Danger with guns
Compaq User
news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
>
> There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
>
> Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
> safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
>
> Simon
Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
I am Shaka
this stupid incident in colorada has the anti second ammendment nuts out
And one of them ahd to nerver to tell me
He felt sorry that the guns were availible for the kids.
and i said"WAIT YOUR MAD THEY KILLED WITH GUNS?"
"Maybe if they used chain saw it would be okay"
becoming a very militant Libertarian
nycap.rr.com
Compaq User <rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:371d4...@news.hawaii.rr.com...
>
> Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
>
>
dhe...@atlantic.net
<rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
>news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
>>
>> There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
>>
>> Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
>> safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
>>
>> Simon
>
>Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
>
Governments + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Species
Which is worse.
>
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
C. M. Kreager
> M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
> news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
> >
> > There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
> >
> > Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
> > safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
> >
> > Simon
>
> Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
CK
Easy Does It
> Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
WE NEED A NEW LAW! Fully 90% of all crime in this country uses this incidious
weapon. More children and teen agers are killed with this item of mass
destruction than any sickness, disease, suicide, or any other means of death.
This vitual machine of torture has maimed and killed more people world wide
than every single war, sickness, disease, or any thing else put together
throughout the entire history of mankind (or uhhh .. personkind to be
completely PC :)
Therefore, we petition the government of the united states to pass a law
making it unlawful to manufacture, sell, or distribute an automobile.
Whether it is driven by internal combustion engine or by battery. We
petition the government of the united states to pass a law making it unlawful
to manufacture, sell, or distribute ANY form of mechanised transportation.
The cost to society of these hideous machines is just too great.
We further petition the government of the united states to pass a law
requiring exhaust systems to be installed on what will surely become a
burgeoning horse population so that the methane from the horse farts does not
further destroy the ozone layer (or make peoples close stinky).
Wouldn't it be worth it if even one child were saved with such a law?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tommy Tillman
> news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
> >
> > There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
> >
> > Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
> > safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
> >
> > Simon
>
>
>
The problem is not with the Deadly Weapons.
The problem is with the HEARTS in the Adolescents. There was something
terribly wrong with these 2 boys, and banning weapons of all kinds would not
have stopped the carnage.
Tommy T-Rex
qwerty
news:7fkppt$g4r$1...@nw001t.infi.net...
Are you saying that without the shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and
grenades the carnage would have been the same? That if these two boys had
no weapons the results would have been the same? That if they had entered
that school with only their black trench coats the result would have been
the same? Deadly weapons such those used in this incident make it easy for
anyone to kill and slaughter people. Clearly, deranged individuals armed
with deadly weapons are more dangerous than those without.
| Tommy T-Rex
--
The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect those of my
employer.
Bill Christensen
Easy Does It <dan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7fkueu$ave$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>
> > Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
>
incidious
> weapon. More children and teen agers are killed with this item of mass
> destruction than any sickness, disease, suicide, or any other means of
death.
> This vitual machine of torture has maimed and killed more people world
wide
> than every single war, sickness, disease, or any thing else put together
> throughout the entire history of mankind (or uhhh .. personkind to be
> completely PC :)
>
> Therefore, we petition the government of the united states to pass a law
> making it unlawful to manufacture, sell, or distribute an automobile.
> Whether it is driven by internal combustion engine or by battery. We
> petition the government of the united states to pass a law making it
unlawful
> to manufacture, sell, or distribute ANY form of mechanised transportation.
> The cost to society of these hideous machines is just too great.
>
> We further petition the government of the united states to pass a law
> requiring exhaust systems to be installed on what will surely become a
> burgeoning horse population so that the methane from the horse farts does
not
> further destroy the ozone layer (or make peoples close stinky).
Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes, correct?
But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe bombs.
> Wouldn't it be worth it if even one child were saved with such a law?
Of course, who could think otherwise?
Bill Christensen
qwerty <nos...@all.com> wrote in message
news:7fkuo3$k...@masters0.InterNex.Net...
> Tommy Tillman <tmti...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> news:7fkppt$g4r$1...@nw001t.infi.net...
> | Compaq User <rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> | news:371d4...@news.hawaii.rr.com...
> | > M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
> | > news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
> | > >
> | > > There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
> | > >
> | > > Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
> | > > safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid
colisions.
> | > >
> | > > Simon
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
> | The problem is with the HEARTS in the Adolescents. There was
something
> | terribly wrong with these 2 boys, and banning weapons of all kinds would
> not
> | have stopped the carnage.
>
> Are you saying that without the shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and
> grenades the carnage would have been the same?
If the victims weren't disarmed the results wouldn't have been the same. How
did banning weapons from school grounds help this situation?
Now, if we banned public schools this atrocity couldn't happen.
Anonymous
idea is, it is impossible. There IS however removing weapons from the vast
majority of law abiding citizens. Is this really something you want? Or
even have the right to do?
If I was a crazy, and I wanted to kill plenty of people in my school,
rest assured I could do it without shotguns and rifles. The question is
not, "how can we get rid of guns", it's "how can we deal with guns". So how
can we? Is it by removing them from the hands of law abiding citizens?
Rather than answer that I would refer you to the case of Washington DC.
Handguns banned. Largest handgun crime rate in the world. Any questions?
So if removing the guns doesn't work, what can you do? For THAT, I refer
you to the case of Miami. Concealed carry legalized and made easy. Handgun
crime drops 60%. Any questions?
In the end, there is no way to remove the symptoms of violence. Taking
away my gun so I can't shoot anybody is like taking your car away so you
don't run them over. Both guns and cars have legitimate purposes that they
are overwhelmingly used for. You can't remove that legitimate use for the
sake of the few illegitimate uses. The trick is to remove the lillegitimate
USERS. That is the job of the justice system, as it should be. Fix THAT,
and you fix most of your problem. Trying to ban guns is just sweeping it
under the carpet. If you really like that idea still, go walk around
washington DC for a bit and think it over.
Eric
--
"To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp
with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
qwerty <nos...@all.com> wrote in message
news:7fkuo3$k...@masters0.InterNex.Net...
> Tommy Tillman <tmti...@geocities.com> wrote in message
> news:7fkppt$g4r$1...@nw001t.infi.net...
> | Compaq User <rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> | news:371d4...@news.hawaii.rr.com...
> | > M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
> | > news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
> | > >
> | > > There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
> | > >
> | > > Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
> | > > safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid
colisions.
> | > >
> | > > Simon
> | >
> | > Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
> | >
> | >
> |
> | The problem is not with the Deadly Weapons.
> |
> | The problem is with the HEARTS in the Adolescents. There was
something
> | terribly wrong with these 2 boys, and banning weapons of all kinds would
> not
> | have stopped the carnage.
>
> Are you saying that without the shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and
> grenades the carnage would have been the same? That if these two boys had
George P. Masologites
>| The problem is with the HEARTS in the Adolescents. There was something
>| terribly wrong with these 2 boys, and banning weapons of all kinds would
>not
>| have stopped the carnage.
>
>Are you saying that without the shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and
>grenades the carnage would have been the same?
No, he's saying that regardless of gun control laws, weapons bans, and
whatever other nonsense the government cooks up, _criminals will
always get weapons because they don't buy them in stores_. Gun
control laws just strip honest citizens of their weapons and make them
perfect, harmless victims for the criminals.
Yes, if you could somehow disarm these criminals that would be a very
good thing. But I don't care how many restrictive, unconstitutional
anti-gun laws you pass, you can't.
--
George P. Masologites | gui...@mail.serve.com
Space | http://www.serve.com/guilds/astro/
Fanfiction | http://www.serve.com/guilds/ranma/
Art | http://www.serve.com/guilds/
http://www.luf.org/~jwills/LufWiki/view.cgi/Main/GeorgeMasologites
LufWiki. You know you love it.
"Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur."
Eric Chomko
: Compaq User wrote:
[...]
: > Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
Eric
George P. Masologites
>> Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
>> safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
>>
>> Simon
>
>Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
Nah, adolescents don't wield enough power to be a danger to society.
They can kill a lot of people, but not enough to endanger society.
You need government for that.
If you like equations, then perhaps this is suitable:
(Criminals + weapons) + Big Government + (everyone else - weapons) =
Danger to society
George P. Masologites
>> Are you saying that without the shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and
>> grenades the carnage would have been the same?
>
>If the victims weren't disarmed the results wouldn't have been the same. How
>did banning weapons from school grounds help this situation?
Exactly my point. Picture, instead of the 25-death massacre which
occured because of the students being disarmed, this:
These 'Trench Coat Mafia' guys roll up into the parking lot, thinking
they're all bad, and open fire. A few students are injured/killed.
Meanwhile, bystander students duck for cover and pull out their
pistols, shotguns, and automatics, riddling the vehicle with
firepower. If one of the would-be terrorists somehow manages to
survive, he'll either be blasted when he tries to move, or some
skilled sniper student will have put a hole in his head.
But that didn't happen. Why? Because the students had been disarmed
by fools claiming to do it 'for their own good!' And anti-gun zealots
in the legislature will seize this opportunity to fraudulently justify
new anti-gun laws and take more of our rights away from us, so the
next 'Trench Coat Mafia' can case the same destruction and death
without resistance.
It's sad.
George P. Masologites
>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
>
>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>
>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
Compaq User
news:371e329e....@news.mindspring.com...
> Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
> >: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to
society
> >
> >: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
> >
> >I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
> >deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
> >the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>
> The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
> crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
> thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
> armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
I'm thinking that deadly weapons in the hands of adolescent gun nuts is a
recipe for disaster.
And, sorrowfully, I have proof.
Compaq User
news:371dc3d0....@news.atlantic.net...
> >news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
> >>
> >> There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
> >>
> >> safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
> >>
> >> Simon
> >
> >Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
> >
>
> Which is worse.
Now that we know more about what happened in Colorado, I'll refine my
equation:
Adolescent Gun Nuts + Deadly Weapons = Dead Children
George P. Masologites
>> The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
>> crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>> thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>> armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>
>I'm thinking that deadly weapons in the hands of adolescent gun nuts is a
>recipe for disaster.
Of course it is. But it's a _worse_ disaster if all the other honest
adolescents are helplessly disarmed! Don't you get it? The criminals
get their arms regardless of restrictions and regulations because
_they don't buy them in stores_!
Anti-gun laws only hurt the innocent.
Anonymous
Bill Christensen <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:7fl1rs$8gq$1...@east43.supernews.com...
>
> Easy Does It <dan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> news:7fkueu$ave$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> >
> >
You people are all horribly wrong. Horses will trample all the kids! We
have to protect our children from these massive engines of destruction, and
you unfeeling crazy righties just don't care do you. How selfish!
Eric
ray hartman
M.Simon wrote:
> Car + Money + Knowledge = Bombs
>
> Perhaps we should reconsider teaching chemistry to highschoolers.
>
> Simon
> ====================================
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:59:49 -1000, "Compaq User"
> <rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
> >news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
> >>
> >> There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
> >>
> >> Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
> >> safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
> >>
> >> Simon
> >
> >Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
> >
> >
>
> Simon - http://www.tefbbs.com/spacetime/index.html
** kids+guns == danger ???
**
**Balony. Growing up, I owned two guns -- so did every kid I knew. We
killed a few grouse. No people.
**
** More accurate to say: modern (violent) adult culture + kids ==
danger
**
** as alway: imho
**ray hartman
Paul gate
George P. Masologites wrote in message <371e329e....@news.mindspring.com>...
>Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
>>
>>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>>
>>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>
>crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>
You mean like the virtual state of anarchy they have in the uk?
Paul gate
George P. Masologites wrote in message <371e2c04....@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>> Are you saying that without the shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and
>>> grenades the carnage would have been the same?
>>
>>If the victims weren't disarmed the results wouldn't have been the same. How
>>did banning weapons from school grounds help this situation?
>
>Exactly my point. Picture, instead of the 25-death massacre which
>occured because of the students being disarmed, this:
>
>These 'Trench Coat Mafia' guys roll up into the parking lot, thinking
>they're all bad, and open fire. A few students are injured/killed.
>Meanwhile, bystander students duck for cover and pull out their
>pistols, shotguns, and automatics, riddling the vehicle with
>firepower. If one of the would-be terrorists somehow manages to
>survive, he'll either be blasted when he tries to move, or some
>skilled sniper student will have put a hole in his head.
