Abuse of 2nd Amend.
Odysseus
Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment? True
enough, the amendment does state "...the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", but the first part of the
amendment clearly indicates that this is in relation to "A WELL
REGULATED militia."
Before you flame me, you should know that I am a registered
Republican, a veteran of the United States Army (including the Gulf
War), and own a handgun. My arguement is that I resent the all too
convenient contortions of the 2nd Amendment to put a gun in the hands
of whoever wants one. Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
Perhaps you know some youself.
Peace,
Odysseus
"The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
- The Doors, "Roadhouse Blues"
waf...@primenet.com
They are disconnected, and the preponderance of contemporanoius speech,
writing, and thought would have thought us crazy today, to think that one
could not possess any weapon. They just booted a King in the butt, and
they were keenly aware of WHY one should have the (GOD GIVEN--not state
given) RIGHT, not privelidge, to Keep and to BEAR ARMS... That, of
course, formed a militia. When fighting an enemy, they should, as any
force, be wqell regulated: or they get their ass blown off.
That is why the Bill of Rights was written in the COMMON tongyue, not the
King's Lawyer's tongue. Can't be used by lawyers, without getting caught.
That is the beauty of the Bill of Rights, over the body of the
Constitution. The Bill is the RIGHTS! BY GOD! The Constitution is a
Document, for governance. [inspired by God, but written by men.]
The "hicks" weren't too dumb when they FORCED the Bill of Rights on the
lawyer and intellectual types...they KNEW waht might happen. Common
language for the common person. LOVE THAT BILL OF RIGHTS!
[waf][IDAHO]
**********************
AHABIZ
In article <838595899$12...@atype.com>, fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus)
writes:
>Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
>quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
> Perhaps you know some youself.
can't think of any - even dave and mikey deserve the ability to defend
themselves...besides there are these things called natural rights...you
may have heard of them?
Arlin Adams
METaylor29
In article <838595899$12...@atype.com>, fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus)
writes:
> Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
>possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment? True
>enough, the amendment does state "...the right of the people to keep
>and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", but the first part of the
>amendment clearly indicates that this is in relation to "A WELL
>REGULATED militia."
I couldn't agree with you more! This is a point that militia-types like
to ignore in their arguements. Of course, they think that 'well
regulated' refers to the ability to police themselves - sort of like
letting the fox watch the hen house!
> Before you flame me, you should know that I am a registered
>Republican, a veteran of the United States Army (including the Gulf
>War), and own a handgun. My arguement is that I resent the all too
>convenient contortions of the 2nd Amendment to put a gun in the hands
>of whoever wants one.
If you need a pair of asbestos underwear, let me know - you can borrow a
pair of mine!
> Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
>quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
> Perhaps you know some youself.
Yeah - criminals, the criminally insane, quite a few people in this
newsgroup ( oh wait - I'm repeating myself! ).......
>
>Peace,
> Odysseus
>
> "The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
>
> - The Doors, "Roadhouse Blues"
"I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer!"
Mike Taylor ( METay...@aol.com )
"One idiot is harmless, two idiots are dangerous!"
"Mike Taylor - another governmnet harpy at work!"
Richard Glen Cheek
METaylor29 wrote:
>
> In article <838595899$12...@atype.com>, fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus)
> writes:
>
> > Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
> >possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment? True
> >enough, the amendment does state "...the right of the people to keep
> >and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", but the first part of the
> >amendment clearly indicates that this is in relation to "A WELL
> >REGULATED militia."
My understanding is that the militia that is organised is regulated by direct
command and laws of the state. This is the National Guard. The Unorganised
militia is simply the armed population and is regulated by laws that apply to
those who qualify for being considered in the unorganised militia. Laws such
as those prohibiting felons from owning guns, requiring selective service
registration, and others regulate the unorganized militia in such a fashion.
To be well regulated does not necessarily mean organised. I could be wrong on
this, obviously. This is simply my take on it.
>
> I couldn't agree with you more! This is a point that militia-types like
> to ignore in their arguements. Of course, they think that 'well
> regulated' refers to the ability to police themselves - sort of like
> letting the fox watch the hen house!
Simply because you do not or cannot converse with intelligent people does not
mean intelligent people do not exist. They are _especially_ found in the
constitutional militias and if you engaged in honest conversation with them
you might hear them more. Your claim about what militiamen perceive as a
'well regulated militia' is purely fantasy and/or your prejudice. Next time
throw in some redneck/hick slams; they really seem to fit your style.
Richard Cheek
>
> > Before you flame me, you should know that I am a registered
> >Republican, a veteran of the United States Army (including the Gulf
> >War), and own a handgun. My arguement is that I resent the all too
> >convenient contortions of the 2nd Amendment to put a gun in the hands
> >of whoever wants one.
>
> If you need a pair of asbestos underwear, let me know - you can borrow a
> pair of mine!
>
> > Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
> >quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
> > Perhaps you know some youself.
>
> Yeah - criminals, the criminally insane, quite a few people in this
> newsgroup ( oh wait - I'm repeating myself! ).......
>
> >
> >Peace,
> > Odysseus
> >
> > "The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
> >
> > - The Doors, "Roadhouse Blues"
>
> "I woke up this morning and I got myself a beer!"
>
> Mike Taylor ( METay...@aol.com )
> "One idiot is harmless, two idiots are dangerous!"
> "Mike Taylor - another governmnet harpy at work!"
--
1ľ
Mike Chapman
In article <838595899$12...@atype.com>, Odysseus <fwb...@tsufl.edu> wrote:
> Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
>possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment? True
>enough, the amendment does state "...the right of the people to keep
>and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", but the first part of the
>amendment clearly indicates that this is in relation to "A WELL
>REGULATED militia."
Allow me to explain this in simple terms. The first clause is an
admonishment that the government favor the militia to the
standing army. It says that an armed, trained and organized
populace is essential to the security of a free state. The second
clause is distinct and places a clear, simple restriction on
the government. The right of the people, which is to keep and
bear (military) arms, is untouchable. The 14th amendment clearly
extends this protection to state governments (a mistake perhaps,
but it's there anyway).
Joseph Pothier
dde...@geophysics.scif.uoknor.edu (D. Deming) wrote:
>
>In article <838595899$12...@atype.com>, fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus) wrote:
>
>>
>> Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
>> possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment? True
>> enough, the amendment does state "...the right of the people to keep
>> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", but the first part of the
>> amendment clearly indicates that this is in relation to "A WELL
>> REGULATED militia."
>> Before you flame me, you should know that I am a registered
>> Republican, a veteran of the United States Army (including the Gulf
>> War), and own a handgun. My arguement is that I resent the all too
>> convenient contortions of the 2nd Amendment to put a gun in the hands
>> of whoever wants one. Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
>> quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
>> Perhaps you know some youself.
>>
>
>So, what is your point? I know quite a few people who should
>not be allowed free speech, but I am happy to recognize that
>this is their right.
>
>Your post reads like a slick propaganda piece from HCI. I do
>not believe you are a Republican, veteran, or that you
>own a handgun.
Mr. Deming,
Welcome to the newsgroup. Be advised that the pro-militia faction
brands anyone questioning their interpretation of the 2nd as a
liberal Democrat regardless if they are or not. They just can't
seem to get it through their heads that one can be a Republican or
gun owner and NOT support their absolutist ideas on the 2nd.
My best,
JP
Bilgeman
->>Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment?<<-Odysseus
Bilge-Why do we "allow"? Because:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH,OR OF THE PRESS; or the right of the people peaceably to
assembl,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."-First
Amendment
That's why, Odysseus.
This ain't the Army, chummie.
Bilg...@AOL.com
D. Deming
In article <838595899$12...@atype.com>, fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus) wrote:
>
> Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
Walter Ulrich
> fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus) writes:
> Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
> possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment? True
> enough, the amendment does state "...the right of the people to keep
> and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", but the first part of the
> amendment clearly indicates that this is in relation to "A WELL
> REGULATED militia."
> Before you flame me, you should know that I am a registered
> Republican, a veteran of the United States Army (including the Gulf
> War), and own a handgun. My arguement is that I resent the all too
> convenient contortions of the 2nd Amendment to put a gun in the hands
> of whoever wants one. Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
> quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
> Perhaps you know some youself.
>>>>
You could be Samuel Colt (or Bill Ruger) and your view regarding weapons
would still be unrealistic, and unethical: Simply- anyone who wants a gun
can get one, especially if they desire to break the law by killing someone,
why should they care about a less serious offense of possessing an "illegal"
gun? And if they perchance can't get a gun, there's literally hundreds of
other ways to dispatch a victim. Even in countries with VERY strict gun
laws, Japan, the UK, China, >criminals< have no trouble getting what
they desire, only the >law abiding< don't. So, all of the endless laws and
regulations impact the innocent and hardly affect the guilty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How can you have a house without a gun?" Grandpa Simpson
Jonathan Williams
AHABIZ wrote:
>
> In article <838595899$12...@atype.com>, fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus)
> writes:
>
> >Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
> >quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
> > Perhaps you know some youself.
>
> can't think of any - even dave and mikey deserve the ability to defend
> themselves...besides there are these things called natural rights...you
> may have heard of them?
>
> Arlin Adams
Arlin,
What do you hold are "natural" rights? I've certainly heard of
"unalienable" rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but I'm
unfamiliar with the "natural" rights notion. Are they synonymous with the
Bill of Rights?
BTW, guns are not the only way for someone to defend him/herself; it can be
argued that they aren't even the most effective.
Jonathan
jonv...@iastate.edu
Dave Cinege
In <838595899$12...@atype.com>, fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus) writes:
>
> Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
>possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment? True
>enough, the amendment does state "...the right of the people to keep
>and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", but the first part of the
>amendment clearly indicates that this is in relation to "A WELL
>REGULATED militia."
"....the right of the people......"
Recognizes the preexsisting natural right of all persons to own weapons.
These are the same people mentioned in the rest of the consitution an BofR.
> Before you flame me, you should know that I am a registered
>Republican, a veteran of the United States Army (including the Gulf
>War), and own a handgun. My arguement is that I resent the all too
>convenient contortions of the 2nd Amendment to put a gun in the hands
>of whoever wants one. Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
>quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
Freedom has many costs.....you should be most gracious to pay any of them.
If you are not, too fucking bad. Your opinion means nothing when it comes to
the abridment of the rights of others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave 'Kill a Cop' Cinege (aka Psychopath #3) --- Super Genius at Large
http://www.psychosis.com/ Prove me wrong.....VOTE Libertarian!
Harry Browne for President in '96 Libertarian Party 1-800-682-1776
http://www.rahul.net/browne/ http://www.lp.org/
Walter Ulrich
> Jonathan Williams <jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
[snip]
> What do you hold are "natural" rights? I've certainly heard of
> "unalienable" rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but I'm
> unfamiliar with the "natural" rights notion. Are they synonymous with the
> Bill of Rights?
A "natural" right is simply something that comes with being alive.
If you observe nature every animal from a bacteria to an elephant defends
itself the best it can from attack/being killed. Very few animals just roll
over and submit when threatened. Even sheep will run...but generally
don't put up much of a struggle once caught...hence the derogatory
term "sheeple". Natural rights stem from the inborn will to survive.
Those who promulgate the idea that the State should have the last
say on whether its component parts (citizens), who have done nothing
wrong, should live, die or be imprisoned, are against natural law.
> BTW, guns are not the only way for someone to defend him/herself; it can be
> argued that they aren't even the most effective.
>Anything< can be argued.
I've looked and looked, but haven't found a source for a phaser ("set your
phaser for stun Scotty!").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." A. Lincoln
Mike Chapman
In article <838731786$33...@atype.com>,
Jonathan Williams <jonv...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>What do you hold are "natural" rights? I've certainly heard of
>"unalienable" rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but I'm
>unfamiliar with the "natural" rights notion. Are they synonymous with the
>Bill of Rights?
We aren't here to give you an education. Have you heard of the
philosopher John Locke? Investigate his beliefs.
Essentially, natural rights are one right/responsibility - to live
and let live.
>BTW, guns are not the only way for someone to defend him/herself; it can be
>argued that they aren't even the most effective.
For most attacks they are by far the best defense. I assume you are
thinking that knives are very useful, with which I agree, but only
because of political limitations on the design of guns. A gun of
optimal design is a better defense than any other personal weapon for
any situation, if your concern is only with stopping an attack.
Jonathan Williams
Mike Chapman wrote:
Ah, Mr. Chapman, at last we meet. I've read much about you :)
> In article <838731786$33...@atype.com>,
> Jonathan Williams <jonv...@iastate.edu> wrote:
> >What do you hold are "natural" rights? I've certainly heard of
> >"unalienable" rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but I'm
> >unfamiliar with the "natural" rights notion. Are they synonymous with the
> >Bill of Rights?
>
> We aren't here to give you an education. Have you heard of the
> philosopher John Locke? Investigate his beliefs.
Hmm... My question was regarding Arlin's opinion, not John Locke's (whose
thoughts I studied of necessity in the course of degreeing in Psychology, by
the way. Some made sense, some didn't, as I recall). As for education, I
believe asking questions is one of the best ways to aquire one, yes? I'm
here not to attack others, but because I appreciate openminded discussion. I
would hope if you value your opinion you would be willing to carry such
discussion on.
