Challenge for Clinton-bashers
Charlie Johnston
NOTE: the following quotes were made by myself, Charles S. Johnston,
and thoughtfully compiled by Tom M (t...@snoop.East.Sun.COM)....
Obviously this group is for morons.
...your analysis and commentary is so amazingly insightful. Perhaps
next time you can use *two* polysyllabic words and really wow us.
...but much of the anti-Clinton pro-Republican posting is simply stupid
...this mindless "Clinton sucks...haha...impeach him" spewing is...boring,
at best
...this "so's your mom" type of rebuttal is pointless.
...the Clinton supporters seem to be a bit more intelligent and mature
... And *you* can be found in the dictionary under several words...
"ignorant" "immature" "sexist"
...does it just bug you that Hillary has more brains *and* influence than
you will ever have?
...Your use of the term 'pathological liar' illustrates your medical
ignorance
The brevity and tone of your response illustrates your general ignorance
...you suffer from "Internet myopia"
How about something intelligent on the *political* forum, rather than such
insightful etymological analysis
...are you just a knee-jerk Clinton-basher? Or a single-issue voter?
So many foolish internet posts, so little time to respond to them all
Why don't y'all change the name of this group, to alt.clintons.bashing,
or alt.spelling.and.syntax.police
Gee, I sure hope I didn't *change tenses* in the middle of a paragraph
anywhere...or forget an apostrophe....or missspell somethiing...
> And that's just from this week.
> Perhaps a public apology is in order.
> Regards,
> Tom
Bzzt...try again, Tom.
Perhaps when I receive the *first* response in this group from *anyone* who
has *anything* meaningful to say about a *political issue* I will consider
apologizing to that *specific* person for insulting him/her. One single
issue - health care, military cutbacks, welfare - you name it. I have seen
*nothing* on this group resembling anything other than simple nay-saying -
much less a thoughtful rational argument.
Until then, all I will say is...prove me wrong.
...charlie
edgerider
>
>
>Bzzt...try again, Tom.
>
>Perhaps when I receive the *first* response in this group from *anyone*
>who
>has *anything* meaningful to say about a *political issue* I will
>consider
>apologizing to that *specific* person for insulting him/her. One single
>issue - health care, military cutbacks, welfare - you name it. I have
>seen
>*nothing* on this group resembling anything other than simple nay-saying
-
>much less a thoughtful rational argument.
>
>Until then, all I will say is...prove me wrong.
>
Explain to me how clinton's drug policy is not hypocritical when clinton
himself smoked recreational drugs. I dont believe even he thinks that if
drugs were legal his brother would have died.
Basically Ralph Nader is right these youngsters (eg charlie) are being
brainwashed, it used to be there wasn't a dimes worth of difference
between republicans and democrats now it's a penny, and that's before
inflation.
Stilt Man
edgerider <keco...@next03epsl.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Explain to me how clinton's drug policy is not hypocritical when clinton
>himself smoked recreational drugs. I dont believe even he thinks that if
>drugs were legal his brother would have died.
Excuse me?
He said exactly those words during the first debate, when asked about
drug legalization: "I have a very personal position on this issue, because
if drugs were legal, my brother would probably not be alive right now."
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
Q: What's the difference between a dead lawyer and a dead rat in the middle of
the road?
A: The rat has skid marks in front of it.
Charlie Johnston
keco...@next03epsl.wam.umd.edu (edgerider) wrote:
> Explain to me how clinton's drug policy is not hypocritical when clinton
> himself smoked recreational drugs. I dont believe even he thinks that if
> drugs were legal his brother would have died.
>
> Basically Ralph Nader is right these youngsters (eg charlie) are being
> brainwashed, it used to be there wasn't a dimes worth of difference
> between republicans and democrats now it's a penny, and that's before
> inflation.
(ignoring your inflammatory bait, as well as silly quote)
I am not clear on what the President's position on drugs is - perhaps
you could state it.
..charlie
Charlie Johnston
> Explain to me how clinton's drug policy is not hypocritical when clinton
> himself smoked recreational drugs. I dont believe even he thinks that if
> drugs were legal his brother would have died.
I hope *I* am never held liable for actions *I* made 2 decades ago.
Intelligent people change - it is known as 'maturing'.
...charlie
John D'Errico
What is hypocritical is that they want to legalize drugs, ala Elders, while
at the same time are conducting an all out assault on tobacco.
-------------------------------------
John A. D'Errico, Ph.D.
The University of Michigan School of Dentistry
Department of Periodontics/Prevention/Geriatrics
1011 N. University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078
Team OS/2
Kai Juhana Nikulainen
>>Bzzt...try again, Tom.
>>Perhaps when I receive the *first* response in this group from *anyone*
>>who
>>has *anything* meaningful to say about a *political issue* I will
>>consider
>>apologizing to that *specific* person for insulting him/her. One single
>>issue - health care, military cutbacks, welfare - you name it. I have
>>seen
>>*nothing* on this group resembling anything other than simple nay-saying
>>Until then, all I will say is...prove me wrong.
>>....charlie
>
>Explain to me how clinton's drug policy is not hypocritical when clinton
>himself smoked recreational drugs. I dont believe even he thinks that if
>drugs were legal his brother would have died.
Excuse me! Don't you understand something someone did 25 years ago as
a youngster (even if he inhaled :-) doesn't mean he's supporting the
same thing after all theses years. Are you paranoid or some other kind
of loony??
- Kaitsu -
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
> In article <2p2h8p$4...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
> keco...@next03epsl.wam.umd.edu (edgerider) wrote:
>
>> Explain to me how clinton's drug policy is not hypocritical when clinton
>> himself smoked recreational drugs. I dont believe even he thinks that if
>> drugs were legal his brother would have died.
>
> I hope *I* am never held liable for actions *I* made 2 decades ago.
You will. You will.
>
> Intelligent people change - it is known as 'maturing'.
>
Republicans are born mature. What's your excuse?
-Conan
> ...charlie
Charlie Johnston
(John D'Errico) wrote:
> What is hypocritical is that they want to legalize drugs, ala Elders, while
> at the same time are conducting an all out assault on tobacco.
> John A. D'Errico, Ph.D.
I think the issues of 'drug legalization' and 'tobacco taxation' are not
really linked, despite the addictive factor.
The tobacco tax is a political gambit, at best. No one can argue that
alcohol,for example, doesn't cause more damage (property, life, societal)
than tobacco. Frankly, IMO it was a way to make the budget look more
balanced.
The damage that illegal drugs cause is two-fold:
1. direct physical/mental harm to abusers
2. drug-related violent crime, stemming from high-profitability due to
illegality
Legalization might largely eliminate #2. Taxes generated from legal
sales might aid in reducing #1.
(Note the use of the word 'might' - alternatively legalization might cause
the numbers of abusers/addicts to soar, overwhelming (by loss of
productivity)
any gain realized in crime reduction.)
As an aside question, how do conservatives both demand personal freedoms
(eg. handgun ownership) and oppose personal freedoms (eg. drug
legalization)?
....charlie
----V----
: Charles S. Johnston, wrote
: >
: >
: >Bzzt...try again, Tom.
: >
: >Perhaps when I receive the *first* response in this group from *anyone*
: >who
: >has *anything* meaningful to say about a *political issue* I will
: >consider
: >apologizing to that *specific* person for insulting him/her. One single
: >issue - health care, military cutbacks, welfare - you name it. I have
: >seen
: >*nothing* on this group resembling anything other than simple nay-saying
: -
: >much less a thoughtful rational argument.
: >
: >Until then, all I will say is...prove me wrong.
: >
: >....charlie
: Explain to me how clinton's drug policy is not hypocritical when clinton
: himself smoked recreational drugs. I dont believe even he thinks that if
: drugs were legal his brother would have died.
Hmmm." I was foolish in my youth, but now i realize the dangers of such a
course." BTW, how much research was there publically available into the
effects of drugs on humans?
: Basically Ralph Nader is right these youngsters (eg charlie) are being
: brainwashed, it used to be there wasn't a dimes worth of difference
: between republicans and democrats now it's a penny, and that's before
: inflation.
ummm he's "brainwashed" because he wants people to respond intelligently
and post on meaningful issue, rather than flame back and forth between
partisans? Hmm, I'm brainwashed too then ("Hellloooooo Patty Hearst!")
--
___ ____
\ / Vi Veri Veneversum Vivus Vici.
\ / Ave Atque Vale.
\ / Talent is a flame, genius a fire.
/
/
----V----
: You will. You will.
You prove charlie's point about partisan flaming and bickering precisely.
Thank you for your input and proving his theory valid.
Keith Braunwalder
: I think the issues of 'drug legalization' and 'tobacco taxation' are not
: really linked, despite the addictive factor.
: The tobacco tax is a political gambit, at best. No one can argue that
: alcohol,for example, doesn't cause more damage (property, life, societal)
: than tobacco. Frankly, IMO it was a way to make the budget look more
: balanced.
: The damage that illegal drugs cause is two-fold:
: 1. direct physical/mental harm to abusers
: 2. drug-related violent crime, stemming from high-profitability due to
: illegality
: Legalization might largely eliminate #2. Taxes generated from legal
: sales might aid in reducing #1.
: (Note the use of the word 'might' - alternatively legalization might cause
: the numbers of abusers/addicts to soar, overwhelming (by loss of
: productivity)
: any gain realized in crime reduction.)
: As an aside question, how do conservatives both demand personal freedoms
: (eg. handgun ownership) and oppose personal freedoms (eg. drug
: legalization)?
Sounds a bit wishy-washy doesn't it ? At least Bill and the Democrats appear
tp be consistent in this matter. They want to take ALL of them away.
: ....charlie
Keith "leaning Libertarian..."
Paul Havemann
>
> As an aside question, how do conservatives both demand personal freedoms
> (eg. handgun ownership) and oppose personal freedoms (eg. drug
> legalization)?
And vice-versa?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Havemann (pa...@hsh.com) Resident Cynic, a.f.d-q
"According to the Tax Foundation, the typical American family must
allocate 40.4% of its annual expenses to taxes... you spend more on
taxes each year than you do on clothing, transportation,
recreation, food, and medical care -- combined.
"And yet there are still masochists and liberals who wish taxes
were -- I kid you not -- higher. ... Yet ask them just how high
taxes should go -- if 40.4% isn't enough, what percent would be? --
and you won't get an answer. You'll get a lecture instead. About
the Twelve Years of Republican Greed."
-- Jeff Jacoby, columnist, _The Boston Globe_
Charlie Johnston
> john...@unc.med.edu (Charlie Johnston) sez:
> >
> > As an aside question, how do conservatives both demand personal freedoms
> > (eg. handgun ownership) and oppose personal freedoms (eg. drug
> > legalization)?
> And vice-versa?
> Paul Havemann
>
".....You'll get a lecture instead. About
> the Twelve Years of Republican Greed."
> -- Jeff Jacoby, columnist, _The Boston Globe_
No lecture - just a fact and a question.
Fact: In twelve years the United States went from
leading world lender to leading debtor.
Question: Did your taxes go down, or did you get any of
that money?
Keith Braunwalder
: In article <johnstoc-2...@oncolpc09.med.unc.edu>,
: john...@unc.med.edu (Charlie Johnston) wrote:
: >
: > The damage that illegal drugs cause is two-fold:
: > 1. direct physical/mental harm to abusers
: > 2. drug-related violent crime, stemming from high-profitability due to
: > illegality
: Somehow, the writer has conveniently overlooked the harm it causes to the
: other family members (that is if you believe in the codependency aspect of
: drug usage). So which one of the proposed remedies will address this
: issue?
How about the harm of jailing a parent because the school DARE officer has
convinced the kids to turn their parents in ? Reminds me alot of Nazi
Germany.
: There may even be a fourth effect of drug use as it relates to job safety.
: Of course I am sure the proponents of legalized drug use have a fix for the
: lost productivity, on-the-job injuries, not to mention accidents (like in
: public transportation issues) that impact the economy.
Yup. It's called impairment testing. If you are impaired, you're fired.
: >
: > Legalization might largely eliminate #2. Taxes generated from legal
: > sales might aid in reducing #1.
: >
: > (Note the use of the word 'might' - alternatively legalization might cause
: > the numbers of abusers/addicts to soar, overwhelming (by loss of
: > productivity)
: > any gain realized in crime reduction.)
: >
: > As an aside question, how do conservatives both demand personal freedoms
: > (eg. handgun ownership) and oppose personal freedoms (eg. drug
: > legalization)?
: >
: It's easy. Gun ownership is supported by the Bill of Rights. I don't
: remember any similar granting of rights to drug use. Perhaps drug use is
: justified based on the Declaration of Independence preamble; you know ". .
: . life, liberty, and the pursuit of _happiness_ . . . ". This assumes that
: drug induced nirvana is the state of happiness the founding fathers had in
: mind when they wrote that verse. The trouble is, our laws are based on the
: constitution, not the declaration of independence!
Then explain how those same bill of rights are trampled in the name of this
little jihad.
: This is not withstanding arguments over the need for 50 round clips for
: sport hunting or protecting your loved ones in their home. I don't
: personally support assault weapons owwnership by anybody (including the
: police) except for the military, However, I understand the gun lobbyist's
: fight against encroachment of ownership of said weapons. Gradual and
: incremental abridgement of ownership rights leads to greater activism leads
: to more abridgement of rights leads to more activism . . . it becomes a
: reinforcing loop with no balancing loop. If anyone has a problem with the
: concept of cause and effect relationships and system dynamics in society,
: suggest you get a copy of _The Fifth Discipline_ by Peter Senge; it's a
: good read.
: > ....charlie
Keith
Larry L. Taylor
john...@unc.med.edu (Charlie Johnston) wrote:
>
> The damage that illegal drugs cause is two-fold:
> 1. direct physical/mental harm to abusers
> 2. drug-related violent crime, stemming from high-profitability due to
> illegality
Somehow, the writer has conveniently overlooked the harm it causes to the
other family members (that is if you believe in the codependency aspect of
drug usage). So which one of the proposed remedies will address this
issue?
There may even be a fourth effect of drug use as it relates to job safety.
Of course I am sure the proponents of legalized drug use have a fix for the
lost productivity, on-the-job injuries, not to mention accidents (like in
public transportation issues) that impact the economy.
