4o$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> snip<
>
>Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
>> right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
>> right guaranteed in the Constitution?
>
>Why exactly do you need this right? Are you still living in the 'wild
west'?
Nope, though I do live in the Western U.S.
>Times have changed, and changed a great deal. You do not need to arm, or
>give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country. You
>have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to
deal
>with any foreign threat.
Yep, we sure do. Do you think we'd nuke our own land to stop an invading
army? If you do, you're an idiot.
>As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
>precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
>remove the other.
You are under the false assumption that banning firearms reduces the violent
crime in a community. You know damn well from your own experiences in the
U.K. that it is not the case. Your country's violent crime rate (which was
rather low) has been going up steadily over the last few years yet you have
a handgun ban. So, what is proven here? You're wrong? Firearms aren't the
problem, are they?
>There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
>'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
>right to go around shooting each other?
So says you, are you a psychic? Since the majority of gun related violence
perpetrated by those that don't follow the law (criminals, same as in your
country) why shouldn't the potential victims have the right to defend
themselves likewise?
>And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
>simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
That doesn't parse.
>All that the right to bare arms is doing is increasing you crime rate and
>violent death rates, not a good sign for tourists.
Ok, I ignored the first one as a simple typo, evidently you are an
illiterate. The word is "bear" not "bare". I thought you Brits were
intellectual, apparently not.
The Lord Of Lemmings
Hash: SHA1
In article <7hicv3$57$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, bod...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Am I lost, or is this nothing at all to do with Star Trek ?
Has nothing to do with macintosh advocacy either, or kibology,
whatever that is.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBNzy8ppl0NmA2lacHEQJINQCeJr6UduSP9CZPy/QfyGDF3e7+MjwAoLry
TDHFPwL35Tl5tS3QBCVpGRJ2
=rncn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
| Scientia Claus, Lord Of Lemmings <am...@cornell.edu> |
| http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3474/ |
| "The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its |
| hexagons and whose circumference is inaccessible." |
| -- Jorge Luis Borges |
Jim McSheehy
drink this kool-aid, you'll feel much better soon..."
Sheep will never see it coming until it's too damn late.
> Paul Turner wrote:
>
>
> Why exactly do you need this right? Are you still living in the 'wild west'?
> Times have changed, and changed a great deal.
How true. Now our leaders lie directly in our face, and then make jokes
about it because polls tell them the majority just don't care.
> You do not need to arm, or
> give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country. You
> have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to deal
> with any foreign threat. As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
> precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
> remove the other. There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
> 'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
> right to go around shooting each other?
> And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
> simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
> All that the right to bare arms is doing is increasing you crime rate and
> violent death rates, not a good sign for tourists.
IMO, people in the US no longer understand freedom, what sacrifices were
made to earn it, and what it takes to maintain it. In another 20-30
years it will all be history. Less than 30 years old? - Better brush up
on your Chinese, comrades.
Rick
>
> > snip<
>
> Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
> > right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
> > right guaranteed in the Constitution?
>
Why not? Why do you need any rights? Hell, lets just dump them all.
> Are you still living in the 'wild west'?
If you knew your history, you would know that many "wild west" Marshals
collected guuns at the City Limits. It didnt stop Ed Masterson from
getting shot.
> Times have changed, and changed a great deal. You do not need to arm, or
> give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country.
Are you pschic? Omnipotent? Hmmm
> You
> have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to deal
> with any foreign threat. As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
> precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
> remove the other.
What? Are you saying guns cause crime? Are you serious? How do they pull
their own triggers? How do they load themselves? The domstic threats the
Founding Fathers were worried about was our government becoming a
tyrany.
> There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
> 'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
> right to go around shooting each other?
You might tell that to the Americans of German and Japanese descent that
were put into camps during the 40's.. right here in the good old US of
A... or talk to McCarthy's blacklist victims, or talk to the citizens of
"democratic Germany"... the ones that joined the Nazi Party.
> And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
> simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
> All that the right to bare arms is doing is increasing you crime rate and
> violent death rates, not a good sign for tourists.
Here's a flash.... STAY HOME.
InvisibleMan
EdWIN <ze...@aiur.org> wrote in message news:7hi011$1eo$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
>
> Jason S. <jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:slrn7jot9c....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx...
> >
> > >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't
> two
> > >separate entities.
> >
> > Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
> > between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
> > States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>
> Government, or to the States, are retained by the people. But the U.S.
> government comes from the people of United States, it isn't some remote,
> detached entity. The government is the people, and the people are the
> government. Of course, this is expressed indirectly, through elected
> officials.
Tell me Edwin---how many people does the average voter get to elect on the
Federal level? Let's see---President/VP, US Representative, and a Senator.
The rest of the massive governmental structure is made up of political
appointees and beaurocrats. I didn't get to cast my vote for Secretary of
State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense, etc. Why should we have
more power over choosing our state government than we do over the Feds? So,
to refute your point, the government of the US is not made up of the people,
it is primarily made up of people who were appointed or hired without ANY
input from the general constituency. Hell, ambassadorships are now earned
through large campaign contributions. Come back when you join the real
world. By the way, that "kewl" mixed-case way of typing your name is pretty
well played out. How old are you, 13?
Mike
> [snip]
>
Frank Iam
Paul Turner <Pa...@southhurst.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7hia27$4o$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > snip<
>
> Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
> > right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
> > right guaranteed in the Constitution?
>
west'?
Yes. Each and every flippin day. Read a paper lately pal?
> Times have changed, and changed a great deal. You do not need to arm, or
> give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country.
Says you.
>You have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to
deal
> with any foreign threat.
If China overruns California, we'll let you break the news to them.
> As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
> precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
> remove the other.
We've banned a whole bunch of drugs in this country. What happened as a
result? We banned alcohol for awhile in this country, what happened? --
Believe the facts and really think about it, if law abiding citizens didn't
own guns, what would the crime situation really be like?
> There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
> 'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
> right to go around shooting each other?
No. Never - says you.
Again, who cares what you suppose. People abuse thier first amendment
rights, shall we now begin the process of controlling those too?
> And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
> simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
> All that the right to bare arms is doing is increasing you crime rate and
> violent death rates, not a good sign for tourists.
Drugs and the crimes associated with them are among our biggest problems.
The other big problem we have is a society no longer interested in judging
peoples behaviors but choosing instead to blame societal pressures for them.
>
>
Steve Hix
Well, this thread is officially dead.
Jim Mc
Paul Turner wrote:
> snip<
Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
> right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
> right guaranteed in the Constitution?
Why exactly do you need this right? Are you still living in the 'wild west'?
Times have changed, and changed a great deal. You do not need to arm, or
give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country. You
have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to deal
with any foreign threat. As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
remove the other. There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
right to go around shooting each other?
And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
All that the right to bare arms is doing is increasing you crime rate and
violent death rates, not a good sign for tourists.
Let me tell you something Paul, I don't care if you you and all your "love-in" buddies think we live in some kind of ideal world. Times change, people don't. There are crazy punks out there that wouldn't think twice about walking up to your door and sticking a 9mm in your face for kicks. Maybe they'd have an iron bar, or a knife, or a broken bottle, doesn't matter, they intend to do you harm. Now I don't know what you'd do, but I'll be damned if some limp liberal bunch of goody two shoes lawmakers is going to tell me that I have to sit there and take it. I own a gun, a couple of them in fact. I shoot them at the range once and a while. It's fun. I keep them so only me or my wife can access them. (locked but within easy reach.) I don't ever intend to point them at anybody. But, lets say fate happens to put you and me both in the way of one of these psychopaths. Wanna put odds on which one of us will be around to watch their grandchildren grow up? I'm doing my part to keep the odds in my favor, are you?
BTW, with regard to your post, First, you watch to many westerns. Second, times have changed yes, but people are always the same, century after century human nature and behavior will always be exactly THE SAME. Third, this country remains stable only so long as the majority of power remains with the people. People with the right to bear arms are unlikey to have that power easily taken. This is why there is no "coup". Who in their right mind would piss off an armed polpulace? Fourth, we will never use a nuclear weapon. It is having it that gives the nation leverage. Fifth, if you think the police will protect your life, you are wrong. No fed, state or local law enforcement is required in any way to protect any particular individual. Sixth, you don't have to "need" a right to "have" a right. No country can grant nor take away the right to preserve your own life. It is a natural right, like the right to have children. Crime has not gone up because of guns, it has not gone up as fast because of legal gun ownership. Lastly, if your command of English grammar and spelling are any sign of your capacity for higher thought, I can understand why you hold your particular point of view. The only reason I bother to respond to your post is because in this great country, even the ignorant can vote, and thus it is my duty to try to educate you so that you don't screw the country up with your misguided views.
Blazing Sword
>
>Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
>> right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
>> right guaranteed in the Constitution?
>
Why do we "need" this right? Do you even understand the concept of rights?
Of course not, you live in the U.K.
Are you still living in the 'wild west'?
>Times have changed, and changed a great deal.
Oh, I suppose governments don't grab more and more power anymore?
You do not need to arm, or
>give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country.
You don't "give" rights. As I said, you don't even understand the concept of
natural rights which this country was based on.
