The Ultimate Georgie Bush nonsense
Harry Hope
From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
``There seems to be a wave of evil passing through America.
And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
there is more love in our society,''
Wave of evil? THE GUNMAN WAS INSANE!
Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
``It's hard to explain how somebody would have enough hatred in their
heart to walk into a church where people are seeking God's guidance
and shoot them''
Hard to explain hatred? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
``I don't know a governmental law that will put love in people's
hearts''
Governmental law? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
``We must have laws that keep the guns out of the hands of people that
should not have them. We must strongly enforce laws on the books. We
must hold gun dealers accountable if they are illegally selling them.
We need to hold people accountable if they are illegally carrying a
gun. And we need to arrest people if they commit a crime with a gun''
Illegally carrying a gun? The man had no record. THE MAN WAS INSANE!
Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
``This man obviously was acting as a result of evil in his heart''
Evil in his heart? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
``I think we ought to make sure people who are mentally deranged
should not have guns. I do not know his background, but it sounds to
me he's mentally deranged. You bet: I want to make sure people like
him don't have guns.''
First he says he had evil in his heart then he says he was mentally
deranged. Huh?
Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
``I think most Americans want someone reasonable, who has a rational
view'' of the issue, he said.
Rational view? Georgie Dimwit ? Pardon me while I vomit.
The real answer is
Non-military, non-law enforcement guns must be outlawed!
Harry
Andrew Northbrook
>Evil in his heart? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
Do you KNOW that? No, you don't, & neither does George Bush Jr.
>The real answer is
>Non-military, non-law enforcement guns must be outlawed!
No, the REAL answer is for people to actually THINK, before they post.
--
think about it,
Andrew Northbrook
The only political-economic system that truly protects the rights of man is
laissez-faire capitalism.
Harry Hope
wrote:
>Evil in his heart? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>
>
>
>Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>
>``I think we ought to make sure people who are mentally deranged
>should not have guns. I do not know his background, but it sounds to
>me he's mentally deranged. You bet: I want to make sure people like
>him don't have guns.''
>
>
>
>First he says he had evil in his heart then he says he was mentally
>deranged. Huh?
>
>
>
>Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>
>``I think most Americans want someone reasonable, who has a rational
>view'' of the issue, he said.
>
>
>
>
>Rational view? Georgie Dimwit ? Pardon me while I vomit.
>
>
>
>The real answer is
>
>Non-military, non-law enforcement guns must be outlawed!
>
>Harry
The source of the quotes is http://www.newsday.com/ap/rnmpnt20.htm
Harry
Greg Dean
Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote ...
:
: From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
:
:
: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
:
: ``There seems to be a wave of evil passing through America.
: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
: there is more love in our society,''
:
:
: Wave of evil? THE GUNMAN WAS INSANE!
America is very dysfunctional. The ethical safeguards
we had 30 years ago are now gone. Family and community
are non existent. We know what it takes to restrict such
individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
:
:
: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
:
: ``It's hard to explain how somebody would have enough hatred in their
: heart to walk into a church where people are seeking God's guidance
: and shoot them''
:
:
: Hard to explain hatred? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
:
And he may have been on the extreme Left as well.
:
: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
:
: ``I don't know a governmental law that will put love in people's
: hearts''
:
:
: Governmental law? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
:
You can't legislate morality. Fear and anger
are leading indicators of a type of insanity.
Such fear and anger are tools used by the
Left to get votes.
:
:
: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
:
: ``We must have laws that keep the guns out of the hands of people that
: should not have them. We must strongly enforce laws on the books. We
: must hold gun dealers accountable if they are illegally selling them.
: We need to hold people accountable if they are illegally carrying a
: gun. And we need to arrest people if they commit a crime with a gun''
:
:
:
: Illegally carrying a gun? The man had no record. THE MAN WAS INSANE!
:
:
But you want a total gun ban. A gun ban that
would lead to a police state.
:
:
: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
:
: ``This man obviously was acting as a result of evil in his heart''
:
:
:
: Evil in his heart? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
:
:
Some forms of insanity feed on evil.
:
: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
:
: ``I think we ought to make sure people who are mentally deranged
: should not have guns. I do not know his background, but it sounds to
: me he's mentally deranged. You bet: I want to make sure people like
: him don't have guns.''
:
:
:
: First he says he had evil in his heart then he says he was mentally
: deranged. Huh?
:
:
Often the same thing.
:
: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
:
: ``I think most Americans want someone reasonable, who has a rational
: view'' of the issue, he said.
:
:
:
:
: Rational view? Georgie Dimwit ? Pardon me while I vomit.
:
:
:
: The real answer is
:
: Non-military, non-law enforcement guns must be outlawed!
:
: Harry
Then we in the military, and in law enforcement, will be
your superiors. After all we are more trusted than an
idiot liberal such as yourself. And we are held to a level
of accountability that you could never attain.
The insane, those with felony convictions, must not
only be stripped of the right to carry weapons but of
the right to vote and to be issued licenses from professional
boards and governmental agencies. These individuals
have lost the trust of their communities. And we currently
have no means that they can re-earn such trust.
Buck
Buck
Harry Hope wrote in message <37e11f89....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
>
>
>Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>
>``There seems to be a wave of evil passing through America.
>And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
>decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
>there is more love in our society,''
>
>
>Wave of evil? THE GUNMAN WAS INSANE!
>
>
>
>Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>
>``It's hard to explain how somebody would have enough hatred in their
>heart to walk into a church where people are seeking God's guidance
>and shoot them''
>
>
>Hard to explain hatred? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>
>
>Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>
>``I don't know a governmental law that will put love in people's
>hearts''
>
>
>Governmental law? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>
>
>
>Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>
>``We must have laws that keep the guns out of the hands of people that
>should not have them. We must strongly enforce laws on the books. We
>must hold gun dealers accountable if they are illegally selling them.
>We need to hold people accountable if they are illegally carrying a
>gun. And we need to arrest people if they commit a crime with a gun''
>
>
>
>Illegally carrying a gun? The man had no record. THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>
>
>
>
>Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>
>``This man obviously was acting as a result of evil in his heart''
>
>
>
>Evil in his heart? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>
>
>
>Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>
>``I think we ought to make sure people who are mentally deranged
>should not have guns. I do not know his background, but it sounds to
>me he's mentally deranged. You bet: I want to make sure people like
>him don't have guns.''
>
>
>
>First he says he had evil in his heart then he says he was mentally
>deranged. Huh?
>
>
>
Len Freedman
: America is very dysfunctional. The ethical safeguards
: we had 30 years ago are now gone. Family and community
: are non existent. We know what it takes to restrict such
: individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
Greg, I've been hanging out here for a while and I've heard
the arguments. I know you'd like to blame the 'rise of
liberalism' since the Reagan revolution or some such thing.
I know you guys would like to say that this guy had already
broken some existing laws so we don't need new ones (like for
instance, shooting someone with a gun is already illegal
so why do we need further controls?) And we could argue
about just why it is that 'family and community are non-
existant'.
But you said something here that interest me.
> We know what it takes to restrict such individuals yet
> the courts do not allow us.
Can you tell us in a paragraph or two just what it is you'd
like to do to restrict 'such individuals'? Or even to
*identify* which individuals are likely to just suddenly
go off their rocker and shoot up a church or a day care
center?
:: Hard to explain hatred? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
: And he may have been on the extreme Left as well.
Seems to me this more often happens with people on the
extreme right.
: You can't legislate morality. Fear and anger
: are leading indicators of a type of insanity.
: Such fear and anger are tools used by the Left
: to get votes.
Like immigrant bashing? And ads that say if we have
affirmative action some unqualified black man is going
to get your vote?
:: Illegally carrying a gun? The man had no record. THE
:: MAN WAS INSANE!
: But you want a total gun ban. A gun ban that
: would lead to a police state.
Gosh, it's sooo easy for you guys to overstate the case.
Reductio ad absurdem. (Did I spell that right?) And
Pat Robertson wants to throw all agnostics in jail.
: Some forms of insanity feed on evil.
Or vice versa. 8^)
: The insane, those with felony convictions, must not
: only be stripped of the right to carry weapons but of
: the right to vote and to be issued licenses from professional
: boards and governmental agencies. These individuals
: have lost the trust of their communities. And we currently
: have no means that they can re-earn such trust.
I don't remember reading that this guy was a felon, or
anything else about his history that would bear on whether
or not he had the right to carry a gun and shoot kids
in a church. If he did have a license, you will say the
issuing agency was to lenient. If he didn't, you'll say
he broke the existing law and so we don't need further
laws.
RHA
Greg Dean <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>
>Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote ...
>:
>: From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
>:
>:
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``There seems to be a wave of evil passing through America.
>: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
>: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
>: there is more love in our society,''
>:
>:
>: Wave of evil? THE GUNMAN WAS INSANE!
>
>America is very dysfunctional. The ethical safeguards
>we had 30 years ago are now gone. Family and community
>are non existent.
Actually, you're correct. However, you don't know
how or why. Andrew Hall, in another thread, posted
that "we are a mobile society"; ie., individuals
are required to move for employment. That means
one is constantly in the presence of strangers
to whom one has no emotional connection. This lack
of emotional linkage, emotional isolation, is what
leads to events like the Texas church, Littleton, et al.
> We know what it takes to restrict such
>individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
See what I mean about not understanding "how or why" you
were correct? You see further isolation (confinement)
as the answer, rather than social inclusion. The Texas
church gunman lost his father and (apparently) become
more and more isolated, so you demand more exclusion for
this person.
>
>:
>:
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``It's hard to explain how somebody would have enough hatred in their
>: heart to walk into a church where people are seeking God's guidance
>: and shoot them''
>:
>:
>: Hard to explain hatred? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>:
>
>And he may have been on the extreme Left as well.
>
>:
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``I don't know a governmental law that will put love in people's
>: hearts''
>:
>:
>: Governmental law? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>:
>
>You can't legislate morality. Fear and anger
>are leading indicators of a type of insanity.
>Such fear and anger are tools used by the
>Left to get votes.
>
>:
>:
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``We must have laws that keep the guns out of the hands of people that
>: should not have them. We must strongly enforce laws on the books. We
>: must hold gun dealers accountable if they are illegally selling them.
>: We need to hold people accountable if they are illegally carrying a
>: gun. And we need to arrest people if they commit a crime with a gun''
>:
>:
>:
>: Illegally carrying a gun? The man had no record. THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>:
>:
>
>But you want a total gun ban. A gun ban that
>would lead to a police state.
>
>:
>:
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``This man obviously was acting as a result of evil in his heart''
>:
>:
>:
>: Evil in his heart? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>:
>:
>
>Some forms of insanity feed on evil.
>
>:
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``I think we ought to make sure people who are mentally deranged
>: should not have guns. I do not know his background, but it sounds to
>: me he's mentally deranged. You bet: I want to make sure people like
>: him don't have guns.''
>:
>:
>:
>: First he says he had evil in his heart then he says he was mentally
>: deranged. Huh?
>:
>:
>
>Often the same thing.
>
>:
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``I think most Americans want someone reasonable, who has a rational
>: view'' of the issue, he said.
>:
>:
>:
>:
>: Rational view? Georgie Dimwit ? Pardon me while I vomit.
>:
>:
>:
>: The real answer is
>:
>: Non-military, non-law enforcement guns must be outlawed!
>:
>: Harry
>
>Then we in the military, and in law enforcement, will be
>your superiors. After all we are more trusted than an
>idiot liberal such as yourself. And we are held to a level
>of accountability that you could never attain.
>
>The insane, those with felony convictions, must not
>only be stripped of the right to carry weapons but of
>the right to vote and to be issued licenses from professional
>boards and governmental agencies. These individuals
>have lost the trust of their communities. And we currently
>have no means that they can re-earn such trust.
>
>
>
--
rha
tony G as Frank Cannon
>
>Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote ...
>:
>: From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
>:
>:
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``There seems to be a wave of evil passing through America.
>: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
>: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
>: there is more love in our society,''
>:
>:
>: Wave of evil? THE GUNMAN WAS INSANE!
>:
>
>America is very dysfunctional. The ethical safeguards
>we had 30 years ago are now gone.
Where are the ethicists that say that mass murder is OK? How is a
person who snaps and loses all ration sense going to behave an a
manner you deem ethical. From your past posts I'm sure you can trumpet
out all the usual non sense about liberals ruining America and its all
their fault that people don't behave exactly as you require. Oddly
enough no one has ever advocated murder in the last 30 years. Crazy
right wing anti abortion ranting aside.
>Family and community
>are non existent.
As people escape to the suburbs community breaks down. Who are the
people who escape to he suburbs?
>We know what it takes to restrict such
>individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
This is rich. The government tracks down and badgers a group of
people who adhere to what you consider a abnormal behaviour and the
first time a fellow right winger gets bothered we hear about the
oppresive federal government at top volume. I'm would wonder what
your opinion concerning Waco is.
It seems that when the government is pestering people in the name of
your dogma it would be OK.
>:
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``It's hard to explain how somebody would have enough hatred in their
>: heart to walk into a church where people are seeking God's guidance
>: and shoot them''
>:
>:
>: Hard to explain hatred? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>:
>
>And he may have been on the extreme Left as well.
That could well be. Insane people are influenced by all sorts of
stimuli. My favorite right wing offspring drove her kids into a
river. Hero of the stupid Newt tried to blame it on "the liberals"
just as you are doing now and it turned out that her family was CC
memebers.
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``I don't know a governmental law that will put love in people's
>: hearts''
>:
>:
>: Governmental law? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>:
>
>You can't legislate morality. Fear and anger
>are leading indicators of a type of insanity.
>Such fear and anger are tools used by the
>Left to get votes.
you said and I quote
"We know what it takes to restrict such individuals yet the courts do
not allow us."
If you are against legislating morality how did you think you were
going to catch this guy before he shot up a church? I have yet to see
where he has had a run in with the law in his history.
Then you go in an attempt to blame the left for insanity. What makes
people crazy runs a lot deaper than your wierd anti lefty theory.
>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>:
>: ``We must have laws that keep the guns out of the hands of people that
>: should not have them. We must strongly enforce laws on the books. We
>: must hold gun dealers accountable if they are illegally selling them.
>: We need to hold people accountable if they are illegally carrying a
>: gun. And we need to arrest people if they commit a crime with a gun''
>:
>:
>:
>: Illegally carrying a gun? The man had no record. THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>:
>:
>
>But you want a total gun ban. A gun ban that
>would lead to a police state.
As you said.
"We know what it takes to restrict such individuals yet the courts do
not allow us."
I suppose a police state that would reflect your world view wouldn't
be a police state. After reading your half backed "the liberals are
the cause of all evil" posts a person is led to wonder about you.
"the insane"? How do you define that?
Mental health isn't like your jingoistic world, it is a not simple
task to define who is irrational in all instances or who is just a
little kooky. Should a 60 year old cat lady be allowed to vote?
Should a Clinton obsesed gun nut be allowed to vote?
hamilton
as Frank Cannon) wrote:
And not to put too fine a point on it -- GOP official, child molesting
CC members.
Greg Dean
: : we had 30 years ago are now gone. Family and community
: : are non existent. We know what it takes to restrict such
: : individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
: Greg, I've been hanging out here for a while and I've heard
: the arguments. I know you'd like to blame the 'rise of
: liberalism' since the Reagan revolution or some such thing.
: I know you guys would like to say that this guy had already
: broken some existing laws so we don't need new ones (like for
: instance, shooting someone with a gun is already illegal
: so why do we need further controls?) And we could argue
: about just why it is that 'family and community are non-
: existant'.
Actually I was referring to sociologists in the late '60s who
said that divorce was good for the kids. And to the fact
that we move so much that no one connects to anyone.
There is no sense of community. It is hard to feel like you
belong.
I loved Germany. I had my pubs and clubs. I had my friends.
I felt like I belonged. Over there if you lose your job, get divorced,
life still goes on. Your social life isn't tied to your job or marriage.
: But you said something here that interest me.
:
: > We know what it takes to restrict such individuals yet
: > the courts do not allow us.
:
: Can you tell us in a paragraph or two just what it is you'd
: like to do to restrict 'such individuals'? Or even to
: *identify* which individuals are likely to just suddenly
: go off their rocker and shoot up a church or a day care
: center?
:
We used to be able to identify such individuals becuase
we lived in small towns and everyone knew everyone else.
It is still that way in much of Europe. On the other hand most
Europeans feel very restricted.
I once had a conversation with a local judge who had been
a deputy prosecutor. She pointed out that we already know
most of the potential offenders. But we are not allowed to
keep lists of them nor are we allowed to track them. It would
be considered harassment. Yet assigning a governmental
agent to keep track of potential criminals and those who are
on the fringe of society would not be that costly.
The former mayor of Washington DC (the one between the
two Barry terms) had said that it cost $40,000 to put a juvenile
offender in jail. She said that she could find 5 men in any church
in town that could find a lot for kid to do for that kind of money!
In reality our society needs to slow down and reconnect.
These people are getting lost because the rest of us are
too busy getting ahead.
: :: Hard to explain hatred? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
: :
: : Some forms of insanity feed on evil.
:
: Or vice versa. 8^)
:
: : The insane, those with felony convictions, must not
: : only be stripped of the right to carry weapons but of
: : the right to vote and to be issued licenses from professional
: : boards and governmental agencies. These individuals
: : have lost the trust of their communities. And we currently
: : have no means that they can re-earn such trust.
:
: I don't remember reading that this guy was a felon, or
:
:
:
Greg Dean
: >: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
: >: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
: >: there is more love in our society,''
: >:
: >
: >we had 30 years ago are now gone. Family and community
: >are non existent.
: Actually, you're correct. However, you don't know
: how or why. Andrew Hall, in another thread, posted
: that "we are a mobile society"; ie., individuals
: are required to move for employment. That means
: one is constantly in the presence of strangers
: to whom one has no emotional connection. This lack
: of emotional linkage, emotional isolation, is what
: leads to events like the Texas church, Littleton, et al.
Our society needs to slow down. Guys like this slip thru
the cracks because the rest of us are too busy getting
ahead.
I have neighborhoods here that have $200,000 houses
that people treat like apartments. They are gone within
a year. These folks identify with their careers not their
neighborhoods.