>
> Legalization might largely eliminate #2. Taxes generated from legal
> sales might aid in reducing #1.
>
> (Note the use of the word 'might' - alternatively legalization might cause
> the numbers of abusers/addicts to soar, overwhelming (by loss of
> productivity)
> any gain realized in crime reduction.)
>
> As an aside question, how do conservatives both demand personal freedoms
> (eg. handgun ownership) and oppose personal freedoms (eg. drug
> legalization)?
>
It's easy. Gun ownership is supported by the Bill of Rights. I don't
remember any similar granting of rights to drug use. Perhaps drug use is
justified based on the Declaration of Independence preamble; you know ". .
. life, liberty, and the pursuit of _happiness_ . . . ". This assumes that
drug induced nirvana is the state of happiness the founding fathers had in
mind when they wrote that verse. The trouble is, our laws are based on the
constitution, not the declaration of independence!
This is not withstanding arguments over the need for 50 round clips for
sport hunting or protecting your loved ones in their home. I don't
personally support assault weapons owwnership by anybody (including the
police) except for the military, However, I understand the gun lobbyist's
fight against encroachment of ownership of said weapons. Gradual and
incremental abridgement of ownership rights leads to greater activism leads
to more abridgement of rights leads to more activism . . . it becomes a
reinforcing loop with no balancing loop. If anyone has a problem with the
concept of cause and effect relationships and system dynamics in society,
suggest you get a copy of _The Fifth Discipline_ by Peter Senge; it's a
good read.
> ....charlie
Charlie Johnston
(parts deleted, parts amended)
In article <larryt-28...@macw-llt.inel.gov>, lar...@pmafire.inel.gov
(Larry L. Taylor) wrote:
> john...@unc.med.edu (Charlie Johnston) wrote:
> > The damage from illegal drugs includes:
> > 1. direct physical/mental harm to abusers
> > 2. drug-related violent crime
> (3. harm caused to family members)
> (4. job safety, lost productivity)
Thanks for pointing out items 3 and 4. An error of omission on my part.
------------------------
> > As an aside question, how do conservatives both demand personal freedoms
> > (eg. handgun ownership) and oppose personal freedoms (eg. drug
> > legalization)?
> >
> It's easy. Gun ownership is supported by the Bill of Rights.
A. The Constitution was not brought down from the mountain by Moses.
It was written 200 years ago under much different societal and
political circumstances. Much of what is contained there is still
valid and important, but I get sick of people quoting the Constitution
like it was the be-all-end-all. Why not use the Magna Carta, or
Hammurabi's (sp?) code?
B. I have no problems with gun ownership for legitimate purposes - to me
these are A. hunting, B. target shooting, and C. home defense.
Neither handguns or assault weapons are needed to fulfill these
purposes. Even if they are, why are legitimate owners opposed to
registration accompanied by felony stature for possession of non-
registered guns?
C. My original question as stated was vastly oversimplified.
D. I am not necessarily a proponent of drug legalization. I *am*
immensely concerned about the burgeoning crime problems in
the United States.
E. If we are going to debate guns, let's start a new thread.
> This is not withstanding arguments over the need for 50 round clips for
> sport hunting or protecting your loved ones in their home. I don't
> personally support assault weapons owwnership by anybody (including the
> police) except for the military, However, I understand the gun lobbyist's
> fight against encroachment of ownership of said weapons. Gradual and
> incremental abridgement of ownership rights leads to greater activism leads
> to more abridgement of rights leads to more activism . . . it becomes a
> reinforcing loop with no balancing loop. If anyone has a problem with the
> concept of cause and effect relationships and system dynamics in society,
> suggest you get a copy of _The Fifth Discipline_ by Peter Senge; it's a
> good read.
There is a Far Eastern philosophy which emphasizes the duality of
existence - we are all individuals, yet we are all components of groups.
There are times to fight for your individual freedoms, and there are
times to subjugate your personal wants for the 'greater good'.
Americans have never had any problem doing the latter in times of
crisis, unfortunately it seems to take major wars. I think the
drug-related violence in this country is at crisis levels already.
And I also think that if the NRA doesn't mediate it's stances, the
backlash of the majority (who are not NRA members by the way) will
result in even greater restrictions.
It is like a pendulum - pushed first on one side, then the other.
Moderation (your 'balancing loop'?) is needed to allow the
issue to reach stability. The tricky part is that the point
that the weight hangs from also moves - it is NOT at the same place it
was 200 years ago (when we needed militiamen to fight the British and
fight the Indians and hunt for food, etc). Attempts to artificially
keep that point from moving, eg. strict quotation of the Constitution,
will only result in further and greater imbalance.
Guess I got off health care, huh?
...charlie
> > ....charlie
Alan Bomberger
|> john...@unc.med.edu (Charlie Johnston) writes:
|>
|>
|> >(parts deleted, parts amended)
|>
|> >In article <larryt-28...@macw-llt.inel.gov>, lar...@pmafire.inel.gov
|> >(Larry L. Taylor) wrote:
|>
|> >> john...@unc.med.edu (Charlie Johnston) wrote:
|> >> > The damage from illegal drugs includes:
|> >> > 1. direct physical/mental harm to abusers
|> >> > 2. drug-related violent crime
|> >> (3. harm caused to family members)
|> >> (4. job safety, lost productivity)
|>
|>
|> >B. I have no problems with gun ownership for legitimate purposes - to me
|> > these are A. hunting, B. target shooting, and C. home defense.
|> > Neither handguns or assault weapons are needed to fulfill these
|> > purposes. Even if they are, why are legitimate owners opposed to
|> > registration accompanied by felony stature for possession of non-
|> > registered guns?
|>
|> violating the rights of the people. How else did the founding fathers
|> expect us to defend ourselves from a tryannical government? Also,
|> in times of war where the country is invaded an armed population is
|> better than bleating sheep.
Someone forwarded a posting to me which I have lost. However, it noted
that the Clinton Administration has defined Cult for us so that we
might recognize the enemy. Roughly it was as follows:
A devoted Christian who gave heavily to Christian causes, home
schooled, and was a strong advocate of the 2nd Ammendment.
I don't know about you but it actually frightens the bejeebers out of
me that we have come to the point of clasifying the Founders of this
country as Cultists. At this point I am becomming much more comfortable
with not having children. It is truly a shame that we are making such
a mess.
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
Robert Lewis Glendenning
Subject: Re: Challenge for Clinton-bashers
Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton
In-Reply-To: <johnstoc-2...@oncolpc09.med.unc.edu>
References: <2p2h8p$4...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <johnstoc-2...@oncolpc09.med.unc.edu> <2p8u8a$h...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> <johnstoc-2...@oncolpc09.med.unc.edu> <larryt-28...@macw-llt.inel.gov>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Cc:
Bcc:
This is the USof A, which explains why we don't use Hamuarrabi's code.
Our constitution, which we must adhere to to maintain a civil
society and a benign government, clearly states that citizens
have the right to keep and bear arms. There was yet another
analysis published recently by a Duke Law professor which
concluded that the constitution means what the strong-RKBA folk
claim it does.
The constitution does so, according to the discussions which
lead up to the bill of rights, so that citizens may defend
themselves and their property and so
that they remain able to overthrow a bad government.
The gov does not own its citizens: it therefore has no right
to limit their self-defense capabilities.
The potentially-coercive gov clearly can't have any right
to limit the ability of its citizens to limit the gov's own
coercive powers.
Change the constitution, if you can. But understand, first,
why it is the way it is, and make your arguments clear,
right out front where we can all see them. The current
"anti-gun" craze is both unconstitutional and exactly the
way our clear-sighted founders warned that we would lose
freedoms: in small increments, due to the passions of
mobs, and in attempt to trade freedom for security.
Further, the anti-gun nonsense is yet another example of
"gov by prohibiton". It didn't work for alcohol, isn't working
for drugs (see the Rolling Stone special), and won't work for guns.
For an economic analysis of why it won't work, see last month's
Atlantic Monthly.
Lew
--
Lew Glendenning rlgl...@netcom.com
"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points." Niels Bohr (or somebody like that).
Charlie Johnston
> Another purpose of gun ownership is to keep the government from
> violating the rights of the people. How else did the founding fathers
> expect us to defend ourselves from a tryannical government? Also,
> in times of war where the country is invaded an armed population is
> better than bleating sheep.
Get real. A Street Sweeper/MAC10/AK47/etc. vs. even a single APC?
You're welcome to fight that matchup. Not much more of a chance than
a bleating sheep actually.
Every hour in this country there are continued violations of the
'rights of the people' - it is called violent crime. When your
wife can't walk safely downtown at night, when your kids can't learn
in school because they are afraid, isn't that a bit more of a real
violation than something construed on 'defense from tyrany'?
(Charlie's previous re: duality philosophy deleted)
> Incase you didn't notice: THIS AIN'T THE FAR EAST, SON. Crime needs
> to be brought under control but that can be done without our having
> to live in an opressive environment.
A. I certainly ain't your son, weed.
B. Obviously the concept of a world outside the U.S. is too much
for you to comprehend. Just keep your head firmly buried.
C. Guns in schools, gangs on the street - what is YOUR definition
of "oppressive environment"?
> There wouldn't be a problem if the feds stayed the hell out of the
> state's business and let the people get what they wanted in their
> own locals.
> Oh well. . .
> -Henry
What is 'their own locales'? The immediate neighborhood, the suburb,
the city, the county, the state, the region? How do you keep crackhead
gangs in their 'locale' and not mine? Oh right, I forgot - more weapons.
....charlie
Keith Braunwalder
: In article <2q3fer$i...@news.u.washington.edu>, mcda...@u.washington.edu
: (Henry McDaniel III) wrote:
: > Another purpose of gun ownership is to keep the government from
: > violating the rights of the people. How else did the founding fathers
: > expect us to defend ourselves from a tryannical government? Also,
: > in times of war where the country is invaded an armed population is
: > better than bleating sheep.
: Get real. A Street Sweeper/MAC10/AK47/etc. vs. even a single APC?
: You're welcome to fight that matchup. Not much more of a chance than
: a bleating sheep actually.
APC's are driven by humans. Guns do kill them. They have to go pee sometime.
: Every hour in this country there are continued violations of the
: 'rights of the people' - it is called violent crime. When your
: wife can't walk safely downtown at night, when your kids can't learn
: in school because they are afraid, isn't that a bit more of a real
: violation than something construed on 'defense from tyrany'?
So attack criminals. Not responsible citizens. Easy enough.
: (Charlie's previous re: duality philosophy deleted)
:
: > Incase you didn't notice: THIS AIN'T THE FAR EAST, SON. Crime needs
: > to be brought under control but that can be done without our having
: > to live in an opressive environment.
: A. I certainly ain't your son, weed.
: B. Obviously the concept of a world outside the U.S. is too much
: for you to comprehend. Just keep your head firmly buried.
: C. Guns in schools, gangs on the street - what is YOUR definition
: of "oppressive environment"?
The one Slick is defining. Opression of the masses. You know, the Bill
of Rights is just a 'radical' document written by a bunch of hooligans.
: > There wouldn't be a problem if the feds stayed the hell out of the
: > state's business and let the people get what they wanted in their
: > own locals.
: > Oh well. . .
: > -Henry
: What is 'their own locales'? The immediate neighborhood, the suburb,
: the city, the county, the state, the region? How do you keep crackhead
: gangs in their 'locale' and not mine? Oh right, I forgot - more weapons.
No Charlie, more punishment of violent criminals. Elimination of revolving
door justice. Not one gun ban bill takes weapons from criminals. Can't do
it, so they come up with a 'feel good' alternative. Worthless legislation.
Also, an end to the war on some drugs that created this monster in the
first place.
: ....charlie
Keith
Jamesa Willer
|> john...@unc.med.edu (Charlie Johnston) writes:
|> >B. I have no problems with gun ownership for legitimate purposes - to me
|> > these are A. hunting, B. target shooting, and C. home defense.
|> > Neither handguns or assault weapons are needed to fulfill these
|> > purposes. Even if they are, why are legitimate owners opposed to
|> > registration accompanied by felony stature for possession of non-
|> > registered guns?
|>
|> Another purpose of gun ownership is to keep the government from
|> violating the rights of the people. How else did the founding fathers
|> expect us to defend ourselves from a tryannical government? Also,
|> in times of war where the country is invaded an armed population is
|> better than bleating sheep.
Right! Arm all the citizens and cut the Dept. of Defense budget to $0!
That should keep us from being invaded! I-)
|> [....]
|> Incase you didn't notice: THIS AIN'T THE FAR EAST, SON.
We don't live in Israel either, but I keep hearing so many people
advocating Judeo-Christian morality...
|> Crime needs
|> to be brought under control but that can be done without our having
|> to live in an opressive environment.
How do you propose to do that?
PS I don't believe crime is all that much worse than it was ten years ago.
jaMesa Willer
[any opinions above should be considered armed and dangerous]
Jamesa Willer
|> Charlie Johnston (john...@unc.med.edu) wrote:
|> : In article <2q3fer$i...@news.u.washington.edu>, mcda...@u.washington.edu
|> : (Henry McDaniel III) wrote:
|> : Every hour in this country there are continued violations of the
|> : 'rights of the people' - it is called violent crime. When your
|> : wife can't walk safely downtown at night, when your kids can't learn
|> : in school because they are afraid, isn't that a bit more of a real
|> : violation than something construed on 'defense from tyrany'?
|>
|> So attack criminals. Not responsible citizens. Easy enough.
How do you plan to do that? (With guns? Through criminal justice?)
|> No Charlie, more punishment of violent criminals. Elimination of revolving
|> door justice. Not one gun ban bill takes weapons from criminals. Can't do
|> it, so they come up with a 'feel good' alternative. Worthless legislation.
|> Also, an end to the war on some drugs that created this monster in the
|> first place.
What do you mean by "revolving door justice?" How do you want to eliminate
it? Get rid of plea bargains? Tougher sentences? Manditory sentences?
What?
jaMesa Willer
[any opinions above should be seen and not heard]
Robert Lewis Glendenning
Charlie Johnston <john...@unc.med.edu> wrote:
>In article <2q3fer$i...@news.u.washington.edu>, mcda...@u.washington.edu
>(Henry McDaniel III) wrote:
>
>> Another purpose of gun ownership is to keep the government from
>> violating the rights of the people. How else did the founding fathers
>> expect us to defend ourselves from a tryannical government? Also,
>> in times of war where the country is invaded an armed population is
>> better than bleating sheep.