You
>have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to
deal
>with any foreign threat.
And how does this deal with domestic threats?
As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
>precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
>remove the other.
Wrong and wrong. The biggest threat, as it always has been, is the
government getting out of control. Two things stop this, the constitution,
and the armed populace.
As to crime, removing guns will not remove crime, as your rising violent
crime rate so nicely points out.
There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
>'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
>right to go around shooting each other?
We don't have the right to "go around shooting each other". That is called
murder.
>And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
>simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
PArt of that system is RKBA. The armed populace is part of a system of
checks and balances.
>All that the right to bare arms is doing is increasing you crime rate and
>violent death rates, not a good sign for tourists.
>
Bull. We've always had RKBA. Our crime rate is dropping, while yours is
rising. If tourists don't want to come, screw them. They can stay in their
little socilaist mommy-states.
Thingfishhhh
"Johnny-on-the-spot" <jo...@earth.com> wrote:
> > How about taking advice from a continent of people who gave the
> >world Bach and Beethoven, St. Francis of Assissi, Leonardo,
> >Michaelangelo,
Ahh, Michelangelo, who worked and lived at the same time Savarnola (Sp?),
a man who made the Inquisition look like a tea party.
Thingfishhhh
<Pa...@southhurst.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
> 'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
> right to go around shooting each other?
That's *exactly* what King George thought when those upstart colonists
kicked his sorry ass back to England.
And I'm sorry, but the US is hardly structured and stable right now. We're
on the verge of a massive social melt-down along the liberal/conservative
lines, and it's going to make the 60's look like a High School dance.
And those who claim and value their right to bear arms do NOT claim it as
a right to "go around shooting people". Only nitwits think like that.
I suggest you go and research how this country formed, and then try and
figure out what would have happened if the colonists had listened to
people like you who were telling them they had no right to complain.
PS - Remember Paul Revere? Do you know why he rode through the night to
warn others?
Because the British were coming to get their guns.
THAT'S why we have that amendment, and why it was VERY important to the
Founders.
I'm not your average NRA chest thumping gun nut, but I take a VERY dim
view of anyone who tries to take away my right to defend myself. This is a
cviolent country, and gun laws and blaming the movies and rap songs and
whatnot aren't going to save your ass one bit when someone decides they
want what you have - like your car, or stereo, or wallet. Fix society,
then we'll talk about outlawing guns.
Go down to LA, and talk to the Korean grocers about how their guns are
uneeded. CLUE: Most of the ones still left are there because they were
armed.
Paul Turner
Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
> right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
> right guaranteed in the Constitution?
Why exactly do you need this right? Are you still living in the 'wild west'?
Times have changed, and changed a great deal. You do not need to arm, or
give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country. You
have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to deal
with any foreign threat. As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
remove the other. There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
right to go around shooting each other?
And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
Paul Turner
gun laws, to Europe, I think I have a right to put my few pence worth in.
And all I am saying is what the situation appears to be from over here
across the pond.
If I have got it wrong, then explain it to me, rather than just refusing to
accept my input. Tell me if I have got the wrong end of the stick, or why
you feel it is necessary to have this right. I haven't seen anything within
this thread yet to convince me.
Michael Cidras <cidr...@pcisys.net> wrote in message
news:92672683...@news.remarQ.com...
> Let's just start this rebuttal with the fact that Paul is in the UK, and
> therefore really has no clue about RKBA in the United States, or for that
> matter, any input.
>
> Paul Turner wrote in message <7hia27$4o$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >> snip<
> >
> >Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
> >> right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
> >> right guaranteed in the Constitution?
> >
> >Why exactly do you need this right? Are you still living in the 'wild
> west'?
>
>
> Nope, though I do live in the Western U.S.
>
> >Times have changed, and changed a great deal. You do not need to arm, or
> >give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country. You
> >have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to
> deal
> >with any foreign threat.
>
> Yep, we sure do. Do you think we'd nuke our own land to stop an invading
> army? If you do, you're an idiot.
>
> >As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
> >precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
> >remove the other.
>
> You are under the false assumption that banning firearms reduces the
violent
> crime in a community. You know damn well from your own experiences in the
> U.K. that it is not the case. Your country's violent crime rate (which
was
> rather low) has been going up steadily over the last few years yet you
have
> a handgun ban. So, what is proven here? You're wrong? Firearms aren't
the
> problem, are they?
>
> >There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
> >'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
> >right to go around shooting each other?
>
>
> So says you, are you a psychic? Since the majority of gun related
violence
> perpetrated by those that don't follow the law (criminals, same as in your
> country) why shouldn't the potential victims have the right to defend
> themselves likewise?
>
> >And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
> >simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
>
>
> That doesn't parse.
>
> >All that the right to bare arms is doing is increasing you crime rate and
> >violent death rates, not a good sign for tourists.
>
>
Leo Sgouros
Jim Mc wrote in message <373CE6E0...@mediaone.net>...
You made a spelling error, professor.
You can go back and find it, if you can stand it.
Nice rant.
L
Tom Potter http://jump.to/tp
"EdWIN" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
> Tom Potter <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7hhid8$nlv$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...> > news:7hhell$mlb$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
> > >
> > > Johnny-on-the-spot <jo...@earth.com> wrote in message
> > > news:01be9df1$8bb92b40$0381...@wport.wport.com...
> > > > > >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
> > > > >>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so
freely
> > > > >>>>>because you can't defend
> > > > >
> > > > > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
> > > > >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
> > > > >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
> > > > >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this
obession
> > > > >and it seems a little backward to us
> > > >
is
> > or is
> > the world
> > > > Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
> > >
> > populace!
> > >
were
> > unarmed
> >
> > that the masses in these nations were able to
> > retake their governments.
>
> I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they
aren't two
> separate entities.
Note that the poster has a reading comprehension problem.
I wrote "masses and he perceived this as "people".
And of course, NO governments, including that of the
United States is responsive more to the "masses" than
they are to government employees.
> > BECAUSE the leaders at one
> > particular time did not choose to use the power of government
> > to restrain them. When the masses are disarmed, as they were
> > throughout much of history, the top of the government hierarchy
> > does as it pleases with them. Has them build palaces, pyramids, etc.
>
> Your argument contradicts itself. Why did the leaders chose not to
> restrain their unarmed populace, instead of doing what it pleased
>with them, "build palaces, pyramids, etc?"
There are many reasons, laziness, sickness, apathy,
mental disease, gentleness, lack of energy,
a gentle nature, more interest in other things
than in acting like a tyrant, etc.
> > History clearly shows us,
> > that the masses began to achieve their freedom,
> > when firearms became available to them.
>
> Then perhaps you can explain how democracy began in ancient Greece
without
> the benefit of firearms?
Also note that this poster does not know that
most of the people in "acient Greece" were slaves,
and aliens, I think we can assume that many of whom
would have used some kind of force to achieve
equality if they had sufficient force.
> > If the peasants do not have the capacity to kill tyrannically
> > and brutal government employees, they cannot achieve freedom.
>
> Who decides which people deserve to be killed?
The crazy people on the fringes.
Thank God for crazy people who
freak out and kill, as they are the ones
who keep wannabe tyrants in line.
> > As Mao said, "Power comes through the barrel of a gun."
> > If the masses don't have access to guns, they have no power.
>
> So now Communist leaders are the authorities on freedom and democracy?
> Huh???
Note that the poster again reveals his reading comprehension
problem. I made a statement that ONE Communist leader
said that "Power comes through the barrel of a gun."
and this poster preceived this as if they were talking
about "freedom and democracy". NOte also that the poster
in effect by suggesting that "communist leaders" had guns,
and took away the liberty of the folks who had no guns,
makes the case that the "Right to bear arms" is essential
for a democratic, and non-slave society.
> > The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting,
> > it has everything to do with the capacity of the masses
> > to defend themselves against foreign and domestic threats,
> > against wannabe tyrants, and
> > against greedy and oppressive government employees.
>
> I thought you like Mao. Now you're back to the U.S.A? The two don't
mix.
> No, the Constitution never intended that wackos should be able to
decide
> they don't like the government, and just go down there and kill
everyone.
> No government or civilization could survive in those conditions.
Note that the poster reveals his ignorance of American
history, a nation, where millions of the citizens have
guns and some citizens use them on government officials
and employees, that has not only "surviced" but has become
the symbol of liberty, equality and progress throughout
the world.
> > Although there will be more baseline deaths when firearms
> > are available to the masses, there will be far less death
> > and destruction over a hundred years or so. Just take at
> > how the nations in Europe and Asia have started wars,
> > and killed and brutalized folks who had no means to
> > oppose the rise of tyrants and war mongers like
> > NATO, Bill Clinton, Churchill, FDR, etc.
> > not to mention ones like Hitler, Stalin, Milosovic, Franco, etc.
>
> Why don't you look closer to home? There are a lot of armed people
in
> Haiti, yet it is hardly a shining example of freedom or democracy.
Because
> people have weapons, freedom and liberty do not follow as a matter of
> course. On the contrary, the results are often brutally oppressive.
NOte that the poster does not know that the government
employees in Haiti have far more fire power than the
masses, and they are not hesitant to use the fire power.
