The idiocy of Tom Sherman
Edward Dolan
about recumbents, but he is ignorant when it comes to everything else under
the sun. He equates that which cannot be equated. Islamic terrorists are
freedom fighters to him! He does this because he is a liberal ideologue and
he hates America and all it stands for in the world. I charge him with
treason!
What good does it do to kick his stupid ass? His ignorance is unconquerable
because of his embrace of liberal ideology. He is a far left wing kook. The
dumb bastard will vote for B. Hussein O. because he wants the destruction of
this nation. He ought to be condemned to live elsewhere in the world where
he would gain an education in the ways of thugs and dictators. Barring
living in Russia or China, he should at least go live in la belle France.
Those swine all hate Americans and he would be right at home there.
Ed Dolan the Great maintains that not everything can be equated. Some
nations are infinitely superior to others. America is such a nation, but for
how long with traitors like Tom Sherman among us sowing discontent. He needs
to emigrate. Let him go back to the land of his ancestors, Denmark, and see
how he likes it there. Or maybe the fucking Netherlands or the god damn
Swiss would suit him. He does not deserve to live in this country.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Andy Evans
thinking while liberals are more radical - working out things from
first principles.
So while the traditionalists are bemused and offended by "new
thinking", there are times in politics - dirty business that it is -
where the truth can only be found by working out things from first
principles.
If you use a logical and balanced approach and forget a lot of the US
and NATO hype, then you can, for instance, see how USA manipulated
the Balkans to its own ends in such a way that is - as Russia says -
not a million miles away from what's happening in South Ossetia.
Nobody is defending Russia's aggression where their sphere of
influence is threatened but nobody should be defending USA when they
did exatly the same in Grenada and numerous other places under the
Reagan doctrine.
Of course the US is a democracy and as such a better type of
government than others mentioned, but foreign policy is an entity in
itself, democracy or not, and it doesn't help to confuse the two or
create non-sequitors like "all democracies have better foreign
policies".
Tom Sherman
To what are you replying to?
Then there is Ed Dolan, who merely likes to bark on the Internet. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”
Andy Evans
I must have just fancied a bark myself. Was I off topic by any
chance?
I thought it was an all-purpose generic rant and I was bored with
fitting seats and mudguards on my ex's bikes.
Andy
Tim McNamara
<66e78046-e127-4e05...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you'll find that conservatives are closer to traditional
> thinking while liberals are more radical - working out things from
> first principles.
That was what the Gingrich Revolution proclaimed they were doing, and
one could hardly label them "liberals" as such things are currently
defined.
I call myself a liberal and yet I find myself, in many ways, being more
conservative that the current crop of "conservatives" in Washington and
most state capitols around the US. Fiscal responsibility and a balanced
budget, accountability for program outcomes, government having less
intrusion into people's private lives... the only freedom the
"conservatives" are concerned about these days is making sure favored
industries, corporations and cronies get free money from the taxpayers'
coffers, and don't have to put up with those pesky regulations.
Andy Evans
That's just good government isn't it? Maybe liberals "intrude" more,
but people are pretty daft in the first place.
Andy
Tom Sherman
Locally, good governance went along with having socialists (Dan Hoan and
Frank Zeidler) running things.
Tom Sherman
reactionary.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g86ra1$5kc$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Andy Evans wrote:
>
> To what are you replying to?
Andy is most likely just ignorant of correct posting procedure. I will cut
him some slack just this once.
>> I think you'll find that conservatives are closer to traditional
>> thinking while liberals are more radical - working out things from
>> first principles.
>>
>> So while the traditionalists are bemused and offended by "new
>> thinking", there are times in politics - dirty business that it is -
>> where the truth can only be found by working out things from first
>> principles.
Maybe so, but that is no sure fire method for correctness either. Rush
Limbaugh does this sort of thing all the time and he can be as wrong as
anybody. Furthermore, those first principles can be argued about just like
anything else.
>> If you use a logical and balanced approach and forget a lot of the US
>> and NATO hype, then you can, for instance, see how USA manipulated
>> the Balkans to its own ends in such a way that is - as Russia says -
>> not a million miles away from what's happening in South Ossetia.
>> Nobody is defending Russia's aggression where their sphere of
>> influence is threatened but nobody should be defending USA when they
>> did exatly the same in Grenada and numerous other places under the
>> Reagan doctrine.
