Firearms why carry them?

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Kerry Delf

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to tree

[posted and cc'd]


On Sat, 28 Mar 1998, tree wrote:

> The simple solution just don't make them. Then not even the criminals
> will have them. But that's the crux of the problem isn't it people like
> them just a little too much. especially if their feeling rather put out,
> what better way to blow off steam than to blow off that irritating
> nieghbours head.

Are you insane, or just stupid?

"Well, gosh, if we just stopped mass manufacture right now, not even the
CRIMINALS would have guns!"

(A) There are billions of firearms extant in the world today. How do you
propose to get rid of them?

(B) How in hell do you propose to get *criminals* -- who, by definition,
are not too concerned about breaking the law -- to turn in their guns?

(C) How do you propose to deal with the problem of individual manufacture
(a study conducted to find where guns in New York City, which has a
severe gun ban, found that...er...I believe it was 25% of all guns
used in crimes in the city were *homemade*)?

(D) What's your solution to the problem of international aggression? If
the Canadians, for example, turn in all their guns (you're virtually
there already), but...well, say, Quebec does not, and the government
and residents of Quebec are hostile towards the rest of Canada, and
want some of your resources -- what are you going to do? Send out a
fucking army of kickboxers?

(E) As a Canadian, I'm sure you don't give a damn about American rights.
But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
keep and bear arms -- and for some reason, our people seem to be less
likely than some other to roll over, bare our bellies, and play dead
when legislators start carving away at our rights. We don't do
turn-ins. (I believe it was in Australia that the sale of 5" PVC pipe
skyrocketed immediately before and after a major gun ban. We would
see the same response, only exacerbated, in this country -- if it ever
managed to get to this point.)

Do you simply have no respect for individual rights?


You see, "Tree," the "Simple Solution (tm)" very rarely is. Keep that in
mind before making an ass of yourself the next time.


> tree....

K.Delf

<kd...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>

--
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better
than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask
not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds
you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that
you were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams


Malcolm Baron

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to


>
>
> The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
> "argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about it?
>

Do you want to live in a ountry where only the government has access to
firearms? I sure don't! More people die at the hands of there own
governments than do at the hands of invading armies.

Never trust a government that you can't shoot back at.


tree

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to

Malcolm Baron wrote:

Well I'll be damned there is a real paranoia thing going on here isn't
there. Sorry I didn't see it at first. Actually most armed coups just put
the same policies but with a different face in the government, not very
progressive if you ask me.

tree...


tree

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to

Vampire wrote:

> cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote in message
> >: But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
> >: keep and bear arms
> >
> >*If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
> >documents, floppo.
> why is it the Canadians think they know what is in the constitution,
> just me causing trouble again and loving it :)

It's part of our grade 9-10 social studies courses or at least it was
when I was attending grade school.

tree...


Mr. Scratch

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to

On 31 Mar 1998 cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:

> Kerry Delf (kd...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>
> : (D) What's your solution to the problem of international aggression? If

> : the Canadians, for example, turn in all their guns (you're virtually
> : there already), but...well, say, Quebec does not, and the government
> : and residents of Quebec are hostile towards the rest of Canada, and
> : want some of your resources -- what are you going to do? Send out a
> : fucking army of kickboxers?
>

> The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
> "argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about it?

Your answer seems to make no sense whatsoever. You seem to have missed
the point altogether...and you accuse /Kerry/ of being a "pinhead"?


> : But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
> : keep and bear arms
>
> *If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
> documents, floppo.


I have read it. Lets go over the relevant article, point by point, shall
we?

"Amendment II: A well-regulated Militia being necessary for the security
of of a Free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall
not be infringed."

It does not say anywhere that citizens must be part of the militia to own
guns, though indeed, all male citizens above the age of 17 are
automatically members of the militia. What it says is that it must
remain possible for a well-regulated (meaning "standardized) militia to be
formed, in case there is a threat to the freedom of the state. The effect
can be examined from a better perspective if you switch the subject of the
text from "guns" to "books". Example...


"A well-educated legislature being necessary for the security of a Free
State, the right of the People to Keep and Read Books shall not be
infringed."


You wouldn't interpret this to mean that people could only read books if
they were members of the legislature, would you? If you did, you would
likely not have an educated legislature at all.

Furthermore, you will note the word "People" appears into the text of the
2nd Amendment. You do know who "the People" are, aren't you? Well,
common sense (as well as the Supreme Court) tell me that "the People" are
the common citizenry.

The 2nd Amendment says "the Right of the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms
SHALL NOT be infringed.

Mouth these words for me...

"The PEOPLE"

"The RIGHT to Keep and Bear ARMS"

"Shall Not"

"SHALL *NOT*"
^^^^^ ^^^
"Be infringed."


Thank you for attending US Constitution 101.

Class dismissed.

-Mr. Scratch

"When I die, 'don't want no part of Heaven;
I would not do Heaven's work well.
I pray the Devil comes and takes me to stand
in the fiery furnaces of Hell."
-Bruce Springsteen, "Youngstown".

Rod K

unread,
Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98
to

Mr. Scratch wrote:

> Thank you for attending US Constitution 101.
>
> Class dismissed.
>
> -Mr. Scratch

Funny thing too... This little piece is very well said, but missing one
interesting point: All the liberal gunphobes fail to apply their same
'group not individual' standard to all the OTHER Amendments on free
speech and religion that are worded in virtually the same way as the
2nd. For some reason, when they get to the 2nd things just short
circuit for some people.

cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

Kerry Delf (kd...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:

: (D) What's your solution to the problem of international aggression? If
: the Canadians, for example, turn in all their guns (you're virtually
: there already), but...well, say, Quebec does not, and the government
: and residents of Quebec are hostile towards the rest of Canada, and
: want some of your resources -- what are you going to do? Send out a
: fucking army of kickboxers?

The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
"argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about it?

: (E) As a Canadian, I'm sure you don't give a damn about American rights.

Well, I'll be damned -- you're *not* a total idiot!

: But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
: keep and bear arms

*If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
documents, floppo.

--
***********************************************************
* *
* | Logic used | Logic not used | *
* -----------------|---------------|------------------| *
* Data used | Science | Empiricism | *
* -----------------|---------------|------------------| *
* Data not used | Rationalism | Mysticism | *
* *
***********************************************************

Vampire

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote in message


>: But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
>: keep and bear arms
>
>*If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
>documents, floppo.

why is it the Canadians think they know what is in the constitution,
just me causing trouble again and loving it :)

Vampi
who doesn't care anymore who thinks what, he is just going to say what he
wants.

Vampire

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

tree wrote in message


> It's part of our grade 9-10 social studies courses or at least it was
>when I was attending grade school.
>
>tree...

9th and 10th grade in America is high school tree, oh yea you are from
Canada so it might be grade school there :)
Vampi

Peter MacGown

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

Kerry Delf wrote:
>
><snipped>

>
> (E) As a Canadian, I'm sure you don't give a damn about American rights.
> But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
> keep and bear arms -- and for some reason, our people seem to be less
> likely than some other to roll over, bare our bellies, and play dead
> when legislators start carving away at our rights. We don't do
> turn-ins. (I believe it was in Australia that the sale of 5" PVC pipe
> skyrocketed immediately before and after a major gun ban. We would
> see the same response, only exacerbated, in this country -- if it ever
> managed to get to this point.)

