GTE Wireless Says "Up Yours" To Gunowners !
Robert Frenchu
(Roger Denney) wrote:
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 19:49:35 -0400 (EDT)
>You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
>was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail outlets.
So what are they going to do, wrestle you and take it away? Cut off
your phone service?
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
____________________________________________________
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Robert J. Christman
>
>
>
> No, but they can call the police and have you arrested for a weapons felony,
> since a permit to carry is not valid in their stores.
>
Depends on the state. Not all state laws read the same on this.
In many all they could do is request that you leave. If you
refuse they can then call the police and charge you with
trespassing. Other states have laws such as you describe. Some
don't address it at all.
--
Bob C. NRA Endowment USN (Ret)
jse...@my-dejanews.com
robert....@mailexcite.com (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>
> >You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
> >was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail outlets.
>
> So what are they going to do, wrestle you and take it away? Cut off
> your phone service?
>
> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
No, but they can call the police and have you arrested for a weapons felony,
since a permit to carry is not valid in their stores.
The point stands that they think that guns are the problem, not criminals.
===
John Senese
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
The Modern Poet
>
>In article <35f4b50d...@news.redshift.com>,
> robert....@mailexcite.com (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>>
>> >You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
>> >was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail outlets.
>>
>> So what are they going to do, wrestle you and take it away? Cut off
>> your phone service?
>>
>> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>No, but they can call the police and have you arrested for a weapons felony,
>since a permit to carry is not valid in their stores.
>
>The point stands that they think that guns are the problem, not criminals.
>
>===
>
>John Senese
No...They can't. The best they can do is accuse you of trespassing. The
policy is a store policy, not a point of law. If they called the police, the
police would ask to see a ccw. In any case, as any informed person knows, most
states ccw laws mean exactly that Concealed. There woiuld be no need for them
to know you are carrying a firearm. GTE did this not to prevent guns from
coming into their stores, but to kiss the collective asses of liberal
cry-babies. By the way, if an armed robber did enter the store, what are they
going to do? Refer him to the "No guns" police by the door. Another thing, if
GTE really thinks that guns are the root of the crime problem rahter than
criminals.....Well...They are catagorically and without a doubt incorrect.
The Poet
Thom Borland
wrote:
>RKBA Defenders,
>
>You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
>was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail outlets.
AT&T Wireless also has "no guns" stickers on the doors of their
retail outlets. Boycott everyone.
Robert Frenchu
jse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <35f4b50d...@news.redshift.com>,
> robert....@mailexcite.com (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
>>
>> >You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
>> >was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail outlets.
>>
>> So what are they going to do, wrestle you and take it away? Cut off
>> your phone service?
>>
>> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
>No, but they can call the police and have you arrested for a weapons felony,
>since a permit to carry is not valid in their stores.
They could if they knew you were carrying- hence the "concealed" part.
So this is a non-issue. Who cares what signs they post?
Ronald C Bloom ii
Roger Denney wrote in message <35f84faf...@news.inreach.com>...
>>Either you have Creator-endowed "Rights", in which case you hypocrites
have NO
>>right to disarm violent criminals,mentally-unstable people and
alcohol/drug-abusers OR
>>you have the privileges granted by law which bars such dangerous people
from owning or
>>bearing firearms.
>
>>Which is it ?
>
>>Roger
This article does not represent the opinions of all gun owners, like your
assumptions do not speak for all Marxist assholes who generalize.
>In response, former policeman W.L. wrote in:
> "I tend to find myself straddling the fence. I don't want 'violent
>felons' to have legal access to guns. The 81-year-old non-violent 'felon'
>certainly shoots down the conventional wisdom, at least for me.
ASK THE FEDS.
> "As a former police officer, I can tell you that the barring of felons
>from being armed was a pro-active tool. Granted, most of my experience was
>in small towns. We knew who was trouble.
Name ONE Felon who was detered from getting a gun because he was BANNED from
owning it?
> "When a felony was what most people think of as a felony (murder,
>aggravated robbery, sexual assault, burglary, car theft (no longer a real
>felony in Texas), aggravated assault, kidnapping, etc.), then laws banning
>felons from possessing arms, makes sense to me. When felonies are defined
>as catching the wrong kind of fish, shooting a predatory bird to protect
>you lambs, or whatever the crime of the month is, then I agree with you.
Anyone ever been convicted of a Felony for the above crimes???? I doubt it.
>>Seems this officer of the law disagrees with your false assertions about
young
>>Mr. Cosby's unfortunate situtation possibly being changed had he been
armed,
>> doesn't it ?
Cosby would not be dead if the criminal who was BANNED from owning guns, did
not have one. Every case is different. Cosby might be alive if we did not
have shitheads walking our streets, or the INS letting people into the
nation who HAVE NO MARKETABLE SKILLS.
> "I guess my bottom line is that I want some people disqualified from
>exercising their Second Amendment rights. However, the criteria (felony
>record) is most faulty. We will all soon be felons is they keep passing
>laws!
Again ASK THE FEDS. In New York, it is extended to misdemeanors. The only
Felons you are deterring, are Felons who OBEY THE LAW. Find one, I'll kiss
his ass.
> Finally, I fear we must agree to disagree on Concealed Handgun Permits.
>The government CANNOT convert a right into a privilege, available only by
>permit or license, and then infringe the rights of the vast majority as
>they furiously search for the occasional violator of their unenforceable
>new "malum prohibitum." Governments have shown, again and again, that they
>will NOT stop at what is "modest and reasonable."
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>There it is again, gun-hypocrites. Which is it ?
Handguns are NOT protected by the Second Amendment. They are not militia
weapons.
>> Gun-ownership is:
>
>>A: so-called "Right" or a;
>
>>B: a privilege granted by law ?
DUH, that is why so many people are pissed off at the assholes at the NRA
>>Clue: Those of you who have opted to obtain a CCW permit have already
agreed to "B",
>>which, of course make YOU a bunch of hypocrites, by definition <bfg>.
>
>
>>Roger
>
>
> Write to the ATF today, tell them you're a law-abiding citizen who
>doesn't mind undergoing a background check, and tell them you want to buy a
>license to set up a little machine shop to mill receivers for Browning
>Automatic Rifles in 30.06, on which you will then build up complete
>full-auto BARs from imported spare parts kits, for sale to law-abiding
>CIVILIAN customers, including members of the Unorganized Montana Militia,
>in keeping with the intent of the Second Amendment and the 1934 National
>Firearms Act. Promise to collect and remit their $200 "transfer tax" on
>each weapon you manufacture and sell, and tell them your goal is to
>eventually produce and sell 10,000 new machine guns each year
>(militia-style, no "legitimate sporting use" that you know of), to
>law-abiding American CIVILIANS, at a cost of $900 apiece. See how far you
>get.
Do you have to get a permit to practice your religion, or free speech?
>>Bawahhahahahahahhahahahah!!!
>
>>l love it <g>
>
>>Roger
>
>
> And as for retaining ownership of any firearm NOT on your "concealed
>carry" permit ... forget it. After all, no one can legitimately "need" more
>than one or two, can they? And therefore we OBVIOUSLY have to do an annual
>"courtesy home inspection" to make sure you don't have any extras, which
>would only serve as a temptation to burglars ...
Violation of the Fourth Amendment, but look at Burger vs. NY. Gov't gives
you a license, your rights GO OUT THE WINDOW.
> The other side wants Total Victim Disarmament. Once we help them disarm
>"just a few dangerous ex-felons," they're going to smile and start pushing
>that wedge in, wider and wider. Ever been convicted of misdemeanor spouse
>abuse? Ever agreed to go to a mental health care facility for 72 hours
>observation to calm down a concerned loved one because you got depressed
>and hit the bottle for a week after a close friend or relative died? Sorry,
>no firearms for you.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>There it is again, gunloons.
Nice of these so-called Gun Loons to speak for all of us. Only an asshole
would think that individuals speak for 75 million Americans.
> Shooting ranges? All shut down due to noise and lead pollution. Ammo?
>That box of 20 shells will be $220, thanks to the Moynihan
>thousand-percent ammo tax ... but don't worry, the extra money goes to the
>medical care of gang members ("little children") recovering in the hospital
>after being shot while committing grand theft, while the officers who shot
>them face million-dollar civil liability suits.
This would be a good thing, I would love nothing more than to tell a bunch
of elitist assholes that the trap and skeet range in closed. Stick it right
in their ass.
Bill Bonde
>
>
> "But what about the guy who was convicted of aggravated robbery at 17,
> 23, and 29? Okay, paroling him at the end of two years on each five-year
> sentence is insanity. But suppose he served all five years each time, and
> demonstrates that when he is free, the temptation to use force to take
> whatever he wants is too great to resist? Do you favor three strikes and
> you're out? Or one strike?
>
My view is that crime control is not baseball and therefore there is no
reason to wait for three strikes before the person is deemed worthy of
punishment. In fact, I think that by guaranteeing swift, sure and great
punishment for those who commit ONE crime, we are likely to discourage
people from choosing the path of lawlessness.
One problem currently is that we don't have enough prison space to house
everyone for a long enough time to make the punishment more than fit the
crime, therefore crime pays. The solution is not use prison for those
crimes that have no basis in violence and to increase the prison terms
by four or five times for those that do.
Dick Lander
ii" <RBL...@prodigy.net> wrote:
(snip)
> Handguns are NOT protected by the Second Amendment. They are not militia
> weapons.
Really? Do tell!
> >> Gun-ownership is:
> >
> >>A: so-called "Right" or a;
> >
> >>B: a privilege granted by law ?
>
>
> DUH, that is why so many people are pissed off at the assholes at the NRA
Why is that, again?
> >>Clue: Those of you who have opted to obtain a CCW permit have already
> agreed to "B",
> >>which, of course make YOU a bunch of hypocrites, by definition <bfg>.
> >
> >
> >>Roger
This only demonstrates that Roger is a simpleton who has trouble
distinguishing between owning and carrying.
(snip)
> Nice of these so-called Gun Loons to speak for all of us. Only an asshole
> would think that individuals speak for 75 million Americans.
But Roger is a particularly egocentric, paternalistic asshole who's doing
it here...similar to another egocentric, paternalistic asshole quoted below
my .sig, who left the ng after getting his clock cleaned.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard W. (Dick) Lander; sportsman,
Macintosh devotee, proponent
of personal liberty.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Another day...another chance something
will be found hazardous to my health...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In article
<Pine.HPP.3.95.970812...@bluejay.creighton.edu>,
<jer...@creighton.edu> wrote:
"I am intelectually [sic] superior to most people on this newgroup [sic].
What can I say?"
I know what I can say: ROFLMAO!!!!!!
Ray Ledford
[Vin's excellent column and Roger's bs snipped]
Vin did NOT refer to any gunowners as hypocrites, nor do any
libertarians I know. As a libertarian myself, I certainly do NOT
refer to gunowners as hypocrites.
Your subject header is egregiously false, and your views on gun
ownership go against the ideals of liberty.
Ray Ledford
to email remove "nospam" from address
For the best news go to http://www.worldnetdaily.com
julia.c...@iint.com
jse...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35f4b50d...@news.redshift.com>,
> robert....@mailexcite.com (Robert Frenchu) wrote:
> >
> > >You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
> > >was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail outlets.
> >
> > So what are they going to do, wrestle you and take it away? Cut off
> > your phone service?
> >
> > Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
> No, but they can call the police and have you arrested for a weapons felony,
> since a permit to carry is not valid in their stores.
Depends on the State the store is in.
With freedom of speech, you can say almost anything you want, but that
doesn't make it either true or legally binding.
Here in Georgia, for example, some stores or malls sometimes post a
sign that says no guns, or words to that effect. It has absolutely no
force of law, and they can't even have you prosecuted for criminal trespass
or anything for ignoring it. If a store owner or manager or other employee
in charge sees the gun and asks you to leave, and you don't leave, then
they can go after you for criminal trespass whether they had a no guns sign
or not. But they have exactly the same right to ask you to leave because
your shirt is dirty, or your voice is loud, or they don't like the way you
comb your hair. (The only things they can't ask you to leave over are
civil rights things like your race or sex.)
Usually, someone with a concealed carry permit will be carrying in a holster
that is so well hidden that nobody can tell short of passing you through a
metal detector or actually physically searching you.