It was the god damn Europeans that should have done something about the
Balkans, not the US. But freaking cowards that the Europeans ever prove
themselves to be, we had to step in to save the region from a genocide.
Unlike you, I do not give the Russians credit for anything. Their sphere of
influence should be confined to Russia proper and not extend one inch beyond
it.
I would go to nuclear war to defend Poland and Ukraine from Russia if
necessary. Would you?
>> Of course the US is a democracy and as such a better type of
>> government than others mentioned, but foreign policy is an entity in
>> itself, democracy or not, and it doesn't help to confuse the two or
>> create non-sequitors like "all democracies have better foreign
>> policies".
I am in favor of 'realpolitik' at all times. We should never let our ideals
get in the way of practical realities.
By the way, I do not get along with real conservatives any better than I get
along with real liberals.
> Then there is Ed Dolan, who merely likes to bark on the Internet. ;)
And who is not also barking on the Internet? Surely not you?
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> Usenet Police wrote:
>> In article <joOdnXzl7dqkTzjV...@prairiewave.com>,
>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
What did Edward Dolan write?
>>> ...
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>>> aka
>>> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>>
>> Sure and you'll be on the next boat to Ireland where all you bastard
>> micks belong, eh Paddy? Welcome to America. Now get the fuck out.
Whatever is wrong with the Irish I blame on the fucking English. And the
Scots aren't any better. The only good thing to be said about the swinish
French is that they have ever proven themselves to be the eternal enemies of
the English.
It would have been better for world history if the Angles and the Saxons had
stayed on the Continent where they belonged. The ancient Celts were a
superior race of beings. The English are nothing but degenerate Teutons
(Germans).
We Americans are a mongrel race of humans if ever there was one. Only
Brazilians are more mongrelized than we are.
Tom Keats)
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> writes:
> I call myself a liberal and yet I find myself, in many ways, being more
> conservative that the current crop of "conservatives" in Washington and
> most state capitols around the US. Fiscal responsibility and a balanced
> budget, accountability for program outcomes, government having less
> intrusion into people's private lives... the only freedom the
> "conservatives" are concerned about these days is making sure favored
> industries, corporations and cronies get free money from the taxpayers'
> coffers, and don't have to put up with those pesky regulations.
I rather enjoyed George Carlin's remark about the American Revolution
being fostered by wealthy, white slave owners fighting to be "free."
I guess politics boils down to whomever deserves the Public Money
the most.
It is I. Without me around, the whole world would suck.
So support me, and you'll get to feel good about it.
Politics is just a condoned form of piracy.
We're /all/ pirates (especially the Greens.)
cheers, & bust outa the loop,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Tom Keats
Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> Andy Evans wrote:
>>> I call myself a liberal and yet I find myself, in many ways, being more conservative that the current crop of "conservatives" .... �Fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, accountability for program outcomes, government having less intrusion into people's private lives... >>
>>
>> That's just good government isn't it? Maybe liberals "intrude" more,
>> but people are pretty daft in the first place.
>>
> The Republican Party in the US has moved from being conservative to
> reactionary.
I'd like to see Lou Dobbs suddenly get cream-pied
from stage right on live TV.
In mid-sentence.
Timing is everything.
cheers,
Andy Evans
him some slack just this once. >>
Your kindness is touching.
>Rush Limbaugh does this sort of thing all the time and he can be as wrong as
anybody. >
You might just as well talk about Rasputin. I’m Welsh.
<It was the god damn Europeans that should have done something about
the
Balkans, not the US.>
Quite right. If the USA had not imposed impossible conditions on
Milosovic during initial talks like free access of NATO troops
throughout Serbia and deals regarding pipelines crossing the former
Yugoslavia, Milosovic would not have stormed out and the whole deal
would have been settled between Serbia and Croatia as it should have
been.
>>we had to step in to save the region from a genocide.>>
The USA should stay out of counties whose cultures and histories it is
utterly ignorant of. As it turned out, NATO should bear the blame for
the failure of negotiations.
<< I do not give the Russians credit for anything. Their sphere of
influence should be confined to Russia proper and not extend one inch
beyond
it.>>
Whereas the USA can interfere anywhere in the globe, even if it can’t
even pronounce the names of the coutries correctly (Kossovo, Iraq)…..
<<I am in favor of 'realpolitik' at all times.>>
I’m in favour of politicians who have enough grounding in world
culture and history to have the wisdom to tread carefully and revive
the true art of diplomacy. All we have these days trying to “lead the
free world” is jumped up Hollywood actors, oil barons and lawyers.