>
>But that didn't happen. Why? Because the students had been disarmed
>by fools claiming to do it 'for their own good!' And anti-gun zealots
>in the legislature will seize this opportunity to fraudulently justify
>new anti-gun laws and take more of our rights away from us, so the
>next 'Trench Coat Mafia' can case the same destruction and death
>without resistance.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
I have to show this to the guys at work, you Americans are such a hoot
honestly
This is such a subtle pisstake it is hard to tell it from a genuined gun loon rant
so funny thx
Doug Johnson
>Are you saying that without the shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and
>grenades the carnage would have been the same?
Are you saying that people without guns and grenades don't commit
violent acts?
>That if these two boys had
>no weapons the results would have been the same?
Actually, it might have been worse if they had come in with Molotov
Cocktails and cans of gasoline than simply with a few firearms.
Doug
Doug Johnson
<weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes, correct?
>But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe bombs.
We also need to ban manure since it can be used to make bombs...
Paul gate
Doug Johnson wrote in message <371e6b1c...@news.teleport.com>...
We don`t need to ban manure or pipes
manure is not a bomb....and a pipe is not a pipe bomb, simple really..sigh
Michael Beck
>In alt.politics.clinton C. M. Kreager <ckre...@flash.net> wrote:
>: Compaq User wrote:
>[...]
>: > Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
>
>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
>
>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>
>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>
>Eric
I am all for keeping weapons away from crazy people.
However, the liberal solution has been to try to keep them away from
all.
We'd be better off understanding the reason why these kids behave this
way instead of implementing yet another band-aid solution.
How can any kid posses these weapons, build 30 bombs at home, engage
in neo-nazi behavior, play death match video games "for hours on end",
create web page homages to carnage, and act like a total pathological
misfit WITHOUT MOM AND DAD KNOWING!!????
Where was mom? Where was dad?
Chasing the almighty buck I'll bet.
George P. Masologites
>LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
>
>I have to show this to the guys at work, you Americans are such a hoot
>honestly
>This is such a subtle pisstake it is hard to tell it from a genuined gun loon rant
Ad hominem attacks, Paul? Care to debate the _issues_, instead of
making yourself look like a fool?
I thought not.
M.Simon
Car + Money + Knowledge = Bombs
Perhaps we should reconsider teaching chemistry to highschoolers.
Simon
====================================
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:59:49 -1000, "Compaq User"
<rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
>news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
>>
>> There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
>>
>> Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
>> safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
>>
>> Simon
>
>Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
>
>
M.Simon
I think it was Jock hatred and Adolf Hitler that drove them.
Simon
===============================
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:09:24 -1000, "Compaq User"
<rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
><dhe...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:371dc3d0....@news.atlantic.net...
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:59:49 -1000, "Compaq User"
>> <rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
>> >news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
>> >>
>> >> There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
>> >>
>> >> Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
>> >> safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
>> >>
>> >> Simon
>> >
>> >Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
>> >
>> Governments + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Species
>>
>> Which is worse.
>
>Now that we know more about what happened in Colorado, I'll refine my
>equation:
>
>Adolescent Gun Nuts + Deadly Weapons = Dead Children
>
>
Erik Christensen
people. I have two main points on this issue:
1) People like those that made the attack in Colorado are, at heart,
cowards. They would NEVER have attacked anyone armed.
2) I can think of a number of methods of killing even more people without
guns, grenades or pipebombs. All with a better chance of survival for the
purpetrator/
The point is, someone who wants to kill, will kill, regardless of any
legislation against killing, or the methods or means of doing so. What must
happen is that parents and teachers must learn to recognize when a child has
a disregard for human life, his own or anyone else's (the two are obviously
linked). These kids probably wanted to die, or at least didn't care more
about living. What ended up happening was an extremely extroverted suicide.
Compaq User wrote in message <371d4...@news.hawaii.rr.com>...
dhe...@atlantic.net
<rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>George P. Masologites <gui...@mail.serve.com> wrote in message
>news:371e329e....@news.mindspring.com...
>> Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>>
>> >: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to
>society
>> >
>> >: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>> >
>> >I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>> >deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>> >the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>>
>> The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
>> crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>> thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>> armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>
>I'm thinking that deadly weapons in the hands of adolescent gun nuts is a
>recipe for disaster.
>
>And, sorrowfully, I have proof.
>
Considerably less danger than deadly weapons in the hands of
government. And my proof is a lot bigger than yours. Serbia, Waco,
VN etc. We have killed more children in Serbia in a month than all
the shootings in the US in 10 yrs.
>
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
dhe...@atlantic.net
wrote:
>
>George P. Masologites wrote in message <371e329e....@news.mindspring.com>...
>>Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>>
>>>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
>>>
>>>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>>>
>>>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>>>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>>>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>>
>>The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
>>crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>>thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>>armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>>
>
>
>You mean like the virtual state of anarchy they have in the uk?
>
Right where the UK has the fasting growing rate of violent crime in
the world. It doesn't take guns to have violent crime. I feel a lot
safer in Fl. where there are 100s of thousands of armed citizens than
I do in the UK.
Dan Kimmel
Masologites) wrote:
>"Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>> Are you saying that without the shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and
>>> grenades the carnage would have been the same?
>>
>>If the victims weren't disarmed the results wouldn't have been the same. How
>>did banning weapons from school grounds help this situation?
>
>Exactly my point. Picture, instead of the 25-death massacre which
>occured because of the students being disarmed, this:
>
>These 'Trench Coat Mafia' guys roll up into the parking lot, thinking
>they're all bad, and open fire. A few students are injured/killed.
>Meanwhile, bystander students duck for cover and pull out their
>pistols, shotguns, and automatics, riddling the vehicle with
>firepower. If one of the would-be terrorists somehow manages to
>survive, he'll either be blasted when he tries to move, or some
>skilled sniper student will have put a hole in his head.
>
>But that didn't happen. Why? Because the students had been disarmed
>by fools claiming to do it 'for their own good!' And anti-gun zealots
>in the legislature will seize this opportunity to fraudulently justify
>new anti-gun laws and take more of our rights away from us, so the
>next 'Trench Coat Mafia' can case the same destruction and death
>without resistance.
>
>It's sad.
What's sad is that there are people who think the lesson of this
tragedy is that we should repeal laws preventing students from walking
around school carrying guns.
I hope you can convince the NRA to adopt and loudly promote this
viewpoint. It will discredit the gun lobby once and for all.
Eric Chomko
: Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
: >: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
: >
: >: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
: >
: >I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
: >deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
: >the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
: The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
: crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
: thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
: armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
Well, armed-to-the-teeth terrorists still bomb buildings and since having
guns has never stopped terrorists in the US to my recollection, it's hard
to say that more or less guns is better or worse for society.
What I do
know is that the Old West had very liberal gun laws (i.e. everyone had a
gun). Now, that is no longer the case. Why? More people, perhaps? The
point is that everyone carrying guns went out of fashion as more people
moved out west. If more guns is safer for society, then why did the Old
West evolve into a less gun prevalent society?
Eric
Anonymous
birthday, it's also teenspeak for "lets go smoke a fat one", because guess
what the police code for possesion is? This was just a couple of crazies,
no more no less. Don't try and hitch your wagon to this train like everyone
else. "Oh it's cause of guns!" "Oh it's cause of no family values!" "Oh
it's cause they didn't know god!" "Oh it's cause their parents didn't love
them enough!" all these are bullshit. they are responsible for what they
did, and nobody else. deal with it!
Eric
--
"To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp
with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
news:371e908e...@news.megsinet.net...
>
> I think it was Jock hatred and Adolf Hitler that drove them.
>
> Simon
> ===============================
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:09:24 -1000, "Compaq User"
> <rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ><dhe...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
> >news:371dc3d0....@news.atlantic.net...
> >> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:59:49 -1000, "Compaq User"
> >> <rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
> >> >> safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid
colisions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Simon
> >> >
> >> >Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
> >> >
Bill Christensen
Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:7fln4c$4ta$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >
> >>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to
society
> >>
> >>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
> >>
> >>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
> >>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
> >>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
> >
> >The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
> >crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
> >thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
> >armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
> >
>
>
>
Bill Christensen
Doug Johnson <dj@.teleport.com> wrote in message
news:371e6b1c...@news.teleport.com...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:31:16 -0500, "Bill Christensen"
> <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> >Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes, correct?
> >But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe bombs.
>
> We also need to ban manure since it can be used to make bombs...
So a horse exhaust system is a complete pipe bomb!
Bill Christensen
Anonymous <anonym...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:7fm27t$mt0$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Bill Christensen <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:7fl1rs$8gq$1...@east43.supernews.com...
> >
> > Easy Does It <dan...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> > news:7fkueu$ave$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> > >
> > >
correct?
> > But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe bombs.
> >
> >
> > Of course, who could think otherwise?
>
>
> You people are all horribly wrong. Horses will trample all the kids! We
> have to protect our children from these massive engines of destruction,
and
> you unfeeling crazy righties just don't care do you. How selfish!
But you forgot, horses are cute animals therefore they trump human life.
Bill Christensen
>
> Car + Money + Knowledge = Bombs
Liberals + Guilt + Government = Tyranny
> Perhaps we should reconsider teaching chemistry to highschoolers.
>
> Simon
> ====================================
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 20:59:49 -1000, "Compaq User"
> <rohre...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
> >news:371d4642...@news.megsinet.net...
> >>
> >> There is danger with guns. There is danger without them.
> >>
> >> Until we deal with the darkness in men's hearts there will never be
> >> safety. And after we clear that one out there are asteroid colisions.
> >>
> >> Simon
> >
> >Adolescents + Deadly Weapons = Danger to Society
> >
> >
>
Bill Christensen
correct?
> >>But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe bombs.
> >
>
>
> manure is not a bomb....and a pipe is not a pipe bomb, simple really..sigh
But put manure and a pipe together and viola, you have a pipe bomb.
George P. Masologites
>: The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
>: crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>: thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>: armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>
>Well, armed-to-the-teeth terrorists still bomb buildings and since having
>guns has never stopped terrorists in the US to my recollection, it's hard
>to say that more or less guns is better or worse for society.
How can you say that? Any terrorists that were deterred by the
prospect of bystanders with firearms aren't going to come out and say,
"Okay, everyone, I'm a terrorist, and here's the bomb I was going to
use, but since y'all have guns, I'll leave now. Thank you!"
Yes, terrorists still bomb buildings even if everyone has guns.
Unfortunate fact of life. But can the terrorists pull out their
automatics or take hostages or rob innocent people if all the
bystanders are armed? They can, but the chance - and danger -
decreases dramatically.
>What I do
>know is that the Old West had very liberal gun laws (i.e. everyone had a
>gun). Now, that is no longer the case. Why? More people, perhaps?
No, more legislation. Foolish, short-sighted, knee-jerk legislation
in response to violent incidences that led to an increase in crime,
which made the politicians call for _more_ stringent measures, all the
while saying, "See? Look where you'd be without us!"
George P. Masologites
>>But that didn't happen. Why? Because the students had been disarmed
>>by fools claiming to do it 'for their own good!' And anti-gun zealots
>>in the legislature will seize this opportunity to fraudulently justify
>>new anti-gun laws and take more of our rights away from us, so the
>>next 'Trench Coat Mafia' can case the same destruction and death
>>without resistance.
>>
>>It's sad.
>
>What's sad is that there are people who think the lesson of this
>tragedy is that we should repeal laws preventing students from walking
>around school carrying guns.
No, what's _sad_ is that I've received nothing but ad hominem attacks
on this post. Can't debate the issues? "Um, well, let's just insult
him, instead! Yeah, call him stupid and that'll make it true!"
Tell me. Why don't you discuss the issues, Dan? I don't suppose it
could be because you _know I'm right_, could it?
Paul gate
dhe...@atlantic.net wrote in message <371eff98....@news.atlantic.net>...
>>>Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>>>
>>>>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
>>>>
>>>>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>>>>
>>>>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>>>>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>>>>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>>>
>>>crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>>>thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>>>armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>the world.
Firstly i think that is BOLLOCKS..in other words, stats about *particular* types of crime
Ie bar fights
have a look at the death by gunshot stats
secondly growing from what?
most people in the uk go all the way through their entire lives
without being shot at by criminals
So what magical force is stopping the uk citizens becoming criminal fodder?