Actually, you are incorrect in this. Personal weapons are generally
regulated by the state (in the US). Massachusetts, the state in which I
live, makes it very hard to get a firearm. You also have to have a
special license to have double-bladed weapons (so forget the really kewl
athame), and mace as well. Occasionally, I hear about some poor fool
who came into Massachusetts from a state that didn't require a weapons
license, and he was caught with a gun. For that lucky individual, he
gets an all expense year long vacation in one of our finest state penal
institutions. It's a manditory one year sentence, and he gets a felony
record to boot (which generally excludes you from having a weapon in
most other states). You do not have an inalienable right to keep and
bear firearms. You have the right to form a militia and have firearms
for the purpose of self defence and overthrowing a tyrannical
government. However, I wouldn't suggest trying it. Tyrannical
governments generally don't take kindly to militias formed for the
purpose of their overthrow. Ollie North (remember him) was denied a
license to have a handgun because he was not considered "moral" enough
to have one. He was not convicted of any crime (he won on appeal) but
he was denied on moral grounds. It seems rather odd that he was a man
who was trained to kill, but was denied a handgun because he was not
"moral" enough. Please try to understand your constitution a little
better before you start other countries forms of governments.

B*B
Pete

northsider

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

Jesus would be against guns; but, the gun lobby is in league with the
preachers
using so-called christians who can't, or won't, think for themselves!

--
=Sandra=
http://personal.jax.bellsouth.net/jax/b/m/bmoore3/
Spend too much time with people of like mind and you will lose yours.

Julia R. Cochrane

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

Why?

Because if people want me not to carry one so badly that they'll
lie their asses off to me about it, and those same people are
mad because I'm good at what I do and make a lot of money and
would dearly love to take it all away from me, and those same
people are mad because I say what I think *especially* when I
know they don't like it, and those same people are mad at me
because I want to teach my kid what her dad and I think instead
of blithely sending them in to be indoctrinated by them, then I
can take that as a pretty good hint that the time is not far off
when I'm going to need those firearms.

Or, as someone I used to know once said, "I don't get the whole
idea of bondage. If I'm going to like what they're going to do to me
so much, why do they think they need to tie me up?"

Julie
--
* * *
Stop foreigners from undermining the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Protect US Sovereignty. Boycott Japan, Inc.

rangrrik

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

northsider wrote:
>
> Jesus would be against guns; but, the gun lobby is in league with the
> preachers
> using so-called christians who can't, or won't, think for themselves!
>

Actually, that is a fallacy. Jesus, or at least the Biblical
representation of Jesus (which may have little relation to the
historical figure) is the one who instructed the apostles to bring a
sword to the Garden of Gethsemane and IIRC, instructed believers in the
last times to sell their cloaks and buy swords. He was no pacifist, at
least the biblical version of him was not.

Brad Thorarinson

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

northsider <north...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Jesus would be against guns; but, the gun lobby is in league with the
>preachers
>using so-called christians who can't, or won't, think for themselves!

" And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
- Luke 22:36

Seems to me that Jesus was certainly arguing for one's right to defend oneself
with appropriate tools. After all, he sure wasn't advocating violence.

Brad


Hunter

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

In article <1XbU.23$pG2.5...@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca>,
bradt...@evergreen.freenet.mb.ca says...

Guess he didn't kick the money lenders out of the temple either.


--
Those who claim gun ownership is a mere privilege, not a right
are in fact claiming the right to abolish the privilege.


Malcolm Baron

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

Very well put, thank you.

Malcolm

Malcolm Baron

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

> > Never trust a government that you can't shoot back at.
>
> Well I'll be damned there is a real paranoia thing going on here isn't
> there. Sorry I didn't see it at first. Actually most armed coups just put
> the same policies but with a different face in the government, not very
> progressive if you ask me.
>
> tree...

I am in no way argueing for an armed coup, in fact far from it. The point
I am trying to make is that I don't want to suffer the same fate as: the
Jews, Armenians, anti-soviet Russians, anti soviet anybody in the old east
block. The Hutus, (or Tutsis or whoever) Anti- Fascist Germans, anti
communist Chinese, the Kurds, Albanians, Algerians, etc etc. I am sure
other rewades of this can add other groups who became the victims of their
own governments to this list. What I am arguing is the same position as the
drafters of the 2nd amendment. In a country where only the government has
guns, the government can become dictatorial. This will not happen if the
citizens can shoot back


Bill.B

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to


>
>*If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
>documents, floppo.


"Well Regulated" as written in the 2nd Amendment, in the time it was written
meant "Well Disciplined", FLOPPO!!!!!!

Steve Hix

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

Man! Which .groups do I trim this time...?

> Jesus would be against guns;

Here we go again...

35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without purse and bag
and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" And they said,
"No, nothing."
36 And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along,
likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and
buy one.
...
38 And they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them,
"It is enough." (Luke 22:35,36,38 NASB)

Looks like He wasn't against swords. He *did* clearly have a problem with
initiating force against others. Defensive use was a different matter.

> but, the gun lobby is in league with the preachers using so-called
> christians who can't, or won't, think for themselves!

Or maybe not.

Rod K

unread,
Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98
to

Very well said, Julia. I believe I may have to quote you from time to
time.

RK

northsider

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

rangrrik wrote:
>
> northsider wrote:
> >
> > Jesus would be against guns; but, the gun lobby is in league with the

> > preachers
> > using so-called christians who can't, or won't, think for themselves!
> >
>
> Actually, that is a fallacy. Jesus, or at least the Biblical
> representation of Jesus (which may have little relation to the
> historical figure) is the one who instructed the apostles to bring a
> sword to the Garden of Gethsemane and IIRC, instructed believers in the
> last times to sell their cloaks and buy swords. He was no pacifist, at
> least the biblical version of him was not.

It is not a fallacy that religion is about power and that religious
leaders
are often more politicians that anything else; and, as such they have
formed
alliances with strange bedfellows including people who confuse their
guns with
their penises! :)

I will admit that you can find anything in the Bible to support any idea
you
want. I'll take: "....whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him
the other also. And if any man shall sue thee at the law, and take away
thy coat,
let him have thy cloak also." Matthew 5:39-40

If a Christian pays attention to anything Christ supposedly said I
should think
it would be the "Sermon on the Mount!" :)

cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Bill.B (bi...@hrtc.net) wrote:

: >*If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
: >documents, floppo.

: "Well Regulated" as written in the 2nd Amendment, in the time it was
: written meant "Well Disciplined", FLOPPO!!!!!!

As the word "discipline" existed at the time, and as they were all
relatively well-educated men, perhaps it's possible that if they
*meant* discipline, they would've *wrote* discipline?

Joe Sylvester

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

In article <35209192...@bc.sympatico.ca>, tr...@bc.sympatico.ca says...

>
>Malcolm Baron wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
>> > "argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about it?
>> >
>>
>> Do you want to live in a ountry where only the government has access to
>> firearms? I sure don't! More people die at the hands of there own
>> governments than do at the hands of invading armies.
>>
>> Never trust a government that you can't shoot back at.
>
> Well I'll be damned there is a real paranoia thing going on here isn't
>there. Sorry I didn't see it at first. Actually most armed coups just put
>the same policies but with a different face in the government, not very
>progressive if you ask me.
>
>tree...
>

You need to read more carefully. He said "shoot *back* at". Implying that the
government forces institued the shooting. It could even be in the context of
resisting a coup.

--


The Second Amendment is the RESET button
of the United States Constitution.
---Doug McKay" <mcka...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Joe Sylvester
Don't Tread On Me !