>
>Get real. A Street Sweeper/MAC10/AK47/etc. vs. even a single APC?
>You're welcome to fight that matchup. Not much more of a chance than
>a bleating sheep actually.
This argument has been discussed, and decisively dealt with IMHO,
in a number of groups in the past several months. I don't wish to
repeat it here, but if you insist, the guys from talk.politics.guns
will dump megabytes of summary on us.
>
>Every hour in this country there are continued violations of the
>'rights of the people' - it is called violent crime. When your
>wife can't walk safely downtown at night, when your kids can't learn
>in school because they are afraid, isn't that a bit more of a real
>violation than something construed on 'defense from tyrany'?
>
These are indeed symptoms of problems, but what makes you think
that abolishing guns will prevent the social diseases causing the
symptoms?
Please note that THE GREAT MAJORITY of people, including the great
majority of gun owners, don't engage in crime and don't threaten
anyone's safety.
In any case, we have a clear constitution and a clear Bill of Rights.
We have a way of amending the constitution, open to all. So, I
don't dispute your right to attempt tochange the Second Amendment,
but I certainly dispute your right to ignore the constitution
with these insane laws. The War on Drugs has not worked and can not work.
The War on Guns can't work and won't work.
Meanwhile, the problems are used by politicians for another grab
for power, and stupid arguments like the above are used to justify
it.
>(Charlie's previous re: duality philosophy deleted)
>
>> Incase you didn't notice: THIS AIN'T THE FAR EAST, SON. Crime needs
>> to be brought under control but that can be done without our having
>> to live in an opressive environment.
>
>A. I certainly ain't your son, weed.
>B. Obviously the concept of a world outside the U.S. is too much
> for you to comprehend. Just keep your head firmly buried.
>C. Guns in schools, gangs on the street - what is YOUR definition
> of "oppressive environment"?
You can screw with the language if you want, but using the same word
in two different contexts confuses more than it illiminates. Even
if I accept the average poor neighborhood as an oppressive environment,
I deny both that prohibiting guns is a solution and that this is
the same kind/quality/type of oppression that a government can
effect.
>
>> There wouldn't be a problem if the feds stayed the hell out of the
>> state's business and let the people get what they wanted in their
>> own locals.
>> Oh well. . .
>> -Henry
>
>What is 'their own locales'? The immediate neighborhood, the suburb,
>the city, the county, the state, the region? How do you keep crackhead
>gangs in their 'locale' and not mine? Oh right, I forgot - more weapons.
>
>....charlie
1) There is no utopia. You can't design one, no one ever will, so
utopia is not a reasonable comparison. There will always be crime.
Crime will always hit poor people worse than rich people. There is
considerable evidence that allowing poor people to have concealed
weapons on par with rich people is a good solution to the problem.
2) Crime can't be reduced without removing the main cause of crime
in all societies, namely government prohibitions of services and
merchandise such as prostitution, drugs, guns, ... and soon
pay-for-fee medical care, if the Clintons have their way.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
Gun control *prevents* good men from doing nothing. Prohibitions
don't affect criminals: indeed they are defined by them and profit from
them.
Charlie Johnston
my server had somehow deleted this paragraph since no responses
addressed it, and several poster seem to believe I am rabidly
anti-gun.)
I have no problems with gun ownership for legitimate purposes - to me
these are A. hunting, B. target shooting, and C. home defense.
Neither handguns or assault weapons are needed to fulfill these
purposes. Even if they are, why are legitimate owners opposed to
registration accompanied by felony stature for possession of non-
registered guns?
....charlie
PS. I am not going to debate the Constitution - if people honestly
believe that having a Ruger (or Uzi or AK-47 or whatever) in their
home is going to be any significant deterent to any regular military
unit, be it foreign or 'oppressive government', they are welcome to
keep that innocent view. People tend to quote the Constitution when
they can't come up with any logic-based argument. Why bother?
(maybe the F-15's from Seymour Johnson AFB that streak over my
pond at 200' are gonna stop if I wave the Mossberg at them?)
Charlie Johnston
Lewis Glendenning) wrote:
> These are indeed symptoms of problems, but what makes you think
> that abolishing guns will prevent the social diseases causing the
> symptoms?
I have never ever used the word 'abolish' re: guns.
> Please note that THE GREAT MAJORITY of people, including the great
> majority of gun owners, don't engage in crime and don't threaten
> anyone's safety.
It never takes a majority to cause a serious problem in any area.
> Even
> if I accept the average poor neighborhood as an oppressive environment,
> I deny both that prohibiting guns is a solution and that this is
> the same kind/quality/type of oppression that a government can
> effect.
Did I say prohibit? No.
Do I support 'registration' of handguns? Yes.
Do I think a law requiring 'manditory felony conviction for
possession of non-registered handguns' or 'mfc for violent
crimes resulting in serious bodily harm from a handgun' would
reduce violent crime without impinging on the rights of
*non-criminal* citizens to possess firearms? Yes.
Do I support capital punishment? Absolutely.
Do I think that "if the NRA doesn't mediate it's stances, the
backlash of the majority (who are not NRA members by the way) will
result in even greater restrictions." Yes. (again from original post)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
> Lew
"Moderation in all things." - Ben Franklin (or someone like that)
....charlie
Keith Braunwalder
: mit...@boi.hp.com (Keith Braunwalder) writes:
: |> Charlie Johnston (john...@unc.med.edu) wrote:
: |> : In article <2q3fer$i...@news.u.washington.edu>, mcda...@u.washington.edu
: |> : (Henry McDaniel III) wrote:
: |> : Every hour in this country there are continued violations of the
: |> : 'rights of the people' - it is called violent crime. When your
: |> : wife can't walk safely downtown at night, when your kids can't learn
: |> : in school because they are afraid, isn't that a bit more of a real
: |> : violation than something construed on 'defense from tyrany'?
: |>
: |> So attack criminals. Not responsible citizens. Easy enough.
: How do you plan to do that? (With guns? Through criminal justice?)
Swift justice (one appeal ONLY) and elimination of the prison 'country
clubs' that we have here. Make prison a deterrent, not some psuedo
rehab facility. The vast majority of criminals have shown no fear whatsoever
of a return vacation to visit their buds. Eliminate persecution of 'moral'
criminals (ie. prostitution, drug use). This helps to speed up justice and
provides enough room to house the true criminal. Re-think the way we treat
juvenile offenders. Repeat violent juvenile offenders' slates are wiped
clean when the reach 18. This is a joke.
: |> No Charlie, more punishment of violent criminals. Elimination of revolving
: |> door justice. Not one gun ban bill takes weapons from criminals. Can't do
: |> it, so they come up with a 'feel good' alternative. Worthless legislation.
: |> Also, an end to the war on some drugs that created this monster in the
: |> first place.
: What do you mean by "revolving door justice?" How do you want to eliminate
: it? Get rid of plea bargains? Tougher sentences? Manditory sentences?
: What?
Wellllllll, let's see. :-) I am for stiffer penalties for crimes against
person (rape, battery, murder, etc) than crimes against property. Eliminate
parole. If you are sentenced to 15 years, then 15 years it is. Parole is
a joke. It costs big $$ (parole officers, parole hearings, etc) and amounts
to a revolving door. Parolees tend to be returnees.
Mandatory sentences haven't proven themselves to be worthwhile. I still
advocate giving the judges some leeway in sentencing. I really think that the
key is to make prisons very miserable for ALL inmates, not the just the young
and weak. No general population, no social mingling. I am also in favor of
an eye for an eye (ie. the death penalty, a swift death penalty). Yes it
sounds harsh, but not cruel and unusual for someone who themself has killed.
And by all means give up on the War on politically incorrect drugs.
: jaMesa Willer
: [any opinions above should be seen and not heard]
Keith
Henry McDaniel III
>In article <2q3fer$i...@news.u.washington.edu>, mcda...@u.washington.edu
>(Henry McDaniel III) wrote:
>> Another purpose of gun ownership is to keep the government from
>> violating the rights of the people. How else did the founding fathers
>> expect us to defend ourselves from a tryannical government? Also,
>> in times of war where the country is invaded an armed population is
>> better than bleating sheep.
>Get real. A Street Sweeper/MAC10/AK47/etc. vs. even a single APC?
>You're welcome to fight that matchup. Not much more of a chance than
>a bleating sheep actually.
Incase you weren't sure; people don't stay in APCs. Thanx for allowing
that there is "more of a chance" armed than not.
In a combat situation more than one type of weapon is usually desired.
The weapons currently slated for being banned are just one small part.
The reason the NRA and constitutional patriots everywhere are against
the national ban is because it is leading us down a road which ends
in all guns being banned. You probably welcome such a day, but it
will never happen. The only thing that will happen is several million
people will suddenly become "criminals." And perhaps this will lead
them to conclude that they have less to loose and more to gain by
taking things into their own hands. . .
>Every hour in this country there are continued violations of the
>'rights of the people' - it is called violent crime. When your
>wife can't walk safely downtown at night, when your kids can't learn
>in school because they are afraid, isn't that a bit more of a real
>violation than something construed on 'defense from tyrany'?
A woman (or man) could walk downtown safely if the criminals knew
everyone was carrying a gun and willing to use it. Look into the
towns of the old West and I think you'll find that women walked
"downtown" without fear.
It points out that there are other serious social problems. The justice
system is not working as intended, for one.
I think the problem with public schools goes beyond what people carry
to school. Several social fallings have produced kids into violence
and a lack of respect for the common man. Interestingly, it is
illegal most everywhere for kids to own guns, yet they easily
obtain them from criminals.
Looking at Washington D.C. it occurs to all but the most deluded
and blind foaming anti-gun maggot that banning guns doesn't keep
put fear into criminals. It just makes it more certain that their
victims won't be well defended.
>(Charlie's previous re: duality philosophy deleted)
>
>> Incase you didn't notice: THIS AIN'T THE FAR EAST, SON. Crime needs
>> to be brought under control but that can be done without our having
>> to live in an opressive environment.
>A. I certainly ain't your son, weed.
>B. Obviously the concept of a world outside the U.S. is too much
> for you to comprehend. Just keep your head firmly buried.
I've been a few places (besides Canada and Mexico which you probably
consider far flung reaches of the planet.) Ever been to Russia Oh
travelmeister? You'll find the criminals there are sporting every
automatic weapon you can think of and killing whoever they please.
All in a country where guns are banned. And moving to Japan: The
funny thing is most japanese would rather live elsewhere. I saw
one on a PBS news program recently who said his government was "opressive."
Read "Wayward Puritan" and you'll perhaps graps why.
>C. Guns in schools, gangs on the street - what is YOUR definition
> of "oppressive environment"?
Opressive meaning you have to smile and be searched at checkpoints
every mile or so along the highway. Opressive meaning a squad of
heavily armed men storm your house and trash the place looking for
weapons which _they_ have decided you are not mature enough to use
with restraint. We can agree that in some aspects Americans are childish.
This explains the "need" for our drinking regulations and other laws,
but when _they_ say you can never do something it looks like prohibition
all over again. And that really reduced crime, eh? Yeah right.
>> There wouldn't be a problem if the feds stayed the hell out of the
>> state's business and let the people get what they wanted in their
>> own locals.
>> Oh well. . .
>> -Henry
>What is 'their own locales'? The immediate neighborhood, the suburb,
>the city, the county, the state, the region? How do you keep crackhead
>gangs in their 'locale' and not mine? Oh right, I forgot - more weapons.
Locals being towns, counties and states. You keep criminals out
by having an armed populace more than willing to blow the crooks
away. In my state you can shoot any intruder who you feel poses
a threat. You can use equal force to what you percieve the risk are.
Recently there have been a few cases of robbers breaking into folks
homes and staggering back out with a bit less confidence and posing
far less of a risk to anyone else.
Given the fact you can't call 911 and seriously expect to be alive
when an armed intruder breaks into your house (because criminals
allways have guns -- they don't follow laws!) it is only fair
that one be able to protect himself and his family.
>....charlie
-Henry
mcda...@stein3.u.washington.edu / HM Com, PO Box 28964, Seattle WA. 98118, USA
Notice: My expressed views may not be those of the U of W or HMC.
jt -- John Thompson
: mcda...@u.washington.edu (Henry McDaniel III) wrote:
: > Another purpose of gun ownership is to keep the government from
: > violating the rights of the people. How else did the founding fathers
: > expect us to defend ourselves from a tryannical government?
: Get real. A Street Sweeper/MAC10/AK47/etc. vs. even a single APC?
: a bleating sheep actually.
:
: Every hour in this country there are continued violations of the
: 'rights of the people' - it is called violent crime. When your
: wife can't walk safely downtown at night, when your kids can't learn
: in school because they are afraid, isn't that a bit more of a real
: violation than something construed on 'defense from tyrany'?
Yes, it probably is. What is your solution to it? Have the govt step
in and violate the people's rights? The Constitution was not intended
to prevent the people from violating each others rights -- it was intended
to stop the government from doing so.
: (Charlie's previous re: duality philosophy deleted)
: > Incase you didn't notice: THIS AIN'T THE FAR EAST, SON. Crime needs
: > to be brought under control but that can be done without our having
: > to live in an opressive environment.
: A. I certainly ain't your son, weed.
Aren't we all just members of the same family??? (sorry, I just had to :-)
: B. Obviously the concept of a world outside the U.S. is too much
: for you to comprehend. Just keep your head firmly buried.
: C. Guns in schools, gangs on the street - what is YOUR definition
: of "oppressive environment"?
Guns in school are illegal already. Instead of calling for more laws, why
don't people call for more enforcement? Gangs, unless they're engaging in
illegal activities, are legal. If you want them swept off the street,
please be ready when the government steps in and sweeps the anti- (or pro-)
abortion people off the street for engaging in disruptive behavior. Be
willing to accept the govt sweeping away the disruptive opposition-party
rally that's being held. Be accepting when the five dangerous engineers
are rounded up for wearing pocket protectors (clearly a gang emblem) and
slide rules -- potential weapons -- to the mall. Be willing to accept any
non-conforming group being rounded up because they're different.