> It doesn't take guns to have violent crime. I feel a lot
No it just makes violent crime a hundred times worse
>safer in Fl. where there are 100s of thousands of armed citizens than
>I do in the UK.
You feel safer cos perhaps you have a gun....
thats an illusion, you are not in fact safer
Paul gate
Bill Christensen wrote in message ...>news:7fln4c$4ta$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>>
>> George P. Masologites wrote in message
><371e329e....@news.mindspring.com>...
>> >Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>> >
>> >>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to
>society
>> >>
>> >>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>> >>
>> >>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>> >>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>> >>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>> >
>> >The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
>> >crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>> >thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>> >armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>> >
>>
>>
>> You mean like the virtual state of anarchy they have in the uk?
>>
Yes it is, though It is disputed territory
I don`t think the violent crime figures in northern ireland are particularily high at the
moment btw
Paul gate
George P. Masologites wrote in message <371e8e2c....@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Paul gate" <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
>>
>>I have to show this to the guys at work, you Americans are such a hoot
>>honestly
>>This is such a subtle pisstake it is hard to tell it from a genuined gun loon rant
>
>Ad hominem attacks, Paul? Care to debate the _issues_, instead of
>making yourself look like a fool?
>
>I thought not.
I don`t know if there is much hope of getting a debate out of you
You describe children "taking each other out",...and coming to school
armed to the teeth..as if school were an episode of the A-team
what you left out of your "analysis" was the simple truth about children.
every playground fight would end in death...teachers would have to
wear bulletproof armour.
The only way to deal with an enviroment you describe..is escalation
handguns..would quickly turn into machine guns grenades a flame throwers
at what point are you "protected"?...well the truth is you never would be
Bill Christensen
>
> Bill Christensen wrote in message ...
> >
> >Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> >news:7fln4c$4ta$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >>
> >> George P. Masologites wrote in message
> >> >Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to
> >society
> >> >>
> >> >>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
> >> >>
> >> >>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll
make a
> >> >>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away
from
> >> >>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
> >> >
> >> >The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
> >> >crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
> >> >thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
> >> >armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You mean like the virtual state of anarchy they have in the uk?
> >>
> >Isn't northern Ireland part of the UK?
>
>
> Yes it is, though It is disputed territory
> I don`t think the violent crime figures in northern ireland are
particularily high at the
> moment btw
And of course they tend to use bombs instead of guns which would not alter
your "deaths by guns" statistics.
Paul gate
Put hydrogen, oxegen ,carbon and sunlight together and viola...you have government
So if we ban government...does this mean we have to ban atomic elements too ?....:-)
rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us
gui...@mail.serve.com wrote:
> "Paul gate" <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> >LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
> >
> >I have to show this to the guys at work, you Americans are such a hoot
> >honestly
> >This is such a subtle pisstake it is hard to tell it from a genuined gun loon rant
>
> Ad hominem attacks, Paul? Care to debate the _issues_, instead of
> making yourself look like a fool?
>
> I thought not.
>
> George P. Masologites
The issue is that we have an amendment to the Constitution (the 2nd) that was
written when a trained soldier could shoot three musket balls a minute with
his flintlock and now we have weapons that shoot hundreds of rounds per
minute - but the same antique amendment!
Every American should have the right to own a flintlock!
RShelton, leaping into his bunker...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bill Christensen
So how do you ban pipe bombs without banning pipes and/or the fuel? Do you
ban putting the fuel into pipes? Now your car is illegal. Do you ban the use
of pipes and fuel to a harmful effect? Guess what, that is already covered
by existing law that the perpetrator chose to ignore.
The point is, any attempt at banning an item that was used for a violent
activity will not stop the violent activity, it will either cause the item
to be obtained illegally, or it will result in the use of a different item
to be used for those violent ends. You hear about all the gun violence in
the US, and we hear about all the bombings in Europe.
George P. Masologites
>>Ad hominem attacks, Paul? Care to debate the _issues_, instead of
>>making yourself look like a fool?
>>
>>I thought not.
>
>I don`t know if there is much hope of getting a debate out of you
>You describe children "taking each other out",...and coming to school
>armed to the teeth..as if school were an episode of the A-team
>what you left out of your "analysis" was the simple truth about children.
>every playground fight would end in death...teachers would have to
>wear bulletproof armour.
I don't think most highschoolers use the playground, do you? Most all
highschoolers I've met are mature enough and responsible enough to
understand the meaning of a gun and what it can do. And, if nothing
else, young men and women understand that if they're the ones to pull
the gun, they're the ones to get to shot.
Hence, they would not pull the gun. Yet, if guns remain banned from
schools, and a young person is determined to commit a crime with a
gun, he or she _will_. And society will have to grieve like it does
for Columbine High and the 25 dead students unable to defend
themselves because of people like you.
George P. Masologites
>The issue is that we have an amendment to the Constitution (the 2nd) that was
>written when a trained soldier could shoot three musket balls a minute with
>his flintlock and now we have weapons that shoot hundreds of rounds per
>minute - but the same antique amendment!
If you want to talk about the second amendment, first of all, you're
not looking at it in the right light. It was intended to provide not
only for individual security against criminals, but for security
against the _state_. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, after
all, is to protect citizens from overpowerful governments. And how
can individuals defend themselves against the state if they have
flintlock muskets and the state has tanks and AK-47s and sniper rifles
and what have you?
(For a thorough analysis on the 2nd amendment, I recommend you check
out _US v. Emerson_; I think the memorandum is on several sites.)
Watson Aname
wrote:
> Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> Doug Johnson wrote:
>>> "Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes,
>>>> correct? But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe
>>>> bombs.
>>>
>>> We also need to ban manure since it can be used to make bombs...
>>
>> We don`t need to ban manure or pipes
>>
>> manure is not a bomb....and a pipe is not a pipe bomb, simple really..
>> sigh
>
> But put manure and a pipe together and viola, you have a pipe bomb.
So? Put manure and a hat together and, viola, you have Matt Drudge.
Put manure and a Supremo El Stinko Grande cigar together and, viola,
you have Rush Limbaugh. What's your point?
Watson
--
"Then this! - And that! - And sure enough! The man's
neck was broken, just as the book said it would be."
- Robert A. Heinlein freehold@visi^snip!^.net
pa...@nospam.hsh.com
: On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:57:51 GMT, gui...@mail.serve.com (George P.
: Masologites) wrote:
:> "Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
:>
:>>> Are you saying that without the shotguns, semi-automatic weapons and
:>>> grenades the carnage would have been the same?
:>>
:>> If the victims weren't disarmed the results wouldn't have
:>> been the same. How did banning weapons from school grounds help
:>> this situation?
:>
:> Exactly my point. Picture, instead of the 25-death massacre which
:> occured because of the students being disarmed, this:
:>
:> These 'Trench Coat Mafia' guys roll up into the parking lot, thinking
:> they're all bad, and open fire. A few students are injured/killed.
:> Meanwhile, bystander students duck for cover and pull out their
:> pistols, shotguns, and automatics, riddling the vehicle with
:> firepower. If one of the would-be terrorists somehow manages to
:> survive, he'll either be blasted when he tries to move, or some
:> skilled sniper student will have put a hole in his head.
:>
:> But that didn't happen. Why? Because the students had been disarmed
:> by fools claiming to do it 'for their own good!' And anti-gun zealots
:> in the legislature will seize this opportunity to fraudulently justify
:> new anti-gun laws and take more of our rights away from us, so the
:> next 'Trench Coat Mafia' can case the same destruction and death
:> without resistance.
:>
:> It's sad.
: What's sad is that there are people who think the lesson of this
: tragedy is that we should repeal laws preventing students from walking
: around school carrying guns.
What's absolutely tragic is that people like you are arguing
about _how_ these kids killed 13 people -- when you should be
thinking, really REALLY hard, about *WHY* they did it.
Or doesn't that matter, so long as someone can score some
cheap political points and/or eviscerate a little more freedom?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann,
who regrets the need to remove 'nospam' to reply by email.
"If Gore created the Internet, I invented spell-check."
-- Dan Quayle
Bill Christensen
>
> Bill Christensen wrote in message ...
> >
> >Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> >news:7fo2i9$pme$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >>
> >> Bill Christensen wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:7flrd5$91p$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> Doug Johnson wrote in message
<371e6b1c...@news.teleport.com>...
> >> >> ><weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes,
> >> >correct?
> >> >> >>But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe bombs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We also need to ban manure since it can be used to make bombs...
> >> >>
> >> >> We don`t need to ban manure or pipes
> >> >>
> >> >> manure is not a bomb....and a pipe is not a pipe bomb, simple
> >really..sigh
> >> >
> >> >But put manure and a pipe together and viola, you have a pipe bomb.
> >> >
> >>
> >government
> >> So if we ban government...does this mean we have to ban atomic elements
> >too ?....:-)
> >
> >So how do you ban pipe bombs without banning pipes and/or the fuel?
>
obviously bombs.
What effect will that accomplish? If somebody wants to inflict the damage
there is no way to stop it short of a complete police state. Making a pipe
bomb illegal has no effect when the people using pipe bombs are using them
for illegal activity in the first place.
> Simply because some "thing" is legal does not mean every possible
> use / arrangement of that thing is also legal...obviously
>
>
> Do you
> >ban putting the fuel into pipes?
>
> no..that is not specific to creating bombs
>
> Now your car is illegal. Do you ban the use
> >of pipes and fuel to a harmful effect? Guess what, that is already
covered
> >by existing law that the perpetrator chose to ignore.
>
>
> It puts the lives of people at risk...
> Shooting above the heads of people is another arsehole act.... driving
full speed through
> a mall full of people...thats another......... droping anvils on
residential areas from aircraft,
> thats another....breeding anthrax in jars in your kitchen, yet another.
>
> Your right to self defence can only be used if somebody attacks you?
> Consider a man pointing a gun at your head...has he attacked you yet?
He has initiated force.
> He has not yet pulled the trigger...he has only pointed a pipe in your
direction.
> You have to use a concept of "reasonable intent" in order to defend
shooting
> him, first in self defence!
No, you only have to believe that you were in deadly peril (and possibly
convince a jury).
> The same "common sense" is used by law....it is reasonable to suppose
> that a person who is creating bombs and not declaring the fact intends
> to use them against another...it is not proven scientificly, but it is not
proven
> scientificly that a man who points a gun at your head intends to kill
you...
> Once the trigger is pulled, you have proof, by then of course it is too
late.
>
You can act when force has been initiated against you, and pointing a gun to
your head is initiation of force.
> >
> >The point is, any attempt at banning an item that was used for a violent
> >activity will not stop the violent activity,
>
> It may change the ease with which killing can be accomplished however
> It may delay an intended killing long enough for the potential
perpertrater
> to reconsider
How so? What will delay it? Pipes are legal and the explosive to put inside
is legal, where is the delay? The random chance that the police will stop
you for a broken tail light and notice the pipe bombs in your trunk?
> it will either cause the item
> >to be obtained illegally, or it will result in the use of a different
item
>
> That is unlikely
>
> A..... to be as efficient at killing
> B......to be carried about wherever you go
>
> >to be used for those violent ends. You hear about all the gun violence in
> >the US, and we hear about all the bombings in Europe.
>
> we hear about bombings in the US too
I'll bet they are not nearly as frequent as in Europe. I'll look for data.
Bill Christensen
Watson Aname <freehold@visi^snip!^.net> wrote in message
news:3726b104....@news.visi.net...
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, "Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >> Doug Johnson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes,
> >>>> correct? But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe
> >>>> bombs.
> >>>
> >>> We also need to ban manure since it can be used to make bombs...
> >>
> >> We don`t need to ban manure or pipes
> >>
> >> manure is not a bomb....and a pipe is not a pipe bomb, simple really..
> >> sigh
> >
> > But put manure and a pipe together and viola, you have a pipe bomb.
>
> Put manure and a Supremo El Stinko Grande cigar together and, viola,
> you have Rush Limbaugh. What's your point?
The point is, there is no use banning pipe bombs or any other weapon when
the manufacture of such weapons is so easy and readily available.
Paul gate
Bill Christensen wrote in message ...
>
>Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
>news:7fo2i9$pme$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>>
>> Bill Christensen wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7flrd5$91p$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>> >>
>> >> Doug Johnson wrote in message <371e6b1c...@news.teleport.com>...
>> >> ><weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes,
>> >correct?
>> >> >>But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe bombs.