: > We know what it takes to restrict such
: >individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
:
: See what I mean about not understanding "how or why" you
: were correct? You see further isolation (confinement)
: as the answer, rather than social inclusion. The Texas
: church gunman lost his father and (apparently) become
: more and more isolated, so you demand more exclusion for
: this person.
However if confinement brings these folks in touch with
others, that is better than nothing. Many mental ill need
to be supervised just to make sure they take their medication.
However we all need to reach out to others. My community
is growing to fast (less than 1.7% unemployment). We are
in danger of losing what makes my community what it is will
be lost because of the growth. We are losing our friendliness,
our openness, due to becoming a big city. I try to encourage
people to say Hi to someone they do not know at least once
a day.
Greg Dean
: >: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
: >: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
: >: there is more love in our society,''
: >:
: >
: >we had 30 years ago are now gone.
:
: Where are the ethicists that say that mass murder is OK? How is a
: person who snaps and loses all ration sense going to behave an a
: manner you deem ethical. From your past posts I'm sure you can trumpet
: out all the usual non sense about liberals ruining America and its all
: their fault that people don't behave exactly as you require. Oddly
: enough no one has ever advocated murder in the last 30 years. Crazy
: right wing anti abortion ranting aside.
No the academics in the late '60s said that
divorce would not harm the children. That
adultery was good for a marriage (open marriage
was the rage). And the liberals forced the
courts to open the doors of the mental institutions
so that we now have a mess in trying to do long
term treatment of the mentally ill.
: >Family and community
: >are non existent.
:
: As people escape to the suburbs community breaks down. Who are the
: people who escape to he suburbs?
:
Don't forget about how folks move from community
to community following the job.
: >We know what it takes to restrict such
: >individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
:
: This is rich. The government tracks down and badgers a group of
: people who adhere to what you consider a abnormal behaviour and the
: first time a fellow right winger gets bothered we hear about the
: oppresive federal government at top volume. I'm would wonder what
: your opinion concerning Waco is.
:
: It seems that when the government is pestering people in the name of
: your dogma it would be OK.
:
We need to be able to use the courts to restrict those
who are anti-social. Both on the Left and the Right.
:
: >:
: >: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
: >:
: >: ``It's hard to explain how somebody would have enough hatred in their
: >: heart to walk into a church where people are seeking God's guidance
: >: and shoot them''
: >:
: >:
: >: Hard to explain hatred? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
: >:
: >
: >And he may have been on the extreme Left as well.
:
: That could well be. Insane people are influenced by all sorts of
: stimuli. My favorite right wing offspring drove her kids into a
: river. Hero of the stupid Newt tried to blame it on "the liberals"
: just as you are doing now and it turned out that her family was CC
: memebers.
:
: >: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
: >:
: >: ``I don't know a governmental law that will put love in people's
: >: hearts''
: >:
: >:
: >: Governmental law? THE MAN WAS INSANE!
: >:
: >
: >You can't legislate morality. Fear and anger
: >are leading indicators of a type of insanity.
: >Such fear and anger are tools used by the
: >Left to get votes.
:
: you said and I quote
: "We know what it takes to restrict such individuals yet the courts do
: not allow us."
:
: If you are against legislating morality how did you think you were
: going to catch this guy before he shot up a church? I have yet to see
: where he has had a run in with the law in his history.
:
He had a conviction for possession of marijuana.
Laws do not heal people. People do. Laws can't make you
love someone (Hate crimes). Nor can they make you not love
someone (anti-gay laws).
: Then you go in an attempt to blame the left for insanity. What makes
: people crazy runs a lot deaper than your wierd anti lefty theory.
:
Much of the problems in our society is that we need to
slow down. Go back to church. Spend time with family.
These people fall thru the cracks because they have no
one who cares.
: >: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
: >:
: >: ``We must have laws that keep the guns out of the hands of people that
: >: should not have them. We must strongly enforce laws on the books. We
: >: must hold gun dealers accountable if they are illegally selling them.
: >: We need to hold people accountable if they are illegally carrying a
: >: gun. And we need to arrest people if they commit a crime with a gun''
: >:
: >:
: >:
: >: Illegally carrying a gun? The man had no record. THE MAN WAS INSANE!
: >:
: >:
: >
: >But you want a total gun ban. A gun ban that
: >would lead to a police state.
:
: As you said.
: "We know what it takes to restrict such individuals yet the courts do
: not allow us."
:
: I suppose a police state that would reflect your world view wouldn't
: be a police state. After reading your half backed "the liberals are
: the cause of all evil" posts a person is led to wonder about you.
Taken too far it would be a police state. But many liberals, in their
desire to help people who are victims of society, went too far the
other way.
: >
: >The insane, those with felony convictions, must not
: >only be stripped of the right to carry weapons but of
: >the right to vote and to be issued licenses from professional
: >boards and governmental agencies. These individuals
: >have lost the trust of their communities. And we currently
: >have no means that they can re-earn such trust.
:
: "the insane"? How do you define that?
:
: Mental health isn't like your jingoistic world, it is a not simple
: task to define who is irrational in all instances or who is just a
: little kooky. Should a 60 year old cat lady be allowed to vote?
: Should a Clinton obsesed gun nut be allowed to vote?
We have courts to do that. Insane would be those with
chemical imbalances of the brain. Also those with chemical
dependency, to include those born to addicted mothers. It
has to be a court process to protect the innocent.
When a person can't function in society, when they become
anti-social, then their rights need to be restricted. They
also need supervision.
tony G as Frank Cannon
>: >: ``There seems to be a wave of evil passing through America.
>: >: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
>: >: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
>: >: there is more love in our society,''
>: >:
>: >
>: >America is very dysfunctional. The ethical safeguards
>: >we had 30 years ago are now gone.
>:
>: Where are the ethicists that say that mass murder is OK? How is a
>: person who snaps and loses all ration sense going to behave an a
>: manner you deem ethical. From your past posts I'm sure you can trumpet
>: out all the usual non sense about liberals ruining America and its all
>: their fault that people don't behave exactly as you require. Oddly
>: enough no one has ever advocated murder in the last 30 years. Crazy
>: right wing anti abortion ranting aside.
>:
>
>No the academics in the late '60s said that
>divorce would not harm the children. That
>adultery was good for a marriage (open marriage
>was the rage). And the liberals forced the
>courts to open the doors of the mental institutions
>so that we now have a mess in trying to do long
>term treatment of the mentally ill.
I see we're back to your obsession with "the 60's".
The liberals and Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was behind "main
streaming" where he closed the nut hatches to save a buck. Some
liberals were also behind this too. Somehow everything is the
liberals fault.
As to "academics".... Do they lead or follow, to put it another way
did they reflect society or coment on it? Do you have any proof that
people actually have listened to them(or that they actually put out
the positions that you say they do in any numbers).
You still have yet to answer the question who advocates mass murder?
>: >Family and community
>: >are non existent.
>:
>: As people escape to the suburbs community breaks down. Who are the
>: people who escape to he suburbs?
>:
>
>Don't forget about how folks move from community
>to community following the job.
Sure.
>: >We know what it takes to restrict such
>: >individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
>:
>: This is rich. The government tracks down and badgers a group of
>: people who adhere to what you consider a abnormal behaviour and the
>: first time a fellow right winger gets bothered we hear about the
>: oppresive federal government at top volume. I'm would wonder what
>: your opinion concerning Waco is.
>:
>: It seems that when the government is pestering people in the name of
>: your dogma it would be OK.
>:
>
>We need to be able to use the courts to restrict those
>who are anti-social. Both on the Left and the Right.
Thats a bad idea.
OK.
I don't think this would be grounds to snoop into his personal life.
Possesion is trivial.
>Laws do not heal people. People do. Laws can't make you
>love someone (Hate crimes).
Unless its to require prayer in schools.
>Nor can they make you not love
>someone (anti-gay laws).
It seems that increased penalties for assaullting or killing cops will
though?
>: Then you go in an attempt to blame the left for insanity. What makes
>: people crazy runs a lot deaper than your wierd anti lefty theory.
>:
>
>Much of the problems in our society is that we need to
>slow down. Go back to church.
Unfortunately I'm of the opinion god is a myth.
>Spend time with family.
Those are the last people I need to talk to.
>These people fall thru the cracks because they have no
>one who cares.
I would agree with you here though. People need a support group and a
feeling of belonging of sorts. The popularity of AA as an example. I
prefer my pals at the bar though. heh.
>: >: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>: >:
>: >: ``We must have laws that keep the guns out of the hands of people that
>: >: should not have them. We must strongly enforce laws on the books. We
>: >: must hold gun dealers accountable if they are illegally selling them.
>: >: We need to hold people accountable if they are illegally carrying a
>: >: gun. And we need to arrest people if they commit a crime with a gun''
>: >:
>: >:
>: >:
>: >: Illegally carrying a gun? The man had no record. THE MAN WAS INSANE!
>: >:
>: >:
>: >
>: >But you want a total gun ban. A gun ban that
>: >would lead to a police state.
>:
>: As you said.
>: "We know what it takes to restrict such individuals yet the courts do
>: not allow us."
>:
>: I suppose a police state that would reflect your world view wouldn't
>: be a police state. After reading your half backed "the liberals are
>: the cause of all evil" posts a person is led to wonder about you.
>
>Taken too far it would be a police state. But many liberals, in their
>desire to help people who are victims of society, went too far the
>other way.
I wouldn't disagree with that.
I feel that the state is a greater danger than the odd nut case so I
tend to lean away from them deciding who is crazy and who isn't.
>: >The insane, those with felony convictions, must not
>: >only be stripped of the right to carry weapons but of
>: >the right to vote and to be issued licenses from professional
>: >boards and governmental agencies. These individuals
>: >have lost the trust of their communities. And we currently
>: >have no means that they can re-earn such trust.
>:
>: "the insane"? How do you define that?
>:
>: Mental health isn't like your jingoistic world, it is a not simple
>: task to define who is irrational in all instances or who is just a
>: little kooky. Should a 60 year old cat lady be allowed to vote?
>: Should a Clinton obsesed gun nut be allowed to vote?
>We have courts to do that. Insane would be those with
>chemical imbalances of the brain.
Maybe...
>Also those with chemical
>dependency,
No...
>to include those born to addicted mothers.
This is already done often times. My aunt is a tough love social
worker who takes kids from drug adicts and never gives them back.
>It has to be a court process to protect the innocent.
>When a person can't function in society, when they become
>anti-social, then their rights need to be restricted. They
>also need supervision.
Neither is against the law.
Mary E Knadler
ri...@new-orleans.neosoft.com (RHA) writes:
>
>In article <vgaE3.312$VW3....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
>Greg Dean <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>>
>>Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote ...
>>:
>>: From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
>>:
>>:
>>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>>:
>>: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for
the
>>: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
>>: there is more love in our society,''
>>:
>>:
>>:
>>
>>are non existent.
>
> Actually, you're correct. However, you don't know
> how or why. Andrew Hall, in another thread, posted
> that "we are a mobile society"; ie., individuals
> are required to move for employment. That means
> one is constantly in the presence of strangers
> to whom one has no emotional connection. This lack
> of emotional linkage, emotional isolation, is what
> leads to events like the Texas church, Littleton, et al.
>
>>individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
>
> were correct? You see further isolation (confinement)
> as the answer, rather than social inclusion. The Texas
> church gunman lost his father and (apparently) become
> more and more isolated, so you demand more exclusion for
> this person.
>
yasmin2:
>
There are treatment programs for the mentally ill but every
time one of these things occurs, the only thing that seems
to happen is a call for stricter gun laws especially by the
people who hate guns & the Government. But most of the people
involved in these shootings have been emotionally or mentally
ill.
I think people including family members should be aware that
there is help available to these people BEFORE they commit
tragic acts such as this.
But the courts & the ACLU have made it harder & harder for people
to be treated in hospitals & treatment centers. I think that
is the REAL reason we are having so many more of these type of
shootings.
Before the current laws were passed alot of these people would
be in hospitals recieving proper tratment. And not released into
society until they were deemed to be stablized & no longer a danger
to society. John Hinckley has just been given the priviledge of
making supervised visits to the home of his parents. This is what these
people need..... caring supervision so that they can live a better
life, without the return of their illness.
Unless & until these laws are changed these tragedies will
continue to occur. Gun Control is NOT the answer. These people
desperately need help before a tragedy occurs.... after it is too
late for those who have lost their loved ones.
Greg Dean
The mainstreaming theory was first put forth in the mid 70s.
The ACLU forced mental institutions to remove patients. By
the time Reagan was in office the theory was just accepted.
: As to "academics".... Do they lead or follow, to put it another way
: did they reflect society or coment on it? Do you have any proof that
: people actually have listened to them(or that they actually put out
: the positions that you say they do in any numbers).
:
In the early '70s social scientists wanted to not just observe
society but be able to influence it as well. From that point they
(Sociology, Psychology, History, Journalism, Economics, etc)
have become more proactive, not just writing papers, by becoming
advisors to the politicians. There influence is seen at all levels
of public policy. Again they used to only observe and report.
: You still have yet to answer the question who advocates mass murder?
:
It was a prime theory within Marxism. Remove the current leadership,
especially the educated, and the people would bloom into free thinking
individuals. Pol Pot championed this position.
: >: >Family and community
:
Then create a family. What do you think gang bangers
do? The gang is a replacement for family, however poor
it is. It is better than nothing.
: >These people fall thru the cracks because they have no
Laws can be changed. So can the constitution
as well. Or have the USSC interpret the constitution
in your favor.
SON O GOD
yas...@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>In <65643E9541069B0B.E2FA6382...@lp.airnews.net>
>ri...@new-orleans.neosoft.com (RHA) writes:
>>
>>In article <vgaE3.312$VW3....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
>>Greg Dean <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote ...
>>>:
>>>: From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>: Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>>>:
>>>: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for
>the
>>>: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
>>>: there is more love in our society,''
>>>:
>>>:
>>>:
>>>
>>>are non existent.
>>
>> Actually, you're correct. However, you don't know
>> how or why. Andrew Hall, in another thread, posted
>> that "we are a mobile society"; ie., individuals
>> are required to move for employment. That means
>> one is constantly in the presence of strangers
>> to whom one has no emotional connection. This lack
>> of emotional linkage, emotional isolation, is what
>> leads to events like the Texas church, Littleton, et al.
>>
>>>individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
>>
>> were correct? You see further isolation (confinement)
>> as the answer, rather than social inclusion. The Texas
>> church gunman lost his father and (apparently) become
>> more and more isolated, so you demand more exclusion for
>> this person.
>
>>
>yasmin2:
>>
>There are treatment programs for the mentally ill but every
>time one of these things occurs, the only thing that seems
>to happen is a call for stricter gun laws especially by the
>people who hate guns & the Government. But most of the people
>involved in these shootings have been emotionally or mentally
>ill.
>
>I think people including family members should be aware that
>there is help available to these people BEFORE they commit
>tragic acts such as this.
>
>But the courts & the ACLU have made it harder & harder for people
>to be treated in hospitals & treatment centers. I think that
>is the REAL reason we are having so many more of these type of
>shootings.
What treament centers for mental health are you describing, Mary? Are you
refering to the now defunct system of public out-patient clinics and community
housing for mental patients that was dismantelled by Reagan's funding cuts in
the 1980s?
?
Greg Dean
Before that system of local treatment was a system of
state hospital that the ACLU forced into closing. It is
cheaper to mass treat those with mental illness.
We could use the old state hospitals to hold those convicted
of drug and alcohol abuse instead of prisons.
:
:
: ?
:
Tommy T-Rex
news:37e11f89....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>
> From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
>
>
> Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
>
-snip-
>
> Rational view? Georgie Dimwit ? Pardon me while I vomit.
>
>
>
> The real answer is
>
> Non-military, non-law enforcement guns must be outlawed!
>
> Harry
Hey, go ahead and pass some more lame laws. And enforce those just as
well as you have the other lame gun laws.
The more laws you pass, the more people die. And all this butchery during
the loving Klinton years.
--
Tommy T-Rex
THE FEDERALIST® DIGEST
The Internet's Conservative Journal of Record
http://www.Federalist.com
--
Windows 95 (win-DOH-z), n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical
shell to a sixteen bit patch to an eight bit operating system
originally coded for a four bit microprocessor which was used in a PC
built by a formerly two bit company that couldn't stand one bit of
competition
Michael Ejercito
<tmti...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:37e11f89....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> >
> > From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
> >
> >
> > Georgie Dimwit nonsense:
> >
>
> -snip-
>
> >
> > Rational view? Georgie Dimwit ? Pardon me while I vomit.
> >
> >
> >
> > The real answer is
> >
> > Non-military, non-law enforcement guns must be outlawed!
> >
> > Harry
>
> Hey, go ahead and pass some more lame laws. And enforce those just as
> well as you have the other lame gun laws.
>
> The more laws you pass, the more people die. And all this butchery during
> the loving Klinton years.
At least we know that Hairy Dope wants to ban all guns,except for
military and law enforcement. Maybe he wants martial law as well.
Michael
Greg Dean
: >> : we had 30 years ago are now gone. Family and community
: >> : individuals yet the courts do not allow us.
: >>
: >> the arguments. I know you'd like to blame the 'rise of
: >> liberalism' since the Reagan revolution or some such thing.
: >> I know you guys would like to say that this guy had already
: >> broken some existing laws so we don't need new ones (like for
: >> instance, shooting someone with a gun is already illegal
: >> so why do we need further controls?) And we could argue
: >> about just why it is that 'family and community are non-
: >> existant'.
: >>
: Greg> Actually I was referring to sociologists in the late '60s who
: Greg> said that divorce was good for the kids. And to the fact
:
: It is true that divorce is better than a very unhappy marriage,
: but your statement is strange. Citation please.
:
It would take some research to get the exact citation. I can remember
the two sociologists (husband and wife team) that pushed open marriage
in the late '60s. They felt, as you do, that divorce is better than an
unhappy
marriage. What they did assume was that the kids would just get over
it. That doesn't happen. The kids blames themselves for the divorce.
Too many kids only want their parents to just get back together.
: Greg> that we move so much that no one connects to anyone.
: Greg> There is no sense of community. It is hard to feel like you
: Greg> belong.
:
: Greg> I loved Germany. I had my pubs and clubs. I had my friends.