> You are simply making too many unsupported opinions, based on
generalizing
> hundreds, if not thousands, of years of human history from around the
globe,
> and mashing it into one huge congolmeration.
It is clear that the poster has no knowledge
nor understanding of history. History clearly
shows us that low cost weapons was the primary
factor in bringing about, and sustaining,
democracy, and that goverment employees throughout
history have almost always coopted systems of
mind control ( Commonly religion, but now public education ),
disarmed the masses, and used the power of government
to promote their self-serving agenda, security ( For them ),
power, privilege, lots of leisure time, an early, cushy
retirement, and immunity from their errors, omissions,
incompetences and criminal acts. The more the masses
are disarmed and brainwashed, the greater the quality of life
gap between government employees and the masses becomes.
--
Tom Potter http://jump.to/tp
The REAL Warwick Hunt
> America...????
>
> >You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is or is
> >not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the world
> >Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
>
The REAL Warwick Hunt
Accept no imitations
Glennbo
> >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
> >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
> >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
> >and it seems a little backward to us
>
> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the world
> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
>
> true that the above poster owning a gun would not stop them. You are a
> pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people owning guns would not have
a
> salutory effect for liberty however.
Have i lost the plot here, i thought this news group was about startrek?
Also why do you blame europe for everything that has ever gone rong? clinton
isn't exatly an angle is he now! -i bet he's thinking about were he can
invade or bomb next! -also he doesn't seem to give a shite about
international law! eg invade haitey (can't spell that sorry), and bomb a
pharamsist, so now the thrid world has less aford able drugs!
if there is a third world war, the US will provok it! an now the CIS may
break up futher... tolerensce for US attrocities may end V.soon!
Noah A Christis
[re:the right to defend your own life]
>It is a natural right, like the right to have children.
Yeah, right. Here's one I wish they'd take away. There's already
enough brain dead goons running around the planet. I think the
Chinese have it pegged on this one.
Harold Leahy
>the benefit of firearms?
Firearms did not exist but spears, swords and other handweapons did.
"In the Politics, Aristotle critically analyses the elitist, authoritarian
regime advocated by Plato. As opposed to the strict division between rulers,
warriors, and workers in the Socratic dialogue, Aristotle's concept of
polity included a large middle class in which each citizen fulfilled all
three functions of self-legislation, arms bearing and working. According to
Aristotle, "there are many things which Socrates left undetermined: are
farmers and craftsmen to have no share in government ...? Are they or are
they not to possess arms ...?" In accord with his broad philosophical ideal
of the golden mean, Aristotle expresses a keen awareness of the true basis
of political equality: "The whole constitutional set-up is intended to be
neither democracy nor oligarchy but mid-way between the two - what is
sometimes called 'polity', the members of which are those who bear arms."
In the Constitution of Athens, Aristotle describes how Peisistratus seized
power by force and instituted his tyranny by disarming the Athenians. He
describes the same seizure of arms that preceded the reign of the Thirty
Tyrants.
Quoted from: Stephen Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, pages 9-14. The same
disarmament leading to tyranny in ancient Rome is described on pages 14-20.
Harold Leahy
>> 'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
>> right to go around shooting each other?
>
>were put into camps during the 40's.. right here in the good old US of
>A... or talk to McCarthy's blacklist victims, or talk to the citizens of
>"democratic Germany"... the ones that joined the Nazi Party.
Or the blacks, Jews and Catholics lynched by the KKK. Funny, but before most
KKK 'actions' the local sheriffs disarmed the black residents, and usually
turned the guns over to the KKK.
Or the black man dragged behind the car in Jaspar, Texas or the homosexual
tied to the fence and beaten to death. If either had been armed neither
incident would have come out the way it did.
Chuckg
[snip]
>Then perhaps you can explain how democracy began in ancient Greece
without
>the benefit of firearms?
Because every free man was armed with the deadliest weapons available in
that day. Indeed, the ancient Greek military was a citizen militia,
all of them privately owning the SOTA in military weaponry. Ancient
Greece was not, in the beginning, known for its standing armies.
NEXT question.
--
Chuckg
Harold Leahy
That is the opening line in:
United States v. Gomez 92 F.3d 770, 774 n.7 (9th Cir. 1996)
" This case gives fresh meaning to the phrase, "I'm from the government and
I'm here to help you.""
This was a felon-in-possession case, where the court upheld the felon's
right to possess since the government failed to defend the felon (he was an
informer) dispite repeated warning that the former 'friends' of the felon
were trying to kill him.
In footnote 7 of the same decision:
"The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home
against physical attack. Nelson Lund, The Second Amendment, Political
Liberty, and the Right to Self-Preservation, 39 Ala. L. Rev. 103, 117-120,
130 (1987) (Second Amendment guarantees right to means of self-defense); see
Sanford Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637, 64546
(1989) ("[I]t seems tendentious to reject out of hand the argument that one
purpose of the [Second] Amendment was to recognize an individual's right to
engage in armed self-defense against criminal conduct.")."
Rick
> <jimmcc...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> [re:the right to defend your own life]
>
> >It is a natural right, like the right to have children.
>
> Yeah, right. Here's one I wish they'd take away. There's already
> enough brain dead goons running around the planet. I think the
> Chinese have it pegged on this one.
... that would be the one where they bind girsl feet, or drown them at
birth, or what?
THE PEOPLE
wrote:
>>> There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
>>> 'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
>>> right to go around shooting each other?
>>
>>You might tell that to the Americans of German and Japanese descent that
>>were put into camps during the 40's.. right here in the good old US of
>>A... or talk to McCarthy's blacklist victims, or talk to the citizens of
>>"democratic Germany"... the ones that joined the Nazi Party.
>
>
>Or the blacks, Jews and Catholics lynched by the KKK. Funny, but before most
>KKK 'actions' the local sheriffs disarmed the black residents, and usually
>turned the guns over to the KKK.
Nowadays when the right to vote is less generally interfered with and the 'local
sheriffs' are somewhat less inclined to cooperate with such goings on, well, the
KKK naturally thinks it's time to get rid of those bad old sheriffs. Or they
would, if the KKK was still around that is. Yes, the KKK disappeared right off
the face of the earth just recently and the NRA has no idea where it could have
gotten off to.
KKK, NRA, three completely different letters.
>
>Or the black man dragged behind the car in Jaspar, Texas or the homosexual
>tied to the fence and beaten to death. If either had been armed neither
>incident would have come out the way it did.
>
Because, as we all know, in anarchic societies where the only law enforcement
comes from the individual's own weaponry, brutal murders for the sake of racism
and bigotry never ever happen at all.
Harold Leahy
>would, if the KKK was still around that is. Yes, the KKK disappeared right
off
>the face of the earth just recently
I am sure that makes Morris Dees, the Southern Poverty Law Center and
Klanwatch very happy.
>KKK, NRA, three completely different letters.
That comment only shows how little you know about the NRA and the civil
rights movement of the 1950s. It also shows how little you know about the
non-violent but not unarmed civil rights movement. Several NAACP local
chapter leaders also founded NRA affiliates and got shooting instruction
from the NRA. The NAACP then tried to kick them out of their positions.
The Colored Farmers Alliance, in Leflore County Mississippi, was an armed
black militia led by Oliver Cromwell in 1889. It was suppressed by three
companies of state militia. [Payne p. 46].
"Daisy Bates, the leader of the Little Rock NAACP during the desegregation
crisis, worte in her memoirs that armed volunteers stood guard over her
home. Morevoer, there are oral histories of such assistance. David Dennis,
the black Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) worker who had been targeted
for the fate that actually befell Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney during the
Freedom Summer, has told of black Mississippi citizens with firearms who
followed civil rights workers in order to keep them safe." [Cottrol].
Also see Daisy Bates, The Long Shadow of Little Rock, A Memoir, for the more
detail.
There was the Deacons for Defense and Justice organized in Joneboro, LA in
1964. They reached prominence in Bogalousa, LA. In 1965 there were 900
members in 50 to 60 chapters in LA, Mississippi and Alabama. The Deacons
provided security to James Farmer of CORE. Farmer mentions the Deacons in
his autobiography, Lay Bare the Heart: An Autobiography of the Civil Rights
Movement. The Deacons were written up in Ebony, Deacons for Defense, Sept
1965 in an article by Hamilton Bims. See also the NY Times Aug 15, 1965
"Deacons, Too, Ride by Night" page 10 of the magazine. I would not consider
a 900 member organization, especially since it was regional, small.
[Cottrol].
The Monroe, North Carolina chapter of the NAACP also acquired guns to deal
with the KKK. See Robert F. Williams, Negroes With Guns (1962). This is one
of the chapters that also organized an NRA affiliate.
Vernon Dahmer, President of Hattiesbury NAACP, died in 1966 from burn wounds
received from the fire-bombing of his home. Before dying he had used his
shotgun to fire back at the bombers, buying enough time for the rest of his
family to escape. [Payne p. 398].
"There were jokes in the movement about farmers carrying their nonviolent
Winchesters to meetings."
"Whatever they felt about nonviolence personally, SNCC workers seem to have
almost never tried to talk local people into putting down their guns."