The laws of most States that issue concealed carry permits are similar to
Georgia's in that respect. A few States make it a prosecutable offense for
a CCW permittee to ignore a business establishment's "no gun" sign, but those
States are the exception rather than the rule, and just offhand I can't think
of *any* State where a CCW permit holder who ignored that sign would be guilty
of a felony. I think Texas may be one of the States where you can't just
ignore the sign, but I think it's a misdemeanor if you're caught---and they
still can't search you beyond a quick Terry-stop pat-down without probable
cause. Paul Barnett keeps pretty close tabs on Texas law, so he would be
the person to ask on that (check his web page).
Julie
James S. Rustad
I've always been amazed when someone points to an article as
supporting their position that doesn't.
Vin believes that rights are absolute -- Roger believes that
gun-ownership is a privilege.
Vin believes that convicted felons should not be back out on the
street -- therefore, there is no question about convicted felons
having the RKBA (among other rights). Roger believes that letting
convicted felons back out on the street without the ability to
exercise their RKBA (among other rights) is to admit that the RKBA
(and apparently other rights) are not absolute. The position taken by
courts is more along the lines of removing the free exercise of
certain rights as part of the sentence for the crime committed.
And before Roger gets too excited about "Libertarians Agree[ing]" with
him, let me point out that I don't agree with him and I've been a
Libertarian for my nearly all of my adult life. I also don't always
agree with Vin, but I can understand his arguments -- unlike Roger.
James S. Rustad LPWI NRA Life
Remove "spam." from email address before using.
Wald...@hotmail.com
>You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
>was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail outlets.
===================
This is rich! I can almost see the disappointed looks on the armed robbers'
faces: They approach the GTE store, pistols in hand, only to have their
whole plan thwarted by a "NO GUNS ALLOWED" sign!
What's next? Seven-Elevens with "NO ARMED ROBBERY" signs?
If you were a crook, would you feel more comfortable sticking up the GTE
store, or Moe's Pawn & Gun shop down the block?
Waldo
"The rumors are false. There is NO stupidity shortage."
James S. Rustad
>Handguns are NOT protected by the Second Amendment. They are not militia
>weapons.
Since when? I point out that there are handguns that are regular
issue in the US military (as well as the armed forces of other
nations). How do you define handguns as non-milita weapons?
<deleted>
>This would be a good thing, I would love nothing more than to tell a bunch
>of elitist assholes that the trap and skeet range in closed. Stick it right
>in their ass.
I think it a little strange that you are wishing ill upon "elitist
assholes" for ignoring the rights of other gun owners just because
their firearm of choice isn't affected.
Isn't this *EXACTLY* what you are doing in the case of handguns?
"What a maroon!"
tudor
>>was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail outlets.
>
>retail outlets. Boycott everyone.
The paranoid, schizophrenic gun nut wacko fringe is at it again. Poor gun
nuts. GTE and AT&T don't want peeople carrying guns into their offices.
Their employees prefer to live. What a tragedy!!
Blaine Fields
This would include police officers, I presume.
--
Regards,
Blaine L. Fields
[To reply, delete the lower case x's from the address]
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But
notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism
seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
--Alexis de Tocqueville
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty
may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but
those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for
they do so with the approval of their consciences."
-- C.S Lewis
John Johnson
<tu...@mediaone.net> writes:
> Thom Borland wrote in message
> <35f1fe5d...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>> On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 18:01:42 GMT, rgde...@yahoo.com
>> (Roger Denney) wrote:
>>
>>> RKBA Defenders,
>>>
>>> You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting
>>> that GTE was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail
>>> outlets.
>>
>> AT&T Wireless also has "no guns" stickers on the doors of their
>> retail outlets. Boycott everyone.
>
> The paranoid, schizophrenic gun nut wacko fringe is at it again.
"It's a good thing we gun owners are not as bad as the
anti-gunners like to make us out to be, or there wouldn't
be any anti-gunners."
--An Anonymous Gun Owner
> Poor gun nuts. GTE and AT&T don't want peeople {SIC} carrying
> guns into their offices. Their employees prefer to live. What
> a tragedy!!
The *tragedy* is that lawful Gun Owners; the ones of us who
will oblige these property owners' wishes -- but will deprive
them of our business *and* money*; are *not* the ones about which
they *should* be worried. The *true* Gun-Abusers; the criminal
element; could care *less* what such a sign says: they view such
signs as "Posted `Gun-Free Victims' Zones".
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (16+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
WAY TO GO New Hampshire!!! :-D (See this Thread in t.p.g NewsGroup)
[ or http://www.state.nh.us/gencourt/bills/rereffered/hjr0003.html ]
"Handgun Control Inc., the lobbying group that helped push through
the federal ban on semi-automatic weapons and the Brady law on gun
purchases, is said to be worried that it is losing the public
relations war to the National Rifle Association. . . . It is also
considering a name change because, among other reasons, polls and
focus groups show that many Americans are uncomfortable with the
word *control*." --US News and World Report, August 19, 1996
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything
you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."
--Col. David Crockett; member of the Tennessee legislature
(1821-1822/1823-1824); member U.S. House of Representatives
(1827-1831/1833-1835); and Texas Hero of the Alamo (1836)
"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and
everywhere, to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their
one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious
diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. They hunt
endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking, for mere
suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen,
John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin
searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-- H.L. Mencken
"Liberals have many tails and chase them all."
-- H.L. Mencken
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem --
neat, plausible, and wrong."
-- H.L. Mencken
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins; all of them imaginary."
-- H.L. Mencken
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
© 1998 All rights reserved
John Johnson
(Dan Z) writes:
> In <6t78q4$s7o$1...@ndnws01.ne.highway1.com> "tudor"
> <tu...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
>> Thom Borland wrote in message
>> <35f1fe5d...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 18:01:42 GMT, rgde...@yahoo.com
>>> (Roger Denney) wrote:
>>>
>>>> RKBA Defenders,
>>>>
>>>> You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting
>>>> that GTE was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail
>>>> outlets.
>>>
>>> AT&T Wireless also has "no guns" stickers on the doors of their
>>> retail outlets. Boycott everyone.
>>
>> The paranoid, schizophrenic gun nut wacko fringe is at it again.
>> Poor gun nuts. GTE and AT&T don't want peeople carrying guns into
>> their offices. Their employees prefer to live. What a tragedy!!
>
> Do you really think that an aggrieved employee or whacko is going to
> read that sign and say, "Oh shucks, I can't shoot anybody here! They
> won't allow my gun inside!" ?
>
> Actually, such rules practically quarantee that, should such a case
> occur, more will be killed rather than fewer, as the honest folks
> will have no means of self-defense and of stopping the criminal.
As was proven at Luby's/Killeen; and the Empire State Building;
and the Long Island Railway; and a certain Law Office in California;
and a Florida Post Office; and ............
> If I were in that building, and such an occurence happened, you can
> be damn sure I or my survivors would sue the company for denying me
> my ability to defend myself.
And BOMA believes you would likely prevail in such a Tort Claim
action:
<>
Liability of No Guns Signs?
According to a report by Wayne Gary, the legal counsel for the
Building Owners and Management Association (BOMA) is advising their
members that posting No Guns signs does not reduce their liability,
and may actually increase it under certain circumstances. The text
of that opinion is reproduced below [without comment, although I
believe at least some of it is incorrect]:
"September 19, 1995
Should You Ban Concealed Handguns?
By Larry Niemann, Texas BOMA Legal Counsel
In the 1995 Texas legislature, a comprehensive bill was enacted into
law that allows qualified Texas citizens to carry concealed handguns.
Many questions have arisen from property owners regarding whether or
not they should ban concealed handguns on the premises. The following
is information that might prove helpful to you in making that
decision.
The kind of person eligible for licensure. Not every Tom, Dick and
Harry off the street is going to be eligible to obtain a license for
a concealed handgun. The profile of the potential licensee is that
of a law-abiding citizen. The eligibility requirements are as follows:
(1) over 21 years of age, (2) not currently on drugs, (3) no treatment
for drugs in the previous 5 years, (4) no felony conviction ever,
(5) no misdemeanor convictions (of certain kinds) for the last 5
years, (6) sound mind, (7) not delinquent in child support, (8) not
delinquent in any taxes due, (9) not in default on any loan from the
state, (10) not subject to any restraining order, (11) resident of
Texas, (12) photographed and fingerprinted, (13) address changes
must be communicated immediately to the DPS, and (14) satisfactory
completion of a state-approved training program. Even though he new
law authorizes licensees to carry concealed handguns, the statute
grants employers and businessmen the right to prohibit concealed
handguns on their premises by posting signs. Indeed, certain kinds
of employers and businesses must post signs prohibiting concealed
handguns. Those include (i) businesses deriving more than 51% of
their revenues from alcohol, (ii) hospitals, and (iii) nursing homes.
Although it is not necessary to post signs banning concealed
guns in the following places, the new law makes it illegal to carry
concealed handguns in schools, sporting events, amusement parks, and
churches.
[JJ note: some of this has subsequently been addressed by the Texas
Legislature]
The statute does not make it unlawful for a person who owns a handgun
to carry it back and forth to his or her vehicle for purposes of
repair, purchase, sale, hunting, or moving their residence. Of course,
to avoid violation of other criminal laws, such transportation of a
handgun must be done in a non-threatening manner.
Whether to ban concealed handguns. The decision to ban concealed
handguns on the premises of an office building, retail shopping
center, or other building is discretionary for the property owner
(except in the areas where the statute prohibits concealed handguns).
That means that on office building owner, for example, can post signs
prohibiting concealed handguns in the office building.
Factors to consider in deciding whether to ban concealed handguns.
If you do ban concealed handguns, there will possibly be fewer
concealed handguns brought into your building. On the other hand,
those who lawfully have concealed handguns have a statutory profile
of being a law-abiding citizen. See the requirements for licensure
above.
Banning concealed handguns will probably be difficult to enforce.
People driving into a parking lot or parking garage will need to have
a notice of the ban at the parking entrance; otherwise, they will not
know about the ban until they have walked a long way to the building
entrance. Also, enforcement of any ban would be complicated by the
fact that some federal and state law enforcement officers will still
have the right to bring their concealed handguns on the premises,
despite your signs.
To be effective, a ban would have to involve a posting of signs at
all vehicular entrances to parking lots, parking garages, and all
pedestrian entrances into the building - on the outside of the
building.
If you do ban concealed handguns, there is the potential for being
liable for not taking prompt action to do something about a concealed
handgun that you know has been brought on the premises in violation of
posted signs. Plaintiff attorneys might argue that failure to call the
police or failure to order the person out of the building was
negligence. The posted ban signs would therefore put an owner in an
awkward position whenever concealed handguns are observed by a
building employee or reported to management by any tenant, guest or
customer.
On the flip-side, there is no liability on the building owner for not
banning concealed handguns.
At least one law enforcement official, the District Attorney in San
Antonio, has requested the office building industry to not ban
concealed handguns. It is that DA's opinion that such a ban would
end up forcing many of the permittees to remove their concealed
handguns from their person and hide them in their vehicles while
they are inside your building. Other not-so-law-abiding citizens
might observe such removal and attempted hiding of the handgun;
and that may result in more vehicle break-ins and thefts of
handguns, thus compounding law enforcement problems.
An informal check of a few other states having similar concealed
handgun laws revealed that, as a general rule, office building owners
in those other states are not posting signs to ban concealed handguns.
On balance, it would seem that it is easier, cheaper, safer and more
aesthetic to not ban concealed handguns in office buildings and it
would appear that there is less potential for liability of the
property owner. That decision, however, is entirely up to each
property owner."
Texas Concealed Handgun License
Paul Barnett
bar...@pobox.com
Pixie
>Thom Borland wrote in message <35f1fe5d...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com>...
>>On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 18:01:42 GMT, rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>RKBA Defenders,
>>>
>>>You may recall an e-mail alert a little while ago, asserting that GTE
>>>was now posting "no guns" on the doors of its retail outlets.
>>
>> AT&T Wireless also has "no guns" stickers on the doors of their
>>retail outlets. Boycott everyone.
>
>
>The paranoid, schizophrenic gun nut wacko fringe is at it again. Poor gun
>nuts. GTE and AT&T don't want peeople carrying guns into their offices.
>Their employees prefer to live. What a tragedy!!
>
>
Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
such a basis.. Go figure.
