TEOTAWKI on the Fox Network
Rob O'Neal
"TEOTAWKI", depicted a storyline involving a group of computer executives
preparing for the Year 2000 crash.
It contained surprisingly little of the standard Y2K cliches involving
planes falling from the sky and such.
Though, this "group" of computer professionals wanted to keep it secret. A
far cry from the "doomsayers" on this group.
To complete the ironic night, I flipped past Keith Olberman's show "White
House in Crisis" and Keith opens his show reciting a letter from a
Republican state senator or something saying (forgive me for my
paraphrasing): " that we should watch out for Clinton because he might
declare martial law and call off the 2000 elections because of the Year 2000
computer bug."
He laughed it off and moved on to the usual impeachment stuff.
Very scary on many levels.
Regards,
Rob O'Neal
robo...@ripco.com
Mark Mercer
O'Neal says...
> This evening's episode of Millennium on the Fox Network, appropriately named
> "TEOTAWKI", depicted a storyline involving a group of computer executives
> preparing for the Year 2000 crash.
>
> It contained surprisingly little of the standard Y2K cliches involving
> planes falling from the sky and such.
>
> Though, this "group" of computer professionals wanted to keep it secret. A
> far cry from the "doomsayers" on this group.
Yes, an interesting twist. "Millennium" is one of my favorite programs,
if you haven't guessed from my sigfile. The concept of computer
professionals being so convinced that they could only survive if no-one
else even knew about the problem was frightening, albeit a bit
implausible. It implied that Y2k may be so bad that if the general public
is warned, no one will have a chance due to the panic. The only hope for
the few who know, is to not let the many know. Seems like how the
government is playing it in real life.
Made me think. As a computer professional who has been making a point of
publicizing the need to prepare, I feel I'm doing the right thing. But
I'm also making myself a "known target" - either for the unprepared who
say "get him, he's one of those damned programmers who caused this
disaster", or "get him - he said he was preparing - take his food."
Perhaps that's why I still am not going out of my way to warn those who
are physically the closest to me, unless I know them very well. Those
farther away - work colleagues from other towns, people on the net, I
give the longer story.
Most important than my specific reaction or where the plot went - it has
begun. Day 441, and on a major network TV show, Y2k technology failure -
and total societal disruption as a result - was the driving plot line.
Viewers heard lines like "there won't be any banks, there won't be any
police, you won't be able to call 911" - sounds like csy2k 6 months ago.
Then at 11pm here in Boston, the NBC affiliate's local news did a
majorly-hyped-for-days 2 or 3 minute segment on Y2k. From the home
computer perspective, and full of the usual nonsense: Macs have no
trouble, just set the date ahead on PC's (without any mention of backup
or other precautions). But it was a "Y2k is real" piece, and it also
mentioned embedded systems, airlines, banks, the usual suspects.
It's started, folks. We're not the Y2k "crazies" any more. They are doing
TV shows about it. The public _knows_. Cory, didn't you predict this?
And today I was told that my latest food order was just backordered by
another several weeks beyond the last expected ship date. Oh well, at
least there wasn't overbooking of last week's "defensive shotgun" course.
--
Mark Mercer Secular Y2k Rooster: The time is near.
*mcm<at sign>inorbit<dot>com* (fix the obvious) http://mercers.com/se/
Tim May
mcm.n...@dont-junk-mail-to.inorbit.com (Mark Mercer) wrote:
> Yes, an interesting twist. "Millennium" is one of my favorite programs,
> if you haven't guessed from my sigfile. The concept of computer
> professionals being so convinced that they could only survive if no-one
> else even knew about the problem was frightening, albeit a bit
> implausible. It implied that Y2k may be so bad that if the general public
> is warned, no one will have a chance due to the panic. The only hope for
> the few who know, is to not let the many know. Seems like how the
> government is playing it in real life.
Well, like many of you, I got started with my preparations a while back.
Especially the things which _might_ become in short supply. (Food I
actually consider the last preparation one needs to make for Y2K per se,
as food _should_ be fairly available until late in the leadup to the
crisis. If food is no longer purchasable in Sept-Dec 1999, gonna be a lot
of millions of starvation deaths. Seems implausible. I expect there may be
long lines in Nov-Dec, but stockpiling lots of food should be possible
well into 1999, probably into the autumn.)
> Made me think. As a computer professional who has been making a point of
> publicizing the need to prepare, I feel I'm doing the right thing. But
> I'm also making myself a "known target" - either for the unprepared who
> say "get him, he's one of those damned programmers who caused this
> disaster", or "get him - he said he was preparing - take his food."
A concern I have as well, but my desire to talk and get my views heard is
stronger than my survival instinct. ":-)"
Also, I've been speaking out on libertarian, crypto, and Cypherpunks
issues for a number of years now, so I figure I'm already on the "to be
picked up if martial law is declared" lists. Adopting a new identity in a
small town is something I'm giving a bit of background thought to.
> Perhaps that's why I still am not going out of my way to warn those who
> are physically the closest to me, unless I know them very well. Those
> farther away - work colleagues from other towns, people on the net, I
> give the longer story.
I'm also less vocal with my immediate neighbors, but mostly because I
seldom see them and they certainly are not willing to engage in the kind
of critical thought we see in written forums like this one. In person,
about the most one gets is a passing commen or two.
>
> It's started, folks. We're not the Y2k "crazies" any more. They are doing
> TV shows about it. The public _knows_. Cory, didn't you predict this?
Hardly a prediction we didn't all make. Of _course_ the public will
eventually know. Moreover, they'll eventually panic. Begin taking money
out of their bank accounts, which will trigger bank runs. Begin scheduling
vacation for December-January, which will send an early signal that
industrial production will be affected even if no Y2K problems actually
appear (which is unlikely in the extreme).
And so on. This has been obvious for at least the past year, longer for
others. (I admit that until a bit over a year ago I thought the problems
were either being overstated or would be mostly fixed in time. My eyes
were opened when I started seriously reading and thinking and making my
own estimates.)
--Tim May
--
Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
Mark Mercer
says...
(MM's comments snippage)
> >
> > It's started, folks. We're not the Y2k "crazies" any more. They are doing
> > TV shows about it. The public _knows_.
> Hardly a prediction we didn't all make. Of _course_ the public will
> eventually know.
Tim, I think we have less time than we (the csy2k folks) may have
thought. It's hitting the public media now. A few months ago, the Y2k
collapse story was only on niche media: CBN, Art Bell, and the net. Now,
it's on the evening news in major tv markets, and it's driving plots of
tv shows. Granted, the audience for "Millennium" is somewhat self-
selected for interest in "end of the world" type stories - but they've
never had a Y2k computer scenario on it before. Plus last week's
"NewsRadio" sitcom had a Y2k schtick in it, from what someone else
reported.
I'm going to increase the rate I planned to purchase my supplies. I'm
getting a bad feeling about this.
Tim May
mcm.n...@dont-junk-mail-to.inorbit.com (Mark Mercer) wrote:
> Tim, I think we have less time than we (the csy2k folks) may have
> thought. It's hitting the public media now. A few months ago, the Y2k
> collapse story was only on niche media: CBN, Art Bell, and the net. Now,
> it's on the evening news in major tv markets, and it's driving plots of
> tv shows. Granted, the audience for "Millennium" is somewhat self-
> selected for interest in "end of the world" type stories - but they've
> never had a Y2k computer scenario on it before. Plus last week's
> "NewsRadio" sitcom had a Y2k schtick in it, from what someone else
> reported.
>
> I'm going to increase the rate I planned to purchase my supplies. I'm
> getting a bad feeling about this.
This is why I started stockpiling last year, and had my generator ready to
go last summer. (The generator serves other purposes, like winter outages
and earthquake preparedness.)
One of the nice things about the cost of money being so low (low interest
rates) is that the carrying cost of supplies is low. With interest rates
of 6-8%, for consumers, it costs only a small amount per year to have
$1000 worth of food sitting in one's garage. Inventory costs are low.
(This may help buffer the problems with Y2K for many businesses, too. I
would not be surprised to see inventory accumulation in 1999, programs to
stock more spare parts, etc.)
1999 could be a banner year for sales...followed by a bust in EVEN IF the
Y2K effects are minor.
(E.g., a lot of us eating our 6-month supplies of stored food.)
The Goobers
[snippage]
> 1999 could be a banner year for sales...followed by a bust in EVEN IF the
> Y2K effects are minor.
>
> (E.g., a lot of us eating our 6-month supplies of stored food.)
My May, I believe I stated this as a possibility a while back... great
minds and the same small circles, I guess.
DD
Fred Walter
>This evening's episode of Millennium on the Fox Network, appropriately named
>"TEOTAWKI", depicted a storyline involving a group of computer executives
>preparing for the Year 2000 crash.
It made the people preparing look like gun-crazy insane people:
- one of their kids went on a shooting-spree at a high-school
- that kid's father then killed him
- another of the guys had a shoot-out with the FBI
Yes, the correct words were said, but they came out of the mouths
of crazed-killers...
There was a little spiel at the end of the show by the protagonist,
reading from a book, that basically implied that people, whose only
interest was preparing for survival, were a problem.
fred
--
Y2K: I have my 'country vacation property'. Do you have yours?
Y2K Forum Archive: http://www.infostream.net/fred/garynorth/index.htm
Alternative Health: http://www.infostream.net/fred/alternative_health.htm
Disclaimer: Everything I write is my personal opinion
Frank Ney
fr...@centi.mks.com (Fred Walter) to write:
>>This evening's episode of Millennium on the Fox Network, appropriately named
>>"TEOTAWKI", depicted a storyline involving a group of computer executives
>>preparing for the Year 2000 crash.
>
>It made the people preparing look like gun-crazy insane people:
>
>There was a little spiel at the end of the show by the protagonist,
>reading from a book, that basically implied that people, whose only
>interest was preparing for survival, were a problem.
I saw the episode and that's the way I read it.
Hollywierd has passed judgement: People who prepare for any disaster are a
threat to all "right thinking" people and must be dealt with by the "proper
authorities." Death is the preferred solution.
It's a self-fufilling prophesy -- further marginalizing the already
marginalized leaves them no where to go and nothing left to lose. They may
not have been a threat before, but they've become a threat merely by acting
in self-defense.
We may yet see an increase in government action against so-called
"survivalists" pre-Y2K. And we may also see a shift in the definition of
"survivalist" and "dangerous-by-definition" to include people like Paul
Milne, Tim May, Mickey, Cory's friend, me, even Cory, Shmuel and Declan.
Don Scott's and bks' wet dream.
Sounds like we'd better be squirrels, no matter where we end up...and
practice a variation on "shoot, shovel, and shut up." The more we prepare,
the less we'd better talk about it.
Frank Ney WV/EMT-B N4ZHG LPWV NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO
Sponsor, BATF Abuse page http://www.access.digex.net/~croaker/batfabus.html
West Virginia Coordinator, Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
- --
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uhh, I think so, Brain, but how are we going to get all of the computers to
fail all at the same time?"
Tim May
wrote:
> We may yet see an increase in government action against so-called
> "survivalists" pre-Y2K. And we may also see a shift in the definition of
> "survivalist" and "dangerous-by-definition" to include people like Paul
> Milne, Tim May, Mickey, Cory's friend, me, even Cory, Shmuel and Declan.
I doubt it. Unless the Constitution is changed, or is reinterpreted n a
dramatically different way (as when Japanese ancestry persons were rounded
up and placed in concentration camps), there will be no round up of
"survivalists."
There have to be tangible charges, charges that will stick in court.
If martial law and emergency orders are used to suspend parts of the
Constitution, then all bets are off. But this would likely only be an
after issue after TEOTWAWKI. Meanwhile, business as usual.
> Sounds like we'd better be squirrels, no matter where we end up...and
> practice a variation on "shoot, shovel, and shut up." The more we prepare,
> the less we'd better talk about it.