> Essentially, natural rights are one right/responsibility - to live
> and let live.
>
> >BTW, guns are not the only way for someone to defend him/herself; it can be
> >argued that they aren't even the most effective.
>
> For most attacks they are by far the best defense. I assume you are
> thinking that knives are very useful, with which I agree, but only
> because of political limitations on the design of guns. A gun of
> optimal design is a better defense than any other personal weapon for
> any situation, if your concern is only with stopping an attack.
That isn't necessarily true, in my experience. I have several years training
in martial arts, in which I learned the strengths and weaknesses of different
options regarding an attack. For example, at close range I would rather be
attacked with a gun than a knife. The reason is a gun can only do serious
harm to you if it is pointed at you; a knife can injure with many different
movements. The human body on the whole is a far more versatile self-defense
tool than a gun--this includes the option of stopping a conflict before it
even begins, which in my opinion is the best possible outcome.
Jonathan
jonv...@iastate.edu
Walter Ulrich
> Jonathan Williams <jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
[re: firearms optimal self-defence weapon - snip]
> That isn't necessarily true, in my experience. I have several years training
> in martial arts, in which I learned the strengths and weaknesses of different
> options regarding an attack. For example, at close range I would rather be
> attacked with a gun than a knife. The reason is a gun can only do serious
> harm to you if it is pointed at you; a knife can injure with many different
> movements. The human body on the whole is a far more versatile self-defense
> tool than a gun--this includes the option of stopping a conflict before it
> even begins, which in my opinion is the best possible outcome.
>>>>
That's neat. Unfortunately you think that everyone else in this country is exactly
like you, but there are people who are: crippled, elderly, weak, small, or who
aren't into the macho-man culture, i.e. don't feel any need to duke it out, mano
a mano, plus an individual can be attacked by >several< people at once, with
guns, and all the martial-arts training in the world won't be worth squat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ellenburg
Joseph Pothier <JOS...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Welcome to the newsgroup. Be advised that the pro-militia faction
>brands anyone questioning their interpretation of the 2nd as a
>liberal Democrat regardless if they are or not. They just can't
>seem to get it through their heads that one can be a Republican or
>gun owner and NOT support their absolutist ideas on the 2nd.
Wrong. Pothier is clearly a Marxist.
Colonel Dan Ellenburg
South Carolina Civilian Militia Corps
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/SCCM
-------------------------------
"We are not moved by the gloomy smile of a
worthless king, but by the ardent glow of
generous patriotism. We fight not to enslave,
but to set a country free, and to make room
upon the earth for honest men to live in. In
such a case we are sure that we are right; and
we leave to you the despairing reflection of being
the tool of a miserable tyrant." -- Thomas Paine
-------------------------------
JJohnson72
Mr. Demming,
It is very interesting when I find anyone who seems to have a problem with
the second article to the bill of rights, they very nicely enjoy
paraphrasing same.
Article 2
"A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free
state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED"
(emphasis added mine)
I will not bore you with the usual education you obviously have not chosen
to embrace regarding what the Bill of Rights is or is not. I will,
however,
suggest you recall the oath you took in the armed forces when you served.
"..... to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all
enemies both foreign and domestic"
Suffice it to say that Article 2 (as well 1, 3-10) ise NOT NEGOTIABLE
under
any terms, conditions or circumstances. Now that we have settled that
pesky
little issue, how do you suppose a well regulated militia (very nicely
defined
in USC Title 10, sect 311 and 312) could be possible without the second
amendment?
If you are a veteran as you claim, I suggest you consider strongly what
happens
when anyone begins suggesting that we target the rights (any rights) of a
group
that may not be what you like. Even more frightening is what history
shows happens when that group gets what he wants. You see if you are
allowed to
take the rights of another, when do you suppose another will be taking the
rights
you approve of?
If you are not who you claim to be, then please report back to Morris and
Janet that nobody is buying, so please do yourself a favor and stop trying
to sell a product nobody is buying..
"If ye love wealth better than Liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, Go home from us in peace.
We seek not your council or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which
feeds you. May your
chains set lightly upon you, and may that posterity forget that you were
our countrymen."
.....Samuel Adams, debates of 1776
MMedi13720
In article <838771555$8...@atype.com>, Jonathan Williams
<jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
>That isn't necessarily true, in my experience. I have several years
training
>in martial arts, in which I learned the strengths and weaknesses of
different
>options regarding an attack. For example, at close range I would rather
be
>attacked with a gun than a knife.
John, good points all of them, but several years of martial arts training
isn't quite the ideal answer, at least IMHO.
IMHO, you do have a good long-term solution, but it doesn't do much good
for the people who need some sort of protection _right_now_. Also, past
five or ten yards, I honestly do think a firearm might be a better answer.
Despite all training (I've had some too, although probably not as much), I
personally am still damn reluctant to close with a potential assailant
when I can bring force to bear on him from a distance.
Your points about guns vs. knives are well taken, but I personally would
rather be attacked at close range by someone with a knife, provided that
he didn't know much about using it (That's not a big assumption in my old
neighborhood)
Mike S. Medintz, |"I hunt, therefore I am.
| We harvest the land, taking the fallen lamb"
-Metallica (Of Wolf and Man)
Dan Ellenburg
metay...@aol.com (METaylor29) wrote:
>In article <838595899$12...@atype.com>, fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus)
>writes:
>> Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
>>possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment? True
>>enough, the amendment does state "...the right of the people to keep
>>and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", but the first part of the
>>amendment clearly indicates that this is in relation to "A WELL
>>REGULATED militia."
>I couldn't agree with you more! This is a point that militia-types like
>to ignore in their arguements. Of course, they think that 'well
>regulated' refers to the ability to police themselves - sort of like
>letting the fox watch the hen house!
Uh... Mikey... listen... the proverbial "Fox guarding the Hen House"
would be, in this scenerio, the "Government Guarding Our Rights."
In other words, Mikey, if the people do not guard their rights with
vigilance, they will lose them to the trickery of government.
You ever considered reading the letters of the Founders from a
perspective other than that of a monarch?
Colonel Dan Ellenburg
South Carolina Civilian Militia Corps
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/SCCM
----------------------------------------------
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to
prevent the establishment of a standing army,
the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean
to invade the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia, in
order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep Elbridge Gerry, Congress, 1789
----------------------------------------------
Jonathan Williams
MMedi13720 wrote:
>
> In article <838731786$33...@atype.com>, Jonathan Williams
> <jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
>
> >BTW, guns are not the only way for someone to defend him/herself; it can
> be
> >argued that they aren't even the most effective.
> >
> For someone who doesn't have five years to spend becoming proficient at
> Aikido, they help. THey're a self-defense option for those who don't have
> years to spend on learning how to use the other options, or for those who
> might have to deal with an assailant past four or five yards.
Very true. My original point, though, was a dispute of the assertion that
without guns, people cannot defend themselves (or something to that
effect--I didn't keep the post). People DO have other options.
Jonathan
jonv...@iastate.edu
Dan Ellenburg
fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus) wrote:
> Why do we allow the groups who advocate the wide-spread
>possesion of firearms to incompletely quote the 2nd Amendment? True
>enough, the amendment does state "...the right of the people to keep
>and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", but the first part of the
>amendment clearly indicates that this is in relation to "A WELL
>REGULATED militia."
> Before you flame me, you should know that I am a registered
>Republican, a veteran of the United States Army (including the Gulf
>War), and own a handgun. My arguement is that I resent the all too
>convenient contortions of the 2nd Amendment to put a gun in the hands
>of whoever wants one. Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
>quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
> Perhaps you know some youself.
You misunderstand the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Here are a few
statements by our early statesmen who will point you in the right
direction:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone
who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but
downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably
ruined" -- Patrick Henry
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as
they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole
body of people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body
of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United
States." -- Noah Webster
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and
under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress?
If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands
can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in
our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry
"It is asserted by most respectable writers upon our government,
that a well-regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the
country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people.
Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of
freemen" -- John DeWitt
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for
a few public officials." -- George Mason
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
"If the laws of the union were oppressive, they could not carry them
into effect, if the people were possessed of the proper means of
defense." -- William Lenoir
"As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it
is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia."
-- James Madison
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever
Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people,
they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army
upon their ruins." -- Elbridge Gerry
"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a
standing army -- or congress, afraid of a general militia, may say
there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed;
the people in general may be disarmed." -- John Smilie
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas
Jefferson
"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we
are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the
hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may
be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered
subservient to the views of arbitrary power." -- Alexander Hamilton
"It is because the people are civilized that they are with safety
armed. It is an effect of their conscious dignity, as citizens
enjoying equal rights, that they wish not to invade the rights of
others. The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only
to the government, not to the society; and as long as they have
nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it
is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being
accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disavantage." -- Joel
Barlow
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by
the General Government; but the best security of that right after all
is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has
always distinguished the free citizens of these states...Such men form
the best barrier to the liberties of America." -- Gazette of the U.S.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been
considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it
offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of
rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first
instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." --
Justice Joseph Story
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that
we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have
no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible
implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal
or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in
the hands of the people" -- Tench Coxe
Colonel Dan Ellenburg
South Carolina Civilian Militia Corps
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/SCCM
---------------------------------
"I hold that a little rebellion now and then
is a good thing, and as necessary to in the
political world, as storms in the physical."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in a 1787 letter to
James Madison.
---------------------------------
AHABIZ
Hi Jonathan,
>What do you hold are "natural" rights? I've certainly heard of
>"unalienable" rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but I'm
>unfamiliar with the "natural" rights notion. Are they synonymous with
the
>Bill of Rights?
Okay, here's the short version: the philosophy of 'natural rights' is in
fact what the BoR was based on, though it didn't include all of them (i.e.
there was no antislavery clause). Basically the idea is that rights are
inherent to the individual because they are (depending on one's
interpretation) either Divinely granted, or a natural part of being human.
Self defense is one such right, and those of us coming from a
Judeo-Christian background can also find ample evidence theologically to
support the notion that we are *expected* to defend ourselves as well.
>BTW, guns are not the only way for someone to defend him/herself; it can
be
>argued that they aren't even the most effective.
certainly they are not the only means of self defense, they *are* however
a very versatile one, and in some situations (disabled folks such as
myself, the elderly, someone being attacked by multiple bad guys) a
critical one. As such, and because no right is real unless it can be
exercised (i.e. Black people in the early 20th century theoretically had
the right to vote, but in many places could not exercise it, thus making
the point moot) firearms ownership is inherently protected as a natural
right.
Arlin Adams
MMedi13720
In article <838731786$33...@atype.com>, Jonathan Williams
<jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
>BTW, guns are not the only way for someone to defend him/herself; it can
be
>argued that they aren't even the most effective.
>
For someone who doesn't have five years to spend becoming proficient at
Aikido, they help. THey're a self-defense option for those who don't have
years to spend on learning how to use the other options, or for those who
might have to deal with an assailant past four or five yards.
Mike S. Medintz, |"I hunt, therefore I am.
MMedi13720
In article <838850613$2...@atype.com>, Jonathan Williams
<jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
>> For someone who doesn't have five years to spend becoming proficient at
>> Aikido, they help. THey're a self-defense option for those who don't
have
>> years to spend on learning how to use the other options, or for those
who
>> might have to deal with an assailant past four or five yards.
>
>Very true. My original point, though, was a dispute of the assertion
that
>without guns, people cannot defend themselves (or something to that
>effect--I didn't keep the post). People DO have other options.
>
They're an option all right. Unfortunately, for someone who is either
disabled or physically weak, there aren't a whole hell of a lot of other
options.
Mike S. Medintz, |"I hunt, therefore I am.
| We harvest the land, taking the fallen lamb"
http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~medintz -Metallica (Of Wolf and Man)
Dave Cinege
In <838771555$8...@atype.com>, Jonathan Williams <jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
>
>Mike Chapman wrote:
>
>Ah, Mr. Chapman, at last we meet. I've read much about you :)
>
>> In article <838731786$33...@atype.com>,
>> Jonathan Williams <jonv...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>> >What do you hold are "natural" rights? I've certainly heard of
>> >"unalienable" rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but I'm
>> >unfamiliar with the "natural" rights notion. Are they synonymous with the
>> >Bill of Rights?
>>
>> We aren't here to give you an education. Have you heard of the
>> philosopher John Locke? Investigate his beliefs.
>
>Hmm... My question was regarding Arlin's opinion, not John Locke's (whose
>thoughts I studied of necessity in the course of degreeing in Psychology, by
>the way. Some made sense, some didn't, as I recall). As for education, I
>believe asking questions is one of the best ways to aquire one, yes? I'm
>here not to attack others, but because I appreciate openminded discussion. I
>would hope if you value your opinion you would be willing to carry such
>discussion on.
>
>> Essentially, natural rights are one right/responsibility - to live
>> and let live.
>>
>> >BTW, guns are not the only way for someone to defend him/herself; it can be
>> >argued that they aren't even the most effective.
