Freedom of speech
Von Bruno
amendment uses the term "miltia" in its wording. That's fine, but the 'militia"
was the common citizen and it's function was not soley to address the worries
of repelling invaders. It was also to calm fears of a central government from
running rough shod over the states and the citizenry.
The whole ideal that the US of A was founded upon was that ultimate power
rested with THE PEOPLE. And that if our government was ever to forsake those
principles that it was not only the people's right BUT THEIR DUTY to rise up
in revolt.
I find it tragicly ironic that there are those who wish to argue against the
people's right to bear arms when in fact it was exactly this right that allowed
our "war of independence" to be possible. And I'm sure there were more than a
few who argued, at the time, that a rag-tag group of "freedom fighters"
wouldn't stand a chance against the King's army.
Peace, love, and all that jazz. :)
Aloha,
Von Bruno
Herranen Henrik
> >ALL countries have free speech.
> >Countries with an armed population have freedom AFTER speech.
> You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France....
Yeah, and Finland.
It's lucky I have both of my machine guns here beside me. Otherwise I
wouldn't dare to write this article, which might be considered harmful
to the peace loving and free republic of Finland. You know, it all
went wrong when we chose a female president and they limited our arms
rights so that I can't fly with my fighter helicopter to work anymore.
Uh oh, now I've done it. I have to stop quickly, because I'm afraid the
guys trying to go trough my cubicle door with a Pasi tank are from our
notorious security police SuPo, and I assume there's not much more I
can do with these arms. Please, let the world know that&/$#"!NO CARRIER
--
Killing is as American as apple pie. We have to kill to live. If you are sick
of being killed, you kill first. Nothing wrong with killing, as long as you
kill the right person.
-- Senator Morten of Alabama in Soap (1981)
Rob Perkins
news:20000521000030.02251.00000449@ng-> You mean like... Switzerland...
There's an assault rifle in practically every home in Switzerland, by order
and requirement of the government.
This is, however, NOT the same as saying "The Swiss have guns, therefore
their crime rate is low because of it." (popular, of course, among the
NRA-types who want no gun laws...) The rifle isn't stored in a state that
would allow it to be used as anything more than a bludgeon, if there were a
break-in in a Swiss home.
In my opinion, the Swiss have a low crime rate because of their incredibly
stable high level of prosperity, not because of their policy on firearms.
One of the differences between the Swiss and U.S. Citizens is that everyone
who has an assault rifle has also been trained on what exactly it can do;
they've been in the army, and are still in the reserves. (By law, every male
of age in Switzerland is in the reserves.)
They're trained on how to use them, and they target-practice with them
monthly, and drilled as military units 2 weeks out of every year, just like
our reserves do. The Swiss are very very very very big on local posession of
combat firearms; it's a huge part of their national defense strategy.
HOWEVER, I believe that there are very strict controls on *handguns*, and
that only the police and military officers are permitted to carry and use
them. When I lived there, I saw that rifles of all types abounded, but
handguns didn't.
In my opinion, the Swiss have an extremely sensible approach to urban gun
control: ban the firearms that are easy to conceal, and educate about the
ones that are not. And naturally, being Swiss, keep lists about everything
and everyone concerning who has which guns. That means registration.
They're also more sensible about drugs, too, but that's off-topic, I guess,
unless we want to talk about dust.
Rob
John C. Anderson
amendment uses the term "miltia" in its wording. That's fine, but the 'militia"
was the common citizen and it's function was not soley to address the worries
of repelling invaders. It was also to calm fears of a central government from
running rough shod over the states and the citizenry. >>
Not just "militia", but "A well-regulated militia...,". WELL-REGULATED. And as
JMS pointed out on an earlier post; those common folk were the military as well
at the time. That role has been supplanted by a professional military and
national guard.
And yes, at the time of the founding of the US, the States were to have much
more power than the Federal Gov't. But that was one part of the American
experiment that DIDN'T work. Like slavery, or only allowing land owners the
right to vote. Ironically, it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that is much more
responsive to the needs and the rights of the PEOPLE than most STATES have ever
been, despite the conservative mantra of " State's Rights".
Don't believe me? Women's suffrage, ending slavery, civil rights including the
right to vote for all citizens, ending of child labor, minimum safety standards
for workplaces, freedom of speech even on the internet..., I could go on for
pages just off the top of my head. All of these things are the product of the
Federal government; often in spite of the States.
I live in the south. If not for the power of the Fed OVER the States, we might
very well still be living under Segregation. That's about as far removed from
democracy as you can be; at least for non-whites. So don't tout the power of
the States, or the militias for that matter, to provide freedom too loudly.
Their track record ain't too bright.
<< The whole ideal that the US of A was founded upon was that ultimate power
rested with THE PEOPLE. >>
That's why we get to VOTE. Democracy comes from a ballot box, not the barrel of
a gun.
John C. Anderson: Tala...@aol.com
James A. Wolf
>>ALL countries have free speech.
>>
>>Countries with an armed population have freedom AFTER speech.
>>
>
>You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France....
>
I know you were trying to be mocking, JMS, but Switzerland has more
guns per capita than rural Texas.
--
<*> James A. Wolf - jaw...@mediaone.net - people.ne.mediaone.net/jawolf <*>
"The jawbone of an ass is | "Like a snail crossing a sidewalk, the Clinton
just as dangerous a weapon | administration leaves a lengthening trail of
today as in Samson's time." | slime, this time on America's national honor."
Richard M. Nixon | George Will
Keith Wood
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >ALL countries have free speech.
> >
> >Countries with an armed population have freedom AFTER speech.
> >
>
> You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France....
>
> jms
Switzerland has one of the highest rates of armed population in the
world. Nearly every home occupied by a Swiss citizen has at least one
machinegun an 200 rounds of ammunition. They have the lowest per-capita
rate of violent crime in Europe. During World War Twice, both Hitler
and Stalin avoided any incursion against the Swiss frontier, while each
were gobbling up hectares as quickly as possible. This is when the
famous exchange took place between a German general and a Swiss general
(I forget the names)
Swiss: "I can put 100,000 armed men on the border in four hours."
German: "What if I sent 200,000 men?"
Swiss: "Then each of my men would have to shoot TWICE."
The United Kingdom has a law permitting arrest and imprisonment on the
SUSPICION that the person MAY commit a crime. There are a number of
people in prison right now whose only conviction was for being caught
carrying Irish-separatist literature. Yet, interestingly enough, a
22-year-old woman who fought off three rapists with a nail file was
convicted of having an unlawful weapon and sentenced to six months in
prison. This was a mandatory term, and self-defense is not a mitigating
circumstance. Her "victims" were not charged.
Sweden is an arms exporter, with a fairly high (for Europe) number of
armed citizens.
France is an arms exporter, and offers tourists the second-highest
chance to be killed by terrorism to be found in Europe (though you won't
find that mentioned in Fodor's). Gun crime in France is fueled by
almost-daily thefts from police and military armories. France also has
a law permitting imprisonment for unapproved speech.
Denmark has a history of imprisoning religious "dissidents."
Keith Wood
Von Bruno wrote:
>
> "You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France...."
> jms...@aol.com
>
> Well, from what I understand the "free speech" in other countries is generally
> not as comprehensive as it is in the US. In Quebec, Canada, don't they restrict
> such things as the use of English?
>
> Also, wasn't the second amendment put into the US Constitution primarily to
> address the concerns of the populace that if they supported the Colonies
> independence from England that they might eventually fall prey to an oppressive
> type of government?
Not quite. The Constitution was written a decade after Revolutionary
War. The Bill of Rights was written largely by James Madison at the
insistence of the Anti-Federalists, who feared that a strong central
government would become the same kind of enemy that the Crown had been,
despite assurances by the Federalists that the Constitution was " . . .a
strong cage for the monster which is power by centrality."
It turns out that the Anti-Federalists were correct about the evolution
of government (we fought a revolution sparked by the Crown's disarming
of the Bostonians and taxes of nearly TEN PERCENT), though the
Federalists were correct in seeing that a federation of states was the
only hope of survival.
> Part of this countrie's uniqueness lay in the fact that it was born of the
> premise that its government would generally be guided by, and responsive to,
> the will of it's citizens. IOW, the right of the people to own arms is just as
> much a constitutional "checks and balance" as the "seperation of powers."
>
> The degree of "freedom" enjoyed by a people has always been predicated on their
> determination and vigilance in protecting and preserving it. Never has it been
> assured by laying submissively, unquestioningly, at the feet of the State.
>
> All, of course, in my humble opinion. Peace. :)
>
> Aloha,
> Von Bruno
Keith Wood
Paul Harper wrote:
>
> vonb...@aol.com (Von Bruno) said :
>
> >"Arms are necessary for the imposition of a point of view, irrespective of the
> >other party's opinion, and for the supression of opposing views." Paul Harper
> >
> >So your saying the people should cower before the power of State with no means
> >available to defend their rights and liberties?
>
> "necessary" not "desirable".
>
> And no, that's not what I'm saying. Buy by the wholesale distribution of
> arms to the point where schoolchildren routinely have access to them, other
> means of communication get circumvented.
>
> When your constitution gave the right to bear arms, I'm not sure that what
> the founding fathers had in mind was the "one free Kalashnikov with every
> packet of weeties" mentality that seems prevalent these days.
Where do you see that mentality, Paul? I never have.
However, I have a neighbor who has a Kalashnikov. He doesn't worry me
half as much as Bill Clinton, who sent cruise missiles against foreign
soil to distract the media from Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones, and who
sent tanks and grenades against a church full of women and children.
> Having said that, the problem is not arms, but education.
I agree completely.
Steven Dalla Vicenza
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
You yanks are very lucky the French were still holding a grudge from the
seven years war. They contributed regular troops under the command of
Laffayette and Rochambeau and more importantly a Navy. There was no way
the British could be stopped if they had unchallenged rule of the seas.
Von Bruno wrote:
>
> I know some folks like to try and focus discussions on the fact the second
> amendment uses the term "miltia" in its wording. That's fine, but the 'militia"
> was the common citizen and it's function was not soley to address the worries
> of repelling invaders. It was also to calm fears of a central government from
> running rough shod over the states and the citizenry.
>
> The whole ideal that the US of A was founded upon was that ultimate power
Staffan Sevelin
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
I'm a Swede (no, not a turnip). We sure do have free speech. And a large
cadre of hunters. Sweden have surprisingly large amount weapons in the
homes, not to forget the home defence's automatic weapons. And of course
all weapons from weapon clubs. But you can almost *not* get a license to
carry arms, concealed or not. Security guards and police can, and military
on duty. And of cource hunters in the woods (when there are season, and
they have the hunting right, that is). And then there are quite a lot of
illegal weapons. Any canister of Maze is counted as illegal weapon, as is
pepperspray. Quite nice... So people carries, and uses, knives (they are
also illegal to carry outside your home, if not part of your work - say
plumber), often under influence.
Switzerland have quite a few autamic submachineguns and rifles in their
homes - the home defence - mandatory.
BTW, one private killed another private in the Royal Castle here in Sweden
just a few days ago. Weapons are dangerous even in a trained hand, if the
security hatch of the mind is of. It was an accident, but the dead soldier
remains dead.
--
Staffan S.
To be or not to be - is that a question?!?
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> skrev i inlägg
<20000521000030...@ng-bj1.aol.com>...
: >ALL countries have free speech.
: >
: >Countries with an armed population have freedom AFTER speech.
: >
:
: You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France....
:
: jms
:
: (jms...@aol.com)
: B5 Official Fan Club at:
: http://www.thestation.com
: (all message content (c) 2000 by
: synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
: to reprint specifically denied to
: SFX Magazine)
Keith Wood
Shaz wrote:
>
> "Von Bruno" <vonb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000521145019...@ng-mb1.aol.com...
> > "You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France...."
> > jms...@aol.com
> >
> > Well, from what I understand the "free speech" in other countries is
> generally
> > not as comprehensive as it is in the US. In Quebec, Canada, don't they
> restrict
> > such things as the use of English?
>
> I can't speak for Canada, but having lived in the US for three years I can
> assure you the UK has at least as much freedom of speech as you have.
Oh? When did they repeal "The Sus"? Have they released those Irish
people?
> > Also, wasn't the second amendment put into the US Constitution primarily
> to
> > address the concerns of the populace that if they supported the Colonies
> > independence from England that they might eventually fall prey to an
> oppressive
> > type of government?
>
> Sad that it was felt necessary, really. Sounds like the writers of that
> Amendment didn't trust their fellows to behave themselves.
We had just dealt with a king and his appointees who couldn't be
trusted. We DID trust our FELLOWS, but not those who would RULE.
In fact, I will tell you that it doesn't bother me in the slightest to
go places where I'm literally surrounded by my "fellows" who are likely
to be carrying firearms.
> > Part of this countrie's uniqueness lay in the fact that it was born of the
> > premise that its government would generally be guided by, and responsive
> to,
> > the will of it's citizens. IOW, the right of the people to own arms is
> just as
> > much a constitutional "checks and balance" as the "seperation of powers."
>
> And England is the same. As is Denmark, Sweden, France, etc. etc. etc. We,
> too, have elections and our representatives are as representative of us as
> yours are of you. But we don't need to carry guns to prove the point.
The Swiss disagree. And they've been doing democracy (with a well-armed
citizenry) far longer than any of the rest of us.
> > The degree of "freedom" enjoyed by a people has always been predicated on
> their
> > determination and vigilance in protecting and preserving it. Never has it
> been
> > assured by laying submissively, unquestioningly, at the feet of the State.
>
> And you think that's what we do? And, pardon me, but apart from the
> occasional political assassination, carried out AGAINST the will of the
> people (or did everyone approve of Kennedy's murder? Or Lincoln's, come to
> that) when have you used those weapons as a political edge? When have you
> needed to rise up and tell your govt. by force of arms that they're wrong?
Do you wear your seatbelts when you drive? When have you ever needed
them?
> >From what I can see you do it the same way we do: you vote. Do you really
> believe the fact that the people can own a gun bothers the govt. when it
> comes to ruling?
Well, gee, then why do you think the National Socialists worked so hard
to disarm the citizens? Why do you think the UK started taking away
guns from the Irish 80 years ago?
> > All, of course, in my humble opinion. Peace. :)
>
> Von Bruno, with all due respect, your grasp of the political life of
> countries other than your own is poor. The fact that I do not believe in gun
> ownership (especially hand guns) does not make me frightened of my govt. The
> fact that in the US people can and do own and sometimes carry guns sure as
> hell makes me frightened of some of them. On two occasions while living in
> the US I came within a few yards of getting shot by someone. One was a guy
> picking a drunken fight with his wife (I lived three doors down and he was
> firing the weapon all over the place without regard to where he was aiming
> it, be it in the air or at a window in another house); the other was a drug
> dealer and I happened to be innocently walking home at the wrong place and
> the wrong time.
I'm with Paul, I know which system I prefer and which makes
> me feel safer. I have a lot more to fear from some idiot who has a gun than
> I have from my govt.
I hope that you are right.
> Can you imagine the devastation at the last
> anti-capitalist demonstration if any of the people there had been wielding
> firearms?
>
> Sorry, but it seems to me the arguments of the NRA and the rest are total
> bull. If the people of America are so frightened of their govt. and their
> law enforcement agencies that they feel the only way to protect themselves
> is to own a gun, then I feel sorry for you. You certainly have less freedom
> than we do.
Actually, the "security of a free State" doesn't just mean security from
the government. It also means security of the people against thugs,
rapists, murderers and so on.
Here in the United States, in any given year about 2.4 MILLION violent
crimes are halted directly by the presence of firearms. I know of two
such instances directly. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, there is
no shot fired, much less anyone killed.
If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you get
about 24,000 per year.
This means that there are two million, three hundred and seventy-six
thousand MORE people who would be victims today if they hadn't had a gun
last year.
I know some of them.
Keith Wood
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it, which
> refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
Yep. Regulated means trained and equipped.
> At the time when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as an
> American army.
Sorry, this is not correct. In fact, the size of the army prompted the
Federalists and Anti-Federalists together to decide that the army can
only be funded for a specific period without returning to Congress for
more funding.
> People would work as farmers or silversmiths or merchants, and
> would participate as members of a militia in case of problems from the British
> or any other invading force from the OUTSIDE.
Partly correct, but not completely.
This was also the time before organized law enforcement. When a crime
was committed, the "hue and cry" went up, those within earshot ran to
assist, and the miscreant was then hauled to the Justice of the Peace.
"Militia" means part-time military. In the old days, a "draft" would be
issued by appropriate authority to fund a certain number of men for a
certain time and / or task. Every town had a militia officer, often the
mayor, who was to be given the draft and who would then call those men
he felt were needed, up to the number which the draft would pay. It was
purely voluntary (the "compelled draft" was first issued in this country
during the Civil War).
The longest infantry march on North American soil was done by draft
militia -- the Mormon Battallion, during the War with Mexico.
Keith Wood
Paul Harper wrote:
>
> On 20 May 2000 22:04:13 -0600, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>
> >>ALL countries have free speech.
> >>
> >>Countries with an armed population have freedom AFTER speech.
> >>
> >
> >You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France....
>
> Arms are not a prerequisite for genuine freedom of speech.
>
> Arms are necessary for the imposition of a point of view, irrespective
> of the other party's opinion, and for the supression of opposing
> views.
>
> I know which I prefer.
. . .so long as yours is the side with the most guns.
The problem comes in when you are in the minority.
Arms are sometimes necessary to DEFEND an unpopular point of view. For
instance, when you are the only one of the five men present who thinks
that your daughter should NOT be raped.
Paul Harper
>Here in the United States, in any given year about 2.4 MILLION violent
>crimes are halted directly by the presence of firearms. I know of two
>such instances directly. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, there is
>no shot fired, much less anyone killed.
And how many of those involved firearms on the part of the criminal?
Ah. Thought so.
>If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
>someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you get
>about 24,000 per year.
>
>This means that there are two million, three hundred and seventy-six
>thousand MORE people who would be victims today if they hadn't had a gun
>last year.
Don't you just *love* statistics! The NRA has spoken - making the
assumption that 100.00% of these crimes would have resulted in a
death.
Hey - why not boost the figures a little. If we assume that there was
more than one "innocent bystander" - let's say 4 - you get close to a
nice round number of ten million people *SAVED* by the use of firearms
in a single year.
Hell, over a 25 year period that the entire population of the country.
God you sure have to be grateful to those arms manufacturers. A real
public service they're doing - hell the government should subsidise
them. Oh yeah. They do, don't they.