--
-- jt --
John Thompson
Senior Design Automation Engineer / Sys-Admin On The Loose
Honeywell, SSEC
Plymouth, MN 55441
thom...@pan.ssec.honeywell.com ...regardless of what News may say
*************************************************************************
* If this were official Honeywell information, it'd be marked *
* "Proprietary and Confidential" and you wouldn't be reading it. *
*************************************************************************
Alan Bomberger
|> The U.S. Constitution is probably the best codification of values
|> and rights any nation or group of people has created. HOWEVER,
|> using it as the sole basis for an argument is simplistic, at best.
|> Certainly the authors of the Constitution had ample reasons for
|> insuring the 'right to bear arms' - what were they, and are they
|> still valid today? Simply quoting the passage is like saying 'we
|> do it this way because we've always done it this way' - hey, *now*
|> there may be a *better* way. Another analogy - 200 yrs ago wisdom
|> may have dictated stuffing parsley in your ears to prevent mites (or
|> whatever!) - would that still be wise today? "Wisdom" is situation-
|> specific - what is smart one place/time may be foolish in another.
Sigh! If sections of the Constitution no longer apply then there
is a mechanism in place to change it. If you continue to ignore
the Constitution based on the politics of the moment you have
completely undermined its value. No one can count on any portion
to predict government's behavior and that is unacceptable.
The 2nd ammendment may not be applicable but we are stuck with it. We
should learn to live with it or find some way to alter the foundation
documents of our society. Ignoring those clauses YOU don't like
^^^
gives me the right to ignore those clauses I don't like and then all
^
hell breaks loose.
Peace
Henry McDaniel III
>(parts deleted, parts amended)
>In article <larryt-28...@macw-llt.inel.gov>, lar...@pmafire.inel.gov
>(Larry L. Taylor) wrote:
>> john...@unc.med.edu (Charlie Johnston) wrote:
>> > The damage from illegal drugs includes:
>> > 1. direct physical/mental harm to abusers
>> > 2. drug-related violent crime
>> (3. harm caused to family members)
>> (4. job safety, lost productivity)
[...]
>B. I have no problems with gun ownership for legitimate purposes - to me
> these are A. hunting, B. target shooting, and C. home defense.
> Neither handguns or assault weapons are needed to fulfill these
> purposes. Even if they are, why are legitimate owners opposed to
> registration accompanied by felony stature for possession of non-
> registered guns?
Another purpose of gun ownership is to keep the government from
violating the rights of the people. How else did the founding fathers
expect us to defend ourselves from a tryannical government? Also,
in times of war where the country is invaded an armed population is
better than bleating sheep.
[....]
>There is a Far Eastern philosophy which emphasizes the duality of
>existence - we are all individuals, yet we are all components of groups.
>There are times to fight for your individual freedoms, and there are
>times to subjugate your personal wants for the 'greater good'.
>Americans have never had any problem doing the latter in times of
>crisis, unfortunately it seems to take major wars. I think the
>drug-related violence in this country is at crisis levels already.
>And I also think that if the NRA doesn't mediate it's stances, the
>backlash of the majority (who are not NRA members by the way) will
>result in even greater restrictions.
Incase you didn't notice: THIS AIN'T THE FAR EAST, SON. Crime needs
to be brought under control but that can be done without our having
to live in an opressive environment.
>It is like a pendulum - pushed first on one side, then the other.
>Moderation (your 'balancing loop'?) is needed to allow the
>issue to reach stability. The tricky part is that the point
>that the weight hangs from also moves - it is NOT at the same place it
>was 200 years ago (when we needed militiamen to fight the British and
>fight the Indians and hunt for food, etc). Attempts to artificially
>keep that point from moving, eg. strict quotation of the Constitution,
>will only result in further and greater imbalance.
There wouldn't be a problem if the feds stayed the hell out of the
state's business and let the people get what they wanted in their
own locals.
Oh well. . .
-Henry
mcda...@stein3.u.washington.edu / HM Com, PO Box 28964, Seattle WA. 98118, USA
Robert Lewis Glendenning
> these are A. hunting, B. target shooting, and C. home defense.
> Neither handguns or assault weapons are needed to fulfill these
> purposes. Even if they are, why are legitimate owners opposed to
> registration accompanied by felony stature for possession of non-
> registered guns?
>
wrote the constitution defined legitmate purposes for all americans
200 years ago.
>PS. I am not going to debate the Constitution - if people honestly
Me neither. It is as it is. Like it or change it.
>believe that having a Ruger (or Uzi or AK-47 or whatever) in their
>home is going to be any significant deterent to any regular military
>unit, be it foreign or 'oppressive government', they are welcome to
>keep that innocent view. People tend to quote the Constitution when
>they can't come up with any logic-based argument. Why bother?
>
The Constitution is a wisdom-based argument, as well as a logical
argument. We have to have a basis for resolving political differences
such as this one. We can either agree to a procedure for resolving
them peacefully, and write it into a constitution so that we are
a nation of laws, not men, or we can escalate to bloodshed
every time we disagree on the speed limit. Much less abortion.
The Constitution embodies the best technology of government known
in its time, and indeed we have had fewer catastrophies in the USofA
than the great majority of govs in the world. Did you know, for
instance, that the average life of the average gov of the world
in the last 200 years is *11* years? This figure does not include
changes due to elections, rather violent overthrows of the previous
gov.
The outstanding characteristic of our Constitution is that it
trusts people: trial by jury, ownership of guns, free speech.
They made a commitment to having citizens capable of handling
full democracy and self-determination.
The current wisdom is that people are not capable of handling
these freedoms, and so we should cut our democracy to
match the human material we have.
Charlie, you are willing to trade freedom for the illusion
of security. You will get neither.
As for me, I would like to think I would have joined a militia
and ambushed the Redcoats. Today, I choose the risk of being shot by
a crazed gunman or gang member or criminal rather than be disarmed
in any measure by my government. This is my estimate of where the
dangers are to me and my family.
It is also the considered opinion of the founders of our Republic.
>(maybe the F-15's from Seymour Johnson AFB that streak over my
>pond at 200' are gonna stop if I wave the Mossberg at them?)
As I said, this argument is dealt with 10 times a year in
"talk.politics.guns". If you insist, one of the honchos
will be pleased to dump megabytes of summary on you or
this newsgroup. In my estimation, the "we can repell the
gov" side has by far the best argument. Certainly there
are lots of historical examples of citizens overthrowing
their heavily armed government, and the current US aversion
to warfare says no gov could withstand a popular uprising.
F-15s are irrelevant in the equation.
Keith Braunwalder
: Whew! Man, take an afternoon away from the Net to do some work and
: look what's waiting! In an effort to respond to all, I have liberally,
: oops, ah, 'freely' clipped as much of priors as I thought reasonable.
:-)
: Keith Braunwalder says.....
: > Make prison a deterrent, not some psuedo rehab facility.
: ^^^^^^
: If an uneducated 18 yr old can make $2000/wk selling crack vs. $200/wk
: flipping McBurgers, he is going to sell crack again when release from
: prison. IMO, felons should be catagorized as either reformable or
: incorrigable. The only way to keep redivicism from occuring is to
: provide another (legitimate) option - simple punishment just doesn't
: work. Career (incorrigable) criminals should simply be executed.
I do agree with your logic, BUT, the government created this 'industry'
for Johnny (the $2000/wk one that is) and the government will continue
to create these kind of jobs every damn time they impose prohibition.
This is why and end to the War on some drugs needs to occur to make any
kind of prison reform work.
: > If you are sentenced to 15 years, then 15 years it is.
: Absolutely.
: >...the key is to make prisons very miserable for ALL inmates
: I disagree - this only eliminates any hope of ever changing a criminal
: into a productive society member. If prison just 'hardens' criminals,
: we'd be better off just executing on conviction.
Well, I don't know, seems like reform is a joke, don't you agree ? Is it
worth dumping these clowns back on the street because some small % of them
are actually reformed ? Our country clubs pretty much harden these folk
today. A stint in prison amounts to a bachelor's degree in "How to be a
better criminal" today. They make 'neat' connections and learn all sorts
of new tricks to try when they get out.
: > And by all means give up on the War on politically incorrect drugs.
: Not gonna touch this one - although I agree.
Cluck cluck.... :-)
: ----------------
: ....charlie
Keith
jt -- John Thompson
: Whew! Man, take an afternoon away from the Net to do some work and
: look what's waiting! In an effort to respond to all, I have liberally,
: oops, ah, 'freely' clipped as much of priors as I thought reasonable.
access to the net.... <grin> for the humour-impaired please.
: And again from a previous post of mine, the question remains....
: Why are *legitimate* owners opposed to registration accompanied by
: felony stature for possession of non-registered guns?
: (for 'legitimate' read 'law-abiding')
I'll address this now, since you've snipped the tangled thread and
re-ordered it (probably in a better manner than the evolved thread).
I am not intrinsically opposed to registration, as long as the following
two items are met (and I feel sure that the assurances won't change)
1) The registration does not get an N-day waiting period, solely for
the sake of having a waiting period. If verifying that someone is
legitimate takes a while, then I can agree with it as a _temporary_
measure while the foundation of an instant check is laid. However,
I suspect that the 5 day period in the Brady bill will not go away,
and in fact, I expect to see it expanded to 10 days, or 14, or some
other value, in order to better restrict things.
2) The registration does not depend on one passing a test of some sort.
Unfortunately, I don't think that this would occur. As a former gun-
control advocate, I know how I thought, and that was to expand on the
regulations and restrictions. This is just what the pro-Brady and
the pro-control people have been saying. Roughly stated, they say
that this is "a first step" and that it will lead to more. With that
as the stated objective of the pro-control people, do you wonder that
those who defend the right to possess guns are leery of registration?
: In article.....(jt -- John Thompson) wrote:
: : Charlie Johnston (john...@unc.med.edu) wrote:
: : When your wife can't walk safely downtown at night,
: : when your kids can't learn in school because they are afraid,
: : isn't that a bit more of a real violation than something
: : construed on 'defense from tyrany'?
: > Yes, it probably is. What is your solution to it?
: (from previous CSJ post) .... a law requiring 'manditory felony
: conviction for possession of non-registered handguns' or 'mfc for
: violent crimes resulting in serious bodily harm from a handgun'....
Well, in Minnesota, an assault with a deadly weapon automatically
becomes a felony case, and a gun, loaded or not, functional or not,
is explicitly defined to be a deadly weapon. (Anything _can_ be
a deadly weapon, but the prosecution needs to prove to the jury
that the item used was capable of severe bodily injury or death.
Three months ago, I was on a jury that found a bar glass to be a
deadly weapon -- one of two counts of felony 2nd degree assault.)
As for the MFC for possession of a non-registered handgun, it gets
back to my (and others) problems with mandatory registration.
: > Guns in school are illegal already. Instead of calling for more laws, why
: > don't people call for more enforcement?
: There should undoubtedly be more enforcement - didn't Clinton have a
: considerable sum for beefing up police rosters in his anti-crime pack?
Probably he did. Of course, how much is left after the WOD and RICO,
I don't know.
: -------------
: Robert Glendenning wrote....
: > Who are you to define legitimate purposes for me?
: (from previous CSJ)..."to me these are"...hunting/targets/home defense.
: ^^^^^
: If you have another legitimate purpose state it. Does it *require* a
: 'easily concealable' weapon?
Personal defense, away from the home.
: > The Constitution is a wisdom-based argument, as well as a logical
: > argument.....
: The U.S. Constitution is probably the best codification of values
: and rights any nation or group of people has created. HOWEVER,
: using it as the sole basis for an argument is simplistic, at best.
: Certainly the authors of the Constitution had ample reasons for
: insuring the 'right to bear arms' - what were they, and are they
: still valid today? Simply quoting the passage is like saying 'we
: do it this way because we've always done it this way' - hey, *now*
: there may be a *better* way. Another analogy - 200 yrs ago wisdom
: may have dictated stuffing parsley in your ears to prevent mites (or
: whatever!) - would that still be wise today? "Wisdom" is situation-
: specific - what is smart one place/time may be foolish in another.
: > Charlie, you are willing to trade freedom for the illusion of security.
: Vast oversimplification - and incorrect, to boot. Security is a relative
: concept, and greatly perceptional anyhow. I simply want to see violent
: gun-related crime reduced.
I think that in this, you will find very few people objecting to you.
The problem is the _method_ that you seem to support for reducing this
type of crime. Many will argue that it won't reduce crime. Even if
it does, I argue that the invasion of my right to defend myself and
my home does not make it a worthwhile trade. (Incidentally, I don't have
a gun now, and I doubt I ever will. However, my right to defend myself
is infringed on when I cannot have the option of defending myself against
a gun-wielding criminal -- or just against a criminal who is in better
physical condition than I am.)
: -----------
: Keith Braunwalder says.....
: > Make prison a deterrent, not some psuedo rehab facility.
: ^^^^^^
: If an uneducated 18 yr old can make $2000/wk selling crack vs. $200/wk
: flipping McBurgers, he is going to sell crack again when release from
: prison. IMO, felons should be catagorized as either reformable or
: incorrigable. The only way to keep redivicism from occuring is to
: provide another (legitimate) option - simple punishment just doesn't
: work. Career (incorrigable) criminals should simply be executed.
Hmmm. I have a hard time deciding what to do here, because I both
agree and disagree. Part of the reason drugs are so lucrative is that
they're illegal. I haven't decided whether I'm libertarian enough to
call for their legalization, but the WOD is accomplishing a lot of
pain without effect, imho. I agree, though, that punishment is not
sufficient if we expect to turn criminals into non-criminals. The
best that punishment _MIGHT_ do is prevent potential criminals from
becoming them, and I'm not sure I believe that. On the other hand, I
am against capital punishment, so I can't agree with execution. Oh
well, agree to disagree here.
: > If you are sentenced to 15 years, then 15 years it is.
: Absolutely.
: >...the key is to make prisons very miserable for ALL inmates
: I disagree - this only eliminates any hope of ever changing a criminal
: into a productive society member. If prison just 'hardens' criminals,
: we'd be better off just executing on conviction.
: > And by all means give up on the War on politically incorrect drugs.
: Not gonna touch this one - although I agree.
: ----------------
: Henry McDaniel III wrote.......
: > The reason the NRA and constitutional patriots everywhere are against
: > the national ban is because it is leading us down a road which ends
: > in all guns being banned....A woman (or man) could walk downtown safely
: > if the criminals knew everyone was carrying a gun and willing to use it.