>>
>> For most attacks they are by far the best defense. I assume you are
>> thinking that knives are very useful, with which I agree, but only
>> because of political limitations on the design of guns. A gun of
>> optimal design is a better defense than any other personal weapon for
>> any situation, if your concern is only with stopping an attack.
>
>That isn't necessarily true, in my experience. I have several years training
>in martial arts, in which I learned the strengths and weaknesses of different
>options regarding an attack. For example, at close range I would rather be
>attacked with a gun than a knife. The reason is a gun can only do serious
>harm to you if it is pointed at you; a knife can injure with many different
>movements. The human body on the whole is a far more versatile self-defense
>tool than a gun--this includes the option of stopping a conflict before it
>even begins, which in my opinion is the best possible outcome.
Ha! Maybe against the normal slob criminal will whipping out the 'ol kung-fu
do you any good. But try that with a 200lbs determined merc. You will be
fucked, many, many times.
Mike Chapman
>In <838771555$8...@atype.com>, Jonathan Williams <jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
>>The human body on the whole is a far more versatile self-defense
>>tool than a gun--this includes the option of stopping a conflict before it
>>even begins, which in my opinion is the best possible outcome.
The more options you have, the better your defense.
Eric Engelmann
Jonathan Williams wrote:
>
> AHABIZ wrote:
> >
> > In article <838595899$12...@atype.com>, fwb...@tsufl.edu (Odysseus)
> > writes:
> >
> > >Yes, call me radical, but I think there are
> > >quite a few people who should not have access to a weapon of anykind!
> > > Perhaps you know some youself.
> >
> > can't think of any - even dave and mikey deserve the ability to defend
> > themselves...besides there are these things called natural rights...you
> > may have heard of them?
> >
> > Arlin Adams
>
> Arlin,
> What do you hold are "natural" rights? I've certainly heard of
> "unalienable" rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) but I'm
> unfamiliar with the "natural" rights notion. Are they synonymous with the
> Bill of Rights?
>
> BTW, guns are not the only way for someone to defend him/herself; it can be
> argued that they aren't even the most effective.
>
> Jonathan
> jonv...@iastate.edu
That must be why U.S. LEOs go unarmed when they face criminals who
would kill for $50 <grin>. Natural rights were written of before the
Declaration of Independence. A key part of these is the right to
self preservation.
David L Evens
MMedi13720 (mmedi...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <838771555$8...@atype.com>, Jonathan Williams
: <jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
: >That isn't necessarily true, in my experience. I have several years
: training
: >in martial arts, in which I learned the strengths and weaknesses of
: different
: >options regarding an attack. For example, at close range I would rather
: be
: >attacked with a gun than a knife.
: John, good points all of them, but several years of martial arts training
: isn't quite the ideal answer, at least IMHO.
: IMHO, you do have a good long-term solution, but it doesn't do much good
: for the people who need some sort of protection _right_now_. Also, past
: five or ten yards, I honestly do think a firearm might be a better answer.
: Despite all training (I've had some too, although probably not as much), I
: personally am still damn reluctant to close with a potential assailant
: when I can bring force to bear on him from a distance.
This almost, but not quite, makes it to the most important aspect of
defensive use of firearms: It is VERY important that most criminals
(almost al exceptions being the sort who would kill you anyway) are, to
put it simply, cowardly and/or lazy. They want return for absolute
minimum risk and effort. the intended victim drawing a gun suddenly
makes the particular crime very risky for the potential return. The
potential for any victim to draw a gun makes any crime very risky for the
potential return. Criminals are (mostly) surpressed from commiting
crimes in this manner. (There is usually a short 'hiccup' of increased
justified homicides in areas which formerly disarmed potential victims
while would-be criminals get the message. This is the fault of the
criminals.)
: Your points about guns vs. knives are well taken, but I personally would
: rather be attacked at close range by someone with a knife, provided that
: he didn't know much about using it (That's not a big assumption in my old
: neighborhood)
However, knives are very easy to get, and can be practiced with easily,
cheaply, and without attracting attention, so it is much more likely that
a criminal will practice with a knife than a gun, which, while easy to
obtain, costs money to practice with, and attracts attention to practice
with (even if it's only people making noise complaints).
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David L Evens
Mike Chapman (mi...@cfw.com) wrote:
: >In <838771555$8...@atype.com>, Jonathan Williams <jonv...@iastate.edu> writes:
: >>The human body on the whole is a far more versatile self-defense
: >>tool than a gun--this includes the option of stopping a conflict before it
: >>even begins, which in my opinion is the best possible outcome.
: The more options you have, the better your defense.
Quite true, as different options are appropriate in different circumstances.
Mad Magazine once published a Primer based on updated Mother Goose for
modern times. Jack Be Nimble was updated to:
Jack be nimble,
Jack be slick.
Jack meet mugger,
Jack give kick.
Jack show quickness,
Jack show skill.
Jack learn bullet
Quicker still.
It isn't really feasible to go after a mugger aremed with a gun using
martial arts. He haas WAY to much reaction time for it to work well.
On the other hand, if you have concealed a fiarly small handgun in an
intelligent manner, you could plausibly fire it from under your coat as
you reach in for what the mugger thinks is your wallet. The mugger is
now being fired on and you got the first shot off without any increased
risk. A second should be possible before your attacker CAN respond.
MMedi13720
In article <839111584$49...@atype.com>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
writes:
>It isn't really feasible to go after a mugger aremed with a gun using
>martial arts. He haas WAY to much reaction time for it to work well.
>
Depends upon range. Also, it's often faster to sidestep the mugger's
weapon and go for takedown than it is to draw your own weapon.
AHABIZ
In article <839219662$10...@atype.com>, mmedi...@aol.com (MMedi13720)
writes:
>Depends upon range. Also, it's often faster to sidestep the mugger's
>weapon and go for takedown than it is to draw your own weapon.
I'm not going to say that there aren't people capable of doing this, Mike,
but I do NOT think that an untrained person stands much of a chance in
this sort of situation, nor does one whose mobility is impaired.
Arlin
David L Evens
MMedi13720 (mmedi...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <839111584$49...@atype.com>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
: writes:
: >It isn't really feasible to go after a mugger aremed with a gun using
: >martial arts. He haas WAY to much reaction time for it to work well.
: >
: Depends upon range. Also, it's often faster to sidestep the mugger's
: weapon and go for takedown than it is to draw your own weapon.
Well, it MIGHT work, and actually has a decent chance as most muggers aren't
really all that bright and will probably be close enough to you to give
it a try. (It is, of course, quite stupid to by avoidably within arms
reach of your target if you are using a firearm, as the other person
might even stick a finger in the barrel, and firing a weapon with
anything jammed in the barrel will generally ruin your whole day.)
JHistorian
Mike Chapman wrote:
We aren't here to give you an education. Have you heard of the
philosopher John Locke? Investigate his beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>
Were it not for the American Framers, Locke would have passed into history
as a little-known political philosopher -- his writings were comsidered to
be of little merit or substance.
MMedi13720
In article <839272684$13...@atype.com>, aha...@aol.com (AHABIZ) writes:
>I'm not going to say that there aren't people capable of doing this,
Mike,
>but I do NOT think that an untrained person stands much of a chance in
>this sort of situation, nor does one whose mobility is impaired.
>
I didn't say that my response was or should be a universal response. It
was intended for 20-year-olds with 20-year-old reflexes and a little
training. (I have a hard time speaking from another perspective.)
Mike S. Medintz, |"Old madness reappears, fighting the bitter fear
| growing conspiracy, everyone's after me
| frayed edges of sanity, hear them calling me"
http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~medintz -Metallica
AHABIZ
In article <839341113$18...@atype.com>, mmedi...@aol.com (MMedi13720)
writes:
>In article <839272684$13...@atype.com>, aha...@aol.com (AHABIZ) writes:
>
>>I'm not going to say that there aren't people capable of doing this,
>Mike,
>>but I do NOT think that an untrained person stands much of a chance in
>>this sort of situation, nor does one whose mobility is impaired.
>>
>I didn't say that my response was or should be a universal response. It
>was intended for 20-year-olds with 20-year-old reflexes and a little
>training. (I have a hard time speaking from another perspective.)
ah, if *I* only had 20 year old reflexes again...of course then I'd have
all of the other problems 20 year olds face, hmm, guess I'll stick with
being 41 for now. :-)
Arlin
Mike Chapman
jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
>Were it not for the American Framers, Locke would have passed into history
>as a little-known political philosopher -- his writings were comsidered to
>be of little merit or substance.
By the same people who thought the American revolution was an immoral
violation of the rights of the King? Yeah, I'm surprised.
Robert Ireland
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Mike Chapman wrote:
>
> We aren't here to give you an education. Have you heard of the
> philosopher John Locke? Investigate his beliefs.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> Were it not for the American Framers, Locke would have passed into history
> as a little-known political philosopher -- his writings were comsidered to
> be of little merit or substance.
>
--
Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least they recognized merit
and substance.
Robert Ireland
air...@zapcom.net
"Liberty is not free, it must be fought for every day."
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
> We aren't here to give you an education. Have you heard of the
> philosopher John Locke? Investigate his beliefs.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> Were it not for the American Framers, Locke would have passed into
history
> as a little-known political philosopher -- his writings were comsidered
to
> be of little merit or substance.
--
Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least they recognized merit
and substance.
>>>>>>>>>>
They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
But, since you have already deified the Framers -- a tendency which
has already long been noted (e.g., "theirs was a Golden Age, and they were
gods against the sky") -- one would hardly expect you to countenance that
they could possibly have ever belched, farted, or made any mistakes in
their assumptions of merit and substance.
MMedi13720
In article <839293438$15...@atype.com>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
writes:
>as the other person
>might even stick a finger in the barrel, and firing a weapon with
>anything jammed in the barrel will generally ruin your whole day.)
>
Does that actually work?
We'd better not let the kids watch any Warner Brothers cartoons
anymore-they teach unarmed combat.
Robert Ireland
--
Excuse Me? Where have I ever refered to the Founding Fathers as "theirs was a Golden
Age, and they were gods against the sky?" You must have me confused with some flowery
tongued historical revisionist(pretending to be a historian).
Flawed, absolutely, afterall they were human. The document drawn up by these flawed
individuals is, however, neither flawed nor obsolete. It is the law of the land and it
is high time the government was FORCED to follow the same rules as the rest of the
citizens.
However, in the same vein, I don't see you statists claiming anything but perfection in
the government as it stands today. Potty, for one, glories in the ultimate perfection
of every word and deed of the state. None of the rest of your ilk, even attempt to do
anything but encourage him in these delusions. -- One would hardly expect you to
countenance that the state could possibly have ever belched, farted, or made any
mistakes in their assumptions of merit and substance.
You know it is easy to apply the same strawman arguments to either side. However, it
lends nothing what so ever to the discussion.
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
> We aren't here to give you an education. Have you heard of the
> philosopher John Locke? Investigate his beliefs.
> >>>>>
> Were it not for the American Framers, Locke would have passed
> into history as a little-known political philosopher -- his writings
> were comsidered to be of little merit or substance.
> --
> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least they recognized merit
> and substance.
> >>>>
> They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
>
>But, since you have already deified the Framers -- a tendency which
> has already long been noted (e.g., "theirs was a Golden Age, and they
> were gods against the sky") -- one would hardly expect you to
> countenance that they could possibly have ever belched, farted, or
> made any mistakes in their assumptions of merit and substance.
--
Excuse Me? Where have I ever refered to the Founding Fathers as
"theirs was a Golden Age, and they were gods against the sky?"
>>>>>
That is a quote from an other source that is particularly salient
about the tendency *you* exhibit. That it applies to you is evident; to
wit:
"Flawed, absolutely, afterall they were human. The document drawn
up by these flawed individuals is, however, neither flawed nor obsolete."
That flawed individuals somehow do unflawed work is typical of the
militialoon catechism. That the Framers themselves UNDERSTOOD they were
flawed and that their work was similarly so is in the so-called "amendment
clause" of the Constitution.
Apparently you have never visited that section.
You must have me confused with some flowery
tongued historical revisionist (pretending to be a historian).
>>>>>
I would never confuse *you* with an historian. You have neither the
training, nor the intellect.
However, in the same vein, I don't see you statists claiming anything but
perfection in
the government as it stands today. Potty, for one, glories in the
ultimate perfection
of every word and deed of the state. None of the rest of your ilk, even
attempt to do
anything but encourage him in these delusions. -- One would hardly expect
you to
countenance that the state could possibly have ever belched, farted, or
made any
mistakes in their assumptions of merit and substance.
>>>>>
Do you buy those mile-wide paintbrushes at your local hardware store
or have them custom-made for you?
Since it has obviously not registered within your simple and
child-like mind, let me say it for you in words of such length that you
can understand:
I have never claimed the government was perfect.
Now, which of those words was too tough for you to understand,
Ireland?
Was the sentence too long for you? It's only eight words.
Moreover, while you stand and whine about how you militialoons are
individuals and should not be held accountable for the Vipers, McVeigh,
Chappie, and Cinege do and say, you have the goddamned unmitigated gall to
say that what Pothier says and does is somehow my responsibility or that
of the "rst of your ilk" ?