: Greg> I felt like I belonged. Over there if you lose your job, get
divorced,
: Greg> life still goes on. Your social life isn't tied to your job or
marriage.
:
:
: ah
Have you lived in Europe? I love the slow pace. The
time to make friends. The sense of belonging to a
community.
Len Freedman
:: What treament centers for mental health are you describing, Mary?
:: Are you refering to the now defunct system of public out-patient
:: clinics and community housing for mental patients that was
:: dismantelled by Reagan's funding cuts in the 1980s?
: Before that system of local treatment was a system of
: state hospital that the ACLU forced into closing. It is
: cheaper to mass treat those with mental illness.
: We could use the old state hospitals to hold those convicted
: of drug and alcohol abuse instead of prisons.
Reagan closed California's state hospitals in the '70s. One
of the biggest in this area is about a mile from my shop. It
was abandoned for 20 years and now is being converted to a
campus for Sun Microsystems.
For a while after the state hospitals were closed there were
'halfway houses' where people could lead supervised lives. Now
even those are gone. It goes a long way towards explaining
the increase in the homeless population.
We have plenty of new prisons, though.
Len Freedman
: No the academics in the late '60s said that
: divorce would not harm the children. That
: adultery was good for a marriage (open marriage
: was the rage).
Some people did say that during the 'sexual revolution'.
I'd hardly say it was 'all the rage'. You're probably
older than I am; did you know anyone in an 'open
marriage'?
Divorce was de-stigmatized in the '60s. Which I think
is good. Even I can remember when a divorced woman
was not welcome in the neighborhood, wives thought
she was after all their husbands.
: And the liberals forced the courts to open the doors of
: the mental institutions so that we now have a mess in
: trying to do long term treatment of the mentally ill.
I think the question was always whether or not they
were a danger to themselves or others. That's not an
easy call. If you're going to lock up all the people
who might possibly someday go psycho, you'd have to
lock up a lot of people! There's a lot of us who walk
around free and live useful lives who a lot of people
think are a little 'tetched'. My family would have
put me away years ago. 8^)
::>Family and community
::>are non existent.
:: As people escape to the suburbs community breaks down.
:: Who are the people who escape to he suburbs?
: Don't forget about how folks move from community
: to community following the job.
You like to blame this on 'liberals', but couldn't it just
be a consequence of American-style capitalism? We criticize
European countries for being 'socialist', but maybe that
sense of community you loved so much is because their
cultures don't put such a high priority on continuous
economic expansion. Even here, things were better when
we were kids because most moms didn't have to work.
: We need to be able to use the courts to restrict those
: who are anti-social. Both on the Left and the Right.
That's kind of scary to think about. Who sets the standard?
How do we control them? Whose responsibility is it?
Wouldn't it just end up being an excuse for the police
to exercize their powers more selectively and with
more latitude?
: He had a conviction for possession of marijuana.
Wow. Maybe we ought to put radio collars on anyone who
ever had a minor drug conviction.
: Laws do not heal people. People do. Laws can't make you
: love someone (Hate crimes). Nor can they make you not love
: someone (anti-gay laws).
I agree with you. It's our culture that needs to be healed.
I think spiteful politics is a part of it, but it may be
a cause or a result, I don't know.
In any case, it adds fuel to the gun control argument. What
if this guy had had a machine gun? Or a belt full of hand
grenades?
: Much of the problems in our society is that we need to
: slow down. Go back to church. Spend time with family.
: These people fall thru the cracks because they have no
: one who cares.
And because we don't really value children in our culture,
despite all the talk about 'family values' because they
are a drag on the economy.
: We have courts to do that. Insane would be those with
: chemical imbalances of the brain.
You're scaring me again. 8^) There are lots of causes of
insanity. Lots of definitions too.
: Also those with chemical dependency, to include those
: born to addicted mothers. It has to be a court process
: to protect the innocent.
We'd be better off if we could see addiction as a medical
problem rather than a legal one. Try to blame that one
on the ACLU.
: When a person can't function in society, when they become
: anti-social, then their rights need to be restricted. They
: also need supervision.
We used to do that. The reason we stopped is because we
didn't want to pay for it. (And I imagine there were
abuses of the system too. Mental hospitals have long
been used as a secondary prison system. Ever see the
movie 'Bedlam'?)
RHA
You mean the place with socialistic governments?
Where workers aren't left to starve when the business
cycle goes downward? That place? Have you ever wondered
why it's more livable?
--
rha
Lvis
Non-military, non-law enforcement guns must be outlawed!"
Let's see here, hapless. most criminals could give a rat's ass less about
laws. the only ones in our society who do give a rat's ass less about laws
are law-abiding citizens. law-abiding citizens do not go around killing,
maiming, robbing, raping, etc. only criminals do.
So in harry hapless' perfect world, only the criminals will have the guns
and the law-abiding will not and thus crime will be stopped thusly. or is
harry going to be able to wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear?
after harry waves his magic wand, then the criminals will have to use knives
and clubs and bombs. what a safer world for children.
harry, you are confused. it is NOT the gun that performs the act, it is the
CRIMINAL!!! never once have YOU or anyone else ever seen, witnessed, or
heard of a gun getting up on it's own accord and harming anyone.
yes, harry, there are evil or if YOU prefer mentally-deranged people in this
world. the Second Amenmend allows others the ability to defend themselves
against them. it may not be a perfect arrangement as in YOUR imagined little
world, but it's the BEST arrangement we have or are likely to have.
disarming law-abiding citizens is NOT the answer unless the question is how
to cause crime to skyrocket.
Lvis.
--
What part of 'Thou shalt not...' did you not understand?
God.
X-no-archive: yes
Greg Dean
: :: Are you refering to the now defunct system of public out-patient
: :: clinics and community housing for mental patients that was
: :: dismantelled by Reagan's funding cuts in the 1980s?
:
: : Before that system of local treatment was a system of
: : state hospital that the ACLU forced into closing. It is
: : cheaper to mass treat those with mental illness.
:
: : We could use the old state hospitals to hold those convicted
: : of drug and alcohol abuse instead of prisons.
:
: Reagan closed California's state hospitals in the '70s. One
: of the biggest in this area is about a mile from my shop. It
: campus for Sun Microsystems.
:
: For a while after the state hospitals were closed there were
: 'halfway houses' where people could lead supervised lives. Now
: even those are gone. It goes a long way towards explaining
: the increase in the homeless population.
:
: We have plenty of new prisons, though.
The state mental hospitals were forced to empty in my state
during the '70s as well. It just was not only Reagan. The ACLU
forced the issue nationwide. They felt that it wasn't the best way
to treat the mentally ill. And demanded patients rights.
Greg Dean
: : divorce would not harm the children. That
: : adultery was good for a marriage (open marriage
: : was the rage).
: Some people did say that during the 'sexual revolution'.
: I'd hardly say it was 'all the rage'. You're probably
: older than I am; did you know anyone in an 'open
: marriage'?
A few practiced it. Some would say that the Clintons
have an "open marriage". I knew of a several couples
around the local university that practiced open marriage
in the early '70s. Most divorced after a while.
: Divorce was de-stigmatized in the '60s. Which I think
: is good. Even I can remember when a divorced woman
: was not welcome in the neighborhood, wives thought
: she was after all their husbands.
:
Oh god I think everyone of a certain age can remember the
"divorced woman" and the fear it caused. Not say the talk
as well. I also remember the early sexual revolution happening
while I was at university. So many of the girls I associated with
had parents going through divorces. We had never seen anything
like this. It scared the shit out of them! It was a total break down
of the way we were brought up.
I think that having our parent's generation (the WWII types) go
through so massive a number of divorces fueled the sexual
revolution more than anything. It happened while we were in
our early adult years. It seemed to repudiate everything we
were raised to believe. More of that do as I say, not as I do
thinking that the WWII generation practiced. So many of the
young women that I knew were so shell shocked that they would
sleep with you but had no commitment to ever getting married.
It took over 10 years (into the early '80s) for my generation to
heal.
: : And the liberals forced the courts to open the doors of
: : the mental institutions so that we now have a mess in
: : trying to do long term treatment of the mentally ill.
:
: I think the question was always whether or not they
: were a danger to themselves or others. That's not an
: easy call. If you're going to lock up all the people
: who might possibly someday go psycho, you'd have to
: lock up a lot of people! There's a lot of us who walk
: around free and live useful lives who a lot of people
: think are a little 'tetched'. My family would have
: put me away years ago. 8^)
:
We are returning to such a mindset. People are so concerned
as to who is "normal" or who is pyscho that they just want anyone
who isn't living the moderate American professional life to be restricted.
: ::>Family and community
: ::>are non existent.
:
: :: As people escape to the suburbs community breaks down.
: :: Who are the people who escape to he suburbs?
:
: : Don't forget about how folks move from community
: : to community following the job.
:
: You like to blame this on 'liberals', but couldn't it just
: be a consequence of American-style capitalism? We criticize
: European countries for being 'socialist', but maybe that
: sense of community you loved so much is because their
: cultures don't put such a high priority on continuous
: economic expansion. Even here, things were better when
: we were kids because most moms didn't have to work.
:
The problem is that many "liberals", which is really more
libertarian, would have a shit fit over the restrictions that
European governments enforce on their people. In Germany
not working isn't a choice for moms, it is the law. So is not
shopping on Sunday.
Most Europeans will live and die within 25 miles (40 km) of
where they were born. It is a fustration for the German government
because they do have jobs but people will not relocate. We
have gotten so used to relocating that we have gone the other
way. My community is growing. We are feeling the sting of
new people much like Washington State and Colorado did
in the '80s. The older established neighborhoods are being
broken up. New comers move in so rapidly that our culture is
swamped. In time these "nomads" will move to the next boom
town, leaving us gutted.
: : We need to be able to use the courts to restrict those
: : who are anti-social. Both on the Left and the Right.
:
: That's kind of scary to think about. Who sets the standard?
: How do we control them? Whose responsibility is it?
: Wouldn't it just end up being an excuse for the police
: to exercize their powers more selectively and with
: more latitude?
:
Given the current climate, the professional class sets the
standard. But they want the police (working class) to do
the dirty work. Mostly the professional class wants all forms
of unpleasantness to "disappear". And they do not care
how the police do it, just as long as they do not have to
hear about it on the evening news.
: : He had a conviction for possession of marijuana.
:
: Wow. Maybe we ought to put radio collars on anyone who
: ever had a minor drug conviction.
:
It has gotten to that. The professional class (those with
advanced education who run most of our communities)
just wants everything to be pleasant. It is the modern
version of "middle class morality".
: : Laws do not heal people. People do. Laws can't make you
: : love someone (Hate crimes). Nor can they make you not love
: : someone (anti-gay laws).
:
: I agree with you. It's our culture that needs to be healed.
: I think spiteful politics is a part of it, but it may be
: a cause or a result, I don't know.
:
The politics is only a manifestation of deeper problems.
Culturally we are drifting. We are at war with ourselves.
: In any case, it adds fuel to the gun control argument. What
: if this guy had had a machine gun? Or a belt full of hand
: grenades?
:
Gun control would do little to stop a machine gun or
grenades. Both are highly restricted now. For someone
like him to have them, he would have gone to the black
market. The underground market can get anything. They
have grenades stolen from the US Army now. Hell, they
have been selling grenades on street corners in Chicago
since 1987. For $250 each!
Gun control would do little to stop the black market. That
marketplace is already illegal and untaxed. Not unless you
are willing to suspend the Constitution.
: : Much of the problems in our society is that we need to
: : slow down. Go back to church. Spend time with family.
: : These people fall thru the cracks because they have no
: : one who cares.
:
: And because we don't really value children in our culture,
: despite all the talk about 'family values' because they
: are a drag on the economy.
:
I didn't say that anyone but a few us give more than lip
service to such things. I have known too many in the
business community that are totally committed to themselves.
I do not understand why they even had children. And
these folks want the kids out of the house as soon as
possible. Very selfish, over grown children. We have
liberated people to not have to grow up! That is what
the '60s and '70s gave us.
The economy is only an excuse. It gives people a reason
to be selfish. The duties and commitments that most societies
put on people are not part of our current culture. Some of
us realize that there is more to life than just a job and having
toys. Family, friends, a sense of belonging are far more
satisfying. I know so many who have sold out to work. They
truely fear anything else. They fear you seeing how immature
they are under their masks.
These are the people, mostly professional class, who fought
the impeachment. It would have exposed their immaturity, as
they are doing things even worst than Clinton. It might have ruined
the economy. They see themselves as at least moderate to
the "liberal" side of the equation. They do not want the "workers"
telling them how to live their lives. They live above it all in their
nice neighborhoods.
: : We have courts to do that. Insane would be those with
: : chemical imbalances of the brain.
:
: You're scaring me again. 8^) There are lots of causes of
: insanity. Lots of definitions too.
:
Insanity is being more defined as chemical imbalances.
It is where brain chemistry is out of balance such that the
individual no longer has control of his actions.
: : Also those with chemical dependency, to include those
: : born to addicted mothers. It has to be a court process
: : to protect the innocent.
:
: We'd be better off if we could see addiction as a medical
: problem rather than a legal one. Try to blame that one
: on the ACLU.
:
It is a medical problem. With legal aspects. Addiction
can cause the individual to lose control, to become a
problem for the courts. Children born to addict mothers
may have problems their whole lives. The courts need
to step in to provide supervision. Maybe permanent
supervision. But that supervision does not mean prison.
It could be state mental hospitals.
: : When a person can't function in society, when they become
: : anti-social, then their rights need to be restricted. They
: : also need supervision.
:
: We used to do that. The reason we stopped is because we
: didn't want to pay for it. (And I imagine there were
: abuses of the system too. Mental hospitals have long
: been used as a secondary prison system. Ever see the
: movie 'Bedlam'?)
Mental hospitals should be used as secondary prisons. Especially
for those with drug and alcohol problems. A good deal of those in
prison are there because of mental (chemical) illness. They need
treatment that a state mental hospital can give. They also need the
supervision that prison gives.
Michael Ejercito
<N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
Patients rights are a stupid idea. The CLU should be held laible for
peddling such bullshit.
Michael
Greg Dean
Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote...
:
: From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
:
: :
: ``There seems to be a wave of evil passing through America.
: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
: there is more love in our society,''
:
:
: heart to walk into a church where people are seeking God's guidance
: and shoot them''
:
: hearts''
:
:
: ``We must have laws that keep the guns out of the hands of people that
: should not have them. We must strongly enforce laws on the books. We
: must hold gun dealers accountable if they are illegally selling them.
: We need to hold people accountable if they are illegally carrying a
: gun. And we need to arrest people if they commit a crime with a gun''
:
:
:
: should not have guns. I do not know his background, but it sounds to
: me he's mentally deranged. You bet: I want to make sure people like
: him don't have guns.''
:
: view'' of the issue, he said.
George W. Bush maybe the first politicians that really
understands the the fact that our society is in deep
cultural problems. Problems that no law could ever
solve.
It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
much deeper than just guns.
We now have a very fragmented society that does not
want to deal with those with problems (mental or physcial).
We want the poor, the mentally ill and the disabled to just
"disappear".
Zepp
I wonder if he's going to propose that each and every bullet
manufactured in the United States have the ten commandments etched
into them.
>It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
>laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
>about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
>gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
>much deeper than just guns.
Fox Whorely News was just repeating the NRA chant. "Laws don't work!
Boo hoo hoo! Laws don't work!".
So why do they spend millions on defeating laws they claim will do no
good?
>We now have a very fragmented society that does not
>want to deal with those with problems (mental or physcial).
>We want the poor, the mentally ill and the disabled to just
>"disappear".
And the NRA is helping to make it happen...
>
>
>
>
**********************************************************
"Bush could shoot up on Larry King Live and *still* beat Gore!!!"
. -- Pissy, demonstrating that he thinks the election is
bought and in the bag, and it doesn't matter if G-Dub
is a junkie or not.
**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
Liberalism Resurgent, Steve's brilliant
and well-documented page, is mirrored at
the following locations:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
Michael Ejercito
(Zepp) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 02:07:02 GMT, "Greg Dean" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>
> >George W. Bush maybe the first politicians that really
> >understands the the fact that our society is in deep
> >cultural problems. Problems that no law could ever
> >solve.
> >
> I wonder if he's going to propose that each and every bullet
> manufactured in the United States have the ten commandments etched
> into them.
>
> >It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
> >laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
> >about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
> >gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
> >much deeper than just guns.
>
> Fox Whorely News was just repeating the NRA chant. "Laws don't work!
> Boo hoo hoo! Laws don't work!".
Well,some laws work. The laws restricting drugs make drug dealers
wealthy. What do you think laws restricting guns and ammunition will do?
> So why do they spend millions on defeating laws they claim will do no
> good?
those laws hinder people and are expensive to enforce.
Michael
BJF
Zepp wrote in message <37e704a9....@news.snowcrest.net>...
>On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 02:07:02 GMT, "Greg Dean" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>:
>>: From The Associated Press, 9/16/99:
>>:
>>: :
>>: ``There seems to be a wave of evil passing through America.
>>: And we as a society can pass laws and hold people accountable for the
>>: decisions they make, but our hopes and prayers have got to be that
>>: there is more love in our society,''
>>:
>>:
>>: ``It's hard to explain how somebody would have enough hatred in their
>>: heart to walk into a church where people are seeking God's guidance
>>: and shoot them''
>>:
>>:: ``I don't know a governmental law that will put love in people's
>>: hearts''
>>:
>>:
>>: ``We must have laws that keep the guns out of the hands of people that
>>: should not have them. We must strongly enforce laws on the books. We
>>: must hold gun dealers accountable if they are illegally selling them.
>>: We need to hold people accountable if they are illegally carrying a
>>: gun. And we need to arrest people if they commit a crime with a gun''
>>:
>>:
>>: ``This man obviously was acting as a result of evil in his heart''
>>:
>>: ``I think we ought to make sure people who are mentally deranged
>>: should not have guns. I do not know his background, but it sounds to
>>: me he's mentally deranged. You bet: I want to make sure people like
>>: him don't have guns.''
>>:
>>: ``I think most Americans want someone reasonable, who has a rational
>>: view'' of the issue, he said.