Kerry Delf

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca

[posted and cc'd]


On 31 Mar 1998 cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:

> Kerry Delf (kd...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>
> : (D) What's your solution to the problem of international aggression? If
> : the Canadians, for example, turn in all their guns (you're virtually
> : there already), but...well, say, Quebec does not, and the government
> : and residents of Quebec are hostile towards the rest of Canada, and
> : want some of your resources -- what are you going to do? Send out a
> : fucking army of kickboxers?
>

> The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
> "argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about it?

*What* army, little self-appointed czar? If the Canadians (to continue
the example) had "solved" the problem of violence by getting rid of all
the guns, how in hell is the military armed to defend the country?

Taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while allowing
the government to retain full firepower, is another situation entirely,
and one which I find even more morally and ethically horrifying. The
poster to whom I was responding, however, claimed that the "simple
solution" was to merely get rid of all the guns.

Learn to read comprehensively.

[...]

Kerry Delf

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, tree wrote:

> Vampire wrote:
>
> > cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote in message
> >

> > > Kerry Delf wrote:
> > >
> > >: But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
> > >: keep and bear arms
> > >


> > > *If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
> > > documents, floppo.
> >

> > why is it the Canadians think they know what is in the constitution,
> > just me causing trouble again and loving it :)
>

> It's part of our grade 9-10 social studies courses or at least it was
> when I was attending grade school.

Then it looks like either Czar's teachers (and apparently yours) were
incompetent or misinformed, or he was simply unteachable.


> tree...

Kerry Delf

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, tree wrote:

> Malcolm Baron wrote:
>
> > > The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
> > > "argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about it?
> >

> > Do you want to live in a ountry where only the government has access
> > to firearms? I sure don't! More people die at the hands of there
> > own governments than do at the hands of invading armies.
> >
> > Never trust a government that you can't shoot back at.
>
> Well I'll be damned there is a real paranoia thing going on here isn't
> there. Sorry I didn't see it at first. Actually most armed coups just
> put the same policies but with a different face in the government, not
> very progressive if you ask me.

He wasn't talking about an armed coup. He said (READ it this time, I'll
type slowly for you): "Never trust a government you can't shoot BACK at."
Governments around the world have *always* committed injustices against
their citizens, and the severity of those injustices (including the murder
rate of citizens by government agents) tends to be much higher when the
citizens have been deprived of their right to keep and bear arms.

What with fairly recent situations such as Ruby Ridge and Waco (and those
are just the well-publicized ones), along with hundreds, likely thousands,
of unjust and unconstitutional no-knock raids, I fail to see how
recognition that government agents are not necessarily always the good
guys who are on your side is to be classified as "paranoia."

Kerry Delf

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to Peter MacGown

[posted and cc'd]


On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Peter MacGown wrote:

> Kerry Delf wrote:
>
> > (E) As a Canadian, I'm sure you don't give a damn about American rights.

> > But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
> > keep and bear arms [...]


>
> Actually, you are incorrect in this. Personal weapons are generally
> regulated by the state (in the US). Massachusetts, the state in which I
> live, makes it very hard to get a firearm. You also have to have a
> special license to have double-bladed weapons (so forget the really kewl

> athame), and mace as well. [...]

Good point, Pete. Thanks for pointing out how our Constitution is being
undermined and violated.

Personal weapons ARE often over-regulated by the states. That doesn't
make it Constitutional, and there are those of us who continue to fight
this egregious violation vociferously.

We'll get you your athame back yet, man... <grin> (What do you do, just
use a blunt blade, or a single-edged knife?

Damned stinkers in MA. The bullshit firearms etc. laws in Massachusetts
are among the reasons I've chosen not to ever live there, though I
considered it at one point. As a 120-lb. woman who often has occasion to
be out alone at night, I refuse to live in a state which denies me the
right to take responsiblity for my own protection, despite the state's
inability to protect me if they deny me the right to concealed carry.
Problems we may have (just look at the Oregon Citizen's Alliance and their
anti-gay-rights measure), but I still love Oregon...


> B*B
> Pete

Kerry Delf

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Brad Thorarinson wrote:

> northsider <north...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Jesus would be against guns; but, the gun lobby is in league with the
> > preachers using so-called christians who can't, or won't, think for
> > themselves!
>

> " And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
> - Luke 22:36
>
> Seems to me that Jesus was certainly arguing for one's right to defend
> oneself with appropriate tools. After all, he sure wasn't advocating
> violence.

Not to mention the fact that the simple fact that some gun folks are
Christians does not mean either (A) "the gun lobby is in league with"
Christians or (B) pro-gun-rights people can't think for themselves. Hell,
it doesn't even mean that the two positions, pro- gun rights and
Christianity, are correlated -- I'm an atheist and a pro-gunner
(politically, as well as being a firearms enthusiast; the two are
entirely separate things).

Right-o. This is getting even more off-topic than usual in half of the
cross-post list... Follow-ups redirected.


> Brad

Ero...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

In article <6fre8l$e...@acmey.gatech.edu>,

jb...@prism.gatech.edu (Julia R. Cochrane) wrote:
>
>
> Why?
>
> Because if people want me not to carry one so badly that they'll
> lie their asses off to me about it, and those same people are
> mad because I'm good at what I do and make a lot of money and
> would dearly love to take it all away from me, and those same
> people are mad because I say what I think *especially* when I
> know they don't like it, and those same people are mad at me
> because I want to teach my kid what her dad and I think instead
> of blithely sending them in to be indoctrinated by them, then I
> can take that as a pretty good hint that the time is not far off
> when I'm going to need those firearms.
>
> Or, as someone I used to know once said, "I don't get the whole
> idea of bondage. If I'm going to like what they're going to do to me
> so much, why do they think they need to tie me up?"

IMHO this isn't such a good analogy. The obvious answer is "It's *different*
when you're tied up. Maybe you won't like it - but you won't know until you've
tried it."

Gun owners, OTOH, already know what it's like to not be allowed guns.

(On the third hand, the two cases are alike in that they both require generous
slices of trust. Do you trust random bureaucrats enough to let them tie you up
for sex? No? Then how can you trust them to disarm you - especially when
*they* get to keep *their* guns?)

>
> Julie
> --
> * * *
> Stop foreigners from undermining the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
> Protect US Sovereignty. Boycott Japan, Inc.
>

Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com (mail drop)
Er...@ix.netcom.com (surfboard)

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

SFT

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

On 1 Apr 1998 03:39:24 GMT, cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:

>Bill.B (bi...@hrtc.net) wrote:
>
>: >*If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
>: >documents, floppo.
>


>: "Well Regulated" as written in the 2nd Amendment, in the time it was
>: written meant "Well Disciplined", FLOPPO!!!!!!
>
>As the word "discipline" existed at the time, and as they were all
>relatively well-educated men, perhaps it's possible that if they
>*meant* discipline, they would've *wrote* discipline?

Kinda like if they'd meant for the right to keep and bear arms to only
apply to people in a well regulated militia, they could have used
those words instead of "people". "A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to
keep militias shall not be infringed." I think if they'd meant that,
they would have said that.

Steve

Charles Ellis

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote in article
<6fpgdv$hlc$3...@news.sas.ab.ca>...


> Kerry Delf (kd...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
>
> : (D) What's your solution to the problem of international aggression?
If
> : the Canadians, for example, turn in all their guns (you're
virtually
> : there already), but...well, say, Quebec does not, and the
government
> : and residents of Quebec are hostile towards the rest of Canada, and

> : want some of your resources -- what are you going to do? Send out
a
> : fucking army of kickboxers?
>

> The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
> "argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about it?
>

> : (E) As a Canadian, I'm sure you don't give a damn about American
rights.
>

> Well, I'll be damned -- you're *not* a total idiot!