Anyone else spot the teensie weensie little flaw in this argument?
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Alison Hopkins
Keith Wood wrote in message <3929682C...@bctv.com>...
During World War Twice, both Hitler
>and Stalin avoided any incursion against the Swiss frontier, while each
>were gobbling up hectares as quickly as possible.
Yes, because all sides wanted neutral banking and a way of communicating. If
you look back at the Cabinet papers, there was tacit agreement to this. very
convenient yto have a neutral party. Do you *really* believe that the
combined might of the red Army and the Germans couldn't have ovverrun it in
a few days? You can't fight aerial bombers with a rifle!
>The United Kingdom has a law permitting arrest and imprisonment on the
>SUSPICION that the person MAY commit a crime. There are a number of
>people in prison right now whose only conviction was for being caught
>carrying Irish-separatist literature.
Names, please. And do you mean the defunct "sus" law or the prevention of
terrorism act?
Yet, interestingly enough, a
>22-year-old woman who fought off three rapists with a nail file was
>convicted of having an unlawful weapon and sentenced to six months in
>prison. This was a mandatory term, and self-defense is not a mitigating
>circumstance. Her "victims" were not charged.
And which UK papers did this appear in, and when? I've never heard of this
case, or I'd have been out campaigning.
>France is an arms exporter, and offers tourists the second-highest
>chance to be killed by terrorism to be found in Europe (though you won't
>find that mentioned in Fodor's). Gun crime in France is fueled by
>almost-daily thefts from police and military armories. France also has
>a law permitting imprisonment for unapproved speech.
EH? I've been visiting France for forty years, and that's the first I've
heard of it. the Foreign Office doesn't seem to be warning us off Paris,
either, altho' they think Pakistan is a tad flaky.
>
>Denmark has a history of imprisoning religious "dissidents."
>
I'm sorry, I think I'll give up on this now, my head hurts.
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Keith Wood wrote in message <392974A1...@bctv.com>...
>However, I have a neighbor who has a Kalashnikov. He doesn't worry me
>half as much as Bill Clinton, who sent cruise missiles against foreign
>soil to distract the media from Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones, and who
>sent tanks and grenades against a church full of women and children.
>
Then, why hasn't the well armed population risen against the government?
Ali
Alison Hopkins
John C. Anderson wrote in message
<20000522102615...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
<snippage>
>That's why we get to VOTE. Democracy comes from a ballot box, not the
barrel of
>a gun.
>John C. Anderson: Tala...@aol.com
Beautifully put.
Ali
>
Paul Harper
wrote:
Ah but that's the problem. Democracy by voting is *so* inconvenient
when you have vested interests like the NRA et al to look after.
Shaz
"Keith Wood" <k...@bctv.com> wrote in message
news:39296F9C...@bctv.com...
>
> Shaz wrote:
> >
> > "Von Bruno" <vonb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000521145019...@ng-mb1.aol.com...
> > > "You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France...."
> > > jms...@aol.com
> > >
> > > Well, from what I understand the "free speech" in other countries is
> > generally
> > > not as comprehensive as it is in the US. In Quebec, Canada, don't they
> > restrict
> > > such things as the use of English?
> >
> > I can't speak for Canada, but having lived in the US for three years I
can
> > assure you the UK has at least as much freedom of speech as you have.
>
> Oh? When did they repeal "The Sus"? Have they released those Irish
> people?
My tolerance for those who use terrorism or support terrorism as a weapon to
get what they want is about as high as my tolerance for those who think
handguns guarantee democracy. I'm not going to be drawn into this. Suffice
it to say, I suspect you'd be whistling a different tune if the Native
Americans in California (for example) turned around and said "This is OUR
land, NOT yours. We were here before you and you took our land by force less
than 200 years ago against our will. You're an invader, now get out or we'll
start bombing you." You'd be up against the same thing we are. A
constitutional duty to support those who want to be a part of the US (the
loyalists in our case, the Californian settlers in yours), and a moral
imperative to support the rights of ALL individuals, even those who want
nothing to do with you (the Republicans in our case, the Native Americans of
California in yours. Of course, your ancestors did a fair job of wiping out
that threat, so you can get off your moral high horse. Your hands are just
as bloody.).
And in case you haven't noticed, we've been trying to get that sorted out.
Unfortunately, people like the so called Real IRA don't want anything to do
with it.
> > > Also, wasn't the second amendment put into the US Constitution
primarily
> > to
> > > address the concerns of the populace that if they supported the
Colonies
> > > independence from England that they might eventually fall prey to an
> > oppressive
> > > type of government?
> >
> > Sad that it was felt necessary, really. Sounds like the writers of that
> > Amendment didn't trust their fellows to behave themselves.
>
> We had just dealt with a king and his appointees who couldn't be
> trusted. We DID trust our FELLOWS, but not those who would RULE.
And weren't they your fellows, or did I miss something? Are you saying the
Brits were still in control and we never knew it?
> In fact, I will tell you that it doesn't bother me in the slightest to
> go places where I'm literally surrounded by my "fellows" who are likely
> to be carrying firearms.
Lucky you.
> > And England is the same. As is Denmark, Sweden, France, etc. etc. etc.
We,
> > too, have elections and our representatives are as representative of us
as
> > yours are of you. But we don't need to carry guns to prove the point.
>
> The Swiss disagree. And they've been doing democracy (with a well-armed
> citizenry) far longer than any of the rest of us.
In their case it is a TRAINED military, not an untrained citizenry. As has
been pointed out elsewhere, EVERY Swiss male of age is required to do his
military service. Now if the US instigated the same law and so trained every
person PROPERLY who wanted to carry a firearm I wouldn't mind in the
slightest.
> > And you think that's what we do? And, pardon me, but apart from the
> > occasional political assassination, carried out AGAINST the will of the
> > people (or did everyone approve of Kennedy's murder? Or Lincoln's, come
to
> > that) when have you used those weapons as a political edge? When have
you
> > needed to rise up and tell your govt. by force of arms that they're
wrong?
>
> Do you wear your seatbelts when you drive? When have you ever needed
> them?
I'm not sure I see the relevance of this comment. I think you're saying guns
are something you keep in reserve as a safeguard against the (god forbid)
day your govt. decides to come down like a ton of bricks and deprive you of
your rights. If that's so, this won't wash. If they actually DID want to do
that, I frankly do not give your untrained citizenry a snowball's hope in
hell of defending themselves. For one thing, no govt, not even the most
insane (like Hitler) suddenly unleashes terror on all its citizens, because
they know they'll be stopped no matter WHAT the level of the citizenry's
armaments. People will FIND the weapons to fight them if they're that
blatant. Despots work quietly, slowly and insidiously. You don't realise
you've lost your rights until it's too late to do anything about it. B5
showed this, but it was the same pattern that occurred in Germany in the
build up to WW2. Once your rights are gone, a few well armed citizens will
find themselves exactly where the communists and other 'undesirables' in
Germany found themselves, armed or not: in a concentration camp or straight
to an unmarked grave. Your guns will not matter a rat's arse. The only way
you can stop that sort of thing is thorough education in the methods of
despots, and the use of voting booth. Stop them at the ballot box before
they get the power to stop you speaking. After that, it's far too late.
> > >From what I can see you do it the same way we do: you vote. Do you
really
> > believe the fact that the people can own a gun bothers the govt. when it
> > comes to ruling?
>
> Well, gee, then why do you think the National Socialists worked so hard
> to disarm the citizens? Why do you think the UK started taking away
> guns from the Irish 80 years ago?
In the former they had to be voted in first, and they took the guns off
those who didn't support them. They armed to the teeth those who were on
their side. In the latter case, I'd say it's wise to disarm a group who has
made it quite clear their sole desire is to destroy you. Your own govt.
would do the same if they had an identifiable group who consistently and
repeatedly tried to destroy them and murdered others (guilty or no) in the
process.
So far I've only ever been shot at in the US.
> > Sorry, but it seems to me the arguments of the NRA and the rest are
total
> > bull. If the people of America are so frightened of their govt. and
their
> > law enforcement agencies that they feel the only way to protect
themselves
> > is to own a gun, then I feel sorry for you. You certainly have less
freedom
> > than we do.
>
> Actually, the "security of a free State" doesn't just mean security from
> the government. It also means security of the people against thugs,
> rapists, murderers and so on.
Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to leave my defence in the hands of
those who are trained to deal with it. I'm a teacher, not a killer, and
I've no wish to change from the former to the latter.
> Here in the United States, in any given year about 2.4 MILLION violent
> crimes are halted directly by the presence of firearms. I know of two
> such instances directly. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, there is
> no shot fired, much less anyone killed.
I know, personally, of one instance in the UK that was DIRECTLY attributable
to a gun. Hamilton in Dunblane. I knew one of the five year olds who died at
the madman's hands. I will NOT support the free ownership of handguns by
raving lunatics. If we'd banned the guns after Hungerford instead of
waiting, those children and their teacher would still be alive.
> If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
> someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you get
> about 24,000 per year.
>
> This means that there are two million, three hundred and seventy-six
> thousand MORE people who would be victims today if they hadn't had a gun
> last year.
And if those villains WEREN'T armed, because you banned the guns completely
and over 90% of them simply couldn't get the weapons, would that still be
the case? You've made your own nest. You insist on arming the innocent, and
you arm the guilty in the same move. We disarm the innocent AND the guilty,
leaving the weapons only in the hands of the police or the military whose
duty is to protect us. They ain't perfect, but I trust them more than people
like Hamilton.
> I know some of them.
My condolences. As I said, I know one of those 5 year olds from Dunblane. I
stand by my opinion.
The fact is, it's too late for the US to solve their gun problem. It got out
of hand a LONG time ago. Without introducing conscription and so going down
the path of the Swiss, you're stuck in damage control. We, on the other
hand, are in the fortunate position of not having that imperative. We have
no tradition of gun ownership so it is no problem to us to get rid of those
we had. That makes us the lucky ones.
Shaz
Alison Hopkins
Paul Harper wrote in message <9l0jisoqgs75l10ie...@4ax.com>...
>On 22 May 2000 12:44:51 -0600, "Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>John C. Anderson wrote in message
>><20000522102615...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
>><snippage>
>>
>>>That's why we get to VOTE. Democracy comes from a ballot box, not the
>>barrel of
>>>a gun.
>>>John C. Anderson: Tala...@aol.com
>>
>>Beautifully put.
>
>Ah but that's the problem. Democracy by voting is *so* inconvenient
>when you have vested interests like the NRA et al to look after.
>
Yep. And it's such a damned nuisance when the people you voted for don't get
in. But, if we accept the principles of democracy then we have to abide by
them, painful as it may sometimes be. And sometimes, the will of the
people - as expressed by tabloids - is a damned sight too close to mob rule
for my liking.
Ali
Gharlane of Eddore
In <8gagej$l0g$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca> dg...@freenet.carleton.ca,
Known Canadian (Andre Lieven) writes on "free speech" in the
People's Republic of Canada:
>
> They do, on *commercial* signs. While I, as an ex Montrealer, in no
> way agree with this form of language control, I can understand where
> it comes from, a wish that the French language not pass away as it
> did in Louisiana.
>
Don't worry about it; over in Europe, where sane people don't really go
anyway, the French Academy is still fining and prosecuting people for
publicly engaging in "Franglais" -- so the language will survive for
at least a few more decades.
>
> But, in Quebec, you have freedoms of speech. Commercial freedoms are
> considered lesser freedoms, as we don't ( yet ) consider commercial
> freedoms as important as human freedoms. And, no freedom is absolute.
>
SOME freedoms of speech. Remember all those fully-warranted searches
and seizures at the pocket-sized free press operations that were
printing anti-federal broadsides a few years ago. The Official Excuse:
"Well, we thought there might be IRA involvement. We were looking for
bombs, and just took the printing presses for inspection."
....<deletia>
>
> And, the constitutional right to own slaves...
>
This, from a guy who's taxed so heavily that he's working for his
government, with no choice, well over 80% of the year...
Have *YOU* had your VAT today? *snicker*
....<deletia>
>
> And, in recent history, we have all sorts of examples, where armed
> populaces used their personal arms ( often with much bigger items
> than AK-47's ) to protect their rights.... Lebanon, Somalia, Ethopia,
>
Specifically including Afghanistan, where neighborhood gunsmiths make
AK-47's starting with hand tools and chunks of railroad track?
And fought the Russian occupation to a stand-still?
>
> Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and so many more. I seriously doubt that you
> could find anyone not of the loot and burn class who would agree that
> this policy of all around gun possession and use was a *good* thing.
>
Since I'm not of the "loot and burn class," and adamantly and vociferously
insist that all-around firearms possession and use IS a GOOD thing, your
assertion is invalid. There are at least 80 million American citizens
who also agree with me, and the recent upsurge in GOA and NRA memberships
might also be regarded as an indicatory factor implying that your
opinions do not strongly correlate to reality.
>
> But, you see, USians are not like the rest of us poor humans. They do
> have it all worked out, how to do this, and not wreck a society. They
>
Right, UNlike the Grand And Glorious People's Republic of Canada, where
school shootings are on the upswing, it's a felony to possess an
unregistered pistol, and best estimates by credible "law enforcement"
organizations on both sides of the border indicate that a *minimum*
of 100,000 pistols are illegally migrating north across the border
every year; that means that only ONE IN SIXTY CANADIANS DISAGREES
STRONGLY ENOUGH TO POSSESS AN ILLEGAL PISTOL.
Think about it, guy; if you know sixty people, at least one of them is
statistically likely to possess a pistol your "government" doesn't
know about, and be strongly enough convinced of the necessity to do so
that he's willing to risk felony prosecution to have something he can't
even legally take to the firing range and use in the open.
Why have a *minimum* of half a million unregistered pistols moved to
Canada in the last five years? Who's buying them, the polar bears?
>
> just kill small daily numbers, and leave the infrastructure standing.
> That is, after all, what most folks really care about. ( sarcasm off )
>
UNlike the Canadians, who have effectively the same murder and assault
rates, and just accomplish their ends using bricks, sticks, fists,
clubs, stones, knives, and any other implements handy. Examining the
per-capita assault rate statistics for your lot, I sometimes find
myself moved to entertain the notion that it might be a *GOOD* thing
that Canadians are restrained from owning firearms; but on a more
serious note, you might see a major nose-dive in crimes of violence
if your victims were better able to defend themselves, and thus deter
*attempts* at the outset...
>
> Peace is more effective when the only way to place a bullet into
> someone is, manually.
> Andre
>
"The price of peace is eternal vigilance." -- Patrick Henry, and others.
"There is nothing as peaceful as a dead bad guy." -- R.A. Heinlein.
"Since any marginally competent idiot with hand tools can make a gun
from scratch, it is impossible to legislate guns out of existence.
The best you can do is provide instantaneous, hugely negative feedback
to anyone stupid enough or criminal enough to misuse the technology;
and that is best accomplished by acknowledging citizens' inalienable
right to shoot back." -- E.K. Grant
"Vancouver.. the only city in North America where a man was ever stomped
to death during a street riot over a hockey game." --- me
Alison Hopkins
Keith Wood wrote in message <39296F9C...@bctv.com>...
>Oh? When did they repeal "The Sus"? Have they released those Irish
>people?
The "sus" law was repealed a good few years back. As to "those Irish people"
there have been some pretty well reported appeals against conviction - and
releases as a result. Which is why I am also heartily glad we don't have the
death penalty, they'd be dead. We do still have a fair few convicted
murderers in jail, and no doubt there are innocents amongst the prison
population, as there are in, I would imagine, every country in the world.
>We had just dealt with a king and his appointees who couldn't be
>trusted. We DID trust our FELLOWS, but not those who would RULE.
Then why elect them in the first place? There's a failure of logic here,
surely; are they trustable until elected, and then not thereafter? if so,
then why bother with the democratic process in the first place, it's surely
doomed to failure?
>The Swiss disagree. And they've been doing democracy (with a well-armed
>citizenry) far longer than any of the rest of us.
But with, I'm afraid, a quite different mindset and philosophy towards
carrying arms - and different regulations, too. Sweeping generalisation
here; I know several Merikans who carry guns, for the stated purpose of self
defence against a burglar or some other form of attack. I've only (so far)
seen the "fighting an unfair government" or "invasion" argument here on the
Web. And I think Switzerland is a tad more vulnerable than the US. :)
>Do you wear your seatbelts when you drive? When have you ever needed
>them?
Yes, and freqently needed. But then, I drive the M25. <g>
>Well, gee, then why do you think the National Socialists worked so hard
>to disarm the citizens? Why do you think the UK started taking away
>guns from the Irish 80 years ago?
? That's lost me. I don't recall that the mass population of Germany in the
20's and 30's was armed, nor the mass of the Irish. Come to that, given that
the "armed struggle" is still continuing after 90 years, it hasn't been
terribly sucessful has it? And, do you really want to wish events like Omagh
or Eniskellin on the US? That's the danger, if you start to suggest that
it's acceptable to wage war against "authority". Yes, you may take out those
who you believe to be culpable, but I refer you to Oklahoma City as an
example of the fallout from such actions. And, who decides what the mass
popular opinion is? Is there some critical mass at which a viable number
starts to foment "revolution"? What one considers a wholly unacceptable
government action may be entirely laudable to others. Who decides, and what
happens to "mass democracy"?
>Actually, the "security of a free State" doesn't just mean security from
>the government. It also means security of the people against thugs,
>rapists, murderers and so on.
Which is not the case in Switzerland, where guns must, iirc, be locked away
at all times, unless the *government* calls for their use against an
invader. They also mandate strict training, and continual lifelong National
Service, thus imposing discipline upon the owner. The Swiss don't have the
general attitude of rising up against their government - in fact, it's a
very highly regulated society.
>If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
>someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you get
>about 24,000 per year.
>
I know I'm extracting here, but isn't that a dangerous argument? If the
victim is someone who you consider a menace, aren't you taking the rule of
law away and heading for the anarchy of vigilantism? Or, if the victim is a
criminal, killed for some reason by another criminal, doesn't that say that
one killing is worth less than another? And hence one life? It's a slipppery
slope.
And, whatever the figures are for children, I find any number utterly
horrifying. 1.7 a day is - what, over 600 a year. That's a hell of a price
to pay.
Ali
Michael Ross
>
>
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>>
>> People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it, which
>> refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
>
>Yep. Regulated means trained and equipped.
Since when?
reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
v. tr. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates.