>>
>>understands the the fact that our society is in deep
>>cultural problems. Problems that no law could ever
>>solve.
>>
>I wonder if he's going to propose that each and every bullet
>manufactured in the United States have the ten commandments etched
>into them.
>
>>It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
>>laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
>>about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
>>gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
>>much deeper than just guns.
>
>Fox Whorely News was just repeating the NRA chant. "Laws don't work!
>Boo hoo hoo! Laws don't work!".
>
>good?
>
>>want to deal with those with problems (mental or physcial).
>>We want the poor, the mentally ill and the disabled to just
>>"disappear".
>
>And the NRA is helping to make it happen...
Can't these CPUSA holdovers come up with anything original..
Zepp
Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <37e704a9....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
>(Zepp) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 02:07:02 GMT, "Greg Dean" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>>
>> >George W. Bush maybe the first politicians that really
>> >understands the the fact that our society is in deep
>> >cultural problems. Problems that no law could ever
>> >solve.
>> >
>> I wonder if he's going to propose that each and every bullet
>> manufactured in the United States have the ten commandments etched
>> into them.
>>
>> >It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
>> >laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
>> >about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
>> >gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
>> >much deeper than just guns.
>>
>> Fox Whorely News was just repeating the NRA chant. "Laws don't work!
>> Boo hoo hoo! Laws don't work!".
> Well,some laws work. The laws restricting drugs make drug dealers
>wealthy. What do you think laws restricting guns and ammunition will do?
Gun manufacturers are already wealthy. Killed more Americans than
every enemy this country ever had combined, but no fortune was made
without a bit of a price to be paid.
I want limits on power, range, shooting speed and frequency of rounds.
Beyond that, the only other restriction is to make gun makers and gun
owners liable for the damage their little pets do.
>> So why do they spend millions on defeating laws they claim will do no
>> good?
> those laws hinder people and are expensive to enforce.
>
>
> Michael
**********************************************************
Greg Dean
: >> >understands the the fact that our society is in deep
: >> >cultural problems. Problems that no law could ever
: >> >solve.
: >> >
: >> I wonder if he's going to propose that each and every bullet
: >> manufactured in the United States have the ten commandments etched
: >> into them.
: >>
: >> >It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
: >> >laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
: >> >about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
: >> >gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
: >> >much deeper than just guns.
: >>
: >> Fox Whorely News was just repeating the NRA chant. "Laws don't work!
: >> Boo hoo hoo! Laws don't work!".
: > Well,some laws work. The laws restricting drugs make drug dealers
: >wealthy. What do you think laws restricting guns and ammunition will do?
:
: Gun manufacturers are already wealthy. Killed more Americans than
: every enemy this country ever had combined, but no fortune was made
: without a bit of a price to be paid.
Some are, some are not. Most gun manufacturers are not
even in the same class as the tobacco companies. Colt
isn't nor is Smith and Wesson nor Ruger. Glock is a much
smaller company than any tobacco company.
Wealth is relative.
: I want limits on power, range, shooting speed and frequency of rounds.
: Beyond that, the only other restriction is to make gun makers and gun
: owners liable for the damage their little pets do.
Will the same standards apply to the police? They are not
military thus they should have the same limits as any other
civilian. Or you could just let the military take over law enforcement
like we used to do.
And what about the private police forces that the rich use as
body guards? Do we have seperate standards for the wealthy
just because they can hire their dirty work done?
It would be much better to Draft all males into the military
and let us old guys retrain them. To undo the mess their
parents created.
Len Freedman
: George W. Bush maybe the first politicians that really
: understands the the fact that our society is in deep
: cultural problems. Problems that no law could ever
: solve.
You've got to be kidding! Bush mouths the same plattitudes
that have come out of the mouths of dozens of other
political leaders. They are all very big on defining
the problem, in terms as vague as possible, but very
lacking on proposing actual solutions. They usually
use these things to advance their own agendas---more
gun freedom, less gun freedom, more people in prison,
bigger profits for corporations, tax cuts for the rich,
or whatever.
: It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
: laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
: about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
: gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
: much deeper than just guns.
But solutions involving tighter gun control are very
popular. And whether you agree with that or not (I'd
guesss not) it is something -government- can do, so
a politician can promise to do that. At least he is
promising something, rather than to tell you how much
he cares about the problem, to blame it on Hollywood
or video games or 'liberals'.
: We now have a very fragmented society that does not
: want to deal with those with problems (mental or physcial).
: We want the poor, the mentally ill and the disabled to just
: "disappear".
I agree with that, of course. But I haven't heard Bush
actually suggest a solution to this. Have you? Maybe I
missed it. I have my own ideas of what the problem is,
and of things we might do to begin remedying it, I'm sure
you do too. None of them are things a politican can
suggest, not one that wants to get elected. Instead
Bush talks about how much he -cares-. What a load. Haven't
you already had enough of a president who 'feels your pain'?
Even if there is something Bush can think of to do, some
actual course of action for him to take, do you think for
a minute he'd do it if it looked like it might get in the
way of his -real- agenda? His -real- agenda is to enhance
the profits of Fortune 500 corporations. If this leads
to a sick culture (or however you want to frame the problem),
hey, that's too bad.
Michael Ejercito
(Zepp) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:32:26 -0700, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
> Ejercito) wrote:
>
> >In article <37e704a9....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
> >(Zepp) wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 02:07:02 GMT, "Greg Dean" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> >> >It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
> >> >laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
> >> >about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
> >> >gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
> >> >much deeper than just guns.
> >>
> >> Fox Whorely News was just repeating the NRA chant. "Laws don't work!
> >> Boo hoo hoo! Laws don't work!".
> > Well,some laws work. The laws restricting drugs make drug dealers
> >wealthy. What do you think laws restricting guns and ammunition will do?
>
> Gun manufacturers are already wealthy. Killed more Americans than
> every enemy this country ever had combined, but no fortune was made
> without a bit of a price to be paid.
Nmae one person killed by a gun manufacturer. And how will we fight our
enemies without guns,Zeppo?
> I want limits on power, range, shooting speed and frequency of rounds.
> Beyond that, the only other restriction is to make gun makers and gun
> owners liable for the damage their little pets do.
Should we place limits on alcoholic beverages,since more people die
from alcohol than guns?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
<N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> Will the same standards apply to the police? They are not
> military thus they should have the same limits as any other
> civilian. Or you could just let the military take over law enforcement
> like we used to do.
>
> And what about the private police forces that the rich use as
> body guards? Do we have seperate standards for the wealthy
> just because they can hire their dirty work done?
>
> It would be much better to Draft all males into the military
> and let us old guys retrain them. To undo the mess their
> parents created.
Then we can have the military take over primary law enforcement. Thgat
would solve the personnel problem. We can be one country united under
martial law.
These shotings show that civilian government just does not work. We
need the military to keep us safe.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
<le...@shell12.ba.best.com> wrote:
> In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Greg Dean <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>
> : George W. Bush maybe the first politicians that really
> : understands the the fact that our society is in deep
> : cultural problems. Problems that no law could ever
> : solve.
>
> You've got to be kidding! Bush mouths the same plattitudes
> that have come out of the mouths of dozens of other
> political leaders. They are all very big on defining
> the problem, in terms as vague as possible, but very
> lacking on proposing actual solutions. They usually
> use these things to advance their own agendas---more
> gun freedom, less gun freedom, more people in prison,
> bigger profits for corporations, tax cuts for the rich,
> or whatever.
>
> : It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
> : laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
> : about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
> : gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
> : much deeper than just guns.
>
> But solutions involving tighter gun control are very
> popular. And whether you agree with that or not (I'd
> guesss not) it is something -government- can do, so
> a politician can promise to do that. At least he is
> promising something, rather than to tell you how much
> he cares about the problem, to blame it on Hollywood
> or video games or 'liberals'.
Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like they
did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
the military to protect us.
Michael
Greg Dean
: : understands the the fact that our society is in deep
: : cultural problems. Problems that no law could ever
: : solve.
:
: You've got to be kidding! Bush mouths the same plattitudes
: that have come out of the mouths of dozens of other
: political leaders. They are all very big on defining
: the problem, in terms as vague as possible, but very
: lacking on proposing actual solutions. They usually
: use these things to advance their own agendas---more
: gun freedom, less gun freedom, more people in prison,
: bigger profits for corporations, tax cuts for the rich,
: or whatever.
:
Because that is what people want to hear. About 10%
of the adult population is moderate, mostly educated
women. They are the swing vote. Win them, win the
election.
: : It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
: : laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
: : about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
: : gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
: : much deeper than just guns.
:
: But solutions involving tighter gun control are very
: popular. And whether you agree with that or not (I'd
: guesss not) it is something -government- can do, so
: a politician can promise to do that. At least he is
: promising something, rather than to tell you how much
: he cares about the problem, to blame it on Hollywood
: or video games or 'liberals'.
Oh, people want to hear them said. But they are not
the major concerns. Education is the biggy. Guns
are way down the list. If it means more police or more
schools, schools win.
: : We now have a very fragmented society that does not
: : want to deal with those with problems (mental or physcial).
: : We want the poor, the mentally ill and the disabled to just
: : "disappear".
:
: I agree with that, of course. But I haven't heard Bush
: actually suggest a solution to this. Have you? Maybe I
: missed it. I have my own ideas of what the problem is,
: and of things we might do to begin remedying it, I'm sure
: you do too. None of them are things a politican can
: suggest, not one that wants to get elected. Instead
: Bush talks about how much he -cares-. What a load. Haven't
: you already had enough of a president who 'feels your pain'?
:
Remember who controls the swing votes. Educated women.
Appeal to their emotions. Stop thinking like a man.
: Even if there is something Bush can think of to do, some
: actual course of action for him to take, do you think for
: a minute he'd do it if it looked like it might get in the
: way of his -real- agenda? His -real- agenda is to enhance
: the profits of Fortune 500 corporations. If this leads
: to a sick culture (or however you want to frame the problem),
: hey, that's too bad.
Many of those swing voters work for big companies.
Why wouldn't they want their companies to do very
well?
Len Freedman
: Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
: like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
: 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
: us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
Greg Dean
: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
:
: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
need to take over.
It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
control.
tony G as Frank Cannon
Ejercito) wrote:
> Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like they
>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
>the military to protect us.
This has got to be a joke.
> Michael
silverback
nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
martial law.
>
>> Michael
>
*****************************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
Do your patriotic duty and vote for your favorite blithering idiot at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/award.html
======================================================
Michael Ejercito's solution to global warming
If the goverment wanted to end global warming, it would use its
nuclear arsenal to put enough dust into the atmoshpere
to reduce sunlight, creating a nuclear winter.
And just to prove to the world that Dan Quayle
has nothing over him, Micheal wrote.
"the problem is not people are not being
paid enough,but the costs of goods and
services are too high."
************************************************
tony G as Frank Cannon
>: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
>: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
>: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
>: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
>:
>: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
>: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
>: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
>:
>
>But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
>want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
>very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
>force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
>need to take over.
>
>It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
>to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
>control.
>
Pot here comes the kettle...
Being all for gun ownership I feel free in making the point that we
will need complete control of the populace to enforce the dream of all
righties to do away with drugs, abortion, homo's, porno and atheists.
I thought I would pop if I didn't get that posted.
tony G as Frank Cannon
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:03:22 GMT, kur...@ass.ass (tony G as Frank
>Cannon) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:25:21 -0800, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>>Ejercito) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like they
>>>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
>>>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
>>>the military to protect us.
>>
>>This has got to be a joke.
>
>nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
>martial law.
I've read his posts. The problem I had was that even the most
hammerheaded righty should know that the military during
reconstruction was all about law enforcement for a few people and
tough shit for everybody else.
Butterfly
>: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
>: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
>: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
>: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
>:
>: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
>: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
>: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
>:
>
>But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
>want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
>very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
>force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
>need to take over.
>
>It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
>to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
>control.
In the present state of the US, yes! But remember the police in the
US not only have to face armed criminals but also an armed population.
Because of this they are constantly under pressure and their responses
over the years have become more and more aggressive.
Without an armed population I think you would find the role of the
police would change markedly.
The police in the UK are generally loved. If you want to know the
time ask a copper. In Canada the police are fairly well respected.
I would prefer to have a properly trained Police Force in control than
gangs, hate groups, militia, etc.....
Butterfly
silverback
Cannon) wrote:
>On 23 Sep 1999 04:38:56 GMT, gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:03:22 GMT, kur...@ass.ass (tony G as Frank
>>Cannon) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:25:21 -0800, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>>>Ejercito) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like they
>>>>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
>>>>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
>>>>the military to protect us.
>>>
>>>This has got to be a joke.
>>
>>nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
>>martial law.
>
>I've read his posts. The problem I had was that even the most
>hammerheaded righty should know that the military during
>reconstruction was all about law enforcement for a few people and
>tough shit for everybody else.
you just stated junior's agenda to a tee. He doesn't give a damn
about most people just the rich fat cats. Check my sig for a couple of
his better statements. One of the statements was a response to raising
the mimum wage.
Greg Dean
: >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
: >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
: >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
: >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
: >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
: >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
: >:
: >
: >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
: >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
: >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
: >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
: >need to take over.
: >
: >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
: >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
: >control.
:
: In the present state of the US, yes! But remember the police in the
: US not only have to face armed criminals but also an armed population.
: Because of this they are constantly under pressure and their responses
: over the years have become more and more aggressive.
:
: Without an armed population I think you would find the role of the
: police would change markedly.
:
: The police in the UK are generally loved. If you want to know the
: time ask a copper. In Canada the police are fairly well respected.
We used have a good reasonship here in the US between the
police and the population. The Vietnam War, and the counter
culture, changed that. It isn't an armed population, or even our
culture of individualism, that is the problem. It is the culture, the
attitudes, of rebellion that is destroying us. Americans in the US
have become so paranoid, so anti-authority, that it is a wonder
that we function at all.
The Baby Boomers went from being peaceful, law abiding kids to
full rebels during the anti-war movement years. The mistrust of
government, especially because of wide spread drug usage and
subversive activities, has now passed on to their children. Disarming
them will only fuel their mistrust. And lead to more rebellion.
What is needed is for US Americans to have reasons to trust
their government and each other.
: I would prefer to have a properly trained Police Force in control than
: gangs, hate groups, militia, etc.....
The US has had problems in the past with the local cops not getting
with the "program". The UK and Canada have a much stronger national
police than we do. I do not think that the UK police are "owned" by
the local governments but rather are national with assignments in the
local communities.
Canada may have city ran police but the Provincial Police seem to
everywhere. But then Canada isn't having to deal with a population
that is rebellious.
Greg Dean
: >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
: >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
: >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
: >:
: >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
: >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
: >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
: >:
: >
: >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
: >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
: >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
: >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
: >need to take over.
: >
: >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
: >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
: >control.
: >
:
:
: Being all for gun ownership I feel free in making the point that we
: will need complete control of the populace to enforce the dream of all
: righties to do away with drugs, abortion, homo's, porno and atheists.
:
: I thought I would pop if I didn't get that posted.
I think the problem is much deeper. We have elements on both
sides that mistrust each other, and government, deeply. This started
during the anti-war movement years. The Baby Boomers were, for
the most part, law abiding and trusting of their government growing
up. But with the Vietnam War, free love and drugs, they grew to be
paranoid, even hate the police (pigs) and other agents of government.
What we are left with is an adult population that is mistrustful of each
other and the govenrment in general. It has completely stopped
any form of progress in the country. If the government, in its own mistrust
of the people, would push to completely disarm the people then I
would expect massive rebellion. A total ban would fuel so much
paranoia that it would destroy the country.
However I do see a shift. The right is backing off using government
as a solution. The politicians who are getting elected are running
on libertarian viewpoints. Jesse Ventura did. And much of GWB's
platform in Texas was very libertarian.
That may well be what it takes. I feel that we will see politicians
run as fiscal conservatives and social moderates. That might be
the balance point that we all can agree on.
Greg Dean
they
: >>>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
: >>>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
: >>>the military to protect us.
: >>
: >
: >nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
: >martial law.
:
: I've read his posts. The problem I had was that even the most
: hammerheaded righty should know that the military during
: reconstruction was all about law enforcement for a few people and
: tough shit for everybody else.
It has more to do with the fact that we are so rebellious that a massive
push for a total gun ban would fuel paranoia to levels that the local cops
could not control the US population.
And you have to admit, the local cops don't do a very good job
of really stoping crime before it happens. Local communities
do not have the money to really do a great job of policing. Thus
convert the Army into a national police force. The UK has a
national, not local, force as it is now. So does France. And the
French use military police as well. I forget the French word for
guards under arms (armed guards). Maybe the liberals are
right, just get rid of local government. Run everything from D.C.
Duane K. Kelly
this date all with the same dribble... a parrot perhaps, or just a
newborn spammer. either way...
PLUNK
Greg Dean wrote:
>
> : >: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
> : >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
> : >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
> : >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
> : >:
> : >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
> : >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
> : >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
> : >:
> : >
> : >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
> : >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
> : >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
> : >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
> : >need to take over.
> : >
> : >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
> : >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
> : >control.
> :
--
========================================================
>From: scri...@best.com (Milton Brewster)
>Newsgroups: alt.society.liberalism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
>Subject: FAQ: Weasel Liberal Links
>Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 18:51:53 -0700
>Message-ID: <MPG.122a4917a...@nntp.best.com>
>Organization: lying socialist weasels
>X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.11
>Lines: 302
>NNTP-Posting-Host: dynamic2.pm07.san-jose.best.com
>X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 935374370 205 209.24.165.130
>
>WEASEL LINKS FAQ
>
>This Liberal Links FAQ is posted regularly to several political
>newsgroups. It lists links to important Progressive political
>voices, in order to make it easier for you to see for yourself,
>what Liberalism is and what it stands for.
>
>
>======== FIRST: ===============
>
>WHO WE ARE
>
>We are the 'Lying Socialist Weasels.'
>
Nuff said...
========================================================
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:20:52 GMT, "Greg Dean" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>
> >: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
> >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
> >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
> >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
> >:
> >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
> >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
> >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
> >:
> >
> >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
> >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
> >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
> >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
> >need to take over.
> >
> >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
> >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
> >control.
>
> In the present state of the US, yes! But remember the police in the
> US not only have to face armed criminals but also an armed population.