: > Look into the towns of the old West and I think you'll find that women
: > walked "downtown" without fear....Looking at Washington D.C. it occurs
: > to all but the most deluded and blind foaming anti-gun maggot that banning
: > guns doesn't keep put fear into criminals. It just makes it more certain
: > that their victims won't be well defended....Ever been to Russia Oh
: > travelmeister? You'll find the criminals there are sporting every
: > automatic weapon you can think of and killing whoever they please...
: > You keep criminals out by having an armed populace more than willing
: > to blow the crooks away.
: Watching a few too many Westerns and Rambo movies, eh?
: > I think the problem with public schools goes beyond what people
: > carry to school. Several social fallings have produced kids into
: > violence and a lack of respect for the common man.
: Valid - BUT having my child unable to learn in school because he/she
: is afraid is an infringement of my kid's rights, dontcha think?
: ------------
: ....charlie
Charlie Johnston
look what's waiting! In an effort to respond to all, I have liberally,
oops, ah, 'freely' clipped as much of priors as I thought reasonable.
And again from a previous post of mine, the question remains....
Why are *legitimate* owners opposed to registration accompanied by
felony stature for possession of non-registered guns?
(for 'legitimate' read 'law-abiding')
______________
In article.....(jt -- John Thompson) wrote:
: Charlie Johnston (john...@unc.med.edu) wrote:
: When your wife can't walk safely downtown at night,
: when your kids can't learn in school because they are afraid,
: isn't that a bit more of a real violation than something
: construed on 'defense from tyrany'?
> Yes, it probably is. What is your solution to it?
(from previous CSJ post) .... a law requiring 'manditory felony
conviction for possession of non-registered handguns' or 'mfc for
violent crimes resulting in serious bodily harm from a handgun'....
> Guns in school are illegal already. Instead of calling for more laws, why
> don't people call for more enforcement?
There should undoubtedly be more enforcement - didn't Clinton have a
considerable sum for beefing up police rosters in his anti-crime pack?
-------------
Robert Glendenning wrote....
> Who are you to define legitimate purposes for me?
(from previous CSJ)..."to me these are"...hunting/targets/home defense.
^^^^^
If you have another legitimate purpose state it. Does it *require* a
'easily concealable' weapon?
> The Constitution is a wisdom-based argument, as well as a logical
> argument.....
The U.S. Constitution is probably the best codification of values
and rights any nation or group of people has created. HOWEVER,
using it as the sole basis for an argument is simplistic, at best.
Certainly the authors of the Constitution had ample reasons for
insuring the 'right to bear arms' - what were they, and are they
still valid today? Simply quoting the passage is like saying 'we
do it this way because we've always done it this way' - hey, *now*
there may be a *better* way. Another analogy - 200 yrs ago wisdom
may have dictated stuffing parsley in your ears to prevent mites (or
whatever!) - would that still be wise today? "Wisdom" is situation-
specific - what is smart one place/time may be foolish in another.
> Charlie, you are willing to trade freedom for the illusion of security.
Vast oversimplification - and incorrect, to boot. Security is a relative
concept, and greatly perceptional anyhow. I simply want to see violent
gun-related crime reduced.
-----------
Keith Braunwalder says.....
> Make prison a deterrent, not some psuedo rehab facility.
^^^^^^
If an uneducated 18 yr old can make $2000/wk selling crack vs. $200/wk
flipping McBurgers, he is going to sell crack again when release from
prison. IMO, felons should be catagorized as either reformable or
incorrigable. The only way to keep redivicism from occuring is to
provide another (legitimate) option - simple punishment just doesn't
work. Career (incorrigable) criminals should simply be executed.
> If you are sentenced to 15 years, then 15 years it is.
Charlie Johnston
thom...@space.honeywell.com (jt -- John Thompson) wrote:
(most parts deleted, see original if unclear)
> Charlie Johnston (john...@unc.med.edu) wrote:
> : Why are *legitimate* owners opposed to registration accompanied by
> : felony stature for possession of non-registered guns?
> : (for 'legitimate' read 'law-abiding')
> I am not intrinsically opposed to registration, as long as the following
> two items are met (and I feel sure that the assurances won't change)
> 1) The registration does not get an N-day waiting period, solely for
> the sake of having a waiting period. If verifying that someone is
> legitimate takes a while, then I can agree with it as a _temporary_
> measure while the foundation of an instant check is laid. However,
> I suspect that the 5 day period in the Brady bill will not go away,
> and in fact, I expect to see it expanded to 10 days, or 14, or some
> other value, in order to better restrict things.
> 2) The registration does not depend on one passing a test of some sort.
I don't understand your reticence on either of these points.
Re.#1 - when does a non-criminal gun buyer need a gun *immediately*
(vs. waiting several days)?
Re.#2 - we have to pass a test to drive a car, the potential destructive
capacities of cars and guns are not extremely dissimilar, why not a
test to determine competency in gun safety? (actually I don't really
care for this either, on a 'general bureaucracy' basis, but would this
be an unreasonable restriction?)
> Unfortunately, I don't think that this would occur. As a former gun-
> control advocate, I know how I thought, and that was to expand on the
> regulations and restrictions. This is just what the pro-Brady and
> the pro-control people have been saying. Roughly stated, they say
> that this is "a first step" and that it will lead to more. With that
> as the stated objective of the pro-control people, do you wonder that
> those who defend the right to possess guns are leery of registration?
I don't buy the any-restriction-leads-to-ban argument - specifically,
there are enough non-criminal, legitimate, recreational purposes for guns
- and, generally, it is just not a valid or logical conclusion, IMO. There
are dozens of examples of 'limited' rights or liberties - eg. because
we register our cars doesn't mean that ultimately the gov't will ban
them - eg. we can drink as much alcohol as we like but can't do so and
legally operate a motor vehicle - etc.
> : If you have another legitimate purpose state it. Does it *require* a
> : 'easily concealable' weapon?
> Personal defense, away from the home.
A. There are other *non-lethal* means of defense (admittedly not as
effective).
B. This reminds me of the Old West philosophy espoused by another poster.
Come on now, do you really think *everyone* carrying a handgun is going
to *reduce* violence? People get angry at other people all the time -
with bullets, violent arguments become deadly arguments - witness the
modern day he-cut-me-off-in-traffic shootings.
> I argue that the invasion of my right to defend myself and
> my home does not make it a worthwhile trade.
This gets back to the 'duality of existence' dilemna/philosophy I touched
on before (and promptly was flamed about). We are all individuals, yet
we are all members of groups - be it the NRA, ACLU, single black males,
fisherman, Rotarians, Americans, Baptists, Catholics, whatever...
We are defined by BOTH our individuality and our 'memberships' in society.
Our rights and responsibilities are similarly divided - I am willing
to give up my individual right to treat a sick person with *whatever*
drug or therapy *I* choose in order to have universal safeguards on medical
practices. We all do things because of 'memberships' that we might not do
as discrete individuals. Where the line is drawn - ie. "make it a
worthwhile trade" - is going to be different for all of us; and
governmentally mandated lines will always leave some on one side crying
'infringement' with others on the other side crying 'not enough'.
Personally, I am willing to take some restrictions on my individual
access to guns in order to achieve a collectively safer society.
-------
re: war-on-drugs, drug legalization, nature of prisons, death penalty
Although these issues are linked to gun control,
A. They might be dealt with more effectively in a separate thread (?)
B. I have got to do SOME WORK - it *IS* Monday after all <sigh>
so I'm gonna pass on these for now.
.....charlie
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <CpD8H...@The-Star.honeywell.com>,
|thom...@space.honeywell.com (jt -- John Thompson) wrote:
|I don't understand your reticence on either of these points.
|Re.#1 - when does a non-criminal gun buyer need a gun *immediately*
|(vs. waiting several days)?
When they are being threatened by someone. If you want I can dig up numerous
cites of people who died while waiting out the waiting period, or who
defended themselves with their guns within days of having purchased them
in areas with no waiting periods.
|Re.#2 - we have to pass a test to drive a car, the potential destructive
|capacities of cars and guns are not extremely dissimilar, why not a
You only need a license if you are going to operate the car on a public
street. If you drive on private property, no license is needed.
|I don't buy the any-restriction-leads-to-ban argument - specifically,
How about the fact that those who back the restrictions have stated that
bans are their ultimate objective.
|> Personal defense, away from the home.
|A. There are other *non-lethal* means of defense (admittedly not as
|effective).
Admitedly, much less effective. Why should the most effective deterent be
available only to the criminal?
|B. This reminds me of the Old West philosophy espoused by another poster.
|Come on now, do you really think *everyone* carrying a handgun is going
|to *reduce* violence?
Yes.
|People get angry at other people all the time -
Check out the actual death rates in the wild west. Gun fights were news
worthy, precisely because they were very rare.
|with bullets, violent arguments become deadly arguments - witness the
|modern day he-cut-me-off-in-traffic shootings.
Would they be so willing to shoot if they thought the other guy might
be armed.
|This gets back to the 'duality of existence' dilemna/philosophy I touched
|on before (and promptly was flamed about). We are all individuals, yet
|we are all members of groups - be it the NRA, ACLU, single black males,
|fisherman, Rotarians, Americans, Baptists, Catholics, whatever...
Others may choose to define me by the groups I belong to, but I define
myself by who I am. The fact that others are to lazy to get to know me
personally and as a result take the easy way out is not my resonsiblity.
|We are defined by BOTH our individuality and our 'memberships' in society.
You may think so. Many others disagree.
|Our rights and responsibilities are similarly divided - I am willing
|to give up my individual right to treat a sick person with *whatever*
|drug or therapy *I* choose in order to have universal safeguards on medical
|practices.
Except that the method you choose, does not reach the goal you define.
Others have suggested methods of reaching the same goal without the
requirement that other people give up liberties.
|We all do things because of 'memberships' that we might not do
|as discrete individuals.
We do these things because we choose to. Not because someone forced us.
|Personally, I am willing to take some restrictions on my individual
|access to guns in order to achieve a collectively safer society.
He who is willing to give up liberty for safety, will neither have nor
deserve either.
Ben Franklin.
Banning guns will not result in a safer society.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Charlie Johnston
mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) wrote:
> In <johnstoc-0...@oncolpc09.med.unc.edu> john...@unc.med.edu (Charlie Johnston) writes:
>> When does a non-criminal gun buyer need a gun *immediately*
> When they are being threatened by someone. If you want I can dig up numerous
> cites of people who died while waiting out the waiting period, or who
> defended themselves with their guns within days of having purchased them
> in areas with no waiting periods.
Go dig - and while you're at it dig up those cases of purchased guns
being used pretty much immediately in crimes-of-passion, etc. The
latter will dwarf the former.
>> We have to pass a test to drive a car, the potential destructive
>> capacities of cars and guns are not extremely dissimilar, why not a
> You only need a license if you are going to operate the car on a public
> street. If you drive on private property, no license is needed.
What a stupid technical point - and how does this correlate with your
arm-everybody philosophy? We can all carry guns but can't go off
our private property? Tough on apartment dwellers....
>> I don't buy the any-restriction-leads-to-ban argument - specifically,
> How about the fact that those who back the restrictions have stated
> that bans are their ultimate objective.
Gee, *I* support handgun restrictions and I *don't* support a total ban.
Guess knee-jerk refuting only the far-left fringe statements is easier
than actually thinking about a subject.
>> Do you really think *everyone* carrying a handgun is going
>> to *reduce* violence?
> Yes.>
Uh oh, another Rambo-wannabe. I think the system you are espousing
is known as "anarchy".
>> People get angry at other people all the time -
> Check out the actual death rates in the wild west. Gun fights were news
> worthy, precisely because they were very rare.
Uh oh, another Clint Eastwood-wannabe. Or is it John Wayne?
>> with bullets, violent arguments become deadly arguments - witness the
>> modern day he-cut-me-off-in-traffic shootings.
> Would they be so willing to shoot if they thought the other guy might
> be armed.
>> We are defined by BOTH our individuality and our 'memberships' in society.
> You may think so. Many others disagree.
Well, I can't argue with ignorance. When you strip yourself of your groups
(male, American, southerner, AT&T employee, etc.etc.etc) get back to me on
this subject.
> Except that the method you choose, does not reach the goal you define.
> Others have suggested methods of reaching the same goal without the
> requirement that other people give up liberties.
Maybe so, maybe not. What is *your* suggested method of reducing
violent crime? So far all I've heard is 'arm everyone'.
....charlie
hawk...@delphi.com
>I don't understand your reticence on either of these points.
>Re.#1 - when does a non-criminal gun buyer need a gun *immediately*
>(vs. waiting several days)?
>Re.#2 - we have to pass a test to drive a car, the potential destructive
>capacities of cars and guns are not extremely dissimilar, why not a
>test to determine competency in gun safety? (actually I don't really
>care for this either, on a 'general bureaucracy' basis, but would this
>be an unreasonable restriction?)
>I don't buy the any-restriction-leads-to-ban argument - specifically,
>there are enough non-criminal, legitimate, recreational purposes for guns
>- and, generally, it is just not a valid or logical conclusion, IMO. There
>are dozens of examples of 'limited' rights or liberties - eg. because
>we register our cars doesn't mean that ultimately the gov't will ban
>them - eg. we can drink as much alcohol as we like but can't do so and
>legally operate a motor vehicle - etc.
>
>A. There are other *non-lethal* means of defense (admittedly not as
>effective).
>B. This reminds me of the Old West philosophy espoused by another poster.
>Come on now, do you really think *everyone* carrying a handgun is going
>to *reduce* violence? People get angry at other people all the time -
>with bullets, violent arguments become deadly arguments - witness the
>modern day he-cut-me-off-in-traffic shootings.
than guns every year) If registering guns or making them illegal will get
them out of the hands of criminals perhaps we should outlaw cocaine!?
>Personally, I am willing to take some restrictions on my individual
>access to guns in order to achieve a collectively safer society.
here is a reason that it was spelled out in the SECOND ammendment (note
An armed citizenry will prevent tyranny- can you
say "NAZI or STALIN" I thought you could. Just because it's not imminent
doesn't mean it won't happen. PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!
Charlie Johnston
jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
> I am really tired of hearing the weak analogy between guns and cars.