David Veal
Roger Denney <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 03:24:35 GMT, jsru...@spam.nconnect.net (James S. Rustad)
>wrote:
>>Roger believes that letting
>>convicted felons back out on the street without the ability to
>>exercise their RKBA (among other rights) is to admit that the RKBA
>>(and apparently other rights) are not absolute.
>
>infringement, but isn't that what concealed carry weapons permits (CCW) are ?
Only in the same sense that laws regarding disturbing the peace are
laws "abridging the freedom of speech." There is a different standard for
public and private behavior. (This is one reason that as a prelude to
regulation it is common for advocates to portray whatever they want to
regulate as not simply a private behavior.)
That the law recognizes that public behavior should be treated
differently doesn't imply that there are no meaningful protections for any
private behavior.
>>The position taken by courts is more along the lines of removing the
>>free exercise of certain rights as part of the sentence for the crime
>>committed.
>
>And, pray tell, WHAT crime was committed by non-violent, psychiatric patients,
>and other non-violent persons who are denied their so-called "Gun-Rights" ?
The critical distinction is not punishment for a crime, but due
process. It isn't necessary to say you are punishing someone in order to
commit them to an institution if they are a threat to themselves or
others. It is necessary to afford them due process before locking them up
against their will. That is the whole point of the Fifth Amendment.
Where we get into problems is where liberty (or any sort) is taken
away for a significant amount of time, or permenently, with no due
process, such as based simply on an arrest with no conviction.
>You may not agree with me, and that is fine, but using Libertarian philosophy
>and beliefs on gun-laws, which many non-Libertarian gunowners also share,
>that the second amendment guarantees every American the right to keep and BEAR
>firearms, ANY gunowner who obtains a CCW permit to CARRY (bear) IS a
>hypocrite by definition.
Assuming that the term "bear" was intended or accepted to mean,
"carry under any conditions, anywhere" rather than (say) "carry on your
own property and in public in the absence of compelling public interest."
The latter is closer to how private rights are normally balanced.
--
David Veal ve...@utk.edu
W. E. Woods
> Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
> be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
> think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
> such a basis.. Go figure.
So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
--
"It is dangerous to be right
when the government is wrong."
--Voltaire
"If no one is shooting at you,
you have nothing to complain about.
If someone is, shoot back."
--Curt Rich
HerrGlock
> Pixie wrote:
>
> > Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
> > be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
> > think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
> > such a basis.. Go figure.
This is an amusing note that the antis have to come up with to make it sound bad.
I have YET to see ANYONE advocating "everyone should be carrying a sidearm" much
less "shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc"
Would you mind directing me to any reference that anyone has made (well, the
founding fathers of the US said that every man be armed, but I'm talking more
recent) that advocates everyone should be carrying a sidearm? Please?
Antis think that we are just like them. They cannot imagine owning a gun without
using it on everyone and everything that ticks them off. They think we have just
as short tempers as they and that, since they cannot be trusted with one, neither
should anyone else.
Hey, antis, learn self control. It makes your life a WHOLE lot less stressful
> So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
>
HerrGlock
Ray Ledford
>You may not agree with me, and that is fine, but using Libertarian philosophy
>and beliefs on gun-laws, which many non-Libertarian gunowners also share,
>that the second amendment guarantees every American the right to keep and BEAR
>firearms, ANY gunowner who obtains a CCW permit to CARRY (bear) IS a
>hypocrite by definition.
It's clear you don't have a clue about Libertarianism, but let's get
to the core of your "argument." You continue to make the fallacious
claim that Libertarians consider any gunowner to be a hypocrite who
obtains a CCW permit. That claim is false for the following reasons:
a) some misguided gunowners may actually support some forms of
gun control -- ergo, they can't be hypocrites
b) not everyone is willing to violate the law, no matter how
wrong or unconstitutional those laws may be and they may feel that
their self-protection (and that of their loved ones) is more important
than a principled rejection of bad law
c) and finally, most libertarians aren't going to consider
non-Libertarians to be hypocrites, the reason being because they view
the latter to be foundering in a sea of conflicting principles.
One final note: I find it most interesting that you would cross-post
this to alt.politics.democrat and alt.politics.liberalism but not to
talk.politics.libertarianism or alt.politics.libertarianism.
Of course, we all know what kind of a loser does that kind of thing --
and his name is Roger Denney.
phx...@pop.phnx.uswest.net
W. E. Woods wrote:
> Pixie wrote:
>
> > Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
> > be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
> > think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
> > such a basis.. Go figure.
>
> So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
I think I know why the guy is called 'pixie'. It relates to the size of his brain.
I'm a gun owner who sometimes carries a concealed hand gun w/o government approval,
and I'd as soon be the ONLY one with a gun in my pocket.
W. E. Woods
>
> W. E. Woods wrote: (may I piggyback?)
Why certainly. (He ain't heavy...) <G>
>
> > Pixie wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
> > > be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
> > > think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
> > > such a basis.. Go figure.
> This is an amusing note that the antis have to come up with to make it sound bad.
> I have YET to see ANYONE advocating "everyone should be carrying a sidearm" much
> less "shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc"
>
> Would you mind directing me to any reference that anyone has made (well, the
> founding fathers of the US said that every man be armed, but I'm talking more
> recent) that advocates everyone should be carrying a sidearm? Please?
>
> Antis think that we are just like them. They cannot imagine owning a gun without
> using it on everyone and everything that ticks them off. They think we have just
> as short tempers as they and that, since they cannot be trusted with one, neither
> should anyone else.
>
> Hey, antis, learn self control. It makes your life a WHOLE lot less stressful
>
> > So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
> >
>
> HerrGlock
Yep, I still think Pixie is cloned off one of the regular anti's.
Pixie
>Pixie wrote:
>
>> Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
>> be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
>> think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
>> such a basis.. Go figure.
>
>So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
I'm not a 'clone' of anyone... Simply someone who fails to see why some
individuals feel that they must carry firearms around.. Must be something
fraudian within them to feel that way.
Actually I simply don't like firearms at all.
HerrGlock
Pixie, you are one of the first posters who "simply don't like firearms at all" who
is reasonable and polite. Thank you, you are unique amongst your peers.
Okay, here's my view. I fail to see why some individuals speak out against other
races, colors, creeds, etc. Yet, I believe they have every right to do so.
I fail to see why some individuals practice religions that I believe are "pagan" or
whatever word is in vogue today about that. Yet, I believe they have every right to
do so.
I fail to see why most people do things that I disagree with, yet they also live in
a free country and have every right to practice, own, or do whatever it is I
disagree with, as long as it does not unnecessarily harm another person.
Unnecessarily is the key word here. I believe you (everyone) have the absolute
right to use whatever means necessary to halt an attack upon yourself or someone
close to you (legalese is "halt a felony in progress within your presence."
I believe you can carry (or say) ANYTHING you darned well want. The carrying (or
saying) in and of itself is not the problem, it's the people who misuse the freedom
that should be punished, not everyone else. It's the actions that harm, not the
item. I will not push my opinions as to what YOU can say, do, etc by law. I ask
only for the same in return.
HerrGlock
W. E. Woods
>
> "W. E. Woods" <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Pixie wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
> >> be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
> >> think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
> >> such a basis.. Go figure.
> >
> >So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
>
> I'm not a 'clone' of anyone...
Really? You just happen to jump up from nowhere using exactly the same words
and phrases as several of the "resident" anti-gun extremists. Just a
coincidence. You betcha.
> Simply someone who fails to see why some
> individuals feel that they must carry firearms around..
It's really none of your business whether they do or not. It is a personal
choice made by the individual. It has no effect on you except possibly to make
your world a bit safer. Do you perhaps equate the 60-70,000,000 gunowners in
the USA with criminals?
> Must be something
> fraudian within them to feel that way.
The fraud is committed constantly by the lies and threats from the anti-gun,
anti-Rights people. Perhaps you meant "Freudian." Freud disagreed with you. He
regarded an unnatural fear of weapons to be a sign of immaturity.
>
> Actually I simply don't like firearms at all.
Good for you. Now explain just why that gives you any power to force others to
accede to your wishes. Perhaps you can prove your prejudicial nonsense about
"shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc." No one advocates any such
thing. Where do you folks get this crap, Hollywood?
Mike Eglestone
>
> "W. E. Woods" <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Pixie wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
> >> be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
> >> think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
> >> such a basis.. Go figure.
> >
> >So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
>
> individuals feel that they must carry firearms around.. Must be something
> fraudian within them to feel that way.
>
Mike Eglestone replies:
I'm not to thrilled with a government that allows the homeless to
sleep on the street, and refuses to deal with the Social Problems in
this country. But they all exist and they are very real threats to the
continued existence of this country.
We have a LOT worse problems to deal with than guns in the hands of
our people.
The proliferation of guns is a symptom of a much deeper problem. But,
the government has never been known to deal with the REAL problems.
They would rather deal with the symptoms and hope that the CAUSE goes
away.. It's akin to treating Cancer with Aspirin; you get the same
results.
Mike Eglestone
Jerry Morris
>"W. E. Woods" <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Pixie wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
>>> be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
>>> think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
>>> such a basis.. Go figure.
>>
>>So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
>
>I'm not a 'clone' of anyone... Simply someone who fails to see why some
>individuals feel that they must carry firearms around.. Must be something
>fraudian within them to feel that way.
>
What are your qualifications, in RE: psychological expertise? SOme
people must carry a gun around in order to simply survive. Some carry
as a public service. This comes about due to the fact it seems
everyone is worried about what law abiding citizens are doing and have
forgotten to keep the known dangerous felons locked up,
>Actually I simply don't like firearms at all.
What else don't you like?
Jerry
Pat Carpenter
<3616fe31....@news.supernews.com> :
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Distribution:
In talk.politics.guns Pixie <gre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "W. E. Woods" <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Pixie wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that everyone should
> >> be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
> >> think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
> >> such a basis.. Go figure.
> >
> >So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
> I'm not a 'clone' of anyone... Simply someone who fails to see why some
> individuals feel that they must carry firearms around.. Must be something
> fraudian within them to feel that way.
Most of us wish it weren't neccasary to carry a firearm around, but it
is. I work in San Francisco, and have to ride BART (Subway/L-Train) home
at about 2200. Since the wonderful liberals of this city have made it
a haven of the homeless, and of criminals I ride along with some
rather shady types. Believe me, I'd feel a whole lot safer if I
had a .45 on me. In a perfect world, people wouldn't want to
rob me, but our world is not perfect, so they do.
> Actually I simply don't like firearms at all.
Don't buy one then, I simply don't like Toyota's, but you
don't see me calling for the banning of all Toyota automobiles,
(which incidentally are responsible for more deaths than firearms...)
--
-*-*-*-*-*-*-* -*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Pat Carpenter
no one of consequence
]"W. E. Woods" <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
]
]>Pixie wrote:
]>
]>> Yeah, and that really must tick off the gun nuts who feel that
]everyone should
]>> be carrying a sidearm, shooting it out in the streets, offices, etc. And to
]>> think that a nut like this would even think about calling for a 'boycott' on
]>> such a basis.. Go figure.
]>
]>So who'd they clone *you* off of, Pixie? You sound like a quote.
]
]I'm not a 'clone' of anyone... Simply someone who fails to see why some
]individuals feel that they must carry firearms around..
Well, if you don't wish to then don't carry any. I don't wish to either,
but you don't see ME throwing insults towards people who do.
]Must be something
]fraudian within them to feel that way.
*sigh* Might want to actually read ol' Sigmund's theories if you are going
to use them to diagnose others.
]Actually I simply don't like firearms at all.
And so no one else should like them or they will be seen as an Icky Person
to you?
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
|her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
W. E. Woods
>
> Sept 14 1998
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Boy Shot Playing With Gun - (CHICAGO) -- Police are treating the fatal
> shooting of a 14-year-old Chicago boy as an accident... but an autopsy
> reportedly reveals that the death could be a homicide. Enrique Zavala
> was shot yesterday as he sat on a roof passing around a gun with two
> friends on the city's Southwest Side. The gun then reportedly went
> off... hitting Zavala in the head. So far, there are NO arrests in the
> case.