>> >> >
>> >> >We also need to ban manure since it can be used to make bombs...
>> >>
>> >> We don`t need to ban manure or pipes
>> >>
>> >> manure is not a bomb....and a pipe is not a pipe bomb, simple
>really..sigh
>> >
>> >But put manure and a pipe together and viola, you have a pipe bomb.
>> >
>>
>government
>> So if we ban government...does this mean we have to ban atomic elements
>too ?....:-)
>
>So how do you ban pipe bombs without banning pipes and/or the fuel?
You simply make it ilegal to be in posession of "things" that are obviously bombs.
Simply because some "thing" is legal does not mean every possible
use / arrangement of that thing is also legal...obviously
Do you
>ban putting the fuel into pipes?
no..that is not specific to creating bombs
Now your car is illegal. Do you ban the use
>of pipes and fuel to a harmful effect? Guess what, that is already covered
>by existing law that the perpetrator chose to ignore.
It puts the lives of people at risk...
Shooting above the heads of people is another arsehole act.... driving full speed through
a mall full of people...thats another......... droping anvils on residential areas from aircraft,
thats another....breeding anthrax in jars in your kitchen, yet another.
Your right to self defence can only be used if somebody attacks you?
Consider a man pointing a gun at your head...has he attacked you yet?
He has not yet pulled the trigger...he has only pointed a pipe in your direction.
You have to use a concept of "reasonable intent" in order to defend shooting
him, first in self defence!
The same "common sense" is used by law....it is reasonable to suppose
that a person who is creating bombs and not declaring the fact intends
to use them against another...it is not proven scientificly, but it is not proven
scientificly that a man who points a gun at your head intends to kill you...
Once the trigger is pulled, you have proof, by then of course it is too late.
>
>The point is, any attempt at banning an item that was used for a violent
>activity will not stop the violent activity,
It may change the ease with which killing can be accomplished however
It may delay an intended killing long enough for the potential perpertrater
to reconsider
it will either cause the item
hoffman
The UK is rife with crime. They top the charts in terms
of house burgularies and stolen cars (far worse than
the United States)... So for any and all the anti-gun nuts
who love to quote the violent crime rates in other countries
(like the UK)..... sorry, but its really "apples and oranges".
Different countries are known for different types of crimes,
and it is an immensely complex social and economic issue
which goes far beyond the simple minded analysis of which
countries have guns freely available versus which do not.
Watson Aname
wrote:
> Watson Aname <freehold@visi^snip!^.net> wrote:
>> "Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>> Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>>> Doug Johnson wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Christensen" <weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes,
>>>>>> correct? But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe
>>>>>> bombs.
>>>>>
>>>>> We also need to ban manure since it can be used to make bombs...
>>>>
>>>> We don`t need to ban manure or pipes
>>>>
>>>> manure is not a bomb....and a pipe is not a pipe bomb, simple really..
>>>> sigh
>>>
>>> But put manure and a pipe together and viola, you have a pipe bomb.
>>
>> So? Put manure and a hat together and, viola, you have Matt Drudge.
>> Put manure and a Supremo El Stinko Grande cigar together and, viola,
>> you have Rush Limbaugh. What's your point?
>
> The point is, there is no use banning pipe bombs or any other weapon when
> the manufacture of such weapons is so easy and readily available.
Sorry, Bill, I was teasing. Clearly, since it is impossible to actually
ban manure, variations on right wing whacks such as Matt Drudge and Rush
Limbaugh are readily manufactured almost anywhere, by almost anyone, and
are thus an ever present threat.
Dan Kimmel
Masologites) wrote:
>Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan Kimmel) wrote:
>
>>>But that didn't happen. Why? Because the students had been disarmed
>>>by fools claiming to do it 'for their own good!' And anti-gun zealots
>>>in the legislature will seize this opportunity to fraudulently justify
>>>new anti-gun laws and take more of our rights away from us, so the
>>>next 'Trench Coat Mafia' can case the same destruction and death
>>>without resistance.
>>>
>>>It's sad.
>>
>>What's sad is that there are people who think the lesson of this
>>tragedy is that we should repeal laws preventing students from walking
>>around school carrying guns.
>
>No, what's _sad_ is that I've received nothing but ad hominem attacks
>on this post. Can't debate the issues? "Um, well, let's just insult
>him, instead! Yeah, call him stupid and that'll make it true!"
>
>Tell me. Why don't you discuss the issues, Dan? I don't suppose it
>could be because you _know I'm right_, could it?
No, it's DEFINITELY not that.
Dan Kimmel
Masologites) wrote:
>rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
>
>>The issue is that we have an amendment to the Constitution (the 2nd) that was
>>written when a trained soldier could shoot three musket balls a minute with
>>his flintlock and now we have weapons that shoot hundreds of rounds per
>>minute - but the same antique amendment!
>
>If you want to talk about the second amendment, first of all, you're
>not looking at it in the right light. It was intended to provide not
>only for individual security against criminals,
No, it wasn't intended for that at all.
> but for security
>against the _state_.
Security OF the state -- against the national Federal government.
>The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, after
>all, is to protect citizens from overpowerful governments. And how
>can individuals defend themselves against the state if they have
>flintlock muskets and the state has tanks and AK-47s and sniper rifles
>and what have you?
Hmm, so using your "logic" the Second Amendment means private citizens
are entitled to antitank weapons and tactical nukes?
>(For a thorough analysis on the 2nd amendment, I recommend you check
>out _US v. Emerson_; I think the memorandum is on several sites.)
For a better analysis, read the overwhelming volume of case law from
which Emerson is an aberration, and one which will be quickly reversed
on appeal.
dhe...@atlantic.net
>In alt.politics.clinton George P. Masologites <gui...@mail.serve.com> wrote:
>: Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>
>: >: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
>: >
>: >: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>: >
>: >I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>: >deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>: >the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>
>: The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
>: crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>: thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>: armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>
>Well, armed-to-the-teeth terrorists still bomb buildings and since having
>guns has never stopped terrorists in the US to my recollection, it's hard
>to say that more or less guns is better or worse for society.
>
>What I do
>know is that the Old West had very liberal gun laws (i.e. everyone had a
>gun). Now, that is no longer the case. Why? More people, perhaps? The
>point is that everyone carrying guns went out of fashion as more people
>moved out west. If more guns is safer for society, then why did the Old
>West evolve into a less gun prevalent society?
>
>Eric
Every state where the citizens are allowed to be armed has less
violence than it did before.
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
FBI, BATF, DEA, EPA etc. can't speak German.
dhe...@atlantic.net
wrote:
>
>dhe...@atlantic.net wrote in message <371eff98....@news.atlantic.net>...
>>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:34:04 +0100, "Paul gate" <ga...@dial.pipex.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>George P. Masologites wrote in message <371e329e....@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>>Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to society
>>>>>
>>>>>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>>>>>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>>>>>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
>>>>crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>>>>thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>>>>armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You mean like the virtual state of anarchy they have in the uk?
>>>
>>Right where the UK has the fasting growing rate of violent crime in
>>the world.
>
>Firstly i think that is BOLLOCKS..in other words, stats about *particular* types of crime
>Ie bar fights
>
>have a look at the death by gunshot stats
>
>secondly growing from what?
>
>most people in the uk go all the way through their entire lives
>without being shot at by criminals
>So what magical force is stopping the uk citizens becoming criminal fodder?
>
>
>> It doesn't take guns to have violent crime. I feel a lot
>
>No it just makes violent crime a hundred times worse
>
>>safer in Fl. where there are 100s of thousands of armed citizens than
>>I do in the UK.
>
>You feel safer cos perhaps you have a gun....
>thats an illusion, you are not in fact safer
>
That why sense we have armed citizens our violent crime rate is down
over 30% and the Australia's is up over 10% sense the government only
allows criminals to own guns.
dhe...@atlantic.net
wrote:
>In article <371e8e2c....@news.mindspring.com>,
> gui...@mail.serve.com wrote:
>> "Paul gate" <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>>
>> >LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
>> >
>> >I have to show this to the guys at work, you Americans are such a hoot
>> >honestly
>> >This is such a subtle pisstake it is hard to tell it from a genuined gun loon rant
>>
>> Ad hominem attacks, Paul? Care to debate the _issues_, instead of
>> making yourself look like a fool?
>>
>> I thought not.
>>
>> --
>> George P. Masologites
>
>The issue is that we have an amendment to the Constitution (the 2nd) that was
>written when a trained soldier could shoot three musket balls a minute with
>his flintlock and now we have weapons that shoot hundreds of rounds per
>minute - but the same antique amendment!
>
If you believe that then the solution is for you to get the
Constitution changed not break highest law in the land by passing laws
that are illegal. I don't agree with you but that is the way to do
it.
>Every American should have the right to own a flintlock!
>
>RShelton, leaping into his bunker...
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
dhe...@atlantic.net
<weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>Paul gate <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
>news:7fln4c$4ta$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>>
>> George P. Masologites wrote in message
><371e329e....@news.mindspring.com>...
>> >Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
>> >
>> >>: No, the equation should read: crazy people + weapons = danger to
>society
>> >>
>> >>: can be reduced to: crazy people = potential danger
>> >>
>> >>I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
>> >>deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
>> >>the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
>> >
>> >The problem is that you _can't_ keep the weapons away from the
>> >crazies, all you can do is keep weapons away from honest people. I'm
>> >thinking that a bunch of disarmed citizens and a few
>> >armed-to-the-teeth terrorists is a recipe for disaster, how about you?
>> >
>>
>>
>> You mean like the virtual state of anarchy they have in the uk?
>>
>Isn't northern Ireland part of the UK?
>
Not until the UK finishes with the ethinic cleansing.
Bill Christensen
<dhe...@atlantic.net> wrote in message
news:37208f93....@news.atlantic.net...
Yeah, they ban guns there and it sure has stopped the violence. Now they use
bombs instead.
rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us
Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan Kimmel) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:22:13 GMT, gui...@mail.serve.com (George P.
> Masologites) wrote:
>
> >rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
> >
> >>written when a trained soldier could shoot three musket balls a minute with
> >>his flintlock and now we have weapons that shoot hundreds of rounds per
> >>minute - but the same antique amendment!
> >
> >not looking at it in the right light. It was intended to provide not
> >only for individual security against criminals,
>
> No, it wasn't intended for that at all.
>
> > but for security
> >against the _state_.
>
> Security OF the state -- against the national Federal government.
>
> >The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, after
> >all, is to protect citizens from overpowerful governments. And how
> >can individuals defend themselves against the state if they have
> >flintlock muskets and the state has tanks and AK-47s and sniper rifles
> >and what have you?
>
> Hmm, so using your "logic" the Second Amendment means private citizens
> are entitled to antitank weapons and tactical nukes?
>
> >(For a thorough analysis on the 2nd amendment, I recommend you check
> >out _US v. Emerson_; I think the memorandum is on several sites.)
>
> For a better analysis, read the overwhelming volume of case law from
> which Emerson is an aberration, and one which will be quickly reversed
> on appeal.
Or better yet, read the amendment itself:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The "right" was designed to maintain the security of the "state!"
There is nothing in this amendment that infers that the amendenment was
designed for use "against the _state_" by treasonous scoundrels maintaining
private arsenals. (You are reading into the document.)
States can and do regulate the possession and use of firearms by private
persons. Cities and various local governments can and do the same.
Though I do not favor a blanket ban on firearms, it seems that some reasonable
restraints can and should be considered for the regulation of some weapons.
Right-wingers have imbibed the dangerous fantasy that they and like-minded
pseudo-"patriots" may need to take up arms against the "state." They
entertain the most ludicrous delusions about "black helicopters," the "New
World Order," and secret legions of "Red" troops being housed (God know's
where?) in order to take away their "right" to own assault weapons, anti-tank
rockets, and low-yield nuclear devices.
RShelton
Eric Chomko
: On 21 Apr 1999 19:52:36 GMT, Eric Chomko <cho...@IDT.NET> wrote:
[...]
: >I'll take my chances with crazy people that have no weapons. I'll make a
: >deal with you, if you (assuming you're not crazy) keep weapons away from
: >the crazies, then I support your ownership of weapons.
: I am all for keeping weapons away from crazy people.
: However, the liberal solution has been to try to keep them away from
: all.
...in the sense of fairness.
: We'd be better off understanding the reason why these kids behave this
: way instead of implementing yet another band-aid solution.