I had to answer this due to the fact the person here seems to be from the
Soviet Republic of Canada. I doubt that most Canadians knows what "rights"
are. Poor oppressed surfs.

>
> : But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
> : keep and bear arms
>

> *If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
> documents, floppo.

Hmm. Typical Canadian ignorance of US history. Read Madison's, Franklin's
and Jefferson's definition of a "militia"....floppo. Floppo? What is a
floppo? Since Canadians are not taught in their Goverment mind grinders
(public schools) what freedom is and are taught how they hail from the
glorious British Empire I would not have expected any other response.
There are enlightened Canadians and many have taken refuge here in the ever
diminishing haven of freedom.
The queen is a bitch and her family have been murderous scum for centuries.

Paul M. Zeller

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 23:24:28 -0800, Malcolm Baron
<mba...@achilles.net> wrote:

>
>
>>
>>
>> The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
>> "argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about it?
>>
>

>Do you want to live in a ountry where only the government has access to
>firearms? I sure don't! More people die at the hands of there own
>governments than do at the hands of invading armies.
>
>Never trust a government that you can't shoot back at.
>

If for some reason the government of the United States wanted to use
military force against it's citizens, all the deer hunters and gun
owners in the country would not be able to prevent it from completing
it's mission.

Wuff

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

In <35217B50...@achilles.net> Malcolm Baron <mba...@achilles.net> writes:

<large snip>

> What I am arguing is the same position as the
>drafters of the 2nd amendment. In a country where only the government has
>guns, the government can become dictatorial. This will not happen if the
>citizens can shoot back

I have always wondered at this mindset : 'I've got a gun so I can defend
myself'.

Look, if your government ever decides to use direct physical force against
you, and can find men willing to do it, then they will walk through you
like you're not there. They have tanks, wire-guided missiles, body armour,
grenades, heavy machine guns, and sniper rifles than can blow you in half
from (literally) a mile away.

There is absolutely *nothing* you can do about such a dictatorial government
except prevent it (or the military mindset which creates it) from forming in
the first place.

Any talk of combatting modern military hardware and training with a personal
weapon is a joke.

Regards,

Vin


SFT

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

So, what will you do? Bend over and spread you cheeks?
Steve

W. Kiernan

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Hello newsgroups!

Indeed, as a matter of grammar, I think that the first interpretation an
English speaker would give to the Second Amendment would take that
opening phrase:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a Free
State,

as explanatory, not as a condition upon the second phrase:

the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.

You can't accuse the authors of the Constitution of illiteracy, nor of
the inability to think and write logically and accurately. If the
writers of the Second Amendment had wanted to phrase it as a
conditional, they'd have done so, for example:

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, in the service of a
Well-regulated militia, shall not be infringed.

(I'm thinking here of an amusing, but, I think, wrong-thinking essay by
Paul Fussell where he considered it to be the condition upon which the
second phrase rests, i.e., he considers the second phrase to be
conditional upon the first, so a citizen does not have the unconditional
right to bear arms unless he is a member of a "well-regulated militia".
Mr. Fussell was a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army in the Second World War in
Europe, where he was wounded in combat, so he is well acquainted with
the pleasures of military service. His suggestion was to create a
National Militia and force all gun-owners either to join up, and undergo
an experience kind of like National Guard service, complete with
bivouacs in the woods and G.I. cuisine, or else to relinquish their
guns.)

By "arms", contemporary usage at the time of the writing of the Second
Amendment meant each and every weapon used in war; I can recall a letter
from George Washington about at the time of the defeat of Cornwallis at
Yorktown, where he describes the French war ships - war ships being the
most potent weapons in the world that year, their equivalent of
strategic nuclear bombers - as "arms". I only mention this to prempt
the common but dubious argument that the Second Amendment refers to
weapons light enough to carry, such as rifles or pistols, but does not
include, say, cannons. Besides, even if you do acknowledge that point,
and I do not, the U.S. has manufactured a nuclear bomb light enough for
one man to carry, and how much does a vial of botulism toxin or Sarin
nerve gas weigh?

So it seems to me that, if read literally (as it was intended!), the
Second Amendment clearly justifies the private ownership of:

Knives and swords
Handguns, rifles and shotguns
Bombs, e.g. dynamite and C-4 or Semtex plastic explosive
Hand grenades
Machine guns
Mortars
Artillery cannons, e.g. howitzers
Land mines
Tanks and armored cars
Warplanes of all sorts, from single-seat prop planes to B-52 heavy
strategic bombers
Guided ground-to-air missiles, e.g. the Stinger shoulder-launched
anti-aircraft missile
Ground-to-ground missiles, e.g. the Pershing intermediate-range
ballistic missile, or the German A-4 (V-2) missile
Cruise missiles, e.g. the Tomahawk terrain-following missile
Poison gases
Biological weapons, e.g. anthrax bombs
Radiological weapons
Nuclear bombs

You may object that no private individual can afford to buy a nuclear
bombs, so the issue is moot. Perhaps that is true; on the other hand a
Stinger anti-aircraft missile costs just $50,000, less than the average
private house (in fact, if the madmen at the C.I.A. like you, they'll
ship you hundreds of them for free) and a Tomahawk costs only a mere
million dollars, which means that, say, H. Ross Perot could easily
afford a fleet of a thousand of them. And, Hell, hand grenades are dirt
cheap to manufacture; even I could afford a case or two of them. (I'd
want ones with long fuses. Some pistol-waving punk's trying to carry
out a carjacking? Just pull the pin, roll it under the driver's seat,
step out of the car, and say, "It's all yours.")

Furthermore, the Second Amendment states:

the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed

and I want to focus on the phrase "shall not be infringed", which
literally means that so long as I retain the rights of an ordinary
citizen, the state shall put NO IMPEDIMENTS WHATSOEVER between me and
the vendor of any weapon I choose. It would not be enough if, by
jumping through bureaucratic hoops, I could acquire that case of hand
grenades; ANY impediment - filling out forms, applying for special
permission, registering my possesion with a government agency, even
paying sales tax - is ipso facto unconstitutional.

Yet, despite the clear and unequivocal wording of the Second Amendment,
I can't walk into the local gun shop and buy a hand grenade, or a
fully-automatic rifle (by which I mean one that fires a whole burst of
bullets with one trigger-pull - I don't want to get into an argument
about the ill-defined term "assault weapon"). Americans haven't been
able to freely buy a Thompson submachine gun since about 1930.

That date 1930 is important here because those pathological liars who
run the U.S. Republican Party are constantly whining about how "Clinton
has taken our gun rights away". They're political campaign operatives,
so all sensible people expect them to lie constantly, and I know they
only spout that nonsense in their eagerness to hook all the hunters and
sportsmen into voting Republican, but that doesn't change the fact that
they're lying and they know it. It wasn't Clinton, you sleazy liars,
Clinton wasn't even born yet, it wasn't even a Democrat, it was Herbert
Hoover, a Republican, who signed the bill which, practically speaking,
repealed the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is dead. In its place, the various states
grudgingly grant certain limited rights regarding arms. In Florida, I
(as an adult citizen with undiminshed rights, that is, I am neither a
mental patient nor a convicted felon) can possess a hunting rifle with
no restrictions; I can also buy a pistol, but if I want to carry it (and
what use is a pistol if you can't carry it?) I need to get a permit. In
New York, legally speaking, I can't possess the pistol at all. In some
Western states, I believe I'd have even broader rights than I do here.
But as far as I know, in no state in the Union can I legally carry a
hand grenade.