When you dig your head out of your pathetic hypocritical ass, try
to see if the store will give you your money back on those mile-wide
paintbrushes. Either that or shut the fuck up about being painted with the
likes of Chappie, when you are so goddamned quick to do the same thing.
And, BTW, didckhead, just because I think you militaloons are fools
does not mean that I subscribe to any doctrine of "government perfection."
While you're trading in those mile-wide paintbrushes, see if they
can give you a color for your naive world-view paradigm other than black
and white.
You know it is easy to apply the same strawman arguments to either side.
However, it
lends nothing what so ever to the discussion.
>>>>>
*YOU* have nothing to discuss, Ireland. You are simply a
pretentious, moralizing little ass who stands up and takes his ad homimen
potshots at the other "side," then santimoniously declares that straw
arguments add nothing
waf...@primenet.com
jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
JHISTERICAL [now studdering] wrote:
>Your pissy little "movement" will fail, militiaboy. It's only a matter of
>time.
*************************
waf sez-->
And indeed, it well may "fail."
At what cost, and to what end, and to what future?
You, Historians, and philosopher Kings, all... Know the danger in
Martyrdom.
So, how will this be accomplished, while not *abandoning* your cape of
*civility* ? Cannot be done.
You WIN -- You lose!
You LOSE -- You lose.
You draw -- You Lose!
Helictal History, all for naught.
It all boils down to a couple things, really. Do you feel lucky...?
[waf][IDAHO]
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
However, in the same vein, I don't see you statists claiming anything but
perfection in
the government as it stands today. Potty, for one, glories in the
ultimate perfection
of every word and deed of the state. None of the rest of your ilk, even
attempt to do
anything but encourage him in these delusions. -- One would hardly expect
you to
countenance that the state could possibly have ever belched, farted, or
made any
mistakes in their assumptions of merit and substance.
You know it is easy to apply the same strawman arguments to either side.
However, it
lends nothing what so ever to the discussion.
>>>>>>>>
When . . . and *IF* . . . YOU ever have something to say that is toehr
than an ad homimen discussion followed by a sanctimonious declaration that
strawman arguments do not add to the discussion, be sure to let me know.
For you woefully needed education:
(1) *I* have yet to ever claim any "perfection in the government as it
stands today."
(2) "Potty" (can't use his name, can you? but you can sure whine about
how *you* aren't getting the "respect" that you deserve, can't you?) has
yet, as far as I've seen, to glory "in the ultimate perfection of every
word and deed of the state." Mostly, I've seen him poke holes in your
"militia" claptrap and bait you fools.
(3) If you and the rest of your "militia" brethren are not bound by the
foolish words and acts of Chappie, Cinege, et al, then it is damned
hypocritical of you to posture around, claiming that "the rest of your
ilk" is somehow bound by what any one of said "ilk" says or does.
You and your type bore me, Ireland -- you are Hypocrites on the 33rd
Degree, always whining about how others do the very same thing you do with
reckless abandon; you cannot conceptualize anything in terms other than
the "black-and-white-hat" paradigm characteristic of the most naive of
children; and you cannot withstand even the slightest criticism of your
cathechism without demanding one set of rules for yourselves and another
set for others.
JHistorian
>Were it not for the American Framers, Locke would have
>passed into history as a little-known political philosopher
>-- his writings were comsidered to be of little merit or substance.
By the same people who thought the American revolution was an immoral
violation of the rights of the King? Yeah, I'm surprised.
>>>>>>>>>>
No, by the people who were generally considered to be amongst the
best political philosophers of the day.
If you are interested (which I doubt), I'm sure I can dig up some
source material reading for you.
David L Evens
MMedi13720 (mmedi...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <839293438$15...@atype.com>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
: writes:
: >as the other person
: >might even stick a finger in the barrel, and firing a weapon with
: >anything jammed in the barrel will generally ruin your whole day.)
: >
: Does that actually work?
The idea is to discourage the other person from actually USING the gun.
You'll end up just as dead (or without one hand if you survive), but your
attacked ends up substantially hurt as well, which wouldn't happen
without the obstruction in the barrel.
: We'd better not let the kids watch any Warner Brothers cartoons
: anymore-they teach unarmed combat.
: Mike S. Medintz, |"Old madness reappears, fighting the bitter fear
: | growing conspiracy, everyone's after me
: | frayed edges of sanity, hear them calling me"
: http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~medintz -Metallica
--
Mike Chapman
dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens) wrote:
>The idea is to discourage the other person from actually USING the gun.
>You'll end up just as dead (or without one hand if you survive), but your
>attacked ends up substantially hurt as well, which wouldn't happen
>without the obstruction in the barrel.
I seriously doubt that your finger is going to offer more resistance
to the expanding gasses than a bullet jammed against the rifling.
Don't try it. When you hear about obstructed barrels causing failure
at the breech it's more like a clump of sand or a rock.
If you're that close and the guy has a semi-auto and you think you
might be able to grab at it and you're real quick, try pushing the
slide back. Now THAT works.
Richard Glen Cheek
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Robert Ireland wrote:
>
> > We aren't here to give you an education. Have you heard of the
> > philosopher John Locke? Investigate his beliefs.
> > >>>>>
> > Were it not for the American Framers, Locke would have passed
> > into history as a little-known political philosopher -- his writings
> > were comsidered to be of little merit or substance.
> > --
> > Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least they recognized merit
> > and substance.
> > >>>>
> > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
This is interesting. In how many ways can Jestorian demonstrate that he is an
ill informed pompous embicile? Well, I don't know but he just added at least
one more here.
On pg 595, 'The History of Western Philosophy', Bertrand Russell, a real
right-wing wacko as we all know, writes that Locke dominated English
philosophy at the time as Leibnitz did in Germany and Descartes in France.
Thats good company for someone no one paid attention to, or could it be
Jestorian is smoking big dope? (My money is on the dope)
Russell goes on to say on pg 641:
"From the time of Locke down to the present day, there have been in Europe
two main types of philosophy, and one of these owes both it's doctrines and
it's method to Locke, while the other was derived from Descartes and then
from Kant. Kant himself thought that he had made a synthesis of the
philosophy derived from Descartes and that derived from Locke; but this
cannot be admitted, at least from an historical point of view, for the
followers of Kant were in the Cartesian, not the Lockean tradition. The heirs
of Locke are first Berkely and Hume; second, those of the French philosophes
who did not belong to the school of Roussseau; third, Bentham and the
philosophical Radicals; fourth, with important accretions from Contintental
philosophy, Marx and his disciples."
Well, Jestorian seems to have _badly_ missed the boat here. It seems that
Kant, Berkely, Hume, the Frog philosophes, Bentham, and even Freaking Marx
are philisophical heirs of Locke! But I guess Jestorian will probably
insist that no one paid in attention to these idiots either! And Berty never
even got around to the Founding Fathers (genuflect). Jestorian is, shall we
say, about as accurate in his analysis of Locke as he is on everything else;
he blows big gooey chunks of bullshit out of his claptrap on a regular
schedule.
> I would never confuse *you* with an historian. You have neither the
> training, nor the intellect.
Apparently, neither do you.
> Do you buy those mile-wide paintbrushes at your local hardware store
> or have them custom-made for you?
>
Probably he buys them at the same store you get your repetitive cliches from.
>
> When you dig your head out of your pathetic hypocritical ass, try
> to see if the store will give you your money back on those mile-wide
> paintbrushes. Either that or shut the fuck up about being painted with the
> likes of Chappie, when you are so goddamned quick to do the same thing.
>
> And, BTW, didckhead, just because I think you militaloons are fools
> does not mean that I subscribe to any doctrine of "government perfection."
>
> While you're trading in those mile-wide paintbrushes, see if they
> can give you a color for your naive world-view paradigm other than black
> and white.
No comment necessary here. Amazing who can get tenure these days.
>
> You know it is easy to apply the same strawman arguments to either side.
> However, it
> lends nothing what so ever to the discussion.
> >>>>>
> *YOU* have nothing to discuss, Ireland. You are simply a
> pretentious, moralizing little ass who stands up and takes his ad homimen
> potshots at the other "side," then santimoniously declares that straw
> arguments add nothing
Whether Robert is some variation of an ass or not ( a noted fixation of
Jestorian's), he is still right about straw-man arguments. Jestorian does add
something to the debate though; farcical humor.
We shall Overcome,
Richard Cheek
--
1ľ
Robert Ireland
--
Richard,
I must be doing something right. First Potty calls me a "prole" and now
Jr. Historian calls me a "pretentious, moralizing little ass," it is
begining to look as if I've struck a nerve.
It is interesting, though, to see just how elite these statists seem to
feel they are. They seem to continually attempt to point out just how
SUPERIOR they feel they are to the rest of us.
Richard Glen Cheek
Good Mornin Robert,
> --
> Richard,
>
> I must be doing something right. First Potty calls me a "prole" and now
> Jr. Historian calls me a "pretentious, moralizing little ass," it is
> begining to look as if I've struck a nerve.
Yeah, you're doing something right, you're demonstrating what arrogant little
twits they are. They can't debate the facts so they call names or ignore you.
I prefer being ignored, that way one can ambush them at ones own convenience.
}:>
>
> It is interesting, though, to see just how elite these statists seem to
> feel they are. They seem to continually attempt to point out just how
> SUPERIOR they feel they are to the rest of us.
Yes, we are "dumb as dirt" to these guys. We are just superstitious
(christian), misguided/ignorant (we disagree with them), criminals/terrorists
(we expose their foolishness). These twits are typical of what I've seen
hiding in the humanities depts, squeaking little connivances in the faculty
lounges, and generally avoiding any open, honest debate where they might get
embarrssed. They prefer forums of discussion like the classroom, where they
can retaliate by giving out bad grades on subjective essay test. The price of
this insulation is that occasionally they get embarrassed when they must
venture into a forum they don't control. This is why they throw so much
vitriol at you, they want to shut you up and sit you down. They can't stand
having their arguments critiqued, they who critique others for a living!
>
> Robert Ireland
Have fun,
Richard Cheek
Mark T Pitcavage
In article <839810889$31...@atype.com>,
Robert Ireland <air...@zapcom.net> wrote:
>Richard,
>
>I must be doing something right. First Potty calls me a "prole" and now
>Jr. Historian calls me a "pretentious, moralizing little ass," it is
>begining to look as if I've struck a nerve.
But -I- still love you.
JHistorian
Richard Glen Cheek wrote:
>> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
>> they recognized merit and substance.
>>>>>>>>>>
> > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
This is interesting. In how many ways can Jestorian
demonstrate that he is an ill informed pompous embicile?
Well, I don't know but he just added at least one more here.
>>>>>>>>>>
Well, how ever many ways" it will be, it will certainly be far fewer than
an exceedingly stupid twit like you do manifest.
Instead of parading your ignorance around for all the world to see,
perhaps you might accidentally rise to the occasion of reading Bernard
Bailyn's "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution," paying
particular attention to the chapter entitled"Sources and Traditions."
The words are not large, so you ought to be able to understand it easily
enough.
Pay particular attention to the discussion about Henry St. John, Viscount
Bolingbroke being the most influential political thinker of the 18th
century.
Perhaps you might even be able to accidentally rise to the occasion of
noting that Bolingbroke is *not* spelled "L-o-c-k-e."
Then, if your minimal mental faculities have not yet been overtaxed, you
might accidentally note the sentence on page 41:
"Foremost among the English advocates of reform in politics and religion
[in the 18th century] were Richard Price, Joseph Priestly, and John
Cartwright; but the key book of this generation was the three-volume
'Political Disquisitions' published in 1774 by the schoolmaster, political
theorist, and moralist, James Burgh."
Perhaps you might even accidentally be able to note that neither are
Price, Priestly, Cartwright, or Mason spelled as "L-o-c-k-e."
And, who knows, you might even be able to rise to the occasion of noting
that 1774 was contemporaneous to the time of the American Founders and
Framers, whereas John Locke was not.
But then, I doubt it. People of such minimal intellectual talents as
yourself generally are unable to do much more than tie their shoes, much
less read.
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
I must be doing something right. First Potty calls me a "prole" and now
Jr. Historian calls me a "pretentious, moralizing little ass," it is
begining to look as if I've struck a nerve.
It is interesting, though, to see just how elite these statists seem to
feel they are. They seem to continually attempt to point out just how
SUPERIOR they feel they are to the rest of us.
>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, one sees that neither has the pretentious, moralizing little ass,
Robert Ireleand himself, ever done any study of 18th century political
philosophy.
See the previous post to your intellectual cretin brethren, Msst.
Butt-Cheek, and perhaps you can explain to him the significance of why
Bolingbroke, Price, Priestly, Cartwright, and Mason were not spelled
"L-o-c-k-e."
JHistorian
Glen Cheek wrote:
> I must be doing something right. First Potty calls me a "prole" and now
> Jr. Historian calls me a "pretentious, moralizing little ass," it is
> begining to look as if I've struck a nerve.