>
Far too late for anyone who's already spoken out here. The Net has a long
memory.
As for me, I choose to speak my mind. This doesn't mean I let camera crews
from t.v. networks visit...I've turned down a couple of such requests. But
mainly because I don't see the point in spending hours with them for 15
seconds of "freak of the week" coverage. And visuals are
overrated...anyone can go see generators a the nearest home supply store
and can see canned goods and rice at the nearest grocery store; they don't
gain anything by filming my supplies.
I actually expect the next wave of coverage will be the predictable focus
on counter-positions: the critics of preparedness.
Bradley Sherman will be interviewed by CNN on why there is no need to
prepare, Henry Ahlgrim will be interviewed by NHK on Japan's superior
level of preparation and how it will lead the world in Y2K remediation
(once it discovers the Y2K problem, that is), and Joy Haftel will explain
to a rapt audience of feminists and liberals that Y2K is a boystuff
problem created by whitemales and other opressors.
The media love conflict.
The Goobers
[snippage]
> The media love conflict.
There are no 'pictures' of any kind, Mr May, without contrasts... or, as
Heraclitus so pithily put it, 'That which is pulling against its'self is
held toegther, such is the harmony of the bow and the lyre'.
DD
Bradley K. Sherman
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
> ...
>Bradley Sherman will be interviewed by CNN on why there is no need to
>prepare, Henry Ahlgrim will be interviewed by NHK on Japan's superior
Hey Tim, can you cite any post where I said people should not
prepare? I've always been prepared for interruptions in
basic services. I live within a mile of the Hayward fault.
In High School (decades ago), a friend and I used to attempt
to optimize survival gear that would fit in one of those
little metal Band-aid containers. Judging from your posts,
I'd say I have a better handle on what it means to survive
(in a historical sense, not a Y2k sense) than you do, but
I'm not interested in pursuing such an argument, nor can
I think of how one might resolve such a disputation.
So for the record: People should always be prepared to survive
an interruption of basic services (food, water and *shelter*)
for a period of at least two weeks. Do you all have your
passports in order?
--bks
Frank Ney
"Rob O'Neal" <robo...@ripco.com> to write:
>This evening's episode of Millennium on the Fox Network, appropriately named
>"TEOTAWKI", depicted a storyline involving a group of computer executives
>preparing for the Year 2000 crash.
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
TK
Hollywood or boobland, as it were, appears to have jumped on the
Year 2000 computer problem via the revived Fox T.V. weekly series
Millennium, with a show titled TEOTWAKI, aired last Friday night.
While not a bible thumper, I have been entertained in the past by
the show but had thought it ended last season with a supposed
unstoppable plague (except some members had secret antidotes)
set loose by a Millennium group faction and the lead character's
wife being killed (not on save list:).
Although the shows theme was and likely will still be rooted in, biblical
prophecy concerning the end times/Millennium and how certain "in"
groups fight to effect it's outcome or aftermath, good vs evil, usually
by thwarting evil plans and or of those possessed and recovering
some powerful lost religious icon, spiced with various doses of the
three t's, heavy theology, pinch of theopathy, dash of theophany,
this seasons renewal show took a somewhat humanitarianism
bent/socialist, Big Brother type approach.
Lead character, Frank Black, now appears to have dumped his
religious Millennium "in" group and joined the FBI) and the story
addressed Year 2000 (Y2K) computer aspect of Millennium problem.
While the producers may count on a audience from among some of
the millions of us raised in various religions with various end times
religious teachings, it appears Fox felt they now had to finally address
the Year 2000 aspect in some fashion, although if this show was any
indication, I doubt they have plans to incorporate Y2K into the ongoing
theme/line of the series.
IMO, Instead of informing the public the producers choose a completely
absurd and fatal story line (for the show) and took, what amounted to, a
cheap shot at any who are worried about,and preparing for serious
Year 2000 problems.
In short, the show theme was how officers of a computer research
company, experts trying to address the bug and failing, and their
families, became survivalists, form a group when it becames clear
to them there is no way to prevent total collapse of civilization built
mainly on faulty computer chips/programs (which they help build:)
in time. It was hard to keep a straight face when the serious kicker in
the story line is that the group felt to be able to best survive, they had
to keep the awesome knowledge of coming computer failures secret
from the rest of the world (Fox producers must not even read their
own tabloid news :).
Bad enough they try to sell a story line, at this late date anyway,
based on the premise that hardly anyone is aware of the bug/Y2K
problem, they also advanced the idea that none in the general public
are aware of even the possibility that it may be too late to fix everything
or worried about a major collapse of the infrastructure/society.
The storys procrustean message that we are basically a socialist
type society based on collective security and complacency might
have flown if the story time line concerning Y2K was based several
years ago, but today such a absurd premise would be more suited
for a rehash of the Twilight Zone. The shows socialist leaning govt'
sytle propaganda reminded me of Fox's take of WACO and even
Goebbels first old movies made before invading Poland.
The show starts out with another small town massacre of school kids
by none other than (we find out) one of the Survivalist's kids (later
murdered by his Father to keep the group and it's Year 2000
computer failure/catastrophe outlook secret :) who was a jock
and evidently could not handle the news (no basketball
after Yr2000:) and of course thus went Belial berserk.
Again, IMO, the main theme seem to be profanation of anyone
believing or taking Y2K seriously, who sees the serious potential
of the problem bringing about a breakdown of civilization as we
know it (TEOTWAKI) and takes precautions. One might gather from
the show that such individuals/ groups are to be labelled as greedy
anti-social Survivalist's. Some emphasis was placed on the premise
that such survivalists inherently will end up evil just by entertaining
the idea such a cataclysm could occur.
After the Year2000 survivalist group was rounded up, the Lead
investigating character, Frank Black, notes when asked by his
new partner at the end, (to effect) 'Is it true, can the computer
problem really bring down civilization and can nothing save us',
replied with (in respect to story line) a socialist collectivism sop,
"Only our humanity can save us".
If this show is any indication of how up to date or where the Fox
network position lays on Y2K, I don't expect useful or accurate
public information about Year 2000 (Y2K) to be incorporated into
their shows/lineup (nothing favorable anyway), especially concerning
individuals/group preparedness/precautions for possible TEOTWAKI.
IMO, Fox's attempt to fly from SiFi type theology to current events on
Icarian style socialist wings in this information age, was a mistake and
dis-service to the viewing public and those taking any precautions
for possible Year 2000 problems.
I expect more fire will be directed via Hollywood at any not showing
confidence in our rapidly growing Big Brother style Government and
their corporate bedfellows ability to take-care of everything.
Why worry, be Y2K happy <G>
The Goobers
[snippage]
> During wartime -- or national emergencies, war's close cousin -- civil
> liberties and individual rights are rarely protected.
Mr McCullagh, here's a free bit for you, and only about two-and-a-half
millennia old:
'The first casuality of war is Truth'
- Thucydides
DD
Cullen McGough
: On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 22:35:04 -0500, an orbiting mind control laser caused
: "Rob O'Neal" <robo...@ripco.com> to write:
: >This evening's episode of Millennium on the Fox Network, appropriately named
: >"TEOTAWKI", depicted a storyline involving a group of computer executives
: >preparing for the Year 2000 crash.
: IMO, Instead of informing the public the producers choose a completely
: absurd and fatal story line (for the show) and took, what amounted to, a
: cheap shot at any who are worried about,and preparing for serious
: Year 2000 problems.
<snip>
: Again, IMO, the main theme seem to be profanation of anyone
: believing or taking Y2K seriously, who sees the serious potential
: of the problem bringing about a breakdown of civilization as we
: know it (TEOTWAKI) and takes precautions. One might gather from
: the show that such individuals/ groups are to be labelled as greedy
: anti-social Survivalist's. Some emphasis was placed on the premise
: that such survivalists inherently will end up evil just by entertaining
: the idea such a cataclysm could occur.
Normally, I tend to believe that the reason that the world is such a FUBAR
mess, is that there *is* no secret conspiracy behind things....who would ever
let things get so messy if they had the option?
However, for those people in this group who suspect the govt. of deliberately
quieting the press on the y2k issue to prevent panic, (neither implausable,
nor difficult, most of the press in this country is owned by either Time
Warner, or Ted Turner.), This is a text-book case of disinformation.
cory hamasaki
Thane Hubbell
> Rob O'Neal <robo...@ripco.com> wrote:
> >This evening's episode of Millennium on the Fox Network, appropriately named
> >"TEOTAWKI", depicted a storyline involving a group of computer executives
> >preparing for the Year 2000 crash.
>
> It made the people preparing look like gun-crazy insane people:
> - one of their kids went on a shooting-spree at a high-school
> - that kid's father then killed him
> - another of the guys had a shoot-out with the FBI
>
> Yes, the correct words were said, but they came out of the mouths
> of crazed-killers...
>
> There was a little spiel at the end of the show by the protagonist,
> reading from a book, that basically implied that people, whose only
> interest was preparing for survival, were a problem.
>
I still thought it was well done. In point of fact, those preparing
for siege who's MAIN priority is defense - weapons etc, ARE a problem.
COMMUNITY effort is called for here. I am slightly, but ONLY
slightly left of Paul Milne on this one.
I think you SHOULD arm yourself - if you feel so inclined, but that
should not be your FIRST priority.
Tim May
red...@ibm.net (Thane Hubbell) wrote:
> I still thought it was well done. In point of fact, those preparing
> for siege who's MAIN priority is defense - weapons etc, ARE a problem.
> COMMUNITY effort is called for here. I am slightly, but ONLY
> slightly left of Paul Milne on this one.
>
> I think you SHOULD arm yourself - if you feel so inclined, but that
> should not be your FIRST priority.
To each their own.
Me, I recommend getting a gun or two as the _first step_. When people ask
me what they should be doing, I tell them to first be sure they have a
handgun and a rifle or shotgun, or all three.
Why? Because these are things which may not be possible to get on short
notice, and the general rule for preparedness should be to get potentially
hard to get items early on.
After all, canned goods and boxes of rice and cereal should be readily
available for a long time into the Y2K countdown: no matter what the
scenario, it is unlikely that store shelves will be empty a year from now.
(If I'm wrong on this, there'll be a much bigger sense of crisis, even
martial law, than I'm presently expected. And, fortunately, I'll be
prepared even for that grim scenario.)
However, it is completely possible that by one year from now guns will
either not be purchasable--through the gun-grabber legislation constantly
appearing--or that prices will have skyrocketed.
Ergo, take care of one's weapon needs early. Do it today.
Even you pollyannas out there...buy a gun today, this afternoon. You'll
someday thank me for this advice.
Thane Hubbell
> In article <Jl0PnHJ5PvPd-pn2-8Gw8GWd94dzy@Dwight_Miller.iix.com>,
> red...@ibm.net (Thane Hubbell) wrote:
>
>> Me, I recommend getting a gun or two as the _first step_. When
people ask
> me what they should be doing, I tell them to first be sure they have a
> handgun and a rifle or shotgun, or all three.
>
Who says I can't change my mind. You make a very compelling point.
I like the sig, but it's pricy. Looking for something similar, but
less expensive. Any recommendations?
waker
the business end of a gun brand name is meaningless when function is
adequate.
Isetta
tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> Ergo, take care of one's weapon needs early. Do it today.
>
> Even you pollyannas out there...buy a gun today, this afternoon. You'll
> someday thank me for this advice.
>
>
> --Tim May
I can't, I have to wait 5 days.
.....after I get my FOID card renewed.
Then I'm getting a Remington 870 and a Taurus 9mm.
and a bunch of ammo and some clay targets. (gotta practice, wife needs to
as well)
--
my return email address is for spam only.
Maren Purves
>
> After all, canned goods and boxes of rice and cereal should be readily
> available for a long time into the Y2K countdown: no matter what the
> scenario, it is unlikely that store shelves will be empty a year from now.