Hmm. Another case of no gun safety training and an obvious lack of parental
supervision and control. No point for Denney, again.
no...@noplaceinparticular.com
>
> Sept 8, 1998
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Gun Violence Crackdown - (ROCHESTER) -- One week from today, city
> council members in Rochester will be voting on a measure to crackdown on
> gun violence. A new law would force gun owners to check their weapons
> once a week and immediately report missing guns to police.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could it be true? Could Denny *finally* be getting a glimmer
of understanding of the copyright and fair use laws? He's not
attributing sources, so they could be made up stories, but
he's not posting entire articles today!
Of course, the stories are still pointless...
Ronald C Bloom ii
WAS PROBABLY A HOMICIDE and doesn't Chicago HAVE STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS?
Where are these kid's parents, probably working so that they can pay their
taxes to the state. PLATO WOULD BE PROUD!!!
Roger Denney wrote in message <36052457...@news.inreach.com>...
W. E. Woods
>
> Tuesday September 15 1998
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hospital Gives Out Gun Locks - (BLOOMINGTON) -- Bloomington Hospital is
> giving out free gunlocks and safety information to parents who have
> firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb shooting
> deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of death
> of kids 14 and under.
Let's see the proof of that claim.
W. E. Woods
>
> Sept 8, 1998
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Gun Violence Crackdown - (ROCHESTER) -- One week from today, city
> council members in Rochester will be voting on a measure to crackdown on
> gun violence. A new law would force gun owners to check their weapons
> once a week and immediately report missing guns to police.
Gee, I wonder why elected officials are trying to pass a blatantly
unconstitutional law?
Chuck Kline
be able to read so.........out of luck I guess.
tudor wrote in message <6t78q4$s7o$1...@ndnws01.ne.highway1.com>...
Lee Taylor
>
> Tuesday September 15 1998
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hospital Gives Out Gun Locks - (BLOOMINGTON) -- Bloomington Hospital is
> giving out free gunlocks and safety information to parents who have
> firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb shooting
> deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of death
> of kids 14 and under.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROTFL!!! Which is it, Roger? You or the hospital lying through your
teeth?
No way are shooting deaths anywhere near that, even with the tight
catagories used by the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/usmort.htm
For a comparative table on human fatalities see
http://www.tgka.com/lee/politics/94death.htm
--- Lee Taylor
Independence Hall http://www.tgka.com/
In support of Liberty, Freedom, and Independence through self reliance and education.
(Usenet replies please E-mail as my usenet feed is somewhat unreliable.)
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
HerrGlock
> Tuesday September 15 1998
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Hospital Gives Out Gun Locks - (BLOOMINGTON)-- Bloomington Hospital
> is giving out free gunlocks and safety information to parents who have
> firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb shooting
> deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of death
> of kids 14 and under.---------------
I'm not sure I would go to a hospital that is so bad at math (or read a
newspaper that is willing to print it.) This is not even a complete
listing, some are only in one age, some (Homicide, suicide) include many
other instruments.
CDC "10 leading causes of death"
Rank Cause Deaths
Age 10-14
5-9 1-4 <1
MV traffic 3,243 2,549
2,256 1,146
Drowning 702 603
1,570 207
Firearm 392
95 82 2
Fire/burn 289
696 1,669 285
Transport, other 202
115 74 11
Suffocation 197
180 512 1,146
Other specified/classifiable 100 49
61 23
Fall 91
77 169 49
Poisoning 90
56 129 40
Congenital Anomalies 611 757
2,213 20,537
Pneumonia/Influenza 164 202
517 1,581
Heart Disease 536
388 832 N/A
HIV N/A
193 333 613
So, totals are
Congenital Abnoma. 24,118
MV-Traffic 8,048
Malignant Neoplasms 4,696
Fire/Burn 2,939
Drowning 2,875
Pneumonia/Flu 2,464
Suffocation 2,035
Heart Disease 1,756
HIV 1,139
Firearm 569
Transportation/Other 402
Other/Classifiable 233
Falls 386
Poisoning 315
Steve Fischer
Who said the gun belonged to the parents? If he's a gang banger
he probably got it himself on the black market.
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
Steve Fischer
>Sept 14 1998
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Boy Shot Playing With Gun - (CHICAGO) -- Police are treating the fatal
>shooting of a 14-year-old Chicago boy as an accident... but an autopsy
>reportedly reveals that the death could be a homicide. Enrique Zavala
>was shot yesterday as he sat on a roof passing around a gun with two
>friends on the city's Southwest Side. The gun then reportedly went
>off... hitting Zavala in the head. So far, there are NO arrests in the
>case.
>
A 14 year old gang-banger, I'll bet.
Steve Fischer
>
>Tuesday September 15 1998
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb shooting
>deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of death
>of kids 14 and under.
>
Yeah, right - like getting caught in a crossfire between gang
members. That's as much an "accident" as being run over by a drunk
driver.
Steve Fischer
>
>Tuesday September 8, 1998
>
>
>Hardin Teen Dies In Gun Mishap - (CECELIA) -- A 15-year-old Hardin
>County girl is dead... killed by her father's gun. Authorities say it
>was an accident. Melvin Fry apparently intended to fire the weapon in
>the air to scare away some people in his front yard... but the shot
>struck his daughter, Melissa. The Hardin County Commonwealth's Attorney
>will decide if charges will be filed against Fry.
>
Shot in the "air" and hits the kid? I seriously doubt it. I bet
he shot her on purpose then concocted a stupid story to cover the act.
Panhead
Maybe she was in a tree house?
Gary Reichow
Looks like a pretty useless law to me. The post is even
more useless. Looks like Denney has been looking at
talk.politics.animals and is taking after Ron Schwaub
and his buddy Dave Wheeler. They are famous for posting
pointless b.s.
Gary
Mike Eglestone
>
> Sept 14 1998
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Boy Shot Playing With Gun - (CHICAGO) -- Police are treating the fatal
> shooting of a 14-year-old Chicago boy as an accident... but an autopsy
> reportedly reveals that the death could be a homicide. Enrique Zavala
> was shot yesterday as he sat on a roof passing around a gun with two
> friends on the city's Southwest Side. The gun then reportedly went
> off... hitting Zavala in the head. So far, there are NO arrests in the
> case.
Mike Eglestone Replies:
Well, that does demonstrate one thing. Those kids failed to read the
LAW involving Possession of Firearms by minors, and they didn't attend
any Gun Safety Classes.
Either of those two action might have saved a life. It might be
interesting to find out where the gun came from, who owned it, and
how the boys got their hands on it. It would also be wise to follow up
on the location of the parents when all this was taking place.
A brief history of the boys themselves would also be in order. This
might help the reader to determine if such behavior on the part of
those young men could be tied into past actions of a similar nature.
Did they have police records? If so, what were the nature of the
offenses?
There isn't enough information in this story to make a sound judgment
as to cause, or to suggest actions for future prevention of the same
type of incident. To even attempt that, at this point, would be
nothing more than pure speculation on our part.
Mike Eglestone
Mike Eglestone
>
>
> Tuesday September 8, 1998
>
> Hardin Teen Dies In Gun Mishap - (CECELIA) -- A 15-year-old Hardin
> County girl is dead... killed by her father's gun. Authorities say it
> was an accident. Melvin Fry apparently intended to fire the weapon in
> the air to scare away some people in his front yard... but the shot
> struck his daughter, Melissa. The Hardin County Commonwealth's Attorney
> will decide if charges will be filed against Fry.
Mike Eglestone Replies:
Another case where Firearm Safety Classes might have saved a life.
But, any FOOL who would fire a GUN in the air, would more than likely
shoot someone by accident as well.
Where did he think that discharged projectile was going to come down?
Or, did he really give a damn? Well, in retrospect, if he didn't know
the difference between Up and Down, it might not have made that much
of a difference after all!
But, this very short - tragic- story is also missing the necessary
elements of a news story. None of the circumstances involved in the
shooting are present. It demonstrates nothing much of anything in the
area of (can we draw a conclusion based upon the facts presented)? The
possibilities are endless!
Mike Eglestone
Mike Eglestone
>
> Sept 8, 1998
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Gun Violence Crackdown - (ROCHESTER) -- One week from today, city
> council members in Rochester will be voting on a measure to crackdown on
> gun violence. A new law would force gun owners to check their weapons
> once a week and immediately report missing guns to police.
Mike Eglestone Replies:
Wow... Does that mean that a person has to get permission to go on
vacation? What happens if someone is called away on business for a few
weeks and can't comply with the law? Does he/she have to appoint a
designated Inventory taker for that period.
What forms have to be filed out? Who tracks the system? Who manages
the tracking system? Is there an oversight committee for violations
and complaints? What process of appeals is open for the gun owner who
misses an inventory period due to sickness or injury?
Oh well, another law that can NOT be enforced. A very good example of
stupidity in action, but not much more.
But, But, But, Officer.. You say the gun was used in a crime at 0730
on the morning of Monday 18 July. I take my inventory on Sunday. I
can't be held responsible for the guns between inventory periods. The
law only requires it one time a week! ROFLOL!!
Mike Eglestone
Greg
wrote:
>Sept 8, 1998
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Gun Violence Crackdown - (ROCHESTER) -- One week from today, city
>council members in Rochester will be voting on a measure to crackdown on
>gun violence. A new law would force gun owners to check their weapons
>once a week and immediately report missing guns to police.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Hi Roger,
And just HOW will the city council and local law enforcement officers,
make sure that "gun" owners are checking their firearms once a week?
Or is this just another stupid unenforceable law to make criminals out
of law abiding citizens?
Groups trimed:
alt.politics.democrat.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.liberalism
>
>
>
"Any slave can be forced to pay taxes and forced to obey
laws but only a free person with free will can make
themselves stand up and pledge allegiance to a Flag"
Greg Locke
"But if the weak are left no civil rights to protect them from the
mighty, nevertheless I will seek protection from the Gods, who
punish human pride. And I will pray that they will grow angry with
those who are never content, not with their own possession, nor with
those they take from others. Their blood lust is not satiated by
the execution of the guilty. They will not be satisfied unless we
offer them our blood to drink, and our entrails to tear out"
John Locke
Greg Locke for dictator in 2013
Mike Eglestone
>
> Tuesday September 15 1998
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hospital Gives Out Gun Locks - (BLOOMINGTON) -- Bloomington Hospital is
> giving out free gunlocks and safety information to parents who have
> firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb shooting
> deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of death
> of kids 14 and under.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
This one I happen to believe completely. That same program just
started here in Dade County Florida. It is sponsored by the local
Hospitals and two of the largest T.V. Stations in the area. It is also
backed by the Police, Sheriffs Department and the Neighbors for
Neighbors groups in both South Dade and Miami!
Personally, I don't have a problem with the program. I don't expect a
great deal of participation on the part of Gun Owners but, for those
who want a lock, it is a decent place to get one for free.
My only reservation is that the lock will instill a false sense of
security in the mind of the person who installs one. He/She might not
take as much care with the security of the gun as was done prior to
the locking device. We all know that those trigger locks can be
removed with little to no effort, and many guns can be discharged with
the lock in place. I don't know if this program will solve a problem,
or creating a new one in the process. Only time will tell.
It reminds me of my neighbor who decided that she no longer had to
lock her car doors because she installed a CLUB on the steering wheel.
That simplistic mind set applies to a great deal of people in this
country. Common sense seems to be a thing of the past!
Mike Eglestone
Don Staples
Genetic Pool!
Roger Denney wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Boy Shot Playing With Gun - (CHICAGO) -- Police are treating the fatal
> shooting of a 14-year-old Chicago boy as an accident... but an autopsy
> reportedly reveals that the death could be a homicide. Enrique Zavala
> was shot yesterday as he sat on a roof passing around a gun with two
> friends on the city's Southwest Side. The gun then reportedly went
> off... hitting Zavala in the head. So far, there are NO arrests in the
> case.
--
Don Staples
UIN 4653335
Web Offerings: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/
Don Staples
friearm on a range once a month so they hit the target they may shoot
at. Then, once there is manditory training, New York could call for
manditory gun ownership, there's the ticket!
Roger Denney wrote:
>
> Sept 8, 1998
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Gun Violence Crackdown - (ROCHESTER) -- One week from today, city
> council members in Rochester will be voting on a measure to crackdown on
> gun violence. A new law would force gun owners to check their weapons
> once a week and immediately report missing guns to police.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
David Veal
>> Hospital Gives Out Gun Locks - (BLOOMINGTON) -- Bloomington Hospital is
>> giving out free gunlocks and safety information to parents who have
>> firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb shooting
>> deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of death
>> of kids 14 and under.