In practice, then, the question isn't whether I have the right to bear
arms; it is only where the state shall draw the line. Below that line
are the weapons I can carry, say pistols or knives. Above that line are
the weapons that are proscribed, say howitzers and nerve gas. The
practical political issue since 1930 or so, though Second Amendment
literalists refuse to acknowledge this fact, is only exactly where to
place the line.

I say again: the Second Amendment, taken literally, is a dead letter.
The Second Amendment guarantees you certain rights. In practical fact,
you do not enjoy those rights. That's the way it is. I don't readily
see how the citizens of the U.S.A. can regain those rights. In fact,
even if I could imagine a scheme to resuscitate the Second Amendment,
I'm not so sure I want to re-establish the rights guaranteed by the
Second Amendment.

What do you want? Do you want the citizens of Miami to be able to buy
Stinger anti-aircraft missiles over the counter? Do you think it would
be a good idea to sell those folks 105 mm howitzers? I mention Miami
here because of a strange-but-true fact, the recital of which may amuse
foreigners. Each and every year at New Year's Day one or two people die
in Miami, due to the colorful local custom of masses of local
pistol-waving idiots celebrating the new year by stepping outdoors and
emptying their guns into the air. Naturally when you fire thousands of
rounds of ammunition into the sky, well, you know, gravity and all, the
bullets fall randomly, and one or two poor suckers get hit and killed.
Now imagine New Year's in Miami with Stingers and howitzers.

I'd be interested in hearing the responses of gun enthusiasts concerning
this issue, provided they had something to say besides personal
insults. Since I have just about zero interest in owning a gun myself,
I have never bothered to seriously analyze how you could uphold a
literal interpretation of the Second Amendment, and yet avoid the urban
holocaust you'd expect if all U.S. citizens actually did have unlimited
access to all forms of weaponry. All of you who quote the Second
Amendment as though it had any meaning these days, what do you think?

Yours WDK - WKie...@concentric.net

PS: Incidentally, I snipped the Wicca and Satanism newsgroups off the
header; I fail to see the connection, and I'll bet they do too. I'd
have snipped the atheism group too, but that's where I'm posting from.

Mr. Scratch wrote:
>
> On 31 Mar 1998 cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>

> > Kerry Delf (kd...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
> >
> > > (D) What's your solution to the problem of international
> > > aggression? If the Canadians, for example, turn in all their
> > > guns (you're virtually there already), but...well, say, Quebec
> > > does not, and the government and residents of Quebec are hostile
> > > towards the rest of Canada, and want some of your resources --
> > > what are you going to do? Send out a fucking army of kickboxers?
> >

> > The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
> > "argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about
> > it?
>

> Your answer seems to make no sense whatsoever. You seem to have
> missed the point altogether...and you accuse /Kerry/ of being a
> pinhead"?


>
> > > But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right
> > > to keep and bear arms
> >
> > *If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
> > documents, floppo.
>

> I have read it. Lets go over the relevant article, point by point,
> shall we?
>
> "Amendment II: A well-regulated Militia being necessary for the
> security of a Free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear
> Arms shall not be infringed."
>
> It does not say anywhere that citizens must be part of the militia to
> own guns, though indeed, all male citizens above the age of 17 are
> automatically members of the militia. What it says is that it must
> remain possible for a well-regulated (meaning "standardized") militia
> to be formed, in case there is a threat to the freedom of the state.
> The effect can be examined from a better perspective if you switch
> the subject of the text from "guns" to "books". Example...
>
> "A well-educated legislature being necessary for the security of a
> Free State, the right of the People to Keep and Read Books shall not
> be infringed."
>
> You wouldn't interpret this to mean that people could only read books
> if they were members of the legislature, would you? If you did, you
> would likely not have an educated legislature at all.
>
> Furthermore, you will note the word "People" appears into the text of
> the 2nd Amendment. You do know who "the People" are, aren't you?
> Well, common sense (as well as the Supreme Court) tell me that "the
> People" are the common citizenry.
>
> The 2nd Amendment says "the Right of the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms
> SHALL NOT be infringed.

< snip Holy Invocation, religious worship bores me >

jo...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Charles Ellis (charle...@nashville.com) wrote:
: > : (E) As a Canadian, I'm sure you don't give a damn about American
: rights.
Only the right to take away the rights of those poorer than you.

: >
: > Well, I'll be damned -- you're *not* a total idiot!

: I had to answer this due to the fact the person here seems to be from the
: Soviet Republic of Canada. I doubt that most Canadians knows what "rights"
: are. Poor oppressed surfs.

Canada is not a republic, dude.
And I do too know what rights are. They're like the things the government
sends you in the mail and through those electronic chips in your skull
that tell you to do stuff.

: >
: > : But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to


: > : keep and bear arms
: >
: > *If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
: > documents, floppo.

: Hmm. Typical Canadian ignorance of US history. Read Madison's, Franklin's


: and Jefferson's definition of a "militia"....floppo. Floppo? What is a
: floppo? Since Canadians are not taught in their Goverment mind grinders
: (public schools) what freedom is and are taught how they hail from the
: glorious British Empire I would not have expected any other response.

I went to an American private school for one day and was surprised at how
much American propaganda there was there.
If you're wondering what a floppo is, I'll ask what's this glorious
British Empire you speak about?

: There are enlightened Canadians and many have taken refuge here in the ever
: diminishing haven of freedom.
ANd there are ignorant Americans (ie Tories, black slaves) who have taken
refuge here from the persecution of the States.

: The queen is a bitch and her family have been murderous scum for centuries.
Finally, we agree on something. But looking at the tabloids, America seems
to spend a lot more time on the monarchy than Canadians, all the while Bat
Boy is out terrorising your neighbourhoods.


--


Julia R. Cochrane

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:

>Bill.B (bi...@hrtc.net) wrote:

>: >*If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
>: >documents, floppo.

>: "Well Regulated" as written in the 2nd Amendment, in the time it was


>: written meant "Well Disciplined", FLOPPO!!!!!!

>As the word "discipline" existed at the time, and as they were all
>relatively well-educated men, perhaps it's possible that if they
>*meant* discipline, they would've *wrote* discipline?


Physician, heal thyself! You're so fond of adding data to logic,
go find a dictionary of English contemporaneous to the late 18th
century and early 19th century and look at the documented uses
of the term "well-regulated".

You're reasoning without data. Go look in a reference book for
uses of the term in various contexts in that time period. Linguists
and etymologists love this stuff and the references are readily
available in the libraries that serve them.

Julie

>--
> ***********************************************************
> * *
> * | Logic used | Logic not used | *
> * -----------------|---------------|------------------| *
> * Data used | Science | Empiricism | *
> * -----------------|---------------|------------------| *
> * Data not used | Rationalism | Mysticism | *
> * *
> ***********************************************************

Gregory Gyetko

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Charles Ellis wrote:

> cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote in article
> <6fpgdv$hlc$3...@news.sas.ab.ca>...