Uhm, yes, maybe, at what price?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> preparedness/survivalism in favor of community/governmental approaches.
> (True not all do.) One by Atlee is called "Why community-based responses
> to the Year 2000 problem make more sense than individual survivalism." It
> has wacky premises, like individuals who have made preparations won't
> trade among themselves
>
> It closes by complaining about big business and "big individualism."
Does it explain why there should be a conflict between community
preparation and private preparation. I've got a fire department a few
miles down the road; does that mean that I'm not allowed to buy an
extiguisher for my home? A combination of public storhouses and private
stocks is probably the best approach, especially if those with private
stocks keep their mouths shut about them.
> >practice a variation on "shoot, shovel, and shut up." The more we prepare,
> >the less we'd better talk about it.
That depends on how you feel about your supplies being looted. If anyone
asks me about stockpiling, I tell them that if they do, they should do
it in secret.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Reply to host nsf (dot) gov, user smetz
Richard Jackson
> In article <tcmay-19109...@santacruz-x2-3-87.got.net>,
> Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
> >However, it is completely possible that by one year from now guns
> will
> >either not be purchasable--through the gun-grabber legislation
> constantly
> >appearing--or that prices will have skyrocketed.
>
> Even now, it's not easy. I was thinking of picking up a rifle the
> other
> day and storing it in Virginia (I'd check to see whether htis is legal
>
> first of course). No luck. You gotta have a Virginia driver's license
> or
> state ID card. plus other ID too. plus checks and waiting periods
> thatshow
> no sign of getting shorter.
>
Remember--on 1December1998- "Brady II" goesinto effect. There will be
a waiting period and a
National Agency Check for purchases of rifles
and shotguns.
Buy often, Buy early.
Richard Jackson
> -Declan
>
> Wired News
> Chief Washington Correspondent
> http://www.wired.com/
>
> --
> TIME.com/Netly News article archive:
> http://www.pathfinder.com/netly/y2k/
> Y2K and related topics mailing list:
> http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
Tim May
> However, for those people in this group who suspect the govt. of deliberately
> quieting the press on the y2k issue to prevent panic, (neither implausable,
> nor difficult, most of the press in this country is owned by either Time
> Warner, or Ted Turner.), This is a text-book case of disinformation.
It's worse than you think...Time Warner _bought_ Ted Turner's company.
"Now there is only one media outlet."
(And Hanoi Jane is its advisor!)
Of course, this theory is shattered by the rise of another network from
the shadows....Rupert Murdoch, the Aussie Ted Turner. And he operates the
Fox Network...home of "The X Files" and "Millennium." Paranoia or
conspiracy?
I hear Homer Simpson will be leaving his job working at the nuclear power
plant and beginning work as a Y2K remediation engineer.
Rick Svihlik
>
> > Ergo, take care of one's weapon needs early. Do it today.
>
>
> .....after I get my FOID card renewed.
AH, this leads me to believe you're a resident of the
Peoples Republik of Illinoisan.
Hey Bubba, it's 24 hrs for a long gun and 72 hrs for
a handgun, man your FOID is WAY, WAY out of date.
FYI for Illinosians, the FOID waiting peroid begins at the
time of FOID approval, NOT at time of perchase, I along with
almost all the other dealers that where at the Oct 6th meeting
in Elgin, were a little out of touch on this point. When I returned
to my store I check my copy of the statues and ya guys know what??
The FOID people were right, there are no provisions for the computer
being down, slow responses or a bad hair day, 24 and 72 hrs from
time of approval.
> Then I'm getting a Remington 870 and a Taurus 9mm.
Good and bad choice, while the 870 is a proven entity,
the Taurus is not, also there are lots of preban OEM mags
for the Beretta 92 guns floating around and very few and
very EXPENSIVE ones for the Taurus. Get the 870 before the
Nov 30 checks start, 9mm also but I would strongly recommend
the Beretta even if it takes a couple mos more saving$, but
hell what do I know, I only deal with guns daily.
Rick
--
Reply ONLY to "mailto:m...@mc.net"
Rick Svihlik and Scott Rollins, Proud Owners and Proprietors of:
McHenry Shooting Center 2908 W Rt 120 McHenry, Il 60050
815-385- 2111 fax 815-385-6493
Tony Toews
>Canadians preparing by restricting leave
I seem to recall the British police doing the same six months or more
ago.
BTW I suspect if you say RCMP it will have much more impact. <grin>
Tony
----
Message posted to newsgroup and emailed.
Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant
The Year 2000 crisis: Will my parents or your grand parents still be receiving
their pension in January, 2000? See http://www.granite.ab.ca/year2000
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
cory hamasaki
watch...@my-dejanews.com
> red...@ibm.net (Thane Hubbell) wrote:
>
> > for siege who's MAIN priority is defense - weapons etc, ARE a problem.
> > COMMUNITY effort is called for here. I am slightly, but ONLY
> > slightly left of Paul Milne on this one.
> >
> > I think you SHOULD arm yourself - if you feel so inclined, but that
> > should not be your FIRST priority.
>
> To each their own.
>
> me what they should be doing, I tell them to first be sure they have a
> handgun and a rifle or shotgun, or all three.
>
> notice, and the general rule for preparedness should be to get potentially
> hard to get items early on.
>
> available for a long time into the Y2K countdown: no matter what the
> scenario, it is unlikely that store shelves will be empty a year from now.
> martial law, than I'm presently expected. And, fortunately, I'll be
> prepared even for that grim scenario.)
>
> either not be purchasable--through the gun-grabber legislation constantly
> appearing--or that prices will have skyrocketed.
>
>
> someday thank me for this advice.
>
>
> --
> Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash.
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
>
I have to agree. If you don't have a gun, get one now!
--
David
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
ctip...@miamionthenet.com
>Why? Because these are things which may not be possible to get on short
>notice, and the general rule for preparedness should be to get potentially
>hard to get items early on.
>
And also another point. I bought my guns first not only for this
reason, but also because I felt it was the one skill I needed the most
training with. I figure it's going to take me sometime into next year
to get really good with mine.
*·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does
oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight.
And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware
of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we
become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´
The Y2K Problem
An Introduction for the Layperson
http://www.miamionthenet.com/y2k.htm
Tim May
ctip...@miamionthenet.com (ctip...@miamionthenet.com) wrote:
> tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>
>
> >Why? Because these are things which may not be possible to get on short
> >notice, and the general rule for preparedness should be to get potentially
> >hard to get items early on.
> >
>
> And also another point. I bought my guns first not only for this
> reason, but also because I felt it was the one skill I needed the most
> training with. I figure it's going to take me sometime into next year
> to get really good with mine.
Good advice. I started at shooting about 30 years ago, so I wasn't
thinking in terms of training time.
I'm not one who believes extensive target practice is needed, but
certainly some practice is needed. The sooner one starts, the better. It
could be real tough to sign up for range time in the last couple of months
of 1999.
And be sure to get plenty of ammo. And don't shoot it all up in practice.
My brother in L.A. had gone out shooting in the desert with his buddies
and had no ammo when the L.A. riots broke out. He could see the fires of
looted stores getting closer, but his Glock was useless without any
ammunition. And the benevolent rulers of L.A. banned the sale of ammo
during the riots, forcing my brother and many others to high tail it over
to the Valley for ammo. "Never again."
(I've never had this problem...no riots in my area and I keep several
thousand rounds on hand at all times.)
Jeff Schwartz
"There can only be one" ?????
karin...@my-dejanews.com
fr...@centi.mks.com (Fred Walter) wrote:
> Rob O'Neal <robo...@ripco.com> wrote:
> >This evening's episode of Millennium on the Fox Network, appropriately named
> >"TEOTAWKI", depicted a storyline involving a group of computer executives
> >preparing for the Year 2000 crash.
>
> It made the people preparing look like gun-crazy insane people:
> - one of their kids went on a shooting-spree at a high-school
> - that kid's father then killed him
> - another of the guys had a shoot-out with the FBI
>
> Yes, the correct words were said, but they came out of the mouths
> of crazed-killers...
>
> There was a little spiel at the end of the show by the protagonist,
> reading from a book, that basically implied that people, whose only
> interest was preparing for survival, were a problem.
>
> --
> Y2K: I have my 'country vacation property'. Do you have yours?
> Y2K Forum Archive: http://www.infostream.net/fred/garynorth/index.htm
> Alternative Health: http://www.infostream.net/fred/alternative_health.htm
> Disclaimer: Everything I write is my personal opinion
>
I, too, was disturbed by this show. I think that the premise was that those
who are in power, who know what's going on, are keeping people in the dark to
ensure their own safety. But what it came across as was that every person
who takes responsibility for his life and the lives of his family does so at
the expense of every other human being, and is thereby evil.
My response is this: I have told everyone I could about this problem. I am
willing to share what I know with anyone who cares to discuss it. If I am
going to be blamed for their not preparing, it is much like the family of an
organ donor blaming the recipient's need for their loss.
I can't save the world. I can just save my little corner of it. I will help
those I can, when I can. But I can do nothing for anyone if I am dead.
Get Real
cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
home from all those other people with guns?
Who Cares?
Get Real <no...@of.your.business.com> wrote in article
<362C85...@of.your.business.com>...
> Why do americans have such a need for guns?
Why are you so concerned with it?
If you are worried, why did you give your guns away?
> Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your own government?
Is our democracy so bad that YOU distrust us with
YOUR guns?
> Is crime so high that you will have to defend your home from all those
other people with guns?
It's a power thing. If citizens can't be trusted with guns,
why can government?
Pete Kos, Jr.
yes, but not just with guns. Criminals carry knives, baseball bats, etc.
too.
Dave Hoots
>
> Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
> cultures).
Because we have more freedom ? Because we refuse to make the same
historical mistakes over and over again? Because we're "citizens",
not "subjects" ?
Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
> own government?
Our Republic is actually doing just fine, thank you. It's idiots
that insist we have a "democracy" instead of a "republic" that
obscure and obsfucate the issue. We are NOT a U.K.-wannabe !
As for distrusting our government -- not really. We just distrust
the intent of *some* of the government employees, who forget that
they are public servants, not royalty!
Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
> home from all those other people with guns?
Where you give people the freedom to move about without papers,
the freedom to make a wide number of choices, where you have
tremendous opportunity to make mistakes (due to the wide number of
choices), then you will have people making unwise choices.
There are factors too detailed to go into here....but really,
our crime is not as bad as the press make it out to be.
For future reference, I suggest you troll elsewhere.
Dave Hoots
--
***********************************
david...@mci2000.com
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject."- Winston Churchill
DStark
person, but didn't take lightly the truth of the coming mess...
debby
atsign
swcp
dottything
complicated
this is who we could be...
piem...@hotmail.com
tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> In article <362d34b2....@news.netrox.net>,
> ctip...@miamionthenet.com (ctip...@miamionthenet.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > And also another point. I bought my guns first not only for this
> > reason, but also because I felt it was the one skill I needed the most
> > training with. I figure it's going to take me sometime into next year
> > to get really good with mine.
>
> Good advice. I started at shooting about 30 years ago, so I wasn't
> thinking in terms of training time.
>
> I'm not one who believes extensive target practice is needed, but
> certainly some practice is needed. The sooner one starts, the better. It
> could be real tough to sign up for range time in the last couple of months
> of 1999.
I think it may be true that once you have the basics of rifle shooting down,
you may not need extensive and frequent practice to maintain those skills.
But handguns are a different matter. I practice weekly, but when
circumstances prevent me from getting to the range for three weeks, I see a
significant decline in my accuracy. This may be why police typically do so
poorly in shooting situations with handguns-- not enough range time.
>
> And be sure to get plenty of ammo. And don't shoot it all up in practice.
Good advice. I try to maintain a reasonable stock by reloading. If I have a
few hundred rounds on hand and fire a hundred at the range, I reload those
before I go back to the range.