Making gun owners more similar to military reservists (i.e. take a
shooting test, like auto driving test, to ensure they are still "fit" to
be gun owners).
: How can any kid posses these weapons, build 30 bombs at home, engage
: in neo-nazi behavior, play death match video games "for hours on end",
: create web page homages to carnage, and act like a total pathological
: misfit WITHOUT MOM AND DAD KNOWING!!????
Damn good question!
: Where was mom? Where was dad?
: Chasing the almighty buck I'll bet.
I want to know who the parents of these two are myself. Heston mentioned
the parents as well.
I saw a show of two kids that killed 23 cats and one of the fathers acted
like it was no big deal. "He wouldn't hurt nobody". Sure as hell didn't
look and act like some "liberal" this old man.
Eric
CharlieKilo
> In article <37206bfa...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan Kimmel) wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:22:13 GMT, gui...@mail.serve.com (George P.
> <Snip>
> > For a better analysis, read the overwhelming volume of case law from
> > which Emerson is an aberration, and one which will be quickly reversed
> > on appeal.
>
> Or better yet, read the amendment itself:
>
> "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
> right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>
> The "right" was designed to maintain the security of the "state!"
>
> There is nothing in this amendment that infers that the amendenment was
> designed for use "against the _state_" by treasonous scoundrels maintaining
> private arsenals. (You are reading into the document.)
>
Or, does it mean that the people have the right to bear arms against an ever
increasing totalitarian government. To use you words more correctly: The "right" was
designed to maintain the security of the people against a tyrannical government or,
in other words, to maintain the security of a "FREE" state.
In short order, we are given the right to "hunt" politicians should the government
become tyrannical and overpowering.
CK
dhe...@atlantic.net
wrote:
>In article <37206bfa...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan Kimmel) wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:22:13 GMT, gui...@mail.serve.com (George P.
>> Masologites) wrote:
>>
>> >rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us wrote:
>> >
>> >>The issue is that we have an amendment to the Constitution (the 2nd) that was
>> >>written when a trained soldier could shoot three musket balls a minute with
>> >>his flintlock and now we have weapons that shoot hundreds of rounds per
>> >>minute - but the same antique amendment!
>> >
>> >If you want to talk about the second amendment, first of all, you're
>> >not looking at it in the right light. It was intended to provide not
>> >only for individual security against criminals,
>>
>> No, it wasn't intended for that at all.
>>
>> > but for security
>> >against the _state_.
>>
>> Security OF the state -- against the national Federal government.
>>
>> >The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, after
>> >all, is to protect citizens from overpowerful governments. And how
>> >can individuals defend themselves against the state if they have
>> >flintlock muskets and the state has tanks and AK-47s and sniper rifles
>> >and what have you?
>>
>> Hmm, so using your "logic" the Second Amendment means private citizens
>> are entitled to antitank weapons and tactical nukes?
>>
>> >(For a thorough analysis on the 2nd amendment, I recommend you check
>> >out _US v. Emerson_; I think the memorandum is on several sites.)
>>
>> For a better analysis, read the overwhelming volume of case law from
>> which Emerson is an aberration, and one which will be quickly reversed
>> on appeal.
>
>Or better yet, read the amendment itself:
>
>"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
>right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>
>The "right" was designed to maintain the security of the "state!"
>
Correct and the "state" is Vermont, or Washington, or Florida. It is
there to maintain the security of the state against the central
government.
>There is nothing in this amendment that infers that the amendenment was
>designed for use "against the _state_" by treasonous scoundrels maintaining
>private arsenals. (You are reading into the document.)
>
>States can and do regulate the possession and use of firearms by private
>persons. Cities and various local governments can and do the same.
>
>Though I do not favor a blanket ban on firearms, it seems that some reasonable
>restraints can and should be considered for the regulation of some weapons.
>
>Right-wingers have imbibed the dangerous fantasy that they and like-minded
>pseudo-"patriots" may need to take up arms against the "state." They
>entertain the most ludicrous delusions about "black helicopters," the "New
>World Order," and secret legions of "Red" troops being housed (God know's
>where?) in order to take away their "right" to own assault weapons, anti-tank
>rockets, and low-yield nuclear devices.
>
>RShelton
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
Doug Johnson
wrote:
>"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
>right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>
>States can and do regulate the possession and use of firearms by private
>persons. Cities and various local governments can and do the same.
And that is an illegal infringement upon the right of the people to
keep and bear arms.
>Though I do not favor a blanket ban on firearms, it seems that some reasonable
>restraints can and should be considered for the regulation of some weapons.
Who gets to determine what is "reasonable"?
>Right-wingers have imbibed the dangerous fantasy that they and like-minded
>pseudo-"patriots" may need to take up arms against the "state."
Please tell me what George Washington and the other founding fathers
had just gotten done doing when the doccument was penned.
Doug
CharlieKilo
> >Right-wingers have imbibed the dangerous fantasy that they and like-minded
> >pseudo-"patriots" may need to take up arms against the "state."
>
> Please tell me what George Washington and the other founding fathers
> had just gotten done doing when the doccument was penned.
>
> Doug
Today, our founding fathers would be called far-right wingnuts or worse. They did
what they did, declaring independence from England for FAR less that what our
government is doing to us today.
George P. Masologites
>>If you want to talk about the second amendment, first of all, you're
>>not looking at it in the right light. It was intended to provide not
>>only for individual security against criminals,
>
>No, it wasn't intended for that at all.
Of course it was. "The people's right to keep and bear arms" - in
defense against criminals and the state, if necessary.
>> but for security
>>against the _state_.
>
>Security OF the state -- against the national Federal government.
The first clause establishes that. The second, independent, clause
states that _individuals have the constitutional right to keep and
bear arms_. States' rights advocates are completely missing the
point, because a) the BoR is a list of individual rights, not states'
rights and b) the first clause should not be read to the exclusion of
the second.
If the 2nd amend. was meant to protect the states' rights to bear
arms, then it would read, "a well regulated militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed."
US v. Emerson:
"The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences
therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not
to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected.
Id. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If
this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and
consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized. Id. at
201."
In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the USC interpreted the text of the 2nd
amend. and noted that "the people" in said amendment has the same
meaning in the Preamble, First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amend, and in
Patton v. US, the USC stated that the BoR should be read in pari
materia, and "amendments which contain similar structure should be
construed similarly . . . [USC's] construction of "the people" as used
in the Second Amendment supports a holding that the right to keep and
bear arms is a personal right retained by the people, as opposed to a
collective right held by the States."
>>The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, after
>>all, is to protect citizens from overpowerful governments. And how
>>can individuals defend themselves against the state if they have
>>flintlock muskets and the state has tanks and AK-47s and sniper rifles
>>and what have you?
>
>Hmm, so using your "logic" the Second Amendment means private citizens
>are entitled to antitank weapons and tactical nukes?
Yes. You may disagree with the necessity of these items, but the
second amendment protects them regardless.
>>(For a thorough analysis on the 2nd amendment, I recommend you check
>>out _US v. Emerson_; I think the memorandum is on several sites.)
>
>For a better analysis, read the overwhelming volume of case law from
>which Emerson is an aberration, and one which will be quickly reversed
>on appeal.
Care to cite a few cases from this 'overwhelming volume?'
Note: US v. Miller _did not_ answer the question of whether the right
to bear arms is individual or collective. Quoting again from US v.
Emerson, ". . . one can read Miller as supporting some of the most
extreme anti-gun control arguments; for example, that the individual
citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and
other armaments that are clearly used for modern warfare."
George P. Masologites
>Or better yet, read the amendment itself:
>
>"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
>right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Right of the _people_, not of the _state_. Or perhaps the meaning of
the term 'people,' according to you, differs here than from the
Preamble, or the first, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments? Perhaps
you think that people doesn't really mean people, but instead refers
to the government?
>The "right" was designed to maintain the security of the "state!"
There are two clauses within the amendment. The first should _not_ be
read to the exclusion of the second, a trap that states' rights
theorists commonly fall into.
Read US v. Emerson for greater detail on this.
>There is nothing in this amendment that infers that the amendenment was
>designed for use "against the _state_" by treasonous scoundrels maintaining
>private arsenals. (You are reading into the document.)
Against the federal government. Whichever view you want to take, it's
still obvious that the amendment was meant, as with the rest of the
BoR, to protect against an all-powerful government. Hence the right
of the people to keep and bear arms.
--
George P. Masologites
>>No, what's _sad_ is that I've received nothing but ad hominem attacks
>>on this post. Can't debate the issues? "Um, well, let's just insult
>>him, instead! Yeah, call him stupid and that'll make it true!"
>>
>>Tell me. Why don't you discuss the issues, Dan? I don't suppose it
>>could be because you _know I'm right_, could it?
>
>No, it's DEFINITELY not that.
Of course it isn't, Dan. Then why are you still refusing to debate
the issues?
Ticonderoga
What everybody has been writing about you is true. Nobody cares about your
opinions because they are stupid. As the man says, so is the man.
Ticonderoga
> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:07:42 GMT, rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us
> wrote:
>
> >States can and do regulate the possession and use of firearms by private
> >persons. Cities and various local governments can and do the same.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
Do you know Dan, from this ng? He seems to have the same opinions as you, and you
also seem to share a level of ingornace that is astonishing. And you compound your
stupidy when you arrogate unto yourself the right to unilaterally review and
rejudge every Supreme Court decision which opposes you -- as do they all, on this
issue.
Ticonderoga
> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:07:42 GMT, rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us
> wrote:
>
> >States can and do regulate the possession and use of firearms by private
> >persons. Cities and various local governments can and do the same.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
Do you know Dan, from this ng? He seems to have the same opinions as you, and you
also seem to share a level of ignorance that is astonishing. And you compound your
stupidly when you arrogate unto yourself the right to unilaterally review and
Ticonderoga
Ticonderoga
Paul gate
Bill Christensen wrote in message <#OHAdFTj#GA.227@cpmsnbbsa03>...>news:7foemj$bnk$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>>
>> Bill Christensen wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Bill Christensen wrote in message ...
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Doug Johnson wrote in message
><371e6b1c...@news.teleport.com>...
>> >> >> ><weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes,
>> >> >correct?
>> >> >> >>But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe bombs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >We also need to ban manure since it can be used to make bombs...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We don`t need to ban manure or pipes
>> >> >>
>> >> >> manure is not a bomb....and a pipe is not a pipe bomb, simple
>> >really..sigh
>> >> >
>> >> >But put manure and a pipe together and viola, you have a pipe bomb.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >government
>> >> So if we ban government...does this mean we have to ban atomic elements
>> >too ?....:-)
>> >
>> >So how do you ban pipe bombs without banning pipes and/or the fuel?
>>
>> You simply make it ilegal to be in posession of "things" that are
>obviously bombs.
>
>there is no way to stop it short of a complete police state. Making a pipe
>bomb illegal has no effect when the people using pipe bombs are using them
>for illegal activity in the first place.
It allows you to arrest and restrain people who have the boots of their cars filled
with pipebombs
>> Simply because some "thing" is legal does not mean every possible
>> use / arrangement of that thing is also legal...obviously
>>
>>
>> Do you
>> >ban putting the fuel into pipes?
>>
>> no..that is not specific to creating bombs
>>
>> Now your car is illegal. Do you ban the use
>> >of pipes and fuel to a harmful effect? Guess what, that is already
>covered
>> >by existing law that the perpetrator chose to ignore.
>>
>>
>> It puts the lives of people at risk...
>> Shooting above the heads of people is another arsehole act.... driving
>full speed through
>> a mall full of people...thats another......... droping anvils on
>residential areas from aircraft,
>> thats another....breeding anthrax in jars in your kitchen, yet another.
>>
>> Your right to self defence can only be used if somebody attacks you?
>> Consider a man pointing a gun at your head...has he attacked you yet?
>
>He has initiated force.
he pointed a gun at you...you are as yet uninjured
...so a threat to use force is an initiation of force?
>> He has not yet pulled the trigger...he has only pointed a pipe in your
>direction.
>> You have to use a concept of "reasonable intent" in order to defend
>shooting
>> him, first in self defence!
>
>No, you only have to believe that you were in deadly peril (and possibly
>convince a jury).
So its a matter of personal judgment is it?
If i *feel* force has been initiated...and a jury *feels* force has been initiated
then it has?