> 1). I do not need to pass a test to drive a car. I only need to
> pass a test if I plan to operate my car on public roads.
> 2). I do not need a license for my car unless I plan to operate it
> on public roads.
> 3). I do not need to register my car unless I plan to operate it on
> public roads.
I guess this would have some meaning if you always hunt/shoot alone
and on private property. Otherwise it has no point.
This is really a weak ad absurdium argument - a recitation of a
technical point where there are severe restrictions of freedom.
Or are you proposing that we stop licensing drivers and cars?
The point is that people accept the need for training/licensing for
motor vehicles. Why not a similar system for using a gun? A car is
designed primarily for a benevolent purpose, transportation. A gun
by design is a deadly weapon.
Geez, I'd be more tyrannized if the 'oppressive government'
came for my car and truck than my shotgun.
...charlie
Charlie Johnston
> Charlie Johnston <john...@unc.med.edu> writes:
> >Re.#2 - we have to pass a test to drive a car, ... why not a
> >test to determine competency in gun safety? ...would this
> >be an unreasonable restriction?
> YES!
> What is meant by non-lethal? (more people are killed with household knives
> than guns every year)
I believe this is a made-up "fact" - give me a source for proof. I worked
in an ER lab for several years, gun deaths were not uncommon, I can't
recall
a stabbing death. Many non-lethal knife wounds though.
> If registering guns or making them illegal will get
> them out of the hands of criminals perhaps we should outlaw cocaine!?
Registration and illegality are entirely different. Don't bother quoting
the NRA party-line, I've heard it.
> What are you going to cut your T-Bone with? Knives are dangerous-Bobbit!
> here is a reason that it was spelled out in the SECOND ammendment (note
> An armed citizenry will prevent tyranny- can you
> say "NAZI or STALIN" I thought you could. Just because it's not imminent
> doesn't mean it won't happen. PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!
You were afloat up to this point. Now you're submerged.
....charlie
Jeffrey S Linder
>Charlie Johnston <john...@unc.med.edu> writes:
>
>>Re.#1 - when does a non-criminal gun buyer need a gun *immediately*
>>(vs. waiting several days)?
>>Re.#2 - we have to pass a test to drive a car, the potential destructive
>>capacities of cars and guns are not extremely dissimilar, why not a
>>test to determine competency in gun safety? (actually I don't really
>>care for this either, on a 'general bureaucracy' basis, but would this
>>be an unreasonable restriction?)
>
I am really tired of hearing the weak analogy between guns and cars.
1). I do not need to pass a test to drive a car. I only need to
pass a test if I plan to operate my car on public roads.
2). I do not need a license for my car unless I plan to operate it
on public roads.
3). I do not need to register my car unless I plan to operate it on
public roads.
JSL
Charlie Johnston
> making me register and/or obtain a license for something that
> I keep in my home.
Okay.
> A car, by design, is also a deadly weapon.
Wrong. No one designs a car trying to kill someone (to the contrary
actually). A gun is designed to explosively propel a projectile in
order to kill or injury a person or animal. Before you get into the
people-are-deadly-not-guns mode, whether or not you ever kill a
person/animal is secondary, just like with a fatal car crash. Guns
are designed to injure or kill, otherwise you wouldn't have one for
self-defense, right? "By design" is the key phrase here. What the
actual *point* is, I have lost track of - something about justifying
the analogy, I think. :->
> >Geez, I'd be more tyrannized if the 'oppressive government'
> >came for my car and truck than my shotgun.
> Just because *YOU* think that way doesn't mean everyone does or should.
> A lot a people see equal tryanny in both.
Without a car I can't get to work, store, or hospital. Without a gun,?
This point I remember - the registration-leads-to-confiscation argument.
Cars are still in private hands, aren't they?
I should just roll over and say 'okay it is not a perfect analogy'...
okay it is not a perfect analogy. Happy?
...charlie
Jeffrey S Linder
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>In article <2rq92i$8...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>> 1). I do not need to pass a test to drive a car. I only need to
>> pass a test if I plan to operate my car on public roads.
>> 2). I do not need a license for my car unless I plan to operate it
>> on public roads.
>> 3). I do not need to register my car unless I plan to operate it on
>> public roads.
>
>and on private property. Otherwise it has no point.
>
Most people do hunt on private property with the permission of the
owner and must obtain a license from the state--what, pray tell, is
your point?
>This is really a weak ad absurdium argument - a recitation of a
>technical point where there are severe restrictions of freedom.
>Or are you proposing that we stop licensing drivers and cars?
>
Not at all. I do think that the government has no business
making me register and/or obtain a license for something that
I keep in my home.
>The point is that people accept the need for training/licensing for
>motor vehicles. Why not a similar system for using a gun? A car is
>designed primarily for a benevolent purpose, transportation. A gun
>by design is a deadly weapon.
A car, by design, is also a deadly weapon. How the owner chooses to
use a tool is another matter. You seemed to have missed the point I
made earlier. People accept the need for training and licensing for
motor vehicles to operate them on PUBLIC roads.
>
>Geez, I'd be more tyrannized if the 'oppressive government'
>came for my car and truck than my shotgun.
>
Just because *YOU* think that way doesn't mean everyone does or should.
A lot a people see equal tryanny in both.
>...charlie
JSL
Robert Lewis Glendenning
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
>
>> I am really tired of hearing the weak analogy between guns and cars.
>> 1). I do not need to pass a test to drive a car. I only need to
>> pass a test if I plan to operate my car on public roads.
>> 2). I do not need a license for my car unless I plan to operate it
>> on public roads.
>> 3). I do not need to register my car unless I plan to operate it on
>> public roads.
>
>I guess this would have some meaning if you always hunt/shoot alone
>and on private property. Otherwise it has no point.
>
>This is really a weak ad absurdium argument - a recitation of a
>technical point where there are severe restrictions of freedom.
>Or are you proposing that we stop licensing drivers and cars?
>
>The point is that people accept the need for training/licensing for
>motor vehicles. Why not a similar system for using a gun? A car is
>designed primarily for a benevolent purpose, transportation. A gun
>by design is a deadly weapon.
>
It is logically inconsistent, and very dangerous, to allow the
same potentially tyrannical gov that the arms were intended to
control to control the arms themselves. Thus, car and gun licensing
are incomensurate.
>Geez, I'd be more tyrannized if the 'oppressive government'
>came for my car and truck than my shotgun.
>
The tyranny is more likely to come after they take your shotgun away.
Your reaction to the immediate event is a poor predictor of
the actual effect on the society, IMHO.
>...charlie
henry jakala
: In article <2rq92i$8...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
: jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
: >
: > I am really tired of hearing the weak analogy between guns and cars.
: My own curiosity is, why is it we have more stringent registration requirements
: for people who want to get married than people who want to buy a gun?
: __________________________________________________________________________
: |The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
: |__________________________________________________________________________|
: It may have been proven, but I still won't accept logical proof.
: --Eric Vasbinder
and i find it curious why Big Brother finds it necessary to regulate
every aspect of our lives ?
--
jak...@netcom.com
Jeffrey S Linder
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
>
>> Not at all. I do think that the government has no business
>> making me register and/or obtain a license for something that
>> I keep in my home.
>
>> A car, by design, is also a deadly weapon.
>
>actually). A gun is designed to explosively propel a projectile in
>order to kill or injury a person or animal. Before you get into the
>people-are-deadly-not-guns mode, whether or not you ever kill a
>person/animal is secondary, just like with a fatal car crash. Guns
>are designed to injure or kill, otherwise you wouldn't have one for
>self-defense, right? "By design" is the key phrase here. What the
>actual *point* is, I have lost track of - something about justifying
>the analogy, I think. :->
>
Very good. NOw you are begining to see the fallacy of the analogy.
A gun is used for self defense and therefor is designed for that
purpose. Are you going to deprive me of my ability to defend
myself in my own home?
>> >Geez, I'd be more tyrannized if the 'oppressive government'
>> >came for my car and truck than my shotgun.
>> Just because *YOU* think that way doesn't mean everyone does or should.
>> A lot a people see equal tryanny in both.
>Without a car I can't get to work, store, or hospital. Without a gun,?
>This point I remember - the registration-leads-to-confiscation argument.
>Cars are still in private hands, aren't they?
>
You obviously didn't get the point. I will restate it: A lot of
people see equal tryanny in both (gun/automobile confiscation).
>I should just roll over and say 'okay it is not a perfect analogy'...
>okay it is not a perfect analogy. Happy?
Almost. Can you say poor analogy? I knew you could :).
>...charlie
JSL
Stilt Man
jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
>
> I am really tired of hearing the weak analogy between guns and cars.
My own curiosity is, why is it we have more stringent registration requirements
Jeffrey S Linder
Stilt Man <fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2rq92i$8...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
>>
>
s
>for people who want to get married than people who want to buy a gun?
>
Frankly, that is not the issue in this debate. What's you point?
JSL
Charlie Johnston
jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
> Are you going to deprive me of my ability to defend
> myself in my own home?
Does registration deprive you of the gun? (okay, say 'registration-
leads-to-confiscation')
> ....the point. I will restate it: A lot of
> people see equal tryanny in both (gun/automobile confiscation).
So you are against registration of cars. No flaming - are you
advocating anarchism? No government? Is there any purpose behind
the registration of cars and licensing of drivers other than setting
up eventual tyranny?
You obviously are not a nut who is going to blow away little kids in
the McDonald's next door, or shoot someone in a drug deal gone bad.
You have a legitimate desire to possess a gun for self-defense.
I have difficulty understanding why you oppose measures aimed at
reducing the access of *criminals* to guns - as far as I know,
there have never been proposals to keep you from having a
gun for self-defense in your home. Why do you think gun control is
directed at you? - it is not.
....charlie
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <2rq92i$8...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
|jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
|> I am really tired of hearing the weak analogy between guns and cars.
|> 1). I do not need to pass a test to drive a car. I only need to
|> pass a test if I plan to operate my car on public roads.
|> 2). I do not need a license for my car unless I plan to operate it
|> on public roads.
|> 3). I do not need to register my car unless I plan to operate it on
|> public roads.
|I guess this would have some meaning if you always hunt/shoot alone
|and on private property. Otherwise it has no point.
I take it then that your position is that anybody who has a gun, but keeps
it only in his house should not have to register that gun.
|The point is that people accept the need for training/licensing for
|motor vehicles. Why not a similar system for using a gun? A car is
|designed primarily for a benevolent purpose, transportation. A gun
|by design is a deadly weapon.
Designed for the benevolent purpose of helping you protect your family,
property and life.
Keith Braunwalder
: In article <2rr2fp$a...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Charlie - not an attack, but the HCI (Handgun Control Inc.) plan calls
for a complete handgun ban in the next 5 years and complete
firearms ban in the next 15. So, the writing is on the wall
as to what one faction of the 'licensing' communities' goals
truly are. There is reason to suspect that it won't end with
registration. Registration is the first necessary step to
confiscation. They need to know where the (legal) guns are.
Keith
: ....charlie
Bob Moore
>
>My own curiosity is, why is it we have more stringent registration requirements
>for people who want to get married than people who want to buy a gun?
>
amendment to the Constitution?
Bob
Karen Horn
: My own curiosity is, why is it we have more stringent registration
: requirements
: for people who want to get married than people who want to buy a gun?
Err...maybe because if a person decides he/she is not up to the
responsibilities of gun ownership, he/she can go out to the middle
of the ocean and drop the gun in. Can't do that [legally!] with
a spouse/and or kids!
[For the humor impaired, i.e. Charlie, followups not required!]
Karen ;-)
Charlie Johnston
wrote:
> ...the HCI (Handgun Control Inc.) plan calls
> for a complete handgun ban in the next 5 years and complete
> firearms ban in the next 15. So, the writing is on the wall
> as to what one faction of the 'licensing' communities' goals
> truly are. There is reason to suspect that it won't end with
> registration. Registration is the first necessary step to
> confiscation. They need to know where the (legal) guns are.
> Keith
Please excuse my ignorance but I have never heard of HCI - is this (as I
suspect) a fringe group? Do you think that the majority of people who
support *some* sort of gun control legislation also support either
total bans or eventual confiscation? I doubt it.
Personally I do think that *handguns* are the biggest slice of the
gun violence problem.
To sum up my positions once and for all....
There needs to be some mechanism - be it gun registration, owner licensing,
manditory sentencing, whatever - for restricting (with a high degree of
certainty) the access of criminals to firearms; without unduly infringing
on the access of legitimate law-abiding owners to firearms for recreational
or self-defense purposes.
....charlie
Jeffrey S Linder
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
>
>
>> Are you going to deprive me of my ability to defend
>> myself in my own home?
>
>leads-to-confiscation')
>
>> ....the point. I will restate it: A lot of
>> people see equal tryanny in both (gun/automobile confiscation).
>
>So you are against registration of cars. No flaming - are you
>advocating anarchism? No government? Is there any purpose behind
>the registration of cars and licensing of drivers other than setting
>up eventual tyranny?
>
If I am going to use my car on public property, no. Otherwise, yes.
>You obviously are not a nut who is going to blow away little kids in
>the McDonald's next door, or shoot someone in a drug deal gone bad.
>You have a legitimate desire to possess a gun for self-defense.
I have no such desire. But I don't let my view interfere with those
who do.
>I have difficulty understanding why you oppose measures aimed at
>reducing the access of *criminals* to guns - as far as I know,
>there have never been proposals to keep you from having a
>gun for self-defense in your home. Why do you think gun control is
>directed at you? - it is not.
>
Gun control is directed at people who obey laws. Criminals do not
obey laws. Can it be any more simple than that?
JSL
Charlie Johnston
Where it is 'directed' and where it 'impacts' may well be two different
populations - but this is getting too semantical anyhow.
(from a previous post....my position)
:There needs to be some mechanism - be it gun registration, owner
licensing,
:manditory sentencing, whatever - for restricting (with a high degree of
:certainty) the access of criminals to firearms; without unduly infringing
:on the access of legitimate law-abiding owners to firearms for
recreational
:or self-defense purposes.
Does anyone disagree with this? I think what we disagree on is *how* to
achieve a criminals-don't-have-guns environment. Registration/licensing
may be ineffective in doing this. What *would* work? And has a rat's-butt
chance of being implemented?