BTW, if you can reload, keeping a few pounds of powder, a couple thousand
bullets, and a couple boxes of primers is a good way to house an "arsenal" in
a shoebox.
docd...@clark.net
[snippage]
>I think it may be true that once you have the basics of rifle shooting down,
>you may not need extensive and frequent practice to maintain those skills.
>But handguns are a different matter. I practice weekly, but when
>circumstances prevent me from getting to the range for three weeks, I see a
>significant decline in my accuracy.
'If I miss practise for one day I can tell the difference.
If I miss practise for two days my wife can tell the difference.
If I miss practise for three days... *anyone* can tell the difference.'
- Ignace Paderewski.
DD
Tim May
> In article <tcmay-20109...@santacruz-x2-3-127.got.net>,
> tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> > I'm not one who believes extensive target practice is needed, but
> > certainly some practice is needed. The sooner one starts, the better. It
> > could be real tough to sign up for range time in the last couple of months
> > of 1999.
>
> I think it may be true that once you have the basics of rifle shooting down,
> you may not need extensive and frequent practice to maintain those skills.
> But handguns are a different matter. I practice weekly, but when
> circumstances prevent me from getting to the range for three weeks, I see a
> significant decline in my accuracy. This may be why police typically do so
> poorly in shooting situations with handguns-- not enough range time.
And if most cops don't have a lot of accuracy at longer ranges, imagine
where most of us who shoot a dozen times a year at the range, or less, are
likely to be.
Let me explain in more detail what my point was about:
* most home owners are going to be shooting at very close range, probably
in a near panic
* most target practice done at ranges is at paper targets 25 yards away
* too bad this is so, and that practice is not done on rapid pop-up
targets at ranges of 3-5 yards, but this is just the way things are
* therefore, most homeowners and casual shooters can probably get by with
"familiarization" training: knowing how to load and make the gun ready to
fire, knowing how to shoot, being used to the muzzle blast and flip, etc.
Granted, more practice means greater accuracy. But at the ranges most guns
are shot at, under the conditions of stress and darkness and fear...I
think most homeowners will not benefit proportionately from spending many
hours a month at the range.
Bill.
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote in message
tcmay-20109...@santacruz-x2-23.got.net...
|And if most cops don't have a lot of accuracy at longer ranges, imagine
|where most of us who shoot a dozen times a year at the range, or less, are
|likely to be.
|
|Let me explain in more detail what my point was about:
|
|* most home owners are going to be shooting at very close range, probably
|in a near panic
|
|* most target practice done at ranges is at paper targets 25 yards away
|
|* too bad this is so, and that practice is not done on rapid pop-up
|targets at ranges of 3-5 yards, but this is just the way things are
|
|* therefore, most homeowners and casual shooters can probably get by with
|"familiarization" training: knowing how to load and make the gun ready to
|fire, knowing how to shoot, being used to the muzzle blast and flip, etc.
|
|Granted, more practice means greater accuracy. But at the ranges most guns
|are shot at, under the conditions of stress and darkness and fear...I
|think most homeowners will not benefit proportionately from spending many
|hours a month at the range.
|
|
|--Tim May
Precisely why I advocate shotguns. You don't aim a shotgun; you point it!
And if it, they, or them are in front of you ..... job done with one shot!
- -
Bill Prince | Orlando, Florida
"In failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail"
Benjamin Franklin
- -
Xena
<no...@of.your.business.com> wrote:
>Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
>cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
>own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
>home from all those other people with guns?
Gun ownership is a right that our forefathers fought and died for
several hundred years ago.
For someone to try to bypass The Constitution and take away that right
(no matter how they try and couch it) is a real wake-up call for many
Americans.
For instance, look at what happened in other countries when their
weapon rights were taken away by greedy grasping crooked politicians.
I'm talking about the Soviet Union, and *I* have no intention of
standing in line for a loaf of bread, EVER.
Perhaps you are safe wherever you are not owning guns, but since
American politicians tend to stick America's nose into another
country's business without our consent, I also feel that is a
necessary item for most homes to have to defend themselves in case
some third-world cesspool decides to get back at ALL my country by
invading after we do "police work" for those people who are too
fucking lazy to stand up and fight for themselves and just sit around
whining "Where are the Americans? Where's MY HANDOUT?"
Xena
"Where am I going? How do I get there? What should
I bring along?"
Dennis DeYoung of Styx
Beavis
piem...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <tcmay-20109...@santacruz-x2-3-127.got.net>,
> tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> > In article <362d34b2....@news.netrox.net>,
> > ctip...@miamionthenet.com (ctip...@miamionthenet.com) wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > And also another point. I bought my guns first not only for this
> > > reason, but also because I felt it was the one skill I needed the most
> > > training with. I figure it's going to take me sometime into next year
> > > to get really good with mine.
> >
> > Good advice. I started at shooting about 30 years ago, so I wasn't
> > thinking in terms of training time.
> >
> > I'm not one who believes extensive target practice is needed, but
> > certainly some practice is needed. The sooner one starts, the better. It
> > could be real tough to sign up for range time in the last couple of months
> > of 1999.
>
> I think it may be true that once you have the basics of rifle shooting down,
> you may not need extensive and frequent practice to maintain those skills.
> But handguns are a different matter. I practice weekly, but when
> circumstances prevent me from getting to the range for three weeks, I see a
> significant decline in my accuracy. This may be why police typically do so
> poorly in shooting situations with handguns-- not enough range time.
>
>
I was considering purchacing a good quality air rifle for this. that way all I
have to do is go to the back yard for 15 min a day. I live in the woods so I get
good terrain, different seasons, weather, Lighting, and practice every day. Does
anyone have any thoughts on this???
the braniac
>
> Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
> cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
> own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
> home from all those other people with guns?
I happend to be Dutch and conserned about the fact that guns are illegal
so I can't buy them but those psycho gangsters can buy them at every
streetcorner they pass on their way.
I want the right to protect myself,pitty that being a security guard I
have to set an example to this society.
Americans aren't crazy, at least not all of them. they are protecting
their families wich is illegal in the Netherlands despite of our good
democracy
Piet
Rusty Armor
I have to disagree with you Tim. It is true that most gunfights occure
within the 7yd circle, but even professionally trained shooter, you will
still miss over 50% of the time. If arming yourself to defend you and your
family, you need to train so that under the stress of battle you don't make
the classic mistakes that get combatants killed. Bullet placement is
everything in a gunfight, and unless it is your goal to lose . . .
Graduates from criminal school (prisons) have practiced disarming and
killing tecniques within this 7yd circle, and if you don't practice proper
techinques you'll be another statistic. You will be like the hapless person
who watches a karate video and trys to win in a bar room brawl. Gunfighting
*is* a martial art.
IMHO If you don't want to train, don't get a defensive gun.
Tim May wrote in message ...
Rusty Armor
Where did he get his gun?
the braniac wrote in message <362D01...@usa.net>...
Gregory L. Forster
>
> Get Real wrote:
> >
> > Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
> > cultures).
>
> historical mistakes over and over again? Because we're "citizens",
> not "subjects" ?
>
> > own government?
>
> that insist we have a "democracy" instead of a "republic" that
> obscure and obsfucate the issue. We are NOT a U.K.-wannabe !
> As for distrusting our government -- not really. We just distrust
> the intent of *some* of the government employees, who forget that
> they are public servants, not royalty!
>
> > home from all those other people with guns?
>
> the freedom to make a wide number of choices, where you have
> tremendous opportunity to make mistakes (due to the wide number of
> choices), then you will have people making unwise choices.
> There are factors too detailed to go into here....but really,
> our crime is not as bad as the press make it out to be.
>
> For future reference, I suggest you troll elsewhere.
>
> Dave Hoots
>
> --
> ***********************************
> david...@mci2000.com
>
> "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
> subject."- Winston Churchill
Gregory L. Forster
>
> Get Real wrote:
> >
> > Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
> > own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
> > home from all those other people with guns?
>
> so I can't buy them but those psycho gangsters can buy them at every
> streetcorner they pass on their way.
> I want the right to protect myself,pitty that being a security guard I
> have to set an example to this society.
> Americans aren't crazy, at least not all of them. they are protecting
> their families wich is illegal in the Netherlands despite of our good
> democracy
>
> Piet
In article 4, section 4 of the United States Constitution, "The United
States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of
government,..." The United States was founded as a REPUBLIC, NOT A
DEMOCRACY! The United States has degenerated into a democracy, yet many
are still trying to hold on to a republic via the Constitution. The
next step after Democracy is Totalitarianism, i.e. government
dictatorship, or individual dictatorship. Who said, "This day will go
down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun
registration. Our streets will be safer. Our police...more efficient.
And the world will follow our lead into the future."
- Adolf Hitler 1935 -
Maren Purves
>
> Get Real wrote:
> >
> > Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
Need? Use might be a better word. You can get a hunting licence
and shoot a pig or so. Food, you know. Don't know of any place
in good ole Europe (which is where I happen to come from) where
you can do that. Got to be rich first, or have inherited the hunting
rights (privileges).
Also, it may just be fun to shoot (at targets, at practice ranges).
(May not be for everybody, but I kinda think so).
> > cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
> > own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
> > home from all those other people with guns?
>
> I happend to be Dutch and conserned about the fact that guns are illegal
> so I can't buy them but those psycho gangsters can buy them at every
> streetcorner they pass on their way.
> I want the right to protect myself,pitty that being a security guard I
> have to set an example to this society.
> Americans aren't crazy, at least not all of them. they are protecting
> their families wich is illegal in the Netherlands despite of our good
> democracy
Same in Germany ...
Chuck Marsh
>
> Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
> own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
> home from all those other people with guns?
I prefer to think that certain other cultures, such as Britain, are
deficient in guns, rather than thinking we have too many. A rewiew of
our history will show us why we came up with this idea honest citizens
must be allowed arms.
--
(_/ \_) Chuck Marsh. The longest journey begins
o-o with a single misstep.
<
- http://www.concentric.net/~Nothome/arete.htm
Rick Svihlik
>
> And anyway, when Y2K hits, even I, who has called you people gun-nuts
> in the past, will want a gun if society breaks down.
Hi,
Since you live in Australia, I don't know how that will happen,
and then it will be too late. Get them now, if you can.
Rick
--
Reply ONLY to "mailto:m...@mc.net"
Rick Svihlik and Scott Rollins, Proud Owners and Proprietors of:
McHenry Shooting Center 2908 W Rt 120 McHenry, Il 60050
815-385- 2111 fax 815-385-6493
Rick Svihlik
>
> Our Republic is actually doing just fine, thank you. It's idiots
> that insist we have a "democracy" instead of a "republic" that
> obscure and obsfucate the issue. We are NOT a U.K.-wannabe !
Amen Bubba,
I get so tired of the Left Wing Liberal news reporting everytime
a brit "royal" sneezes. If I rememebr correctly, we beat their ass
in the 1700's, the 1800's and then TWICE we had to bail them out
in the 1900's.
> As for distrusting our government -- not really. We just distrust
> the intent of *some* of the government employees, who forget that
> they are public servants, not royalty!
AW, I thought Blow Job Billie had been appointed 'king'; it seems
he and the other Klintonites think he is.
Rick
Rick Svihlik
>
> I got my but kicked royally last year by a Dutch shooter in a PSAC match.
> Where did he get his gun?
While on vacation 2 yrs ago I had a lengthy conversationwith a Police
Officer from the Netherlands, there numerous average citizens that
legally own firearms.
It appears as if the writer of the paragraph below is unaware Dutch
citizens
may own firearms, ie handguns, they must be kept at State owned ranges,
transport from match to match is done by the military or a police unit,
I foregt which, and the guns shipped to a designated receiver if out of
the country.
> >I happend to be Dutch and conserned about the fact that guns are illegal
> >so I can't buy them but those psycho gangsters can buy them at every
> >streetcorner they pass on their way.