Yeah, you're doing something right, you're demonstrating what arrogant
little
twits they are.
>>>>>>>>>>
Whilst *YOU,* on the other hand, demonstrate how pathetically ignorant
*you* are.
Got some bad news for you, huckleberry, ignorance is not patriotism; it is
simply ignorance.
And, neither is Bolingbroke, Price, Priestly, Cartwright, or Mason spelled
as "L-o-c-k-e."
waf...@primenet.com
------>>>>waf eulogizes:
"Butt_Cheeks"... Why Mr. "JHISTORIAN"; where has the was HEARD that
"recently"
Signature.... Signature! and signature.
You really must "vacuum" your language house! Sir!
[waf][IDAHO]
****************************************************************
jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
>
>Robert Ireland wrote:
>
>I must be doing something right. First Potty calls me a "prole" and now
>Jr. Historian calls me a "pretentious, moralizing little ass," it is
>begining to look as if I've struck a nerve.
>
>It is interesting, though, to see just how elite these statists seem to
>feel they are. They seem to continually attempt to point out just how
>SUPERIOR they feel they are to the rest of us.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
Robert Ireland
> Price, Priestly, Cartwright, or Mason spelled as "L-o-c-k-e."
>
> And, who knows, you might even be able to rise to the occasion of noting
> that 1774 was contemporaneous to the time of the American Founders and
> Framers, whereas John Locke was not.
>
> But then, I doubt it. People of such minimal intellectual talents as
> yourself generally are unable to do much more than tie their shoes, much
> less read.
>
--
So what we have here is proof the Jr.Historian reads one set of books and Richard reads
another set.
We also have another demonstration of Junior's verbal tounge lashing technique for those
he considers beneath him. Wouldn't we all like to be a Freshman in his pleasant little
classes? Of course in his "classroom" he can ignore those with opposing opinions, and
just fail them. Here, he is actually presented with those that actually have read books
other than those he requires be read, and he isn't allowed to give a failing mark as
intimidation.
It is amazing just how shallow elitist "educators"(note quotes) really are.
Robert Ireland
> Ah, one sees that neither has the pretentious, moralizing little ass,
> Robert Ireleand himself, ever done any study of 18th century political
> philosophy.
>
> See the previous post to your intellectual cretin brethren, Msst.
> Butt-Cheek, and perhaps you can explain to him the significance of why
> Bolingbroke, Price, Priestly, Cartwright, and Mason were not spelled
> "L-o-c-k-e."
>
--
Once again with the name calling eh, Jim? It doesn't work here. It detracts from your
message, and helps our efforts with the lurkers. Your students must find you one
pleasant "educator"(note quotes).
You must have a very great sence of insecurity in your own beliefs to feel so threatened
by the idea that others have read other books than you and believe other "experts" than
those you ascribe too. This, apparently, manifests itself in your continuing need to
call names rather than deal with your lack of "authority" in this forum.
Or would you have us believe that your "authorities" are the end all, be all, on the
subject, and no other authority was ever considered? If this is the case you are a
bigger fool that any here could ever of dreamed.
BTW: Your personalized attack on what I may or may not have studied is immaterial in
this forum. It is you, not I, that has presented themselves as an "expert". It is you,
not I, that is shocked that someone may have read a book or two that is different from
those they themselves have read. Finally, it is you, not I, that demand that their
reading material be accepted as the end all, be all, on this point of discussion.
Robert Ireland
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Glen Cheek wrote:
>
> > I must be doing something right. First Potty calls me a "prole" and now
> > Jr. Historian calls me a "pretentious, moralizing little ass," it is
> > begining to look as if I've struck a nerve.
>
> Yeah, you're doing something right, you're demonstrating what arrogant
> little
> twits they are.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Whilst *YOU,* on the other hand, demonstrate how pathetically ignorant
> *you* are.
>
> Got some bad news for you, huckleberry, ignorance is not patriotism; it is
> simply ignorance.
>
> And, neither is Bolingbroke, Price, Priestly, Cartwright, or Mason spelled
> as "L-o-c-k-e."
--
There you go again. Demanding that others read and accept the same
authors as you. This is your idea of "education"(note quotes).
Scott Alan Malcomson
: mmedi...@aol.com (MMedi13720) writes:
: >Depends upon range. Also, it's often faster to sidestep the mugger's
: >weapon and go for takedown than it is to draw your own weapon.
It is even *more* effective to sidestep the mugger's weapon while drawing
your own, especially if close enough to contact the mugger's weapon and
push it aside while simultaneously leveling yours into his or her face.
At this point, you have not caused the mugger any physical injury
for which you can be sued, and you are in the best psychological position
to shout them into dropping their weapon and getting down on the ground
with legs spread and hands behind head prior to alerting the police.
---LCD
BIKER777
jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
>Robert Ireland wrote:
>However, in the same vein, I don't see you statists claiming anything but
>perfection in
>the government as it stands today. Potty, for one, glories in the
>ultimate perfection
>of every word and deed of the state. None of the rest of your ilk, even
>attempt to do
>anything but encourage him in these delusions. -- One would hardly expect
>you to
>countenance that the state could possibly have ever belched, farted, or
>made any
>mistakes in their assumptions of merit and substance.
>You know it is easy to apply the same strawman arguments to either side.
>However, it
>lends nothing what so ever to the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>When . . . and *IF* . . . YOU ever have something to say that is toehr
>than an ad homimen discussion followed by a sanctimonious declaration that
>strawman arguments do not add to the discussion, be sure to let me know.
>For you woefully needed education:
>(1) *I* have yet to ever claim any "perfection in the government as it
>stands today."
>(2) "Potty" (can't use his name, can you? but you can sure whine about
>how *you* aren't getting the "respect" that you deserve, can't you?) has
>yet, as far as I've seen, to glory "in the ultimate perfection of every
>word and deed of the state." Mostly, I've seen him poke holes in your
>"militia" claptrap and bait you fools.
>(3) If you and the rest of your "militia" brethren are not bound by the
>foolish words and acts of Chappie, Cinege, et al, then it is damned
>hypocritical of you to posture around, claiming that "the rest of your
>ilk" is somehow bound by what any one of said "ilk" says or does.
>You and your type bore me, Ireland -- you are Hypocrites on the 33rd
>Degree, always whining about how others do the very same thing you do with
>reckless abandon; you cannot conceptualize anything in terms other than
>the "black-and-white-hat" paradigm characteristic of the most naive of
>children; and you cannot withstand even the slightest criticism of your
>cathechism without demanding one set of rules for yourselves and another
>set for others.
>Your pissy little "movement" will fail, militiaboy. It's only a matter of
>time.
>
The above statement is definitly constructive criticism,
SCTRACT that...constructive baiting.
My son, Steven, hits my daughter, Cassie, she turns around and wacks
him across the head and says......."how do YOU like it".
Richard Glen Cheek
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Glen Cheek wrote:
>
> > I must be doing something right. First Potty calls me a "prole" and now
> > Jr. Historian calls me a "pretentious, moralizing little ass," it is
> > begining to look as if I've struck a nerve.
>
> Yeah, you're doing something right, you're demonstrating what arrogant
> little
> twits they are.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Whilst *YOU,* on the other hand, demonstrate how pathetically ignorant
> *you* are.
>
> Got some bad news for you, huckleberry, ignorance is not patriotism; it is
> simply ignorance.
>
> And, neither is Bolingbroke, Price, Priestly, Cartwright, or Mason spelled
> as "L-o-c-k-e."
So? Niether are Marx, Berkely, Hume, Kant, etc. Damn, it IS painful to
see a mind go so far to waste.
Your own arrogance nailed ya, Jestorian. You figured no one would check
your claims, eh? Plenty of us know how full of manure so many Phd's are.
Hell, pour kerosene down your throat, strike a match and you'd level
everything in three states, you've got so much fertilizer in you.
ESAD,
RC
PS: You can kiss my royal butt-cheeks, too, since you bring it up.
--
1¾
Robert Ireland
BIKER777 wrote:
>
> jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
>
>
Junior's rant sniped for good taste
>
> >Your pissy little "movement" will fail, militiaboy. It's only a matter of
> >time.
> >
> The above statement is definitly constructive criticism,
> SCTRACT that...constructive baiting.
> My son, Steven, hits my daughter, Cassie, she turns around and wacks
> him across the head and says......."how do YOU like it".
--
Hey it's okay. I struck a very big nerve when I pointed out that he
must treat his students like shit, and pouts around here because we
don't accept his reading material as the end-all of the discussion.
Instead he sputters like a rapidly deflating balloon.
JHistorian
Waffie World wrote:
"Butt_Cheeks"... Why Mr. "JHISTORIAN"; where has the was HEARD that
"recently"
Signature.... Signature! and signature.
You really must "vacuum" your language house! Sir!
>>>>>>>>>>
Right after you and your brethren "vacuum your language house" of such
terms of endearment as "commie slut" and "Marxist queers."
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
So what we have here is proof the Jr.Historian reads one set of books and
Richard reads another set.
>>>>>>>>>>
No, what we have here are two militaboy twits who know very little
about what they blather on about and are now trying to deflect attention
from that fact.
We also have another demonstration of Junior's verbal tounge lashing
technique for those he considers beneath him. Wouldn't we all like to be
a Freshman in his pleasant little classes?
>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, I suppose that everyone is racing out instead to sign up for the
classes of those who address people as "commie slut," "Jr. Historian," and
throw in "statist" just in case.
Of course in his "classroom" he can ignore those with opposing opinions,
and just fail them.
>>>>>>>>>>
As opposed to those who address opposing opinion with "commie slut"
and "statist" thrown in as every other word.
Here, he is actually presented with those that actually have read books
other than those he requires be read, and he isn't allowed to give a
failing mark as intimidation.
>>>>>>>>>>
As opposed to those who give grades write threatening e-mail.
It is amazing just how shallow elitist "educators"(note quotes) really
are.
>>>>>>>>>>
What is amazing is that those who would presume to correct the educators
cannot themselves even address themselves to the issue.
Which was, since it appears necessary to remind you, whether or not Locke
was *not* amongst the predominant political thinkers of the day of the
Framers, or was instead dredged up to meet an already decided political
agenda.
Perhaps you could rise to the occasion of speaking to that issue, rather
than giving up the dubious benefit of your moralizing about the salutatory
style of others, when your own "statist" style is not exactly lily-white
and angelic either, you pretentious ass.
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
> And, neither is Bolingbroke, Price, Priestly, Cartwright, or Mason
spelled
> as "L-o-c-k-e."
--
There you go again. Demanding that others read and accept the same
authors as you. This is your idea of "education"(note quotes).
>>>>>>>>>>
The above "education"(note quotes) reply brought to you by the pretentious
little ass who, in the missive immediately preceding, whined about
name-calling.
You hypocritical little twit.
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
> It is interesting, though, to see just how elite these statists seem to
> feel they are. They seem to continually attempt to point out just how
> SUPERIOR they feel they are to the rest of us.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Ah, one sees that neither has the pretentious, moralizing little ass,
> Robert Ireleand himself, ever done any study of 18th century political
> philosophy.
>
> See the previous post to your intellectual cretin brethren, Msst.
> Butt-Cheek, and perhaps you can explain to him the significance of why
> Bolingbroke, Price, Priestly, Cartwright, and Mason were not spelled
> "L-o-c-k-e."
--
Once again with the name calling eh, Jim?
>>>>>>>>>>
Simply following the lead of such angels as yourself, "commander" King,
and Waffie.
It doesn't work here. It detracts from your
message, and helps our efforts with the lurkers.
>>>>>>>>>>
As opposed to the fantastic contributions and aid to your messages in you
militiaboys calling people "commie sluts, "Marxist queers," etc., etc., ad
nauseum.
Your students must find you one
pleasant "educator"(note quotes).
>>>>>>>>>>
Oh my goodness -- my career is just really be devastated because a
militaboy twit does not think I am a real educator, isn't it?
I'll give a shit about what you* think, Ireland, when I see your name
at the bottom of my paycheck.
This, apparently, manifests itself in your continuing need to
call names rather than deal with your lack of "authority" in this forum.
>>>>>>>>>>
As opposed to you and yourbrethren's continuing need to call names?
BTW: Your personalized attack on what I may or may not have studied is
immaterial in this forum.
>>>>>>>>>
It is certainly far more material than your putting quotes around the
word "educator."
Robert Ireland
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Robert Ireland wrote:
>
> So what we have here is proof the Jr.Historian reads one set of books and
> Richard reads another set.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> No, what we have here are two militaboy twits who know very little
> about what they blather on about and are now trying to deflect attention
> from that fact.
Ad Hominen attack = no points
> We also have another demonstration of Junior's verbal tounge lashing
> technique for those he considers beneath him. Wouldn't we all like to be
> a Freshman in his pleasant little classes?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> Oh, I suppose that everyone is racing out instead to sign up for the
> classes of those who address people as "commie slut," "Jr. Historian," and
> throw in "statist" just in case.