1.To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
I'm not arguing the issue of guns - with or without the first part of
the 2nd Amendment, the second part 'The right of.. etc' seems pretty
unambiguous to me - but saying 'regulated' means 'trained and
equipped' does your argument no favours. 'controlled and directed'
would be nearer the mark, but of course that doesn't quite suit your
argument...
FWIW, as a recent immigrant to the USA, listening to the gun debates,
it seems very simple: 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.
If that's no longer appropriate, change it - the mechanism is there.
If you can't get enought people/states/whatever to agree to change the
Constitution, you shouldn't be passing laws that infringe
constitutional rights (that's an even slippier slope than allowing
people to own guns) - but be prepared to live with the consequences...
Why did my last post on this subject not make it past the
moderators....
Mike
Rangers Catering Corps - 'We boil for the One, we fry for the One'
http://www.corestore.org
emma...@panix.com
> And no, that's not what I'm saying. Buy by the wholesale distribution of
> arms to the point where schoolchildren routinely have access to them, other
> means of communication get circumvented.
Back in the 70's I remember an episode of All in the Family where
Archie Bunker suggested that airlines hand out guns to all the passengers
in order to prevent hijackings. It was hilarious. Today, I find people
who actually take this view! After the school shootings in Jonesboro, I
got into a heated exchange with someone who said that all teachers, hall
monitors, etc. should be armed and that this would have prevented such a
tragedy from taking place. There are times I honestly feel my country is
losing its collective mind.
> When your constitution gave the right to bear arms, I'm not sure that what
> the founding fathers had in mind was the "one free Kalashnikov with every
> packet of weeties" mentality that seems prevalent these days.
Actually, what the Second Amendment says is that the apparently already
existing right shall not be infringed. Now I happen to think that it's
referring to this entity known as the militia because of the way the
sentence is constructed - the first part makes no sense at all if you
try to treat it as an independent clause. But it gets interesting when
you try to get to the root of just what this *right* is and where it
comes from. I've been told it's a "God-given" right, which leads to all
kinds of questions. Does God give the same rights to everyone or just
Americans? What if you don't believe in God? Did God put it in writing
anywhere? What about other cultures who have completely different
beliefs?
Now if you want to be inspired by words that actually recognize the
importance of the individual, read the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights which can be found at http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
And if you're really up for a challenge, try to find a country that's
lived up to even half of its ideals.
emmanuel
Steve Brinich
> People will FIND the weapons to fight them if they're that blatant.
>
> And if those villains WEREN'T armed, because you banned the guns completely
> and over 90% of them simply couldn't get the weapons
Shaz, meet Shaz. Let's make this a good clean argument....
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Shaz
"Steve Brinich" <ste...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
news:3929CF56...@Radix.Net...
> Shaz wrote:
>
> > People will FIND the weapons to fight them if they're that blatant.
The first is in reference to a govt. that tries to attack outright its
populace. If, for example, England had been attacked at the start of WW2
(when we had very few arms) we would have used everything from the farmer's
shotguns to pitch forks and knives to defend ourselves against the invader.
> > And if those villains WEREN'T armed, because you banned the guns
completely
> > and over 90% of them simply couldn't get the weapons
This is in reference to normal circumstances where you have criminals
attacking individuals. Not all out declared war. Hello? There's a
difference!
> Shaz, meet Shaz. Let's make this a good clean argument....
Har har. How about leaving the relevant intervening stuff in place so it
makes sense?
Shaz
Andrew Swallow
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>>Oh? When did they repeal "The Sus"? Have they released those Irish
>>people?
>
>The "sus" law was repealed a good few years back. As to "those Irish people"
>there have been some pretty well reported appeals against conviction - and
>releases as a result. Which is why I am also heartily glad we don't have the
>death penalty, they'd be dead. We do still have a fair few convicted
>murderers in jail, and no doubt there are innocents amongst the prison
>population, as there are in, I would imagine, every country in the world.
>
I suspect that you are talking about different groups of Irish People. Allison
Hopkins is talking about some Irish people who caught a train after the IRA had
let off a bomb. Arresting Protestants when the bombing was performed by a
Catholic gang was a bit silly.
I do not know who Keith Wood is talking about. Although I would warn that the
IRA's spokesmen in the USA are politicians and like all politicians lie. They
want money, political support and cheap guns. (Plenty of examples of lying
politicians in Babylon 5.)
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
at B5) writes:
>People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it, which
>refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
>
>At the time when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as an
>American army. People would work as farmers or silversmiths or merchants,
>and
>would participate as members of a militia in case of problems from the
>British
>or any other invading force from the OUTSIDE.
>
> jms
>
Does this mean that the US Government was banned from having arms?
Was the Federal Government weak until it obtained some guns?
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
writes:
> know, personally, of one instance in the UK that was DIRECTLY attributable
>to a gun. Hamilton in Dunblane. I knew one of the five year olds who died at
>the madman's hands. I will NOT support the free ownership of handguns by
>raving lunatics. If we'd banned the guns after Hungerford instead of
>waiting, those children and their teacher would still be alive.
>
Do not worry, it is coming. We just have to find a good excuse to get rid of
the rabbit killers (shot guns).
I suspect that an extra tough law and order policy is being stealthily
introduced.
OFFICER
Men. There is some unpleasantness in the high street. Find and shoot the
perpetrators.
(Later)
PRIVATE
Serg, who are the f** bad guys?
SERGEANT
The ones carrying the b** weapons!!
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>Yet, interestingly enough, a
>>22-year-old woman who fought off three rapists with a nail file was
>>convicted of having an unlawful weapon and sentenced to six months in
>>prison. This was a mandatory term, and self-defense is not a mitigating
>>circumstance. Her "victims" were not charged.
>
>And which UK papers did this appear in, and when? I've never heard of this
>case, or I'd have been out campaigning.
>
I can remember hearing this story. This is the sort of thing that Peter
Hitchens complains about in the Daily Express.
Andrew Swallow
Shaz
"Shaz" <hyp...@Dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:8gcjhd$rg3$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> "Steve Brinich" <ste...@Radix.Net> wrote in message
> news:3929CF56...@Radix.Net...
> > Shaz wrote:
> >
>
> populace. If, for example, England had been attacked at the start of WW2
> (when we had very few arms) we would have used everything from the
farmer's
> shotguns to pitch forks and knives to defend ourselves against the
invader.
D'OH! <Shaz, read your posts BEFORE you send them!> That should read:
"...in reference to EITHER a govt. that tries to attack outright its
populace, OR a foreign invader.
> > > And if those villains WEREN'T armed, because you banned the guns
> completely
> > > and over 90% of them simply couldn't get the weapons
>
> This is in reference to normal circumstances where you have criminals
> attacking individuals. Not all out declared war. Hello? There's a
> difference!
>
> > Shaz, meet Shaz. Let's make this a good clean argument....
>
> Har har. How about leaving the relevant intervening stuff in place so it
> makes sense?
>
> Shaz
>
Sorry for the cock-up.
Shaz
Keith Wood
emma...@panix.com wrote:
>
> Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net> wrote:
>
> > And no, that's not what I'm saying. Buy by the wholesale distribution of
> > arms to the point where schoolchildren routinely have access to them, other
> > means of communication get circumvented.
>
> Back in the 70's I remember an episode of All in the Family where
> Archie Bunker suggested that airlines hand out guns to all the passengers
> in order to prevent hijackings. It was hilarious. Today, I find people
> who actually take this view! After the school shootings in Jonesboro, I
> got into a heated exchange with someone who said that all teachers, hall
> monitors, etc. should be armed and that this would have prevented such a
> tragedy from taking place. There are times I honestly feel my country is
> losing its collective mind.
Wasn't Jonesboro the one which was stopped by an armed teacher?
> > When your constitution gave the right to bear arms, I'm not sure that what
> > the founding fathers had in mind was the "one free Kalashnikov with every
> > packet of weeties" mentality that seems prevalent these days.
>
> Actually, what the Second Amendment says is that the apparently already
> existing right shall not be infringed. Now I happen to think that it's
> referring to this entity known as the militia because of the way the
> sentence is constructed - the first part makes no sense at all if you
> try to treat it as an independent clause. But it gets interesting when
> you try to get to the root of just what this *right* is and where it
> comes from. I've been told it's a "God-given" right, which leads to all
> kinds of questions. Does God give the same rights to everyone or just
> Americans?
Where did you get the idea that the men who wrote the Constitution were
empowered to write law for the rest of the world?
Contrary to the beliefs of our current president's husband, we aren't.
Keith Wood
Rob Perkins wrote:
>
> "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000521000030.02251.00000449@ng-> You mean like... Switzerland...
>
> There's an assault rifle in practically every home in Switzerland, by order
> and requirement of the government.
>
> This is, however, NOT the same as saying "The Swiss have guns, therefore
> their crime rate is low because of it." (popular, of course, among the
> NRA-types who want no gun laws...) The rifle isn't stored in a state that
> would allow it to be used as anything more than a bludgeon, if there were a
> break-in in a Swiss home.
1) The Swiss have a standard-issue weapon.
2) Parts are interchangeable and easy to obtain.
3) The same gun and same parts are in the vast majority of homes
4) If someone wanted to commit a gun crime, they would have little
difficulty finding the means.
5) ONLY the military weapons are required to be kept disassembled --
privately-owned arms are not. And they are POPULAR.
> In my opinion, the Swiss have a low crime rate because of their incredibly
> stable high level of prosperity, not because of their policy on firearms.
I can find no reason to argue with this.
> One of the differences between the Swiss and U.S. Citizens is that everyone
> who has an assault rifle has also been trained on what exactly it can do;
> they've been in the army, and are still in the reserves. (By law, every male
> of age in Switzerland is in the reserves.)
>
> They're trained on how to use them, and they target-practice with them
> monthly, and drilled as military units 2 weeks out of every year, just like
> our reserves do. The Swiss are very very very very big on local posession of
> combat firearms; it's a huge part of their national defense strategy.
>
> HOWEVER, I believe that there are very strict controls on *handguns*, and
> that only the police and military officers are permitted to carry and use
> them. When I lived there, I saw that rifles of all types abounded, but
> handguns didn't.
How do you know?
> In my opinion, the Swiss have an extremely sensible approach to urban gun
> control: ban the firearms that are easy to conceal, and educate about the
> ones that are not.
. . .except that this isn't what they do. Thanks for playing.
> And naturally, being Swiss, keep lists about everything
> and everyone concerning who has which guns. That means registration.
Nope. Only the military-issue arms (which are government property) and
such things as privately-owned artillery.
> They're also more sensible about drugs, too, but that's off-topic, I guess,
> unless we want to talk about dust.
>
> Rob
;)
Keith Wood
Alison Hopkins wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote in message <3929682C...@bctv.com>...
>
> During World War Twice, both Hitler
> >and Stalin avoided any incursion against the Swiss frontier, while each
> >were gobbling up hectares as quickly as possible.
>
> Yes, because all sides wanted neutral banking and a way of communicating.
This was a fringe benefit. Hitler's generals convinced him to turn away
due to the massive casualties the Wehrmacht would incur, at a time when
they couldn't afford them.
> If
> you look back at the Cabinet papers, there was tacit agreement to this. very
> convenient yto have a neutral party. Do you *really* believe that the
> combined might of the red Army and the Germans couldn't have ovverrun it in
> a few days?
Yep. So did the Germans and the Soviets.
> You can't fight aerial bombers with a rifle!
Where did you get the idea that the Swiss don't have an air force or
flak guns?
> >The United Kingdom has a law permitting arrest and imprisonment on the
> >SUSPICION that the person MAY commit a crime. There are a number of
> >people in prison right now whose only conviction was for being caught
> >carrying Irish-separatist literature.
>
> Names, please. And do you mean the defunct "sus" law or the prevention of
> terrorism act?
Yes. I am cheered by the idea that the Sus has been repealed. You
people may actually be headed toward civilization.
Now, how about getting rid of the laws mandating jail for a rape victim
who fights her attacked with a nail file or the knife that HE brought?
> Yet, interestingly enough, a
> >22-year-old woman who fought off three rapists with a nail file was
> >convicted of having an unlawful weapon and sentenced to six months in
> >prison. This was a mandatory term, and self-defense is not a mitigating
> >circumstance. Her "victims" were not charged.
>
> And which UK papers did this appear in, and when? I've never heard of this
> case, or I'd have been out campaigning.
About 1993. She was actually a tourist, visiting from Arizona. I
covered the story when I was doing TV news there.
> >France is an arms exporter, and offers tourists the second-highest
> >chance to be killed by terrorism to be found in Europe (though you won't
> >find that mentioned in Fodor's). Gun crime in France is fueled by
> >almost-daily thefts from police and military armories. France also has
> >a law permitting imprisonment for unapproved speech.
>
> EH? I've been visiting France for forty years, and that's the first I've
> heard of it. the Foreign Office doesn't seem to be warning us off Paris,
> either, altho' they think Pakistan is a tad flaky.
Yeah, but they export Lucas electrical systems, so I already don't put a
lot of faith in them! ;)
The info on arms theft used to be available from the ICPO, but the
French stopped reporting them. The terrorism situation is actually
getting better, but still not ready for primetime. Again, the French
don't report the minor instances.
> >Denmark has a history of imprisoning religious "dissidents."
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I think I'll give up on this now, my head hurts.
>
> Ali
Sorry. The truth CAN be mind-expanding.
Keith Wood
"John C. Anderson" wrote:
>
> << I know some folks like to try and focus discussions on the fact the second
> amendment uses the term "miltia" in its wording. That's fine, but the 'militia"
> was the common citizen and it's function was not soley to address the worries
> of repelling invaders. It was also to calm fears of a central government from
> running rough shod over the states and the citizenry. >>
>
> Not just "militia", but "A well-regulated militia...,". WELL-REGULATED. And as
> JMS pointed out on an earlier post; those common folk were the military as well
> at the time. That role has been supplanted by a professional military and
> national guard.
Not according to Federal law.
> And yes, at the time of the founding of the US, the States were to have much
> more power than the Federal Gov't. But that was one part of the American
> experiment that DIDN'T work. Like slavery, or only allowing land owners the
> right to vote.
I think that you are confusing the Confederation with the Constitutional
US that replaced it.
> Ironically, it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that is much more
> responsive to the needs and the rights of the PEOPLE than most STATES have ever
> been, despite the conservative mantra of " State's Rights".
And your basis for this absurd statement is . . ?
> Don't believe me? Women's suffrage,
Oh, right. You mean like when the Federal government ordered Utah to
repeal the law granting women the right to vote?
> ending slavery,
. . .which was done by various of the states decades before the Feds
ordered it . . .
> civil rights including the right to vote for all citizens,
Again, the states were ahead of the Feds.
> ending of child labor, minimum safety standards for workplaces,
Again, the states . . .
> freedom of speech even on the internet...,
. . .Virginia Compact . . .
> I could go on for
> pages just off the top of my head. All of these things are the product of the
> Federal government; often in spite of the States.
No, but thanks for playing.
> I live in the south.
That explains it. Much of what you are mentioning WAS imposed on the
South by the Feds, so of course that will change your view. However,
rest assured that most of the other states were ahead of the Feds.
> If not for the power of the Fed OVER the States, we might
> very well still be living under Segregation. That's about as far removed from
> democracy as you can be; at least for non-whites. So don't tout the power of
> the States, or the militias for that matter, to provide freedom too loudly.
> Their track record ain't too bright.
>
> << The whole ideal that the US of A was founded upon was that ultimate power
> rested with THE PEOPLE. >>
>
> That's why we get to VOTE. Democracy comes from a ballot box, not the barrel of
> a gun.
> John C. Anderson: Tala...@aol.com
Cool! I look forward to your telling us where this has actually
happened.
Brian Reed
Jms at B5 wrote:
> People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it, which
> refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
>
> At the time when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as an
> American army. People would work as farmers or silversmiths or merchants, and
> would participate as members of a militia in case of problems from the British
> or any other invading force from the OUTSIDE.
But being a writer and knowing how to punctuate sentences you know that a comma
means a new clause or thought. , THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Look it up in the numerous writing style books. A comma
initiates a new clause or thought into a paragraph or sentence. It's most
unfortunate that our founding fathers had to believe that future generations would
be unable to understand the additional clauses contained in the Constitution
through the use of simple punctuation marks.
Brian Reed
John E.R. Jasen
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
> People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it, which
> refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
>
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
But anyway, let's examine the well-regulated clause, shall we?
What did 'well-regulated' mean in the late 1700s?
It meant, roughly, 'in efficient, working order'. Regulation, meaning 'to
drown in paperwork' is a 20th century meaning.
Also, somewhere about, there's a great paper written on just those three
words, indicating that by just about any construct of the English language
(except that currently in use in Washington, DC), that shows them to be a
subordinate clause -- no effecct/modification on the rest of the sentence
whatsoever.
Ask me and I'll find/post it.
> At the time when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as an
> American army. People would work as farmers or silversmiths or merchants, and
> would participate as members of a militia in case of problems from the British
> or any other invading force from the OUTSIDE.
A) You're incorrect. There was a small standing US army.
B) The combined weight of the militias was supposed to be larger than that
of the army, so they'd be able to _destroy_ an oppressive central force.
(take a read of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers)
C) The militias were not just for 'outside' threats, but for threats
against the community, the state, the country -- whathaveyou. I seem to
recall several instances in which the militias of different states were
mobilised against _each other_ before a conflict was resolved.
--
-- John E. Jasen (jja...@umbc.edu)
-- You can have it: right; cheap; now. Pick any two.
John E.R. Jasen
> On 22 May 2000 11:12:25 -0600, Keith Wood <k...@bctv.com> wrote:
>
> >Here in the United States, in any given year about 2.4 MILLION violent
> >crimes are halted directly by the presence of firearms. I know of two
> >such instances directly. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, there is
> >no shot fired, much less anyone killed.
>
> Ah. Thought so.
There were 540,000 crimes committed where a firearm was present, according
to the FBI UCR. (I may be off by a few k, but ...)
Of course, if you are trying to assert that if the criminal had a firearm,
things would be different -- I suggest that you are most likely wrong.
Criminals can best be considered as predatory animals. They like easy
targets, just as a wolf likes a small deer, or a sick chicken.
Someone with a gun is no longer a weak target, and the predator values his
own skin much more than his goals, and so will most likely flee (to try
his hand at finding a weak target).
> >If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
> >someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you get
> >about 24,000 per year.
~15k, but who's counting.
This also flies in the face of varied studies (DoJ and Chicago PD come to
mind), that show between 60%-66% of the victims of homicide had a prior
criminal record.
Another statistic, which I can't remember the cite, showed that 50% of the
homicide victims had cocaine in their bloodstream.