> >I want the right to protect myself,pitty that being a security guard I
> >have to set an example to this society.
> >Americans aren't crazy, at least not all of them. they are protecting
> >their families wich is illegal in the Netherlands despite of our good
> >democracy
--
Harbin Osteen
Get Real wrote:
> Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
> cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
> own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
> home from all those other people with guns?
>
> Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> >
> > Remember--on 1December1998- "Brady II" goesinto effect. There will be
> > a waiting period and a National Agency Check for purchases of rifles
> > and shotguns.
> >
> > Buy often, Buy early.
> >
--
SeeYaa:) Harbin Osteen
MUSCLE CAR MANIA L.T.D.
Over 2500 General Links!
http://www.ca-connection.com/~muscle/INDEX.htm
!sdohtem noitpyrcne devorppa-tnemnrevog troppus I
David
J&F Higham wrote in message <90893227...@genie.canberra.net.au>...
>Most people in the world do not spend a lot
>of time examining how they relate to their government or their constitution
>in the ordering of their daily lives
Actually, most people spend zero time examining...
And that is precisely why, at least in the United States, our political
system has degenerated into [insert pejorative here].
David
Val Mehling
> [BIG SNIP]
> |Granted, more practice means greater accuracy. But at the ranges most guns
> |are shot at, under the conditions of stress and darkness and fear...I
> |think most homeowners will not benefit proportionately from spending many
> |hours a month at the range.
> |
> |
>
> Precisely why I advocate shotguns. You don't aim a shotgun; you point it!
> And if it, they, or them are in front of you ..... job done with one shot!
>
> - -
> Bill Prince | Orlando, Florida
> "In failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail"
> Benjamin Franklin
> - -
>
> |Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash.
> |---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> |Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> |ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> |W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> |Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.
If you don't "aim a shotgun", then why are there sights on them? True, a
shotgun can
be fired from waist level but if you haven't practiced this kind of
shooting you may
find out way too late that, especially at close range, you can miss with
a shotgun as
easily as you can with any other weapon.
If you are serious about survival, you need more than weapons. You need
knowledge! Find out
where the Gun shows are in your area, go to the shows and find out what
is available in the
way of books and videos that can help you to learn how to survive. You
can also usually get
some good deals on ammo while you're there and there's tons of other
interesting stuff to
look at.
I consider myself a pretty competent photographer but when I went to an
Air Show recently I
missed many good shots because I was OUT OF PRACTICE! Missing shots with
a camera can be
dissapointing - missing shots with your gun can be fatal. Got the
picture?
--
Val Mehling - anti-spam in effect.
For e-mail reply to:
va...@earthlink.net
Val Mehling
>
[SNIP SNIP SNIP]
> I was considering purchacing a good quality air rifle for this. that way all I
> have to do is go to the back yard for 15 min a day. I live in the woods so I get
> good terrain, different seasons, weather, Lighting, and practice every day. Does
> anyone have any thoughts on this???
I have used both air rifles and pistols for practice. They are cheap,
quiet and safe
to use indoors if handled properly. My Daisy Eagle will pump up to 650
fps muzzle
velocity making it useful against a variety of varmints at close range.
Val Mehling
>
> Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
> cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
> own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
> home from all those other people with guns?
>
"1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation
has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!"
Adolf Hitler
piem...@hotmail.com
Beavis <b1...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
>
> piem...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I think it may be true that once you have the basics of rifle shooting down,
> > you may not need extensive and frequent practice to maintain those skills.
> > But handguns are a different matter. I practice weekly, but when
> > circumstances prevent me from getting to the range for three weeks, I see a
> > significant decline in my accuracy. This may be why police typically do so
> > poorly in shooting situations with handguns-- not enough range time.
> >
> >
>
> I was considering purchacing a good quality air rifle for this. that way all I
> have to do is go to the back yard for 15 min a day. I live in the woods so I
get
> good terrain, different seasons, weather, Lighting, and practice every day.
Does
> anyone have any thoughts on this???
>
Excellent idea. I have a Silver Streak, which is a classic pump-up rifle that
uses .20 cal pellets. I find it remarkably accurate over backyard distances,
and it doesn't alarm the neighbors. Also, it's fine for shooting rabbits,
squirrels, and small predators. But check out some of the airgun forums
before you buy; you'll be amazed by the diversity of available airguns.
piem...@hotmail.com
tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> In article <70ijgr$9g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, piem...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > In article <tcmay-20109...@santacruz-x2-3-127.got.net>,
> > tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>
> > > I'm not one who believes extensive target practice is needed, but
> > > certainly some practice is needed. The sooner one starts, the better. It
> > > could be real tough to sign up for range time in the last couple of months
> > > of 1999.
> >
> > you may not need extensive and frequent practice to maintain those skills.
> > But handguns are a different matter. I practice weekly, but when
> > circumstances prevent me from getting to the range for three weeks, I see a
> > significant decline in my accuracy. This may be why police typically do so
> > poorly in shooting situations with handguns-- not enough range time.
>
> where most of us who shoot a dozen times a year at the range, or less, are
> likely to be.
Probably in about the same place. Ongoing training requirements for LEOs
vary, but are frequently no better than, and often worse than once-a-month
trips to a 50 rnd course of fire.
>
> Let me explain in more detail what my point was about:
>
> * most home owners are going to be shooting at very close range, probably
> in a near panic
>
> * most target practice done at ranges is at paper targets 25 yards away
>
> * too bad this is so, and that practice is not done on rapid pop-up
> targets at ranges of 3-5 yards, but this is just the way things are
>
> * therefore, most homeowners and casual shooters can probably get by with
> "familiarization" training: knowing how to load and make the gun ready to
> fire, knowing how to shoot, being used to the muzzle blast and flip, etc.
>
> Granted, more practice means greater accuracy. But at the ranges most guns
> are shot at, under the conditions of stress and darkness and fear...I
> think most homeowners will not benefit proportionately from spending many
> hours a month at the range.
>
All good points. I wish more homeowners would reach the level you describe,
but realistically, most probably don't-- judging by all the squirrely
accidents that are reported. In fact, I'd have to say that most hunters
limit their range time to sighting in scopes once a season. So in all
likelihood most non-enthusiasts are lucky if they know how to load the gun
without shooting off too many toes.
Still, there are useful training methods that don't depend on getting to the
range and being able to afford large amounts of ammo. One is dry firing,
another is attempting to visualize dangerous situations and deciding what to
do in advance, and someone suggested backyard practice with a good air rifle.
BTW, while it's true what you say about the typical range for shooting
incidents, that proximity is no guarantee you'll be able to hit an assailant.
When untrained people do drills in which they face a silhouette target 3 yds
away, bring up their handgun and fire as quickly as possible, it's usually a
depressing revelation for many-- often they don't get their initial shots on
the paper, let alone center mass. And this is with only the relatively mild
stress that attends trying to do well in a strange situation.
I'd urge anyone who's going to spend a bundle on guns to allocate a fair sum
to training, and to find a range that does allow more than popping at 25 yd
targets. But of course, if you can't, it's still better to have the guns
than not to have the guns.
piem...@hotmail.com
"Rusty Armor" <Rusty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have to disagree with you Tim. It is true that most gunfights occure
> within the 7yd circle, but even professionally trained shooter, you will
> still miss over 50% of the time. If arming yourself to defend you and your
> family, you need to train so that under the stress of battle you don't make
> the classic mistakes that get combatants killed. Bullet placement is
> everything in a gunfight, and unless it is your goal to lose . . .
>
> Graduates from criminal school (prisons) have practiced disarming and
> killing tecniques within this 7yd circle, and if you don't practice proper
> techinques you'll be another statistic. You will be like the hapless person
> who watches a karate video and trys to win in a bar room brawl. Gunfighting
> *is* a martial art.
>
> IMHO If you don't want to train, don't get a defensive gun.
>
While you make valid points, this may be a bit extreme. Were my ancient
mother to be confronted with a violent criminal, I'd feel better if she had a
gun pointed at him than I would if she were only armed with a cane. Even if
you don't know how to use a gun well, it has deterrent value. It certainly
has the most value if you are well-trained, but it is not without value even
if all you know how to do is point it and pull the trigger.
sbork...@my-dejanews.com
> [snippage]
> 'If I miss practise for one day I can tell the difference.
> If I miss practise for two days my wife can tell the difference.
> If I miss practise for three days... *anyone* can tell the difference.'
>
> - Ignace Paderewski.
>
> DD
That's Ignacy Paderewski
J&F Higham
disappointed in the responses I have seen.
I expected the Constitutional response and sure enough it turned up.
Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
The comment about being a republic as opposed to a democracy or citizens vs
subjects are simply semantics. Most people in the world do not spend a lot
of time examining how they relate to their government or their constitution
in the ordering of their daily lives. If they want a gun and it is legal to
have one in their country and they are not intent on committing a crime
they will simply follow the legal procedures to get one or more.
I am very curious about why Americans are so gun oriented. If you think
this response and the previous question were just trolling, thats fine by
me. Go off and do something more useful. However, I seriously would like
to know what are the cultural factors behind such a major national interest
in guns?
I am not anti gun. I have a gun licence and I own guns. Guns are legal in
this country but severely restricted in the type available and all owners
must be licenced.
--
Fran Higham
Get Real wrote in message <362C85...@of.your.business.com>...
>Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
>cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
>own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
>home from all those other people with guns?
>
>
>
Russell Dovey
<the.b...@usa.net> shivered in fear as the stranger stared into his
eyes. He swallowed, and quaveringly said:
>Get Real wrote:
>>
>> Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
>> cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
>> own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
>> home from all those other people with guns?
>
>I happend to be Dutch and conserned about the fact that guns are illegal
>so I can't buy them but those psycho gangsters can buy them at every
>streetcorner they pass on their way.
>I want the right to protect myself,pitty that being a security guard I
>have to set an example to this society.
>Americans aren't crazy, at least not all of them. they are protecting
>their families wich is illegal in the Netherlands despite our good
>democracy.
And anyway, when Y2K hits, even I, who has called you people gun-nuts
in the past, will want a gun if society breaks down.
>
>Piet
--------------------------------------------------------
Fight for what you believe in!
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the
mysterious." - Albert Einstein.
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but how are we going to get all
those computers to fail all at the same time?"
Russell "Not Just For Lepers Any More" Dovey, Australia.
ICQ:11780873 mailto:st...@dynamite.com.au
--------------------------------------------------------
Get Real
>
> There are factors too detailed to go into here....but really,
> our crime is not as bad as the press make it out to be.
That's an excellent point! I bet many people carry guns because
of media hype without any real dangers. But they do not consider
the inherent dangers of having a gun in the house (I believe only
1% of gun related fatalities are actually made in self-defense and
a much larger fraction are accidents).
The question really is:
Is the average citizen of any country ready for the freedom to carry a
gun?? Not really! So what is wrong with demanding a mandatory
training before you can purchase a gun...or a waiting period?
I simply cannot understand the NRA fanatics that oppose such laws.
The Goobers
[snippage]
> The question really is:
> Is the average citizen of any country ready for the freedom to carry a
> gun?? Not really!
... and since 'the pen is mightier than the sword...' ?
DD
lo...@my-dejanews.com
Get Real <no...@of.your.business.com> wrote:
> Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
> cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
> own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
> home from all those other people with guns?
>
Hi to all americans,
I have very carefully read all yours answers. It was very interesting form me.
Now I can better understand You. I have started to read about Y2K and have
finished in sociological research. Before starting I had thought you are wrong
now I thing you are maybe right.
--
Karol
Slovakia
Bob3
Why do we need to speak?
Why do we need to vote??
These are our rights that is why. I don't need to ask "you"
if I can speak. I can speak.
Guns, speach, voting and other rights belong to me, not the
Government. That why...
--
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the Right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed."