Tomorrow we could have reality TV contestants.
<<And who is not also barking on the Internet? Surely not you? >>
I’m not averse to a bit of a bark. Woof.
Andy
Andy Evans
Including the potato famines, no doubt.
< And the Scots aren't any better.>
That leaves the Welsh. I'm Welsh.
<The only good thing to be said about the swinish French is that they
have ever proven themselves to be the eternal enemies of the English.>
Let's work this out. The French are swines. But they are superior to
the English. So the English are below swines. Such flattery will get
you nowhere on your trips round Madame Tusauds.
<It would have been better for world history if the Angles and the
Saxons had stayed on the Continent where they belonged. >
I wish the USA had been fully colonised by the French. That way the UK
would have been saved from the awful deluge of trashy films, hot dogs
and video violence it has to endure because we share a common
language. That way the French would have taught the Americans how to
cook and make good films and we'd all have been better off.
<The ancient Celts were a superior race of beings. >
Well at least the French were eating with knives and forks when the
Celts were gnawing on bones. I should just add that the USA has given
the world some hugely wonderful things like bebop and boogie woogie,
and many of my best friends are American. I don't want to sound
unbalanced.
Andy
Tom Keats
Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> writes:
> `<Whatever is wrong with the Irish I blame on the fucking English. >>
>
> Including the potato famines, no doubt.
>
> < And the Scots aren't any better.>
>
> That leaves the Welsh. I'm Welsh.
I'm a Vancouver East-Ender, myself.
[snip]
> I wish the USA had been fully colonised by the French.
Spanish, Portuguese, Russians & certain East Asians
got here first. Not to mention the bloody Vikings.
And of course the indigenous folx who were already
here to greet 'em.
> That way the UK
> would have been saved from the awful deluge of trashy films,
Not necessarily.
Tom Sherman
>> Andy is most likely just ignorant of correct posting procedure. I will cut
> him some slack just this once. >>
>
> Your kindness is touching.
>
>> Rush Limbaugh does this sort of thing all the time and he can be as wrong as
> anybody. >
>
> You might just as well talk about Rasputin. I’m Welsh.
>
> <It was the god damn Europeans that should have done something about
> the
> Balkans, not the US.>
>
> Quite right. If the USA had not imposed impossible conditions on
> Milosovic during initial talks like free access of NATO troops
> throughout Serbia and deals regarding pipelines crossing the former
> Yugoslavia, Milosovic would not have stormed out and the whole deal
> would have been settled between Serbia and Croatia as it should have
> been.
>
From the USian point of view, USians can do no wrong in world affairs.
USians also react badly when contrary view are presented, since they
have been taught from childhood that the US is the source of good in the
world.
>>> we had to step in to save the region from a genocide.>>
>
> The USA should stay out of counties whose cultures and histories it is
> utterly ignorant of. As it turned out, NATO should bear the blame for
> the failure of negotiations.
>
> << I do not give the Russians credit for anything. Their sphere of
> influence should be confined to Russia proper and not extend one inch
> beyond
> it.>>
>
> Whereas the USA can interfere anywhere in the globe, even if it can’t
> even pronounce the names of the coutries correctly (Kossovo, Iraq)…..
>
Pronounce? Heck, the average USian can not find these countries on a map.
> <<I am in favor of 'realpolitik' at all times.>>
>
> I’m in favour of politicians who have enough grounding in world
> culture and history to have the wisdom to tread carefully and revive
> the true art of diplomacy. All we have these days trying to “lead the
> free world” is jumped up Hollywood actors, oil barons and lawyers.
> Tomorrow we could have reality TV contestants.
>
> <<And who is not also barking on the Internet? Surely not you? >>
>
> I’m not averse to a bit of a bark. Woof.
>
[1] I have worked at two different jobs where people listened to the man
bloviate.
Tom Sherman
> In article <g86vaj$1kl$2...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Tom Sherman <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>> Andy Evans wrote:
>>> That's just good government isn't it? Maybe liberals "intrude" more,
>>> but people are pretty daft in the first place.
>>>
>> The Republican Party in the US has moved from being conservative to
>> reactionary.
>
> I'd like to see Lou Dobbs suddenly get cream-pied
> from stage right on live TV.
>
> In mid-sentence.
>
> Timing is everything.
>
television.
[1] aka Professional Hairstyles.