So a jury feels force has been initiated on tens of thousands of people including
themselves by some moron making biological weapons in his cellar
whats the problem?
>> Once the trigger is pulled, you have proof, by then of course it is too
>late.
>>
>You can act when force has been initiated against you, and pointing a gun to
>your head is initiation of force.
Then holding a grenade in the presence of a person is, using the same logic,
also an initiation of force...ie the holder is only one action away from killing you.
ie removing the pin
>> >The point is, any attempt at banning an item that was used for a violent
>> >activity will not stop the violent activity,
>>
>> It may change the ease with which killing can be accomplished however
>> It may delay an intended killing long enough for the potential
>perpertrater
>> to reconsider
>
>How so? What will delay it? Pipes are legal and the explosive to put inside
>is legal, where is the delay? The random chance that the police will stop
>you for a broken tail light and notice the pipe bombs in your trunk?
And if they do you are arrested
You can`t drive about town brandishing pipe bombs..they would have to be hidden
If you wish suddenly to kill an annoying passer by..you have to first retreive your hidden
pipe bomb. not merely select one from the pile on the passenger seat
It just makes killing people less convenient and therefore less likely
Bill Christensen
>
> Bill Christensen wrote in message <#OHAdFTj#GA.227@cpmsnbbsa03>...
> >> You simply make it ilegal to be in posession of "things" that are
> >obviously bombs.
> >
> >What effect will that accomplish? If somebody wants to inflict the damage
> >there is no way to stop it short of a complete police state. Making a
pipe
> >bomb illegal has no effect when the people using pipe bombs are using
them
> >for illegal activity in the first place.
>
> It allows you to arrest and restrain people who have the boots of their
cars filled
> with pipebombs
If their trunks (we'll get you brits to speak english yet ;-)) are filled
with pipe bombs, how are you going to arrest them, use x-ray vision?
> >> Simply because some "thing" is legal does not mean every possible
> >> use / arrangement of that thing is also legal...obviously
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you
> >> >ban putting the fuel into pipes?
> >>
> >> no..that is not specific to creating bombs
> >>
> >> Now your car is illegal. Do you ban the use
> >> >of pipes and fuel to a harmful effect? Guess what, that is already
> >covered
> >> >by existing law that the perpetrator chose to ignore.
> >>
> >>
> >> It puts the lives of people at risk...
> >> Shooting above the heads of people is another arsehole act.... driving
> >full speed through
> >> a mall full of people...thats another......... droping anvils on
> >residential areas from aircraft,
> >> thats another....breeding anthrax in jars in your kitchen, yet another.
> >>
> >> Your right to self defence can only be used if somebody attacks you?
> >> Consider a man pointing a gun at your head...has he attacked you yet?
> >
> >He has initiated force.
>
> he pointed a gun at you...you are as yet uninjured
> ...so a threat to use force is an initiation of force?
Sure, if I hold a knife to your throat I have also initiated force.
> >> He has not yet pulled the trigger...he has only pointed a pipe in your
> >direction.
> >> You have to use a concept of "reasonable intent" in order to defend
> >shooting
> >> him, first in self defence!
> >
> >No, you only have to believe that you were in deadly peril (and possibly
> >convince a jury).
>
> So its a matter of personal judgment is it?
> If i *feel* force has been initiated...and a jury *feels* force has been
initiated
> then it has?
> So a jury feels force has been initiated on tens of thousands of people
including
> themselves by some moron making biological weapons in his cellar
> whats the problem?
They can't have force initiated against them about something they don't know
about. If a sniper aims a gun at you he has not initiated force until he
pulls the trigger, he cannot compel you to do anything differently by aiming
at you; but if someone comes up to you and puts a gun to your head he has
initiated force, you are not free to act independently with that gun at your
head.
> >> Once the trigger is pulled, you have proof, by then of course it is too
> >late.
> >>
> >You can act when force has been initiated against you, and pointing a gun
to
> >your head is initiation of force.
>
> Then holding a grenade in the presence of a person is, using the same
logic,
> also an initiation of force...ie the holder is only one action away from
killing you.
> ie removing the pin
If they are threatening to pull the pin, but if the person is just showing
someone else a grenade he has not initiated force. Someone merely owning a
grenade has not initiated force, someone taking a grenade to a shopping mall
with his finger on the pin has. You don't initiate force until you have
violated their rights of life or liberty, holding a gun to someones head
violates their right to liberty as it compels them to act differently than
they would have otherwise.
> >> >The point is, any attempt at banning an item that was used for a
violent
> >> >activity will not stop the violent activity,
> >>
> >> It may change the ease with which killing can be accomplished however
> >> It may delay an intended killing long enough for the potential
> >perpertrater
> >> to reconsider
> >
> >How so? What will delay it? Pipes are legal and the explosive to put
inside
> >is legal, where is the delay? The random chance that the police will stop
> >you for a broken tail light and notice the pipe bombs in your trunk?
>
> And if they do you are arrested
> You can`t drive about town brandishing pipe bombs..they would have to be
hidden
> If you wish suddenly to kill an annoying passer by..you have to first
retreive your hidden
> pipe bomb. not merely select one from the pile on the passenger seat
> It just makes killing people less convenient and therefore less likely
Do you think that people don't kill others only because it is inconvienent?
Duane K. Kelly
>
> Bill Christensen wrote in message <#OHAdFTj#GA.227@cpmsnbbsa03>...
> >
> >>
> >> Bill Christensen wrote in message ...> >> >news:7fo2i9$pme$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> Bill Christensen wrote in message ...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Doug Johnson wrote in message
> ><371e6b1c...@news.teleport.com>...
> >> >> >> >On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:31:16 -0500, "Bill Christensen"
> >> >> >> ><weis...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>Ah, there's the rub. Your exhaust system would be made of pipes,
> >> >> >correct?
> >> >> >> >>But we must also ban pipes lest they be used to make pipe bombs.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >We also need to ban manure since it can be used to make bombs...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We don`t need to ban manure or pipes
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> manure is not a bomb....and a pipe is not a pipe bomb, simple
> >> >really..sigh
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But put manure and a pipe together and viola, you have a pipe bomb.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Put hydrogen, oxegen ,carbon and sunlight together and viola...you have
> >> >government
> >> >> So if we ban government...does this mean we have to ban atomic elements
> >> >too ?....:-)
> >> >
> >> >So how do you ban pipe bombs without banning pipes and/or the fuel?
> >>
> >obviously bombs.
> >
> >What effect will that accomplish? If somebody wants to inflict the damage
> >there is no way to stop it short of a complete police state. Making a pipe
> >bomb illegal has no effect when the people using pipe bombs are using them
> >for illegal activity in the first place.
>
> It allows you to arrest and restrain people who have the boots of their cars filled
> with pipebombs
>
> >> use / arrangement of that thing is also legal...obviously
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you
> >> >ban putting the fuel into pipes?
> >>
> >> no..that is not specific to creating bombs
> >>
> >> Now your car is illegal. Do you ban the use
> >> >of pipes and fuel to a harmful effect? Guess what, that is already
> >covered
> >> >by existing law that the perpetrator chose to ignore.
> >>
> >>
> >> It puts the lives of people at risk...
> >> Shooting above the heads of people is another arsehole act.... driving
> >full speed through
> >> a mall full of people...thats another......... droping anvils on
> >residential areas from aircraft,
> >> thats another....breeding anthrax in jars in your kitchen, yet another.
> >>
> >> Your right to self defence can only be used if somebody attacks you?
> >> Consider a man pointing a gun at your head...has he attacked you yet?
> >
> >He has initiated force.
>
> he pointed a gun at you...you are as yet uninjured
> ...so a threat to use force is an initiation of force?
>
> >direction.
> >> You have to use a concept of "reasonable intent" in order to defend
> >shooting
> >> him, first in self defence!
> >
> >No, you only have to believe that you were in deadly peril (and possibly
> >convince a jury).
>
> So its a matter of personal judgment is it?
> If i *feel* force has been initiated...and a jury *feels* force has been initiated
> then it has?
> So a jury feels force has been initiated on tens of thousands of people including
> themselves by some moron making biological weapons in his cellar
> whats the problem?
>
> >late.
> >>
> >You can act when force has been initiated against you, and pointing a gun to
> >your head is initiation of force.
>
> Then holding a grenade in the presence of a person is, using the same logic,
> also an initiation of force...ie the holder is only one action away from killing you.
> ie removing the pin
>
> >> >activity will not stop the violent activity,
> >>
> >> It may change the ease with which killing can be accomplished however
> >> It may delay an intended killing long enough for the potential
> >perpertrater
> >> to reconsider
> >
> >How so? What will delay it? Pipes are legal and the explosive to put inside
> >is legal, where is the delay? The random chance that the police will stop
> >you for a broken tail light and notice the pipe bombs in your trunk?
>
> And if they do you are arrested
> You can`t drive about town brandishing pipe bombs..they would have to be hidden
> If you wish suddenly to kill an annoying passer by..you have to first retreive your hidden
> pipe bomb. not merely select one from the pile on the passenger seat
> It just makes killing people less convenient and therefore less likely
Being pipe bombs are already illegal, what's your point. In the case
being discussed, there was no deterrent. Even the fire arms the two boys
was carrying were illegal in the city of Denver, and I see it made no
difference here either. Your argument is all wet, and soaked to the
bone. Your entire spill is pure unadulterated Bull Shit.
Cordially,
Duane K. Kelly
dhe...@atlantic.net
wrote:
Paul, killing people is never convenient. No one who has had to kill
someone wants to do it again. (sickos don't count because they don't
pay any atention to any than external anyway)
Compaq User
news:3720907c....@news.atlantic.net...
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:52:39 GMT, rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us
> wrote:
> >
> >The issue is that we have an amendment to the Constitution (the 2nd) that
was
> >written when a trained soldier could shoot three musket balls a minute
with
> >his flintlock and now we have weapons that shoot hundreds of rounds per
> >minute - but the same antique amendment!
> >
> Constitution changed not break highest law in the land by passing laws
> that are illegal. I don't agree with you but that is the way to do
> it.
What, repeal the 2nd Amendment?
Paul gate
>>
>> Bill Christensen wrote in message <#OHAdFTj#GA.227@cpmsnbbsa03>...
>
>> >obviously bombs.
>> >
>> >What effect will that accomplish? If somebody wants to inflict the damage
>> >there is no way to stop it short of a complete police state. Making a
>pipe
>> >bomb illegal has no effect when the people using pipe bombs are using
>them
>> >for illegal activity in the first place.
>>
>> It allows you to arrest and restrain people who have the boots of their
>cars filled
>> with pipebombs
>
Appologies...i just been down the old "rub a dub dub" :-)
are filled
>with pipe bombs, how are you going to arrest them, use x-ray vision?
I don`t see how that effects what we are talking about
by banning these items you make it impossible for people to
legaly threaten others through the knowlege that they own them.
ownership itself is a clearer issue than percieved threat.
>> he pointed a gun at you...you are as yet uninjured
>> ...so a threat to use force is an initiation of force?
>
>Sure, if I hold a knife to your throat I have also initiated force.
>
>> >> He has not yet pulled the trigger...he has only pointed a pipe in your
>> >direction.
>> >> You have to use a concept of "reasonable intent" in order to defend
>> >shooting
>> >> him, first in self defence!
>> >
>> >No, you only have to believe that you were in deadly peril (and possibly
>> >convince a jury).
>>
>> So its a matter of personal judgment is it?
>> If i *feel* force has been initiated...and a jury *feels* force has been
>initiated
>> then it has?
>> So a jury feels force has been initiated on tens of thousands of people
>including
>> themselves by some moron making biological weapons in his cellar
>> whats the problem?
>
>They can't have force initiated against them about something they don't know
>about.
However if it is perfectly lega,l then there is no reason why he shouldn`t tell everybody, yes?
If a sniper aims a gun at you he has not initiated force until he
>pulls the trigger, he cannot compel you to do anything differently by aiming
>at you; but if someone comes up to you and puts a gun to your head he has
>initiated force, you are not free to act independently with that gun at your
>head.
If it perfectly legal to own these weapons there is no reason why
their ownership can`t be publicised....read between the lines as
"don`t hack me off or else!"
>> Then holding a grenade in the presence of a person is, using the same
>logic,
>> also an initiation of force...ie the holder is only one action away from
>killing you.