US 2nd Amendment
Dave Hoots
>
> I think this is a really interesting question and have so far been
> disappointed in the responses I have seen.
>
> I expected the Constitutional response and sure enough it turned up.
> Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
> arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
I think you're shortchanging the "Constitutional response". Most on this
newsgroup have an idea of *why* the Second Amendment was put into the
U.S.
Constitution -- to thwart domestic and foreign bullies. Our "Founding
Fathers" were avid historians, esp. Jefferson, and wanted to pass on
lessons
learned from history. So, the "Constitutional response" is not simply a
knee-jerk reaction, but short-hand for a concept of checks-and-balances,
specifically relating to the use of force.
As some of us are fond of saying, "The Second Amendment ain't about duck
hunting!".
> The comment about being a republic as opposed to a democracy or citizens vs
> subjects are simply semantics. Most people in the world do not spend a lot
> of time examining how they relate to their government or their constitution
> in the ordering of their daily lives.
These days, you are correct. Most people in the world don't spend time
examining their government. Shame, isn't it? I think people get the
government they deserve, and I deserve alot better than what I've got.
;)
As for being "simply semantics"......I disagree. There are tangible
differences between democracy (aka "mobacracy") and republicanism. I
suggest you take the time to acquaint yourself with the differences,
and similarities.
If they want a gun and it is legal to
> have one in their country and they are not intent on committing a crime
> they will simply follow the legal procedures to get one or more.
Our point exactly! Where you and I differ is on the extent of "the legal
procedures". I'm a minimalist here, and from what you've written, you're
a maximalist. Pity.
> I am very curious about why Americans are so gun oriented. If you think
> this response and the previous question were just trolling, thats fine by
> me. Go off and do something more useful. However, I seriously would like
> to know what are the cultural factors behind such a major national interest
> in guns?
Personally, I think your perception is warped by the media. Have you
actually
spent anytime in the States? In my neighborhood, the subject of guns
hardly
comes up, except as the usual comments about some young person's "rite
of
passage" (i.e., first hunt, first rifle, etc.). The media (esp. the
right-coast
media) hypes guns to the extreme, bringing into focus something that
formerly
blended into the culture.
If you take practically anything out of context, magnify it past all
semblance
to reality, then sure -- it's going to appear to be "extreme".
Considering that
we have over 72 million legal gun owners, and yet the problem of "gun
violence"
is pretty much isolated to less that .001% of the population, I don't
think we
have much of a problem with guns. We're comfortable with them, as we are
with
cars, boats, motorcycles.....and power in general.
> I am not anti gun. I have a gun licence and I own guns. Guns are legal in
> this country but severely restricted in the type available and all owners
> must be licenced.
And there lies a major difference between you, your government, and me
and my
government (bless it's oversized heart! ;)). I don't think I should have
to
prove my trustworthiness to said government, nor be restrained by some
self-serving
fools in Washington. You, on the other hand, go along with what you
probably
consider to be "admirable and reasonable restraints" imposed by your
government.
Oh, well...........
That explains why you live there, and I live here, I guess.
Cheers,
Bill.
Val Mehling <va...@ix.nutcom.com> wrote foolishly in message
362D67...@ix.nutcom.com...
|If you don't "aim a shotgun", then why are there sights on them? True, a
|shotgun can
|be fired from waist level but if you haven't practiced this kind of
|shooting you may
|find out way too late that, especially at close range, you can miss with
|a shotgun as
|easily as you can with any other weapon.
You may not be aware of the fact that there are different modes of
shotgunning. If you are hunting a bird or a clay disk, you use the sights
and lead the object. If you are defending against an intruder within say 20
ft., you don't need sights( as it is probably dark anyway) if you want to
survive the encounter.
|If you are serious about survival, you need more than weapons. You need
|knowledge! Find out
|where the Gun shows are in your area, go to the shows and find out what
|is available in the
|way of books and videos that can help you to learn how to survive. You
|can also usually get
|some good deals on ammo while you're there and there's tons of other
|interesting stuff to
|look at.
I agree that knowledge is power. But experiance is the only teacher that
sears into your brain. I am serious about survival having survived VeitNam,
and assorted clandestine sojurns into then communist Europe, and know that
99% of gun show information is crap. People who have never fired a shot in
anger or self defense presume to sell you the answers. Bull.
|I consider myself a pretty competent photographer but when I went to an
|Air Show recently I
|missed many good shots because I was OUT OF PRACTICE! Missing shots with
|a camera can be
|dissapointing - missing shots with your gun can be fatal. Got the
|picture?
|
Practice is important in keeping the 'eye'. Taking a life is a lot different
than taking a snapshot. I have seen death up close this way and it changes
you. You will not have the time to sight a shotgun at night in the dark.
You act decisively or you die.
And flashlites on shotguns are stupid and only serve to tell the enemy where
you are.
Karl Kleinpaste
> Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
> arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
That opening clause by itself is a telling misnomer on your part.
Our constitution does not *give* any rights whatever. It *recognizes*
rights, as pre-existent to that document itself. It demands
*protection* of those rights. It does not give or grant anything at
all. Read the amendments again and consider their syntax. Not once
do they utter something of the form, "the people shall have the right
to..." Rather, they are written in the passive voice, acknowledging
something already present, e.g., "The right of the people to be
secure...shall not be violated" (4th Amendment). Anything that can be
granted can be removed by an inverse process; there is nothing given,
that it could be then taken away.
Further, our supreme court has explicitly acknowledged this
recognition of pre-existent rights in (e.g.) /US vs Cruikshank/, in
which it is noted that "...This is not a right granted by the
constitution. Nor is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument
for its existence."
One must start from the proper axioms if one is to have logical
discourse.
> The comment about being a republic as opposed to a democracy or
> citizens vs subjects are simply semantics.
The power of the law lies in the words chosen to express it. It is
precisely those semantics that matter.
There is a very different lawful power expressed when one discusses
the concept of a republic and its citizens compared to that when one
discusses a democracy, or a monarch's subjects. The republic (or
commonwealth) is by nature a more limited govt'al structure than the
democracy. Limited govt is a Good Thing. Avoiding the ability of
govt to run roughshod over Us The People is a Good Thing.
"The most important question in the study of government is, `How can
we prevent government from going berserk and killing off half the
population?'" --John Kormylo
I think that Kormylo was exactly right, and I consider that there are
no exceptions to his position. Govt is force by nature, and dangerous
as such. The proper study of govt regards how to make that force
useful while simultaneously keeping it boxed up and locked down as
much as possible -- to avoid deployment of that force except when
truly necessary. Our (U.S.) govt shows as a matter of routine that it
is actively interested in escaping the chains which should bind it.
(I treat the study of govt as a study of an organism. It is a living
thing, with needs and desires beyond those of the humans which
particularly embody it at any given time. Organisms feed and grow,
when they are healthy. Wild growth is generally lethal, eventually;
our goal must regard a proper pruning function, for stable and healthy
growth. I must confess I consider that we do not have such a function.)
> I am not anti gun. I have a gun licence and I own guns. Guns are
> legal in this country but severely restricted in the type available
> and all owners must be licenced.
I have no licenses (of any kind); I own some two dozen firearms.
Given what I already own, no waiting period makes the slightest sense
for me. The difference between a right and a privilege, as discussed
in an arbitrarily large number of legal decisions in our courts, is
whether one must ask permission to exercise a privilege but a right
may be exercised as one wishes. One merely must do so responsibly,
without damage to the rights of others, else the right is no longer a
right in fact, but an abuse of rights.
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature. I need, and
will accept, no conditions on my ability to exercise that right. I do
so responsibly, and I am beholden to no one regarding that fact.
Steve Premo
>If you don't "aim a shotgun", then why are there sights on them?
There aren't sights on a shotgun. At least the shotguns I've seen
don't have sights. They have a bead.
And my understanding of hunting terminology is that you don't aim a
shotgun, you point it.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
Mark Stoddard
Cheers,
Mark Stoddard
Dave Hoots wrote:
> J&F Higham wrote:
> >
> > I think this is a really interesting question and have so far been
> > disappointed in the responses I have seen.
> >
> > I expected the Constitutional response and sure enough it turned up.
> > Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
> > arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
>
> I think you're shortchanging the "Constitutional response". Most on this
> newsgroup have an idea of *why* the Second Amendment was put into the
> U.S.
> Constitution -- to thwart domestic and foreign bullies. Our "Founding
> Fathers" were avid historians, esp. Jefferson, and wanted to pass on
> lessons
> learned from history. So, the "Constitutional response" is not simply a
> knee-jerk reaction, but short-hand for a concept of checks-and-balances,
> specifically relating to the use of force.
> As some of us are fond of saying, "The Second Amendment ain't about duck
> hunting!".
>
> > The comment about being a republic as opposed to a democracy or citizens vs
> > I am not anti gun. I have a gun licence and I own guns. Guns are legal in
> > this country but severely restricted in the type available and all owners
> > must be licenced.
>
Mark Stoddard
post.
Thanks.
Mark
Karl Kleinpaste wrote:
> "J&F Higham" <ma...@mak.com.au> writes:
> > Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
> > arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
>
> That opening clause by itself is a telling misnomer on your part.
>
> Our constitution does not *give* any rights whatever. It *recognizes*
> rights, as pre-existent to that document itself. It demands
> *protection* of those rights. It does not give or grant anything at
> all. Read the amendments again and consider their syntax. Not once
> do they utter something of the form, "the people shall have the right
> to..." Rather, they are written in the passive voice, acknowledging
> something already present, e.g., "The right of the people to be
> secure...shall not be violated" (4th Amendment). Anything that can be
> granted can be removed by an inverse process; there is nothing given,
> that it could be then taken away.
>
> Further, our supreme court has explicitly acknowledged this
> recognition of pre-existent rights in (e.g.) /US vs Cruikshank/, in
> which it is noted that "...This is not a right granted by the
> constitution. Nor is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument
> for its existence."
>
> One must start from the proper axioms if one is to have logical
> discourse.
>
> > The comment about being a republic as opposed to a democracy or
> > citizens vs subjects are simply semantics.
>
> The power of the law lies in the words chosen to express it. It is
> precisely those semantics that matter.
>
> There is a very different lawful power expressed when one discusses
> the concept of a republic and its citizens compared to that when one
> discusses a democracy, or a monarch's subjects. The republic (or
> commonwealth) is by nature a more limited govt'al structure than the
> democracy. Limited govt is a Good Thing. Avoiding the ability of
> govt to run roughshod over Us The People is a Good Thing.
>
> "The most important question in the study of government is, `How can
> we prevent government from going berserk and killing off half the
> population?'" --John Kormylo
>
> I think that Kormylo was exactly right, and I consider that there are
> no exceptions to his position. Govt is force by nature, and dangerous
> as such. The proper study of govt regards how to make that force
> useful while simultaneously keeping it boxed up and locked down as
> much as possible -- to avoid deployment of that force except when
> truly necessary. Our (U.S.) govt shows as a matter of routine that it
> is actively interested in escaping the chains which should bind it.
>
> (I treat the study of govt as a study of an organism. It is a living
> thing, with needs and desires beyond those of the humans which
> particularly embody it at any given time. Organisms feed and grow,
> when they are healthy. Wild growth is generally lethal, eventually;
> our goal must regard a proper pruning function, for stable and healthy
> growth. I must confess I consider that we do not have such a function.)
>
> > I am not anti gun. I have a gun licence and I own guns. Guns are
> > legal in this country but severely restricted in the type available
> > and all owners must be licenced.
>
Remnant
<snip>
> Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
> arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
This is incorrect. Our Constitution does not GIVE us our rights - they
were ours before the formation of government. The Constitution and Bill
of Rights were created to PROTECT those rights, and of course to
establish the structure and mechanisms of government. It is unfortunate
that so many people think that the government GIVES people their rights
- because if the government can giveth, it can surely taketh away, so to
speak.