> >This means that there are two million, three hundred and seventy-six
> >thousand MORE people who would be victims today if they hadn't had a gun
> >last year.
>
> Don't you just *love* statistics! The NRA has spoken - making the
> assumption that 100.00% of these crimes would have resulted in a
> death.
So, ummm, over two million victims of murder, rape, assault, et al --
that's perfectly OK with you?
John E.R. Jasen
> >You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France....
>
>
> Arms are necessary for the imposition of a point of view, irrespective
> of the other party's opinion, and for the supression of opposing
> views.
>
> I know which I prefer.
You mean like the Deacons for Defense, and other such black self-defense
groups that started in the south during the civil rights movements, here
in the US, during the 50s and 60s?
John "E.R." Jasen
> barrel of
> >a gun.
At least until the people counting the ballots start deciding how _they_
want the vote to turn out.
Keith Wood
Paul Harper wrote:
>
> On 22 May 2000 11:12:25 -0600, Keith Wood <k...@bctv.com> wrote:
>
> >Here in the United States, in any given year about 2.4 MILLION violent
> >crimes are halted directly by the presence of firearms. I know of two
> >such instances directly. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, there is
> >no shot fired, much less anyone killed.
>
> And how many of those involved firearms on the part of the criminal?
> Ah. Thought so.
Oh? What did you think? And what is your basis for whatever that was
that you were thinking?
> >If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
> >someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you get
> >about 24,000 per year.
> >
> >This means that there are two million, three hundred and seventy-six
> >thousand MORE people who would be victims today if they hadn't had a gun
> >last year.
>
> Don't you just *love* statistics! The NRA has spoken - making the
> assumption that 100.00% of these crimes would have resulted in a
> death.
Actually, the information comes from a criminologist who was trying to
prove the NRA wrong.
But just to make you happy, let's say that only one in 4 of those
instances would have resulted in a fatality. That means that a *mere*
HALF-MILLION more people lived through 1999 than would have otherwise.
That said, let me tell you about an incident with which I am familiar.
In East Los Angeles (a low-income area with a predominantly-minority
demographic), a man went into an apartment complex, carrying a tire
iron. Of course, maybe he was a member of an Indy 500 pit crew, but it
is easier to assume that he intended to do some damage to the guy he was
going to visit. That guy either wasn't home, or was smart enough not to
show himself, so the thug decided to send a message by using that steel
bar on three little girls who were playing in the apartment's
courtyard.
The mother of two of the girls, seeing what was going on, ran to the
back of her apartment, returning with what would now be considered a
"military-style assault weapon." It had been left with her for
safekeeping by a friend who was on vacation. The thug didn't stop to
argue, he (and his friend) were gone within seconds. No shot was fired
(none could have been -- there was no ammunition). Some would say that
there were actually FOUR lives saved by that one gun (the young mother
would have attacked without a weapon, if that were necessary).
Actually, however, there are ELEVEN people alive today because of that
one gun. You see, one of those little girls grew up to become my WIFE,
the mother of my five children, and now the mother of six or maybe even
seven (she is now my ex-wife). And, although we are divorced, I credit
Kyla with my survival through the mid 1980s.
So, go ahead, explain to me how much better MY world would be with no
guns in private hands.
Ironically, my father would likely have investigated the murders of
three little girls and a young mother, as he was one of the top LA
County Homicide detectives at the time of this incident!
> Hey - why not boost the figures a little. If we assume that there was
> more than one "innocent bystander" - let's say 4 - you get close to a
> nice round number of ten million people *SAVED* by the use of firearms
> in a single year.
>
> Hell, over a 25 year period that the entire population of the country.
> God you sure have to be grateful to those arms manufacturers. A real
> public service they're doing - hell the government should subsidise
> them. Oh yeah. They do, don't they.
>
> Anyone else spot the teensie weensie little flaw in this argument?
Yes, and you made it.
However, to agree that not all of those 2.4 violent criminals who chose
not to face a firearm would have actually committed MURDER, let me
suggest that you spend some time talking with rape victims, or survivors
of child molestation before deciding that their cases are unimportant.
Sure, they are still alive. Kind of.
For instance, I can introduce you to "Sariah" (not her actual name).
She was 25 when her pepper spray and screams didn't protect her from
several men who spent several minutes chasing her through the parking
lot of her California condo (nobody even bothered to call the police).
After two days of gang-rape and beatings, her hands and legs still tied
together, they amused themselves by carving into her face and chest
before finally running a knife across her throat, throwing her body in
the trunk of her car, and setting the car on fire.
She survived. Barely.
Do you know how they deal with third-degree gasoline burns to the face
and breasts? The process is called "debridement." For months, this
wonderful young woman went to the hospital every day, where they took
dull knives and SKINNED HER.
She couldn't even scream. The knife across her throat took most of her
voice, and ended her singing career only three months after she signed
with a major studio. The beatings left her with permanent damage to her
hearing, near-blindness in one eye, and only partial use of her left
hand.
Small wonder that, during the first four years following her rescue, she
attempted suicide twice. Between debridement, the standard courtroom
character assassination by the defense attorney, a two-year series of
reconstructive surgeries . . .
Now, a decade after the attack, I think that she is prettier than she
was in her missionary photos (taken 15 years ago), but she disagrees.
And she wishes that I could hear her voice as it used to be when (for
the record, I think that she has a foxy voice), instead of just on her
CD.
Come on, Paul, here's your chance! Tell me how good it was that someone
so special to me was unarmed that afternoon. Come to Utah and tell her
to stop carrying her .45.
Keith Wood
Shaz wrote:
>
> "Keith Wood" <k...@bctv.com> wrote in message
> news:39296F9C...@bctv.com...
> >
> > Shaz wrote:
> > >
> > > "Von Bruno" <vonb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20000521145019...@ng-mb1.aol.com...
> > > > "You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France...."
> > > > jms...@aol.com
> > > >
> > > > Well, from what I understand the "free speech" in other countries is
> > > generally
> > > > not as comprehensive as it is in the US. In Quebec, Canada, don't they
> > > restrict
> > > > such things as the use of English?
> > >
> > > I can't speak for Canada, but having lived in the US for three years I
> can
> > > assure you the UK has at least as much freedom of speech as you have.
> >
> > Oh? When did they repeal "The Sus"? Have they released those Irish
> > people?
>
> My tolerance for those who use terrorism or support terrorism as a weapon to
> get what they want is about as high as my tolerance for those who think
> handguns guarantee democracy.
Nice dodge!
Answer my questions. Have they repealed the Suspicious Persons Act? If
not, then no, you do NOT enjoy "at least as much freedom of speech" as I
do. Have they released those Irish whose only crime was to shout
epithets at the RUC?
> I'm not going to be drawn into this. Suffice
> it to say, I suspect you'd be whistling a different tune if the Native
> Americans in California (for example) turned around and said "This is OUR
> land, NOT yours.
Gee, Shaz, where did you get the idea that I'm NOT a Native American?
Do you think we can only say "Ug" and "How" unless we are Anglo-Saxon?
> And in case you haven't noticed, we've been trying to get that sorted out.
> Unfortunately, people like the so called Real IRA don't want anything to do
> with it.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the Provos. I am simply pointing
out the error of your argument, above.
I, myself, belong to a group which was subjected to genocide at the
command of the Missouri government, in direct contravention of the
United States AND Missouri Constitutions. If not for our guns, we would
not have survived. Our crime? We told the world that angels are coming
to visit the Earth.
> > > > Also, wasn't the second amendment put into the US Constitution
> primarily
> > > to
> > > > address the concerns of the populace that if they supported the
> Colonies
> > > > independence from England that they might eventually fall prey to an
> > > oppressive
> > > > type of government?
> > >
> > > Sad that it was felt necessary, really. Sounds like the writers of that
> > > Amendment didn't trust their fellows to behave themselves.
> >
> > We had just dealt with a king and his appointees who couldn't be
> > trusted. We DID trust our FELLOWS, but not those who would RULE.
>
> And weren't they your fellows, or did I miss something? Are you saying the
> Brits were still in control and we never knew it?
Nope. Not all tyrants are Brit. Didn't you know that?
> > In fact, I will tell you that it doesn't bother me in the slightest to
> > go places where I'm literally surrounded by my "fellows" who are likely
> > to be carrying firearms.
>
> Lucky you.
Yep. Funny how those places tend to be the safest.
> > > And England is the same. As is Denmark, Sweden, France, etc. etc. etc.
> We,
> > > too, have elections and our representatives are as representative of us
> as
> > > yours are of you. But we don't need to carry guns to prove the point.
> >
> > The Swiss disagree. And they've been doing democracy (with a well-armed
> > citizenry) far longer than any of the rest of us.
>
> In their case it is a TRAINED military, not an untrained citizenry.
Sorry, no. But thanks for playing.
> As has
> been pointed out elsewhere, EVERY Swiss male of age is required to do his
> military service. Now if the US instigated the same law and so trained every
> person PROPERLY who wanted to carry a firearm I wouldn't mind in the
> slightest.
Nor would I.
In one of my stories, I postulated the opportunity to earn a SECOND vote
through military service (yes, inspired in part by Heinlein's article on
voting eligibility).
I do not believe that it is moral to require military service. However,
I DO belive it moral to require military TRAINING for graduation from
school, or for getting government aid or position of any type. I feel
that "if our cause is just," there will be enough volunteers -- but they
have to know what they are doing. We no longer have weeks to ramp up
the military.
> > > And you think that's what we do? And, pardon me, but apart from the
> > > occasional political assassination, carried out AGAINST the will of the
> > > people (or did everyone approve of Kennedy's murder? Or Lincoln's, come
> to
> > > that) when have you used those weapons as a political edge? When have
> you
> > > needed to rise up and tell your govt. by force of arms that they're
> wrong?
> >
> > Do you wear your seatbelts when you drive? When have you ever needed
> > them?
>
> I'm not sure I see the relevance of this comment.
Then think about it. You ask when I have needed to rise up, I ask when
you needed your seatbelts.
If you are in an accident, it's too late to buckle up (think of it as
evolution in action). If you need a gun, it's too late to go get one
(as they discovered in the Los Angeles riots not long ago -- think of it
as evolution in action).
> I think you're saying guns
> are something you keep in reserve as a safeguard against the (god forbid)
> day your govt. decides to come down like a ton of bricks and deprive you of
> your rights.
Actually, no, _I_ carry a pistol because there is nothing so worthless
as a gun in your closet when the attacker is in your face.
> If that's so, this won't wash. If they actually DID want to do
> that, I frankly do not give your untrained citizenry a snowball's hope in
> hell of defending themselves. For one thing, no govt, not even the most
> insane (like Hitler) suddenly unleashes terror on all its citizens, because
> they know they'll be stopped no matter WHAT the level of the citizenry's
> armaments. People will FIND the weapons to fight them if they're that
> blatant.
You are probably right. For instance, when Hitler was preparing to
invade the UK, they found the weapons to fight them.
They begged the NRA to ask American gunowners to send anything that
would shoot. They promised that the guns would be returned when no
longer needed, but they actually were dumped into the North Sea in
1946.
> Despots work quietly, slowly and insidiously. You don't realise
> you've lost your rights until it's too late to do anything about it.
Yep. So, why should we give any right up voluntarily? Especially the
right to self-defense?
Those of us who have seen the British example aren't impressed. Not
POSITIVELY, anyhow.
> B5
> showed this, but it was the same pattern that occurred in Germany in the
> build up to WW2. Once your rights are gone, a few well armed citizens will
> find themselves exactly where the communists and other 'undesirables' in
> Germany found themselves, armed or not: in a concentration camp or straight
> to an unmarked grave.
Actually, the Warsaw Ghetto was an entirely different lesson. A literal
handful of guns held the Wehrmacht at bay for quite a while.
> Your guns will not matter a rat's arse. The only way
> you can stop that sort of thing is thorough education in the methods of
> despots, and the use of voting booth. Stop them at the ballot box before
> they get the power to stop you speaking. After that, it's far too late.
Funny thing about despots . . .they fear even ONE gun in the "wrong"
hands.
> > > >From what I can see you do it the same way we do: you vote. Do you
> really
> > > believe the fact that the people can own a gun bothers the govt. when it
> > > comes to ruling?
> >
> > Well, gee, then why do you think the National Socialists worked so hard
> > to disarm the citizens? Why do you think the UK started taking away
> > guns from the Irish 80 years ago?
>
> In the former they had to be voted in first, and they took the guns off
> those who didn't support them.
Yep.
Here in the US, the gun laws started with "undesirables." Native
Americans, freedmen (mostly blacks) and "Eastern" immigrants are the
traditional target of such laws.
Same here. I was shot in California (which has that wonderful 15-day
wait, no concealed carry, bans on ugly guns . . .).
> > > Sorry, but it seems to me the arguments of the NRA and the rest are
> total
> > > bull. If the people of America are so frightened of their govt. and
> their
> > > law enforcement agencies that they feel the only way to protect
> themselves
> > > is to own a gun, then I feel sorry for you. You certainly have less
> freedom
> > > than we do.
> >
> > Actually, the "security of a free State" doesn't just mean security from
> > the government. It also means security of the people against thugs,
> > rapists, murderers and so on.
>
> Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to leave my defence in the hands of
> those who are trained to deal with it. I'm a teacher, not a killer, and
> I've no wish to change from the former to the latter.
That's your decision to make. It is NOT your place to make that
decision for ME.
BTW, over 53% of all justifiable shootings are not police-related,
according to the FBI, so I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in "those
who are trained to deal with it" being handy when you need them --
unless YOU are trained, as I am.
> > Here in the United States, in any given year about 2.4 MILLION violent
> > crimes are halted directly by the presence of firearms. I know of two
> > such instances directly. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, there is
> > no shot fired, much less anyone killed.
>
> I know, personally, of one instance in the UK that was DIRECTLY attributable
> to a gun. Hamilton in Dunblane. I knew one of the five year olds who died at
> the madman's hands. I will NOT support the free ownership of handguns by
> raving lunatics. If we'd banned the guns after Hungerford instead of
> waiting, those children and their teacher would still be alive.
Oh? You banned gasoline sales too?
Murderous lunatics will always find a weapon. A winebottle of gasoline
in the same circumstance would have let you tell us that you knew one of
the THIRTY children killed. I do not see this as an improvement.
> > If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
> > someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you get
> > about 24,000 per year.
> >
> > This means that there are two million, three hundred and seventy-six
> > thousand MORE people who would be victims today if they hadn't had a gun
> > last year.
>
> And if those villains WEREN'T armed, because you banned the guns completely
> and over 90% of them simply couldn't get the weapons, would that still be
> the case?
We see how well it has worked in Ireland.
> You've made your own nest. You insist on arming the innocent, and
> you arm the guilty in the same move.
There are a lot more innocent.
> We disarm the innocent AND the guilty,
Oh? The International Criminal Police Organization doesn't agree. But
heck, what does Interpol know, huh?
> leaving the weapons only in the hands of the police or the military whose
> duty is to protect us. They ain't perfect, but I trust them more than people
> like Hamilton.
>
> > I know some of them.
>
> My condolences. As I said, I know one of those 5 year olds from Dunblane. I
> stand by my opinion.
>
> The fact is, it's too late for the US to solve their gun problem. It got out
> of hand a LONG time ago. Without introducing conscription and so going down
> the path of the Swiss, you're stuck in damage control. We, on the other
> hand, are in the fortunate position of not having that imperative.
If you say so.
> We have
> no tradition of gun ownership so it is no problem to us to get rid of those
> we had. That makes us the lucky ones.
I'm still trying to figure out where you got that tradition of ownership
of high explosive . . .
Keith Wood
Alison Hopkins wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote in message <39296F9C...@bctv.com>...
>
> >Oh? When did they repeal "The Sus"? Have they released those Irish
> >people?
>
> The "sus" law was repealed a good few years back.
How few? This is good news, but I hadn't heard of it from friends of
mine who are British police, and the subject HAS come up (most recently
when they were here in the US for advanced pistol training).
> As to "those Irish people"
> there have been some pretty well reported appeals against conviction - and
> releases as a result. Which is why I am also heartily glad we don't have the
> death penalty, they'd be dead. We do still have a fair few convicted
> murderers in jail, and no doubt there are innocents amongst the prison
> population, as there are in, I would imagine, every country in the world.
>
> >We had just dealt with a king and his appointees who couldn't be
> >trusted. We DID trust our FELLOWS, but not those who would RULE.
>
> Then why elect them in the first place?
Someone has to drive.
> There's a failure of logic here,
> surely; are they trustable until elected, and then not thereafter?
Nope. Do you know of a way to prove that someone is trustworthy?
> if so,
> then why bother with the democratic process in the first place, it's surely
> doomed to failure?
That's why we replace them periodically. Egad, can you imagine
Clinton-for-Life? YHEEEH!
> >The Swiss disagree. And they've been doing democracy (with a well-armed
> >citizenry) far longer than any of the rest of us.
>
> But with, I'm afraid, a quite different mindset and philosophy towards
> carrying arms - and different regulations, too. Sweeping generalisation
> here; I know several Merikans who carry guns, for the stated purpose of self
> defence against a burglar or some other form of attack. I've only (so far)
> seen the "fighting an unfair government" or "invasion" argument here on the
> Web. And I think Switzerland is a tad more vulnerable than the US. :)
>
> >Do you wear your seatbelts when you drive? When have you ever needed
> >them?
>
> Yes, and freqently needed. But then, I drive the M25. <g>
Your oddball Brit roads don't hold a candle to Hwy 395. After all, in
the UK you are SUPPOSED to drive on the left . . .
;)
> >Well, gee, then why do you think the National Socialists worked so hard
> >to disarm the citizens? Why do you think the UK started taking away
> >guns from the Irish 80 years ago?
>
> ? That's lost me. I don't recall that the mass population of Germany in the
> 20's and 30's was armed, nor the mass of the Irish.
Not to the same extent as the US, but a significant part of the German
population did have guns. Especially businessmen, who kept Walther
quite comfortable. Interestingly, many of these businessmen were Jews .
. .
> Come to that, given that
> the "armed struggle" is still continuing after 90 years, it hasn't been
> terribly sucessful has it?
Nope.
> And, do you really want to wish events like Omagh
> or Eniskellin on the US? That's the danger, if you start to suggest that
> it's acceptable to wage war against "authority". Yes, you may take out those
> who you believe to be culpable, but I refer you to Oklahoma City as an
> example of the fallout from such actions. And, who decides what the mass
> popular opinion is? Is there some critical mass at which a viable number
> starts to foment "revolution"? What one considers a wholly unacceptable
> government action may be entirely laudable to others. Who decides, and what
> happens to "mass democracy"?