>> ie removing the pin
>
>If they are threatening to pull the pin, but if the person is just showing
>someone else a grenade he has not initiated force. Someone merely owning a
>grenade has not initiated force, someone taking a grenade to a shopping mall
>with his finger on the pin has.
Really?... He is not allowed to finger his own property in public?
What happened to his absolute property rights?
People cannot point their own property in the direction they choose?
Also he has not restricted anybodies freedoms...as far as he is concerned
people can run about screaming as much as they like...
The fact is, the people around him *felt* threatened by his behaviour
If this git got his head blown off by a policeman while doing this
i wouldn`t argue it was an over reaction.
Exactly the same principle can be used to justify not allowing people to own bombs
Owning bombs is threatening behaviour...
"Bombs are for blowing things/people up.... why has my neighbour got a shedfull of bombs?"
"Guns are for shooting people..why is my neighbour pointing a gun at my head"
It all hinges on what is considered a threatening activity
>You don't initiate force until you have
>violated their rights of life or liberty, holding a gun to someones head
>violates their right to liberty as it compels them to act differently than
>they would have otherwise.
As does the publicised presence of large explosive devices
or weapons of mass destruction...This is the theory
behind "deterence" of course
Say you hold a gun to someones head, but make no demands...just let
them figure it out for themselves...?
"oh goodness. he seems to have given me his wallet..how considerate"
Is this also initiation of force?
>> >How so? What will delay it? Pipes are legal and the explosive to put
>inside
>> >is legal, where is the delay? The random chance that the police will stop
>> >you for a broken tail light and notice the pipe bombs in your trunk?
>>
>> And if they do you are arrested
>> You can`t drive about town brandishing pipe bombs..they would have to be
>hidden
>> If you wish suddenly to kill an annoying passer by..you have to first
>retreive your hidden
>> pipe bomb. not merely select one from the pile on the passenger seat
>> It just makes killing people less convenient and therefore less likely
>
>Do you think that people don't kill others only because it is inconvienent?
no..
but If it is easy to kill people more people will kill
dhe...@atlantic.net
Not if I can help it but if they want change the Constitution that is
the way to do it. To even vote for a gun law, or enforce a gun law
without repealing or modifying the 2nd A is malfeasance of office.
dhe...@atlantic.net
wrote:
>
Paul, it is never easy to kill people, even when they are trying to
kill you it isn't easy. You have been watching too much TV. <g>
Admiral
school student, it is actually impossible. We don't have metal detectors at our
schools, or a police force guarding our schoos, or teachers wearing bulletproof
vests, etc. This sort of thing has never happened in Canada. Don't you Americans
think Columbine is a wake up call? Get your gun laws changed!!!! It's horrible that
you guys are more concerned with the freedom to "protect" yourself than the freedom
to walk the streets without getting shot. I understand that you guys have the
constitutional right to own firearms, but I don't think that this was what Thomas
Jefferson had in mind exactly.
dhe...@atlantic.net
wrote:
>I'm Canadian. It is virtually impossible to get a firearm here. If you are a high
>school student, it is actually impossible. We don't have metal detectors at our
>schools, or a police force guarding our schoos, or teachers wearing bulletproof
>vests, etc. This sort of thing has never happened in Canada. Don't you Americans
>think Columbine is a wake up call? Get your gun laws changed!!!! It's horrible that
>you guys are more concerned with the freedom to "protect" yourself than the freedom
>to walk the streets without getting shot. I understand that you guys have the
>constitutional right to own firearms, but I don't think that this was what Thomas
>Jefferson had in mind exactly.
>
That was exactly what Jefferson had in mind and that's what he told
me.<g>
But we also don't have a government that has made subjects out of us
instead of citizens. We had a lot less shootings when there were no
restrictions on guns. Crazys on go to places where they know everyone
is unarmed (by force) schools, post offices, etc to kill people. You
never see one of these crazys attack a redneck bar or a police station
do you.
The only reason the US doesn't have a Gestapo is that the
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:07:42 GMT, rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us
>wrote:
>
>>"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
>>right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>>
>>States can and do regulate the possession and use of firearms by private
>>persons. Cities and various local governments can and do the same.
>
>And that is an illegal infringement upon the right of the people to
>keep and bear arms.
No it is legal and constitutional, and the many court decisions in
this area make that clear. The Second Amendment is not in any way a
bar to action on guns by states or cities.
>>Though I do not favor a blanket ban on firearms, it seems that some reasonable
>>restraints can and should be considered for the regulation of some weapons.
>
>Who gets to determine what is "reasonable"?
>
>>Right-wingers have imbibed the dangerous fantasy that they and like-minded
>>pseudo-"patriots" may need to take up arms against the "state."
>
>Please tell me what George Washington and the other founding fathers
>had just gotten done doing when the doccument was penned.
And having done so, they wanted to make sure THEIR government would
not be so overturned.
Dan Kimmel
>> <snip>
>
>> >Right-wingers have imbibed the dangerous fantasy that they and like-minded
>> >pseudo-"patriots" may need to take up arms against the "state."
>>
>> Please tell me what George Washington and the other founding fathers
>> had just gotten done doing when the doccument was penned.
>>
>> Doug
>
>Today, our founding fathers would be called far-right wingnuts or worse. They did
>what they did, declaring independence from England for FAR less that what our
>government is doing to us today.
Today our founding fathers would be called socialists or communists or
worse. Imagine, advocating VIOLENT revolution, stating that
individual civil liberties should be paramount, and restricting the
power of the police, and barring the government from interfering with
the free press.
Dan Kimmel
<Ticon...@erols.com> wrote:
>Doug Johnson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 19:07:42 GMT, rshe...@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us
>> wrote:
>>
>> >States can and do regulate the possession and use of firearms by private
>> >persons. Cities and various local governments can and do the same.
>
>HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
>
>Do you know Dan, from this ng? He seems to have the same opinions as you, and you
>also seem to share a level of ingornace that is astonishing. And you compound your
>stupidy when you arrogate unto yourself the right to unilaterally review and
>rejudge every Supreme Court decision which opposes you -- as do they all, on this
>issue.
Wrong as usual. The court decisions are UNANIMOUS that the Second
Amendment is no bar to any action by state or localities, including
the few Supreme Court decisions in this are.
Clearly your "ingornace [sic]" knows no bounds.
Dan Kimmel
Masologites) wrote:
>Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan Kimmel) wrote:
>
>>>If you want to talk about the second amendment, first of all, you're
>>>not looking at it in the right light. It was intended to provide not
>>>only for individual security against criminals,
>>
>>No, it wasn't intended for that at all.
>
>Of course it was. "The people's right to keep and bear arms" - in
>defense against criminals and the state, if necessary.
As part of a "well-regulated militia." It had nothing to do with
defense "against criminals." It was about state militias. Even the
language "keep and bear arms" underscores the military nature of this
right.
>>> but for security
>>>against the _state_.
>>
>>Security OF the state -- against the national Federal government.
>
>The first clause establishes that. The second, independent, clause
>states that _individuals have the constitutional right to keep and
>bear arms_.
No, it is not an "indepedent clause." That is your own interpretation
and given the overwhelming weight of evidence, it is clear it is your
MISintepretation.
>States' rights advocates are completely missing the
>point, because a) the BoR is a list of individual rights, not states'
>rights and b) the first clause should not be read to the exclusion of
>the second.
In fact the courts consistently note that the Second is about a right
to "keep and bear arms" as part of a "well regulated militia." One
does not "keep and bear arms" against bears or burglars. It is a
military construction, clearly linking the latter half of the
amendment ot the first.
>If the 2nd amend. was meant to protect the states' rights to bear
>arms, then it would read, "a well regulated militia, being necessary
>to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and
>bear arms, shall not be infringed."
If the Second was about protecting individual rights, it would simply
say "Congress shall make no law respecting the right to own guns."
But it invokes the militias and then uses military language to
narrowly define this "right" that allows people in a militia context
to "keep and bear arms."
>US v. Emerson:
>
>"The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences
>therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not
>to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected.
>Id. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If
>this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and
>consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized. Id. at
>201."
Clearly this judge paid more attention to the rantings of the
gunlovers in the law reviews then the well-settled law established by
the courts.
>In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the USC interpreted the text of the 2nd
>amend.
It did no such thing. The Second Amendment was not an issue in the
case and its interpretation was not argued before the Court.
>and noted that "the people" in said amendment has the same
>meaning in the Preamble, First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amend, and in
>Patton v. US, the USC stated that the BoR should be read in pari
>materia, and "amendments which contain similar structure should be
>construed similarly . . . [USC's] construction of "the people" as used
>in the Second Amendment supports a holding that the right to keep and
>bear arms is a personal right retained by the people, as opposed to a
>collective right held by the States."
Actually this was an aside by Rehnquist in a footnote and was what
lawyers call "obiter dicta." It was not a ruling in the case, but
merely an expression of his personal opinion, without any legal weight
whatsoever.
>>>The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights, after
>>>all, is to protect citizens from overpowerful governments. And how
>>>can individuals defend themselves against the state if they have
>>>flintlock muskets and the state has tanks and AK-47s and sniper rifles
>>>and what have you?
>>
>>Hmm, so using your "logic" the Second Amendment means private citizens
>>are entitled to antitank weapons and tactical nukes?
>
>Yes. You may disagree with the necessity of these items, but the
>second amendment protects them regardless.
No, it does not. Interestingly, even the NRA hasn't made this
argument which should give you an idea of just how extreme your views
are.
>>>(For a thorough analysis on the 2nd amendment, I recommend you check
>>>out _US v. Emerson_; I think the memorandum is on several sites.)
>>
>>For a better analysis, read the overwhelming volume of case law from
>>which Emerson is an aberration, and one which will be quickly reversed
>>on appeal.
>
>Care to cite a few cases from this 'overwhelming volume?'
Don't know how to use a law library? Go Shepherdize the Second
Amendment. Other than Emerson, which will be reversed on appeal, you
will not find any Federal court holding that stands that buys your
misinterpretation of the Second. Hell, the Supreme Court couldn't
even come up with four votes to hear the Morton Grove case, and that
was abou an outright gun BAN.
>Note: US v. Miller _did not_ answer the question of whether the right
>to bear arms is individual or collective. Quoting again from US v.
>Emerson, ". . . one can read Miller as supporting some of the most
>extreme anti-gun control arguments; for example, that the individual
>citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and
>other armaments that are clearly used for modern warfare."
Only if one were as ignorant as the judge in Emerson.
Dan Kimmel
wrote:
>I'm Canadian. It is virtually impossible to get a firearm here. If you are a high
>school student, it is actually impossible. We don't have metal detectors at our
>schools, or a police force guarding our schoos, or teachers wearing bulletproof
>vests, etc. This sort of thing has never happened in Canada. Don't you Americans
>think Columbine is a wake up call? Get your gun laws changed!!!! It's horrible that
>you guys are more concerned with the freedom to "protect" yourself than the freedom
>to walk the streets without getting shot. I understand that you guys have the
>constitutional right to own firearms, but I don't think that this was what Thomas
>Jefferson had in mind exactly.
You're quite right. Unfortunately our craven politicians have been in
thrall to the NRA (and its money) for far too long. In recent years
that has changed, and the NRA is no longer the powerful goliath it
once was. Alas it will probably take more "wake up calls" but there
has been a turning point in this country on this issue, even if the
rantings from the gun nuts here don't make that clear.
Polls show that even most gun owners support stronger gun laws.
Dan Kimmel
<Ticon...@erols.com> wrote:
>> Dan.K...@worldnet.att.net (Dan Kimmel) wrote:
>
>What everybody has been writing about you is true. Nobody cares about your
>opinions because they are stupid. As the man says, so is the man.
Whoa, I'm so impressed with the brilliance of your argument.
Did your parents have any children that lived?
M.Simon
wrote:
>I'm Canadian. It is virtually impossible to get a firearm here. If you are a high
>school student, it is actually impossible. We don't have metal detectors at our
>schools, or a police force guarding our schoos, or teachers wearing bulletproof
>vests, etc. This sort of thing has never happened in Canada. Don't you Americans
>think Columbine is a wake up call? Get your gun laws changed!!!!
Americans are very peculiar in this regard.
We won't obey laws we don't like. Passing laws in America is useless.
Alcohol prohibition and Drug Prohibition have taught us this lesson.
Prohibition is out.
How do the Swiss handle having machine guns in almost every house?