[both Payne p. 204].
"Very little attention has been paid to the possibility that the success of
the movement in the rural South owes something to the attitude of local
people toward self-defense." [Payne p. 205].
Sources:
Cottrol, Robert J. and Raymond T. Diamond. "The Second Amendment: Toward An
Afro-Americanist Reconsideration." Georgetown Law Journal 80 (1991): 309-61.
Reprinted in Cottrol Selections and Cottrol 3.
Cottrol, Robert J. (editor). Gun Control And The Constitution: Sources And
Explorations On The Second Amendment. NY: Garland Publishing; 1994. Referred
to as Cottrol Selections.
______ (editor). Gun Control And The Constitution: Sources And Explorations
On The Second Amendment: Volume 3: Special Topics On Gun Control. NY:
Garland Publishing; 1993. Referred to as Cottrol 3.
Payne, Charles M. I've Got The Light Of Freedom: The Organizing Tradition
And The Mississippi Freedom Struggle. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press, 1995.
OmniNegro
>departments. We don't need a gun in everybody's hand to be secure from
>crime, and even that would not eliminate all crime.
>
>There was a case in Chicago were an officer writing a ticket was run over by
>the offender. Did the criminal think the armed uniformed officer wouldn't
>fight back?
>
"A civilized nation has no need of guns. It is the responsibility of
the police to protect the people."
--Hitler--
well, i guess we know in whom's footsteps you follow.
If con is the opposite of pro, is congress the opposite of progress?
My 33.6 modem is like trying to eat a bowl of soup with a fork.
"Hell no, he won't go, but he'l send your kids to Kosovo"
OmniNegro speaking of the "Rapist in Chief"
OmniNegro
slammed his/her/it's head on the keyboard, and the following appeared:
>> snip<
>
>Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
>> right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
>> right guaranteed in the Constitution?
>
>Why exactly do you need this right? Are you still living in the 'wild west'?
>Times have changed, and changed a great deal. You do not need to arm, or
>give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country. You
>have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to deal
>with any foreign threat. As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
>precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
>remove the other. There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
>'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
>right to go around shooting each other?
>And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
>simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
>All that the right to bare arms is doing is increasing you crime rate and
>violent death rates, not a good sign for tourists.
>
"wild west"???
ohh, you mean like farmer joe who no longer needs a gun to protect his
livestock from predators, because the goverment stopped all predators
by making it a crime to kill other animals.
and about those tourists, don't be one.
i'd hate to be in the same country as you.
Leo Sgouros
Glennbo wrote in message <7hjjm0$8ec$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
>> >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
>> >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
>> >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
>> >and it seems a little backward to us
>>
>> You know you're in trouble when you start taking advice on what is or is
>> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the world
>> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
>>
>> You are very much deluded. If Gestapo existed in America, it is certainly
>> true that the above poster owning a gun would not stop them. You are a
>> pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people owning guns would not have
>a
>> salutory effect for liberty however.
>
>Have i lost the plot here, i thought this news group was about startrek?
>Also why do you blame europe for everything that has ever gone rong?
clinton
>isn't exatly an angle is he now! -
OOOHHHHHH wait a minute here.Clinton is too an angle, his whole cabinet
sits at an angle, its one of those stealth angles so you really cant tell if
its leaing left or right.Whats this got to do with Hitler?
Well im not sure but Im gonna guess those black leather trenchcoats. Man
that gestapo had the Bomb outfit didnt they?
i bet he's thinking about were he can
>invade or bomb next! -also he doesn't seem to give a shite about
>international law! eg invade haitey (can't spell that sorry),
i aweays day weds inbabade de hungawy yuogoslobia
and bomb a
>pharamsist, so now the thrid world has less aford able drugs!
>
Now I agree with you. Any leader these days is an asshole, they go to school
for it, and cheap drugs are the LEAST THEY CAN DO FOR US
>if there is a third world war, the US will provok it! an now the CIS may
>break up futher... tolerensce for US attrocities may end V.soon!
Yes sparky and you know, there is a was in the third world. Er, there was a
wap.
Hitler! With Battery Pack!Add water Makes its *own* sauce!
>
>
Anton Sherwood
Harold Leahy <hle...@worldnet.att.net> writes
: I am sure that makes Morris Dees, the Southern Poverty Law Center
: and Klanwatch very happy.
On the contrary, it'll blow his fundraising operation all to hell.
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
Leo Sgouros
cipher and you go bonkers with the data.
Hey wait a minute.You are Dave Freakin Reitzes.NOBODY writes that dry.Oh yes
and you mention CORE.
How Did Jim Garrison feel about gun control?Any thoughts, David?
>I am sure that makes Morris Dees, the Southern Poverty Law Center and
>Klanwatch very happy.
>
>[Cottrol].SNIPSNIPSNIPSNIPSNIPSNIP
SNIPSNIPSNIPSNIP
........amd it just went on and on
THE PEOPLE
wrote:
>>Or they
>>would, if the KKK was still around that is. Yes, the KKK disappeared right
>off
>>the face of the earth just recently
>
>I am sure that makes Morris Dees, the Southern Poverty Law Center and
>Klanwatch very happy.
>
>http://www.splcenter.org/
Gosh, have I got egg on my face. Turns out there could actually be some
klansmen running around! Organizing militias, stockpiling armaments, joining the
NRA... I guess you really straightened me out that time, Harvey.
>>KKK, NRA, three completely different letters.
Yep, NO AFFILIATION between those two, yepyepyep.
>
>That comment only shows how little you know about the NRA and the civil
>rights movement of the 1950s. It also shows how little you know about the
>non-violent but not unarmed civil rights movement. Several NAACP local
>chapter leaders also founded NRA affiliates and got shooting instruction
>from the NRA. The NAACP then tried to kick them out of their positions.
No kidding. How inscrutable.
>
>The Colored Farmers Alliance, in Leflore County Mississippi, was an armed
>black militia led by Oliver Cromwell in 1889. It was suppressed by three
>companies of state militia. [Payne p. 46].
By contrast, the nonviolent civil rigths movement won support from the federal
govt, and succeeded famously.
>
>"Daisy Bates, the leader of the Little Rock NAACP during the desegregation
>crisis, worte in her memoirs that armed volunteers stood guard over her
>home. Morevoer, there are oral histories of such assistance. David Dennis,
>the black Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) worker who had been targeted
>for the fate that actually befell Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney during the
>Freedom Summer, has told of black Mississippi citizens with firearms who
>followed civil rights workers in order to keep them safe." [Cottrol].
>
The threat to their safety being other private citizens with *their* guns, and
not the govt to which they were appealing with their nonviolent methods.
I'm not particularly against people owning guns, Harvey.
***
Ok I'm going to yield myself up at this time to this burning temptation I get
sometimes to do something really stupid in the name of trying to be funny. I
hope I don't burn in hell for this. I'm going to sing my Hitler song for you.
It's sort of similar to the theme from Speed Racer by the way.
So you can guess how most of it goes already.
This is not great poetry.
Maybe I won't do this after all.
No... I MUST...
No...yes...no...nnngh...
here he comes/here comes herr hitler/he's a demon on wheels/he's a demon and
he's gonna be chasin after someone/he's comin for ya so ya better take a
hike/he's busy building up his powerful third reich/and when the odds are
against him and there's/dangerous work to do/you bet your life herr hitler/will
see it through/go herr hitler/go herr hitler/go herr hitler go/he's up and
flying as his panzer corps attack/he's gassin down the hebrews and they're
never comin back/adventure's waitin just aheeeed/go herr hitler/go herr
hitler/go herr hitler go
ah, I feel much better now. Like an enormouse weight has been relieved from my
entrails. Yes, great Art is an ugly, ugly thing, which regardless must be
produced. Otherwise, we explode.
And now I will watch tv.
AFFA MU
>Paul Turner wrote:
>> You
>> have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to deal
>> with any foreign threat. As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
>> precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
>> remove the other.
>
>What? Are you saying guns cause crime? Are you serious? How do they pull
>their own triggers? How do they load themselves? The domstic threats the
>Founding Fathers were worried about was our government becoming a
>tyrany.
Oh, c'mon. It's too late to stop that now. Owning a gun only makes you
a target. Just give up. Why even get out of bed in the morning? Put
your weapons down. Follow the leader. Try and fit in. Take the path of
least resistance. Ignore the slaughterhouse at the end of the conveyor
belt. Everything will be just fine. Clinton said so. You can trust
him. He is a good man and a patriot. Father knows what's best for you.
If you'll just relax, you'll be happy. We'll take care of everything.
Douglas Goodall
cuprum at earthlink network
AFFA MU
>Sixth, you don't have to "need" a
>right to "have" a right. No country can grant nor take away the right to
>preserve your own life. It is a natural right, like the right to have children.
What is a "natural right" or a "natural law" exactly? I hear lots of
people using these terms, and I do not understand them. They do not
seem to be laws or rights in a legal sense. They do not seem to be
laws or rights in a scientific sense. I don't understand.
>Crime has not gone up because of guns, it has not gone up as fast because of
Actually, crime has been steadily decreasing (barring wars, civil
unrest, and the occational baby boom) for as long as we have records
(300 years for places like London).