> Because of this they are constantly under pressure and their responses
> over the years have become more and more aggressive.
>
> Without an armed population I think you would find the role of the
> police would change markedly.
>
> The police in the UK are generally loved. If you want to know the
> time ask a copper. In Canada the police are fairly well respected.
>
> gangs, hate groups, militia, etc.....
>
If the police in the US did not abuse their power, they too would be
respected... sorry, but they have brought this pressure on themselves.
There is one school teacher in Indianapolis that won a brutality case
against the police and over a half a dozen officer were charged with
drug trafficking. Then you have Scorpio in NYC that after proving the
corruption in the NYPD has to leave the country... Look at the abuse at
Waco, and Ruby Ridge. Don't blame the law abiding citizen for the acts
of a police state out of control.
Oh, your line of BS about the police in the UK and Canada is just
that... pure BS, they are hated there for their abuse as well.
Butterfly
wrote:
My point is that if the police in the US did not have to daily face
the extreme pressures put upon them by an armed population (there are
200,000,000 guns out there in the US) then their abusiveness would
lessen. Imagine what it must be like being a cop and having to go out
every day knowing full well that almost everyone you encounter has a
gun.
Your cops have a very dangerous job. This does not excuse the abuse
they put upon some people, but it does allow an understanding of the
differences among their behavior and the behavior of cops in other
Industrialized countries.
>Oh, your line of BS about the police in the UK and Canada is just
>that... pure BS, they are hated there for their abuse as well.
Sure they are by some people, but I can assure you it is not true of
the majority. You should read Greg's response to me again. He has
some very good insights into the problem.
Butterfly
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 18873)
Michael Ejercito
<le...@shell12.ba.best.com> wrote:
> In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Michael Ejercito <meje...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
> : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
> : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
> : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
> : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
>
> That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
> thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
> of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
it was well-thought of. In the Texas church shooting,the cops fdid not
arrive after the shooting was over. Civilvian law enofrcment is currently
inadequate. And come to think of it,military law enforcement would suffer
inadequacies due to undermanning. So we must defend ourselves.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
<N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> : : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
> : : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
> : : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
> : : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
> :
> : That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
> : thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
> : of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
> :
>
> But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
> want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
> very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
> force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
> need to take over.
>
> It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
> to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
> control.
That is the point. Martiasl law is expensive,and the Army just does not
have the manpower. Therefore,we must rely on ourselves to defend our
nation,becasuse the Army is understaffed.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
as Frank Cannon) wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:25:21 -0800, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
> Ejercito) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like they
> >did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
> >obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
> >the military to protect us.
>
> This has got to be a joke.
It is. The Army does not have enough soldiers to provide effective
internal security. We must do it for them.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback) wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:03:22 GMT, kur...@ass.ass (tony G as Frank
> Cannon) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:25:21 -0800, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
> >Ejercito) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like they
> >>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
> >>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
> >>the military to protect us.
> >
> >This has got to be a joke.
>
> nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
> martial law.
I do not support martial law. I mean,it would be cool sight to see a
country under military occupation. it is just not very practical. The
military lacks the respiouyrces to effectively occupy thisd country.
On the other hand,if we armed ourselves,we can occupy this country as a
militia. It is much more cost-effective than using regular military
forces.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
<N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
> It has more to do with the fact that we are so rebellious that a massive
> push for a total gun ban would fuel paranoia to levels that the local cops
> could not control the US population.
>
> And you have to admit, the local cops don't do a very good job
> of really stoping crime before it happens. Local communities
> do not have the money to really do a great job of policing. Thus
> convert the Army into a national police force. The UK has a
> national, not local, force as it is now. So does France. And the
> French use military police as well. I forget the French word for
> guards under arms (armed guards). Maybe the liberals are
> right, just get rid of local government. Run everything from D.C.
electricity and runing water. :-) We will still need local government for
that.
Still,the proposal to turn the Army into a national police force is not
going to work,because we do not have the resources to do so. It is better
we arm ourselves,and occpuy the country for them.
Michael
Len Freedman
: But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
: want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
: very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
: force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
: need to take over.
Baloney. We have laws against people owning certain drugs, explosives,
certain kinds of medical equipment, even fireworks in lots of places.
Nobody expects these laws to work perfectly, just as the law against
murder doesn't work perfectly.
: It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
: to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
: control.
Well you won't find most liberals advocating a police state. I
don't think a police state is the only alternative to imperfect
gun laws, I think that's a false dichotomy. Lots of us (not
all 'liberals' either) think we could have a little stronger
controls on guns.
Sen. Bradley has the idea to license guns in the same way we
license cars. We do have people driving cars without licenses
or insurance, but nobody thinks we need a police state to enforce
automobile licensing laws.
Len Freedman
: What we are left with is an adult population that is mistrustful
: of each other and the govenrment in general. It has completely
: stopped any form of progress in the country. If the government,
: in its own mistrust of the people, would push to completely
: disarm the people then I would expect massive rebellion. A total
: ban would fuel so much paranoia that it would destroy the country.
Nobody's talking about completely disarming the people. A lot
of NRA types are (very disingenuously, I think) labelling any
proposals for further gun control as only a prelude to total
banning of guns.
: However I do see a shift. The right is backing off using
: government as a solution. The politicians who are getting
: elected are running on libertarian viewpoints. Jesse Ventura
: did. And much of GWB's platform in Texas was very libertarian.
I see the same phenominon but I don't see what you see. After
stringing along the social conservatives for 19 years now,
The GOP has the social conservative leaders telling their
followers not to expect anything from the GOP in the form
of social reform, but instead to get behind their economic
programs and to help them ward off campaign finance reform.
(I've heard one Christian leader after another say that
campaign finance reform would take power away from the Christian
Right.)
: That may well be what it takes. I feel that we will see politicians
: run as fiscal conservatives and social moderates. That might be
: the balance point that we all can agree on.
Most Americans tend to be more fiscally conservative and most
socially liberal than either of the major parties. Hell,
even -I- am more fiscally conservative than the current
Republican leadership in Congress. As is President Clinton.
Len Freedman
:> Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like they
:>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
:>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
:>the military to protect us.
tony G as Frank Cannon <kur...@ass.ass> wrote:
: This has got to be a joke.
No, actually it's a troll.
Len Freedman
: It has more to do with the fact that we are so rebellious that
: a massive push for a total gun ban would fuel paranoia to levels
: that the local cops could not control the US population.
Nobody's pushing for a total gun ban. But I don't think
you'd find much opposition in 90% of Americans. We have
a few loud voices who see our constitutional rights and
protections only in terms of the 2nd Amendment. Just about
all other Americans would have no problem with it.
: And you have to admit, the local cops don't do a very good job
: of really stoping crime before it happens. Local communities
: do not have the money to really do a great job of policing. Thus
: convert the Army into a national police force. The UK has a
: national, not local, force as it is now. So does France. And the
: French use military police as well. I forget the French word for
: guards under arms (armed guards). Maybe the liberals are
: right, just get rid of local government. Run everything from D.C.
The reason we haven't done a good job of 'stopping crime before
it happens' (whatever you mean by that) is that it is not a
priority. Our 1st priority is punishment. Any politician
who doesn't believe punishment is the SOLE answer to crime
is cut to ribbons by the conservatives for being 'soft on
crime'. For years nearly our entire national dialogue about
crime had to do with the death penalty.
But if you're talking about a crazy guy walking into a church
and shooting a bunch of people, how were you expecting the
police to stop that crime before it happened?
Duane K. Kelly
>
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 15:27:36 -0500, "Duane K. Kelly" <us...@dev.null>
> wrote:
> >Butterfly wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
> >> >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
> >> >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
> >> >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
> >> >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
> >> >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
> >> >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
> >> >:
> >> >
> >> >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
> >> >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
> >> >need to take over.
> >> >
> >> >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
> >> >control.
>
My point it, if the police did not have to face the "extreme pressures
put upon them by an armed population" they would abuse their power even
more. One example, if that school teacher I mentioned above has not had
access to the shotgun he reached just inside the door of his house after
being kicked within and inch of his life, the police would have
continued their abuse of power. They made just one mistake... they
kicked him up against the door of his house that was open, and he had
the shotgun leaning against the wall just inside the door, with this he
defended himself from what he was certain, and the courts were certain
was certain death. Your argument is pure BS.
> Your cops have a very dangerous job. This does not excuse the abuse
> they put upon some people, but it does allow an understanding of the
> differences among their behavior and the behavior of cops in other
> Industrialized countries.
Tell me sweet pea, as I use to be one, and I can tell you from my own
experience, they are abusive. Some of the biggest, abusive thugs I know
were the officers I worked with. I had nothing to do with fear of the
armed citizens, it had everything to do with the feeling of power one
acquires when they pin on a badge and begin to believe they are the law,
not just a citizen that is being paid to enforce the law. That tin badge
dawns not make anyone an angel. One of the profiles of a police office
is a person that was an outsider in school. There are those that feel
this is their way of getting even. Those of us that recognized that we
were public servants, wanted the citizens armed. We had no fear of the
law abiding citizens. AS a matter of fact, in the capacity of a law
abiding citizen, I noted a DPS officer being held at gunpoint along I-20
outside of Sweetwater, TX. Coming back around with a road map hiding my
gun, I stopped and walked up to the officer asking for direction getting
the drop on the thug. This officer absolutely loves the idea that I was
an armed citizen so your argument is mute at best.
Fact is, the highest percentage of Police Officers back the heavenly
armed citizen concept. Those that would run over the rights of the
citizens deplore it, therefore I conclude that you are attempting to aid
and abed these acts of terrorism.
> >Oh, your line of BS about the police in the UK and Canada is just
> >that... pure BS, they are hated there for their abuse as well.
>
> Sure they are by some people, but I can assure you it is not true of
> the majority. You should read Greg's response to me again. He has
> some very good insights into the problem.
I read Gregg's cut and past spamming and parroting, and to it I
responded twice before putting him in my kill file as a spammer after
noting 9 of these cut and paste spams...
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like
fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment
should it be left to irresponsible action."
-- George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790
He a damn 'Lying Socialist Weasels' the same as you are.
tony G as Frank Cannon
>: >: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
>: >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
>: >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
>: >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
>: >:
>: >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
>: >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
>: >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
>: >:
>: >
>: >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
>: >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
>: >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
>: >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
>: >need to take over.
>: >
>: >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
>: >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
>: >control.
>: >
>:
>: Pot here comes the kettle...
>:
>: Being all for gun ownership I feel free in making the point that we
>: will need complete control of the populace to enforce the dream of all
>: righties to do away with drugs, abortion, homo's, porno and atheists.
>:
>: I thought I would pop if I didn't get that posted.
>
>I think the problem is much deeper. We have elements on both
>sides that mistrust each other, and government, deeply. This started
>during the anti-war movement years. The Baby Boomers were, for
>the most part, law abiding and trusting of their government growing
>up. But with the Vietnam War, free love and drugs, they grew to be
>paranoid, even hate the police (pigs) and other agents of government.
What you're saying is that the police and federal government are more
trustworthy now or that we should trust them just so your agenda can
advance.
>What we are left with is an adult population that is mistrustful of each
>other and the govenrment in general. It has completely stopped
>any form of progress in the country. If the government, in its own mistrust
>of the people, would push to completely disarm the people then I
>would expect massive rebellion. A total ban would fuel so much
>paranoia that it would destroy the country.
As it should.
>However I do see a shift. The right is backing off using government
>as a solution. The politicians who are getting elected are running
>on libertarian viewpoints. Jesse Ventura did. And much of GWB's
>platform in Texas was very libertarian.
If you say so.
>That may well be what it takes. I feel that we will see politicians
>run as fiscal conservatives and social moderates. That might be
>the balance point that we all can agree on.
Sure. You keep thinking that.
tony G as Frank Cannon
wrote:
>This make the 9th cut and past message by Greg Dean I have encountered
>this date all with the same dribble... a parrot perhaps, or just a
>newborn spammer. either way...
This may be the only time ever we agree on something.
>PLUNK
>
>Greg Dean wrote:
>>
>> : >: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
>> : >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
>> : >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
>> : >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
>> : >:
>> : >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
>> : >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
>> : >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
>> : >:
>> : >
>> : >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
>> : >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
>> : >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
>> : >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
>> : >need to take over.
>> : >
>> : >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
>> : >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
>> : >control.
>> :
>> : In the present state of the US, yes! But remember the police in the
>> : US not only have to face armed criminals but also an armed population.
>> : Because of this they are constantly under pressure and their responses
>> : over the years have become more and more aggressive.
>> :
>> : Without an armed population I think you would find the role of the
>> : police would change markedly.
>> :
>> : The police in the UK are generally loved. If you want to know the
>> : time ask a copper. In Canada the police are fairly well respected.
>>
>> We used have a good reasonship here in the US between the
>> police and the population. The Vietnam War, and the counter
>> culture, changed that. It isn't an armed population, or even our
>> culture of individualism, that is the problem. It is the culture, the
>> attitudes, of rebellion that is destroying us. Americans in the US
>> have become so paranoid, so anti-authority, that it is a wonder
>> that we function at all.
>>
>> The Baby Boomers went from being peaceful, law abiding kids to
>> full rebels during the anti-war movement years. The mistrust of
>> government, especially because of wide spread drug usage and
>> subversive activities, has now passed on to their children. Disarming
>> them will only fuel their mistrust. And lead to more rebellion.
>>
>> What is needed is for US Americans to have reasons to trust
>> their government and each other.
>>
>> : I would prefer to have a properly trained Police Force in control than
>> : gangs, hate groups, militia, etc.....
>>
Greg Dean
: >: >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
: >: >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
: >: >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
: >: >:
: >: >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
: >: >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
: >: >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
: >: >:
: >: >
: >: >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the
socialists
: >: >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
: >: >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a
stronger
: >: >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
: >: >need to take over.
: >: >
: >: >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
: >: >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
: >: >control.
: >: >
: >: Pot here comes the kettle...
: >:
: >: Being all for gun ownership I feel free in making the point that we
: >: will need complete control of the populace to enforce the dream of all
: >: righties to do away with drugs, abortion, homo's, porno and atheists.
: >:
: >: I thought I would pop if I didn't get that posted.
: >
: >I think the problem is much deeper. We have elements on both
: >sides that mistrust each other, and government, deeply. This started
: >the most part, law abiding and trusting of their government growing
: >up. But with the Vietnam War, free love and drugs, they grew to be
: >paranoid, even hate the police (pigs) and other agents of government.
:
: What you're saying is that the police and federal government are more
: trustworthy now or that we should trust them just so your agenda can
: advance.
To hear liberals on the net (Jim Kennemur, Mimi Weasel, Gary Lantz,
Harry Hope) the police are far more trustworthy. Even in light of what
the LAPD just did or what has happened in Chicago. These socialists
want a centralized government (most likely ridding themselves of local
government or an elected congress, just have Al Gore make all the
policy) that runs everything.
: >What we are left with is an adult population that is mistrustful of each
: >other and the govenrment in general. It has completely stopped
: >any form of progress in the country. If the government, in its own
mistrust
: >of the people, would push to completely disarm the people then I
: >would expect massive rebellion. A total ban would fuel so much
: >paranoia that it would destroy the country.
:
: As it should.
:
Our society is very dysfunctional. It makes it very hard for
us to function is everyone not only mistrusts the government,
but each other. That is not healthy.
: >However I do see a shift. The right is backing off using government
: >as a solution. The politicians who are getting elected are running
: >on libertarian viewpoints. Jesse Ventura did. And much of GWB's
: >platform in Texas was very libertarian.
:
: If you say so.
When I say libertarian, I mean fiscally conservative and
socially moderate. Basically having the government stay
out of people's lives. GWB made those kinds of comments
in his last governors race.
: >That may well be what it takes. I feel that we will see politicians
: >run as fiscal conservatives and social moderates. That might be
: >the balance point that we all can agree on.
:
: Sure. You keep thinking that.
What other choice do we have? Civil war?
Greg Dean
: : of each other and the govenrment in general. It has completely
: : stopped any form of progress in the country. If the government,
: : in its own mistrust of the people, would push to completely
: : disarm the people then I would expect massive rebellion. A total
: : ban would fuel so much paranoia that it would destroy the country.
:
: of NRA types are (very disingenuously, I think) labelling any
: proposals for further gun control as only a prelude to total
: banning of guns.
:
Editorial in Monday's USA Today that called for a repeal
of the 2nd amendment. HCI has stated that it wants a total
ban. Most socialists in the US want a total ban as they tend
to be very anti-war. It makes it much easier for socialists to
murder conservatives that way.
: : However I do see a shift. The right is backing off using
: : government as a solution. The politicians who are getting
: : elected are running on libertarian viewpoints. Jesse Ventura
: : did. And much of GWB's platform in Texas was very libertarian.
:
: I see the same phenominon but I don't see what you see. After
: stringing along the social conservatives for 19 years now,
: The GOP has the social conservative leaders telling their
: followers not to expect anything from the GOP in the form
: of social reform, but instead to get behind their economic
: programs and to help them ward off campaign finance reform.
: (I've heard one Christian leader after another say that
: campaign finance reform would take power away from the Christian
: Right.)
:
The religious right is dead. Read the current issue of
Christianity Today. It was never much more than a
media creation anyway. Only about 23% of the total
US population is conservative christians and many of
these folks voted for Clinton.
Why the Republican leadership never saw this, I do
not know. Maybe because a few could yell very loudly.
The Reagan Democrats had more influence.
: : That may well be what it takes. I feel that we will see politicians
: : run as fiscal conservatives and social moderates. That might be
: : the balance point that we all can agree on.
:
: Most Americans tend to be more fiscally conservative and most
: socially liberal than either of the major parties. Hell,
: even -I- am more fiscally conservative than the current
: Republican leadership in Congress. As is President Clinton.
Fiscal coservatism means very little control by the government
over the economy. Clinton has show a certain socialist bent
to control things like medical care. If you control health care then
you can dictate how people live.
Greg Dean
: this date all with the same dribble... a parrot perhaps, or just a
: newborn spammer. either way...
: PLUNK
:
Then you are saying that the current culture in the US is Healthy?
The level of paranoia that we currently have is unnatural. Our
parents (the WWII) generation was so afraid of government.