>
addressing issues off topic = no points
> Of course in his "classroom" he can ignore those with opposing opinions,
> and just fail them.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> As opposed to those who address opposing opinion with "commie slut"
> and "statist" thrown in as every other word.
addressing issues off topic = no points (see above)
>
> Here, he is actually presented with those that actually have read books
> other than those he requires be read, and he isn't allowed to give a
> failing mark as intimidation.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> As opposed to those who give grades write threatening e-mail.
off topic = no points (see above)
>
> It is amazing just how shallow elitist "educators"(note quotes) really
> are.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> What is amazing is that those who would presume to correct the educators
> cannot themselves even address themselves to the issue.
>
We did that is what upset you. Instead of accepting your experts as authority,
we pointed out the ours were equally accepted by others. Deal with it.
> Which was, since it appears necessary to remind you, whether or not Locke
> was *not* amongst the predominant political thinkers of the day of the
> Framers, or was instead dredged up to meet an already decided political
> agenda.
>
No it was you claiming that Locke wasn't among the predominant thinkers of the
day. Richard correctly pointed out that this was not the case. You just weren't able
to deal with the idea that someone of our obvious "low posistion in life" could ever
have the nerve to correct you. Again I say, Deal with it.
> Perhaps you could rise to the occasion of speaking to that issue, rather
> than giving up the dubious benefit of your moralizing about the salutatory
> style of others, when your own "statist" style is not exactly lily-white
> and angelic either, you pretentious ass.
again off issue = no points
--
J"Historian,"
Excuse me? I never presented myself as an expert. You did present yourself that way.
Since that time whenever you have been presented with contrary facts or opinions you
resort to personal attacks.
BTW: Where was it in the above post that I used the words, "commie slut"? I defy you
to find those words in any of my posts. Deja-News will confirm this.
As to statist, the term fits you to a tee. You find the state to be the end all, be
all, of every citizen's existance. You actively promote this creed here on this
newsgroup. You don't like the term, change your attitude. Otherwise, tough shit.
Pretentious? Not a bit. I know who I am and I don't go around calling myself an expert
so that I can then tell everyone just how superior I am. Your problem is Richard and I
dinged you and you aren't man enough to admit it. Instead you resort to putting on
Intelectual Superiority Airs in the hopes that none will notice your gaffe.
You claimed Locke wasn't accepted as "an" expert, Richard showed that indeed he was
accepted as "an" expert. You were unable to accept that it was as Richard said it was,
and instead chose to use juvenile name calling tactics instead of just being a man and
admitting that there might have been other accepted "experts" than the ones you put your
stock in.
Your antics might work in a classroom where everyone is required to be impressed by your
so called wisdom and knowledge, but here you are judged on your content and how you deal
with others that disagree with you. In other words here you are expected to act like an
adult, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
waf...@primenet.com
waffie here:
I have taken a jaundiced view of your abilities and background,
heretofore. I actually believe I would enjoy one or more of your classes.
While you vertainly fail as a stand-up, I do believe that you are well
read and willing to share your ideas and philosophies in the seminars.
Please accept my humble(tm) appologies. I had greatly underestimated you
and your peers concepts of Democracy, and your committment to their
institution.
I was an abused child. Please share some of your lecturn materials
dealing with the future, as you see it, based on your quality research of
past history. I never got to go to college, but if I did, I would have
been too ugly to date co-eds. You were, as usual, correct.
love,
waffie
ps. Is it my imgaination, or are some regulars missing from our little
forum?
Robert Ireland
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Robert Ireland wrote:
>
--
Jim,
Education in quotes would only be considered name calling by one that
felt the title applied. I guess your response shows the acceptance of
the application.
Those that felt it did not apply would have dealt with the statement.
You have, instead, chosen to *again* call names.
Have a nice day.
Robert Ireland
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Robert Ireland wrote:
>
--
Jim,
Grow up and get a life.
JHistorian
Glenn Cheek wrote:
> Got some bad news for you, huckleberry, ignorance is not patriotism; it
is
> simply ignorance.
>
> And, neither is Bolingbroke, Price, Priestly, Cartwright, or Mason
spelled
> as "L-o-c-k-e."
So? Niether are Marx, Berkely, Hume, Kant, etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
And, neither were these notables of any relevance to the Framers'
political philosophy or to the predominant political philosophy of the
day, circa late 1700s.
Is there some reason, other than your own wilfull ignorance, that you
continue to fail to address that issue?
Damn, it IS painful to see a mind go so far to waste.
>>>>>>>>>
Then you should do something to remedy your waste.
Plenty of us know how full of manure so many Phd's are.
>>>>>>>>>>
A PhD is like money -- only those who do not have it, and are envious
of those who do, ever say it's not important.
Hell, pour kerosene down your throat, strike a match and you'd level
everything in three states, you've got so much fertilizer in you.
>>>>>>>>>>
As opposed to you, whose intellect is apparently so minimal that he is
indanger of his clothes soon wearing him.
Robert Ireland
JHistorian wrote:
>
>> Glenn Cheek wrote:
>
>
> >Plenty of us know how full of manure so many Phd's are.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> A PhD is like money -- only those who do not have it, and are
>envious of those who do, ever say it's not important.
>
>
--
HELLO!
He didn't say a PHD wasn't important. He said you are full of shit.
Geeze! Another professor with comprehension problems.
Robert Ireland
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Robert Ireland wrote:
>
> > jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
> >
> >Junior's rant sniped for good taste
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Yes, of course you *would* have sniped [sic] it.
>
> For the reason that it cuts to the core of what is the problem with you
> and your pissy little movement; to wit:
>
> (3) If you and the rest of your "militia" brethren are not bound by the
> foolish words and acts of Chappie, Cinege, et al, then it is damned
> hypocritical of you to posture around, claiming that "the rest of your
> ilk" is somehow bound by what any one of said "ilk" says or does.
>
I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of free choice and
responsibility for ONES OWN actions. I neither accept responsibility
nor credit for Chapman or Cinge which, by both their own admissions,
belong to no militia. This just another strawman at best, or downright
stupidity at worst on your part.
> You and your type bore me, Ireland
You're bored by us? Then go away and find something unboring to
do. Otherwise quit bitching.
-- you are Hypocrites on the 33rd
> Degree, always whining about how others do the very same thing you do with
> reckless abandon; you cannot conceptualize anything in terms other than
> the "black-and-white-hat" paradigm characteristic of the most naive of
> children; and you cannot withstand even the slightest criticism of your
> cathechism without demanding one set of rules for yourselves and another
> set for others.
>
Not the case at all. You won't find me brow beating people just
because they've read other books than I have. You won't find me calling
people names because I've been caught wrong and refuse to admit it.
These are your stock in trade, not mine.
> *You* bitch a whole lot about name-calling, Irleand -- right at the same
> time that *you* are doing it, you hypocritical ass.
>
Again with the names, eh jim?
--
JHistorian
Biker wrote:
My son, Steven, hits my daughter, Cassie, she turns around and wacks
him across the head and says......."how do YOU like it".
>>>>>>>>>>
That's right; what's good for the goose is good for the gander,
militiaboy.
When the sanctimonious little militaboy prigs cease the name-calling,
then I'll be more than happy to do the same.
In the meantime, they ought to learn to eat the same shit they feel
compelled to throw.
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
> jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
>
>Junior's rant sniped for good taste
>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, of course you *would* have sniped [sic] it.
For the reason that it cuts to the core of what is the problem with you
and your pissy little movement; to wit:
(3) If you and the rest of your "militia" brethren are not bound by the
foolish words and acts of Chappie, Cinege, et al, then it is damned
hypocritical of you to posture around, claiming that "the rest of your
ilk" is somehow bound by what any one of said "ilk" says or does.
You and your type bore me, Ireland -- you are Hypocrites on the 33rd
Degree, always whining about how others do the very same thing you do with
reckless abandon; you cannot conceptualize anything in terms other than
the "black-and-white-hat" paradigm characteristic of the most naive of
children; and you cannot withstand even the slightest criticism of your
cathechism without demanding one set of rules for yourselves and another
set for others.
*You* bitch a whole lot about name-calling, Irleand -- right at the same
waf...@primenet.com
Waffle has noted that you have noted the absence of two of our usually
most prolific writers. Have they left our little forum, or are they ok?
August is vacation time I guess, forgot about that.
love,
waffie
*******************************************
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
Grow up and get a life.
>>>>>>>>>>
Go to hell, you santimonious ass.
You got your ass cornered now because you *are* the epitome and apotheosis
of everything you denounce.
Wallow in your own slime, Ireland.
JHistorian
Robert Ireland wrote:
> There you go again. Demanding that others read and accept the same
> authors as you. This is your idea of "education"(note quotes).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> The above "education"(note quotes) reply brought to you by the
pretentious
> little ass who, in the missive immediately preceding, whined about
> name-calling.
>
> You hypocritical little twit.
--
Jim,
Education in quotes would only be considered name calling by one that
felt the title applied. I guess your response shows the acceptance of
the application.
>>>>>>>>>>
Okay, Ireland, go ahead and xplain how you really, really meant the
"education"(note quotes)" as a compliment rather than as a derogation.
Uh, take all the screens you need.
PGISSource
In article <840218643$11...@atype.com>, jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian)
writes:
>The above "education"(note quotes) reply brought to you by the
pretentious
>little ass who, in the missive immediately preceding, whined about
>name-calling.
>
>You hypocritical little twit.
>
uh ... right. What were you trying to say? Somehow it got lost in the
translation. Perhaps it dropped out into the bit bucket?
>you cannot conceptualize anything in terms other than
>the "black-and-white-hat" paradigm characteristic of the most naive of
>children; and you cannot withstand even the slightest criticism of your
>cathechism without demanding one set of rules for yourselves and another
>set for others.
Look ... I've dealt with Ireland behind the scenes and in public. I have
not found your statements to be even remotely true. I may not always/often
agree with Ireland, but I've always found him courteous and contrary to
your evident belief able to conceptualize my points and effectively
present his own without belligerence or insults. In point of fact, and to
take it a bit further, I've found him both friendly and informative.
Perhaps, Jr. Historian (funny how those history guys keep getting involved
in anti-social behavior, eh? Maybe they should be registered with a
waiting period?) it is something in -your- presentation? Yes, he can be
irritating, yes, he can aggressively defend his position. So what does all
that make him? Simply -human-. Yet I have never seen him fail to react to
-consistent- civility with less than equal civility. Think about it,
"historian."
Mr. Wizard
Richard Glen Cheek
Jestorian wrote:
>
> Robert Ireland wrote:
>
> So what we have here is proof the Jr.Historian reads one set of books and
> Richard reads another set.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> No, what we have here are two militaboy twits who know very little
> about what they blather on about and are now trying to deflect attention
> from that fact.
No, I'm simply quoting from Bertrand Russell, because I know the limits of my
knowledge and thus quote a recognised authority on the subject of the
influence of Locke. You may have a Phd, but I must say you are not on the
same plain of authority on this topic as dear ole Berty, IMO. As to the twit
thing, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and since I first began
using the term to acurately describe you, I can only take it to mean you wish
to emulate my literary style. Thank you.
>
> We also have another demonstration of Junior's verbal tounge lashing
> technique for those he considers beneath him. Wouldn't we all like to be
> a Freshman in his pleasant little classes?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> Oh, I suppose that everyone is racing out instead to sign up for the
> classes of those who address people as "commie slut," "Jr. Historian," and
> throw in "statist" just in case.
By implication you seem to suggest people are racing out to sign up for your
classes. Really? How much of your classwork is done by some overworked TA?
Those poor fellows are one of the few vestiges of indentured servitude left
in our country. Can you even name one third of your 'fortunate' students?
>
> Of course in his "classroom" he can ignore those with opposing opinions,
> and just fail them.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> As opposed to those who address opposing opinion with "commie slut"
> and "statist" thrown in as every other word.
But we don't have a proffession that professes to be tolerant of other
opinion and comitted to the free exchange of ideas. If we are pig headed,
that is poor character, but for you, that would be fraud. (Book 'im, Danno)
>
> Here, he is actually presented with those that actually have read books
> other than those he requires be read, and he isn't allowed to give a
> failing mark as intimidation.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> As opposed to those who give grades write threatening e-mail.
How about it Jestorian? Do I get an 'F' for 'Fucking Impudence'? You really
don't seem to be comfortable with people challenging your authority at all.
>
> It is amazing just how shallow elitist "educators"(note quotes) really
> are.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> What is amazing is that those who would presume to correct the educators
> cannot themselves even address themselves to the issue.
What is really incredible are the proffessor who try to defend their error by
bluff and bluster. It takes a certain minimal amount of humility to seek
Truth, no Jestorian? So, is it any wonder you are so often wrong?
>
> Which was, since it appears necessary to remind you, whether or not Locke
> was *not* amongst the predominant political thinkers of the day of the
> Framers, or was instead dredged up to meet an already decided political
> agenda.
>
> Perhaps you could rise to the occasion of speaking to that issue, rather
> than giving up the dubious benefit of your moralizing about the salutatory
> style of others, when your own "statist" style is not exactly lily-white
> and angelic either, you pretentious ass.
Verily, let's rise:
Again I quote from Bertrand Russell's 'A History of Western Phjilosophy'. I
use it because it is one of only four books I have actually read on general
philosophy and theology development. Also, Berty being a pinko, I thought he
might be someone whose credentials you would be less likely to challenge.