Leo Sgouros
AFFA MU wrote in message <373ef093....@news.earthlink.net>...
>Jim Mc <jimmcc...@mediaone.net> echoed through the Ether Breather:
>>Sixth, you don't have to "need" a
>>right to "have" a right. No country can grant nor take away the right to
>>preserve your own life. It is a natural right, like the right to have
children.
>
>What is a "natural right" or a "natural law" exactly? I hear lots of
>people using these terms, and I do not understand them. They do not
>seem to be laws or rights in a legal sense. They do not seem to be
>laws or rights in a scientific sense. I don't understand.
You have the right to fall in the woods, very quiet so nobody hears.
Nobody hears, NOBODY HEARS!
L
EdWIN
Jason S. wrote in message ...
>EdWIN posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>
>>> >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't
>>two
>>> >separate entities.
>
>>> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
>>> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>
>>The distinction is that any powers and rights not granted to the Federal
>>Government, or to the States, are retained by the people. But the U.S.
>>government comes from the people of United States, it isn't some remote,
>>detached entity. The government is the people, and the people are the
>>government. Of course, this is expressed indirectly, through elected
>>officials.
>
>No, that's the Tenth Amendment. I am talking about a basic
>textual pattern in the document.
So when Abraham Lincoln said that the Civil War was fought to preserve
government "of the people, by the people, for the people," he was just
showing his ignorance of the Constituition?
[snip]
EdWIN
InvisibleMan wrote in message <92672881...@news.remarQ.com>...
>
>EdWIN <ze...@aiur.org> wrote in message news:7hi011$1eo$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
>>
>> Jason S. <jhst...@mindspring.com.NOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:slrn7jot9c....@jasons.dyn.kpn.cx...
>> > EdWIN posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>> >
>> > >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't
>> two
>> > >separate entities.
>> >
>> > Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
>> > between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
>> > States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>>
>> The distinction is that any powers and rights not granted to the Federal
>> Government, or to the States, are retained by the people. But the U.S.
>> government comes from the people of United States, it isn't some remote,
>> detached entity. The government is the people, and the people are the
>> government. Of course, this is expressed indirectly, through elected
>> officials.
>
>Federal level? Let's see---President/VP, US Representative, and a Senator.
>The rest of the massive governmental structure is made up of political
>appointees and beaurocrats. I didn't get to cast my vote for Secretary of
>State, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense, etc. Why should we have
>more power over choosing our state government than we do over the Feds? So,
>to refute your point, the government of the US is not made up of the
people,
>it is primarily made up of people who were appointed or hired without ANY
>input from the general constituency. Hell, ambassadorships are now earned
>through large campaign contributions. Come back when you join the real
>world.
Since we elect officials with the understanding that they will make those
appointments in our behalf, we have indirectly made those appointments
ourselves. If you don't like the way the government runs, then get
involved, don't buy a gun. We didn't get twenty Amendments to the
Constituition because the people in government were afraid somebody would
come down and shoot them if they didn't add those.
>By the way, that "kewl" mixed-case way of typing your name is pretty
>well played out. How old are you, 13?
I'd like to discuss that with you, InvisibleMan, but I can't see you now.
BTW, "Visible Woman" is more interesting, but somewhat gross.
>Mike
>> [snip]
>>
>
>
Alain Breton
> No, the Constitution never intended that wackos should be able to decide
> they don't like the government, and just go down there and kill everyone.
> No government or civilization could survive in those conditions.
The Klingons did!
Alain Breton
Jason S.
>>>> >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't
>>>two
>>>> >separate entities.
>>>> Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
>>>> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
>>>> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>>>The distinction is that any powers and rights not granted to the Federal
>>>Government, or to the States, are retained by the people. But the U.S.
>>>government comes from the people of United States, it isn't some remote,
>>>detached entity. The government is the people, and the people are the
>>>government. Of course, this is expressed indirectly, through elected
>>>officials.
>>No, that's the Tenth Amendment. I am talking about a basic
>>textual pattern in the document.
>So when Abraham Lincoln said that the Civil War was fought to preserve
>government "of the people, by the people, for the people," he was just
>showing his ignorance of the Constituition?
What's your point? Lincoln didn't say "the People and the United States
are the same thing in the Constitution," Eddie.
--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/
George Graves
PEOPLE) wrote:
>On Sat, 15 May 1999 10:54:48 -0400, "Harold Leahy" <hle...@worldnet.att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>> There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
>>>> 'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
>>>> right to go around shooting each other?
>>>
>>>You might tell that to the Americans of German and Japanese descent that
>>>were put into camps during the 40's.. right here in the good old US of
>>>A... or talk to McCarthy's blacklist victims, or talk to the citizens of
>>>"democratic Germany"... the ones that joined the Nazi Party.
Sorry. German-Americans were NOT "put into camps" during WWII. Yet another
victim of the modern US education system bites the dust.
--
George Graves
King Trent
Johnny-on-the-spot wrote in message
<01be9df1$8bb92b40$0381...@wport.wport.com>...
>> >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
>>>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
>>>>>>because you can't defend
>>
>>gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
>>would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
>>It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
>>and it seems a little backward to us
>
entire nations to the whims of royalty, and then Socialism. What do you
know of freedom? We of the U.S.A. have known nothing but freedom, and it
galls us to have it taken away. It galls us more to have foreigners telling
our government how to run our nation. As to the Gestapo existing in
America, we have them in abundance. They are called the BATF, DEA, FBI,
CIA, HHS, IRS, etc. When all branches of government have their own
enforcement division that is armed, do we, as private citizens, not have
something to fear?
Rick
... hmmmm so only the japanese americans were held... but that would
make it OK. Sure.
EdWIN
Rick wrote in message <1999051418...@ts4-02.aug.com>...
>EdWIN <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>
>> Rick <nospam...@aug.com> wrote in message
>> news:373c756f....@news.aug.com...
>> > On Fri, 14 May 1999 10:19:07 -0500, "EdWIN" <ze...@aiur.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Johnny-on-the-spot <jo...@earth.com> wrote in message
>> > >news:01be9df1$8bb92b40$0381...@wport.wport.com...
>> > >> > >>> Tell me something. When the Gestapo comes to search
>> > >> >>>>>your house for "subversive literature," and can do so freely
>> > >> >>>>>because you can't defend
>> > >> >
>> > >> > If the Gestapo existed in modern america your possesion of a
>> > >> >gun would not stop them. If the Gestapo existed in america it
>> > >> >would probably be because of your obesession with owning one.
>> > >> >It seems strange to people in Europe that you have this obession
>> > >> >and it seems a little backward to us
>> > >>
or
>> is
>> > >> not strange firearms policy from a continent of people who gave the
>> world
>> > >> Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and two world wars back-to-back.
>> > >
>> populace!
>> > >
>> > Czarist Russia fell to an armed revolutionary army
>>
>> So how does this support arming the populace?
>
>It allowed the population to get rid of the Czar.
He's own army turned on him, it wasn't done by an armed populace.
>>
>> > >When India achieved independence, the majority of its citizens were
>> unarmed.
>> > >
>> > The revolutinaries were very armed.
>>
>> No they weren't. Indians employed passive resistance.
>>
>
>You might want to tell the British Army that. Not all Indian
>Revolutionaries were passivlty resistant.
Sure, there may have been some that resorted to violence. The vast
majority did NOT.
>> > >> You are very much deluded. If Gestapo existed in America, it is
>> certainly
>> > >> true that the above poster owning a gun would not stop them. You are
a
>> > >> pathetic fool to think that 100,000,000 people owning guns would not
>> have
>> > >a
>> > >> salutory effect for liberty however.
>> > >
>> > >If 100,000,000 people owned guns, and believed that their political
>> rights
>> > >flowed from the barrels of those weapons, it is doubtful any
government
>> > >could survive in the face of this. The world would descend into a
state
>> of
>> > >chaos much like it was in for much of its history. We don't need to
>> return
>> > >to the age of private armies, with civil disputes settled by blood in
the
>> > >streets, by feuding families.
>> > >
>> >
>> > We do need to let the criminal element know the general population
>> > will fight back.
>>
>> Sure, that's why we have neighborhood watches, security systems, and
police
>> departments. We don't need a gun in everybody's hand to be secure from
>> crime, and even that would not eliminate all crime.
>>
>
>Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
>right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
>right guaranteed in the Constitution?
So it all comes down to your selfish interests, doesn't it? The
Consituition CAN be changed. Has been before. When you say something like
this to gun advocates, they oft as not shift to "God-given rights."
>> There was a case in Chicago were an officer writing a ticket was run over
by
>> the offender. Did the criminal think the armed uniformed officer
wouldn't
>> fight back?
>
>Im not psychic. How would I know?
I brought up the story to challlenge your assertion that crime would be
reduced because criminals know people will fight back. Your theory didn't
seem to work in that case, did it?
EdWIN
Jason S. wrote in message ...
You're acting so much like Tholen in that reply it's scary. I think you've
completely lost the original thought that started this. The idea is that
the government is not some alien, isolated entity. The government is made
up of the people of the country.