>
That firearms are the fifth leading cause of death is about right.
What you need to remember, to keep things in perspective, is that although
sick kids get a lot of publicity, children don't get sick very often so
all the adult causes of death mostly don't apply (heart disease, cancer,
etc.)
Using "X leading" is normally a way to imply vast numbers without
saying so. Accidental deaths (particularly for children) consist of about
50% motor vehicle deaths, 20% falls, 10% drownings, and 20% everything
else. Once you get into the "everything else" category the difference
between four, five, six, seven, etc. is pretty slim.
--
David Veal ve...@utk.edu
Robert J. Christman
>
>
> That firearms are the fifth leading cause of death is about right.
> What you need to remember, to keep things in perspective, is that although
> sick kids get a lot of publicity, children don't get sick very often so
> all the adult causes of death mostly don't apply (heart disease, cancer,
> etc.)
Actually, according to the National Safety Council 1997
statistics firearm accidents (0-14 years) came in sixth behind
motor vehicles, drowning, "other", fire, and suffocation. It was
followed by falls, poison (liquid or solid) and poison (gas).
Firearms were implicated in a whopping 3.7% of accidental deaths
for children under 14 years of age. The chart provided lumps 15
to 24 in the next group, and I don't consider anyone over 18 a
child in this application so I didn't calculate that one out.
Child safety seats, seatbelts, and drownproofing would do a lot
more for the accidental child death rates than trigger locks.
--
Bob C. NRA Endowment USN (Ret)
Dan Day
>>> Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of
>>> death of kids 14 and under.
>>
>>Let's see the proof of that claim.
>
No, it is *NOT*. It may be the fifth leading cause of ACCIDENTAL
death of kids 14 and under, but it sure as hell isn't the fifth
leading "cause of death of kids 14 and under", period. And the
latter is what Denney was inaccurately claiming.
However, you're absolutely right in your analysis that even the
"fifth leading cause of accidental death" claim is misleading:
>very misleading, considering that there were 6500 accidental deaths in
>this age group, but only 240 were due to firearms. The question is, why
>do people like Denny, if they are truly upset by child deaths, spend
>such an inordinate amount of time on such a small portion of the
>accidental child death problem? Why do they never post rants about fire
>deaths or falling deaths or drowning deaths or automobile deaths, each
>of which exceeds firearms deaths by several TIMES? My opinion is that
>they are hypocrites, ranting about deaths not because they care about
>the children, but because they can post these misleading "facts" to
>support their true goal - disarming the citizens of America.
--
"Americans don't expect an apostle in the White House.
But they do expect an adult." -- Newsweek, 2/2/98 p.29
James S. Rustad
>On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 03:24:35 GMT, jsru...@spam.nconnect.net (James S. Rustad)
>wrote:
>>rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) wrote:
>>And before Roger gets too excited about "Libertarians Agree[ing]" with
>>him, let me point out that I don't agree with him and I've been a
>>Libertarian for my nearly all of my adult life.
>Then you don't know the position your party (Libertarian),and indeed most of
>the gunowners here on TPG, take on gun-controls laws:
Considering that I am one of the authors of the plank on gun rights in
the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin's platform, I think I know more
about my party's position than you do.
>They want NO gun-control laws whatsoever.
I can think of a number of gun-control laws that I wouldn't find
objectionable. For example:
A law against discharging a firearm with intent to harm an innocent
person.
A law against recklessly discharging a firearm.
A law forbidding possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
(remember -- as part of a sentencing agreement?)
>You may not agree with me, and that is fine, but using Libertarian philosophy
>and beliefs on gun-laws, which many non-Libertarian gunowners also share,
>that the second amendment guarantees every American the right to keep and BEAR
>firearms, ANY gunowner who obtains a CCW permit to CARRY (bear) IS a
>hypocrite by definition.
Let us assume that you believe theft is wrong -- no one should ever
steal.
One day, you've been without food for a week. There is no way
available to obtain food without stealing it.
Would you quietly lie down and wait to die?
Or would you be a hypocrite and steal enough food to keep yourself
alive?
If I were living in an area where I could obtain a carry permit, I
would do so. Not because I think requiring a carry permit is a *good*
thing, but because carrying with the permit is less likely to result
in me spending time in jail than carrying without the permit.
I hold that the most desirable carry system is one with no permit
requirements -- like that in Vermont. I won't stop pushing for that
system. Neither will I refuse to accept steps in the right direction.
As one who lives in a state without even an RKBA clause in the state
constitution, it's likely to be a while before I see Vermont's system.
But I do see things moving that way. Wisconsin voters will have their
chance this November to add the RKBA clause. I'll be voting for it
and I've yet to see *anyone* predict anything other than passage.
Next step is some sort of carry system -- most likely we'll end up
with a restrictive permit system instead of Vermont carry. But that's
how the battle over gun control has gone for years. The gun-control
lobby understood this much better than the pro-gun side -- but we've
learned.
>>I also don't always
>>agree with Vin, but I can understand his arguments -- unlike Roger.
>I don't always agree with gunowners, (in fact, I almost never do <g>)
>but at least I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth, like they do.
Maybe because you talk out of some other portion of your anatomy? ;)
>Have an Unarmed Day......For Life
No thanks. I plan on living a long time and not possesing firearms is
incompatible with that plan.
James S. Rustad LPWI NRA Life
Remove "spam." from email address before using.
James S. Rustad
>Funny. Rochester is in NY, one of the states with the strictest of gun
>control laws.
I think he might be talking about the Rochester in MN -- some DFL
politicians (and some IR's as well) have some wacky ideas about
firearms.
James S. Rustad
>
>Tuesday September 15 1998
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hospital Gives Out Gun Locks - (BLOOMINGTON) -- Bloomington Hospital is
>giving out free gunlocks and safety information to parents who have
>firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb shooting
>deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of death
>of kids 14 and under.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The NSC estimates that there were 200 fatal firearm accidents among
children in 1995, 3% of the 6,600 fatal accidents among children. By
comparison, other accident types accounted for a greater share
of fatal accidents among children, including motor vehicle (2,900,
44%), fires (1,050, 16%), drowning (950, 14%), and
choking on ingested object (300, 4.5%). The number of fatal firearm
accidents among children in 1995 represents a 64%
decrease from an all-time high of 550 in 1975, and a small decrease
from the 205 fatalities in 1993, reported by the NCHS.
* The NCHS reports that fatal accidents of all types increased 4%
among children between 1992-1993, but fatal firearms
accidents decreased 5%, from 216 in 1992 to 205 in 1993.
* Firearm accidents accounted for 2.9% of the 6,954 fatal accidents
among children in 1993, according to the NCHS. Motor
vehicle accidents accounted for 3,044 (44%), drownings 1,023 (15%),
fires 1,015 (15%), and chokings on ingested objects
223 (3.2%), in addition to other types of accidents. Firearm accidents
accounted for 0.4% of all deaths, all reasons, among
children in 1993.
* In 1993, firearm-related deaths (homicides, suicides and accidents)
accounted for 1.9% of all deaths among all children, far less than
deaths due to perinatal conditions (31%), congenital anomalies (17%),
sudden infant death syndrome (10%), motor vehicle accidents (6%),
accidental drownings (2%), accidental fires (2%), neoplasms (4%),
infectious diseases (3%), and other causes.
Lee Taylor
> In article <35FF827E...@ix.netcom.com>,
> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Roger Denney wrote:
> >> Hospital Gives Out Gun Locks - (BLOOMINGTON) -- Bloomington Hospital is
> >> giving out free gunlocks and safety information to parents who have
> >> firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb shooting
> >> deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of death
> >> of kids 14 and under.
> >
> >Let's see the proof of that claim.
>
> That firearms are the fifth leading cause of death is about right.
> What you need to remember, to keep things in perspective, is that although
> sick kids get a lot of publicity, children don't get sick very often so
> all the adult causes of death mostly don't apply (heart disease, cancer,
> etc.)
8th at the most:
33,090 Children's deaths, including gang & drug involved "children" in
1994; the last year available when I complied these statistics).
1. 8,002 Congenital Abnomalies
2. 6,914 Accidental Injuries (185 = 2.7% involve firearms)
3. 4,254 Short Gestation
4. 4,073 Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
5. 1,571 Malignant Neoplasms
6. 1,567 Respiratory Distress Syndrome
7. 1,296 Maternal Complications
8. 948 Placenta & Cord Membranes
* 872 (all firearms related deaths)
9. 828 Perinatal Infections
10. 794 Pneumonia & Influenza
Please note that the 557 children killed by homicide, suicide, or
legal intervention is not on the 'top 10' list.
> Using "X leading" is normally a way to imply vast numbers without
> saying so. Accidental deaths (particularly for children) consist of about
> 50% motor vehicle deaths, 20% falls, 10% drownings, and 20% everything
> else. Once you get into the "everything else" category the difference
> between four, five, six, seven, etc. is pretty slim.
--- Lee Taylor
Independence Hall http://www.tgka.com/
In support of Liberty, Freedom, and Independence through self reliance and education.
(Usenet replies please E-mail as my usenet feed is somewhat unreliable.)
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
-- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
W. E. Woods
>
> In <35FF827E...@ix.netcom.com> "W. E. Woods"
> <wew...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> >Roger Denney wrote:
> >>
> >> Tuesday September 15 1998
> >>
> >>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> is
> >> giving out free gunlocks and safety information to parents who have
> >> firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb
> shooting
> >> deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of
> death
> >> of kids 14 and under.
> >
> >Let's see the proof of that claim.
> >
> >
>
Yeah, I know. I just wanted to see what he would come up with.
Let's see:
3,100 from Motor vehicles
1,000 from drowning
660 from fire
250 from choking
240 from firarms.
No way to account for murders claimed as accidents. No separation of
hunting/training accidents. No accounting for how many involved urban
drug/gang activity where having the gun was likely illegal. Anyway, it works
out to .257% of the accidental deaths in the US, and 3.7% of those 14 and
under. The four causes ahead of that account for 77%. The first two alone for
63%. When you look at it that way, it certainly makes the hype, and the
hypers, look pretty foolish.
> very misleading, considering that there were 6500 accidental deaths in
> this age group, but only 240 were due to firearms. The question is, why
> do people like Denny, if they are truly upset by child deaths, spend
> such an inordinate amount of time on such a small portion of the
> accidental child death problem? Why do they never post rants about fire
> deaths or falling deaths or drowning deaths or automobile deaths, each
> of which exceeds firearms deaths by several TIMES? My opinion is that
> they are hypocrites, ranting about deaths not because they care about
> the children, but because they can post these misleading "facts" to
> support their true goal - disarming the citizens of America.
>
> --
> antispam address list, spammers listed will be added to other spammer's lists; poetic justice....
>
> grea...@magicnet.net , in...@kangoojumps.net , domain...@delivere.com , sho...@resumail.com ,
> ro...@individualsoftware.com , sgui...@learningco.com , les...@lestersales.com , st...@woz.org ,
> b...@intlonline.com , i...@usma.net , Col...@bigfoot.com , bra...@alotofmail.com , jos...@ibm.net ,
> sc...@globalads.com , je...@netparty.com , je...@netparty.net , pana...@netcore.ca , mich...@usa.net
> mi...@pobox.com , delive...@abuse.net , rem...@nicers.com , ezs...@theoffice.net , st...@woz.org
> life...@mail.kmsp.com , sue7...@mailcity.com , fp...@ix.netcom.com , usa...@ibm.net ,
> r-...@saqnet.co.uk , net_...@hotmail.com , ad...@dexis.net , ab...@magic-moments.com ,
> credi...@mailexcite.com , com...@doitnow.com , ad...@firetheboss.com , eca...@tmgbbs.com ,
> ad...@intersponse.com , shoe...@aol.com , neta...@fetchmail.com , man...@products-services.com ,
> ASIN...@frontiernet.net , er...@cybermax.net , ad...@dexis.net , mic...@freedomstarr.com ,
> 199...@stech.com.br , Tel...@lineone.net , rankin...@psynet.net , ad...@opkone.com ,
> inq...@psionyx.net , jos...@psionyx.net , biza...@netnet.com.sg , ad...@scservices.co.uk ,
> Coh...@lava.net , fem...@plaza1.com , postm...@funprogram.com , bflo...@unidial.com ,
--
W. E. Woods
> >>> death of kids 14 and under.