America ought to do the same.
Simon
Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
George P. Masologites
>>>No, it wasn't intended for that at all.
>>
>>Of course it was. "The people's right to keep and bear arms" - in
>>defense against criminals and the state, if necessary.
>
>As part of a "well-regulated militia." It had nothing to do with
>defense "against criminals." It was about state militias. Even the
>language "keep and bear arms" underscores the military nature of this
>right.
Wrong. The right to keep and bear arms exists independently of the
existence of the militia.
>>>> but for security
>>>>against the _state_.
>>>
>>>Security OF the state -- against the national Federal government.
>>
>>The first clause establishes that. The second, independent, clause
>>states that _individuals have the constitutional right to keep and
>>bear arms_.
>
>No, it is not an "indepedent clause." That is your own interpretation
>and given the overwhelming weight of evidence, it is clear it is your
>MISintepretation.
What 'overwhelming weight of evidence'? You haven't been able to cite
_anything_ yet, yet alone an 'overwhelming weight.'
>>States' rights advocates are completely missing the
>>point, because a) the BoR is a list of individual rights, not states'
>>rights and b) the first clause should not be read to the exclusion of
>>the second.
>
>In fact the courts consistently note that the Second is about a right
>to "keep and bear arms" as part of a "well regulated militia." One
>does not "keep and bear arms" against bears or burglars. It is a
>military construction, clearly linking the latter half of the
>amendment ot the first.
Really. Let me lay out a few quotes for you, Dan.
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual
discretion...in private self-defense." -John Adams
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the
Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence,
and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is
able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on
the ratification of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the
people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as
far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to
trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of
Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)
"...to disarm the people -- that was the best and most effective way
to enslave them." -George Mason, drafter of Virginia's BoR
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of
regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States." -Noah Webster
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;
a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a
free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms
shall be compelled to render military service." -James Madison's
proposal for the 2nd Amendment, later trimmed for brevity
>>If the 2nd amend. was meant to protect the states' rights to bear
>>arms, then it would read, "a well regulated militia, being necessary
>>to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and
>>bear arms, shall not be infringed."
>
>If the Second was about protecting individual rights, it would simply
>say "Congress shall make no law respecting the right to own guns."
It's not just about guns; it affects the right to keep and bear _all_
arms.
>But it invokes the militias and then uses military language to
>narrowly define this "right" that allows people in a militia context
>to "keep and bear arms."
Incorrect. Look at the quote right below, the facts of which you
ignored in favor of directing an ad hominem attack at the judge.
>>US v. Emerson:
>>
>>"The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences
>>therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not
>>to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected.
>>Id. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If
>>this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and
>>consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized. Id. at
>>201."
>
>Clearly this judge paid more attention to the rantings of the
>gunlovers in the law reviews then the well-settled law established by
>the courts.
In your opinion. You consider it out of the question that the judge
was just ruling what he thought was right, then, I suppose, because if
he rules in a way contrary to your omniscient opinion, he must be a
corrupt scoundrel, right?
>>In US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the USC interpreted the text of the 2nd
>>amend.
>
>It did no such thing. The Second Amendment was not an issue in the
>case and its interpretation was not argued before the Court.
Not directly, no. Rather, it spoke of what the phrase 'the people'
meant in the Constitution.
>>Care to cite a few cases from this 'overwhelming volume?'
>
>Don't know how to use a law library? Go Shepherdize the Second
>Amendment. Other than Emerson, which will be reversed on appeal, you
>will not find any Federal court holding that stands that buys your
>misinterpretation of the Second.
Oh? See below.
>Hell, the Supreme Court couldn't
>even come up with four votes to hear the Morton Grove case, and that
>was abou an outright gun BAN.
Well, since you're too lazy to produce any cases, I will. This is by
no means comprehensive, of course.
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822) - "For, in principle, there is no
difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a
law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be
unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."
Simpson v. Tennessee (1833) - "By this clause [Article II, sec. 26] of
the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the
free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence,
without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature. . ."
Nunn v. Georgia (1846) - "The right of the whole people, old and
young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear
arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the
militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the
smallest degree."
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - "Nor can Congress deny to the people
the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor
compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal
proceeding."; "It would give to persons of the negro race . . . [the
right to] to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Andrews v. Tennessee (1871) - ". . . shows clearly that this right was
intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to
and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him
as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
US v. Cruikshank (1876) - "The second amendment declares that [bearing
arms for a lawful purpose] shall not be infringed; but this, as has
been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by
Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than
to restrict the powers of the national government . . ."
Jennings v. Texas (1878) - "One of his most sacred rights is that of
having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is
one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation."
Wilson v. Arkansas (1878) - "If cowardly and dishonorable men
sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must
be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general
deprivation of constitutional privilege."
Presser v. Illinois (1886) - "We think it clear that the sections
under consideration . . . do not infringe the right of the people to
keep and bear arms."
Logan v. US (1892) - "It was held that the first amendment of the
constitution . . . did not grant to the people the right peaceably to
assemble for lawful purposes, but recognized that right as already
existing, and did not guaranty its continuance except as against acts
of congress . . . [i]t was held that the second amendment of the
constitution, declaring that "the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed," was equally limited in its scope."
Miller v. Texas (1894) - ". . . defendant claimed that the law of the
state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the
arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which
certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict
with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the
United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which
protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We
have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant
was denied the benefit of any of these provisions . . ."
Dissent in Brown v. Walker (1896) - "As said by counsel for the
appellant: "The freedom of thought, of speech, and of the press; the
right to bear arms; exemption from military dictation; security of the
person and of the home; the right to speedy and public trial by jury;
protection against oppressive bail and cruel punishment, -- are,
together with exemption from self-crimination, the essential and
inseparable features of English liberty."
Maxwell v. Dow (1900) - ". . . it was held that the Second Amendment
to the Constitution, in regard to the right of the people to bear
arms, is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national
government, and not of the states. It was therein said, however, that
as all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved
military force of the national government the states could not
prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive
the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the
public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to
the general government."
In re Brickey (1902) - "The second amendment to the federal
constitution is in the following language: 'A well-regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' . . . [u]nder
these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to
prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of
Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities,
towns, and villages."
Vermont v. Rosenthal (1903) - "The people of the state have a right to
bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. The result is
that Ordinance No. 10, so far as it relates to the carrying of a
pistol, is inconsistent with and repugnant to the Constitution and the
laws of the state, and it is therefore to that extent, void."
Trono v. US (1905) - "The whole language [of the Act] is substantially
taken from the Bill of Rights set forth in the amendments to the
Constitution of the United States, omitting the provisions in regard
to the right of trial by jury and the right of the people to bear arms
. . ."
Twining v. New Jersey (1908) - "[T]he question [of incorporation] is
no longer open in this court. The right of trial by jury in civil
cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment, and the right to bear arms,
guaranteed by the 2d Amendment [citing Presser v. Illinois], have been
distinctly held not to be [incorporated]."
North Carolina v. Kerner (1921) - "We are of the opinion, however,
that 'pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word
'arms,' and that the right to bear such arms cannot be infringed.";
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to
every free people and should not be whittled down by technical
constructions."
People v. Zerillo (1922) - "The provision in the Constitution granting
the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the right
of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary."
People v. Nakamura (1936) - "The state . . . cannot disarm any class
of persons or deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13,
article II of the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home,
person and property."
US v. Miller (1939) - ". . . we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly
it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the
common defense."
Dissent in Adamson v. California (1947) - ". . . this Court decided
that the following were not "privileges or immunities" of national
citizenship, so as to make them immune against state invasion: the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment,
In re Kemmler; the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial in
civil cases, Walker v. Sauvinet; the Second Amendment's "right of the
people to keep and bear arms * * *," Presser v. Illinois . . ."
Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) - "Such a construction would mean that
during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla
fighters, and "were-wolves" could require the American Judiciary to
assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First
Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second . . ."
People v. Liss (1950) - "The second amendment to the constitution of
the United States provides the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed. This of course does not prevent the
enactment of a law against carrying concealed weapons, but it does
indicate it should be kept in mind, in the construction of a statue of
such character, that it is aimed at persons of criminal instincts, and
for the prevention of crime, and not against use in the protection of
person or property."
Montana v. Nickerson (1952) - "The law of this jurisdiction accords to
the defendant the right to keep and bear arms and to use same in
defense of his own home, his person and property."
Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961) - ". . . Mr. Justice Holmes once said:
"[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas
having their essence in their form; they are organic living
institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is
vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words
and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of
their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604. In this
connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second
Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.""
City of Las Vegas v. Moberg (1971) - ". . . an ordinance may not deny
the people the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms, and to
that extent the ordinance under consideration is void."
City of Lakewood v. Pillow (1972) - "As an example, we note that this
ordinance would prohibit gunsmiths, pawnbrokers and sporting goods
stores from carrying on a substantial part of their business. Also,
the ordinance appears to prohibit individuals from transporting guns
to and from such places of business. Furthermore, it makes it unlawful
for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of
business for the purpose of self-defense. Several of these activities
are constitutionally protected."
Taylor v. McNeal (1975) - ". . . every citizen has the right to keep
and bear arms in defense of his home, person, and property, with the
limitation that this section shall not justify the wearing of
concealed arms."
Motley v. Kellogg (1980) - ". . . not making applications available at
the chief's office effectively denied members of the community the
opportunity to obtain a gun permit and bear arms for their
self-defense."
Oregon v. Kessler (1980) - "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the
drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those
weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The
term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several
handcarried weapons commonly used for defense."
Schubert v. DeBard (1980) - "We think it clear that our constitution
provides our citizenry the right to bear arms for their self-
defense."
Oregon v. Blocker (1981) - ". . . statue is written as a total
proscription of the mere possession of certain weapons, and that mere
possession . . . is constitutionally protected."
US v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) - "Contrary to the suggestion of amici
curiae that the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward
rhetorical redundancy," "the people" seems to have been a term of art
employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares
that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of
the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments
provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to
"the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no
law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble")
(emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives
shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of
the several States")."
Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) - "This `liberty´ is not a series
of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the
freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear
arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures . . ."
Concurrence in Printz v. US (1997) - The Second Amendment . . .
appears to contain an express limitation on the government's
authority. This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the
nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment.
[fn1] If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal
right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the
Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the
purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that
Amendment's protections . . . [fn2] As the parties did not raise this
argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some
future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether
Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms
"has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a
republic."
Dissent in Muscarello v. US (1998) - "At issue here is not "carries"
at large but "carries a firearm." . . . Surely a most familiar
meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear
Arms") (emphasis added) . . ."
US v. Emerson (1999) - "The American Second Amendment also expanded
upon the English Bill of Rights' protection; while English law allowed
weapons "suitable to a person's condition" "as allowed by law", the
American right forbade any "infringement" upon the right of the people
to keep and bear arms. Id."; ". . . concerns about the social costs
of enforcing the Second Amendment must be outweighed by considering
the lengths to which the federal courts have gone to uphold other
rights in the Constitution. The rights of the Second Amendment should
be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in
the Bill of Rights."
>>Note: US v. Miller _did not_ answer the question of whether the right
>>to bear arms is individual or collective. Quoting again from US v.
>>Emerson, ". . . one can read Miller as supporting some of the most
>>extreme anti-gun control arguments; for example, that the individual
>>citizen has a right to keep and bear bazookas, rocket launchers, and
>>other armaments that are clearly used for modern warfare."
>
>Only if one were as ignorant as the judge in Emerson.
Yet you can't do anything but sling ad hominems. Amusing that you
cannot counter such an 'ignorant judge', wouldn't you say?
Doug Johnson
Kimmel) wrote:
>And having done so, they wanted to make sure THEIR government would
>not be so overturned.
WRONG! And having done so, they made sure their government COULD be
overturned, if necessary. They knew too well the lure of power on
human beings. That is why they gave the rights to the masses instead
of to the government. The Constitution is all about restricting what
actions the government can take. That is quite clear to anyone who
has studied the issue, no matter what mistakes the courts may make.
Doug
Doug Johnson
Kimmel) wrote:
>As part of a "well-regulated militia." It had nothing to do with
>defense "against criminals." It was about state militias. Even the
>language "keep and bear arms" underscores the military nature of this
>right.
What part of "The right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed" do you
not understand?