Jason S.
>>>>>> Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
>>>>>> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
>>>>>> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>>>>>The distinction is that any powers and rights not granted to the Federal
>>>>>Government, or to the States, are retained by the people. But the U.S.
>>>>>government comes from the people of United States, it isn't some remote,
>>>>>detached entity. The government is the people, and the people are the
>>>>>government. Of course, this is expressed indirectly, through elected
>>>>>officials.
>>>>No, that's the Tenth Amendment. I am talking about a basic
>>>>textual pattern in the document.
>>>So when Abraham Lincoln said that the Civil War was fought to preserve
>>>government "of the people, by the people, for the people," he was just
>>>showing his ignorance of the Constituition?
>>What's your point? Lincoln didn't say "the People and the United States
>>are the same thing in the Constitution," Eddie.
>You're acting so much like Tholen in that reply it's scary. I think you've
>completely lost the original thought that started this. The idea is that
>the government is not some alien, isolated entity. The government is made
>up of the people of the country.
That's how they teach it in fourth grade civics class, I guess. All
part of the dumbing down of America.
EdWIN
Rick wrote in message <373CBFC4...@aug.com>...
>Paul Turner wrote:
>>
>> > snip<
>>
>> Yeah. So. We dont need a gun in every hand. We Do need to preserve the
>> > right to put a gun in every hand. Why do you want to deprive me of this
>> > right guaranteed in the Constitution?
>>
>
>
>> Are you still living in the 'wild west'?
>
>collected guuns at the City Limits. It didnt stop Ed Masterson from
>getting shot.
Isn't it interesting that as the "wild west" became civilized, one of the
requirements was that firearms should be collected? Your example only
underscores the need for gun control, and shows that it just wasn't done
effectively enough.
>> Times have changed, and changed a great deal. You do not need to arm, or
>> give the right to arm the populace to have a free and stable country.
>
>Are you pschic? Omnipotent? Hmmm
Maybe he just knows his own history? Hmmm..? Hardly anyone in my
neighborhood has a gun, yet it is a safe quite place. Go figure.
>> You
>> have the greatest and most formidable nuclear deterrent in the world to
deal
>> with any foreign threat. As for domestic threats, as in crime, that is
>> precipitated by the right to bare guns, and removing one will 'help' to
>> remove the other.
>
>What? Are you saying guns cause crime? Are you serious? How do they pull
>their own triggers? How do they load themselves? The domstic threats the
>Founding Fathers were worried about was our government becoming a
>tyrany.
>
>> There will never be any form of a social/militaristic
>> 'coup' within the USA, too structured and stable so why do you need the
>> right to go around shooting each other?
>
>You might tell that to the Americans of German and Japanese descent that
>were put into camps during the 40's.. right here in the good old US of
>A... or talk to McCarthy's blacklist victims, or talk to the citizens of
>"democratic Germany"... the ones that joined the Nazi Party.
So they all should have had guns, and there should have been Civil War?
How would I have decided who to support in that war? Everybody who
disagrees with government policy should just pull out a gun and start
shooting? How do you propose to have any type of elected government, as
hardly anyone agrees completely with others on anything?
>> And because the government is stable is not to do with this right, it is
>> simply that you have found a system that really works for your country.
>> All that the right to bare arms is doing is increasing you crime rate and
>> violent death rates, not a good sign for tourists.
>
>Here's a flash.... STAY HOME.
I'm sure many state tourist boards are very happy Rick is on Usenet telling
their clients to "stay home." ;)
Frank Iam
sighted 'contemporary' viewpoint. Allowing the income tax was a bad thing.
Obviously prohibition was idiotic. Why go for a stupidity trifecta and ban
guns?
Who are you Ed? Just who the hell are you to declare my ownership of guns a
'selfish' interest? Hmm?? Did the idea ever occur to you that a neighbor
of yours that defends his home against an intruder is defending yours as
well? Hmm? What of it Ed? Did you stop and use the gray matter between
your ears to consider that a women that wards off a would-be rapist, also
protects your wife and your daughter? If these ideas are lost on you, then
I can understand your dim-witted comment. Until you understand that
individual protection is the essence and starting point of any liberty, no
matter how watered down it may be, you forfeit the ability to have any
pretense of liberty. Just who are you to suggest unilateral disarmament
against even the least of society's rogues?
EdWIN <ze...@aiur.org> wrote in message
news:7hnrct$hfp$1...@news.laserlink.net...
-snip-
NthDoctor (Tony Smith)
The conversation went something like this:...........
> > Sorry. German-Americans were NOT "put into camps" during WWII. Yet
another
> > victim of the modern US education system bites the dust.
>
> ... hmmmm so only the japanese americans were held... but that would
> make it OK. Sure.
Not only was it deemed "ok" at the time. It occurred under the auspices of
one of the msot liberally progressive adminsitrations of the
time...........
spooky huh?
--
NthDoctor
nta...@airmail.net
Harold Leahy
>make it OK. Sure.
Japanese-Americans and Japanese aliens, the Japanese-Americans parents who
were barred by law from becoming citizens.
Harold Leahy
>requirements was that firearms should be collected? Your example only
>underscores the need for gun control, and shows that it just wasn't done
>effectively enough.
The prohibition took one of two forms: some localities banned the concealed
carry of firearms but open carry was allowed. Some localities banned the
carrying of firearms within city limits, outside of city limits there were
no restrictions. There was no ban on the ownership of firearms within the
city limits. You could possess a handgun in your house. Also the city limits
then were what we would call the urban core or business district now, city
limits did not include most of the residential area.
The firearms that were 'collected' at the city limits were deposited with
the sheriff and/or marshall who returned them to you as you left the city
limits. There was no permanent confiscation.
George Graves
>Jason S. wrote in message ...
>>EdWIN posted the following to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>>
>>>> >I ignored nothing. The government is made of the people, they aren't
>>>two
>>>> >separate entities.
>>
>>>> Not according to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly distinguishes
>>>> between the United States (i.e., the federal government), the several
>>>> States (i.e., the state governments) and the People (i.e., the people).
>>
>>>The distinction is that any powers and rights not granted to the Federal
>>>Government, or to the States, are retained by the people. But the U.S.
>>>government comes from the people of United States, it isn't some remote,
>>>detached entity. The government is the people, and the people are the
>>>government. Of course, this is expressed indirectly, through elected
>>>officials.
>>
>>No, that's the Tenth Amendment. I am talking about a basic
>>textual pattern in the document.
>
>
>So when Abraham Lincoln said that the Civil War was fought to preserve
>government "of the people, by the people, for the people," he was just
>showing his ignorance of the Constituition?
Lincoln was NOT a proponent of 'states' rights'. The entire War Between
the States is ample proof of that. Constitutionally, the Southern States
had every right to secede from the Union. Lincoln had no 'legal' power to
make them come back, and knew it. He told Secretary of War Stanton, that
even though he had no legal right to force the Confederacy back into the
Union, he had a moral imperative to do so.
--
George Graves
George Graves
<B807602E572BA395.DCEED949...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
"NthDoctor (Tony Smith)" <nta...@airmail.net> wrote:
>The conversation went something like this:...........
>
>
>> > Sorry. German-Americans were NOT "put into camps" during WWII. Yet
>another
>> > victim of the modern US education system bites the dust.
>>
>> ... hmmmm so only the japanese americans were held... but that would
>> make it OK. Sure.
>
>
>Not only was it deemed "ok" at the time. It occurred under the auspices of
>one of the msot liberally progressive adminsitrations of the
>time...........
>
>spooky huh?
Not spooky, just fairly normal -for the time. 50 years ago, it was still
widely believed that different races 'thought' differently and that
oriental thought was alien to the Western mind. It was strongly suspected
that many Japanese-Americans still had close relatives in Japan, and that
the Japanese government would not hesitate to use these relatives as
hostages in order to get their Americanized kin to do Japan's bidding as
5th columnists. Most German Americans were third and fourth generation.
First (and possibly second) generation German-Americans were relatively
few in number, but believe me, they were watched by the FBI, they just
weren't incarcerated.
--
George Graves
EdWIN
Harold Leahy <hle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7hopnt$plr$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
permanently confiscated. But gun control went hand and glove with the
coming of civilization to the American West.
EdWIN
Frank Iam <iam_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ho6ko$j...@newsops.execpc.com...
> Sure. We have amended it. Often we did so after giving in to the short
> sighted 'contemporary' viewpoint. Allowing the income tax was a bad
thing.
> Obviously prohibition was idiotic. Why go for a stupidity trifecta and
ban
> guns?
>
> Who are you Ed? Just who the hell are you to declare my ownership of guns
a
> 'selfish' interest? Hmm?? Did the idea ever occur to you that a neighbor
> of yours that defends his home against an intruder is defending yours as
> well? Hmm? What of it Ed? Did you stop and use the gray matter between
> your ears to consider that a women that wards off a would-be rapist, also
> protects your wife and your daughter? If these ideas are lost on you,
then
> I can understand your dim-witted comment. Until you understand that
> individual protection is the essence and starting point of any liberty, no
> matter how watered down it may be, you forfeit the ability to have any
> pretense of liberty. Just who are you to suggest unilateral disarmament
> against even the least of society's rogues?