Tom Sherman
Tom Sherman
> `<Whatever is wrong with the Irish I blame on the fucking English. >>
>
> Including the potato famines, no doubt.
>
> < And the Scots aren't any better.>
>
> That leaves the Welsh. I'm Welsh.
>
> <The only good thing to be said about the swinish French is that they
> have ever proven themselves to be the eternal enemies of the English.>
>
> Let's work this out. The French are swines. But they are superior to
> the English. So the English are below swines. Such flattery will get
> you nowhere on your trips round Madame Tusauds.
>
> <It would have been better for world history if the Angles and the
> Saxons had stayed on the Continent where they belonged. >
>
> I wish the USA had been fully colonised by the French. That way the UK
> would have been saved from the awful deluge of trashy films, hot dogs
> and video violence it has to endure because we share a common
> language. That way the French would have taught the Americans how to
> cook and make good films and we'd all have been better off.
>
cultural superiority.
As for television and films, why do the British watch the USian stuff
when (at least some of) the domestic product is so much better? Is it
because the USian stuff is written for the lowest common denominator,
while the BBC still has some standards?
> <The ancient Celts were a superior race of beings. >
>
> Well at least the French were eating with knives and forks when the
> Celts were gnawing on bones. I should just add that the USA has given
> the world some hugely wonderful things like bebop and boogie woogie,
> and many of my best friends are American. I don't want to sound
> unbalanced.
>
Hey, Unfair and Unbalanced is a USian specialty.
Tim McNamara
<59eb9c12-d28c-4ef2...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Andy-
A few pointers for your posts to make them more readable:
First preserve the attribution so that it's clear to all to whom it id
that you're replying. Attributions are managed like the lines at the
top of this post, including the article reference, the author's name,
etc.
Second, quoted material should have a "quote string," which is a
character like > which is the first character on each line that is being
quoted. An end > is not necessary. For example:
> Quoted material should have a "quote string," which is the first
> character on each line that is being quoted.
Your newsreader should be able to do this automatically. You seem to be
using Firefox according to your headers, but you seem to be posting
through Google Groups (yechh, there are much better options that
suffering with the lousy interface that Google uses).
So you're from/in Wales? There's been a number of things of TV recently
about Wales. Looks like a wonderful place for a bike tour! A bit damp,
perhaps, in terms of weather, but the terrain is beautiful.
Tim McNamara
<2f561a1c-eb54-4b8d...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I call myself a liberal and yet I find myself, in many ways, being
> > more conservative that the current crop of "conservatives" ....
> > ?Fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, accountability for
> > program outcomes, government having less intrusion into people's
> > private lives...
>
> That's just good government isn't it? Maybe liberals "intrude" more,
> but people are pretty daft in the first place.
People should be free to be daft, at least to a degree. As a former
governor of my state observed, you can't legislate against stupidity.
Tim McNamara
tkeat...@hotmail.com Tom Keats) wrote:
> Politics is just a condoned form of piracy. We're /all/ pirates
> (especially the Greens.)
Capitalists even more so, not merely condoned but even sanctified in the
country.
Andy Evans
> governor of my state observed, you can't legislate against stupidity.
But I think you can - you can make guns illegal, smoking in public
spaces illegal, drugs illegal etc etc. We already have a legal system
that imposes penalties for all sorts of stupid and destructive
behaviour, and I believe that it is widely accepted.
Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around in
public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd choose.
Andy
Tom Kunich
news:e710af96-b90a-41f3...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around in
> public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd choose.
The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional controls
on the population they prefer?
Tom Sherman
false flag) should do it.
wizardr...@msn.com
> Of course the US is a democracy and as such a better type of
> government than others mentioned, but foreign policy is an entity in
> itself, democracy or not, and it doesn't help to confuse the two or
> create non-sequitors like "all democracies have better foreign
> policies".
Amen. But it's so much fun to criticize
Andy Evans
> > public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd choose.
>
> The government's ability to freely impose any anti-Constitutional controls
> on the population they prefer?
I'm in the UK - I guess one benefit of not having a constitution is
that it doesn't get out of date. We had a lot of daft laws in the
nineteenth century but they all got repealed as they became archaic. I
mean, the death penalty for stealing a sheep, defacing London Bridge
or impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner. I think not, but the US
Constitution predates the repeal of all these. Not quite so easy to
change a constitution.