> > Kerry Delf (kd...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:
> >
> > : (D) What's your solution to the problem of international aggression?
> If
> > : the Canadians, for example, turn in all their guns (you're
> virtually
> > : there already), but...well, say, Quebec does not, and the
> government
> > : and residents of Quebec are hostile towards the rest of Canada, and
>
> > : want some of your resources -- what are you going to do? Send out
> a
> > : fucking army of kickboxers?
> >
> > The army (*both* guys!), pinhead! Was this the most intelligent
> > "argument" you could come up with, or did you have to think about it?
> >

> > : (E) As a Canadian, I'm sure you don't give a damn about American
> rights.
> >

> > Well, I'll be damned -- you're *not* a total idiot!
>
> I had to answer this due to the fact the person here seems to be from the
> Soviet Republic of Canada. I doubt that most Canadians knows what "rights"
> are. Poor oppressed surfs.

HEY LOOK OVER THERE!!!

It's a UFO come to capture you and shove a probe up your ass

QUICK!! HIDE!!

Heh, heh, silly yankee. That'll keep him busy.

Or perhaps we should give him another civilian population to drop a nuclear
weapon on.

> > : But the undeniable fact is that *WE* have the inalienable right to
> > : keep and bear arms
> >

> > *If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
> > documents, floppo.
>

> Hmm. Typical Canadian ignorance of US history. Read Madison's, Franklin's
> and Jefferson's definition of a "militia"....floppo. Floppo?

Floppo: person who is known lack froodiness

> Since Canadians are not taught in their Goverment mind grinders
> (public schools) what freedom is and are taught how they hail from the
> glorious British Empire I would not have expected any other response.

They didn't teach us about the British Empire being glorious - but they did
mention how we clobbered you in the war of 1812 ... btw, the new paintjob on
the White House looks great ;-).

> There are enlightened Canadians and many have taken refuge here in the ever
> diminishing haven of freedom.

You have lower taxes. If it weren't for that, the higher probabily of being
mugged or shot accidentally by my neighbour wouldn't be worth it.

> The queen is a bitch and her family have been murderous scum for centuries.

Monarchies, y'know. But did the Queen ever masacre 80000 civilians with one
bomb?

Greg.

--
alt.atheism Atheist #911
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why waste my time?"
EAC homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/


Peter H. Proctor

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

In article <35226B...@concentric.net> "W. Kiernan" <WKie...@concentric.net> writes:
>From: "W. Kiernan" <WKie...@concentric.net>
>Subject: Re: Firearms why carry them?

snip..

>Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 11:31:16 -0500

>Yet, despite the clear and unequivocal wording of the Second Amendment,
>I can't walk into the local gun shop and buy a hand grenade, or a
>fully-automatic rifle (by which I mean one that fires a whole burst of
>bullets with one trigger-pull - I don't want to get into an argument
>about the ill-defined term "assault weapon"). Americans haven't been
>able to freely buy a Thompson submachine gun since about 1930.

Actually, you can, sorta. You just have to jump thru some hoops and
pay a tax.. In the "less-enlightened" 1930's, people actually thought the
constitution meant something. So the NFA is written as a tax law. This
is because the gummit can tax any damn thing it wants, even if a picky
literal reading of the constitution limits its powers otherwise.

Dr. P

cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Kerry Delf (kd...@gladstone.uoregon.edu) wrote:

: *What* army, little self-appointed czar? If the Canadians (to continue


: the example) had "solved" the problem of violence by getting rid of all
: the guns, how in hell is the military armed to defend the country?

Only an abymally stupid blithering fuckwit would think that the gun
control would extend to the armed forces.

Oh, hi, Kerry! -- I was just talking about you!

Matthew T. Russotto

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

In article <6fsrtg$q...@web3.tcd.ie>, Wuff <vcun...@tcd.ie> wrote:

}Look, if your government ever decides to use direct physical force against
}you, and can find men willing to do it, then they will walk through you
}like you're not there.

No, they won't. They will inflict terrible casualties, but they will
not come out unscathed.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

rangrrik

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Gregory Gyetko wrote:
>
> Monarchies, y'know. But did the Queen ever masacre 80000 civilians with one
> bomb?
>
> Greg.

You REALLY want to get into an argument as to whether Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were justified? You REALLY want to do that?

rangrrik

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Wuff wrote:
>
> In <35217B50...@achilles.net> Malcolm Baron <mba...@achilles.net> writes:
>
> <large snip>
>
> > What I am arguing is the same position as the
> >drafters of the 2nd amendment. In a country where only the government has
> >guns, the government can become dictatorial. This will not happen if the
> >citizens can shoot back
>
> I have always wondered at this mindset : 'I've got a gun so I can defend
> myself'.
>
> Look, if your government ever decides to use direct physical force against
> you, and can find men willing to do it, then they will walk through you
> like you're not there. They have tanks, wire-guided missiles, body armour,
> grenades, heavy machine guns, and sniper rifles than can blow you in half
> from (literally) a mile away.
>
> There is absolutely *nothing* you can do about such a dictatorial government
> except prevent it (or the military mindset which creates it) from forming in
> the first place.
>
> Any talk of combatting modern military hardware and training with a personal
> weapon is a joke.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vin


Ahem. Tell that to the Chaddians who took on Lybian T-62 tanks in Toyota
Four-Runners. Tell that to the Afghans that took on Soviet tanks and
helicopters with hand-made rifles. Tell that to the Vietcong, the Moros
in the Phillipines and EVERY SINGLE guerilla force that tied up armies a
thousand times their size throughout history.

Steve Fischer

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

In article <1XbU.23$pG2.5...@typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca> bradt...@evergreen.freenet.mb.ca (Brad Thorarinson) writes:
>northsider <north...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>Jesus would be against guns; but, the gun lobby is in league with the
>>preachers
>>using so-called christians who can't, or won't, think for themselves!
>" And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
> - Luke 22:36
>
>Seems to me that Jesus was certainly arguing for one's right to defend oneself
>with appropriate tools. After all, he sure wasn't advocating violence.
>
>Brad
>

Most established religions believe that suicide is a sin. If
you fail to take measures to defend yourself, you are mocking God's
gift of life to you.

--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/

rangrrik

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> Only an abymally stupid blithering fuckwit would think that the gun
> control would extend to the armed forces.
>

You mean fuckwits like Senator Lautenburg, whose amendment to a spending
bill said that anyone who was convicted of domestic violence couldn't
posess firearms? For several months, until Congress changed the law,
there were literally tens of thousands of military men and cops who
COULDN'T CARRY GUNS ON DUTY.
Then they decided that cops and soldiers who beat up their wives were
okay to carry guns again. Only the citizens they supposedly protect are
covered by laws.

Don Staples

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

More interesting line of thought, if the Brits had the bomb, and a means
of delivery, during the battle of britain, how long do you think Berlin
would have lasted? That wouldn't be the sun rising in the east.
--
Don Staples
UIN 4653335

My Ego Stroke: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/

Mutt

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

This Friday, April 3, I will be 21 years old. The legal age to have a
concealed weapon liscence in Texas. The minute I get the liscence, I will
be carrying a 2 bullet derringer in my glove box because the D/FW metro
area (Or any place for that matter) is not a very safe place to be in. Hell
yeah, I'll use a gun if it is to protect my life or the life of another.
Something Garougirl & I talked about on IRC is that "An it harm none..."
refers to "needless" harming. If someone was attempting to kill someone you
loved and you harm that person to protect the person he's attacking, that
is not needless. You put a gun to someone's head & pull the trigger just
for fun, now that is needless. The reasoning behind this is because we, as
humans, can't go through life without harming. We eat meat, which harms the
animal. But that is not needless harm because we need that animal's meat to
survive. Same goes for vegetables. Would you start eating dirt because
eating vegetables & meat is harmful to living plants & animals? Other
animals feed off of plants & fellow animals, so they are no more guilty
than us.