Are you done ranting? Good. I never suggested that guns should be
outlawed, only controlled. I said that guns should not be considered a
source of political power. I also said that putting a gun in everybodies
hand is not a solution to crime.
When you want to turn my world into an armed camp, you're doing it for your
own selfish interests, not to benefit me or anyone else. You want to have
a gun no matter what the cost to society. An active police department is
what keeps crime down, not the fact that some of my neighbors have guns.
Why don't you think about the cases where gun owners were done away with by
their own weapons? What about all the guns that are stolen to sell to buy
drugs, and go into the hands of criminals? What's the solution? More guns?
Who am I? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, with full rights
to express any opinion I wish, and with full rights to lobby my government
to pass any law I feel it should Who the hell are you?
EdWIN
OmniNegro <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:B3CCC3C8679D0823.6EFEE896...@library-proxy.airnew
s.net...
> >Sure, that's why we have neighborhood watches, security systems, and
police
> >departments. We don't need a gun in everybody's hand to be secure from
> >crime, and even that would not eliminate all crime.
> >
by
> >the offender. Did the criminal think the armed uniformed officer
wouldn't
> >fight back?
> >
> the police to protect the people."
> --Hitler--
That's called guilt by association. If an idea is stated by a bad man, the
idea must be bad.
> well, i guess we know in whom's footsteps you follow.
No you don't.
> If con is the opposite of pro, is congress the opposite of progress?
Yeah, let's buy guns and shoot the bastards, because we're not like Hitler.
Who needs a ballot box when you're well armed?
[snip]
Amy Lewis
EdWIN wrote in message <7hnrct$hfp$1...@news.laserlink.net>...
>
>So it all comes down to your selfish interests, doesn't it? The
>Consituition CAN be changed. Has been before. When you say something
like
>this to gun advocates, they oft as not shift to "God-given rights."
Edwin,
I suppose you have no selfish interests, right? Like your right to own a
car, even though it pollutes the air and endangers others? Cars kill 58,000
people a year in the US, more than handguns, but we ignore that, because we
all want them enough that its an acceptable trade-off.
All those who don't own guns, and don't want others to own them either find
it quite easy to rail against something they don't have and don't want but
which others have instead.
Do you have children? More than one? Some would contend that its very
selfish of you to increase the population like that when the world's
resources are dwindling fast and we already have 5 billion of us here. The
housing market is insanely expensive already and you are only increasing the
demand and the price.
As for the Constitution having been change before, well if you really want
to go into the wisdom of the 18th amendment I'm up to it and go right ahead.
With regard to the second amendment, its *still there*, okay? Until its not
it is the LAW OF THE LAND, and as an American I support and uphold it.
Don't like it? Go live somewhere else!
Chris Franks
>
> ... that would be the one where they bind girsl feet, or drown them at
> birth, or what?
One child per family. Period. No discussion. Get the world
population back down to a number that the Earth can support without
being polluted. Do it voluntarily before it happens by disease.
--
Less than 20 months until the start of the 3rd millenium!
Ed Reppert
> Who needs a ballot box when you're well armed?
"We preserve our freedoms using four boxes: soap, ballot, jury, and
cartridge." -- Anonymous
--
Ed Reppert
Rochester, NY, USA
Harold Leahy
>widely believed that different races 'thought' differently and that
>oriental thought was alien to the Western mind.
The flaw in this logic is that the Japanese-Americans were imprisoned from
the west coast and their land taken. In Hawaii, where the attack occurred
and where the 'fifth-column' supposedly was in operation, the
Japanese-Americans were not interred. Apparently they were needed to work in
the naval yards and had less land to steal.
It also does not account for why the State Department arranged for Peru to
kidnap its Japanese residents and ship them to the US. If our concern was as
you state, why would we want more of them. And notice this action occurred
before Pearl Harbor.
"Several months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government
pressured Latin and Central American nations to arrest those persons
considered potential security risks because of their ancestry. Although this
included a small number of Germans and Italians deemed "dangerous",
virtually all prominent Japanese were to be taken, with no effort to
identify possibly "dangerous" ones." "The United States would assume all
the costs of imprisonment and transfer of the prisoners to the United
States." "The issue was not, however, primarily one of security. The United
States wanted a pool of hostages that could be traded for Americans trapped
in Axis countries." "From 1942 through 1944, over two thousand people of
Japanese ancestry were rounded up from their homes in twelve different Latin
American countries and imprisoned in United States internment camps." Peru
did not want the prisoners returned later on. This was reported by the US
Ambassador to Peru to the State Department. "The [Peruvian] President's goal
apparently is the substantial elimination of the Japanese colony in Peru."
"The Japanese Peruvians were interned in camps supervised by the Department
of Justice rather than the War Relocation Authority." [Levine 93-113]
The next paragraph sounds exactly like what we are accusing the Serbs of
doing to the Kosovars.
"Before they were brought into the United States, they were forced to
surrender any passports or visas they possessed. On their arrival, without
any official papers, the U.S. Immigration Service declared them "illegal
aliens" and interned them in prisoner-of-war camps. Since they had entered
"illegally", at the end of the war they were still considered illegal
aliens. Without legal status in America, they could be deported. The
Immigration Service advised them to go to Canada or Mexico and reenter
legally. They were then given permanent residence cards dated at the time of
this second entry." "This "date of arrival" would become critical in the
Peruvians' later application for redress." [Levine 187]
Levine, Ellen. A Fence Away From Freedom: Japanese Americans And World War
II. NY: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1995.
Rick
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > ... that would be the one where they bind girsl feet, or drown them at
> > birth, or what?
>
> One child per family. Period. No discussion. Get the world
> population back down to a number that the Earth can support without
> being polluted. Do it voluntarily before it happens by disease.
Why not just let the world do it through disease? Its more or less on
its way now, anyway.
Rick
> >... hmmmm so only the japanese americans were held... but that would
> >make it OK. Sure.
>
> Japanese-Americans and Japanese aliens, the Japanese-Americans parents who
> were barred by law from becoming citizens.
... and this made it OK to lock them up??
Rick
Joseph Michael Bay
>The flaw in this logic is that the Japanese-Americans were imprisoned from
>the west coast and their land taken. In Hawaii, where the attack occurred
>and where the 'fifth-column' supposedly was in operation, the
>Japanese-Americans were not interred. Apparently they were needed to work in
>the naval yards and had less land to steal.
Also, it's illegal to inter living people.
Joe "Where did they bury the survivors of Pearl Harbor?" Bay
--
Joseph M. Bay Lamont Sanford Junior University
Putting the "harm" in molecular pharmacology since 1998
"We are all lying in the gutter, but some of us BLEAAAAGHH, AARGGH HRRRRRRRK"
--Oscar Wilde Have you SMASHED the STATE today?
Harold Leahy
Correct. I should have used the correct work - imprisoned.
mroeder
<hle...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Also it's illegal to inter people who are alive.
>
>
> Correct. I should have used the correct work - imprisoned.
In Illinois you can't hang a man with a wooden leg.
You have to use a rope.
--
Michael Roeder - mroeder at macromedia dot com
Professional Idealist and Ice Hockey QA Engineer (Goalie)
"I'm in it for the fun, but it's more fun when you win!"
To email me, change "spam" to "mroeder". But don't send spam!
Frank Iam
EdWIN <ze...@aiur.org> wrote in message news:7hpg9k$pip$1...@hirame.wwa.com...
>
-snip-
>
> Are you done ranting?
Not really.
>Good.
I think I am.
> I never suggested that guns should be outlawed, only controlled.
There can be a fine line or an unmistakable demarcation point between
controlled and outlawed. Of which do you speak?
> I said that guns should not be considered a source of political power.
For whom? The government, or for individuals? When and under what
circumstances? I don't know that I consider my ownership of guns political
power, perhaps a small piece of political security.
> I also said that putting a gun in everybodies hand is not a solution to
crime.
Allowing gun ownership for law abiding citizens is most definately 'a'
solution to crime. What you may not like is that it is not THE solution,
but there is no single solution to the problem.
> When you want to turn my world into an armed camp, you're doing it for
your
> own selfish interests, not to benefit me or anyone else.
Oh shut up. Are you really this stupid or do you just act this way on the
internet? First of all, nobody's talking about armed camps. We are talking
about citizens being armed and being able to thwart crime to their property.
This is not selfish (as you mean it), it is about protecting and defending
property and family.
> You want to have a gun no matter what the cost to society.
> An active police department is what keeps crime down, not the fact that
some of my neighbors have guns.
Really? How active? If someone broke into my home while I was home, just
how effective would they be? In some cities, 35+ minutes would be a fast
response to a 9-1-1 call. In the country, an hour may be pretty good.
Quite a bit can happen in that time.
Get me one cop for 3 or 4 houses and I'll agree with you. A police presense
can help, but it is not sufficient. Armed citizens will always be more
effective. A citizen doesn't allow for plea bargains, early parole, public
service time or any of the other pathetic alternatives to actual punishment.
If you were a thug, what would you rather face? An angry citizen with a
gun, or a cop?