> >>
> >>Let's see the proof of that claim.
> >
> >Actually it is true
>
> death of kids 14 and under, but it sure as hell isn't the fifth
Good point. Death by unintentional injury is less than 4% (3.9% in '93) of the
total death rate per year.
> And the
> latter is what Denney was inaccurately claiming.
>
> However, you're absolutely right in your analysis that even the
> "fifth leading cause of accidental death" claim is misleading:
>
> >very misleading, considering that there were 6500 accidental deaths in
> >this age group, but only 240 were due to firearms. The question is, why
> >do people like Denny, if they are truly upset by child deaths, spend
> >such an inordinate amount of time on such a small portion of the
> >accidental child death problem? Why do they never post rants about fire
> >deaths or falling deaths or drowning deaths or automobile deaths, each
> >of which exceeds firearms deaths by several TIMES? My opinion is that
> >they are hypocrites, ranting about deaths not because they care about
> >the children, but because they can post these misleading "facts" to
> >support their true goal - disarming the citizens of America.
> --
> "Americans don't expect an apostle in the White House.
> But they do expect an adult." -- Newsweek, 2/2/98 p.29
--
Ray Ledford
>Funny you should speak for all Libertarians. Seems your fellow LP member and
>proto-anarchist, Sci-Fi author and all around gun-nut, Mr. L. Neil Smith,
>disagrees with you; quite adamantly, in fact.
Disagrees in what way? List the areas of disagreement, and I'll email
Neil himself and ask him.
Don't speak for Neil. He can speak for himself.
Ray Ledford
to email remove "nospam" from address
For the best news go to http://www.worldnetdaily.com
HerrGlock
> In <35FF827E...@ix.netcom.com> "W. E. Woods"
> <wew...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> >Roger Denney wrote:
> >>
> >> Tuesday September 15 1998
> >>
> >> Hospital Gives Out Gun Locks - (BLOOMINGTON)
> -- Bloomington Hospital
> is
> >> giving out free gunlocks and safety information to parents who have
> >> firearms. Hospital officials say the move is designed to curb
> shooting
> >> deaths. Accidental shooting deaths are the FIFTH leading cause of
> death
> >> of kids 14 and under.
> >
> >Let's see the proof of that claim.
>
> Actually it is true (http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/afp08.htm) but
> very misleading, considering that there were 6500 accidental deaths in
> this age group, but only 240 were due to firearms.
Point of order, if I may.
Notice in the article there is NO mention of the word "accidental". They want you (and Denney, by
posting it) to believe that it's the 5th leading cause of death period. They tend to breeze over the
idea that it's a lot lower on the list than that and it's so eclipsed by auto carnage (sorry) that they
really need to get their priorities straight before they start this "ban" wagon on something "for the
children."
HerrGlock
Bubba
*Thursday September 17, 1998
* Press Release: Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
*ICHV Decries Rash of Concealed Handgun Shootings
*Law Enforcement Officers, Teenager and Innocent Man Fall Victim To
*Concealed Handgun Permit Holders
Another one of those, "The Sky Is Falling" proclamations.
W. E. Woods
>
> Thursday September 17 1998
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gun Control Summit Scheduled - (PORTLAND) -- Oregon gun laws will draw
> fire this weekend at Lewis and Clark College in Portland. The nonprofit
> Oregon Coalition Against Gun Violence is sponsoring a gun summit that
> has the support of Portland Police Chief Charles Moose. The keynote
> speaker will be U-S Senator Diane Feinstein of California. The coalition
> intends to lobby the legislature for tighter restrictions on concealed
> weapon permits... adult-only gun ownership and background checks on all
> gun sales... including private transactions.
They're going to be *real* surprised by the number of pro-gun people who will
be there. So Chief Charlie called in a California friend, huh? Bet Mayor Vera
had a hand in that. Maybe DiFi wanted to come to the Upper Left Coast to see
all of her constituents. I've got news for them: It ain't gonna happen.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
m...@aussi.net
wrote:
>Thursday September 17, 1998
>
> Press Release: Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
>
What has this got to do with firearms law in Canada where only the
bodyguards of foreign dictators can carry handguns illegally with the
blessing of the Prime Minister of Canada, and the RCMP were ordered to
assault any protester carrying a sign and confiscate property....
BTW, some very reputable reseach has shown concealed carry laws in
the good ole U.S. of A. has caused a decrease in violent crime.
The net effect is fewer shootings with firearms.
BTW2: why is Roger posting the original to
talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,can.talk.guns,alt.politics.democrat.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.liberalism
??
Mike Eglestone
fact that three incidents out of a CCW population of (how many) is a
meaningless figure. In truth, if that is the total for a month or two,
it is well within the range of acceptable risk for the population as a
whole.
It is, however, amusing to watch them feed the propaganda mill with
absolute nonsense data.
Does anyone in their [right mind] take this garbage seriously?
No one that I have noticed lately!
ICHV gets a -1 for being stupid, and Roger Denny gets a -4 for
posting that nonsense on TPG.
Mike Eglestone
Col. Douglas Mortimer
Out of the hundreds of thousands of CCW holders, you can come up with 3
examples of misuse? Doesn't sound like much of a "rash" to me.
Mortalis the Unimpressed
In <36031a22...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger
Denney) writes:
>
>Thursday September 17, 1998
>
> Press Release: Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
>
>ICHV Decries Rash of Concealed Handgun Shootings
>
>Law Enforcement Officers, Teenager and Innocent Man Fall Victim To
>Concealed Handgun Permit Holders
>
>CHICAGO, Sept. 16 -- The Illinois Council Against Handgun
>Violence (ICHV) criticized laws in Texas, Connecticut and Indiana that
>allow citizens to possess concealed handguns. ICHV's reproach was
>sparked by three different incidents, over the past three weeks, that
>involved concealed handgun permit-holders.
>
>On August 19, 1998, Crystal Elliot, 17, was shot in the leg by a
>Shelbyville, Indiana man who had an Indiana concealed handgun permit.
>The defendant in the case fired multiple shots through a wall at the
>front of a Shelbyville residence near the young woman's home.
>
>On August 23, 1998, a Houston man, who held a concealed handgun
license,
>fatally shot his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. Immediately after he
>murdered his rival, the permit holder killed himself with a solo gun
>shot. It was reported by the Houston Chronicle on August 24 that the
>killer had staked out the woman's neighborhood for over five hours
prior
>to committing the double homicide.
>
>On September 3, 1998, three Connecticut State Troopers sustained
>multiple gun shot wounds from Edward Premo, a former police officer
and
>valid concealed handgun permit holder. The Hartford Courant reported
>that state troopers Michael Hoague, Mark Pelletier and James Reidy
>survived Premo's armed attack. Investigators found nine explosive
booby
>traps, numerous hand grenades and dynamite, pipe bombs and guns. Premo
>was dismissed from the Norwich, Conn. police department in 1986 for
>failure to meet departmental standards.
>
>Dan Kotowski, executive director of the Illinois Council Against
Handgun
>Violence, commented, ``The verdict on concealed handguns is crystal
>clear. Concealed handgun laws are lethal to law enforcement and
everyday
>citizens. Despite such incidents in Connecticut, Texas and Indiana,
the
>gun lobby still pushes Congress to enact laws that give everyone the
>right to carry concealed handguns.''
>
>Although concealed handguns are currently prohibited in Illinois, the
>U.S. House Judiciary Committee recently passed H.R. 218 to a vote in
the
>House. This bill, sponsored by the National Rifle Association, would
>allow concealed handgun permit-holders to carry handguns into states
>that did not issue the original license.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
>
>
>
>
anymouse
>Thursday September 17, 1998
Three is a rash?
Do you care to weigh these deaths against those of dozens of innocent
people who were murdered this month in robberies, carjackings, rapes,
muggings, and other crimes -- people who might have lived had they
been armed?
anymouse
Steve Fischer
>Violence, commented, ``The verdict on concealed handguns is crystal
>clear. Concealed handgun laws are lethal to law enforcement and everyday
>citizens. Despite such incidents in Connecticut, Texas and Indiana, the
>gun lobby still pushes Congress to enact laws that give everyone the
>right to carry concealed handguns.''
>
>Although concealed handguns are currently prohibited in Illinois, the
>U.S. House Judiciary Committee recently passed H.R. 218 to a vote in the
>House. This bill, sponsored by the National Rifle Association, would
>allow concealed handgun permit-holders to carry handguns into states
>that did not issue the original license.
>
>
>
>
>
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
David Brickner
hypocrite politician), a Moose (???????Bullwinkle?????) and a "denney"
species:(wannabe hangeronous dufus) Where's Sarah and Schumer for a real
circle of jerks????????
Roger Denney wrote:
> Thursday September 17 1998
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gun Control Summit Scheduled - (PORTLAND) -- Oregon gun laws will draw
> fire this weekend at Lewis and Clark College in Portland. The nonprofit
> Oregon Coalition Against Gun Violence is sponsoring a gun summit that
> has the support of Portland Police Chief Charles Moose. The keynote
> speaker will be U-S Senator Diane Feinstein of California. The coalition
> intends to lobby the legislature for tighter restrictions on concealed
> weapon permits... adult-only gun ownership and background checks on all
> gun sales... including private transactions.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gmoney
posting it to show how narrowminded politicians are and to warn
those of us who have more brains than cable TV channels of what
new feel-good laws are being attempted by those in search of votes.
I was quite surprised to see responses attacking him personally.
Well, where do you stand, Roger? One must be careful when reposting
pertinent articles without any personal input, as others may assume
any motive...
James S. Rustad
>On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:28:16 GMT, jsru...@spam.nconnect.net (James S. Rustad)
>wrote:
>
>>rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) wrote:
>>>On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 03:24:35 GMT, jsru...@spam.nconnect.net (James S. Rustad)
>>>wrote:
>>>>rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) wrote:
>>Considering that I am one of the authors of the plank on gun rights in
>>the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin's platform, I think I know more
>>about my party's position than you do.
>
>Funny you should speak for all Libertarians. Seems your fellow LP member and
>proto-anarchist, Sci-Fi author and all around gun-nut, Mr. L. Neil Smith,
>disagrees with you; quite adamantly, in fact.
So now you think *all* Libertarians march in lock-step?
I can tell you've not seen too many arguments involving Libertarians
-- I've seen some real doozies.
>>A law forbidding possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
>>(remember -- as part of a sentencing agreement?)
>
>No, actually I don't remember that. Is that part of the "sentencing agreement"
>a non-violent convicted criminal receives also ? You know, like someone who
>sells or uses street -drugs, like most Libertarians seem to wholeheartedly
>approve of <bg>.
Never said the current laws were right.
Never said drug sellers or users should be convicted of felonies (or
any other crime for that matter).
Never said that non-violent convicted criminals should *always* be
forbidden to possess a firearm.
You claimed that Libertarians opposed *all* gun-control laws. I
pointed out a few examples of laws that I wouldn't necessarily have a
problem with. I didn't give an exhaustive list, nor did I point out
those parts of the current system that could cause problems with the
implementation of the laws I mentioned. If you knew as much about
Libertarians as you claim to, you wouldn't have any trouble
understanding that. Or are you, as I suspect, retreating to trolling?
>>>You may not agree with me, and that is fine, but using Libertarian philosophy
>>>and beliefs on gun-laws, which many non-Libertarian gunowners also share,
>>>that the second amendment guarantees every American the right to keep and BEAR
>>>firearms, ANY gunowner who obtains a CCW permit to CARRY (bear) IS a
>>>hypocrite by definition.
>>
>>Let us assume that you believe theft is wrong -- no one should ever
>>steal.
>>
>>One day, you've been without food for a week. There is no way
>>available to obtain food without stealing it.
>>
>>Would you quietly lie down and wait to die?
>>
>>Or would you be a hypocrite and steal enough food to keep yourself
>>alive?
>>
>>If I were living in an area where I could obtain a carry permit, I
>>would do so. Not because I think requiring a carry permit is a *good*
>>thing, but because carrying with the permit is less likely to result
>>in me spending time in jail than carrying without the permit.
>
>Then you have not the courage of your convictions ,James.
So what about you? Would you steal the food or die?
Or how about another hypothetical?