Remnant
>
<snip of HCI boilerplate about guns in the home, etc.>
>
> The question really is:
> Is the average citizen of any country ready for the freedom to carry a
> gun?? Not really!
Thank you for that pronouncement, your Highness. Too bad for you the
question was decided for us average citizens a while back by the likes
of Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Washington et al.
You could just as easily said the same thing about free speech.
So what is wrong with demanding a mandatory
> training before you can purchase a gun...or a waiting period?
'Demanding', eh? Hmm, better go get those dictatorial tendencies looked
at, by a professional of course.
How about a mandatory government course on correct thought before you
can buy a book or newspapaer? A 10-day waiting period before you can
pick up that copy of 'It takes a Village' or 'Earth in the Balance'?
How about a mandatory training period administered by the government
before you can become a print or TV news reporter? With photo id's,
background checks, fingerprints?
> I simply cannot understand the NRA fanatics that oppose such laws.
If you really knew what the fuck you were talking about instead of
simply regurgitating what you hear on the network news you would realize
that the gun-grabbers have no better friend than the NRA. They roll over
every time.
waker
>
> The right of self-defense is the first law of nature. I need, and
> will accept, no conditions on my ability to exercise that right. I do
> so responsibly, and I am beholden to no one regarding that fact.
I wrote this in a different thread.
I used to post on talk.politics.guns. It got boring trying to educate
people as to why gun laws don't stop criminals from obtaining guns and why
the second amendment was the second and not the third, fourth, fifth, etc.
Some people actually believe in the potential for uniform and universal
peace and justice (this is Utopian). Peace and justice is decided at the
individual level. It requires a coherent understanding of the immutable
tendency for corruption in the human soul (this is what makes Utopia
impossible). The ideology that says guns are a cause of crime is so
ignorant and naive it is hard to believe. Yet it is currently the
"correct" ideology in the media. Imagine if early man looked at the rock,
the branch, or the bone in the same way. In a species that displays
qualities such as greed, malice, hate, oppression, intolerance, etc. so
abundantly the gun is but the latest evolution in the development of tools
that throw a wrench into the might equals right equation--for while only a
few may be born with the physical attribute to efficiently wield their fist
or a sword _all_ are born with the physical attribute to wield a gun. It
is an equalizing tool and only those who don't understand this absolutely
basic concept settle, as a class or as a people, to the bottom of the
barrel. What made America possible was the fact that its average citizen
was armed. This set in action a chain of events that would later be
necessary to liberate, and/or prevent the subjection of, the entire world
the oppression of those who would dictate to a disarmed population (Third
Reich/Japanese Empire/Soviet Union). This one factor unlike any other was
the critical link in the chain of the evolution of rule by the people
rather than rule by the privileged. How far to you think the purges of
Stalinist Communism would have gone had the average Russian had a simple
late nineteenth century bolt action rifle? Not very far. Instead, though,
MILLIONS were murdered. They could have gathered in the public squares and
protested until they turned blue. It would have done no good. As a matter
of fact it was essentially to silence their ideology and eliminate them as
political contenders that they were murdered to begin with. They were
unarmed and their opponents weren't. In the days before guns they would
have been the ones without bows and arrows, or swords, or the horse, or the
numbers, or the genetic physical attributes of advantage. _This_ was the
cost of an _unarmed_ population in Russia and the surrounding states.
There are those out there that believe that guns belong only in the hands
of "authority". Let them remember that in America supreme authority rests
in the hands of the people. This is why American citizens can, do, and
will posses guns. **A whole generation of individuals that founded this
country knew this so well that they made it the second right in the famous
Bill of Rights. It was strategically placed as the only true support for
the first set of rights laid out in that great document.
**I would like to better word the end of this argument and say that "they
recognized it as the right upon which the rights recognized in the First Amendment
were guaranteed against brute force to silence".
Kyle H.
The concept that the pen is mightier than the sword takes for granted that those
who wield the pen and those who view the ink understand the true relevance of the
sword.
docd...@clark.net
>> arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
>
>
>Our constitution does not *give* any rights whatever. It *recognizes*
>rights, as pre-existent to that document itself.
... like the 'right to be born into slavery', correct?
DD
docd...@clark.net
Remnant <Rem...@sssc.slg.eds.com> wrote:
>J&F Higham wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>> Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
>> arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
>
>were ours before the formation of government. The Constitution and Bill
>of Rights were created to PROTECT those rights, and of course to
>establish the structure and mechanisms of government.
This again? I don't know which tract the two of you are working from but
you might want to ask the author of it about the 'right' to be counted as
3/5 of a person... pfah.
DD
waker
To "Get Real" I am a "crazed missionary". I am glad that someone who holds
his ideologies fears those like me - crazy as we are. Since "Get Real's"
type of thinking is exactly the kind of thinking that supports oppressive
regimes then I will happily say for all to hear that I would not hesitate to
bare arms against his kind in defense of liberty. To those who think this
sounds crazy - you are already slaves. Those who think like "Get Real" are
at the very core of the immortal threat to freedom and liberty. Those who
think their liberty to be "secure" understand nothing of human history or
human nature. I share these opinions with some of the greatest minds in
human history and I am proud of them. I will teach my children to share the
same beliefs and they will teach theirs and so on. Those like "Get Real"
will continue to be corrupt and/or ignorant for time immemorial and those
like myself will continue to guarantee that they suffer the failure of their
beliefs for as long a period. Let's not allow Y2K to be used as an attempt
for the "Get Reals" to shove more of their socialist totalitarian ideology
down our throats. Should they attempt to do so then let's vow to trample
them into the stone age for another half century or so until they rear their
ugly heads again. Then our children and our children's children can (and
will most certainly have to) do it again.
Kyle H.
Tim May
> In <362D67...@ix.nutcom.com>, wrote:
>
> >If you don't "aim a shotgun", then why are there sights on them?
>
> There aren't sights on a shotgun. At least the shotguns I've seen
> don't have sights. They have a bead.
>
> And my understanding of hunting terminology is that you don't aim a
> shotgun, you point it.
Sights come on many shotguns. Especially favored for defensive shooting
applications are "ghost ring sights."
And I know folks who put "red dot" (Pro Point, Holosight, etc.) optical
scopes on shotguns.
As to whether one hits a target, it depends on the pointing accuracy, the
range, and the pattern of the shot.
--Tim May
--
Don Steiny
>Dave Hoots wrote:
>>
>> There are factors too detailed to go into here....but really,
>> our crime is not as bad as the press make it out to be.
>That's an excellent point!
"An armed society is a polite one." -- Robert A. Heinlien.
-Don
--
Don Steiny - ste...@infopoint.com - http://www.infopoint.com/
InfoPoint, Inc. - voice 1+(831) 471-1671 - fax: 1+(831) 471-1670
Old Biker
> > <snip of HCI boilerplate about guns in the home, etc.>
> > > The question really is:
> > > Is the average citizen of any country ready for the freedom to carry
a
> > > gun?? Not really!
> >
> > Thank you for that pronouncement, your Highness.
>
>waker <wa...@ais.net> wrote
> I am glad that someone who holds (Get Real's)
> ideologies fears those like me - crazy as we are. Since (his) type of
thinking
> is exactly the kind of thinking that supports oppressive regimes ...
When a friend went to Germany we asked him to pick up some catalogs of
hop-up parts for our BMWs, assuming that they would be like Harley-Ds or
Chevys here. He came home empty handed explaining that it'd never occur to
a "good german" to modify his vehicle even if it were not against the law.
You cannot even use a brand of tire not recommended by the manufacturer!!
If government doesn't regulate something "good germans" like the ones who
supported Hitler complain until a law is passed to do so!! Ditto the rest
of eastern europe. It's part of their culture; freedom is not.
Unfortunately many immigrants brought the distinctly unamerican attitude
that the government is in charge to these shores over the past 150 years
and their descendents don't know (and don't want to know) that the
government is supposed to obey us, not vice versa. This notion is treason
and should be punished as such: fair trial, quick execution.
waker
docd...@clark.net wrote:
If you would take the time to study why the slaves were counted as three fifths of
a person you would learn these things: (These are facts you too can learn if you
choose to research the records of the founding.)
1) The Southern colonies wanted to count the slaves as whole person in order to
have more representation and, ultimately more power, in congress. The three-fifths
clause prevented the slave interest from dominating the legislative process. The
three-fifths was argued _for_ by the Northern delegates. The Southern delegates
argued that they be counted as "whole". If the north had had its way the slaves
would have been counted as zero thus reducing the legislative powers of the South
(and concurrently the slave interests power as a result). Would you prefer the
South had more legislative power based on the size of its slave industry?
2) Art. 1, sec. 9 of the Constitution gave Congress the power to end the slave
trade in 1808.
3) Nowhere in the original Constitution is the word "slavery". "Slavery" appears
in the 13th amendment.
4) Nothing in the 13th amendment changes anything else in the Constitution. i.e.
When the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery there was no pre-existing part
of it that was consequently nullified.
5) Nowhere in any part of the constitution is the institution of slavery
acknowledged as "legal" or morally just.
6) If the founding fathers had attempted to abolish slavery while trying to unite
the country they would never have gotten the Southern states to ratify and thus
would have failed.
7) It took a war in which 600,000 Americans died to finally end slavery in the
Southern states. Slavery was already voluntarily abolished in all of the Northern
states. The Southern states were so intent on maintaining their way of life (which
was totally dependent upon slavery) that they would rather cede and spill blood in
defense of that way of life. This would have been noble in my opinion if they were
fighting for a system which viewed _all_ men as free. They weren't, though, were
they?
8) Almost two hundred years after the founding the same document written by the
founding fathers was used to eliminate segregation (once again which was
predominantly a Southern quality) as well.
9) No country or government organization in human history has been as accessible
to and responsible to as great a multitude of citizens as diverse in race,
religion, or ethnicity, as that provided for in the work of the founding fathers.
This, you may thank the founding fathers for (and I'm quite sure their mothers,
sisters, wives, daughters, and mistresses as well ;-).
Amendments 13, 15, and 19 (abolition of slavery, right of all races to vote, right
of women to vote) were possible specifically because of the great ideals
transferred from the founding fathers to the Constitution. An attempt to include
all of these in the late 18th century would have definitely met with failure.
Failure then would certainly not have allowed for their evolution today. The
founding fathers were so far ahead of their time that they were able to institute
government that would ultimately achieve many of the things that many of them
wished they could accomplish but were wise enough to know was impossible in their
immediate time. Such wisdom is hard to comprehend in our culture of immediate
gratification. They understood that nothing truly great in life is created
overnight or on impulse but is rather nurtured or guided into existence and in the
case of "rights" - revealed and protected.
At the time of the founding the end of slavery in America began. This happened
along with the ideals of the founding, not in spite of them. There existed little
or no slavery in Europe at the time because the trade guilds were threatened by
such a practice and were powerful enough to prevent its existence. King George's
government staunchly supported slavery in the colonies. It may very well be the
experience of oppression from England that began to cause white Northerners to see
their own oppression of the slaves in a different light. Today we practice slavery
again only now it is in the form of supporting oppressive regimes and economies
abroad by our national trade practices. Clinton is the most fervent supporter of
this type of "exported" slavery. One day the black people of this country will
wake up to see that they have had more injustice done to them by modern "liberals"
than by all of the efforts of all of the hate groups (KKK etc.) combined. When
they shed the political hypocrisy of favoritism under the eyes of the law (as
advocated by modern "liberals")--only then will they be truly free.
DD - You take a number (3/5) and you regurgitate it. You give it no meaning
though.
Some of my argumentative material is taken from William J. Bennet's _Our Sacred
Honor_. Most of it is paraphrased. His work is a collection of writings of the
Founding Fathers with explanatory notes intermingled.
Kyle H.
Old Biker
> >Dave Hoots wrote:
> >>
> >> There are factors too detailed to go into here....but really,
> >> our crime is not as bad as the press make it out to be.