We had a major disruption of our society in the late '60s. We
have yet to heal from it. If we were healthier as a society, there
would not be these constant mass murders.
At least those who go to these Baptists and Assemblies of God
churches are more integrated in their personalities than what the
average male is. It helps to have a large group of caring people
around you. It helps to have a support group. To many in our
nation have no one.
: >
: > : >: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
: > : >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
: > : >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
: > : >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
: > : >:
: > : >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
: > : >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
: > : >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
: > : >:
: > : >
: > : >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the
socialists
: > : >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
: > : >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a
stronger
: > : >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
: > : >need to take over.
: > : >
: > : >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
: > : >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
: > : >control.
: > :
: > : In the present state of the US, yes! But remember the police in the
: > : US not only have to face armed criminals but also an armed population.
: > : Because of this they are constantly under pressure and their responses
: > : over the years have become more and more aggressive.
: > :
: > : Without an armed population I think you would find the role of the
: > : police would change markedly.
: > :
: > : The police in the UK are generally loved. If you want to know the
: > : time ask a copper. In Canada the police are fairly well respected.
: >
: > We used have a good reasonship here in the US between the
: > police and the population. The Vietnam War, and the counter
: > culture, changed that. It isn't an armed population, or even our
: > culture of individualism, that is the problem. It is the culture, the
: > attitudes, of rebellion that is destroying us. Americans in the US
: > have become so paranoid, so anti-authority, that it is a wonder
: > that we function at all.
: >
: > The Baby Boomers went from being peaceful, law abiding kids to
: > full rebels during the anti-war movement years. The mistrust of
: > government, especially because of wide spread drug usage and
: > subversive activities, has now passed on to their children. Disarming
: > them will only fuel their mistrust. And lead to more rebellion.
: >
: > What is needed is for US Americans to have reasons to trust
: > their government and each other.
: >
: > : I would prefer to have a properly trained Police Force in control than
: > : gangs, hate groups, militia, etc.....
: >
: > The US has had problems in the past with the local cops not getting
: > with the "program". The UK and Canada have a much stronger national
: > police than we do. I do not think that the UK police are "owned" by
: > the local governments but rather are national with assignments in the
: > local communities.
: >
: > Canada may have city ran police but the Provincial Police seem to
: > everywhere. But then Canada isn't having to deal with a population
: > that is rebellious.
:
: --
Greg Dean
Police in my area mostly have been high school jocks. Anything
but losers or outsiders. One department is made up of guys who
played high school baseball and the sheriff's department is made
up of high school football players. It is the same across the state.
: Fact is, the highest percentage of Police Officers back the heavenly
: armed citizen concept. Those that would run over the rights of the
: citizens deplore it, therefore I conclude that you are attempting to aid
: and abed these acts of terrorism.
:
In my state the abuse is more because the cops act like
a bunch of jocks.
: > >Oh, your line of BS about the police in the UK and Canada is just
: > >that... pure BS, they are hated there for their abuse as well.
: >
: > Sure they are by some people, but I can assure you it is not true of
: > the majority. You should read Greg's response to me again. He has
: > some very good insights into the problem.
:
: I read Gregg's cut and past spamming and parroting, and to it I
: responded twice before putting him in my kill file as a spammer after
: noting 9 of these cut and paste spams...
:
Actually I got an insight. I didn't cut and paste. Rather I just typed it
over and over again. We have a huge problem with paranoia all
over our country. We are very dysfunctional society.
: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like
: fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment
: should it be left to irresponsible action."
: -- George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790
:
: He a damn 'Lying Socialist Weasels' the same as you are.
Be careful. I am a Republican. And a member of the military.
Greg Dean
: > : : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
: > : : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
: > : : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
: > :
: > : That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
: > : thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
: > : of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
: > :
: >
: > But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the socialists
: > want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
: > very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
: > force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
: > need to take over.
: >
: > It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
: > to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
: > control.
:
: have the manpower. Therefore,we must rely on ourselves to defend our
: nation,becasuse the Army is understaffed.
Think about this. The total police force, at all levels, is 650,000.
About 50 to 80,000 are federal, spread over 17 agencies. The
rest are state and local, with over half in departments with less
than 17 officers. This makes up a force that is about .25% of
the US population.
The military is about 1.5 million on active service and another
million in the reserves. Less than 10% are combat troops. That
includes infantry, artillery, armor and fighter pilots. When added
to the number of police, we only have 1.5% of the US population
protecting our communities.
I do not mind people using self defense or concealed carry. But
it would help if we went back to the Draft so that we could train
all males (and familiarize even liberals in what guns really are).
Greg Dean
: : want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
: : very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a stronger
: : force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
: : need to take over.
:
: certain kinds of medical equipment, even fireworks in lots of places.
: Nobody expects these laws to work perfectly, just as the law against
: murder doesn't work perfectly.
Why not? Why shouldn't we have a "perfect" society? Isn't that
what socialism is all about? A perfect, moral society.
: : It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
: : to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
: : control.
:
: Well you won't find most liberals advocating a police state. I
: don't think a police state is the only alternative to imperfect
: gun laws, I think that's a false dichotomy. Lots of us (not
: all 'liberals' either) think we could have a little stronger
: controls on guns.
It is the only way. There is such a level of paranoia in
our country that gun bans will only produce rebellion.
Very few people will register more than a few guns.
The rest will "disappear". Already many are laying out
the mechanism for civil disobedience over guns. A lot
of lawyers are showing clients how to beat the gun laws.
: Sen. Bradley has the idea to license guns in the same way we
: license cars. We do have people driving cars without licenses
: or insurance, but nobody thinks we need a police state to enforce
: automobile licensing laws.
But the state police do enforce auto licensing.
Besides if guns were licensed like cars then I
could carry in every state. Hell, even cops can't
carry across state boarders. We do not have
uniform gun laws in this country. Auto laws are
uniform.
And people can buy a car without going through
a dealer, they do not need a license to drive on
private property. Or insurance. Only if they are
in public.
I would love it if gun laws were liberalized to the
level that auto laws are. We would be freer.
Greg Dean
: > : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
: > : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
: > : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
: >
: > That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
: > thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
: > of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
:
: arrive after the shooting was over. Civilvian law enofrcment is currently
: inadequate. And come to think of it,military law enforcement would suffer
: inadequacies due to undermanning. So we must defend ourselves.
Why doesn't anyone mention that there were police officers
in the main auditorium attending Wednesday night services
(Baptist do go to church on Wednesday nights), some on
the platform with the music ministry.
It was just that the cops were not with the youth. It doesn't
help if those with guns are not there with the weak.
Butterfly
My argument is based on what could be ,rather than what is. It's
called Vision. Funny thing about conservatives is they don't seem to
be able to project into the future.
>
>> Your cops have a very dangerous job. This does not excuse the abuse
>> they put upon some people, but it does allow an understanding of the
>> differences among their behavior and the behavior of cops in other
>> Industrialized countries.
>
>Tell me sweet pea, as I use to be one, and I can tell you from my own
>experience, they are abusive. Some of the biggest, abusive thugs I know
>were the officers I worked with. I had nothing to do with fear of the
>armed citizens, it had everything to do with the feeling of power one
>acquires when they pin on a badge and begin to believe they are the law,
>not just a citizen that is being paid to enforce the law. That tin badge
>dawns not make anyone an angel. One of the profiles of a police office
>is a person that was an outsider in school. There are those that feel
>this is their way of getting even.
This does not seem to be the experience of Greg in his area of the US.
However, if this has been your experience then obviously Cop Training
Colleges need to go through a radical overhauling. Sensitivity
training, and the aims, objectives and responsibilities of cops should
be updated. Public Relations and all it entails should be part of the
course. They should be accountable.
Having said that I don't think whatever you do in the current milieu
of an armed population will make much difference. You would have to
begin by having much stricter controls on guns. By licensing them
all, for example as we are doing here in Canada, and after licensing
creating severe punishments for crimes committed with guns so that
there would be a dramatic decline in these crimes.
Then improve cop training drastically.
The cops here in my area of Canada are decent, sensitive human beings,
but then they have a different public to contend with, and one that is
not as heavily armed as yours.
>Those of us that recognized that we
>were public servants, wanted the citizens armed. We had no fear of the
>law abiding citizens.
How do you know when one of those armed *law abiding* citizens is not
going to go suddenly off his rocker.
>AS a matter of fact, in the capacity of a law
>abiding citizen, I noted a DPS officer being held at gunpoint along I-20
>outside of Sweetwater, TX. Coming back around with a road map hiding my
>gun, I stopped and walked up to the officer asking for direction getting
>the drop on the thug. This officer absolutely loves the idea that I was
>an armed citizen so your argument is mute at best.
I bet he did if he was one of those big, abusive police thugs you
worked with and mentioned earlier in this post. So you, one of the
armed citizenry,would be going to the aid probably of the perpetrator
of the crime.
Anyway,one example does not make an argument mute, chicky!
>Fact is, the highest percentage of Police Officers back the heavenly
>armed citizen concept. Those that would run over the rights of the
>citizens deplore it, therefore I conclude that you are attempting to aid
>and abed these acts of terrorism.
Aid and abed???? You've got some funny phrases in your vocabulary.
Butterfly
David Lentz
Len Freedman wrote:
<snip>
> Nobody's talking about completely disarming the people. A lot
> of NRA types are (very disingenuously, I think) labelling any
> proposals for further gun control as only a prelude to total
> banning of guns.
You paint with an overly wide brush.
Radical extremists at HCI Brady do talk of complete disarmament.
The HCI cabal is on record that sll handguns be registered and
all gun owners be licensed. Once the Federal government gains
the power register guns and to license gun owners, it easy to see
a steady racketing of training requirements that gradually
eliminate all users.
For example New York State in theory allows licensed concealed
carry. In practice applications are routinely disapproved. In
Chicago or Los Angeles you can get a carry permit, if you a
celebrity or politic donor. It a Right to Keep and Bear Arms and
not a privilege to be doled out by the government.
David
Duane K. Kelly
There is a big difference between vision and fantasy. Vision, to be a
reality has to be based upon reality, something that I have presented to
you. Your vision would require a overhaul to the human nature, and
totally unrealistic. I would like to see every home in the world filled
with love and devotion, so should I outlaw hate and call it a success?
> >> Your cops have a very dangerous job. This does not excuse the abuse
> >> they put upon some people, but it does allow an understanding of the
> >> differences among their behavior and the behavior of cops in other
> >> Industrialized countries.
> >
> >Tell me sweet pea, as I use to be one, and I can tell you from my own
> >experience, they are abusive. Some of the biggest, abusive thugs I know
> >were the officers I worked with. I had nothing to do with fear of the
> >armed citizens, it had everything to do with the feeling of power one
> >acquires when they pin on a badge and begin to believe they are the law,
> >not just a citizen that is being paid to enforce the law. That tin badge
> >dawns not make anyone an angel. One of the profiles of a police office
> >is a person that was an outsider in school. There are those that feel
> >this is their way of getting even.
>
> This does not seem to be the experience of Greg in his area of the US.
> However, if this has been your experience then obviously Cop Training
> Colleges need to go through a radical overhauling. Sensitivity
> training, and the aims, objectives and responsibilities of cops should
> be updated. Public Relations and all it entails should be part of the
> course. They should be accountable.
Greg is a 'Lying Socialist Weasels' by his own admission, and you
believe him? You have to be one gullable individual. What Gregg is
proposing is a police state in the same manner as Hitler initiated in
Germany just prior to the advent of the ghettos. Who are you planning to
send to death camps? Christian? Jews, Homosexuals?
Yeah, we have "cop" training, and I note that there is some disrespect
for the Police in Canada as well, even from you... back step from your
prior 'we love the police' BS.
Oh, and speaking of Canada... I was taking to a Canadian the other day,
and we were discussing your repressed freedom of speech where a person
that does not use political correctness can be find for racism. Hell,
you guys aren't even a free country, but one that is based on
censorship, and disarmament, because they STATE does not trust your
little asses... and you have the nerve to come down here and preach to
us? Hypocrite.
Now I see you would agree with the concept I proposed in fun above, "I
would like to see every home in the world filled with love and devotion,
so should I outlaw hate and call it a success? Hell, your government is
dumb enough to believe it, and your stupid enough to think it works. (No
wonder you fell for Greggs line of BS).
OH, one other thing, if you send a fool to college, all you have is a
college educated fool. And if you send a weasel to 'Cop Training
Colleges with Sensitivity training, and the aims of, objectives and
responsibilities of cops' you still end up with an educated weasel that
is now armed with the knowledge of how to beat the system. Education
done not produce saints no more that Churches do. The person has to want
to change before the change can take place. Then you what to hold these
schools "accountable" for the actions of their graduates.... should we
hold Yale responsible for the actions of its graduates, or Berkeley, I
hear a lot of middle east terrorist are graduates from the same.
In short, Education, as much as you would like it to be is not a cure
all. You are thinking more on the lines of programming.
> Having said that I don't think whatever you do in the current milieu
> of an armed population will make much difference. You would have to
> begin by having much stricter controls on guns. By licensing them
> all, for example as we are doing here in Canada, and after licensing
> creating severe punishments for crimes committed with guns so that
> there would be a dramatic decline in these crimes.
Tell me something, did your Licensed guns stop that nut case from
shooting 14 people in the high rise in Toronto last year WITH HIS
LICENSED GUN? Hell no. Guns are not possessed, they do not make murders
out of people, so blaming the gun for the actions of people is no more
that a lack of responsibility... say, Jack the Ripper used knives, and I
noted the last visit I made to Canada, they had no qualms with me
bringing in my 12" pig sticker... It's not about crime, it's because
Parliament does not trust you in the same manner you are claiming the
police do not trust... AS I pointed out, while a working as a police
officer, the only police that did not trust the armed citizen was the
ones I would not trust with my dog. One we caught robbing a safe in a
business he was suppose to be protecting. (But I guess that is a bit
over your head.
> Then improve cop training drastically.
>
> The cops here in my area of Canada are decent, sensitive human beings,
> but then they have a different public to contend with, and one that is
> not as heavily armed as yours.
Just who the hell do you think your talking to, a fool. I have been to
Canada, and spent a lot of time there. Cops there are no different than
cops here. Some are the best people one would ever what to meet, and
others are pure unadulterated ass holes. Next time you intend to spread
your BS, do so with some one that has not had to endure the abuse of one
of your so call "decent, sensitive human beings" Good god, my brogher in
law is a Canadian and he is laughing his as off about how dumb you think
we are here in the USA.
I will be honest with you. I feel far more safer in the Harlem than I
ever did in Toronto, and Manitoba. Moosejaw is the only city in Canada
that I have ever felt safe in, and was not harassed by the police.
> >Those of us that recognized that we
> >were public servants, wanted the citizens armed. We had no fear of the
> >law abiding citizens.
>
> How do you know when one of those armed *law abiding* citizens is not
> going to go suddenly off his rocker.
How do you know when one of the "law abiding" citizens is not going to
run a stop sign and kill your wife and hospitalize two of your children?
Of all the people that I know, I know of very few that knows some one
that was shot, or have immediate family members that have been injured
with a fire arm, YET, I know of no one that has not had a family member
injured or killed with a car... so what's your point?
> >AS a matter of fact, in the capacity of a law
> >abiding citizen, I noted a DPS officer being held at gunpoint along I-20
> >outside of Sweetwater, TX. Coming back around with a road map hiding my
> >gun, I stopped and walked up to the officer asking for direction getting
> >the drop on the thug. This officer absolutely loves the idea that I was
> >an armed citizen so your argument is mute at best.
>
> I bet he did if he was one of those big, abusive police thugs you
> worked with and mentioned earlier in this post. So you, one of the
> armed citizenry,would be going to the aid probably of the perpetrator
> of the crime.
>
> Anyway,one example does not make an argument mute, chicky!
Chicky, as you have not even given one example, therefore I am one ahead
of you TROLL. (I see your colors are coming through, just exactly what I
was looking for.)
> >Fact is, the highest percentage of Police Officers back the heavenly
> >armed citizen concept. Those that would run over the rights of the
> >citizens deplore it, therefore I conclude that you are attempting to aid
> >and abed these acts of terrorism.
>
> Aid and abed???? You've got some funny phrases in your vocabulary.
That's alright, it is not as funny as your argument, and lack of
substantiated material. Do all liberals wear blinders and live in a
fantasy world such as your... for get it, I don't want to know, however
your Butterfly acid trip is noted.
> Butterfly
BTW, next time I want advice from some one that resides in a country
that has allowed the British to drag them along by the nose for 250
years because they do not have the balls to take a stand for themselves,
I will be sure to drop you a note. I see you are well qualified to help
me understand how and why they were so successful.
ei ei_tis agnoeo agnoeo
Greg Dean
: : a massive push for a total gun ban would fuel paranoia to levels
: : that the local cops could not control the US population.
:
: Nobody's pushing for a total gun ban. But I don't think
: you'd find much opposition in 90% of Americans. We have
: a few loud voices who see our constitutional rights and
: protections only in terms of the 2nd Amendment. Just about
: all other Americans would have no problem with it.
:
USA Today had an editorial calling for the repeal of
the 2nd amendment last Monday. Many in the national
media want a totally socialist country with strict controls
over the lives of all Americans.
: : And you have to admit, the local cops don't do a very good job
: : of really stoping crime before it happens. Local communities
: : do not have the money to really do a great job of policing. Thus
: : convert the Army into a national police force. The UK has a
: : national, not local, force as it is now. So does France. And the
: : French use military police as well. I forget the French word for
: : guards under arms (armed guards). Maybe the liberals are
: : right, just get rid of local government. Run everything from D.C.
:
: The reason we haven't done a good job of 'stopping crime before
: it happens' (whatever you mean by that) is that it is not a
: priority. Our 1st priority is punishment. Any politician
: who doesn't believe punishment is the SOLE answer to crime
: is cut to ribbons by the conservatives for being 'soft on
: crime'. For years nearly our entire national dialogue about
: crime had to do with the death penalty.
So do what the French do. A commissioner of police is
also a judge and prosecutor. It makes it so much faster.
: But if you're talking about a crazy guy walking into a church
: and shooting a bunch of people, how were you expecting the
: police to stop that crime before it happened?