...charlie
Keith Braunwalder
: In article <CqBso...@boi.hp.com>, mit...@boi.hp.com (Keith Braunwalder)
: wrote:
: > ...the HCI (Handgun Control Inc.) plan calls
: > for a complete handgun ban in the next 5 years and complete
: > firearms ban in the next 15. So, the writing is on the wall
: > as to what one faction of the 'licensing' communities' goals
: > truly are. There is reason to suspect that it won't end with
: > registration. Registration is the first necessary step to
: > confiscation. They need to know where the (legal) guns are.
: > Keith
: Please excuse my ignorance but I have never heard of HCI - is this (as I
: suspect) a fringe group? Do you think that the majority of people who
: support *some* sort of gun control legislation also support either
: total bans or eventual confiscation? I doubt it.
I guess you could consider them fringe in the same sense you might call
the NRA fringe. Sara Brady is a member as are others prominent on capital
hill. I would hope that the majority do not support confiscation, but I
would be hesitant to put any money on it. And it doesn't seem to matter
what the majority wants in these issues. Emotions are running quite high
on this issue and these people think they know what's best for us.
: Personally I do think that *handguns* are the biggest slice of the
: gun violence problem.
: To sum up my positions once and for all....
: There needs to be some mechanism - be it gun registration, owner licensing,
: manditory sentencing, whatever - for restricting (with a high degree of
: certainty) the access of criminals to firearms; without unduly infringing
: on the access of legitimate law-abiding owners to firearms for recreational
: or self-defense purposes.
I agree 100%. My choice is to get tough on the criminal usage of firearms
since unilateral disarmament seems highly unlikely. My whole point in the
original post was to hopefully bring some light into the discussion on why
some of us are very uneasy about any infringement on the firearm ownership.
This is also why getting tough on criminal use would be my favorite path.
: ....charlie
Keith
Charlie Johnston
wrote:
> Charlie Johnston (john...@addor.med.unc.edu) wrote:
> : To sum up my positions once and for all....
> : There needs to be some mechanism - be it gun registration, owner licensing,
> : manditory sentencing, whatever - for restricting (with a high degree of
> : certainty) the access of criminals to firearms; without unduly infringing
> : on the access of legitimate law-abiding owners to firearms for recreational
> : or self-defense purposes.
> : ....charlie
> I agree 100%. My choice is to get tough on the criminal usage of firearms
> since unilateral disarmament seems highly unlikely. My whole point in the
> original post was to hopefully bring some light into the discussion on why
> some of us are very uneasy about any infringement on the firearm ownership.
> This is also why getting tough on criminal use would be my favorite path.
> Keith
Okay. Since 3-strikes-you're-out seems publicly acceptable,
how about 2nd-felony-for-violent-gun-crime carries a
mandatory no-release-until-65-years-old-minimum?
....charlie
Robert Lewis Glendenning
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
Charlie, we would all like to live in a utopia. If any of us could
see a way to do what you say, we certainly would. None of want
criminals to have guns, they are dangerous to everybody.
Likewise, we would love to live under a gov which is trustworthy
enough so that we could both allow registration and be assured
that it wouldn't lead to confiscation. If this were the
case, we wouldn't need to worry about infringement.
However, in the world I live in, a lot of smart guys decided that:
1) Criminal and individual-against-individual violence were
small potatos compared to the costs of bloody revolution.
2) That govs weren't long-term trustworthy, would always grow
tyrannical.
3) That individuals were responsible for their own defense,
the defense of their communities, and the defense of their
country.
4) That both free information flows and citizen power were
the systems solutions to these design requirements and
system constraints.
You may disagree with the extremely intelligent guys who
wrote the US Constitution. You are free to do so because
of the First Amendment.
You may disagree with my right to bear arms. You are free
to do so because of the First Amendment.
You may decide to shoot me in the a**. You are free to
own the weapon to do so because of the Second Amendment.
But, the government is prohibited from taking either of
our guns away by the Second Amendement.
Nobody says that this is an optimal system. Lots of people
can write specifications for a utopia, as you have done above.
Lots of people have designs which show how to get to their utopia,
which you have not done.
These designs, and the gun-control measures are such, must
convincingly show the sequence of system states from current
reality to the better future state. Without this, the process
is not system design, it is hand-waving.
In the current debate about waiting periods and assault
weapons, the proponents of gun control have not used real
evidence to back their proposals. The level of dishonesty
in the debate is as high as I have ever seen it on a political
issue.
Given the above POV, and the level of dishonesty in the political
debate and system, do you wonder that pro-RKBA people are a
bit strident? Do you wonder that we doubt the motives of the antis?
Do you, training as a research scientist, I believe, believe
that the evidence and arguments of the pro-control people
satisfy the system requirements and system constraints defined
by the Founding Fathers AND will lead to a better future?
I don't. I think we are seeing tyranny flexing its wings.
Jeffrey S Linder
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>populations - but this is getting too semantical anyhow.
>
intention. That is the problem with the liberal mindset:
symbolism over substance.
Liberal: "lets do something about....heres my plan"
Other: "here is the affect of your plan..."
LIberal: "that doesn't matter because that not whats in the plan"
JSL
Charlie Johnston
Jeffrey S Linder wrote:
Gun control is directed at people who obey laws. Criminals do not obey
laws.
Can it be any more simple than that?
Then Charlie Johnston replied:
Where it is 'directed' and where it 'impacts' may well be two different
populations - but this is getting too semantical anyhow.
In response, Jeffrey S Linder wrote:
Get real. The proposal must be looked at from its impact not its
intention.
That is the problem with the liberal mindset: symbolism over substance.
(Which brings us to the current installment, where Charlie says...)
In your haste slam me, you neglect to realize I was not disagreeing with
you.
Note the use of the word 'well' which, although subtly, should indicate my
concurrence with your prior statement.
And PLEASE don't call me a 'liberal' (shudder). Try 'concerned citizen'.
The question/problem still remains (despite the ominous forebodings yet
laissez-faire attitude of Mr. Glendenning), thus I pose the question again:
Keith Braunwalder
: In article <CqD6I...@boi.hp.com>, mit...@boi.hp.com (Keith Braunwalder)
: wrote:
Hmmmm. The concept of 3 strikes is admirable, but the proposed execution
of this law is a joke if I understand it. I'm afraid that I would be more
harsh in my implementation. I support a second chance for juveniles
because kids can fall in with the wrong crowd and not use their heads. But,
I don't support second chances for violent adults. I feel we need to send an
unwavering message to the criminal element (eye for an eye mentality).
Keith
: ....charlie
Jeffrey S Linder
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>Gun control is directed at people who obey laws. Criminals do not obey
>laws.
>Can it be any more simple than that?
>
>Where it is 'directed' and where it 'impacts' may well be two different
>populations - but this is getting too semantical anyhow.
>
>intention.
>That is the problem with the liberal mindset: symbolism over substance.
>
>
>In your haste slam me, you neglect to realize I was not disagreeing with
>you.
>Note the use of the word 'well' which, although subtly, should indicate my
>concurrence with your prior statement.
>
Regardless of your proposals effects you still wish that it be
implemented?
>And PLEASE don't call me a 'liberal' (shudder). Try 'concerned citizen'.
>
When it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...at least on this
issue.
>The question/problem still remains (despite the ominous forebodings yet
>laissez-faire attitude of Mr. Glendenning), thus I pose the question again:
>
>Since 3-strikes-you're-out seems publicly acceptable, how about
>2nd-felony-for-violent-gun-crime carries a mandatory no-release-
>until-65-years-old-minimum?
>
Why? You are convinced that gun registration will keep guns out of
the hands of criminals.
JSL
Charlie Johnston
> Why? You are convinced that gun registration will keep guns out of
> the hands of criminals.
> JSL
Well, Jeff, obviously you are more interested in arguing that debating
or discussing - I am not gonna rise to the bait this time, but I am
not 'convinced' of anything - I do think there is a problem getting worse.
Keith, I think you are nearing the head of the nail in your prior - we can
pass
all the legislation we want, but without *enforcement* it is nothing.
Today's
paper here regals us with the tale of the drop-out high schooler who
dragged
a jogger into the bushes, then when she maced him, shot her 5 times and
killed
her. He got *second* degree murder and *no attempted rape*. The article
notes
he will be eligible for parole before he is thirty. So basically our
judicial
system just created another hardened criminal, who will serve his time in
prison
as a hero for 'beating the rap' - do I sound disgusted?
Another disgusting thing is this Barry Forster guy. It's not enough to
read his
profanity-laden tripe on open net, today I got this in my email.....
HEY CHARLIE! TELL YOUR HERO BILL CLINTON THAT PAYBACK IS HELL!!! YOU
LIBERAL CLOWNS IMITIATED THE RULES, NOW SUFFER AND IT IS NOT GOING TO GO
AWAY
REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH DAMAGE CONTROL THE LIBERAL ESTABLISHMENT DOES TO
DISCREDIT PAULA JONES CLAIM THAT IT HAPPENED!! THIS WAS NO PASS, IT WAS A
DIRECT ACT OF INTIMIDATION USING STATE TROOPERS TO SOLICIT AND ARRANGE SEX,
PERIOD!!! AFTER HE RESIGNS, BILL CLINTON CAN GET A JOB MODELING LONDON FOG
RAINCOATS. wE'LL CALL HIM "FLASH" CLINTON THEN. SUFFER, SUFFER, AND WE'LL
NEVER LET UP ON THIS ISSUE JUST BECAUSE YOU LEFTIES WANT TO KEEP THE SUN
SHINING ON THIS DOG'S ASS!!!
The worst part is that, despite my fervent pleas otherwise, I continue to
get
labeled a 'liberal'. ;-> Guess anyone who doesn't wear camos, pack a
.357
in a shoulder harness, and use live kittens for alligator fishing is a
'liberal'
in *some* folks minds. And I even voted for Reagan! (wouldn't do it again
however).
Guess I just gotta keep in mind what my pappy learned me...if ya get upset
at
every a**hole in the world, you'll spend a lot of time being upset. Flame
away,
Barry, you make the rest of us appreciate *having* gray matter.
...charlie
Robert Lewis Glendenning
>Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>
>>The question/problem still remains (despite the ominous forebodings yet
>>laissez-faire attitude of Mr. Glendenning)
>>
I have previously told Mr. Johnson that I considered him intellectually
dishonest because he only responded to parts of debates which
pleased him, often entirely ignoring the thrust of an argument
as he did so. In the latest case, he has entirely ignored my
argument, while summarizing/characterizing it as above.
I reproduce my response to his initial statement, and invite
Mr. Johnson to try again.
In article <johnstoc-2...@oncolpc09.med.unc.edu>,
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>In article <CqBso...@boi.hp.com>, mit...@boi.hp.com (Keith Braunwalder)
>wrote:
>
>> ...the HCI (Handgun Control Inc.) plan calls
>> for a complete handgun ban in the next 5 years and complete
>> firearms ban in the next 15. So, the writing is on the wall
>> as to what one faction of the 'licensing' communities' goals
>> truly are. There is reason to suspect that it won't end with
>> registration. Registration is the first necessary step to
>> confiscation. They need to know where the (legal) guns are.
>> Keith
>
>Please excuse my ignorance but I have never heard of HCI - is this (as I
>suspect) a fringe group? Do you think that the majority of people who
>support *some* sort of gun control legislation also support either
>total bans or eventual confiscation? I doubt it.
>
>Personally I do think that *handguns* are the biggest slice of the
>gun violence problem.
>
>To sum up my positions once and for all....
>
>There needs to be some mechanism - be it gun registration, owner licensing,
>manditory sentencing, whatever - for restricting (with a high degree of
>certainty) the access of criminals to firearms; without unduly infringing
>on the access of legitimate law-abiding owners to firearms for recreational
>or self-defense purposes.
>
>....charlie
Charlie, we would all like to live in a utopia. If any of us could
--
I noticed some typos as I read it through again, but didn't
fix them.
That is an argument: a connected train of thought from clear
premises leading to clear conclusions. To counter such an
argument, you must attack the premises or the chain of logic.
You continue to attack the conclusion, because you
don't like it. This isn't illuminating to anyone, and you
haven't had any major positive effect on this thread, except
to keep it going and provide neophyte pro-RKBA types such
as myself with a sparring partner. However, the fun is
about over for me. You need to do better if you want
to keep exercising.
Jeffrey S Linder
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
>(most deleted)
>> the hands of criminals.
>> JSL
>
>or discussing - I am not gonna rise to the bait this time, but I am
>not 'convinced' of anything - I do think there is a problem getting worse.
>
Are you are are you not for gun registration/licensing? You have
stated before that you are--are you still? If so, why? If not, why?
Will gun registration and licensing keep guns from criminals?
These are questions that you keep avoiding and was the original
point of my post. If you want to bring up enforcement and judicial
questions, fine, I will address them AFTER you clarify your position
in these matters.
> [ deltia ]
>Another disgusting thing is this Barry Forster guy. It's not enough to
>read his
>profanity-laden tripe on open net, today I got this in my email.....
>
> [ included E-mail deleted...I won't be party to it]
Very, very, very rude thing you did Mr. Johnston. I wouldn't be
suprised to see call for your banishment to cyberlimbo.
get
>labeled a 'liberal'. ;-> Guess anyone who doesn't wear camos, pack a
>.357
>in a shoulder harness, and use live kittens for alligator fishing is a
>'liberal'
>in *some* folks minds. And I even voted for Reagan! (wouldn't do it again
>however).
>Guess I just gotta keep in mind what my pappy learned me...if ya get upset
>at
>every a**hole in the world, you'll spend a lot of time being upset. Flame
>away,
>Barry, you make the rest of us appreciate *having* gray matter.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess that means the rest of us don't? Talk about your liberal
elitist attitude. Mr. Johnston has taken the first step down the
liberal spiral.
JSL
Mark O. Wilson
|Does anyone disagree with this? I think what we disagree on is *how* to
|achieve a criminals-don't-have-guns environment.
Instant background checks.
Of course this won't stop crooks who buy their guns illegally, as most do.
But then again, neither do any of the other proposals.
|Registration/licensing
|may be ineffective in doing this. What *would* work? And has a rat's-butt
Why do you think that either registration or licensing would keep guns out
of the hands of criminals.