If you omit drug-related city-ghetto killings caused by our insane war on
drugs, the USA has less crime than the UK and Italy and little more that
the other developed euro-countries. Moreover, more crime there is against
people. For example, US burgulars avoid occupied buildings for fear of the
occupants whilst UK burgulars prefer them because they can also rob the
occupants. Two Brits I met at Daytona Bikeweek had both been mugged and
stabbed seriously in the process. Most telling of all is the stats that
show a significant decrease in all types of crime when just a few citzens
begin carrying concealed firearms. Every third person in my county has a
concealed carry permit. Crime is practically non-existant, limited to
fistfights, domestic disputes, and minor burglarly - hasn't been a shooting
in years. But that doesn't make for sensational headlines.
waker
docd...@clark.net wrote:
> In article <vxku30x...@pocari-sweat.jprc.com>,
> Karl Kleinpaste <ka...@jprc.com> wrote:
> >"J&F Higham" <ma...@mak.com.au> writes:
> >> Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
> >> arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
> >
> >That opening clause by itself is a telling misnomer on your part.
> >
> >Our constitution does not *give* any rights whatever. It *recognizes*
> >rights, as pre-existent to that document itself.
>
> ... like the 'right to be born into slavery', correct?
>
> DD
The only place the Constitution mentions the word "slavery" is when it abolishes
it.
You're arguing from emotion. You want to blame someone or some group for slavery.
I understand. Defies logic though. Sorry.
Kyle H.
docd...@clark.net
>
>
>docd...@clark.net wrote:
>
>> In article <vxku30x...@pocari-sweat.jprc.com>,
>> Karl Kleinpaste <ka...@jprc.com> wrote:
>> >"J&F Higham" <ma...@mak.com.au> writes:
>> >> Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
>> >> arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
>> >
>> >That opening clause by itself is a telling misnomer on your part.
>> >
>> >Our constitution does not *give* any rights whatever. It *recognizes*
>> >rights, as pre-existent to that document itself.
>>
>> ... like the 'right to be born into slavery', correct?
>>
>> DD
>
>
>The only place the Constitution mentions the word "slavery" is when it abolishes
>it.
Exactly... so the 'right' is left untouched and allowed-for... the 3/5
rule, remember?
>
>You're arguing from emotion. You want to blame someone or some group for slavery.
Eh? Do you always accuse folks of foolishness when they bring up points
you've not addressed?
>I understand.
Granting you a process called 'understanding' (Davey Hume aside and all
that)... *do* explain, then... I scarce understand *myself*, let alone
others.
> Defies logic though.
'Logic is a game, played by a particular set of rules'... is that any
familiar? Since it seems a concern of yours then by all means state your
rules and I'll do my best to play along.
> Sorry.
As my beloved Drill Sergeant used to say, 'Sounds like a personal problem
to me'... but I'll try to overlook it.
DD
Ron Miller
: It appears as if the writer of the paragraph below is unaware Dutch
: citizens
: may own firearms, ie handguns, they must be kept at State owned ranges,
: transport from match to match is done by the military or a police unit,
: I foregt which, and the guns shipped to a designated receiver if out of
: the country.
This looks to me more like the Dutch citizen can only borrow his
property back from the government under terms the government dictates.
Not acceptable to me.
Ron
Richard Jorgensen
of cash. That also eliminates the papertrail if you later need to ditch the
gun. Not that I think you should commit a crime. But, cash and carry helps
you deny ownership if push comes to shove.
Declan McCullagh wrote in message <70gnt6$s37$1...@its.hooked.net>...
>In article <tcmay-19109...@santacruz-x2-3-87.got.net>,
>Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote:
>>However, it is completely possible that by one year from now guns will
>>either not be purchasable--through the gun-grabber legislation constantly
>>appearing--or that prices will have skyrocketed.
>
>Even now, it's not easy. I was thinking of picking up a rifle the other
>day and storing it in Virginia (I'd check to see whether htis is legal
>first of course). No luck. You gotta have a Virginia driver's license or
>state ID card. plus other ID too. plus checks and waiting periods thatshow
>no sign of getting shorter.
>
>-Declan
>
>Wired News
>Chief Washington Correspondent
>http://www.wired.com/
>
>
>--
>TIME.com/Netly News article archive: http://www.pathfinder.com/netly/y2k/
>Y2K and related topics mailing list: http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
Richard Jorgensen
the Euro's out there.
Get Real wrote in message <362C85...@of.your.business.com>...
>Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
>cultures). Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
>own government? Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
>home from all those other people with guns?
>
>
>
>Richard Jackson wrote:
>
>>
>> Remember--on 1December1998- "Brady II" goesinto effect. There will be
>> a waiting period and a National Agency Check for purchases of rifles
>> and shotguns.
>>
>> Buy often, Buy early.
>>
Richard Jorgensen
Dave Hoots wrote in message <362CAB...@mci2000.com>...
>Get Real wrote:
>>
>> Why do americans have such a need for guns? (more so than most other
>> cultures).
>
>Because we have more freedom ? Because we refuse to make the same
>historical mistakes over and over again? Because we're "citizens",
>not "subjects" ?
>
>
>
>Is your democracy so bad that you distrust your
>> own government?
>
>Our Republic is actually doing just fine, thank you. It's idiots
>that insist we have a "democracy" instead of a "republic" that
>obscure and obsfucate the issue. We are NOT a U.K.-wannabe !
>As for distrusting our government -- not really. We just distrust
>the intent of *some* of the government employees, who forget that
>they are public servants, not royalty!
>
>
>
> Is crime so high that you will have to defend your
>> home from all those other people with guns?
>
>Where you give people the freedom to move about without papers,
>the freedom to make a wide number of choices, where you have
>tremendous opportunity to make mistakes (due to the wide number of
>choices), then you will have people making unwise choices.
>There are factors too detailed to go into here....but really,
>our crime is not as bad as the press make it out to be.
>
>For future reference, I suggest you troll elsewhere.
Richard Jorgensen
criminals who already break existing laws will ignore. To continue thinking
thusly when it is wrong the last twenty + times is a sign that your insane.
Get Real wrote in message <362DAA...@of.your.business.com>...
>Dave Hoots wrote:
>>
>> There are factors too detailed to go into here....but really,
>> our crime is not as bad as the press make it out to be.
>
>That's an excellent point! I bet many people carry guns because
>of media hype without any real dangers. But they do not consider
>the inherent dangers of having a gun in the house (I believe only
>1% of gun related fatalities are actually made in self-defense and
>a much larger fraction are accidents).
>
>The question really is:
>Is the average citizen of any country ready for the freedom to carry a
>gun?? Not really! So what is wrong with demanding a mandatory
>training before you can purchase a gun...or a waiting period?
Remnant
>
> > <snip excellent argument from a free man>
> >
> > The right of self-defense is the first law of nature. I need, and
> > will accept, no conditions on my ability to exercise that right. I do
> > so responsibly, and I am beholden to no one regarding that fact.
>
> I wrote this in a different thread.
>
> I used to post on talk.politics.guns. It got boring trying to educate
> people as to why gun laws don't stop criminals from obtaining guns and why
> the second amendment was the second and not the third, fourth, fifth, etc.
Amen and amen.
kmph...@my-dejanews.com
Beavis <b1...@cyberhighway.net> wrote:
>
>
> piem...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > In article <tcmay-20109...@santacruz-x2-3-127.got.net>,
> > tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> > > In article <362d34b2....@news.netrox.net>,
> > > ctip...@miamionthenet.com (ctip...@miamionthenet.com) wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > certainly some practice is needed. The sooner one starts, the better. It
> > > could be real tough to sign up for range time in the last couple of months
> > > of 1999.
> > poorly in shooting situations with handguns-- not enough range time.
> >
> >
>
> I was considering purchacing a good quality air rifle for this. that way all I
> have to do is go to the back yard for 15 min a day. I live in the woods so I
get
> good terrain, different seasons, weather, Lighting, and practice every day.
Does
> anyone have any thoughts on this???
>
If you're a\inexperienced with firearms, an air rifle will help your eyes
focus but you need to shoot on a semiregular basis with _your_ firearm to
become proficient. You will need to become conditioned to the recoil of an
adequate caliber(7.62x51 or better for rifle)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
kmph...@my-dejanews.com
piem...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <tcmay-20109...@santacruz-x2-3-127.got.net>,
> tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
> > In article <362d34b2....@news.netrox.net>,
> > ctip...@miamionthenet.com (ctip...@miamionthenet.com) wrote:
> >
>
> > >
>
> few hundred rounds on hand and fire a hundred at the range, I reload those
> before I go back to the range.
>
> BTW, if you can reload, keeping a few pounds of powder, a couple thousand
> bullets, and a couple boxes of primers is a good way to house an "arsenal" in
> a shoebox.
Just remember that powder shelf life(unless it's in cartridges)is about two
yrs.
David L. Pope
>
> In article <362E34F2...@ais.net>, waker <wa...@ais.net> wrote:
> >
>
> Exactly... so the 'right' is left untouched and allowed-for... the 3/5
> rule, remember?
>
> >
> >You're arguing from emotion. You want to blame someone or some group for slavery.
>
> Eh? Do you always accuse folks of foolishness when they bring up points
> you've not addressed?
>
So, DD, do you just not know HOW to read the responses to your questions, or
have the responses not propagated to your ISP?
Random
Remnant
>
> In article <vxku30x...@pocari-sweat.jprc.com>,
> Karl Kleinpaste <ka...@jprc.com> wrote:
> >"J&F Higham" <ma...@mak.com.au> writes:
> >> Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
> >> arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
> >
> >That opening clause by itself is a telling misnomer on your part.
> >
> >Our constitution does not *give* any rights whatever. It *recognizes*
> >rights, as pre-existent to that document itself.
>
> ... like the 'right to be born into slavery', correct?
>
> DD
You are just unbelievable, dd. How about 'the right to starve'? You're
just always too flipping clever by half.
Remnant
<snip of great stuff>
Amen, brother.
Remnant
<snip of waker's response to dd's standard idiotic games>
> Honor_. Most of it is paraphrased. His work is a collection of writings of the
> Founding Fathers with explanatory notes intermingled.
>
> Kyle H.
Kyle, very eloquent and right on, but alas you're wasting your time with
DD. And please don't mention God or you'll get that Sploingy divinity
bs. Tiresome, circular twaddle.
Wayne L. Beavers
>
> "J&F Higham" <ma...@mak.com.au> writes:
> > Everyone knows that the US Constitution gives its citizens the right to bear
> > arms, but this does not explain the fervour Americans have for guns.
>
> That opening clause by itself is a telling misnomer on your part.
>
> Our constitution does not *give* any rights whatever. It *recognizes*
> *protection* of those rights. It does not give or grant anything at
> all. Read the amendments again and consider their syntax. Not once
> do they utter something of the form, "the people shall have the right
> to..." Rather, they are written in the passive voice, acknowledging
> something already present, e.g., "The right of the people to be
> secure...shall not be violated" (4th Amendment). Anything that can be
> granted can be removed by an inverse process; there is nothing given,
> that it could be then taken away.
>
I never really stopped to think about it but...
In the USA you can do anything you want, unless it is prohibited by law
Apparently, in other countries you can only do that which is permitted
by law.
On the surface, these might appear to be the same thing. The difference
is what happens when you do something that is not defined. In the USA
you can do what you want until a law is passed to stop you. In the
opposite situation, you can't do anything at all, until someone passes a
law making it ok.
So, for lack of a law regarding guns, in some countries you can own them
and in others you can not.
This would (presumably) apply to other things besides guns, abortion,
cloning sheep, etc.
--
Wayne L. Beavers mailto:Wayne_...@Beyond-Software.com
Beyond Software, Inc. http://www.beyond-software.com
"Transforming Legacy Applications"