Your car breaks down far away from any city. You don't have a
telephone or other means of communications with you. It's well below
zero (-40 degrees). There is a farmhouse 100 feet away from your car
but no one is home.
Do you break into the farmhouse to save your life or do you stay out
in the car and die?
julia.c...@iint.com
jay...@kansas.com (Bubba) wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 02:47:02 GMT, rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney) wrote:
>
> * Press Release: Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
> *ICHV Decries Rash of Concealed Handgun Shootings
> *Law Enforcement Officers, Teenager and Innocent Man Fall Victim To
> *Concealed Handgun Permit Holders
>
> Another one of those, "The Sky Is Falling" proclamations.
>
>
when they go see a doctor about their "rash".
Julie
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Kent Finnell
Roger Denney wrote in message <36031a22...@news.inreach.com>...
>Thursday September 17, 1998
>
> Press Release: Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
>
>
>
>CHICAGO, Sept. 16 -- The Illinois Council Against Handgun
>Violence (ICHV) criticized laws in Texas, Connecticut and Indiana that
>allow citizens to possess concealed handguns. ICHV's reproach was
>sparked by three different incidents, over the past three weeks, that
>involved concealed handgun permit-holders.
Say, Denny, care if I point out something you seemed to have missed in the
very first paragraph above? The ILLINOIS Council Against Handgun Violence
is bitching about TEXAS, CONNECTICUT, and INDIANA. In other words, none of
their damned business.
>
>On August 19, 1998, Crystal Elliot, 17, was shot in the leg by a
>Shelbyville, Indiana man who had an Indiana concealed handgun permit.
>The defendant in the case fired multiple shots through a wall at the
>front of a Shelbyville residence near the young woman's home.
What were the circumstances that caused the man to draw and fire? The
paragraph is meaningless and taken out of context. Was the man charged? If
not, why? If so, why?
>
>On August 23, 1998, a Houston man, who held a concealed handgun license,
>fatally shot his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. Immediately after he
>murdered his rival, the permit holder killed himself with a solo gun
>shot. It was reported by the Houston Chronicle on August 24 that the
>killer had staked out the woman's neighborhood for over five hours prior
>to committing the double homicide.
If he did indeed "stalk" and was reported, then some law enforcement agency
is at fault, not as much as the perp, but still at fault.
>
>On September 3, 1998, three Connecticut State Troopers sustained
>multiple gun shot wounds from Edward Premo, a former police officer and
>valid concealed handgun permit holder. The Hartford Courant reported
>that state troopers Michael Hoague, Mark Pelletier and James Reidy
>survived Premo's armed attack. Investigators found nine explosive booby
>traps, numerous hand grenades and dynamite, pipe bombs and guns. Premo
>was dismissed from the Norwich, Conn. police department in 1986 for
>failure to meet departmental standards.
Again, a failure to enforce the law. The Norwich PD should have notified
the state for the reasons for dismissal. If the reason were sufficient,
then the state would have pulled his permit, but not necessarily his
subsequent violence. After all, his "booby traps, hand grenades, dynamite,
and pipe bombs" weren't covered by that license.
>Dan Kotowski, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun
>Violence, commented, ``The verdict on concealed handguns is crystal
>clear. Concealed handgun laws are lethal to law enforcement and everyday
>citizens. Despite such incidents in Connecticut, Texas and Indiana, the
>gun lobby still pushes Congress to enact laws that give everyone the
>right to carry concealed handguns.''
>
>Although concealed handguns are currently prohibited in Illinois, the
>U.S. House Judiciary Committee recently passed H.R. 218 to a vote in the
>House. This bill, sponsored by the National Rifle Association, would
>allow concealed handgun permit-holders to carry handguns into states
>that did not issue the original license.
>
HR 218 does not, to the best of my knowledge, establish a national CCW. All
it does is allow someone who is legally licensed in Tennessee to be able to
carry in say, Georgia, or Vermont. If there is no legal carry in Illinois,
then the Tennessean wouldn't be able to carry in Illinois. Real simple,
Denny, which is apparently the reason neither Dan Kotowski nor you
understand it.
Kent Finnell
Let Freedom Ring!
Dreamteam 2000: Fred Dalton Thompson and J.C. Watts
Col. Douglas Mortimer
<Kent.F...@nashville.com> writes:
>>Roger sputtered:
>>Although concealed handguns are currently prohibited in Illinois, the
>>U.S. House Judiciary Committee recently passed H.R. 218 to a vote in
the
>>House. This bill, sponsored by the National Rifle Association, would
>>allow concealed handgun permit-holders to carry handguns into states
>>that did not issue the original license.
>
>HR 218 does not, to the best of my knowledge, establish a national
CCW. All
>it does is allow someone who is legally licensed in Tennessee to be
able to
>carry in say, Georgia, or Vermont. If there is no legal carry in
Illinois,
>then the Tennessean wouldn't be able to carry in Illinois. Real
simple,
>Denny, which is apparently the reason neither Dan Kotowski nor you
>understand it.
>
>Kent Finnell
>Let Freedom Ring!
>Dreamteam 2000: Fred Dalton Thompson and J.C. Watts
Correct. This "national CCW" stuff is just additional evidence of the
fact that the anti-RKBA crowd will say anything that furthers their
cause - irrespective of the truth. I wonder where they learned that?
All the Bill does is establish reciprocity - just like with driver's
licenses. If a state does not allow CCW (and nearly all eventually
will), there cannot be reciprocity - hence, the law would not apply.
Mortalis
Dan Day
>On August 23, 1998, a Houston man, who held a concealed handgun license,
>fatally shot his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. Immediately after he
>murdered his rival, the permit holder killed himself with a solo gun
>shot. It was reported by the Houston Chronicle on August 24 that the
>killer had staked out the woman's neighborhood for over five hours prior
>to committing the double homicide.
So what's the ICHV's point, if any? Are they *really* going to
try to argue that if the unbalanced man didn't have a concealed handgun
license, that he wouldn't have *still* brought a gun with him to
stalk and kill his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend?
"If only he hadn't had the license", the ICHV whined, "he'd have
just stayed home and watched 'Suddenly Susan' on TV instead..."
Morons.
>Dan Kotowski, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun
>Violence, commented, ``The verdict on concealed handguns is crystal
>clear.
Simple things for simple minds.
> Concealed handgun laws are lethal to law enforcement and everyday
>citizens.
Yup, they real ARE stupid enough to claim that the stalker wouldn't
have brought a gun if he hadn't had a license.
Just how stupid ARE these people? Or more to the point, just how
stupid do they think WE are?
> Despite such incidents in Connecticut, Texas and Indiana, the
>gun lobby still pushes Congress to enact laws that give everyone the
>right to carry concealed handguns.''
"Everyone"? The ICHV is either being stupid again, or they're
lying their faces off.
>Although concealed handguns are currently prohibited in Illinois, the
>U.S. House Judiciary Committee recently passed H.R. 218 to a vote in the
>House. This bill, sponsored by the National Rifle Association, would
>allow concealed handgun permit-holders to carry handguns into states
>that did not issue the original license.
Sigh. This is yet another "are they stupid or just lying" close call.
The bill, which the ICHV stupidly/dishonestly implies would allow
CHL holders from, say, Texas to carry guns into Illinois, only pertains
to people traveling between two states which BOTH have concealed carry
laws. The idea is that similar to how your Texas driver's license is
good for driving in Oklahoma, a Texan licensed to carry a handgun would
be able to carry as well in Oklahoma (and vice versa) since BOTH states
allow concealed weapons, and the requirements for getting a license
in Texas are about the same as getting a license in Oklahoma.
I don't know why this would have the ICHV in such a twitter, other than
for the aforementioned stupidity/mendacity.
Crystal Meth
gun shop
okay we admit it it was us, but Toby pulled the trigger.
--
Crystal Meth: Founding Member
Of The Most Elite Organization In The History Of Our Sport:
The Four Trollsmen : 4T
Crystal Meth
Cartman69x
TobyzQuazy
Owen Aardvark
Stereobomb: You Will Be Avenged.
Brian
Anton Sherwood
: Sigh. This is yet another "are they stupid or just lying" close call.
: The bill, which the ICHV stupidly/dishonestly implies would allow
: CHL holders from, say, Texas to carry guns into Illinois, only pertains
: to people traveling between two states which BOTH have concealed carry
: laws. [...]
: I don't know why this would have the ICHV in such a twitter, other than
: for the aforementioned stupidity/mendacity.
Because it would allow some people to carry icky weapons where they
wouldn't otherwise. What more do they need?
--
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* http://www.jps.net/antons/
David Brickner
Steve Fischer
>
>Monday September 21 1998
>
>Four Charged In Gun Shop Murders - (GLENWOOD) -- Four men have been
>charged in a double homicide and robbery of a Glenwood gun shop. The
>shop's 66- year-old owner... Salvatore Pennella... and his 38-year-old
>son... Raymond Pennella... were killed during the armed robbery Friday
>night. A customer in the store was also shot during the hold-up, but
>43-year-old David Kasakowski pretended to be dead until the robbers
>left. He then called 9-1-1. Charged with the two murders are 18-year-old
>Kendall Merriweather and his 21-year-old brother Michael, 20-year- old
>Kenneth Bryant, and 17-year-old Rashe Poplar.
Freddo VA3FD
says...
> Canada Gun Control Law Protested
>
> Tuesday, September 22, 1998
>
> OTTAWA (AP) -- Thousands of gun-control opponents demonstrated Tuesday
> outside Parliament, but the government said it would not back away from
> mandatory firearms registration scheduled to start Dec. 1.
>
> ``Canadians have decided that they believe in gun control,'' said
> Justice Minister Anne McLellan. ``The debate is over.''
She's a LIAR. The "debate" is FAR from over. The court challenge by
Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Yukon and Northwest
Territories is PROOF of that. Too bad the hapless McLellan is clueless.
> As of Dec. 1, Canada's 3 million or so gun owners will be required to
> register an estimated 7 million firearms.
Again, another lie. An ACCURATE figure is 7 million OWNERS of 21 million
firearms.
"The government's own estimate in Dec. 1976, published as part of its gun
control campaign, was 6,000,000 owners with 18,000,000 firearms. During
hearings on the -Campbell bill, officials from the office of the Minister
of Justice testified that the long-term average net annual importation of
firearms into Canada (imports minus exports) was 190,000 per year.
Therefore, adding 190,000 per year to the 18,000,000 of 1976, we get a
total of 21,610,000 by Dec. 1993. Subtract 610,000 plus one firearm
for every firearm manufactured in Canada during those 17 years as an
allowance for firearms destroyed, dismantled or worn out --
and you are back at 21,000,000 firearms with 7,000,000 owners."
(See http://magi.com/~freddo/how_many.html)
> Opponents contend the computerized registry will be costly and
> complicated, penalizing legitimate gun owners without preventing
> criminals from gaining access to guns.
Yup.
> In the House of Commons, the right-wing Reform Party called for repeal
> of the gun control law, coupled with tougher sentences for crimes
> committed using guns.
Right on.
> Justice Department officials concede setting up the registry has been
> more troublesome than expected.
No, really? ;-)
> The cost initially was estimated at $60 million U.S. but has more than
> doubled.
>
> The government had planned to start the gun registry Oct. 1, but
> announced a two-month delay Monday, in part because police in Ontario
> weren't ready to help implement it.
The police in Ontario have already been instructed not to touch it at
all. The feds don't tell Ontario cops what to do.
> Four provinces -- Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan -- have
> launched a constitutional court challenge to the law, which is currently
> before Alberta's Court of Appeal.
The aforementioned two territories are part of that challenge as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Freddo VA3FD - UIN 1562286
fre...@magi.com
http://www.magi.com/~freddo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
sheppard
<361021f...@news.inreach.com>...
> Two Dead, Three Wounded in N.C
>
> Thursday, September 24, 1998
>
> BLACK MOUNTAIN, N.C. (AP) -- A factory worker was ordered held without
> bond today on two counts of first-degree murder and three counts of
> attempted murder following a shooting rampage at a furniture parts
> plant.
8X---- [media waffle deleted]
So???
You've got a problem with the local law enforcement system perhaps??
They should have let him go maybe??
Ronald Shin
>
> Two Dead, Three Wounded in N.C
>
Roger's story has a lesson for all of you:
Had any of the other workers there been armed, even with a simple 5 shot
.38 Special revolver, the casualties could have been averted.