Now, I suppose, because I never saw your response posted, that you are
claiming that you were actually speaking of Locke's _political_ influence
instead of simply his general philisophical influence. That seemed implied in
one of your other posts, and it would be my polemical response were I saddled
with your unenviable affirmation. So, though this is technically a strawman,
I think it fairly close to your most likely response, as best I've devined
it from other sources.
Russell wrote, pg 605:
"Locke is the most fortunate of all philosophers. He completed his
work in theoretical philosophy just at the moment when the government of his
country fell into the hands of men who shared his political opinions."
I'll pick up again with Russell in a sec, but notice how Russell
frames Lockes philosophical position; "most fortunate of all philosophers".
Notice as well, the political framework and the opportune time politically
for Locke. But, according to Russell, was Locke a leader?
"Both in practice and in theory the views which he advocated were
held, for many years to come, by the most vigorous and influential
politicians and philosophers. His political doctrines... are embedded in the
American Constitution, and are seen to be at work whenever there is a dispute
between President and Congress. The British Constitution was based upon his
doctrines untill about fifty years ago, and so was that which the French
adopted in 1871." He goes on for several more pages linking Locke with Marx
and Bentham, two more nobodies no doubt to Dr. Jestorian.
Well, I can't think of anyone with such a plethora of attributions in
modern political theory. But then, I am no expert like Jestorian is. No Phd.
Well, maybe Russell didn't really meant what he said, kind of like the 2nd
Amendment doesn't really mean what it says? Aren't we fortunate to have these
experts around to explain to us why plain language is so often misleading?
NOT! Language means what it means, and when it doesn't the author is
generally a liar. And I don't need some limp-wristic fascist to tell me what
it says.
You are dead wrong again, Jestorian. Aren't you glad you're in a
non-scientific field, so that you don't have to test your theories or claims
in the real world everyday? If you did, you'd be digging out of trash cans
downtown about now, I'd say.
To the Founding Fathers! May their spirit inspire us, and spare us the
turpitude of arrogant scholars and experts!
Richard Cheek
--
1ľ
PGISSource
In article <840239306$15...@atype.com>, jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian)
writes:
>That's right; what's good for the goose is good for the
>gander, militiaboy.
>
>When the sanctimonious little militaboy prigs cease
>the name-calling, then I'll be more than happy to do
>the same.
>
>In the meantime, they ought to learn to eat the same
>shit they feel compelled to throw.
Ah! Good. Then you -do- understand why I treat you and your klan as I do.
Isn't it a bit odd that although I debate a number of topics, for the most
part the militias don't call -me- names? Is there perhaps some chance, Jr.
Historian [applying your style], that much of the problem actually evolves
from -you- and your klan? Just a thought.
But in the meantime, since you express agreement with my treatment method
for you and your klan, I'll be happy to continue, though I doubt I can
stoop as low as the above post of yours very often ... but to keep you
happy, I'll try to give the gander a shot.
Also consider the following:
[In article <840214102$11...@atype.com>,
"Re: "Stephen L. King" and his ugly e-mail threats"
jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) writes:]
>And, I'm sure the world also notices how morally bankrupt
>your "movement" is that it will attempt to argue "diversity"
>rather than tell one of its members to shut the fuck up.
So once again, I only conform to your desires. I wouldn't want you to
feel I'm "morally bankrupt" by failing to tell you and yours to "shut ...
up" with things like your anti-Mormom hatreds and so on.
Mr. Wizard
Robert Ireland
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Robert Ireland wrote:
>
> > There you go again. Demanding that others read and accept the same
> > authors as you. This is your idea of "education"(note quotes).
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > The above "education"(note quotes) reply brought to you by the
> pretentious
> > little ass who, in the missive immediately preceding, whined about
> > name-calling.
> >
> > You hypocritical little twit.
> --
> Jim,
> Education in quotes would only be considered name calling by one that
> felt the title applied. I guess your response shows the acceptance of
> the application.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Okay, Ireland, go ahead and xplain how you really, really meant the
> "education"(note quotes)" as a compliment rather than as a derogation.
>
> Uh, take all the screens you need.
>
--
No points again Jim. I used the quotes to emphasise your claim to be educated even
while you behave as if anyone that read books by authorities other than those you adhere
to are lesser individuals. You even go so far as to falsely claim that your authorities
are the only "accepted" authorities of their time. When the falseness of this claim was
pointed out, you immediately went into your bullying mode. It didn't work, and now this
thread has degenerated into an attack on me because I put education in quotes.
Once again I must point out it is you that makes the claim of expert, yet then goes on
to deny that very expertness with every post. Brow beating kids barely out of their
teens might work in your classroom but it doesn't work here.
David L Evens
JHistorian (jhist...@aol.com) wrote:
[The usual unformatted gibberish.]
You wouldn't look so stupid if you were using a properly configured
editor. Is there some reason you cannot get your editor configured as
other people using Assholes OnLine have?
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David L Evens
JHistorian (jhist...@aol.com) wrote:
: Biker wrote:
: My son, Steven, hits my daughter, Cassie, she turns around and wacks
: him across the head and says......."how do YOU like it".
: >>>>>>>>>>
: That's right; what's good for the goose is good for the gander,
: militiaboy.
: When the sanctimonious little militaboy prigs cease the name-calling,
: then I'll be more than happy to do the same.
: In the meantime, they ought to learn to eat the same shit they feel
: compelled to throw.
Why are you confusing yourself with your intended victims?
Richard Glen Cheek
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Richard Glen Cheek wrote:
>
> >> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
> >> they recognized merit and substance.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
>
> This is interesting. In how many ways can Jestorian
> demonstrate that he is an ill informed pompous embicile?
> Well, I don't know but he just added at least one more here.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Well, how ever many ways" it will be, it will certainly be far fewer than
> an exceedingly stupid twit like you do manifest.
>
> Instead of parading your ignorance around for all the world to see,
> perhaps you might accidentally rise to the occasion of reading Bernard
> Bailyn's "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution," paying
> particular attention to the chapter entitled"Sources and Traditions."
I most certainly will, Jestorian. I think you bluff again. You don'texpect me
to get the book, but I eventually will and will save these posts to repost
them later. That you could possibly denigrate the influence of Lockes
"Treatises on Government" on the American revolution shows that your students
should get a refund for not getting an education while in your classes.
>
> The words are not large, so you ought to be able to understand it easily
> enough.
>
> Pay particular attention to the discussion about Henry St. John, Viscount
> Bolingbroke being the most influential political thinker of the 18th
> century.
That was not the issue. You denied Lockes influence, and since Locke was a
contemporary of the English Civil war circa 1688, it is no doubt that he
would not fall into your category of "18th century" political thinkers. But
again, that was not the original issue.
>
> Perhaps you might even be able to accidentally rise to the occasion of
> noting that Bolingbroke is *not* spelled "L-o-c-k-e."
and "Vargass" is not as highly regarded as "Bertrand Russell".
>
> Then, if your minimal mental faculities have not yet been overtaxed, you
> might accidentally note the sentence on page 41:
>
> "Foremost among the English advocates of reform in politics and religion
> [in the 18th century] were Richard Price, Joseph Priestly, and John
> Cartwright; but the key book of this generation was the three-volume
> 'Political Disquisitions' published in 1774 by the schoolmaster, political
> theorist, and moralist, James Burgh."
Again you change the point at issue. Locke did have a profound effect on the
FF's, and was not ignored and of no importance as _you_ said. I don't
question that Locke was not a foremost 18th century reformist thinker. How
could he be? He was 17th century! Your attempt at distraction here is
pathetic.
>
> Perhaps you might even accidentally be able to note that neither are
> Price, Priestly, Cartwright, or Mason spelled as "L-o-c-k-e."
And Vargass is not spelled "C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-T".
>
> And, who knows, you might even be able to rise to the occasion of noting
> that 1774 was contemporaneous to the time of the American Founders and
> Framers, whereas John Locke was not.
Me note? You are a classicly shameless polemicist of the lowest order.
>
> But then, I doubt it. People of such minimal intellectual talents as
> yourself generally are unable to do much more than tie their shoes, much
> less read.
>
Aw, hurt my feewings? From such as you it is a ringing endorsement.
Shoot, my 5 year old daughter could tie her shoes and probably beat you at
checkers too.
ESAD Fartgas,
R Cheek
--
1ľ
PGISSource
In article <840405784$27...@atype.com>, dev...@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
writes:
[referring to JHistorian's "usual unformatted gibberish."]
>You wouldn't look so stupid if you were using a properly configured
>editor. Is there some reason you cannot get your editor configured as
>other people using Assholes OnLine have?
AOL formats more or less automatically for most of us "assholes" ... he's
either not writing in their system or is deliberately setting his posts to
look the way they do in order to enhance confusion both by readers here
and by those undertaking DejaNews or similar reviews.
Mr. Wizard
JHistorian
Butt-Cheek writes:
That was not the issue. You denied Lockes influence, and since Locke was a
contemporary of the English Civil war circa 1688, it is no doubt that he
would not fall into your category of "18th century" political thinkers.
But
again, that was not the original issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
You stupid twit, your problem is that you cannot read. It is rather clear
from the previous discussion that the "original issue" was, infact,
Locke's lack of influence on anyone other than the Framers. Since you
cannot read, get one of your children to read this re-quote to you:
> >> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
> >> they recognized merit and substance.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
Again you change the point at issue. Locke did have a profound effect on
the
FF's, and was not ignored and of no importance as _you_ said.
>>>>>>>>>>
No, stupid twit, that is not what I said. Again, since you cannot read,
get one of your children to read it to you:
> >> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
> >> they recognized merit and substance.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
Me note? You are a classicly shameless polemicist of the lowest order.
>>>>>>>>>>
And, *you* are apparently a stupid twit of the highest order.
JHistorian
Wizzie wrote:
>And, I'm sure the world also notices how morally bankrupt
>your "movement" is that it will attempt to argue "diversity"
>rather than tell one of its members to shut the fuck up.
So once again, I only conform to your desires. I wouldn't want you to
feel I'm "morally bankrupt" by failing to tell you and yours to "shut ...
up" with things like your anti-Mormom hatreds and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>
When you can cite a case where I have expressed "anti-Moron hatreds," feel
free to re-post it.
I note, however, that your so-called "objectivity" extends only so far as
to claim militiaboys are individuals and, therefore, others are not
impugned by the actions of one individual, whilst simultaneously
attempting to claim the opposite for those on the other side of the fence.
That, I think, is proof positive of the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of your
little movement.
You bore me, boy, with your pseudo-"intellect."
So save your fingertips and don't bother me with your hypocritical crap.
waf...@primenet.com
That is OK, Mr. Pitstorian-Hill:
Now run along to tell the KING... Maybe you will get some PIECES of
SILVER?
peace and Love, MAN!
waffie
********************************************8
waf...@primenet.com
Ah 'tis I, waffie--shrink to the wee folk! And to the rescue of the
Jizztorian I am. FlIR not, kind Jiztorian...'tiz onlly "Peanuts-Envy"--
We 'po and dis-oH-lushened folk referz to it as:
A "Lack 'O Balls", sin-drome... possibly with a conditional
"scatouliarmetricia-terminada". [Trying to measure shit on a stick, to
the "logical" end]
peace man! [I'll send ya the bill]
waffie
******************************************************************
Richard Glen Cheek <rch...@pop.erols.com> wrote:
>
>JHistorian wrote:
>>
>> Robert Ireland wrote:
>>
>He got himself cornered because he is the epitome of what he denounces? HUH?
>Robert consistently denounces statists, are you saying he is a statist? Maybe
>you mean his complaints about using dirty language and rude humor is
>inconsistent with his own use in the past? But Robert isn't anywhere nearly
>as rude as you Jestorian, I mean, just look at the above message. Hell,
>Robert isn't as rude as I am, much less you. But you said "everything you
>denounce" as what Robert was refering to, and Robert only ocasionally gets on
>about rudeness, usually he writes about the growth of the state or other
>militia concerns. So what are you refering to?
>
>Can anyone please explain to me what Jestorian here is talking about? Waffie,
>can you give it a shot? Is there a shrink in the house?
>
>Sincerely,
>Richard Cheek
>--
>1ľ
>
>
waf...@primenet.com
FOUL! The peda-wristed-Jizzstorian uses the child (I ignored the
first)...default-terminated for including children. Bye, Jiztorian!
PEACE MAN:
waffie
*********************************************
jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
>
>Butt-Cheeks wrote:
>
>That you could possibly denigrate the influence of
>Lockes "Treatises on Government" on the American
>revolution shows that your students should get a
>refund for not getting an education while in your
>classes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>You really are an exceedingly stupid twit. The following re-quote clearly
>indicates that what you claim above is nothing more that a demonstration
>that *you* cannot read:
>
>
>> >> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
>> >> they recognized merit and substance.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>You stupid twit, since you can't grasp what it says, it rather clearly
>acknowledges Locke's influence upon the Framers. And says that they were
>pretty much the only ones who were so influenced.