Charlie Johnston
Lewis Glendenning) wrote:
> >In article <johnstoc-2...@oncolpc09.med.unc.edu>,
> >Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
> >>The question/problem still remains (despite the ominous forebodings yet
> >>laissez-faire attitude of Mr. Glendenning)
> I have previously told Mr. Johnson that I considered him intellectually
> dishonest because he only responded to parts of debates which
> pleased him, often entirely ignoring the thrust of an argument
(FLAME ON)
A. You are the only one who has said so. (others can jump in now though)
B. I actually ignored your post *altogether* since it says very little.
C. Aren't you the guy who said 'it is so surreal man'? If you have
some course of action to offer, perhaps you could state it - I believe
the issue here is gun control. Since you feel free to attack me with
your 'intellectual dishonesty' statement, I feel free to say that you
impress me as someone who may have taken a few too many hallucinogenic
substances in the '60s.
D. Perhaps if you could put together a cohesive statement in less
than 2 pages of rambling you would get more complete rebuttals. Also
it is not necessary to separate each of your points, such as they are,
with a blank line.
E. If people want to read your posts in their exhaustive entirety they
can go back to the original post. Continual copying of posts is
visually disruptive and wastes bandwidth.
G. If you are going to flame someone you ought to at least get the
spelling of their name correct - I checked yours before typing it.
(FLAME OFF)
(parts deleted, see *original* if unclear)
> However, in the world I live in, a lot of smart guys
Who lived in a country 200 years ago which was vastly different from
the 'world' today. They looked at *their* reality and said 'here's what
we need to do' - I sincerely doubt that any of them thought their work
would be quoted like Moses's tablets in defense of assault rifles.
Personally I'd rather base my decisions on *my* space/time
reality than ancient history. That you swallow today their mandates
lock-stock-and-muzzle-loading-barrel may simply reflect an inability
for formulate decisions based on current reality.
(RLG post, from "1) Criminal..." to "...optimal system" deleted
since it really states nothing original or originally)
> Lots of people can write specifications for a utopia, as you have
> done above. Lots of people have designs which show how to get to
> their utopia, which you have not done. These designs, and the
> gun-control measures are such, must convincingly show the sequence
> of system states from current reality to the better future state.
> Without this, the process is not system design, it is hand-waving.
And *your* proposal is??? *Your* first step on the 'road to utopia'
is??? I made a specific proposal re: mandatory prison till age 65
for second gun violence felony - and you talk about utopia and
surrealism. Who is intellectually dishonest here?
> In the current debate about waiting periods and assault weapons,
> the proponents of gun control have not used real evidence to back
> their proposals.
The undeniable explosion of violent crime in the past decade should
be evidence enough that the current system is not functioning properly.
Unregulated access to firearms is only a part of the problem. Proponents
of 'doing nothing' (such as yourself?) need to show that *that* course
of action will have some positive effect. Or are we just to wait for
a total breakdown where it'll be the best-armed wins?
> That is an argument: a connected train of thought from clear
> premises leading to clear conclusions.
What *is* the conclusion? That pro-gun people have a reason for
being 'strident'? That we should ignore the problem of gun violence?
I reread your 'argument' several times and still fail to see your
conclusion.
> To counter such an argument, you must attack the premises or the
> chain of logic. You continue to attack the conclusion, because you
> don't like it.
Hell, I don't even know what it *is*!
> you haven't had any major positive effect on this thread
My email correspondence is something to the contrary, and the fact
that the title of this thread originated with me says something.
> pro-RKBA types such as myself
Again, forgive my ignorance, but what is the RKBA?
> However, the fun is about over for me.
Good, fine. Other folks have something to contribute other than personal
attacks (which I have now sunk to) and 'don't worry be happy' philosophy.
...charlie <--- stamping at his residual flames in disgust
Charlie Johnston
jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
> Are you are are you not for gun registration/licensing? You have
> stated before that you are--are you still? If so, why? If not, why?
Hmm, I so hate to waffle....but after listening to the discussions
here, it is clear that registration/licensing is not going to alleviate
gun violence. Many of the pro-gun lobbies arguments are suspect
(the gonna-keep-tyrannical-gov't-out-my-home for example) but all-in-all
adding more regulation without first enforcing the existing laws is
backwards. So, at this point, I'd vote 'no' on reg/lic.
> Will gun registration and licensing keep guns from criminals?
> These are questions that you keep avoiding and was the original
> point of my post.
Neither registration nor licensing will keep criminals
from gaining access to guns. Realizing this has flipped
my position. The problem of criminal access to guns remains,
however.
> > Another disgusting thing is this Barry Forster guy. It's not
> > enough to read his profanity-laden tripe on open net, today I
> > got this in my email.....
(Forster E-mail, posted in entirety by CSJ, deleted by JSL)
> Very, very, very rude thing you did Mr. Johnston. I wouldn't be
> suprised to see call for your banishment to cyberlimbo.
If you got something rude to say to me, say it on open net. I don't
have time for slogging in the mud with every foul-mouth that comes
along. I'll do it again in a heartbeat. Or are we pulling the
electronic hoods over our faces now?
>Flame away, Barry, you make the rest of us appreciate *having* gray matter.
> I guess that means the rest of us don't? Talk about your liberal
> elitist attitude. Mr. Johnston has taken the first step down the
> liberal spiral.
Rest..appreciate...having. Subject, predicate, modifier. Am I going
too fast here? (delete that last question - may be construed as
liberal elitist) Gotta say I love those classic one-line closers -
"first step down the liberal spiral", "tyranny flexing its wings" -
everyone's a frustrated novelist, eh? What was a promising discussion
has spiraled down to abject intellectual poverty and utter sentient
despair. (just thought I'd give it a try)
...charlie <--- Call me 'flame bait'.
Stilt Man
>>Barry, you make the rest of us appreciate *having* gray matter.
>elitist attitude. Mr. Johnston has taken the first step down the
>liberal spiral.
Careful there Jeff, lest you start down the conservative spiral.
I'll add my voice in saying that Mr. Johnston's off his rocker if he's saying
conservatives are inherently brainless. On the other hand, I'll say the same
if this is saying liberals are, too. There are dumb liberals, and there are
dumb conservatives. Barry, from what was posted, appears to be a dumb
conservative. Mr. Johnston, for overgeneralizing, appears to be a dumb
liberal. Tit for tat.
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
Whatcha gonna do, when Hulkamania finally runs out of stupid things to do?
--Donald Blewett
Jeffrey S Linder
Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
>jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
>
>> Are you are are you not for gun registration/licensing? You have
>> stated before that you are--are you still? If so, why? If not, why?
>
>here, it is clear that registration/licensing is not going to alleviate
>gun violence. Many of the pro-gun lobbies arguments are suspect
>(the gonna-keep-tyrannical-gov't-out-my-home for example) but all-in-all
>adding more regulation without first enforcing the existing laws is
>backwards. So, at this point, I'd vote 'no' on reg/lic.
>
Do you think gun control will be necessary in the future or
is gun control a bad idea all together?
>> Will gun registration and licensing keep guns from criminals?
>> These are questions that you keep avoiding and was the original
>> point of my post.
>
>Neither registration nor licensing will keep criminals
>from gaining access to guns. Realizing this has flipped
>my position. The problem of criminal access to guns remains,
>however.
>
Criminals will always have access to the tools to commit crimes.
To prevent law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves
is shameful.
>> > Another disgusting thing is this Barry Forster guy. It's not
>> > enough to read his profanity-laden tripe on open net, today I
>> > got this in my email.....
>
>(Forster E-mail, posted in entirety by CSJ, deleted by JSL)
>> Very, very, very rude thing you did Mr. Johnston. I wouldn't be
>> suprised to see call for your banishment to cyberlimbo.
>
>If you got something rude to say to me, say it on open net. I don't
>have time for slogging in the mud with every foul-mouth that comes
>along. I'll do it again in a heartbeat. Or are we pulling the
>electronic hoods over our faces now?
>
Try ignoring this Mr. Forster. That works much better.
I would suggest that you refrain from posting private E-mail.
>>Flame away, Barry, you make the rest of us appreciate *having* gray matter.
>
>> I guess that means the rest of us don't? Talk about your liberal
>> elitist attitude. Mr. Johnston has taken the first step down the
>> liberal spiral.
>
>Rest..appreciate...having. Subject, predicate, modifier. Am I going
>too fast here? (delete that last question - may be construed as
>liberal elitist) Gotta say I love those classic one-line closers -
>"first step down the liberal spiral", "tyranny flexing its wings" -
>everyone's a frustrated novelist, eh? What was a promising discussion
>has spiraled down to abject intellectual poverty and utter sentient
>despair. (just thought I'd give it a try)
>
>...charlie <--- Call me 'flame bait'.
What was a promising discussion was sidetracked by your obvious
frustration at having you views/values challenged, your rude posts
of private E-mail, your answers to such mail, which should have remained
private, and failure to answer questions as they were asked.
The ball rest in your court....
JSL
Charlie Johnston
(Stilt Man) wrote:
> I'll add my voice in saying that Mr. Johnston's off his rocker if he's saying
> conservatives are inherently brainless.
(copied from my previous post...)
::Flame away, Barry, you make the rest of us appreciate *having* gray
matter.
^^^^^
The only way you could generalize my statement (clearly directed at a
specific person) as a comment on 'conservatives' is if you are
accepting that person as a general spokesperson or model for
'conservatives'.
Are you? Is he?
> Mr. Johnston, for overgeneralizing, appears to be a dumb
> liberal.
I'm not gonna sling any more mud - I took a nap and feel much better.
Perhaps *you* are overgeneralizing my positions? Not to mention my
mental health status?? ;->
...charlie
PS Why do people use pseudonyms here, is this like a CB handle?
Just curious....do I refer to "Mr.Man" or "Stilt".....hmmm...
Charlie Johnston
jli...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) wrote:
> In article <johnstoc-2...@oncolpc09.med.unc.edu>,
> Charlie Johnston <john...@addor.med.unc.edu> wrote:
> >adding more regulation without first enforcing the existing laws is
> >backwards. So, at this point, I'd vote 'no' on reg/lic.
> Well, there's hope for you yet. ;)
> Do you think gun control will be necessary in the future or
> is gun control a bad idea all together?
Guess if I say you are asking me to predict the future, someone will
accuse me of avoiding the question, right? I think the term 'gun
control' is very vague - many folks here seem to find it synonymous
with 'eventual gun confiscation'.
The problem is not guns, it is criminals with guns. Any 'controls'
will be ineffective without true judicial changes and a real mechanism
for eliminating violent redivicist criminals from the streets. In a
curious coincidence of timing, I got a plug from HCI in the mail today
(don't worry, the NRA mailings vastly outnumber them). I am going to
send their little 'poll' back with a letter saying I could consider
licensing/registration of guns ONLY when tied to manditory, no-parole
sentencing for violations of such laws and for criminal use of a gun.
But since you asked a simple question, I will simplify my answer...
> Do you think gun control will be necessary in the future or
> is gun control a bad idea all together?
Maybe. No.
> What was a promising discussion was sidetracked by your obvious
> frustration at having you views/values challenged,
More like frustration at having my views misinterpreted or
simplistically labeled.
> your rude posts of private E-mail, your answers to such mail,
> which should have remained private,
What is in my mailbox is mine to do with as I please - or has
the tyrannical electronic gestapo stepped in, or am I being
"electronically-incorrect"? Mail me anytime you like but if
you insist on being rude and profane do it on open net.
(like I do... ;->...rude anyhow, at times)
> and failure to answer questions as they were asked.
I don't think this is the case. If you want to know my opinion
about something just ask. What irks me is people assigning answers
and labels without asking the questions.
...charlie <--- returning the 'ball'
Stilt Man
>In article <2s3jlq...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU>, fol...@viper.CS.ORST.EDU
>(Stilt Man) wrote:
>
>> I'll add my voice in saying that Mr. Johnston's off his rocker if he's saying
>> conservatives are inherently brainless.
>(copied from my previous post...)
>::Flame away, Barry, you make the rest of us appreciate *having* gray
>matter.
Sorry. But you do notice, that the word "if" is in that statement.
>> Mr. Johnston, for overgeneralizing, appears to be a dumb
>> liberal.
>I'm not gonna sling any more mud - I took a nap and feel much better.
>Perhaps *you* are overgeneralizing my positions? Not to mention my
>mental health status?? ;->
No. Just saying *if* you're generalizing that to all conservatives, then
you're off your rocker. You're apparently not. If not, then I'd have to
instead say that Mr. Linder is being a dumb conservative for accusing you
of such because you say that to one of them. I was going on the quotes
he used, which may or may not have been representative of what you said.
Sorry about that . . .
>PS Why do people use pseudonyms here, is this like a CB handle?
>Just curious....do I refer to "Mr.Man" or "Stilt".....hmmm...
I just prefer to remain anonymous on the net to anyone who doesn't already
know me. "Stilt" will work if you need a shortened version of it.
__________________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man fol...@xanth.cs.orst.edu |
|__________________________________________________________________________|
By the cosmos, what am I doing?
GIVING THOSE WRETCHES EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVE!
But they are my heavenly brothers . . .
. . . AND I WILL KILL THEM ALL!!!
No, I should honor and cherish them . . .
--Thanos the Titan, under assault by
embodiments of Love and Hate
Charlie Johnston
> In article...(Charlie Johnston) writes:
> So what is your point, do you want to ban guns totally, to save the world?
> Or are you one of those who wants to kill everyone?
HEY HEY HEY !!!! I don't believe I *ever* said this, and I no longer
"contributing" fuel to the right-wing fervor formenting on this forum.
I think everyone should have at least 5 guns, preferably all automatic
shotgun grenade-throwers with laser scopes and blood-gutter bayonets.
I think *all* government should be banned - as well as all dwellings,
roads, vehicles, kitchen appliances, and cats.
I firmly believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are personally responsible
for every single thing that has gone wrong with this country since the
dates of their births (or possibly even dates of conception, but that's
one for the pro-lifers to debate).
I have no doubt that he *did* inhale. Probably did 12-foot beer bongs
in his dormitory at Cambridge, in fact. Chelsea is dealing nickel bags
from the White House *right now*.
What in the hell kinda name is "TessD7" anyhow? And what really matters
is...what happened to TessA1 thru D6??? Were they...FOBs?? (GASP!)
(back to lurking and laughing)....charlie