> Why don't you think about the cases where gun owners were done away with
by
> their own weapons?
Okay. Why don't you imagine how many wish that they could have defended
themselves from rape, beatings, robbery and attempted murder. How about
battery, child abduction and molestation.
> What about all the guns that are stolen to sell to buy
> drugs, and go into the hands of criminals?
Prosecute the thieves.
> What's the solution? More guns?
We've banned drugs, they haven't gone away either.
> Who am I? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, with full
rights
> to express any opinion I wish, and with full rights to lobby my government
> to pass any law I feel it should.
Yes as am I. But I don't have to say please to my government to have the
right to own a gun. I have that right becase the government's ability to
deny me that wish has been limited. It was put in place by very intelligent
people. People who knew history well, and understood the meaning of tyranny
and how to prevent it. The elected officials today aren't fit to polish the
shoes of those men. You didn't answer my question though. Who are you to
take this right away from me? Just what makes you more wise then our
founding fathers? Oh, that's right - they had no idea that guns would be
like they are today. Poppycock.
> Who the hell are you?
Just a man who believes that without the right to defend my family and the
product of my labors that all other rights are worthless. You see Ed, I am
justified in demanding that answer from you because you deem my right as
unworthy and seek to undermine it. You can't make that an answer from me -
I am not trying to take anything away from you.
It may be self interest, but it isn't selfishness.
>
mroeder
gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>
>
> Funny thing. Whenever a totalitarian regime like Hitler's Nazis or Lenin's
> Bolsheviks come to power, the first thing they do is disarm the populace.
> That argument above all others should be ample to shut down the anti-gun
> crowd.
Yes, but how do they disarm the people? They have bigger and more guns. It
took half the US friggin army equipped with howitzers and B17s to shut
Hitler down. What would a few hunting rifles have done?
mroeder
PEOPLE) wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 08:14:15 -0500, "Frank Iam" <iam_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's called a method of operation and it is an overwhelming argument. Read
> >history. Guilt by historical reference is valid because even though
> >technology changes, people don't.
> >
> >
> >Pascal Haakmat <p...@awacs.dhs.org> wrote in message
> >news:slrn7k2...@awacs.dhs.org...
> >> In article <gmgraves-180...@oak-pm3-51-179.dialup.slip.net>,
> >> George Graves wrote:
> >>
> >> >Funny thing. Whenever a totalitarian regime like Hitler's Nazis or
> >Lenin's
> >> >Bolsheviks come to power, the first thing they do is disarm the populace.
> >> >That argument above all others should be ample to shut down the anti-gun
> >> >crowd.
> >>
> >> Sorry, guilt by assocation does not an argument make.
> >>
> >> --
> >> The CSMA posting style test
> >> http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest/
> >
>
>
> I think there might be countries which have stricter gun control laws than we
> do, and aren't dictatorships.
Oh, there aren't *that* many, and no matter how many there are, they're
insignificant. Let's see, it's only New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada,
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Germany, Austria, Ireland, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and
Switzerland. You can't be serious if you think those few tiny little
countries can have a point, can you? }: )
Joe Ragosta
gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
> In article <Jia03.88$Z.3...@newse3.tampabay.rr.com>, "Leo Sgouros"
> <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >George Graves wrote in message ...
> >>In article <1999051720...@ts1-03.aug.com>, nospam...@aug.com
> >>Well, THAT'S going to happen whether we do anything to curb the earth's
> >>population or not. Its just inevitable.
> >>
> >>--
> >>George Graves
> >
> >
> >
> >Remind me not to hire you for any pep rally.
>
> Its just inevitable. Its happened before, it'll happen again. There are
> any number of nasty diseases waiting in the wings to cut the world
> population down to size: Ebola, Junta vireses, not to mention some nasty,
> virulent variation on our old friend influenza. And with today's fast air
> travel and mobile populations.........
There's another less severe issue that enters into the equation. It's well
documented that birth rates for a species under ecological stress
(overcrowding, for example) drop. At some point, that starts to reduce
birth rates on its own.
I don't know how much that effect has played a role, but most developed
countries are at or close to zero population growth now.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
joe.r...@dol.net
George Graves
joe.r...@dol.net (Joe Ragosta) wrote:
>In article <gmgraves-180...@oak-pm3-51-179.dialup.slip.net>,
>gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>
>> In article <7hpice$9tf$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Amy Lewis"
>> <amyl...@vbc.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Don't like it? Go live somewhere else!
>>
>> Well said sir! I agree with you 1000%!
>
>Perhaps you should check who you responded to. "Sir"?
I noticed that AFTER I had hit the send command! Unfortunately, its pretty
neigh impossible to "take back" a post once its been sent.
--
George Graves
Leo Sgouros
Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
>In article <gmgraves-180...@oak-pm3-28-156.dialup.slip.net>,
oh blow it out your ass.
Pascal Haakmat
>It's called a method of operation and it is an overwhelming argument. Read
>history. Guilt by historical reference is valid because even though
>technology changes, people don't.
Disagree, people ARE changed by technology. I feel no guilt not carrying a
gun, neither am I subject to totalitarian rule, therefore in this particular
case the historical reference does not seem to apply.
DeadZone
says ...
> In <374178d6...@enews.newsguy.com> ri...@home.gov (THE PEOPLE)
> writes:
> >
> > I think there might be countries which have stricter gun control laws
> than we
> >do, and aren't dictatorships.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> laws provably resulted in lowered violent crime and total homicide
> rates. In many case, the rates dramatically rose after passage of such
> laws.
>
>
>
>
>
Most other countries dont have gun control laws, They are not allowed
period. Poor point....
mroeder
dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
> In <374178d6...@enews.newsguy.com> ri...@home.gov (THE PEOPLE)
> writes:
> >
> > I think there might be countries which have stricter gun control laws
> than we
> >do, and aren't dictatorships.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Correct. However in NO country has passage of nationwide gun control
> laws provably resulted in lowered violent crime and total homicide
> rates. In many case, the rates dramatically rose after passage of such
> laws.
Evidence, please?
Donald Brown
Joe Ragosta <joe.r...@dol.net> wrote in message
news:joe.ragosta-18...@wil102.dol.net...
> In article <gmgraves-180...@oak-pm3-28-156.dialup.slip.>
> There's another less severe issue that enters into the equation. It's well
> documented that birth rates for a species under ecological stress
> (overcrowding, for example) drop. At some point, that starts to reduce
> birth rates on its own.
>
> I don't know how much that effect has played a role, but most developed
> countries are at or close to zero population growth now.
That may be part of it. But also, there's less need for high birth rates.
There's no longer a need to have five kids to have one or two survive, and
parents no longer have to depend on their kids to support them in their old
age. There is a delay between the end of need and recognizing it and
changing behavior, but it's no coincidence that the poorest parts of the
world are the most overpopulated.
Donald
Amy Lewis
EdWIN wrote in message <7hph0g$psn$1...@hirame.wwa.com>...
>
>Yeah, let's buy guns and shoot the bastards, because we're not like
Hitler.
>
Edwin,
Don't buy a gun.
Amy
>
Frank Iam
> In article <7hrp3b$b...@newsops.execpc.com>, Frank Iam wrote:
>
> >It's called a method of operation and it is an overwhelming argument.
Read
> >history. Guilt by historical reference is valid because even though
> >technology changes, people don't.
>
> Disagree, people ARE changed by technology. I feel no guilt not carrying a
>gun, neither am I subject to totalitarian rule, therefore in this
particular
>case the historical reference does not seem to apply.
Feel free to disagree - but if you think that people are different because
of technology you are very naive. The things that motivate people are as
base as they have ever been. Food, sex, possessions, etc. Our vanites are
exactly as they always have been. The tools have changed substantially.
Barbarians and tyrants have and always will be among us. Therefore the
ability of the masses to defend and protect their freedoms will always be
under assault. Our opressors today, much like their opposition - currently
use the ballot box. It doesn't mean that there isn't a struggle, just that
it's currently a peaceful one.
-snip-
Rick
> >There's another less severe issue that enters into the equation. It's well
> >documented that birth rates for a species under ecological stress
> >(overcrowding, for example) drop. At some point, that starts to reduce
> >birth rates on its own.
> >
> >I don't know how much that effect has played a role, but most developed
> >countries are at or close to zero population growth now.
> >
> >--
> >Regards,
> >
> >Joe Ragosta
> >joe.r...@dol.net
>
>
> oh blow it out your ass.
We are assuming that learned remark is from a PhD in biology.
Rick
> In article <gmgraves-180...@oak-pm3-51-179.dialup.slip.net>,
> gmgr...@slip.net (George Graves) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Funny thing. Whenever a totalitarian regime like Hitler's Nazis or Lenin's
> > Bolsheviks come to power, the first thing they do is disarm the populace.
> > That argument above all others should be ample to shut down the anti-gun
> > crowd.
>
> Yes, but how do they disarm the people? They have bigger and more guns. It
> took half the US friggin army equipped with howitzers and B17s to shut
> Hitler down. What would a few hunting rifles have done?
Ask the Vietnamese and Afghanis. Both kept superior forces pretty
occupied.