Blessed be,
-Mutt the Pagan Fur
kit...@flash.net
Mutt@FurryMUCK
ftp://furry.olsy-na.com/pub/Images/Jim-Tarpley/
http://www.witchvox.com
"Come on, you apes! You wanta live forever??"
-Unknown platoon sergeant, 1918

Gregory Gyetko

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Don Staples wrote:

> rangrrik wrote:
> >
> > Gregory Gyetko wrote:
> > >
> > > Monarchies, y'know. But did the Queen ever masacre 80000 civilians with one
> > > bomb?
> > >
> > > Greg.
> >
> > You REALLY want to get into an argument as to whether Hiroshima and
> > Nagasaki were justified? You REALLY want to do that?

Why is getting in to an argument with an American over the bomb such a big deal
while referring to Canada as a communist country isn't?

I stand for my country and kick back at anybody who has a problem with it.


> More interesting line of thought, if the Brits had the bomb, and a means
> of delivery, during the battle of britain, how long do you think Berlin
> would have lasted? That wouldn't be the sun rising in the east.

Well, I've always wondered about the bombing of the city of Danzig. Big artsie
place, no industry to speak of, but the Allies bombed the hell out of it anyway.

OTOH, if the Brits *had* the bomb, I'd imagine they would have picked a place in
the Ruhr valley - y'know where there was lots of *industry* and fewer *people*. It
doesn't make sense to bomb civilians, rather indecent, really.

I mean look at how the Japanese did it. They hit Pearl Harbour - they hit a
military target, wiped out all the ships that they could, killed a lot of navy
people. But how much damage did they do to the civilian population?

You have to admit, bombing civilians is a terrorist act, just like Hitler bombing
London, just like Saddam and his scuds.

David Brickner

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

It is a telling fact that the people in England are called "subjects" as
opposed to citizens. Those in canada and Australia have been holding on
to the apron strings of the queen for too long. They have turned over
their guns meekly because they just don't know any better. There must be
a few espeially in Quebec and Rural Australia who haven't cooperated
with the tyranny against freedom forced on their countries, but probably
not many. Germany just bought out Rolls Royce so I guess they are at
last winning the war. At least we won't have to save Englands ass again
likw we did in WW2. The sun HAS set on the British empire..........


Bill.B

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

>
>: >*If* you're part of a regulated militia -- better read your own
>: >documents, floppo.
>


>: "Well Regulated" as written in the 2nd Amendment, in the time it was
>: written meant "Well Disciplined", FLOPPO!!!!!!
>
>As the word "discipline" existed at the time, and as they were all
>relatively well-educated men, perhaps it's possible that if they
>*meant* discipline, they would've *wrote* discipline?


Everywhere else in the Constitution where "regulate" is written it also
say's who will regulate. Well who will regulate a malitia that is to keep
the government in check? Certainly not the government!


Mike Phelan

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

jo...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote in message
<6ftrqb$qv8$2...@news.sas.ab.ca>...
>Charles Ellis (charle...@nashville.com) wrote:
>: > : (E) As a Canadian, I'm sure you don't give a damn about American
>: rights.


>Only the right to take away the rights of those poorer than you.
>
>: >

>: > Well, I'll be damned -- you're *not* a total idiot!


>
>: I had to answer this due to the fact the person here seems to be from the
>: Soviet Republic of Canada. I doubt that most Canadians knows what
"rights"
>: are. Poor oppressed surfs.

>Canada is not a republic, dude.
>And I do too know what rights are. They're like the things the government
>sends you in the mail and through those electronic chips in your skull
>that tell you to do stuff.


blah blah blah!

All this comming from the "land of the free" which is also home of the Kent
State Tianenmen massacre, target of countles Amnesty International human
rights campaigns, the place that is sooo free that you can get executed for
expressing your oppinions (look up Julius Rosenburg) and where you can't say
that you don't like hamburgers.
The land of the free, the bigest democracy on earth, where less than half of
eligeable voters vote (Democracy: method of majority rule), but that's OK
because it's just the homeless people who can't vote, they don't count.
A country SOOO free that at 18 years you can get drafted to kill foriegners
because their government doesn't opperate like yours, you can go out and by
an AK, BUT YOU'RE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO BUY A BEER!!!!!
A country where the citizens are SOOO fre that the minorities can only gain
employment because of legislation that forces people to hire them!
A country that is SOOO free that you have to be a rich bastard to go to a
good school.
And here in Canada, well... Aparently we are SOOO socialist, communist, red
and two faced that we are part of the G7 economic powers, despite having a
population 1/2 of the next larger member nation.
I think the only Soviet instict Canadians have is the desire for someone to
shut you goofs up before we die of laughter.

"All Americans are ignorant assholes" said the man. The guy next to him says
"Sir, I object to that comment!". Man replies "Why are you American?"
Reply "No, I'm an ignorant asshole".

Mike Phelan

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Just like George Bush bombing Baghdad, only Iraq killed about 0.001% of the
civilians the Yanks did.


Gregory Gyetko wrote in message

>I mean look at how the Japanese did it. They hit Pearl Harbour - they hit
a
>military target, wiped out all the ships that they could, killed a lot of
navy
>people. But how much damage did they do to the civilian population?
>
>You have to admit, bombing civilians is a terrorist act, just like Hitler
bombing
>London, just like Saddam and his scuds.
>
>Greg.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Richard

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Malcolm Baron wrote:
>
> > > Never trust a government that you can't shoot back at.
> >
> > Well I'll be damned there is a real paranoia thing going on here isn't
> > there. Sorry I didn't see it at first. Actually most armed coups just put
> > the same policies but with a different face in the government, not very
> > progressive if you ask me.
> >
> > tree...
>
> I am in no way argueing for an armed coup, in fact far from it. The point
> I am trying to make is that I don't want to suffer the same fate as: the
> Jews, Armenians, anti-soviet Russians, anti soviet anybody in the old east
> block. The Hutus, (or Tutsis or whoever) Anti- Fascist Germans, anti
> communist Chinese, the Kurds, Albanians, Algerians, etc etc. I am sure
> other rewades of this can add other groups who became the victims of their
> own governments to this list. What I am arguing is the same position as the

> drafters of the 2nd amendment. In a country where only the government has
> guns, the government can become dictatorial. This will not happen if the
> citizens can shoot back


Some "right to bear arms" advocate posted something a while back
about Hitler imposing gun control in Germany in 1936 as an example
of why gun control is a bad thing. However, what he neglected to
mention was that it was a well armed populace that was instrumental
in putting Hitler in power in the first place. Specifically,
the Nazis were backed by their own private militia, the
SA ("the brownshirts"), who carried out a bullying and terrorism
campaign to eliminate and/or silence their political opponents.
As I recall, other political parties in pre-1933 Germany, such as
the communists, also had militia's backing them. I consider the
militia movement in the US today to be much more of a threat
than a democratically elected government that has a well concieved
constitution to impose checks and balances on it (other than the
Germans, I don't think any of the countries you mentioned started
from a situation where a true democracy was replaced by a dictatorship;
they went from one autocracy to another). The cause of freedom is not
well served by allowing groups of violent people to run around
with automatic weapons while expressing the attitude : "democracy"
my way, or else!

If the US did become a dictatorship (which I think is extremely
unlikely),it is these private militias that would likely precipate
it.


Richard

Peter H. Proctor

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

In article <3522BABC...@nospam.newbridge.com> Gregory Gyetko <ggy...@nospam.newbridge.com> writes:
>From: Gregory Gyetko <ggy...@nospam.newbridge.com>
>Subject: Re: Soviet Republic of Canada was Re: Firearms why carry them?
>Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 17:07:57 -0500

>Well, I've always wondered about the bombing of the city of Danzig.