Thank you for your post, as you are showing everyone that guns are good.
--
"The First Amendment is crucial. Of course it is. So are all
the others. And the Second Amendment is the one that guarantees
that people can bear arms to protect themselves."
Charlton Heston, President of the NRA
Stephen Jenuth
: Roger Denney <rgde...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
: <361021f...@news.inreach.com>...
:> Two Dead, Three Wounded in N.C
:>
:> Thursday, September 24, 1998
:>
:> BLACK MOUNTAIN, N.C. (AP) -- A factory worker was ordered held without
:> bond today on two counts of first-degree murder and three counts of
:> attempted murder following a shooting rampage at a furniture parts
:> plant.
: So???
: You've got a problem with the local law enforcement system perhaps??
: They should have let him go maybe??
Some people would hope that crimes would be prevented. Nothing can
be done for the families of those who were killed to repair the harm.
In the context of the Canadian gun debate, the questions are: were
there any grounds under which a gun licence would not have been issued
or been revoked, was the assault rifle used one which would have been
prohibited or restricted, did the person have a criminal record or
a history is mental difficulties which may have resulted in the
licence (and firearms) taken away, were these weapons acquired
legally or through illegal means?
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth
(jen...@homacjen.ab.ca)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
John Johnson
writes:
> In <361021f...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com
> (Roger Denney) plagiarizes:
}
} Two Dead, Three Wounded in N.C
}
} Thursday, September 24, 1998
}
} BLACK MOUNTAIN, N.C. (AP)
[SNIP!}
By *totally* ignoring:
"Associated Press news material shall not be published, broadcast,
rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly
or indirectly in any medium."
and:
"Copyright 1998 The Associated Press. The information contained in
the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The
Associated Press."
> Another stolen story showing that a lack of self-defense weapons
> leads to death. This story also shows the lack of knowledge (or
> perhaps deliberate distortion) by the media, who referred to the
> "assault rifle." As we all know, an assault rifle is a medium-
> powered carbine with the ability of fully automatic fire. The
> rifle used was NOT an assault rifle. However stories such as
> this will be used to call for bans on ALL rifles....
--John Johnson/TX Peace Officer (16+ Years) supporting the
Texas and U.S. Constitutions, the BoR, the 2ndAmnd and the RKBA
"Gun Control: the political AIDS of a free society"
--Ian Underwood, 13Sep98
"As Professor Lott discovered, gun ownership deters crime.
But what will deter liberals? Certainly not the facts.
They have too much invested in their vision of themselves
as the saviors of us all."
-- Thomas Sowell, June 29, 1998
"It is the invariable habit of bureaucracies, at all times and
everywhere, to assume...that every citizen is a criminal. Their
one apparent purpose, pursued with a relentless and furious
diligence, is to convert the assumption into a fact. They hunt
endlessly for proofs, and, when proofs are lacking, for mere
suspicions. The moment they become aware of a definite citizen,
John Doe, seeking what is his right under the law, they begin
searching feverishly for an excuse for withholding it from him."
-- H.L. Mencken
"Liberals have many tails and chase them all."
-- H.L. Mencken
"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem --
neat, plausible, and wrong."
-- H.L. Mencken
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins; all of them imaginary."
-- H.L. Mencken
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
© 1998 All rights reserved
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Two Dead, Three Wounded in N.C
> [...]
So what's the point? Is Denney under some sort of warped delusion that
the guns are to blame?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
DogmaRatt
>
> On 25 Sep 1998 15:16:56 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
> >In <361021f...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney)
> >plagiarizes:
> >>
> >
> >
> >to death. This story also shows the lack of knowledge (or perhaps
> >deliberate distortion) by the media, who referred to the "assault
> >with the ability of fully automatic fire.
>
> constitutes, but you already know that we are referring to the "civilian"
> semi-automatic version of the "real" thing, i.e., a fully-automatic machine
> gun.
>
> Maybe California assault weapons owners can dance that tune at the police
> checkpoints when the new assault weapon ban is passed in 1999 <bfg>
>
> Somehow I doubt the cops will listen to the pleas of you militia wannabes <g>
>
> Until then, you are simply attempting to waste bandwidth here with your
> nonsense about the names for a type of man-killing weapon capable of spewing
> HUNDREDS of bullets per minute.
That's a cyclic rate. You won't actually shoot that many without a belt
fed weapon.
michael pace
Are you saying that any government has the right to use it's military
against it's people;but the people don't have the right to fight back.
Observe what's happening in Malaysia,Indonesia etc.
I reserve the right to arm myself against intruders,dictators,murderers
or what have you.
If you prefer taking it lying down,that is your prerogative.
Give me Freedom or Death.
Michael Pace.
Kevin S.
So you are saying that you agree with a police state, where only the
military and police are armed, correct?
Then I can conclude that you also agreed with Hitler's Agenda? Gun
confiscation ,annihilation of the Jews and complete takeover. The
first step to total government control is disarmament of the people.
I guess again I can conclude that you do like nor want freedom and you
need the government to tell you what you can and cannot do.
>Have an Unarmed Day
Tell that to a criminal and they will laugh. Gun confiscation does
not effect the criminals as their weapons are not registered or
purchased legally. All it does is disarm innocent people and allow
criminals to attack, rape, steal and kill at will with any weapon of
their choosing, as the victim cannot defend themselves because of
your, "UNARMED DAY". If the law WOULD ENFORCE the laws that are
created then you wouldn't have the crime being committed as criminals
would think twice, as they know they will be prosecuted. But it seems
that the government doesn't care about prosecuting and what the real
issue is, is not GUN CONTROL but PEOPLE CONTROL. I don't know about
you but I believe what George Washington did was for a good cause,
"FREEDOM", and I am not going to let that be done in vain. In America
we have something called freedom and I can tell you one thing is that
Americans will not take gun confiscation or any anti-constitutional
campaign's lying down.
We also have something called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution,
which draws the line on what the government can and cannot do. It is
our duty as Americans to remind them of our rights and to enforce our
rights, this is called freedom.
>bloody gun-hobby.
What kind of hobby do you have? Do you fish? Do you hunt? If so,
then you statement is completely ludicrous as that is a bloody hobby.
I am not out there KILLING fish and game for trophy or so called
sport. You don't have to gut a paper target when your done with it.
As far as I can tell a gun hobby is not bloody, so I have no idea as
to what you are talking about.
Should they also ban KNIVES and SWORDS as they kill?
I have never seen a firearm or a knife get up from whenever it is
lying and attack someone all by it self, have you? So when people
say, "GUNS KILL", I would like to know how, please enlighten me.
I also didn't know that inanimate object have the minds of their own
to do what ever they want when ever they want.
The bottom line Roger, is that POEPLE KILL, not inanimate objects.
Kev.-
>It will, Dan
>
>Ask me sometime about my easy, 10-step plan to peacefully and successfully
>disarm the typical American gun-goon.
>
>Clue: It aint really all that hard to do, given the will, nor will it involve
>all that much violence, unlike your bloody gun-hobby.
>
>Roger
>
>Have an Unarmed Day
michael pace
the racist cops who pick up a blackman and proceed to kick the shit out
of him,simply because he's black.
Or the National Guards who shoot young students,such as at Kent
University,simply for expressing their democratic right against an
unjust war.Some people have short memories.
Michael Pace
Charles Esson
about your pathetic little gun you would be no more than a pile of
burning carbon on the ground.
If things get to a stage where people need to fight their government the
countries stuffed., all armed citizens do is finish off the process.
Charles Samardza
Roger Denney wrote:
(part snipped)
> Until then, you are simply attempting to waste bandwidth here with your
> nonsense about the names for a type of man-killing weapon capable of spewing
> HUNDREDS of bullets per minute.
>
> Roger
>
> Have an Unarmed Day
You sir, have just demonstrated the point Dan Z was trying to make. Aside
from the fact that there is NO mechanical difference between what you term
assault weapons and any of the semi-automatic rifles out there that you don't
consider such, your last statement shows your ignorance. Only weapons that fall
under the full-auto catagory(very heavily regulated and restricted) are capable
of 'hundreds of bullets per minute', semi-auto is 1 trigger pull = 1 round fired.
Bang
>
> On 25 Sep 1998 15:16:56 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
> >In <361021f...@news.inreach.com> rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney)
> >plagiarizes:
> >>
> >
> >
> >Another stolen story showing that a lack of self-defense weapons leads
> >to death. This story also shows the lack of knowledge (or perhaps
> >deliberate distortion) by the media, who referred to the "assault
> >rifle." As we all know, an assault rifle is a medium-powered carbine
> >with the ability of fully automatic fire.
>
> You gunowners can dance around the definition of what an assault weapon
> constitutes, but you already know that we are referring to the "civilian"
> semi-automatic version of the "real" thing, i.e., a fully-automatic machine
> gun.
>
> Maybe California assault weapons owners can dance that tune at the police
> checkpoints when the new assault weapon ban is passed in 1999 <bfg>
>
> Somehow I doubt the cops will listen to the pleas of you militia wannabes <g>
>
> nonsense about the names for a type of man-killing weapon capable of spewing
> HUNDREDS of bullets per minute.
>
> Roger
>
> Have an Unarmed Day
Bang Says: Ignorance is bliss - thus Denney's perpetual grin.
--
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -
ordinary citizens don't
need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
Heinrich Himmler
Ronald C Bloom ii
>Ask me sometime about my easy, 10-step plan to peacefully and successfully
>disarm the typical American gun-goon.
Gun-goon, I guess that you would include Bill Clinton in that title?
What an intolerant Asshole. This guy is not better than any racist, he
generalizes, and attempts to de-humanize his foe. Sort of like his fellow
gun hater Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin.
Scott Hillard
<char...@cvs.com.au> wrote:
>What a pathetic little argument. If an armed government was serious
>about your pathetic little gun you would be no more than a pile of
>burning carbon on the ground.
How comforting that you condone the murder of civilians by your own
Government, merely for posessing a "pathetic little gun".
Presumably people like me, who own many guns of various types, will
meet an even stickier end, hnmmm?
Fucking psychopath.
>If things get to a stage where people need to fight their government the
>countries stuffed., all armed citizens do is finish off the process.
Yadda yadda yadda, yawn, boring, call lifeline - they might give a
rat's arse.
----------
Wine is strong, a King is stronger, women are even stronger, but truth will conquer all.
Peter H. Proctor
>From: rgde...@yahoo.com (Roger Denney)
>Subject: Re: Canadian Gun-Registration Comes Home To Roost
>Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 02:55:07 GMT
>>Yet Roger thinks that gun bans and confiscation will be easy in the
>>U.S....
>It will, Dan
>Ask me sometime about my easy, 10-step plan to peacefully and successfully
>disarm the typical American gun-goon.
Er, do you intend to do this personally or hire a bunch of poor
schmucks to do it for you, al la "A Nation of Cowards" ? Naturally, I
personally would turn mine in, for whatever the gummit gave me. Many
persons are not quite as law-abiding. But the money would immediately go to
the policital campaign(s) of whoever was running against any politician who
voted for such a law. I suspect this would scare them more than posturing
about armed revolt.
Dr P
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Yes I respect police officers,the ones who do the right thing. But
> not the racist cops who pick up a blackman and proceed to kick the
> shit out of him, simply because he's black.
Is that how some Aussie cops treat blackfellas, then? Let me tell you
about an incident that happened in Los Angeles a few years back. There
were these three blackfellas in a Hyundai that got stopped for driving
80 mph (128 kph). The driver -- a very large hulk of a man named
Rodney King -- physically challenged the cops. They hit him with a
couple of 30,000-volt jolts from a Taser, but that failed to stop him.
He was finally subdued the old-fashioned way, with a few whacks from a
nightstick -- the policeman's baton. His compatriots -- also black --
were cooperative and were unhurt.
Unfortunately, the whole episode was caught on tape, and a prejudiced
and sensationalist media aired selected portions of it over and over
again and ultimately incited a race riot. And innocent men who had
already been acquitted were subjected to double jeopardy in a political
trial and went to jail.
> Or the National Guards who shoot young students, such as at Kent
> University, simply for expressing their democratic right against an
> unjust war.
No, you had harebrained students throwing rocks at soldiers with loaded
guns. What would you think is going to happen.
> Some people have short memories.
While some people have no memories at all.