Don't ask me, I'm just along for the ride.
However, those in power are becoming irrationally hostile toward gun
ownership in this country, with little cause. I wonder why they are so
eager to disarm my ex-wife, when even _I_ am not worried that she is
armed!
> >Actually, the "security of a free State" doesn't just mean security from
> >the government. It also means security of the people against thugs,
> >rapists, murderers and so on.
>
> Which is not the case in Switzerland, where guns must, iirc, be locked away
> at all times, unless the *government* calls for their use against an
> invader.
Not so.
> They also mandate strict training,
Well, your definition of "strict" doesn't quite match mine, but I'll let
that ride.
> and continual lifelong National Service,
Well, 35 years, anyway.
> thus imposing discipline upon the owner. The Swiss don't have the
> general attitude of rising up against their government - in fact, it's a
> very highly regulated society.
The Swiss DO have the general attitude of rising up against their
government (ever hear of Wilhelm Tell?), but they are generally content
to do it at the polls. BTW, in some cantons, one must be ARMED to
participate, except for women, men past 54, and (registered)
concientious objectors.
> >If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
> >someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you get
> >about 24,000 per year.
> >
>
> I know I'm extracting here, but isn't that a dangerous argument? If the
> victim is someone who you consider a menace, aren't you taking the rule of
> law away and heading for the anarchy of vigilantism? Or, if the victim is a
> criminal, killed for some reason by another criminal, doesn't that say that
> one killing is worth less than another? And hence one life? It's a slipppery
> slope.
Not at all. I was giving my opponent the GREATEST number on his side.
In fact, about half of the shootings in the United States are either
accidental or deemed justified by the court (or no charges filed).
Another large chunk of them are criminal against criminal, and yes, I AM
willing to say that some killings are worth less than another.
> And, whatever the figures are for children, I find any number utterly
> horrifying. 1.7 a day is - what, over 600 a year. That's a hell of a price
> to pay.
We pay a higher price for the privilige of serving our kids SOLID FOOD.
For giving them bicycles. For driving them to school. Not to mention
the fact that a careless pediatrician is 90 TIMES MORE LIKELY to kill a
child than a gun is.
I DO agree that the 1.7 is too high. That figure has dropped 75% in the
last 25 years, thanks to free safety programs sponsored by the National
Rifle Association, and if not for oppoenents of the NRA who prevent the
"Eddie Eagle" program from being used in some schools, it would be
lower. During the same period, the number of guns in the US has
doubled.
Keith Wood
Alison Hopkins wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote in message <392974A1...@bctv.com>...
>
> >However, I have a neighbor who has a Kalashnikov. He doesn't worry me
> >half as much as Bill Clinton, who sent cruise missiles against foreign
> >soil to distract the media from Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones, and who
> >sent tanks and grenades against a church full of women and children.
> >
>
> Then, why hasn't the well armed population risen against the government?
This isn't something that we do lightly.
Besides, Goebbels' stepchildren are still working their magic,
convincing people that those little girls and grannies DESERVED it.
Keith Wood
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
In the future, please DO NOT email me a message that you are posting to
a newsgroup.
Michael Ross wrote:
>
> On 22 May 2000 11:12:37 -0600, Keith Wood <k...@bctv.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Jms at B5 wrote:
> >>
> >> People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it, which
> >> refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
> >
> >Yep. Regulated means trained and equipped.
>
> Since when?
> reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
> v. tr. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates.
>
> 1.To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
> 1) Military terminology isn't always the same as in the dictionary, but
you have some of the story there. Ever seen a railway clock with the
word "Regulated" on the face? That means to be designed to be accurate
as a standard to set other timepieces by -- not that it can be found in
the lawbooks.
2) The Constitution predates the dictionary.
> I'm not arguing the issue of guns - with or without the first part of
> the 2nd Amendment, the second part 'The right of.. etc' seems pretty
> unambiguous to me - but saying 'regulated' means 'trained and
> equipped' does your argument no favours. 'controlled and directed'
> would be nearer the mark, but of course that doesn't quite suit your
> argument...
Actually, no, it wouldn't be nearer. Militia were drafted, sent into
the field and recalled from the field by the government. However, their
actual control and direction were generally by their own officers.
> FWIW, as a recent immigrant to the USA, listening to the gun debates,
> it seems very simple: 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.
> If that's no longer appropriate, change it - the mechanism is there.
> If you can't get enought people/states/whatever to agree to change the
> Constitution, you shouldn't be passing laws that infringe
> constitutional rights (that's an even slippier slope than allowing
> people to own guns) - but be prepared to live with the consequences...
I agree completely. However, you will learn that the Bill of Rights and
other parts of the Constitution are "interpreted" in ways
incomprehensible.
> Why did my last post on this subject not make it past the
> moderators....
I dunno.
Andrew Swallow
>Answer my questions. Have they repealed the Suspicious Persons Act? If
>not, then no, you do NOT enjoy "at least as much freedom of speech" as I
>do. Have they released those Irish whose only crime was to shout
>epithets at the RUC?
>
The Suspicious Persons Act is not about banning speech. It is about standing
outside a jewellery shop window holding a brick. There is no right of freedem
to throw.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
>That's why we replace them periodically. Egad, can you imagine
>Clinton-for-Life? YHEEEH!
>
Yes. She is coming back! :-)
I know how to manage Mr Clinton. Reject every law he proposes. Instruct the
CIA to hire a prostitute and a photographer ever time the Pentagon wants to
bomb someone.
Mrs Clinton - thats you Mission Impossible 3.
Andrew Swallow
Kurtz
"John "E.R." Jasen" <jja...@umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:8gc8fm$lmoag$1...@umbc9.umbc.edu...
> In article <20000522012941...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
> > People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it,
which
> > refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
> >
>
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> infringed."
>
> But anyway, let's examine the well-regulated clause, shall we?
>
> What did 'well-regulated' mean in the late 1700s?
>
> It meant, roughly, 'in efficient, working order'. Regulation, meaning 'to
> drown in paperwork' is a 20th century meaning.
>
> Also, somewhere about, there's a great paper written on just those three
> words, indicating that by just about any construct of the English language
> (except that currently in use in Washington, DC), that shows them to be a
> subordinate clause -- no effecct/modification on the rest of the sentence
> whatsoever.
>
> Ask me and I'll find/post it.
>
I think I've read it too. The example I recall refers to the language used
in the Rhode Island Constitution regarding freedom of the press. It goes
"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a
state,
any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the
abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal,
the truth,
unless published from malicious motives, shall be sufficient defense to the
person charged". It's not the *sole* reason for it - just a *sufficient*
reason.
Same with the 2nd Amendment.
State constitutions make a good read on the matter. Check it out. Some
make it abundantly clear that gun ownership is intended for defense of
"self, family, home and state".
Michael Ross
> [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
> [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
> [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
>
>
>In the future, please DO NOT email me a message that you are posting to
>a newsgroup.
I would not have done so if I had confidence that the message would
make it past the moderators!
>
>
>
>Michael Ross wrote:
>>
>> On 22 May 2000 11:12:37 -0600, Keith Wood <k...@bctv.com> wrote:
snip..
>
>> Why did my last post on this subject not make it past the
>> moderators....
>
>I dunno.
Rangers Catering Corps - 'We boil for the One, we fry for the One'
http://www.corestore.org
%Username%
an all-powerful government. They had just overthrown their _own_
government, and didn't want to adopt a replacement government having
just as much power. I suggest you review the history of the Bill of
Rights with emphasis on the writings of Henry and Mason. There wouldn't
have been a Federation of colonies without Virginia, and Virginia
wouldn't sign without agreement to adopt a Bill of Rights, based on
those submitted by Henry and Mason.
Regulation of militias, per se, does not abrogate the right defined in
the Amendment. As you are a member of the unorganized militia (10 USC
311) I hope you are suitably prepared if you are called upon.
I continue to be amazed by those who believe the First Amendment should
be expanded far beyond the concept of its writers, but the Second, which
empowers the First in the final analysis, is to be interpreted ever more
narrowly.
Kirby Smith
Political power comes from the mouth of a gun. ---P. Henry
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it, which
> refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
>
> At the time when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as an
> American army. People would work as farmers or silversmiths or merchants, and
> would participate as members of a militia in case of problems from the British
> or any other invading force from the OUTSIDE.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> B5 Official Fan Club at:
> http://www.thestation.com
> (all message content (c) 2000 by
> synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> to reprint specifically denied to
> SFX Magazine)
Shaz
Well, as Ali pointed out, it HAS been repealed. As she also pointed out,
being insulted is part and parcel of what happens to a police force. Being
threatened with firebombs, guns, or having others incited by the
perpetrators to do so seems a fair reason to arrest them. Your police do it
too.
> > I'm not going to be drawn into this. Suffice
> > it to say, I suspect you'd be whistling a different tune if the Native
> > Americans in California (for example) turned around and said "This is
OUR
> > land, NOT yours.
>
> Gee, Shaz, where did you get the idea that I'm NOT a Native American?
> Do you think we can only say "Ug" and "How" unless we are Anglo-Saxon?
If you can get much more insulting, please don't try. The argument stands
and
you haven't answered it. What if a large group of Native Americans suddenly
decided they were fed up with the way their ancestors had been treated and
didn't want the settlers there? Would DC simply say 'here, have your land
back. It IS yours, after all' or would they send out the army?
> > And in case you haven't noticed, we've been trying to get that sorted
out.
> > Unfortunately, people like the so called Real IRA don't want anything to
do
> > with it.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the Provos. I am simply pointing
> out the error of your argument, above.
>
> I, myself, belong to a group which was subjected to genocide at the
> command of the Missouri government, in direct contravention of the
> United States AND Missouri Constitutions. If not for our guns, we would
> not have survived. Our crime? We told the world that angels are coming
> to visit the Earth.
This is your free speech, huh? Last I checked we don't lock up people who
peacefully make such claims here in the UK. We do so when they are NOT
peaceful.
> > > > Sad that it was felt necessary, really. Sounds like the writers of
that
> > > > Amendment didn't trust their fellows to behave themselves.
> > >
> > > We had just dealt with a king and his appointees who couldn't be
> > > trusted. We DID trust our FELLOWS, but not those who would RULE.
> >
> > And weren't they your fellows, or did I miss something? Are you saying
the
> > Brits were still in control and we never knew it?
>
> Nope. Not all tyrants are Brit. Didn't you know that?
My point. You don't trust your fellows, which contradicts your earlier
claim. Read your own posts!
> > > In fact, I will tell you that it doesn't bother me in the slightest to
> > > go places where I'm literally surrounded by my "fellows" who are
likely
> > > to be carrying firearms.
> >
> > Lucky you.
>
> Yep. Funny how those places tend to be the safest.
Not in my experience. I feel a lot safer walking at night in London that I
did in Detroit or LA!
> > > The Swiss disagree. And they've been doing democracy (with a
well-armed
> > > citizenry) far longer than any of the rest of us.
> >
> > In their case it is a TRAINED military, not an untrained citizenry.
>
> Sorry, no. But thanks for playing.
Since I happen to have been there helping to clean the weapon of one of
those trained members of the Swiss military who explained it all to me, mind
telling me where you're getting YOUR facts from, 'cos it sure ain't the
Swiss.
> > As has
> > been pointed out elsewhere, EVERY Swiss male of age is required to do
his
> > military service. Now if the US instigated the same law and so trained
every
> > person PROPERLY who wanted to carry a firearm I wouldn't mind in the
> > slightest.
>
> Nor would I.
>
> In one of my stories, I postulated the opportunity to earn a SECOND vote
> through military service (yes, inspired in part by Heinlein's article on
> voting eligibility).
>
> I do not believe that it is moral to require military service. However,
> I DO belive it moral to require military TRAINING for graduation from
> school, or for getting government aid or position of any type. I feel
> that "if our cause is just," there will be enough volunteers -- but they
> have to know what they are doing. We no longer have weeks to ramp up
> the military.
Dicipline is something, the inculcation of which is never a bad thing.
Learning respect for others and property is also a good thing. Sadly,
something far too many don't seem to believe in any more.
> > > > And you think that's what we do? And, pardon me, but apart from the
> > > > occasional political assassination, carried out AGAINST the will of
the
> > > > people (or did everyone approve of Kennedy's murder? Or Lincoln's,
come
> > to
> > > > that) when have you used those weapons as a political edge? When
have
> > you
> > > > needed to rise up and tell your govt. by force of arms that they're
> > wrong?
> > >
> > > Do you wear your seatbelts when you drive? When have you ever needed
> > > them?
> >
> > I'm not sure I see the relevance of this comment.
>
> Then think about it. You ask when I have needed to rise up, I ask when
> you needed your seatbelts.
In that case, with regard to seatbelts, all the time. So are you saying you
should constantly be inciting revolution against your govt.? You really
DON'T trust them, do you?
> If you are in an accident, it's too late to buckle up (think of it as
> evolution in action). If you need a gun, it's too late to go get one
> (as they discovered in the Los Angeles riots not long ago -- think of it
> as evolution in action).
How come I've never needed a gun in the UK?
> > I think you're saying guns
> > are something you keep in reserve as a safeguard against the (god
forbid)
> > day your govt. decides to come down like a ton of bricks and deprive you
of
> > your rights.
>
> Actually, no, _I_ carry a pistol because there is nothing so worthless
> as a gun in your closet when the attacker is in your face.
I'll remember not to knock on your door unannounced when in an angry mood.
> > If that's so, this won't wash. If they actually DID want to do
> > that, I frankly do not give your untrained citizenry a snowball's hope
in
> > hell of defending themselves. For one thing, no govt, not even the most
> > insane (like Hitler) suddenly unleashes terror on all its citizens,
because
> > they know they'll be stopped no matter WHAT the level of the citizenry's
> > armaments. People will FIND the weapons to fight them if they're that
> > blatant.
>
> You are probably right. For instance, when Hitler was preparing to
> invade the UK, they found the weapons to fight them.
> They begged the NRA to ask American gunowners to send anything that
> would shoot. They promised that the guns would be returned when no
> longer needed, but they actually were dumped into the North Sea in
> 1946.
This is a new one on me. I don't doubt England requested arms from the US,
just as ANY nation requests support when under attack, just as the French
resistance demanded them from us and anyone else who could supply. Just as
we made weapons when required. Don't make the mistake of thinking because we
don't approve of guns in everyone's hands in peacetime we won't defend
ourselves when required. As it happens, I'm a crack shot, but I STILL don't
want a hand gun in this house. In peace time (which, last time I looked, is
the present state of the US) we neither require nor desire weapons. In war
(a situation to be avoided wherever possible, and finished as quickly as
possible once it becomes unavoidable) we will own them and use them.
> > Despots work quietly, slowly and insidiously. You don't realise
> > you've lost your rights until it's too late to do anything about it.
>
> Yep. So, why should we give any right up voluntarily? Especially the
> right to self-defense?
In your case, as I said, I can't see it ever happening because the tradition
of gun ownership is so deeply entrenched. You couldn't stop it now even if
you wanted to. For us, we abandoned them because we were fed up with
innocents being killed. Hungerford and then Dunblane were just too much. We
didn't want a repeat of either of those incidents.
> Those of us who have seen the British example aren't impressed. Not
> POSITIVELY, anyhow.
The murder rate in our main cities (even London) is a LOT less than yours.
I'm pretty pleased about that myself. I'll be even happier when we can get
the burglary, car crime and other nonsense under control, but by far the
greatest proportion of those crimes take place when there is NO ONE around
to respond. Sneaky buggers, those crooks. Never do it where you can see
them.
> > B5
> > showed this, but it was the same pattern that occurred in Germany in the
> > build up to WW2. Once your rights are gone, a few well armed citizens
will
> > find themselves exactly where the communists and other 'undesirables' in
> > Germany found themselves, armed or not: in a concentration camp or
straight
> > to an unmarked grave.
>
> Actually, the Warsaw Ghetto was an entirely different lesson. A literal
> handful of guns held the Wehrmacht at bay for quite a while.
Not long enough. And then they were pretty much ALL destroyed. My point
stands. Your guns won't help you at that stage. At best they put off the
inevitable for a few days. You want to stop it dead, don't let it start. The
way to stop it dead is to educate people about the nature of a despotic rise
to power so they can stop it at the voting booth before anything happens.
> > Your guns will not matter a rat's arse. The only way
> > you can stop that sort of thing is thorough education in the methods of
> > despots, and the use of voting booth. Stop them at the ballot box before
> > they get the power to stop you speaking. After that, it's far too late.
>
> Funny thing about despots . . .they fear even ONE gun in the "wrong"
> hands.
So do decent leaders (Lincoln) and those who work for equality for all
(Martin Luther King).A gun in the wrong hands is bad news for EVERYONE, and
while you have untrained people with easy access to guns, your leaders, no
matter HOW good they are, are well advised to protect themselves with bullet
proof glass and the rest.
And if your oponent hadn't been able to get a gun, YOU wouldn't have been
shot. I'll quote "The American President" here. "For reasons surpassing
understanding, people do not relate guns to gun related crimes." You're
running under the assumption that if you take away the guns you'll only take
them away from the good guys. If that were the case in EVERY situation, or
at least the majority of them, your fear would be justified. What I'm saying
is that we've taken the guns away PERIOD. Good guys AND bad guys. We might
miss a few, but the vast majority of our violent crimes are now carried out
with weapons far harder to kill with. It's a lot easier to kill by pulling a
trigger than by clubbing someone to death. Both are possible, but one is a
LOT easier.
> > > Actually, the "security of a free State" doesn't just mean security
from
> > > the government. It also means security of the people against thugs,
> > > rapists, murderers and so on.
> >
> > Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to leave my defence in the hands of
> > those who are trained to deal with it. I'm a teacher, not a killer, and
> > I've no wish to change from the former to the latter.
>
> That's your decision to make. It is NOT your place to make that
> decision for ME.
Nor YOUR place to make MY decision for ME! You're suggesting England and
other countries who have turned their backs on public ownership of weapons
are fools, yet we have a far lower murder rate in our big cities than you
have in yours. Your system would demand I arm myself because I'd have no
choice given the situation around me. I WANT that choice. I don't want to
live in a country where people I wouldn't trust at a chequeout queue can be
armed to the teeth. We solved the problem by banning the guns, period.