Er, that's Dresden. It was bombed because Churchill wanted to impress the
Soviets with alleid firepower.

Big artsie
>place, no industry to speak of, but the Allies bombed the hell out of it anyway.

>OTOH, if the Brits *had* the bomb, I'd imagine they would have picked a place in
>the Ruhr valley - y'know where there was lots of *industry* and fewer *people*.
>It doesn't make sense to bomb civilians, rather indecent, really.

Actually, the British bomber campaign was primarily aimed at
disrupting the German war effort by "dehousing" industrial workers using area
bombing at night. The Americans at least made a pretense of "precision"
bombing of industrial targets by day and accepted a higher casualty rate for
it. After the war, the British commander "Bomber" Harris was partially
shunned for his role in what some British military leaders considered close to
a war crime.

And the "Dam Busters" in the Ruhr killed a lot of civilians when they
broke the dams.

>I mean look at how the Japanese did it. They hit Pearl Harbour - they hit a
>military target, wiped out all the ships that they could, killed a lot of navy
>people. But how much damage did they do to the civilian population?

Ever hear of the "Rape of Nanking" ? Hundreds of thousands of Chinese
civilians were killed in a terrorist attempt to get Chiang to negotiate.
and then there were asian women held in virtual slavery as protitutes, etc..
But I do go on.... Wierd thing was, in previous wars (such as that against
Russia), the Japanese had gone out of their way to play by the rules WRT
prisoners, etc.

>You have to admit, bombing civilians is a terrorist act, just like Hitler
>bombing London, just like Saddam and his scuds.

Some generals would agree with you...

Dr. P

Bubba

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:09:27 -0600, "Mike Phelan" <umph...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
wrote:

I didn't hink it could happen, but, you've shown your ignorance of the
issues once again.


PLMerite

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Mike Phelan wrote in message <6fuhfl$6m1$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>
>blah blah blah!

nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!!

>All this comming from the "land of the free" which is also home of the Kent
>State Tianenmen massacre, target of countles Amnesty International human
>rights campaigns, the place that is sooo free that you can get executed for
>expressing your oppinions (look up Julius Rosenburg) and where you can't
say
>that you don't like hamburgers.

Julius Rosenburg? You mean the traitorous atomic spy, Julius Rosenburg?
You're even farther off the deep end than I suspected.

>The land of the free, the bigest democracy on earth, where less than half
of
>eligeable voters vote (Democracy: method of majority rule), but that's OK
>because it's just the homeless people who can't vote, they don't count.

We're not a Democracy, we're a Representative Republic. And I haven't heard
anything about 'homeless people' since Clinton got elected...seems they all
magically disappeared.

>A country SOOO free that at 18 years you can get drafted to kill foriegners
>because their government doesn't opperate like yours, you can go out and by
>an AK, BUT YOU'RE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO BUY A BEER!!!!!

We haven't had the draft since 1973. And if you're in the military, they'll
GIVE you a fully-automatic weapon.

>A country where the citizens are SOOO fre that the minorities can only gain
>employment because of legislation that forces people to hire them!

Yes, let's hear it for Affirmative Action!!

>A country that is SOOO free that you have to be a rich bastard to go to a
>good school.

Yes, I want my taxes hiked up to the sky so some lazy jerkoff can send his
spawn to college at my expense.

>And here in Canada, well... Aparently we are SOOO socialist, communist, red
>and two faced that we are part of the G7 economic powers, despite having a
>population 1/2 of the next larger member nation.

But your heads are swelled enough to make up for it. They only let you in
to the G7 to keep you out of the Soviet Bloc.

>I think the only Soviet instict Canadians have is the desire for someone to
>shut you goofs up before we die of laughter.

That's 'Soviet instinct' enough to earn my contempt.

>
>"All Americans are ignorant assholes" said the man. The guy next to him
says
>"Sir, I object to that comment!". Man replies "Why are you American?"
>Reply "No, I'm an ignorant asshole".

Obviously that joke strikes some chord with you.

If you don't like America, stay up there. We promise not to come up there
and spend any of our money.

Regards, PLMerite

Theodore M. Seeber

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

On 1 Apr 1998, Charles Ellis wrote:

> Hmm. Typical Canadian ignorance of US history. Read Madison's, Franklin's
> and Jefferson's definition of a "militia"....

The definition does not support your viewpoint. The definition is the
same as our national guard today: An army of citizens that can be called
to defend the state in times of trouble.
Now while I'm not about to claim that only the national guard should have
guns, I will claim that the phrase "well regulated" seems to indicate that
people who own guns should be trained to use them properly and should also
be trained in the standard militia arts of following orders, marching in
formation, and enough different forms of communication that they can
coordinate with the federal army when neccessary.
Like to ignore the phrase "well regualted" or interpret it to mean
"everybody"?
Ted


coles

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

> All this comming from the "land of the free" which is also home of the Kent
> State Tianenmen massacre, target of countles Amnesty International human
> rights campaigns, the place that is sooo free that you can get executed for
> expressing your oppinions (look up Julius Rosenburg) and where you can't say
> that you don't like hamburgers.
> The land of the free, the bigest democracy on earth, where less than half of
> eligeable voters vote (Democracy: method of majority rule), but that's OK
> because it's just the homeless people who can't vote, they don't count.
> A country SOOO free that at 18 years you can get drafted to kill foriegners
> because their government doesn't opperate like yours, you can go out and by
> an AK, BUT YOU'RE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO BUY A BEER!!!!!
> A country where the citizens are SOOO fre that the minorities can only gain
> employment because of legislation that forces people to hire them!
> A country that is SOOO free that you have to be a rich bastard to go to a
> good school.

Dude- i'm glad someone else realizes this. We are just as jaded as we
say the Chinese were when they were following Mao and we are just as
sucked into propaganda as the Germans during the Third Reich. For a
while I thought I was going to be a left wing revolutionary when i grow
up (heh, i'm 13.)

If anyone wants to know more send me an email...i've got a collection of
text files on the subject...

BB
E

coles

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Heres another reason why america isn't all its cracked up to be.

Mike Phelan wrote:
>
> Just like George Bush bombing Baghdad, only Iraq killed about 0.001% of the
> civilians the Yanks did.
>
> Gregory Gyetko wrote in message
>

> >I mean look at how the Japanese did it. They hit Pearl Harbour - they hit
> a
> >military target, wiped out all the ships that they could, killed a lot of
> navy
> >people. But how much damage did they do to the civilian population?
> >

> >You have to admit, bombing civilians is a terrorist act, just like Hitler
> bombing
> >London, just like Saddam and his scuds.
> >

> >Greg.

coles

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Robert Frenchu wrote:

> Note: In Mike Phelan's world, everything revolves around the
> consumption of alcohol. I hope this is not typical of Canadians.

Just because he uses alcohol as an example doesn't mean his world
revolvs around it. In your eagerness to defend our lying cheating
country and attack another, you failed to realize that he used alcohol
to provide perspective on america's priorities.

e

gruhn

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

>As the word "discipline" existed at the time, and as they were all
>relatively well-educated men, perhaps it's possible that if they
>*meant* discipline, they would've *wrote* discipline?


As they were well-educated perhaps it's possible that if they had wanted
they could throw together a sentence that would not manage to be the center
of the rationalizations for millions of people.

Malcolm Baron

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98