If determine who the "losers" are ahead of time. Hell, we know
in high school who is going to make it and who isn't. Just put
the losers to death then. That would satisfy the liberals. Except
that they are most of the losers (gays, geeks and goths).
As one local judge told me, we know who most of the problem
people are. It is just that the police are not allowed to put 24 hour
surveillance on them because it would be called harassment.
I am not saying this is my position. But this seems what the
socialists in the national media want. And what Bill and Hillery
Clinton want for America.
zepp, a weasel
Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <37e85534....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
>(Zepp) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:32:26 -0700, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>> Ejercito) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <37e704a9....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
>> >(Zepp) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 02:07:02 GMT, "Greg Dean" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>> >> >It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
>> >> >laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
>> >> >about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
>> >> >gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
>> >> >much deeper than just guns.
>> >>
>> >> Fox Whorely News was just repeating the NRA chant. "Laws don't work!
>> >> Boo hoo hoo! Laws don't work!".
>> > Well,some laws work. The laws restricting drugs make drug dealers
>> >wealthy. What do you think laws restricting guns and ammunition will do?
>>
>> Gun manufacturers are already wealthy. Killed more Americans than
>> every enemy this country ever had combined, but no fortune was made
>> without a bit of a price to be paid.
> Nmae one person killed by a gun manufacturer. And how will we fight our
>enemies without guns,Zeppo?
>> I want limits on power, range, shooting speed and frequency of rounds.
>> Beyond that, the only other restriction is to make gun makers and gun
>> owners liable for the damage their little pets do.
> Should we place limits on alcoholic beverages,since more people die
>from alcohol than guns?
We DO place limits on alcoholic beverages, Mike. When you grow up,
you'll learn that you aren't allowed to drink and drive, that bars and
liquor stores close by a certain hour of the night in nearly all
states, and that there are laws against being drunk in public even if
you aren't driving a car.
**********************************************************
The following quote shows that while Republican idiocy
might be blatent idiocy, it is also tenacious idiocy:
"It [GOP money policy] reflects a reversion to the old
idea that the tree can be fertilized at the top instead
of at the bottom -- the old "trickle-down" theory".
---Harry Truman, 5/13/44
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Also mirrored at: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
zepp, a weasel
>: >>> Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like
>they
>: >>>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
>: >>>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
>: >>>the military to protect us.
>: >>
>: >>This has got to be a joke.
>: >
>: >nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
>: >martial law.
>:
>: I've read his posts. The problem I had was that even the most
>: hammerheaded righty should know that the military during
>: reconstruction was all about law enforcement for a few people and
>: tough shit for everybody else.
>
>It has more to do with the fact that we are so rebellious that a massive
>push for a total gun ban would fuel paranoia to levels that the local cops
>could not control the US population.
>
>And you have to admit, the local cops don't do a very good job
>of really stoping crime before it happens. Local communities
>do not have the money to really do a great job of policing. Thus
>convert the Army into a national police force. The UK has a
>national, not local, force as it is now. So does France. And the
>French use military police as well. I forget the French word for
>guards under arms (armed guards). Maybe the liberals are
>right, just get rid of local government. Run everything from D.C.
The UK has local constabulatories. Even in Northern Ireland.
Gendarmes is the word you're looking for. And they are a civilian
force. The only civilian units under military control was le Legion
Estranger.
While a gun ban is unlikely, a revolt against gun owners is becoming a
distinct possibility.
tony G as Frank Cannon
>: This make the 9th cut and past message by Greg Dean I have encountered
>: this date all with the same dribble... a parrot perhaps, or just a
>: newborn spammer. either way...
>:
>: PLUNK
>:
>
>Then you are saying that the current culture in the US is Healthy?
>The level of paranoia that we currently have is unnatural. Our
>parents (the WWII) generation was so afraid of government.
Its odd that you look back in fondness at a time when the government
was at a high point in political repression. We get into the 50's
when good Americans demanded that the government take the rights of
political minorities away. You complain about paranoia? The
government was an instrument of racial oppression in many areas when
the federal government began act on this right wingers got paranoid
about the federal government and blacks stayed paranoid about all
government since Hoovers FBI was running counter to the times. The
state and federal governments have been corrupt, racist, authoitarian,
liars and moral gnomes for some time.
You need to look at actual history instead of your mythological one.
>We had a major disruption of our society in the late '60s. We
>have yet to heal from it. If we were healthier as a society, there
>would not be these constant mass murders.
The first time the government is called on its bullshit tactics you
blame the victims for being paranoid. You live in a crazy world.
>At least those who go to these Baptists and Assemblies of God
>churches are more integrated in their personalities than what the
>average male is. It helps to have a large group of caring people
>around you. It helps to have a support group. To many in our
>nation have no one.
Thats what we need more religion...
>: >
>: > : >: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
>: > : >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
>: > : >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
>: > : >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
>: > : >:
>: > : >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
>: > : >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
>: > : >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
>: > : >:
>: > : >
>: > : >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the
>socialists
>: > : >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
>: > : >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a
>stronger
>: > : >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
>: > : >need to take over.
>: > : >
>: > : >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
>: > : >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
>: > : >control.
>: > :
>: > : In the present state of the US, yes! But remember the police in the
>: > : US not only have to face armed criminals but also an armed population.
>: > : Because of this they are constantly under pressure and their responses
>: > : over the years have become more and more aggressive.
>: > :
>: > : Without an armed population I think you would find the role of the
>: > : police would change markedly.
>: > :
>: > : The police in the UK are generally loved. If you want to know the
>: > : time ask a copper. In Canada the police are fairly well respected.
>: >
>: > We used have a good reasonship here in the US between the
>: > police and the population. The Vietnam War, and the counter
>: > culture, changed that. It isn't an armed population, or even our
>: > culture of individualism, that is the problem. It is the culture, the
>: > attitudes, of rebellion that is destroying us. Americans in the US
>: > have become so paranoid, so anti-authority, that it is a wonder
>: > that we function at all.
>: >
>: > The Baby Boomers went from being peaceful, law abiding kids to
>: > full rebels during the anti-war movement years. The mistrust of
>: > government, especially because of wide spread drug usage and
>: > subversive activities, has now passed on to their children. Disarming
>: > them will only fuel their mistrust. And lead to more rebellion.
>: >
>: > What is needed is for US Americans to have reasons to trust
>: > their government and each other.
>: >
>: > : I would prefer to have a properly trained Police Force in control than
>: > : gangs, hate groups, militia, etc.....
>: >
>: > The US has had problems in the past with the local cops not getting
>: > with the "program". The UK and Canada have a much stronger national
>: > police than we do. I do not think that the UK police are "owned" by
>: > the local governments but rather are national with assignments in the
>: > local communities.
>: >
>: > Canada may have city ran police but the Provincial Police seem to
>: > everywhere. But then Canada isn't having to deal with a population
>: > that is rebellious.
>:
>: --
silverback
Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <37e9933a...@news.spiritone.com>,
>gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:03:22 GMT, kur...@ass.ass (tony G as Frank
>> Cannon) wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:25:21 -0800, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>> >Ejercito) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like they
>> >>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
>> >>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
>> >>the military to protect us.
>> >
>> >This has got to be a joke.
>>
>> nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
>> martial law.
> I do not support martial law. I mean,it would be cool sight to see a
ya sure thats why you keep saying its a solution.
>country under military occupation. it is just not very practical. The
>military lacks the respiouyrces to effectively occupy thisd country.
yup a goose stomping Nazi
>
> On the other hand,if we armed ourselves,we can occupy this country as a
>militia. It is much more cost-effective than using regular military
>forces.
>
fascist pig
>
> Michael
*****************************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
Do your patriotic duty and vote for your favorite blithering idiot at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/award.html
======================================================
Michael Ejercito's solution to global warming
If the goverment wanted to end global warming, it would use its
nuclear arsenal to put enough dust into the atmoshpere
to reduce sunlight, creating a nuclear winter.
And just to prove to the world that Dan Quayle
has nothing over him, Micheal wrote.
"the problem is not people are not being
paid enough,but the costs of goods and
services are too high."
************************************************
tony G as Frank Cannon
>: >: >: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
>: >: >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
>: >: >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
>: >: >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
>: >: >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
>: >: >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
>: >: >:
>: >: >
>: >: >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the
>socialists
>: >: >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
>: >: >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a
>stronger
>: >: >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
>: >: >need to take over.
>: >: >
>: >: >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
>: >: >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
>: >: >control.
>: >: >
>: >:
>: >: Pot here comes the kettle...
>: >:
>: >: Being all for gun ownership I feel free in making the point that we
>: >: will need complete control of the populace to enforce the dream of all
>: >: righties to do away with drugs, abortion, homo's, porno and atheists.
>: >:
>: >: I thought I would pop if I didn't get that posted.
kook
>: >I think the problem is much deeper. We have elements on both
>: >sides that mistrust each other, and government, deeply. This started
>: >during the anti-war movement years. The Baby Boomers were, for
>: >the most part, law abiding and trusting of their government growing
>: >up. But with the Vietnam War, free love and drugs, they grew to be
>: >paranoid, even hate the police (pigs) and other agents of government.
>:
>: What you're saying is that the police and federal government are more
>: trustworthy now or that we should trust them just so your agenda can
>: advance.
>:
>
>To hear liberals on the net (Jim Kennemur, Mimi Weasel, Gary Lantz,
>Harry Hope) the police are far more trustworthy. Even in light of what
>the LAPD just did or what has happened in Chicago. These socialists
>want a centralized government (most likely ridding themselves of local
>government or an elected congress, just have Al Gore make all the
>policy) that runs everything.
What does what some liberals may or may "think" have to do with your
post?
You seem to imply that one of America's problems is that we don't
trust the government then you post that we shouldn't trust the
government????????????? Then you go on and complain about an elected
representative who can't be trusted. Your right he can't but then
very few of them can be trusted and I'm not refering to Reagan here.
Its amazing how you obsess over the 60's all of the time and how your
posts can contridict themselves in such a short amount of time.
>: >What we are left with is an adult population that is mistrustful of each
>: >other and the govenrment in general. It has completely stopped
>: >any form of progress in the country. If the government, in its own
>mistrust
>: >of the people, would push to completely disarm the people then I
>: >would expect massive rebellion. A total ban would fuel so much
>: >paranoia that it would destroy the country.
>:
>: As it should.
>:
>
>Our society is very dysfunctional. It makes it very hard for
>us to function is everyone not only mistrusts the government,
>but each other. That is not healthy.
So now you go back to the point we should start trusting the
government again
>: >However I do see a shift. The right is backing off using government
>: >as a solution. The politicians who are getting elected are running
>: >on libertarian viewpoints. Jesse Ventura did. And much of GWB's
>: >platform in Texas was very libertarian.
>:
>: If you say so.
>
>When I say libertarian, I mean fiscally conservative and
>socially moderate. Basically having the government stay
>out of people's lives. GWB made those kinds of comments
>in his last governors race.
I remember when Reagan was elected he said he was going to get the
government off of peoples backs. He meant rich people. He did bring
us more drug laws, a greater security state, intrusion into womens
wombs etc...
I will believe George when he repeals all sodomy laws in Texas.
>: >That may well be what it takes. I feel that we will see politicians
>: >run as fiscal conservatives and social moderates. That might be
>: >the balance point that we all can agree on.
>:
silverback
>: >: >: : Actually,we should just have the military defend the country
>: >: >: : like they did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and
>: >: >: : 1870's. It is obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect
>: >: >: : us,so we must turn to the military to protect us.
>: >: >:
>: >: >: That's what I like about you, Mike. Always a very logical, well-
>: >: >: thought-out post. I always feel so enlightened after reading one
>: >: >: of your posts! I mean, just by comparison.
>: >: >:
>: >: >
>: >: >But he gets the point. If gun control isn't working then the
>socialists
>: >: >want a total ban. In the same light, local government doesn't do a
>: >: >very good job of protecting its populations. Thus we "need" a
>stronger
>: >: >force to make sure the American people obey the laws. The military
>: >: >need to take over.
>: >: >
>: >: >It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
>: >: >to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
>: >: >control.
>: >: >
>: >:
>: >: Pot here comes the kettle...
>: >:
>: >: Being all for gun ownership I feel free in making the point that we
>: >: will need complete control of the populace to enforce the dream of all
>: >: righties to do away with drugs, abortion, homo's, porno and atheists.
>: >:
>: >: I thought I would pop if I didn't get that posted.
>: >
>: >I think the problem is much deeper. We have elements on both
>: >sides that mistrust each other, and government, deeply. This started
>: >during the anti-war movement years. The Baby Boomers were, for
>: >the most part, law abiding and trusting of their government growing
>: >up. But with the Vietnam War, free love and drugs, they grew to be
>: >paranoid, even hate the police (pigs) and other agents of government.
>:
>: What you're saying is that the police and federal government are more
>: trustworthy now or that we should trust them just so your agenda can
>: advance.
>:
>
>To hear liberals on the net (Jim Kennemur, Mimi Weasel, Gary Lantz,
>Harry Hope) the police are far more trustworthy. Even in light of what
>the LAPD just did or what has happened in Chicago. These socialists
>want a centralized government (most likely ridding themselves of local
>government or an elected congress, just have Al Gore make all the
>policy) that runs everything.
>
>: >What we are left with is an adult population that is mistrustful of each
>: >other and the govenrment in general. It has completely stopped
>: >any form of progress in the country. If the government, in its own
>mistrust
>: >of the people, would push to completely disarm the people then I
>: >would expect massive rebellion. A total ban would fuel so much
>: >paranoia that it would destroy the country.
>:
>: As it should.
>:
>
>Our society is very dysfunctional. It makes it very hard for
>us to function is everyone not only mistrusts the government,
>but each other. That is not healthy.
Whats funny here dino old boy was you just accused the liberals of
trusting the government a few lines above. You forgot thats its all
the right wing loonies that don't trust the government like the
militas, the Posse, the Wise Use fools and countless other right wing
trash groupies.
Tell us were you drunk when you posted that rant or are you just
that damn stupid?
>
>: >However I do see a shift. The right is backing off using government
>: >as a solution. The politicians who are getting elected are running
>: >on libertarian viewpoints. Jesse Ventura did. And much of GWB's
>: >platform in Texas was very libertarian.
>:
>: If you say so.
>
>When I say libertarian, I mean fiscally conservative and
>socially moderate. Basically having the government stay
>out of people's lives. GWB made those kinds of comments
>in his last governors race.
>
>
>: >That may well be what it takes. I feel that we will see politicians
>: >run as fiscal conservatives and social moderates. That might be
>: >the balance point that we all can agree on.
>:
>: Sure. You keep thinking that.
>
>What other choice do we have? Civil war?
>
>
>
>
*****************************************************
Butterfly
Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <37e9933a...@news.spiritone.com>,
>gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com (silverback) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:03:22 GMT, kur...@ass.ass (tony G as Frank
>> Cannon) wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 16:25:21 -0800, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>> >Ejercito) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Actually,we should just have the military defend the country like they
>> >>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
>> >>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn to
>> >>the military to protect us.
>> >
>> >This has got to be a joke.
>>
>> nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
>> martial law.
> I do not support martial law. I mean,it would be cool sight to see a
>country under military occupation. it is just not very practical. The
>military lacks the respiouyrces to effectively occupy thisd country.
>
> On the other hand,if we armed ourselves,we can occupy this country as a
>militia. It is much more cost-effective than using regular military
>forces.
> Michael
What do you mean *armed ourselves*? You're already an armed
population. There are 200,000,000,guns out there.
You must be the only country of the 29 Industrialized countries that
doesn't have an effective police force that is liked to some degree.
Butterfly
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservatives. John Stuart Mill (1806 - 18873)
Greg Dean
: >: >: Pot here comes the kettle...
No, Pat Buchanan got me thinking about the different
types of those on the Right. The paranoid Right is the
left overs of the John Birch movement. Plus those ex-
hippies who became neo-conservatives. It is the Right
that now fuels much of the paranoia in America. However
Oliver Stone and others on the Left do their share.
But the roots are in the anti-war movement and the
drug culture of the '60s. That is when trust started
to break down (JFK's death and so on).
: >
: >: >However I do see a shift. The right is backing off using government
Greg Dean
: >: this date all with the same dribble... a parrot perhaps, or just a
: >: newborn spammer. either way...
: >:
: >: PLUNK
: >:
: >
: >Then you are saying that the current culture in the US is Healthy?
: >The level of paranoia that we currently have is unnatural. Our
: >parents (the WWII) generation was so afraid of government.
:
: Its odd that you look back in fondness at a time when the government
: was at a high point in political repression. We get into the 50's
: when good Americans demanded that the government take the rights of
: political minorities away. You complain about paranoia? The
: government was an instrument of racial oppression in many areas when
: the federal government began act on this right wingers got paranoid
: about the federal government and blacks stayed paranoid about all
: government since Hoovers FBI was running counter to the times. The
: state and federal governments have been corrupt, racist, authoitarian,
: liars and moral gnomes for some time.
For most American, that time was great. Under FDR and Truman
life had order. People trusted their governments. It was only for a
few, and then in the south under the southern Democrats, that there
was that type of oppression.
FDR may have been an autocrat, but he was our autocrat. Under
his and an Truman's leadership we won WWII. If only the current
democratic leadership was as great as these two.
: You need to look at actual history instead of your mythological one.
:
: >We had a major disruption of our society in the late '60s. We
: >have yet to heal from it. If we were healthier as a society, there
: >would not be these constant mass murders.
:
: The first time the government is called on its bullshit tactics you
: blame the victims for being paranoid. You live in a crazy world.
:
Government also has used bullshit tactics. J. Edger Hoover had
way too much power. But society had order. People did know
where they stood. Not like now where everything is fucked up.
And no one gives a shit about anything but making a buck.
And you wonder why people kill? It is better than being forgotten.
: >At least those who go to these Baptists and Assemblies of God
: >churches are more integrated in their personalities than what the
: >average male is. It helps to have a large group of caring people
: >around you. It helps to have a support group. To many in our
: >nation have no one.
:
: Thats what we need more religion...
It gives order and meaning to people's lives. It gives a
sense of community and belonging. Things that the guy
in Ft Worth did not seem to have.
Look around you. How many empty lives do you see?