> BTW, over 53% of all justifiable shootings are not police-related,
> according to the FBI, so I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in "those
> who are trained to deal with it" being handy when you need them --
> unless YOU are trained, as I am.
I am, I just choose not to exercise my skills. And I still feel better
knowing the guns we do have are in the hands of people who are diciplined
and trained to use them.
> > > Here in the United States, in any given year about 2.4 MILLION
violent
> > > crimes are halted directly by the presence of firearms. I know of two
> > > such instances directly. Yet, in the vast majority of cases, there is
> > > no shot fired, much less anyone killed.
> >
> > I know, personally, of one instance in the UK that was DIRECTLY
attributable
> > to a gun. Hamilton in Dunblane. I knew one of the five year olds who
died at
> > the madman's hands. I will NOT support the free ownership of handguns by
> > raving lunatics. If we'd banned the guns after Hungerford instead of
> > waiting, those children and their teacher would still be alive.
>
> Oh? You banned gasoline sales too?
> Murderous lunatics will always find a weapon. A winebottle of gasoline
> in the same circumstance would have let you tell us that you knew one of
> the THIRTY children killed. I do not see this as an improvement.
Let me get this straight. You're saying because we can't legislate for every
possible method in which a person can murder another, we shouldn't legislate
ANY of them? By that reasoning, why don't you just cut the crap and hand out
the nuclear missiles? Arm everyone with Kalashnikovs and have everyone
walking the streets in Kevlar.
> > > If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
> > > someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you
get
> > > about 24,000 per year.
> > >
> > > This means that there are two million, three hundred and seventy-six
> > > thousand MORE people who would be victims today if they hadn't had a
gun
> > > last year.
> >
> > And if those villains WEREN'T armed, because you banned the guns
completely
> > and over 90% of them simply couldn't get the weapons, would that still
be
> > the case?
>
> We see how well it has worked in Ireland.
NORTHERN Ireland (PLEASE make the distinction. England has NO jurisdiction
over Eire), as you WELL know, is a totally different matter. Terrorist
organisations are a law unto themselves no matter where you go. And, to be
honest, they wouldn't be HALF as potent as they are if it weren't for
other countries (like America) providing them with guns!
>
> > You've made your own nest. You insist on arming the innocent, and
> > you arm the guilty in the same move.
>
> There are a lot more innocent.
>
> > We disarm the innocent AND the guilty,
>
> Oh? The International Criminal Police Organization doesn't agree. But
> heck, what does Interpol know, huh?
Our law is a matter of fact. We HAVE taken the guns, we DO have a lower
murder rate than you. When was the last time someone was shot in the US? The
last 2 minutes? When it happens here it's so rare it makes it to the front
page. It's not perfect, but the statistics are still better than yours.
> > leaving the weapons only in the hands of the police or the military
whose
> > duty is to protect us. They ain't perfect, but I trust them more than
people
> > like Hamilton.
> >
> > > I know some of them.
> >
> > My condolences. As I said, I know one of those 5 year olds from
Dunblane. I
> > stand by my opinion.
> >
> > The fact is, it's too late for the US to solve their gun problem. It got
out
> > of hand a LONG time ago. Without introducing conscription and so going
down
> > the path of the Swiss, you're stuck in damage control. We, on the other
> > hand, are in the fortunate position of not having that imperative.
>
> If you say so.
>
> > We have
> > no tradition of gun ownership so it is no problem to us to get rid of
those
> > we had. That makes us the lucky ones.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out where you got that tradition of ownership
> of high explosive . . .
I assume you're referring to the IRA again? Maybe if they weren't so well
financed and supplied from the US, we wouldn't have such a problem and we
could actually continue the peace talks without interruptions.
Shaz
Jms at B5
>comma
>means a new clause or thought. , THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR
>ARMS
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Look it up in the numerous writing style books.
>A comma
>initiates a new clause or thought into a paragraph or sentence.
No it doesn't. A comma paves the way for clarifications of or expansions on
the first thought. If it's a NEW thought, it's followed by either a semi
colon, a colon or a period.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
(Which, above, by your reasoning, would mean "sorry" has nothing to do with
"but you're wrong," and you could assume that I was referring to something ELSE
you were wrong about. Doesn't work that way.)
10 of 10321
Alison Hopkins <fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:8gc2r5$ajt$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> Keith Wood wrote in message <39296F9C...@bctv.com>...
>
<SNIP>
> >We had just dealt with a king and his appointees who couldn't be
> >trusted. We DID trust our FELLOWS, but not those who would RULE.
>
> surely; are they trustable until elected, and then not thereafter? if so,
> then why bother with the democratic process in the first place, it's
surely
> doomed to failure?
>
That's why it's good to vote people out of office every few elections.
<SNIP>
> >Do you wear your seatbelts when you drive? When have you ever needed
> >them?
>
> Yes, and freqently needed. But then, I drive the M25. <g>
>
Seat belt and airbags are a good example. IIRC, there are some cases when
airbags and seatbelts KILL rather then save lives. However, these are tiny
by comparison to the amount of lives that are saved by them. Guns kill some,
but the numers of lives saved by guns outweigh those killed. (BTW, I don't
think those over 18 should be required by law to wear seatbelts. If you want
to be dumb enough to increase the odds of survival against you, its your
choice.)
> >Well, gee, then why do you think the National Socialists worked so hard
> >to disarm the citizens? Why do you think the UK started taking away
> >guns from the Irish 80 years ago?
>
> ? That's lost me. I don't recall that the mass population of Germany in
the
> 20's and 30's was armed, nor the mass of the Irish. Come to that, given
that
> the "armed struggle" is still continuing after 90 years, it hasn't been
> terribly sucessful has it? And, do you really want to wish events like
Omagh
> or Eniskellin on the US? That's the danger, if you start to suggest that
> it's acceptable to wage war against "authority". Yes, you may take out
those
> who you believe to be culpable, but I refer you to Oklahoma City as an
> example of the fallout from such actions. And, who decides what the mass
> popular opinion is? Is there some critical mass at which a viable number
> starts to foment "revolution"? What one considers a wholly unacceptable
> government action may be entirely laudable to others. Who decides, and
what
> happens to "mass democracy"?
>
I agree that Oklahoma City was a tradgedy commited by a lunatic. I also
think that Waco was a tradgedy.
Also note that the terrorst plot did not involving storming the building
with guns. They used fertalizer. (Does anyone want to propose a 3-day
waiting period for fertalizer?)
>
> >If you were to make the (false) assumption that EVERYONE killed by
> >someone else with a gun in this country was an innocent victim, you get
> >about 24,000 per year.
> >
>
> I know I'm extracting here, but isn't that a dangerous argument? If the
> victim is someone who you consider a menace, aren't you taking the rule of
> law away and heading for the anarchy of vigilantism? Or, if the victim is
a
> criminal, killed for some reason by another criminal, doesn't that say
that
> one killing is worth less than another? And hence one life? It's a
slipppery
> slope.
>
> And, whatever the figures are for children, I find any number utterly
> horrifying. 1.7 a day is - what, over 600 a year. That's a hell of a price
> to pay.
>
Since most of those are, according to the FBI (See Keith's other post for
the stats) over 14 and involved with gangs it changes to price by a bit,
don't you think?
I have no sympathy for a perp that tries to prove himself by attempting to
kill someone.
If someone tries to kill me, I have a right to stop them. It's a little hard
to exercise that right if they have a gun, and I don't.
Some would say that if you take away all the guns, then the criminals won't
have them either. Some won't. Some will still get them. Others will use
knives, Hockey sticks, Baseball bats, frozen legs of lamb, or fertilizer
bombs. If you want to kill someone, you can always find a weapon. You can't
always find a weapon to defend your self.
Take Columbine. The perps original plan was to use pipe bombs. They used
guns instead. (Guns which they broke something like 13 laws to get, IIRC.)
Would they have killed less people if they had used pipe bombs? Knives? I
don't know. They probably would have been captured alive, and would now be
sitting in a jail. (Where they would receive 3 square meals a day, cable TV,
and other things which they had denied to their victims.)
No, guns will not prevent the government from becoming abusive. Guns will
however, delay the government several years until it can get the guns away
from the populace.
Do I support every person having a gun? No, I do not. I don't think
Felonists (Is that a word?) should have guns. There is a simpler way then
background checks however. Simply tattoo their crime on their forehead. Then
make it illegal to sell them guns.
(And no, I don't think that is cruel or unusual punishment for a rapist,
child molester, or murderer.)
Jms at B5
>issued by appropriate authority to fund a certain number of men for a
>certain time and / or task. Every town had a militia officer, often the
>mayor, who was to be given the draft and who would then call those men
>he felt were needed, up to the number which the draft would pay. It was
>purely voluntary (the "compelled draft" was first issued in this country
>during the Civil War).
Precisely. Now the question is, how many people who cite the 2nd amendment and
say they hold steadfastly to it would agree to the first half of the statement
under those conditions, and be willing to voluntarily serve in a militia?
Darned few, I would suggest.
Mark Maher
<20000522232909...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...
>
>Precisely. Now the question is, how many people who cite the
2nd amendment and
>say they hold steadfastly to it would agree to the first half
of the statement
>under those conditions, and be willing to voluntarily serve in
a militia?
>
>Darned few, I would suggest.
>
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. For over sixteen years,
I served in the military, both on active duty and as a
reservist. I was just an average guy who experienced some
interesting circumstances. And if I could go back to it, I'd do
it in a heart beat. Unfortunately, we are once again having to
scramble about madly because we keep failing to learn the
lessons of the past.
I wouldn't set such a low value on the American people's
willingness to fight. A few other folks have made that mistake
over the last couple of centuries and paid a very high price for
it. We may start out the day with the notion that everybody
ought to play nice, but (to borrow from your own words) we don't
take kindly to being shot at.
By your interpretation of it, every citizen who wants a firearm
should be allowed to purchase a standard-issue infantry weapon.
It would certainly make the militia's integration with the
standard military's logistical supplies much easier in a time of
crisis. It would also cut down on valuable training time in
basic weapons handling. It's a good idea; I like it.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Paul Harper
>Come on, Paul, here's your chance! Tell me how good it was that someone
>so special to me was unarmed that afternoon. Come to Utah and tell her
>to stop carrying her .45.
Citing individual cases, however nasty and uncomfortable, does not
dilute the basic argument that the widespread carrying of guns reduces
a society to the base level of the lowest criminal element that uses
those guns.
I have every sympathy with your friend, and you (who clearly hasn't
got over it yet either). Tough things happen. A society that has the
sort of mentality where it's "OK" to carry heavy duty weaponry is
*always* going to be one where tough things happen more often.
Always.
This is a key reason why the disarming of the terrorists / para
militarists / freedom fighters (delete where appropriate) in Northern
Ireland is so important - both "Loyalist" and "Republican". And the
police. And the removal of the army from the streets (both the latter
well under way, thank God).
Only then can any semblance of a civilised existence return.
It's far too late for the States.
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Paul Harper
>How come I've never needed a gun in the UK?
"Think of it as evolution in action."
Kind of says it all, really.
Andre Lieven
> In <8gagej$l0g$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca> dg...@freenet.carleton.ca,
> Known Canadian (Andre Lieven) writes on "free speech" in the
> People's Republic of Canada:
>>
>> They do, on *commercial* signs. While I, as an ex Montrealer, in no
>> way agree with this form of language control, I can understand where
>> it comes from, a wish that the French language not pass away as it
>> did in Louisiana.
>
> Don't worry about it; over in Europe, where sane people don't really go
> anyway, the French Academy is still fining and prosecuting people for
> publicly engaging in "Franglais" -- so the language will survive for
> at least a few more decades.
That's O.K., as Quebec is so different from France, other than having
a common root language, that what the European French do, has little
effect up here.
>
>> But, in Quebec, you have freedoms of speech. Commercial freedoms are
>> considered lesser freedoms, as we don't ( yet ) consider commercial
>> freedoms as important as human freedoms. And, no freedom is absolute.
>
> SOME freedoms of speech. Remember all those fully-warranted searches
> and seizures at the pocket-sized free press operations that were
> printing anti-federal broadsides a few years ago. The Official Excuse:
> "Well, we thought there might be IRA involvement. We were looking for
> bombs, and just took the printing presses for inspection."
As none of that applies to Quebec or the rest of Canada, your point is... ?
> ....<deletia>
>>
>> And, the constitutional right to own slaves...
>
> This, from a guy who's taxed so heavily that he's working for his
> government, with no choice, well over 80% of the year...
I don't know where you get your figures, but you are way off. Posting
ignorance is not good for others to see you do that. Then, they, and I,
will know that you fail to check your stuff, first.
Yes, we pay more taxes then folks in the US. So ? Usians, as a group, all
want their local booty, but hate like hell to pay for it. We understand
that all things cost somehting, but that some things are best done by
a government, as opposed to someone whos doing it to make themselves
money.
And, up here, *no one* has no health insurance...
> Have *YOU* had your VAT today? *snicker*
GST is 7 %. Many states have sales taxes as high as some provinces.
As on many things, the price up here is *less* than in the US, it seems
to me that some of what we identify as tax, you folks sneakily bury
in the price.
>
> ....<deletia>
>>
>> And, in recent history, we have all sorts of examples, where armed
>> populaces used their personal arms ( often with much bigger items
>> than AK-47's ) to protect their rights.... Lebanon, Somalia, Ethopia,
>
> Specifically including Afghanistan, where neighborhood gunsmiths make
> AK-47's starting with hand tools and chunks of railroad track?
> And fought the Russian occupation to a stand-still?
Ah, so you think that all citizens ought to have Stingers, and RPG's ?
Interesting... be prepared to live in a Afghani style nation, after
that comes to pass. Surely you can find a more democratic place than
the nation that the *Iranian* mullahs say goes too far...
>> Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and so many more. I seriously doubt that you
>> could find anyone not of the loot and burn class who would agree that
>> this policy of all around gun possession and use was a *good* thing.
>
> Since I'm not of the "loot and burn class," and adamantly and vociferously
> insist that all-around firearms possession and use IS a GOOD thing, your
> assertion is invalid. There are at least 80 million American citizens
> who also agree with me, and the recent upsurge in GOA and NRA memberships
> might also be regarded as an indicatory factor implying that your
> opinions do not strongly correlate to reality.
It is possible that 80 million do agree with you. But, as your population
is 250 million, that would mean that 170 million *disagree* with you.
So, since you live in a represntative democracy, the 170 million make
this choice, and you then have to deal with it. Or, you can leave.
>> But, you see, USians are not like the rest of us poor humans. They do
>> have it all worked out, how to do this, and not wreck a society. They
>
> Right, UNlike the Grand And Glorious People's Republic of Canada, where
> school shootings are on the upswing, it's a felony to possess an
> unregistered pistol, and best estimates by credible "law enforcement"
> organizations on both sides of the border indicate that a *minimum*
> of 100,000 pistols are illegally migrating north across the border
> every year; that means that only ONE IN SIXTY CANADIANS DISAGREES
> STRONGLY ENOUGH TO POSSESS AN ILLEGAL PISTOL.
Yes, we've had some shootings. We live right up against you folks,
and your media is everywhere. It would be surprising if no US trends
were able to be slightly evidenced under such circumstances.
We're not a republic. I hope that you are bright enough to know that.
>
> Think about it, guy; if you know sixty people, at least one of them is
> statistically likely to possess a pistol your "government" doesn't
> know about, and be strongly enough convinced of the necessity to do so
> that he's willing to risk felony prosecution to have something he can't
> even legally take to the firing range and use in the open.
You'd be wrong. Most of those who object to the law are in the west.
I'm in Ontario.
BTW, what's you nation's rate on tax evasion ? Around one in sixty,
or even more ? That is a point, as your nation launched it's war
for independance on the back of tax evasion. So, at least as many USians
object to their own nation, at least.
> Why have a *minimum* of half a million unregistered pistols moved to
> Canada in the last five years? Who's buying them, the polar bears?
Perhaps transplanted USians...
>> just kill small daily numbers, and leave the infrastructure standing.
>> That is, after all, what most folks really care about. ( sarcasm off )
>
> UNlike the Canadians, who have effectively the same murder and assault
> rates, and just accomplish their ends using bricks, sticks, fists,
> clubs, stones, knives, and any other implements handy. Examining the
> per-capita assault rate statistics for your lot, I sometimes find
> myself moved to entertain the notion that it might be a *GOOD* thing
> that Canadians are restrained from owning firearms; but on a more
> serious note, you might see a major nose-dive in crimes of violence
> if your victims were better able to defend themselves, and thus deter
> *attempts* at the outset...
Nice try. But, you're wrong. Right across the board, too. Neatly done.
We're not talking assualts, which can be done with any part of the body,
including the naughty bits, but firearm attacks. Big difference.
>> Peace is more effective when the only way to place a bullet into
>> someone is, manually.
>> Andre
>
> "The price of peace is eternal vigilance." -- Patrick Henry, and others.
Perhaps 'cause PH didn't ttrust his people.
>
> "There is nothing as peaceful as a dead bad guy." -- R.A. Heinlein.
A good yarn teller, but in no way would I want to live in a RAH built
society, any momre than I'd want to live in a Hubbard one.
>
> "Since any marginally competent idiot with hand tools can make a gun
> from scratch, it is impossible to legislate guns out of existence.
> The best you can do is provide instantaneous, hugely negative feedback
> to anyone stupid enough or criminal enough to misuse the technology;
> and that is best accomplished by acknowledging citizens' inalienable
> right to shoot back." -- E.K. Grant
Cute. Wrong, but cute.
>
> "Vancouver.. the only city in North America where a man was ever stomped
> to death during a street riot over a hockey game." --- me
Right. In the US, it would have been a dozen, plus, shot, after a b'ball
game... And, it happened ( if it did, I'm accepting, for the sake of
argument that it did, though I recall nothing of the sort in that
incident ), it happened *once*. Not twelve, *daily*, south of the 45th.
I'll put up our worst riots against Watts, Chicago, and the LA riots
after Rodney King, anyday. It is safer here. A lack of guns *helps*.
Andre
--
" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "
David Gelernter, " 1939 "
10 of 10321
Andre Lieven <dg...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:8ge1p6$j8h$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Gharlane of Eddore (ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu) writes:
> > In <8gagej$l0g$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca> dg...@freenet.carleton.ca,
> > Known Canadian (Andre Lieven) writes on "free speech" in the
> > People's Republic of Canada:
> >>
> >> Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and so many more. I seriously doubt that you
> >> could find anyone not of the loot and burn class who would agree that
> >> this policy of all around gun possession and use was a *good* thing.