Andy
Tim McNamara
<e710af96-b90a-41f3...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > People should be free to be daft, at least to a degree. As a
> > former governor of my state observed, you can't legislate against
> > stupidity.
>
> But I think you can - you can make guns illegal, smoking in public
> spaces illegal, drugs illegal etc etc. We already have a legal system
> that imposes penalties for all sorts of stupid and destructive
> behaviour, and I believe that it is widely accepted.
Guns aren't illegal here, of course. Smoking in public spaces is banned
only because of the secondhand smoke problem, otherwise it would not be
the subject of legislation. Indeed, it is very important that Americans
keep smoking heavily because this is a major source of tax revenue. Our
rather schizophrenic anti-drug laws come from our Puritan heritage and
are, in the main, counterproductive and costly. And of course we still
have anti-homosexuality laws on the books in many places around the
country, and we'll even arrest alleged homosexuals in airport toilets
even when they haven't broken the law.
> Given the choice of freedom to carry guns or freedom to walk around
> in public without encountering people with guns I know what I'd
> choose.
Well, pardner, 'round hereabouts a man's gun is second only to his penis
in importance to his masculine identity. We gots us a shiny new conceal
and carry law, so anyone you meet might be packin'. Mind yer manners.
You ain't got a gun, then yer just some sort of damned sissy liberal.
And just to show that gun rights are more important to Minnesotans than
property rights, under our law you can carry your concealed weapon onto
any private property (stores, churches, hospitals, someone's home, etc.)
you want without asking permission unless the property owner has posted
a sign saying you can't. This is America, dammit. God, guns and guts
made us great.
Tim McNamara
Well, it's an interesting discussion. The Second Amendment, as (badly
and almost incomprehensibly) written, could be construed as preventing
the government from regulating arms ownership in any way whatsoever.
You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG? That
too. C4? Can't stop you. Your own private nukes arsenal? If you can
afford it, go ahead. The recent Supreme Court decision opened the way
for these scenarios and the current makeup of SCOTUS makes such
decisions possible.
Sure, those examples are absurd. The question is where the line can and
should be reasonably drawn. Reasonable people will disagree on where
than line is, unreasonable people will disagree even more vehemently and
in some cases violently.
Tim McNamara
<69e12b15-c939-48b6...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
On the other hand, you have Magna Carta which bore a strong influence on
the US Constitution. I don't know to what extent Magna Carta is
considered a working document in daily jurisprudence, whereas the
Constitution here is.
A core discussion in US legal circles is the extent to which the
Constitution- which comprises a tiny fragment of the mass of US law- is
a "living" document that is changeable and interpretable to account for
developments in technology and society versus being immutable and
absolute. Also part of this is the extent to which the Constitution
should be interpreted in terms of the discernable indent of its framers
versus a literalist interpretation (e.g., that Americans only have the
rights that are spelled out explicitly in the Constitution).
Tom Kunich
news:timmcn-F4BD6E....@news.iphouse.com...
>
> Well, it's an interesting discussion. The Second Amendment, as (badly
> and almost incomprehensibly) written, could be construed as preventing
> the government from regulating arms ownership in any way whatsoever.
Funny thing is that the Second Amendment didn't give the framers any
problems at all. Strange that you have so much trouble reading it.
> You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG? That
> too. C4? Can't stop you.
When did an explosive become a firearm?
> Your own private nukes arsenal? If you can
> afford it, go ahead. The recent Supreme Court decision opened the way
> for these scenarios and the current makeup of SCOTUS makes such
> decisions possible.
Did you even bother to read the decision before commenting on it?
> Sure, those examples are absurd. The question is where the line can and
> should be reasonably drawn. Reasonable people will disagree on where
> than line is, unreasonable people will disagree even more vehemently and
> in some cases violently.
Pretending that there is a huge question about firearms is part of the
problem. The fact is that 90% of the citizens of this country are not
questioning the second amendment - only those whose entire purpose in life
is to make problems where none exist.
Tom Kunich
>
> And just to show that gun rights are more important to Minnesotans than
> property rights, under our law you can carry your concealed weapon onto
> any private property (stores, churches, hospitals, someone's home, etc.)
> you want without asking permission unless the property owner has posted
> a sign saying you can't. This is America, dammit. God, guns and guts
> made us great.
Hmm apparently you don't understand that the Constitution overrules any
lesser laws. Also you seem to have missed the point that after gun control
laws were voided in places like Florida, crime took a HUGE drop. But of
course you may pretend otherwise.