How many people just hungry for someone to talk to,
for someone to care? Liberals are not meeting those
needs.
:
: >: >
: >
:
Greg Dean
they
: >> >>did during the Reconstruction period in the 1860's and 1870's. It is
: >> >>obvious civilian law enforecement can not protect us,so we must turn
to
: >> >>the military to protect us.
: >> >
: >>
: >> nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
: >> martial law.
: > I do not support martial law. I mean,it would be cool sight to see a
: ya sure thats why you keep saying its a solution.
:
: >country under military occupation. it is just not very practical. The
: >military lacks the respiouyrces to effectively occupy thisd country.
: yup a goose stomping Nazi
:
: >
: > On the other hand,if we armed ourselves,we can occupy this country as
a
: >militia. It is much more cost-effective than using regular military
: >forces.
:
: fascist pig
It is aristocrats like yourself that the workers fear.
You are the police state that is coming.
The only problem is that you will need to the workers
to enforce your dictates.
What are you going to do when Clinton activates the
Draft next year after the elections?
Greg Dean
: >: >
: >: >nope the damn little moron is a goose stomping Nazi thats hung up on
: >: >martial law.
: >:
: >: hammerheaded righty should know that the military during
: >: reconstruction was all about law enforcement for a few people and
: >: tough shit for everybody else.
: >
: >It has more to do with the fact that we are so rebellious that a massive
: >push for a total gun ban would fuel paranoia to levels that the local
cops
: >could not control the US population.
: >
: >of really stoping crime before it happens. Local communities
: >do not have the money to really do a great job of policing. Thus
: >convert the Army into a national police force. The UK has a
: >national, not local, force as it is now. So does France. And the
: >French use military police as well. I forget the French word for
: >guards under arms (armed guards). Maybe the liberals are
: >right, just get rid of local government. Run everything from D.C.
:
: The UK has local constabulatories. Even in Northern Ireland.
Not to my understanding. The UK has more of a national
police force. The locals are still nationally hired. They do
not answer to the local mayor but to a chain of command
directly answerable to the PM.
: Gendarmes is the word you're looking for. And they are a civilian
: force. The only civilian units under military control was le Legion
: Estranger.
It is the Gendarmes. They are military. Spain has a similar program
under the National Guard. It is common to see Gendarmes (guards
under arms, that is military) with two soldiers. The soldiers will have
rifles. All three will have their weapons chained to their bodies.
: While a gun ban is unlikely, a revolt against gun owners is becoming a
: distinct possibility.
Half of all American are gun owners. Only the socialist elite in
the universities and in the national media are wanting anything
major to happen. The working class has quietly resisted such
police state thinking that the elite believe in. The workers are
quietly practicing civil disobedience. Even CBS tonight had a
piece asking why we are seeing gun sales at an all time high.
It is because the workers fear the educated elite.
tHewHiz
wrote:
>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Greg Dean <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>: :
>: : Baloney. We have laws against people owning certain drugs, explosives,
>: : certain kinds of medical equipment, even fireworks in lots of places.
>: : Nobody expects these laws to work perfectly, just as the law against
>: : murder doesn't work perfectly.
>
>: Why not? Why shouldn't we have a "perfect" society? Isn't that
>: what socialism is all about? A perfect, moral society.
>
>Gosh, Greg, it's so easy for you to define those philosophies
>you don't agree with! No, neither socialism nor capitalism
>are utopian. And neither is involved with morality.
>
>The way I see it, our government, and most governments that work
>at all, are combinations of capitalist and socialist models.
>We have socialized national defense, police and fire protection,
>highways, foreign trade agreements, etc. etc. This is because
>most of us see these functions as something handled best by
>government at some level. What does that have to do with a
>'perfect moral society'?
>
>: : : It is in the same thought pattern. Most liberals should be able
>: : : to understand that it will take a police state to enforce total gun
>: : : control.
>: :
>: : Well you won't find most liberals advocating a police state. I
>: : don't think a police state is the only alternative to imperfect
>: : gun laws, I think that's a false dichotomy. Lots of us (not
>: : all 'liberals' either) think we could have a little stronger
>: : controls on guns.
>
>: It is the only way. There is such a level of paranoia in
>: our country that gun bans will only produce rebellion.
>: Very few people will register more than a few guns.
>: The rest will "disappear". Already many are laying out
>: the mechanism for civil disobedience over guns. A lot
>: of lawyers are showing clients how to beat the gun laws.
>
>Yes, we have a small contingent of paranoid 2nd-amendment
>loonies.
>
>: : Sen. Bradley has the idea to license guns in the same way we
>: : license cars. We do have people driving cars without licenses
>: : or insurance, but nobody thinks we need a police state to enforce
>: : automobile licensing laws.
>
>: But the state police do enforce auto licensing.
>
>Of course. How else would you do it? And yes, police would
>enforce gun laws, just as they do now. What's your problem?
>
>: Besides if guns were licensed like cars then I
>: could carry in every state. Hell, even cops can't
>: carry across state boarders. We do not have
>: uniform gun laws in this country. Auto laws are
>: uniform.
>
>Well that's a good point. Actually, auto laws are not
>-completely- uniform, but mostly. Guns would probably
>be different since you have less reason to bring a
>gun with you from state to state, unless it's for
>hunting or something.
>
>When you drive into Canada, they ask you if you are
>carrying any weapons, since the controls are much
>stricter there. Your American drivers license and
>car registration are valid there. And I know a lot
>of Americans go to Canada to hunt, so they must
>allow guns in if you have a good reason. If you're
>just carrying a gun 'to protect yourself', they
>probably wouldn't let you do that.
>
>: And people can buy a car without going through
>: a dealer, they do not need a license to drive on
>: private property. Or insurance. Only if they are
>: in public.
>
>How many cars are bought to drive on private property?
>Theoretically you wouldn't need to pay gas taxes
>either. (Actually I think farmers are allowed to buy
>gas without paying the tax, for farm equipment. That's
>kind of the same thing.)
>
>What's the analog with guns? You can own them without
>a license so long as you don't take them off your
>property?
>
>: I would love it if gun laws were liberalized to the
>: level that auto laws are. We would be freer.
>
>Freedom has to do with more than freedom to carry guns.
>And we all learn in high school that driving is 'a
>privilege not a right'. 8^)
>
Good Post Len.
I wonder how loud they would cry foul if after registration passes all
Owners are required to get Liability insurance before they could
legally carry them.
Jim F.
Greg Dean
Many of us have liability insurance now. The NRA makes very affordable.
Most police officers carry liability insurance also. I also have pre-paid
legal thus I can afford to sue you if I need. I find that a good attorney
(hired
gun) is even better in silencing my opposition.
tHewHiz
Damn Greg I knew if we just kept talking there would come a time where
you would say something and I could Nod my head in agreement I not
only agrree with your statement I find it much more civil.
Jim F.
Eric da Red
Greg Dean <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>: This make the 9th cut and past message by Greg Dean I have encountered
>: this date all with the same dribble... a parrot perhaps, or just a
>: newborn spammer. either way...
>:
>: PLUNK
>Then you are saying that the current culture in the US is Healthy?
Yes, except for the gunloons, millennialists, religious whacks, and Laura
Warriors.
--
Horatio Alger Quote Of The Week: "The American system of ours, call it
Americanism, call it Capitalism, call it what you like, gives each and
every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands
and make the most of it." - Al Capone
Len Freedman
: : I wonder how loud they would cry foul if after registration passes all
: : Owners are required to get Liability insurance before they could
: : legally carry them.
: Many of us have liability insurance now. The NRA makes very
: affordable.
News to me! How does it work?
Suppose someone leaves a loaded gun around the house and a kid
picks it up and shoots another kid, and the other kid's parents
sue the gun owner. He can be covered by liability insurance for
that?
Suppose a foreign exchange student knocks on the door of a house
to ask directions and, mistaking him for a burglar, the person
in the house shoots him? Is that covered by liablity insurance?
What if a teenager steals his parents guns, goes to high school
and shoots a few of his classmates? Can his parents protect
themselves with liability insurance?
: Most police officers carry liability insurance also.
Not a bad idea. Like malpractice insurance for doctors.
: I also have pre-paid legal thus I can afford to sue you if I
: need. I find that a good attorney (hired gun) is even better
: in silencing my opposition.
Well the legal system is the way we deal with certain kinds of
grievances in a civil society. But I don't see it as a tool
you could use to silence us 'liberals'. 8^)
Len Freedman
: Why doesn't anyone mention that there were police officers
: in the main auditorium attending Wednesday night services
: (Baptist do go to church on Wednesday nights), some on
: the platform with the music ministry.
: It was just that the cops were not with the youth. It doesn't
: help if those with guns are not there with the weak.
Even if there had been a uniformed guard there with a submachine
gun hanging over his shoulder with the safety off, there would
probably have been two or three kids killed before the guard
could shoot. So what you really need to prevent this kind of
thing is not only for -everyone- to have a gun, but for them
to be required to keep the gun loaded, cocked, and in their
hand at all times. 8^)
tony G as Frank Cannon
>: >: This make the 9th cut and past message by Greg Dean I have encountered
>: >: this date all with the same dribble... a parrot perhaps, or just a
>: >: newborn spammer. either way...
>: >:
>: >: PLUNK
>: >:
>: >
>: >Then you are saying that the current culture in the US is Healthy?
>: >The level of paranoia that we currently have is unnatural. Our
>: >parents (the WWII) generation was so afraid of government.
>:
>: Its odd that you look back in fondness at a time when the government
>: was at a high point in political repression. We get into the 50's
>: when good Americans demanded that the government take the rights of
>: political minorities away. You complain about paranoia? The
>: government was an instrument of racial oppression in many areas when
>: the federal government began act on this right wingers got paranoid
>: about the federal government and blacks stayed paranoid about all
>: government since Hoovers FBI was running counter to the times. The
>: state and federal governments have been corrupt, racist, authoitarian,
>: liars and moral gnomes for some time.
>:
>
>For most American, that time was great. Under FDR and Truman
>life had order. People trusted their governments.
Life was great during the depression? There also was paraniods who
followed father Coughlin and Huey Long and Organizations like the
German American Bund.
>It was only for a
>few, and then in the south under the southern Democrats, that there
>was that type of oppression.
Institutionaized racism was all over the country.
Greg Dean
: >: this date all with the same dribble... a parrot perhaps, or just a
: >: newborn spammer. either way...
: >:
: >: PLUNK
:
:
: >Then you are saying that the current culture in the US is Healthy?
:
: Yes, except for the gunloons, millennialists, religious whacks, and Laura
: Warriors.
And a Left wing that gives into the professional class.
Therefore we have a culture that no longer cares about
anyone. Make money then hide out in the suburbs.
The Left is a joke. It no longer is reflects FDR-Truman-JFK
Greg Dean
: >: >: our country that gun bans will only produce rebellion.
: >: >: Very few people will register more than a few guns.
: >: >: The rest will "disappear". Already many are laying out
: >: >: the mechanism for civil disobedience over guns. A lot
: >: >: of lawyers are showing clients how to beat the gun laws.
: >: >
: >: >Yes, we have a small contingent of paranoid 2nd-amendment
: >: >loonies.
: >: >
: >: >: : Sen. Bradley has the idea to license guns in the same way we
: >: >: : license cars. We do have people driving cars without licenses
: >: >: : automobile licensing laws.
: >: Owners are required to get Liability insurance before they could
: >: legally carry them.
: >
: >Many of us have liability insurance now. The NRA makes very affordable.
pre-paid
: >legal thus I can afford to sue you if I need. I find that a good
attorney
: >(hired
: >gun) is even better in silencing my opposition.
: Damn Greg I knew if we just kept talking there would come a time where
: you would say something and I could Nod my head in agreement I not
: only agrree with your statement I find it much more civil.
With a good legal team I can take your kids from you, send you
to jail for life, fuck you up in ways that you will never recover from.
It is just having enough money to force the court to see it your way.
Justice is for those with deep pockets, just like playing poker.
I am surprised that more people do not have pre-paid legal
services.
Greg Dean
: : : Owners are required to get Liability insurance before they could
: : : legally carry them.
:
: : Many of us have liability insurance now. The NRA makes very
: : affordable.
:
:
: Suppose someone leaves a loaded gun around the house and a kid
: picks it up and shoots another kid, and the other kid's parents
: sue the gun owner. He can be covered by liability insurance for
: that?
Even homeowners deals with that. That is why you have
a million dollar umbrella policy. Obviously, if you are neglectful
they insurance company may not cover. But that happens with
car insurance as well. Leave your keys in the car and it might
not be covered from theft.
: Suppose a foreign exchange student knocks on the door of a house
: to ask directions and, mistaking him for a burglar, the person
: in the house shoots him? Is that covered by liablity insurance?
Depends on state law. If you had a reasonable fear for your
life, the lawsuit might not stand in court. They would have to
prove neglect. Courts have held that people take risks going
to private homes after certain hours of the night. That it a reasonable
assumption of violation of privacy.
: What if a teenager steals his parents guns, goes to high school
: and shoots a few of his classmates? Can his parents protect
: themselves with liability insurance?
If the parents were not neglectful, that they secured the weapons,
then there would would be no liability. Just because your kids get
the keys or defeat the combination on the safe, doesn't mean that
you didn't do everything within your power to avoid risk.
We have had kids kill their parents to get the keys to the gun
safe (used a knife), kids have figured out the combination or
found the keys (kids as young as three have taken cars keys
and started the car) or even broken down the a locked cabinet.
: : Most police officers carry liability insurance also.
:
: Not a bad idea. Like malpractice insurance for doctors.
Cities carry liability insurance for law enforcement. The
FOP can provide additional insurance or legal help.
:
: : I also have pre-paid legal thus I can afford to sue you if I
: : need. I find that a good attorney (hired gun) is even better
: : in silencing my opposition.
:
: Well the legal system is the way we deal with certain kinds of
: grievances in a civil society. But I don't see it as a tool
: you could use to silence us 'liberals'. 8^)
It is very easy to set someone up. Hell folks (usually the poor)
get false child abuse charges against them. There are so
many laws, everyone has broken some law. Working with
attorneys, or even having a cop help, you can set anyone up.
Most people will just cop a peal so you have them. Most do
not want to spend the money. Drug laws work fine too. Even
a false report can get people raided. Maybe even killed. And
you can do it anonymously.
Greg Dean
What we have noted is that this current crop of mass murders
are looking for easy targets, the weak. Bulford Furrow passed
up targets with high levels of security. Strong force (armed police)
forced the guy in Atlanta to commit suicide, ending his rampage.
These idiots seem not to want to be confronted.
Zepp
Ejercito) wrote:
>In article <37e85534....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
>(Zepp) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:32:26 -0700, meje...@csulb.edu (Michael
>> Ejercito) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <37e704a9....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
>> >(Zepp) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 02:07:02 GMT, "Greg Dean" <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
>> >> >It was pointed out on Fox New Sunday that none of the
>> >> >laws we have now, nor any that we have we are talking
>> >> >about passing could have prevented this. In fact a total
>> >> >gun ban would not have prevented it. The problems are
>> >> >much deeper than just guns.
>> >>
>> >> Fox Whorely News was just repeating the NRA chant. "Laws don't work!
>> >> Boo hoo hoo! Laws don't work!".
>> > Well,some laws work. The laws restricting drugs make drug dealers
>> >wealthy. What do you think laws restricting guns and ammunition will do?
>>
>> Gun manufacturers are already wealthy. Killed more Americans than
>> every enemy this country ever had combined, but no fortune was made
>> without a bit of a price to be paid.
> Nmae one person killed by a gun manufacturer. And how will we fight our
>enemies without guns,Zeppo?
In your case, lithium should get rid of most of them.
>> I want limits on power, range, shooting speed and frequency of rounds.
>> Beyond that, the only other restriction is to make gun makers and gun
>> owners liable for the damage their little pets do.
> Should we place limits on alcoholic beverages,since more people die
>from alcohol than guns?
There ARE limits on alcoholic beverages, Mikey.
>
> Michael
**********************************************************
"Bush could shoot up on Larry King Live and *still* beat Gore!!!"
. -- Pissy, demonstrating that he thinks the election is
bought and in the bag, and it doesn't matter if G-Dub
is a junkie or not.
**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
Liberalism Resurgent, Steve's brilliant
and well-documented page, is mirrored at
the following locations:
Len Freedman
: And a Left wing that gives into the professional class.
: Therefore we have a culture that no longer cares about
: anyone. Make money then hide out in the suburbs.
I think you're a little confused there, Dean. Those are
the Republican values. That plus a lot of sanctimonious
preaching about personal responsiblity and family values.
: The Left is a joke. It no longer is reflects FDR-Truman-JFK
The Democratic party, you're right, it no longer has the
vaguely liberal values of FDR, Truman and JFK. The real
left has always been considerably to the left of the Demo
party, just as real conservatives have always been to
the right of the Repulbicans.
You guys always say the 'left' is a joke, obsolete, falling
apart, etc. Then in the next paragraph you complain that
they've been running the country for 40 years and they're
still in control. 8^)
Len Freedman
:: Even if there had been a uniformed guard there with a submachine
:: gun hanging over his shoulder with the safety off, there would
:: probably have been two or three kids killed before the guard
:: could shoot. So what you really need to prevent this kind of
:: thing is not only for -everyone- to have a gun, but for them
:: to be required to keep the gun loaded, cocked, and in their
:: hand at all times. 8^)
In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Greg Dean <N9...@AMSAT.org> wrote:
: What we have noted is that this current crop of mass murders
: are looking for easy targets, the weak. Bulford Furrow passed
: up targets with high levels of security. Strong force (armed
: police) forced the guy in Atlanta to commit suicide, ending
: his rampage. These idiots seem not to want to be confronted.
I think they just want to do maximum damage first. My guess is
that they usually expect to be killed themselves (or else they
commit suicide).
Furrow is unique in that he actuallygot away after the shooting
and then turned himself in later. He said "I'm the one who
killed the kids," because he thought he had killed a few.
In any case, if one or two of the kids in the church had been
packin' heat, in a handbag or backpack or something, he would
still have killed a few people.
You and I are old enough to remember when there was a uniformed
armed guard at every bank, standing near the door. There were
-more- bank robberies in those days, not fewer. And if anyone
got shot, the first to go was usually the guard.