> >
> > Since I'm not of the "loot and burn class," and adamantly and
vociferously
> > insist that all-around firearms possession and use IS a GOOD thing, your
> > assertion is invalid. There are at least 80 million American citizens
> > who also agree with me, and the recent upsurge in GOA and NRA
memberships
> > might also be regarded as an indicatory factor implying that your
> > opinions do not strongly correlate to reality.
>
> It is possible that 80 million do agree with you. But, as your population
> is 250 million, that would mean that 170 million *disagree* with you.
> So, since you live in a represntative democracy, the 170 million make
> this choice, and you then have to deal with it. Or, you can leave.
>
Not quite, a rebuplic (Which we are) has laws to prevent the rights of the
minority from oppression from the majority.
Otherwise in a town coulcil meeting, a man could make a motion, "I propose
we rape all the women here." and if they majority agree, then the minority
better watch out.
Andre Lieven
> emma...@panix.com wrote:
>>
>> Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net> wrote:
>>
>> > And no, that's not what I'm saying. Buy by the wholesale distribution of
>> > arms to the point where schoolchildren routinely have access to them, other
>> > means of communication get circumvented.
>>
>> Back in the 70's I remember an episode of All in the Family where
>> Archie Bunker suggested that airlines hand out guns to all the passengers
>> in order to prevent hijackings. It was hilarious. Today, I find people
>> who actually take this view! After the school shootings in Jonesboro, I
>> got into a heated exchange with someone who said that all teachers, hall
>> monitors, etc. should be armed and that this would have prevented such a
>> tragedy from taking place. There are times I honestly feel my country is
>> losing its collective mind.
>
> Wasn't Jonesboro the one which was stopped by an armed teacher?
>
>> > When your constitution gave the right to bear arms, I'm not sure that what
>> > the founding fathers had in mind was the "one free Kalashnikov with every
>> > packet of weeties" mentality that seems prevalent these days.
>>
>> Actually, what the Second Amendment says is that the apparently already
>> existing right shall not be infringed. Now I happen to think that it's
>> referring to this entity known as the militia because of the way the
>> sentence is constructed - the first part makes no sense at all if you
>> try to treat it as an independent clause. But it gets interesting when
>> you try to get to the root of just what this *right* is and where it
>> comes from. I've been told it's a "God-given" right, which leads to all
>> kinds of questions. Does God give the same rights to everyone or just
>> Americans?
>
> Where did you get the idea that the men who wrote the Constitution were
> empowered to write law for the rest of the world?
>From all of the US gov'ts, both Republicans and Democrats, who tried
to do just that, well, not write, but enforce. And, no, I'm not talking
about military actions of any sort.
>
> Contrary to the beliefs of our current president's husband, we aren't.
>
Those beliefs were there a long time before their birth. Ever hear of
" Manifest Destiny ", or " fifty four forty, or fight " ?
Simon Lipscomb
> The problem comes in when you are in the minority.
>
> Arms are sometimes necessary to DEFEND an unpopular point of view. For
> instance, when you are the only one of the five men present who thinks
> that your daughter should NOT be raped.
Which is all well and good... unless the other four men also have guns.
Si.
Andre Lieven
> "John C. Anderson" wrote:
>>
>> << I know some folks like to try and focus discussions on the fact the second
>> amendment uses the term "miltia" in its wording. That's fine, but the
>> 'militia" was the common citizen and it's function was not soley to address
>> the worries of repelling invaders. It was also to calm fears of a central
>> government from running rough shod over the states and the citizenry. >>
>>
>> Not just "militia", but "A well-regulated militia...,". WELL-REGULATED. And
>> as JMS pointed out on an earlier post; those common folk were the military
>> as well at the time. That role has been supplanted by a professional
>> military and national guard.
>
> Not according to Federal law.
>
>> And yes, at the time of the founding of the US, the States were to have much
>> more power than the Federal Gov't. But that was one part of the American
>> experiment that DIDN'T work. Like slavery, or only allowing land owners the
>> right to vote.
>
> I think that you are confusing the Confederation with the Constitutional
> US that replaced it.
>
>> Ironically, it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that is much more
>> responsive to the needs and the rights of the PEOPLE than most STATES have ever
>> been, despite the conservative mantra of " State's Rights".
>
> And your basis for this absurd statement is . . ?
>
>> Don't believe me? Women's suffrage,
>
> Oh, right. You mean like when the Federal government ordered Utah to
> repeal the law granting women the right to vote?
>
>> ending slavery,
>
> . . .which was done by various of the states decades before the Feds
> ordered it . . .
>
>> civil rights including the right to vote for all citizens,
>
> Again, the states were ahead of the Feds.
>
>> ending of child labor, minimum safety standards for workplaces,
>
> Again, the states . . .
>
>> freedom of speech even on the internet...,
>
> . . .Virginia Compact . . .
>
>> I could go on for
>> pages just off the top of my head. All of these things are the product of the
>> Federal government; often in spite of the States.
>
> No, but thanks for playing.
>
>> I live in the south.
>
> That explains it. Much of what you are mentioning WAS imposed on the
> South by the Feds, so of course that will change your view. However,
> rest assured that most of the other states were ahead of the Feds.
>
>> If not for the power of the Fed OVER the States, we might
>> very well still be living under Segregation. That's about as far removed from
>> democracy as you can be; at least for non-whites. So don't tout the power of
>> the States, or the militias for that matter, to provide freedom too loudly.
>> Their track record ain't too bright.
>>
>> << The whole ideal that the US of A was founded upon was that ultimate power
>> rested with THE PEOPLE. >>
>>
>> That's why we get to VOTE. Democracy comes from a ballot box, not the
>> barrel of a gun.
>
> Cool! I look forward to your telling us where this has actually
> happened.
Canada. 1867. Thanks for playing.
John W. Kennedy
>
> Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
> > People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it, which
> > refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
>
Prove that it ever meant any such thing, let alone in 1789. It is
certainly not the primary meaning of the word, nor of the underlying
Latin (which the Framers were certainly familiar with).
--
-John W. Kennedy
-jwk...@attglobal.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven <dg...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
> news:8ge1p6$j8h$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Gharlane of Eddore (ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu) writes:
>> > In <8gagej$l0g$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca> dg...@freenet.carleton.ca,
>> > Known Canadian (Andre Lieven) writes on "free speech" in the
>> > People's Republic of Canada:
>> >>
> <SNIP>
>
>> >> Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and so many more. I seriously doubt that you
>> >> could find anyone not of the loot and burn class who would agree that
>> >> this policy of all around gun possession and use was a *good* thing.
>> >
>> > Since I'm not of the "loot and burn class," and adamantly and
>> > vociferously
>> > insist that all-around firearms possession and use IS a GOOD thing, your
>> > assertion is invalid. There are at least 80 million American citizens
>> > who also agree with me, and the recent upsurge in GOA and NRA
>> > memberships might also be regarded as an indicatory factor implying that
>> > your opinions do not strongly correlate to reality.
>>
>> It is possible that 80 million do agree with you. But, as your population
>> is 250 million, that would mean that 170 million *disagree* with you.
>> So, since you live in a represntative democracy, the 170 million make
>> this choice, and you then have to deal with it. Or, you can leave.
>
> Not quite, a rebuplic (Which we are) has laws to prevent the rights of the
> minority from oppression from the majority.
As do some non-republics, such as us. But, there is a *balance* so that
the claimed rights of the minority do not unreasonably detract from
the rights of the majority. Neither direction of rights is absolute.
> Otherwise in a town council meeting, a man could make a motion, "I propose
> we rape all the women here." and if they majority agree, then the minority
> better watch out.
If they did that, that would be an unlawful offense, that of conspiracy to
rape. We're not talking about criminal acts, here.
If either a majority or a minority wants to commit criminal acts, then they
ought to understand that there are consequences to civil disobedience.
Gharlane of Eddore
Someone said:
>
> "Militia" means part-time military. In the old days, a "draft"
>
No. "Militia" means citizens capable of taking up arms.
"Part-time military" is part of a standing force, a part of
the *organized* military or "militia;" i.e. a sporadically
active part of a standing army, something the Founding Fathers
wished to avoid to the greatest degree possible.
This is why U.S. Code, Title 10, differentiates so clearly
between the "ORGANIZED" militia and the "UNORGANIZED" militia;
Organized is the National Guard and equivalent groups;
unorganized is you, me, and everyone else.
>
> would be issued by appropriate authority to fund a certain number
> of men for a certain time and / or task. Every town had a militia
> officer, often the mayor, who was to be given the draft and who
> would then call those men he felt were needed, up to the number
> which the draft would pay. It was purely voluntary (the "compelled
> draft" was first issued in this country during the Civil War).
>
In <20000522232909...@ng-fo1.aol.com>
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
> Precisely. Now the question is, how many people who cite the 2nd
> amendment and say they hold steadfastly to it would agree to the
> first half of the statement under those conditions, and be willing
>
( The "first half" is an exemplar/validator clause, *NOT* a precondition
for existence or observance of an acknowledged right. )
>
> to voluntarily serve in a militia?
>
> Darned few, I would suggest.
>
Speak for yourself, Joe. Just because you were raised a socialist
democrat doesn't mean everyone else was; and a good many of us,
staunch fans of you and your work, did *not* resign our commissions
when we were released from active duty, so we're still on the books
as members of both the "organized militia" *and* the "unorganized
militia," as described in Title 10, Sections 310 and 311 of the
U.S. Code.
I could name a dozen regulars on this topic who've Been There and
Done It on a volunteer basis, are still on the books as members of
the U.S. military, and hold currently valid concealed-carry licenses
in their various states; at least five of the regulars on this topic
are active-duty U.S. military; at least one is active-duty Canadian
military; and one of the B5 Cabal is retired U.S. Navy -- and she
certainly volunteered.
I would venture to suggest that the majority of the regulars have
not only served in "militia" organizations, but continue to; in my
own case, over the years, as an auxiliary in several major police
departments and sheriffs' departments, and as a search & rescue
specialist with the National Ski Patrol and the Civil Air Patrol,
as well as in my favorite Nevada sheriff's department. And I'm the
*least* of the people you're insulting, because I'm at an age and
laziness level where I don't really do very much any more.
These days, I mostly just invest my time, money, and energy into
campaigns against the annointed successor of the lying, stealing,
betraying, treasonous murdering scum you helped vote into the Oval
Office twice.
You were born in 1953, and young and gullible enough to buy the pap
the news media pumped at you during the Nixon/Kennedy race; you were
hugely impressionable and insufficiently skilled at analysis during
the Cuban Missile "Crisis" and the Kennedy Assassination and
"Death Of Camelot" years.... so you never learned to differentiate
statesmen like Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey from mere slimy
politicians like Nixon and Kennedy; and you never learned to take
what you hear on the TV "News" with a grain of salt. ( Despite
the stunning brilliance and award-worthy execution of your wonderful
"BABYLON 5" script about the "News" crew loose on the station,
"AND NOW FOR A WORD..." you still seem to think that what you hear
on the evening "News" has some correlation to reality. )
Get a grip, Joe... you're not living in the same world as real people.
While it's too late for you to join the Boy Scouts and learn how to
get wounded plane crash victims down off mountaintops, it's not too
late for you to develop a bit of courtesy for those who *have* chosen
to actively contribute to the physical safety of their, and YOUR,
society without expecting any sort of recognition from you.
The thing you need to remember is that real volunteers go and do it
because it needs to be done; they don't do it so they can strut around
and try to explain it to impenetrable clods who think they owe their
civilization nothing because they've already got theirs. When you
insult them gratuitously, the only person you're damaging is yourself.
It's a good thing you never got drafted; you'd have made a worse
conscript than Ellison did, and still be bellyaching about it.
( Of course, you WOULD at least have learned how a rifle works, which
would have been of inestimable value when you were trying to use
firearms in the "GRAY 17 IS MISSING" script, working without a
technical advisor... . But I digress... )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| __ __ |
| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. / | / \ |
| We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, -|---+----+- |
| Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, | | | |
| And invocations of equations. |_/ \__/ |
| |
| These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. |
| |
| .....including how to spell "gray." +\../- |
| |
| "Ars sine scientia nihil est." --- Martinus Paduei |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
=====================================================================
|| ||
|| Favorite tools of the master technologists: ||
|| ||
|| Col. Jeff Cooper: ||
|| .45 ACP - 215-grain SWC over 7.5 grains of Unique ||
|| ||
|| Elmer Keith: ||
|| .44 Mag - 250-grain Keith SWC over 22 grains of IMR2400 ||
|| ||
=====================================================================
Alison Hopkins
10 of 10321 wrote in message ...
>Seat belt and airbags are a good example. IIRC, there are some cases when
>airbags and seatbelts KILL rather then save lives. However, these are tiny
>by comparison to the amount of lives that are saved by them. Guns kill
some,
>but the numers of lives saved by guns outweigh those killed. (BTW, I don't
>think those over 18 should be required by law to wear seatbelts. If you
want
>to be dumb enough to increase the odds of survival against you, its your
>choice.)
Only problem with *that* is that an unbelted person is like a missile; they
can kill someone by the sheer force of impact. And, what happens if they
survive, injured, to be a burden on the State or whoever? Other than that,
sounds like Darwinism. <g>
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Andrew Swallow wrote in message
<20000522211047...@nso-fc.news.cs.com>...
>In article <8gbv7m$71n$2...@lure.pipex.net>, "Alison Hopkins"
><fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
>
>>Yet, interestingly enough, a
>>>22-year-old woman who fought off three rapists with a nail file was
>>>convicted of having an unlawful weapon and sentenced to six months in
>>>prison. This was a mandatory term, and self-defense is not a mitigating
>>>circumstance. Her "victims" were not charged.
>>
>>And which UK papers did this appear in, and when? I've never heard of this
>>case, or I'd have been out campaigning.
>>
>
>I can remember hearing this story. This is the sort of thing that Peter
>Hitchens complains about in the Daily Express.
>
And rightly, imo. I'd still like someone to point me at the source - I'm
not doubting you in the least, Andrew, I just like things being backed up.
Gharlane is rather good at that. <g>
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Keith Wood wrote in message <3929E295...@bctv.com>...
>
>Sorry. The truth CAN be mind-expanding.
>
And being offensive earns you my kill file.
Ali
10 of 10321
10 of 10321 <ask...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:nazW4.54056$BG3.1...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
>
> Simon Lipscomb <simon.l...@physiol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:392A9C2B...@physiol.ox.ac.uk...
would
> give my life to try to prevent my offspring from being molested. I dare
say,
> I should make them pay a dear price for trying.
>
>
Also, I would suggest they they are less likely to try if they know there is
a possibility that they may pay for their 'fun' with their life, or use of
parts of their anatomy.
>
> > Si.
> >
>
>
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Do you wear your seatbelts when you drive? When have you ever needed
> them?
I had all the seatbelts removed from our car. The though of someone
strangling me with them just became too much.
> This means that there are two million, three hundred and seventy-six
> thousand MORE people who would be victims today if they hadn't had a gun
> last year.
And _that_ IMHO is the real problem in the US, and the sad part is that
I doubt some politician announcing on TeeVee that another gun control
law has been passed will help one damn thing.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Keith Wood wrote in message <39296F9C...@bctv.com>...
>
> >Well, gee, then why do you think the National Socialists worked so hard
> >to disarm the citizens? Why do you think the UK started taking away
> >guns from the Irish 80 years ago?
>
> ? That's lost me. I don't recall that the mass population of Germany in the
> 20's and 30's was armed
Didn't in fact (IIRC) the Weimar agreement from WWI include clauses to
keep Germany unarmed?
Pål Are Nordal
>
> > >That's why we get to VOTE. Democracy comes from a ballot box, not the
> > barrel of
> > >a gun.
>
> want the vote to turn out.
How do you know they don't already do?
10 of 10321
> > >That's why we get to VOTE. Democracy comes from a ballot box, not the
> > barrel of
> > >a gun.
>
> At least until the people counting the ballots start deciding how _they_
> want the vote to turn out.
>
> --
> -- John E. Jasen (jja...@umbc.edu)
> -- You can have it: right; cheap; now. Pick any two.
>
10 of 10321
Simon Lipscomb <simon.l...@physiol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:392A9C2B...@physiol.ox.ac.uk...
> Keith Wood wrote:
>
> > The problem comes in when you are in the minority.
> >
> > Arms are sometimes necessary to DEFEND an unpopular point of view. For
> > instance, when you are the only one of the five men present who thinks
> > that your daughter should NOT be raped.
>
> Which is all well and good... unless the other four men also have guns.
>
I which case, at the very least you will take some of them with you. I would
give my life to try to prevent my offspring from being molested. I dare say,
I should make them pay a dear price for trying.
> Si.
>
Alison Hopkins
Pål Are Nordal wrote in message <392AC040...@bigfoot.com>...
>Didn't in fact (IIRC) the Weimar agreement from WWI include clauses to
>keep Germany unarmed?
I think you're right - and there's also the post WW2 "controls" on both
Japan and Germany.
Ali
Jane E. Nicholson
<snip>
>Nice dodge!
>
>Answer my questions. Have they repealed the Suspicious Persons Act? If
>not, then no, you do NOT enjoy "at least as much freedom of speech" as I
>do. Have they released those Irish whose only crime was to shout
>epithets at the RUC?
>
Are you allowed to threaten the life of your president yet?
Every country has a line where free speech is no longer allowed.
Jane Nicholson
nav...@lucent.com
> 2nd amendment and say they hold steadfastly to it would agree
> to the first half of the statement under those conditions, and
>
> Darned few, I would suggest.
In article <znoW4.2147$hw3.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Mark Maher <marka...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. For over sixteen years,
>I served in the military, both on active duty and as a
>reservist. I was just an average guy who experienced some
>interesting circumstances. And if I could go back to it, I'd do
>it in a heart beat. Unfortunately, we are once again having to
>scramble about madly because we keep failing to learn the
>lessons of the past.
>
>I wouldn't set such a low value on the American people's
>willingness to fight. A few other folks have made that mistake
>over the last couple of centuries and paid a very high price for
>it. We may start out the day with the notion that everybody
>ought to play nice, but (to borrow from your own words) we don't
>take kindly to being shot at.
>
>By your interpretation of it, every citizen who wants a firearm
>should be allowed to purchase a standard-issue infantry weapon.
>It would certainly make the militia's integration with the
>standard military's logistical supplies much easier in a time of
>crisis. It would also cut down on valuable training time in
>basic weapons handling. It's a good idea; I like it.