>
>In the future, since you have such an obvious and fundamental reading
>impairment, perhaps you should get your 5-year old daughter to read to
>you.
>
>\
Richard Glen Cheek
Jestorian wrote:
>
> Butt-Cheek writes:
>
> That was not the issue. You denied Lockes influence, and since Locke was a
>
> contemporary of the English Civil war circa 1688, it is no doubt that he
> would not fall into your category of "18th century" political thinkers.
> But
> again, that was not the original issue.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> You stupid twit, your problem is that you cannot read. It is rather clear
> from the previous discussion that the "original issue" was, infact,
> Locke's lack of influence on anyone other than the Framers. Since you
> cannot read, get one of your children to read this re-quote to you:
>
> > >> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
> > >> they recognized merit and substance.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
And again I quoted Bertrand Russells reference to his influence on Marx,
Rouseau, DesCartes, Bentham, Hume, Kant, and Berkely. Locke is probably the
most significant philosopher of the modern age and you insist his influence
was relegated pretty much to the FF's. The above beg to differ apparently,
and they way outweigh your credentials, Jester. That really annoys you
doesn't it?
>
> Again you change the point at issue. Locke did have a profound effect on
> the
> FF's, and was not ignored and of no importance as _you_ said.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> No, stupid twit, that is not what I said. Again, since you cannot read,
> get one of your children to read it to you:
Well maybe "pretty much the only ones who did" does not exactly equate to
"ignore" and "of no importance" but it is close enough in my book. Can you
explain the diff, proff?
>
> Me note? You are a classicly shameless polemicist of the lowest order.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> And, *you* are apparently a stupid twit of the highest order.
>
You demonstrate my claim with your post. What factual error (have I not
recanted) can you produce from me? Ad hominem proves nothing. It is fun, but
proves nothing.
ESAD, shameless flightless bird,
Richard Cheek
Happy Harpy Hunter, esq.
--
1¾
JHistorian
Butt-Cheeks wrote:
That you could possibly denigrate the influence of
Lockes "Treatises on Government" on the American
revolution shows that your students should get a
refund for not getting an education while in your
classes.
>>>>>>>>>>
You really are an exceedingly stupid twit. The following re-quote clearly
indicates that what you claim above is nothing more that a demonstration
that *you* cannot read:
> >> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
> >> they recognized merit and substance.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> > > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Glen Cheek
PGISSource
In article <840553385$70...@atype.com>, jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian)
writes:
>Wizzie wrote:
>
> >And, I'm sure the world also notices how morally bankrupt
> >your "movement" is that it will attempt to argue "diversity"
> >rather than tell one of its members to shut the fuck up.
A wonderful case of artificial formatting to provide the illusion upon
quick reading that "Wizzie" said something actually said by another (in
this case JHistorian himself). A standard klan ploy, but you are taking it
to new heights. I commend you on your skillfull manipulations and twists
to makes lies from truth. You are a credit to all that Louis Beam
apparently taught you.
>I note, however, that your so-called "objectivity" extends only so far as
>to claim militiaboys are individuals and, therefore, others are not
>impugned by the actions of one individual, whilst simultaneously
>attempting to claim the opposite for those on the other side of the
fence.
No, you as usual misinterpret. Ample examples are provided on the other
end, and many are assaulted by those on the militia side themselves. I
need not repeat those assaults, though I touch upon the topics in more
polite ways even there. I strive instead to show that those types of
things occur in militant groups on -all- sides (including mine). It is
often that opposition between -extremists- on -both- sides which leads to
civil conflict. That conflict is what I wish to prevent. In my opininion,
you and your type of klan-like extremist pose a danger to societal
stability every bit as bad as the worst on the militia side. Look to the
IRA and UFF, competing militias in Beirut, and so on for some interesting
comparisons. I'm sure that Scott up in Maine can provide some interesting
examples also.
>That, I think, is proof positive of the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of
>your little movement.
You may think as you wish. You may even freely make such statements, in my
opinion. It's a free country. But as to "hypocrisy?" What is hypocritical
about standing against extreme militantism from all sides? Hypocrisy would
be if I employed hostile methods and then whined how militantly dangerous
the militias were when they responded in kind. No, I don't think I'm
hypocritical at all in this case. The fact that I hit your klan with more
hostility than I do the militias is an issue of balance and an echo of
your own styles as applied toward me. Someone must demonstrate that the
liberal side of things is not as you falsely make it appear and this
message is made most clearly when the assault comes from your own alleged
side. Even you allude to such in the above clip.
>You bore me, boy, with your pseudo-"intellect."
I gathered as much. Hostility seems to be all that excites you. You also
seem pretty hep on that "boy" idea, don't you? And then you wonder why you
are seen as nothing more than a hateful bigot, more conformal to klan
culture than liberal culture? Remember that for many years, the Klan has
worked to portray itself as conforming with the goals, ideals, or concerns
of general society, yet in reality reflects more like those things as seen
in a highly distorted mirror. Your portrayal of society here is much the
same.
>So save your fingertips and don't bother me with your hypocritical crap.
If it bothers you, it's a free country, don't read it. I don't necessarily
present the points for -your- benefit anyway, but to draw -public-
attention to some very real threats that extremism of all forms, including
yours, presents. To be honest, I don't expect to change extremists such as
you, Pothier, Hill, Chapman, Cinege, etc., but only to help instill a more
balanced view among the moderate majority. It is unfortunate, but perhaps
understandable, that this effort offends you so.
It is becoming apparent that there are at -least- three sides represented
here: The militias, the militant anti-militias, and the aggregate society
itself. Aggragate society does not desire to tear itself apart by conflict
nor to destroy a part of itself (including its freedoms) if at all
avoidable. That is the position for which I believe Kaa, Ragsdale, some
others (even a number on the militia side), and myself stand despite our
diversities. If I am wrong, then so be it. I can only follow my conscience
in this matter and I make no false claims of being an "expert."
Mr. Wizard
BIKER777
jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian) wrote:
>Wizzie wrote:
> >And, I'm sure the world also notices how morally bankrupt
> >your "movement" is that it will attempt to argue "diversity"
> >rather than tell one of its members to shut the fuck up.
>So once again, I only conform to your desires. I wouldn't want you to
>feel I'm "morally bankrupt" by failing to tell you and yours to "shut ...
>up" with things like your anti-Mormom hatreds and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>When you can cite a case where I have expressed "anti-Moron hatreds," feel
>free to re-post it.
Laughing harder at you...you spelled Mormon wrong.
Its not spelled moron, stupid. Now if you spelled that
with intention..than you are a bigot.
you (case noted) lose either way.
Again...which college do you teach at??
>I note, however, that your so-called "objectivity" extends only so far as
>to claim militiaboys are individuals and, therefore, others are not
>impugned by the actions of one individual, whilst simultaneously
>attempting to claim the opposite for those on the other side of the fence.
>That, I think, is proof positive of the hypocrisy and bankruptcy of your
>little movement.
>
>You bore me, boy, with your pseudo-"intellect."
>So save your fingertips and don't bother me with your hypocritical crap.
>
>
Richard Glen Cheek
"honor" is merely a word among some "men". Jestorian, I save most posts on
topics I deal with. You can't deny what you have posted. The electronic ghost
of your own voice testifies against you.
Jestorian wrote:
>
> Butt-Cheeks wrote:
>
> That you could possibly denigrate the influence of
> Lockes "Treatises on Government" on the American
> revolution shows that your students should get a
> refund for not getting an education while in your
> classes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> You really are an exceedingly stupid twit. The following re-quote clearly
> indicates that what you claim above is nothing more that a demonstration
> that *you* cannot read:
>
> > >> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
> > >> they recognized merit and substance.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> You stupid twit, since you can't grasp what it says, it rather clearly
> acknowledges Locke's influence upon the Framers. And says that they were
> pretty much the only ones who were so influenced.
>
Of course, that is not the particular quote I was responding to. The dissing
of Locke you posted and that I was refering to is attached below. That it
denigrates Lockes influence with the FF's is demonstrated by your claims
that:
1) Bollingbrooke was the most influential 18th century thinker, not
Locke. Of course, that is true since Locke was 17th century. Your dismissal
of his importance is plain.
2) You state that the key book in 1774 was James Burgh's "Political
Disquisitions". Maybe you are right, but in context your implication is to
disregard Locke's "Treatise on Government".
3) You restate that Locke was not contemporaneous with the American
Revolution, implying, again, that he was of marginal influence.
You also stated an egregious falsehood by stating, as is proven by your own
reposting of it, that Locke was of little influence other than the FF's.
That, I think, I roundly demonstrated was purely fiction or cataclysmic poor
judgement on your part. Again, this is attached as well in two more posts.
> In the future, since you have such an obvious and fundamental reading
> impairment, perhaps you should get your 5-year old daughter to read to
> you.
>
Whether the above listed statements from the attachment constitute
your having "denigrated" Locke, I'll leave to the readers. Is Jestorian
guilty of dissembling his original attack on Locke or is he innocent?
I say he is guilty.
Flap on Harpy,
MMedi13720
In article <840261783$16...@atype.com>, jhist...@aol.com (JHistorian)
writes:
>Grow up and get a life.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Go to hell, you santimonious ass.
>
>You got your ass cornered now because you *are* the epitome and
apotheosis
>of everything you denounce.
>
>Wallow in your own slime, Ireland.
So we have a problem here, of gratuitous namecalling. Both sides accuse
the other of escalating the problem, and follow that with their own
escalation. That solves little, less, and nothing.
I humbly suggest that both people take a few days off from MAM, go
fishing, bake a loaf of bread, crack a copy of _Aikido in Everyday Life_,
whatever. It'll do you some good. (Half of the next paragraph may cause
heart attacks in some)
Both of the people in this thread are people whose opinions I generally
respect, even if I don't share them. They've also shown themselves to
actually be capable of acting like adults in the past, and it would really
help if they relaxed and tried it again.
Mike S. Medintz, | http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~medintz
"His eyes was as cold as lead and steel forged into tools of war.
They took the lives of many, and the souls of many more."
-Steve Earle "Ben McCulloch"
JHistorian
Butt-Cheeks wrote:
> > >> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
> > >> they recognized merit and substance.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
And again I quoted Bertrand Russells reference to his
influence on Marx, Rouseau, DesCartes, Bentham, Hume,
Kant, and Berkely.
>>>>>>>>>>
And, again you demonstrate that you haven't got a friggin' clue as to what
you are babbling about, or whether the people you claim to be reading have
any idea themselves, either--
Descartes was D-E-A-D for 40 years before Locke ever published a damned
thing, you stupid twit.
Descartes died in 1650; Locke published "Two Treatises" in 1690.
Locke is probably the most significant philosopher
of the modern age and you insist his influence
>>>>>>>>>>
No, I insult a stupid twit who has not sense enough, nor education enough,
to know that the MOST SIGNIFICANT philospher of the "modern age" was not
John Locke, but was instead Sir Isaac Newton.
Only a complete uneducated idiot would think that Locke was more important
than Newton.
Richard Glen Cheek
JHistorian wrote:
>
> Butt-Cheeks wrote:
>
> > > >> Apparently, not to the Founding Fathers. At least
> > > >> they recognized merit and substance.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > They were pretty much the only ones who did so.
>
> And again I quoted Bertrand Russells reference to his
> influence on Marx, Rouseau, DesCartes, Bentham, Hume,
> Kant, and Berkely.
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> And, again you demonstrate that you haven't got a friggin' clue as to what
> you are babbling about, or whether the people you claim to be reading have
> any idea themselves, either--
>
> Descartes was D-E-A-D for 40 years before Locke ever published a damned
> thing, you stupid twit.
>
> Descartes died in 1650; Locke published "Two Treatises" in 1690.
Descartes was a slip, I stand corrected. I let his name slip in as I thought
of Russells comparison of him to Locke. Still, what of Russlls attributions
to other philosophers? He is obviously a philosopher of the first rank, and
doubted by few except axe-grinding ideologues caught trying to make an
erreneous point.
>
> Locke is probably the most significant philosopher
> of the modern age and you insist his influence
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> No, I insult a stupid twit who has not sense enough, nor education enough,
> to know that the MOST SIGNIFICANT philospher of the "modern age" was not
> John Locke, but was instead Sir Isaac Newton.
>
> Only a complete uneducated idiot would think that Locke was more important
> than Newton.
I am speaking of philosophy and political theory, not natural-philosophy or
science. Newton derived the three laws of motion and calculus. These
discoveries led to further discoveries of the solar system. This is not about
freedom, constitutional law or theories of human knowledge which bear
relevance to the _founding_fathers_!
I have my degree in computer science; I am not a philosopher nor a historian
of philiosphic development. But I am not so arrogant as to whimsically
dismiss the opinions of those outside the specialty, as are you. Do you
specialize in the history of ideas? If so, then take your lumps like an
adult, and stop whining like a child. Had you simply admitted your error to
start with you would not have dug yourself in so deep. Just give it up,
Jestor; Locke was a better man than you will ever be. He was honest and had
integrity, and I don't think they even register on your radar.
R Cheek
--
1ľ