Okay, then, let's look at the statistics. For instance, there's
WWII where we joined in because someone (the Japanese) started
shooting at us and, as you say, we didn't take kindly to it.
In WWII there were 16,353,700 of our people who served in the armed
forces. Our population for that time frame was 133.5 million people
which makes that about 12.2% of the population who actually served.
Source: U.S. Civil War Center (10/98).
Now, if you go by the statistics of the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs (1993), they have the number of people serving in WWII at
15,272,000 which is only about 11% of 133.5 million people. I've also
seen quotes that the U.S. Census Bureau lists the U.S. population
at 132 million in 1940. So, using that total, you still only come up
with 12-12.4%. That's the highest percentage of the total population,
even taking the Civil War (11.1%) into consideration and we *were* both
sides of that war. Even Vietnam only had 4.3% of the population
serving in the armed forces and a good many of those served because
they were drafted or were about to be drafted. Like JMS said, darned
few.
Jane E. Nicholson
>In article <3929D8D7...@bctv.com>, Keith Wood <k...@bctv.com> writes:
>
>>Answer my questions. Have they repealed the Suspicious Persons Act? If
>>not, then no, you do NOT enjoy "at least as much freedom of speech" as I
>>do. Have they released those Irish whose only crime was to shout
>>epithets at the RUC?
>>
>
>The Suspicious Persons Act is not about banning speech. It is about standing
>outside a jewellery shop window holding a brick. There is no right of freedem
>to throw.
>
>Andrew Swallow
>
As I understood it, the act permits a suspect to be held indefinitely without
charges. Bricks don't have to be involved. This makes the act open to abuse by
the police force (not that it is necessarily abused, it is simply open to
abuse.)
It's very sad that it is felt that this amount of power is necessary to protect
the nation. It is even more sad that it may well be necessary. People will be
people, wherever they are, and we all sometimes feel that we should have rights
we don't have. Some of us will go to inappropriate lengths to secure those
rights.
Jane Nicholson
Alison Hopkins
Jane E. Nicholson wrote in message <392aecb5...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>>not, then no, you do NOT enjoy "at least as much freedom of speech" as I
>>do. Have they released those Irish whose only crime was to shout
>>epithets at the RUC?
>>
>
>Every country has a line where free speech is no longer allowed.
>
I note that he still hasn't actually provided the requested verification of
these supposedly imprisoned people. I'll bet he's never read the back of a
US I-94 form, either. <g>
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Jane E. Nicholson wrote in message <392aee26...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>As I understood it, the act permits a suspect to be held indefinitely
without
>charges. Bricks don't have to be involved. This makes the act open to
abuse by
>the police force (not that it is necessarily abused, it is simply open to
>abuse.)
>
>It's very sad that it is felt that this amount of power is necessary to
protect
>the nation. It is even more sad that it may well be necessary. People
will be
>people, wherever they are, and we all sometimes feel that we should have
rights
>we don't have. Some of us will go to inappropriate lengths to secure those
>rights.
>
I don't believe that you're talking about the old "Sus" law here, but rather
the Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act. I'd need to go check
chapter and verse, but I think that the "mainland" version does limit the
time you can hold someone, but that the Ulster variant may not. Anyone out
there a UK lawyer?
And your words are very wise.
Ali
Mark Maher
<2000052321...@ctip5en.ih.lucent.com>...
I'd give your statistics better credence if they were corrected
to reflect the percentage of the American population that was
actually qualified to serve. If you remove those below a certain
age and above another age (although exceptions were made on both
sides), as well as those not physically qualified or exempted
because of their particular skills or knowledge, then your
numbers might be meaningful.
But even if we take your numbers at face value, so what? That
wasn't the point. Once we made our minds up to commit to the
fight, the people we sent in made their opponents pay dearly for
having ever gotten the Americans involved. Even in Vietnam, the
casualties suffered by the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong
were staggering.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Michael Ross
Nicholson) wrote:
snip..
>As I understood it, the act permits a suspect to be held indefinitely without
>charges. Bricks don't have to be involved. This makes the act open to abuse by
>the police force (not that it is necessarily abused, it is simply open to
>abuse.)
Totally untrue. There is such a thing as 'habeus corpus'! Not even the
anti-terrorism laws permit detention without charges or trial. They
did up until a few years ago, in Northern Ireland, and those powers
were actually used during the worst of the 'troubles', in the early
'70s (it was referred to as 'internment'), but there has been no
detention without trial/charges in the UK in the last 25 years approx.
There has certainly not been such a law in *Britain* in modern times
(unless we interned Germans etc during WW2? Don't know about that).
Although the wheel may be turning.. there is/was a proposal to forbid
*suspected* but unconvicted 'football hooligans' from travelling
abroad when a big game was scheduled, but that's not been enacted yet
AFAIK. It would probably get shot down under EU Human Rights laws
anyway - which do a better job of protecting many freedoms than the US
legal system!
Mike
Rangers Catering Corps - 'We boil for the One, we fry for the One'
http://www.corestore.org
Alison Hopkins
Michael Ross wrote in message ...
>Totally untrue. There is such a thing as 'habeus corpus'! Not even the
>anti-terrorism laws permit detention without charges or trial. They
>did up until a few years ago, in Northern Ireland, and those powers
>were actually used during the worst of the 'troubles', in the early
>'70s (it was referred to as 'internment'), but there has been no
>detention without trial/charges in the UK in the last 25 years approx.
Are you sure it's that long? I thought there were some recent ones, but
maybe I am just showing my age. <g> The anti terrorism acts do *extend* the
length of time you can be held.
>
>There has certainly not been such a law in *Britain* in modern times
>(unless we interned Germans etc during WW2? Don't know about that).
My late uncle was interned for a short time at the beginning of the war. He
was a German Jew who escaped from Berlin in the late 30's, thank God. His
internment was in a rather shabby hotel somewhere on the South Coast, and he
wasn't allowed to travel. After a short while, they decided he wasn't a
risk, and he ended up doing war work. Lovely man, I still miss him.
We interned some foreign nationals for a while at the beginning of the war,
until it could be shown that they weren't a risk. Oh, and POW's of course,
who usually ended up working on farms. Some of them - especially the Italian
ones - ended up settling here and marrying, which explains some odd pockets
of Italian origin families in places like, iirc, Bedford. As you might
imagine, there was a certain degree of prejudice against some of these
marriages, more so in the case of those involving German soldiers than
Italians. And the reverse happened; many of our chaps who marched in to
Germany ended up marrying local women.
>
>Although the wheel may be turning.. there is/was a proposal to forbid
>*suspected* but unconvicted 'football hooligans' from travelling
>abroad when a big game was scheduled, but that's not been enacted yet
>AFAIK. It would probably get shot down under EU Human Rights laws
>anyway - which do a better job of protecting many freedoms than the US
>legal system!
>
Yeah, the Home Office Minister was very unkeen on that idea, despite being
pressed by whichever presenter was interviewing her. She rightly pointed out
that you *cannot* withold the right to travel from someone who isn't
convicted. There are, apparently, about 100 of the convicted types that
regularly get stopped from travelling to away games abroad. God bless NSPIS,
I say.
Ali
J. Potts
In <20000522232909...@ng-fo1.aol.com>
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
> Precisely. Now the question is, how many people who cite the 2nd
> amendment and say they hold steadfastly to it would agree to the
> first half of the statement under those conditions, and be willing
> to voluntarily serve in a militia?
>
> Darned few, I would suggest.
>
In article <8ge875$f...@news.csus.edu>,
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>at least five of the regulars on this topic
>are active-duty U.S. military; at least one is active-duty Canadian
>military; and one of the B5 Cabal is retired U.S. Navy -- and she
>certainly volunteered.
Minor point of correction. I'm not retired, not anymore. I was on
the Temporary Disabled Retired List (TDRL) but the last review of my
medical status put me at less than 30% disabled and therefore I was
medically discharged and given severence pay. I still qualify as
a disabled veteran, but that's all.
While I know a fair number would willingly serve, I'm too cynical to
think that the majority of the adult population who are physically able
would willingly serve in the armed forces unless we went to war with
another country and one of the enemy showed up on their door step waving
a rifle in their face.
I remember a number of reports of reservists who balked at the idea of
actually going to "war" during the Gulf War. One case in particular stands
out in my memory of a woman who only joined the military reserves for the
educational benefits it offered. Once she was actually called upon to
Serve and Protect, she wanted nothing to do with the military.
While I was never in a position of imminent danger, I would have done my
duty, if asked, even if it meant the possibility of death. It was an
obligation of service that I accepted when I went in. I have the greatest
respect for anyone in a position of service who willingly puts their life
on the line as part of their job, whether they are a member of the armed
forces, police department, fire department, etc. However, I also recognize
that it's not something that everyone is willing to do or at least not
unless the danger to themselves is imminent.
Like I said, it may be the cynic in me, but them's my beliefs.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Simon Lipscomb <simon.l...@physiol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:392A9C2B...@physiol.ox.ac.uk...
> >
>
> I which case, at the very least you will take some of them with you. I would
> give my life to try to prevent my offspring from being molested. I dare say,
> I should make them pay a dear price for trying.
Providing you get the opportunity to use it...
Steve Brinich
> A society that has the sort of mentality where it's "OK" to carry heavy
> duty weaponry is *always* going to be one where tough things happen more often.
Yes, and a neighborhood with barred-up windows is always going to have
a crime rate.
You need to work on distinguishing the concepts of "correlation" and
"causation".
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
10 of 10321
Pål Are Nordal <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:392AE40F...@bigfoot.com...
10 of 10321 wrote:
>
>> Simon Lipscomb <simon.l...@physiol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:392A9C2B...@physiol.ox.ac.uk...
> >
>> > Which is all well and good... unless the other four men also have guns.
>
>> I which case, at the very least you will take some of them with you. I
would
>> give my life to try to prevent my offspring from being molested. I dare
say,
>> I should make them pay a dear price for trying.
>Providing you get the opportunity to use it...
Fair point, but if I had no gun I wouldn't have the chance of a chance.
Steve Brinich
> That explains it. Much of what you are mentioning WAS imposed on the
> South by the Feds, so of course that will change your view. However,
> rest assured that most of the other states were ahead of the Feds.
Interestingly enough, one of the things imposed on the South by the
Feds during Reconstruction was the repeal of gun-control laws designed
to disarm the freedmen. (You ever try to get blood out of a white
sheet?)
Steve Brinich
>> Arms are sometimes necessary to DEFEND an unpopular point of view. For
>> instance, when you are the only one of the five men present who thinks
>> that your daughter should NOT be raped.
>
> Which is all well and good... unless the other four men also have guns.
One against four, assuming basic competence all around, in a melee is
qute safe for the four. One against four in a gunfight, assuming basic
competence all around, is worse odds than Russian Roulette for each of
the four (even assuming they're determined enough to continue when the
most agressive of them is taken out).
Andrew Swallow
10321" <ask...@mediaone.net> writes:
>Also note that the terrorst plot did not involving storming the building
>with guns. They used fertalizer. (Does anyone want to propose a 3-day
>waiting period for fertalizer?)
>
If men start killing their wives with explosives made from fertiliser they
would change the law. Try buying saltpetre, constituent of gun powder, in
Britain.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
Nicholson) writes:
>>Answer my questions. Have they repealed the Suspicious Persons Act? If
>>>not, then no, you do NOT enjoy "at least as much freedom of speech" as I
>>>do. Have they released those Irish whose only crime was to shout
>>>epithets at the RUC?
>>>
>>
>>The Suspicious Persons Act is not about banning speech. It is about
>standing
>>outside a jewellery shop window holding a brick. There is no right of
>freedem
>>to throw.
>>
>>Andrew Swallow
>>
>As I understood it, the act permits a suspect to be held indefinitely without
>charges. Bricks don't have to be involved. This makes the act open to abuse
>by
>the police force (not that it is necessarily abused, it is simply open to
>abuse.)
>
>It's very sad that it is felt that this amount of power is necessary to
>protect
>the nation. It is even more sad that it may well be necessary. People will
>be
>people, wherever they are, and we all sometimes feel that we should have
>rights
>we don't have. Some of us will go to inappropriate lengths to secure those
>rights.
>
>Jane Nicholson
>
>
Extract from the 1982 issue of the Reader's Digest You and Your Rights.
"SUSPECTED PERSON
When the police can arrest someone who has not committed an offence.
The POLICE do not have to wait for a crime to be committed before they can
make an arrest. If they suspect someone of loitering with intent to commit an
arrestable offence in a public place - if, say, he is trying car-door handles -
they can detain and charge him under the Vagrancy Act 1824.
If he is found guilty by magistrates, he can be fined up to £200 or be gaoled
for up to 3 months.
The policeman does not have to prove that the suspect was about to commit an
offence. A suspected person can be found guilty simply on the grounds that the
arresting policeman thought he was acting suspiciously."
>From the middle of the section on ARREST.
"Bringing the accused to court
If a person has been arrested, he must be charged with the offence and
brought before a magistrate as soon as practicable.
Usually, a suspect is brought before a court within 24 hours of his arrest -
or 48 hours if he is arrested at a weekend.
However, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the police can detain
suspected terrorists for up to 72 hours without taking them before a
magistrate."
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
(Andre Lieven) writes:
>>
>> This, from a guy who's taxed so heavily that he's working for his
>> government, with no choice, well over 80% of the year...
>
>I don't know where you get your figures, but you are way off. Posting
>ignorance is not good for others to see you do that. Then, they, and I,
>will know that you fail to check your stuff, first.
>
That was before we hired Mrs Thatcher.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
<aba...@ibm.net> writes:
>
>There has certainly not been such a law in *Britain* in modern times
>(unless we interned Germans etc during WW2? Don't know about that).
>
Anyone coming from the continent was interned during WW2. Some suspected Nazi
supporters were also interned.
After a couple of years, German speaking Rabbis were hired to release the Jews.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
writes:
>> I'm still trying to figure out where you got that tradition of ownership
>> of high explosive . . .
>
>I assume you're referring to the IRA again? Maybe if they weren't so well
>financed and supplied from the US, we wouldn't have such a problem and we
>could actually continue the peace talks without interruptions.
>
>Shaz
High explosives are used in mining and demolition. Irish men have found work
in the construction industry for hundreds of years. Personal ownership of
explosives has long been controlled.
The other place the Irish obtain knowledge about explosives was in the British
Army. The Irish have long supplied Britain with some of its bravest regiments.
You hear very little about them because neither the IRA nor the British
Government believes that they will make good propaganda in the USA - the
listener has to think to understand.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
<pa...@harper.net> writes:
>
>It's far too late for the States.
>
Not if you planned the removal over a hundred years.
First, you ban the selling of guns and ammunition.
Ten years later you ban the carrying of guns in the street. Confiscate any
guns carried.
Pay a bounty for guns handed in. DO NOT CHEAT ON THE PAYMENTS.
When someone is convicted of an offence, ban them from having a gun. Search
their property. This is the important because it removes guns from the
criminally minded.
Give much longer sentences to people who use weapons to commit crime.
After 99 years ban all guns but provide an amnesty for guns handed in.
Andrew Swallow
Andre Lieven
Well then, check out the numbers for the USSR, which was the nation that
really defeated Germany. The US mainly beat Japan, with China tying down
a formidable part of the Japanese land forces, and the UK and Canada,
along with the rest of the Commonwealth fighting Germany and Italy for far
longer, and with more of the populations mobilised than in the US.
>
> But even if we take your numbers at face value, so what? That
> wasn't the point. Once we made our minds up to commit to the
> fight, the people we sent in made their opponents pay dearly for
> having ever gotten the Americans involved. Even in Vietnam, the
> casualties suffered by the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong
> were staggering.
As I said, the nation that made Germany pay dearly was the USSR,
not the US.
As for 'Nam, casualties be damned... who won ?
>
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
Andre
--
" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "
David Gelernter, " 1939 "
Pål Are Nordal
>
> This, from a guy who's taxed so heavily that he's working for his
> government, with no choice, well over 80% of the year...
Oh yes... all 23% of them. Other fees may be added, depending on the
nature of the product.
Toby Bordelon
> But being a writer and knowing how to punctuate sentences you know that a comma
> means a new clause or thought. , THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
> SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
> Brian Reed
Never posted here before, but the above caught my eye. Aside from the comma thing,
the quoted clause from amendment 2 merits comment.
What exactly does "shall not be infringed" mean? Having just taken my Constitutional
Law exam 2 weeks ago, I can say with fair assurance that it should NOT be interpreted
in absolute terms, at least the Supreme Court wouldn't interpret it that way, and at
the end of they day, it's their interpretation that matters. In short, the right to
bear arms can be infringed, as long as it is reasonable.
This is similar to the interpretation of 1st amendment freedoms, even though it
says "Congress shall make no law..." the fact is they do make laws infringed on those
specified freedoms, and (some) of those laws are constitutional. The whole "fighting
words" doctrine comes to mind.
Look at all the laws across the country that do infringe on the right to own a
gun. Licensing statutes. In many states, permits are needed to carry a concealed
weapon. You can't carry firearms in carry on luggage on planes. In DC, gun ownership
(as I understand it) is totally outlawed. If that isn't an infringment, I don't know
what is. States and Congress have passed these laws, the Supreme Court has not struck
them down.
So while many of you out there may be turning to the 2nd amendment to bolster the
right of gun ownership, it still doesn't make it an absolute right. The Constitution
is a living document, that must change with the times, and interpreting its words in
light of reasonableness allows it to do that. The modern society we live in is far
differnt than colonial America. Firearms, like many other things, should logically be
treated differently now than they were then.
Just something to think about.
--
-Toby
"We'll never be as young as we are right now."
-Jim Steinman, "Lost Boys and Golden Girls"
PRAY FOR PEACE
Paul Harper
>Paul Harper wrote:
>
>> A society that has the sort of mentality where it's "OK" to carry heavy
>> duty weaponry is *always* going to be one where tough things happen more often.
>
> Yes, and a neighborhood with barred-up windows is always going to have
>a crime rate.
*Any* neighbourhood, *anywhere* is going to have a "crime rate".
I really don't see what point you are trying to make here.
> You need to work on distinguishing the concepts of "correlation" and
>"causation".
You need to be clearer in your statements.
Paul.
--
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Paul Harper
wrote:
>In article <gv8kissg1e49gmlqj...@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
Sounds like a lovely idea. Except at every stage you will have the
Rabid Right yelling about how their rights have been infringed, how
their freedoms are being eroded, how the "damn commies are running the
show now" before wrapping themselves in that bloody flag and
dissolving into puddles of patriotic tears.
... not a pretty sight :-)