Tom Sherman
The truth in the US is that the final arbiter of the interpretation of
the Constitution, the Supreme Court, will make judgments based solely on
political factors (e.g. Bush v. Gore). Furthermore, the executive branch
can violate the Constitution at will, and the Congress will do nothing
since it is not "politically expedient".
Tom Sherman
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-F4BD6E....@news.iphouse.com...
>>
>> Well, it's an interesting discussion. The Second Amendment, as (badly
>> and almost incomprehensibly) written, could be construed as preventing
>> the government from regulating arms ownership in any way whatsoever.
>
> Funny thing is that the Second Amendment didn't give the framers any
> problems at all. Strange that you have so much trouble reading it.
>
>> You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG? That
>> too. C4? Can't stop you.
>
> When did an explosive become a firearm?
>
>> Your own private nukes arsenal? If you can
>> afford it, go ahead. The recent Supreme Court decision opened the way
>> for these scenarios and the current makeup of SCOTUS makes such
>> decisions possible.
>
> Did you even bother to read the decision before commenting on it?
>
With a few McCain appointed justices, organizations such as Blackwater
might be allowed practically unlimited weaponry.
>> Sure, those examples are absurd. The question is where the line can and
>> should be reasonably drawn. Reasonable people will disagree on where
>> than line is, unreasonable people will disagree even more vehemently and
>> in some cases violently.
>
> Pretending that there is a huge question about firearms is part of the
> problem. The fact is that 90% of the citizens of this country are not
> questioning the second amendment - only those whose entire purpose in
> life is to make problems where none exist.
>
Citation for the 90%?
Tom Sherman
> In article
> <e710af96-b90a-41f3...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> People should be free to be daft, at least to a degree. As a
>>> former governor of my state observed, you can't legislate against
>>> stupidity.
>> But I think you can - you can make guns illegal, smoking in public
>> spaces illegal, drugs illegal etc etc. We already have a legal system
>> that imposes penalties for all sorts of stupid and destructive
>> behaviour, and I believe that it is widely accepted.
>
> Guns aren't illegal here, of course. Smoking in public spaces is banned
> only because of the secondhand smoke problem, otherwise it would not be
> the subject of legislation. Indeed, it is very important that Americans
> keep smoking heavily because this is a major source of tax revenue. Our
> rather schizophrenic anti-drug laws come from our Puritan heritage and
> are, in the main, counterproductive and costly. And of course we still
> have anti-homosexuality laws on the books in many places around the
> country, and we'll even arrest alleged homosexuals in airport toilets
Have to crack down on the "wide stance" minority, no?
Tom Sherman
in places like Iraq.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g87f43$cdf$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Andy Evans wrote:
>>> Andy is most likely just ignorant of correct posting procedure. I will
>>> cut
>> him some slack just this once. >>
>>
>> Your kindness is touching.
> >
>>> Rush Limbaugh does this sort of thing all the time and he can be as
>>> wrong as
>> anybody. >
>>
>> You might just as well talk about Rasputin. I’m Welsh.
>>
> Ignorant of Rush Limbaugh [1] - you lucky bastard!
>
>> <It was the god damn Europeans that should have done something about
>> the
>> Balkans, not the US.>
>>
>> Quite right. If the USA had not imposed impossible conditions on
>> Milosovic during initial talks like free access of NATO troops
>> throughout Serbia and deals regarding pipelines crossing the former
>> Yugoslavia, Milosovic would not have stormed out and the whole deal
>> would have been settled between Serbia and Croatia as it should have
>> been.
M. was a Serbian thug and war criminal. Only Croatia knew how to kick
Serbian ass.
> From the USian point of view, USians can do no wrong in world affairs.
> USians also react badly when contrary view are presented, since they have
> been taught from childhood that the US is the source of good in the world.
Tom Sherman belongs with the swinish French. His liberal ideology qualifies
him for only being an Asshole!
>>>> we had to step in to save the region from a genocide.>>
>>
>> The USA should stay out of counties whose cultures and histories it is
>> utterly ignorant of. As it turned out, NATO should bear the blame for
>> the failure of negotiations.
There is nothing we would like to do better, but the g.d. Europeans will not
pull their weight in the world.
>> << I do not give the Russians credit for anything. Their sphere of
>> influence should be confined to Russia proper and not extend one inch
>> beyond it.
>> Whereas the USA can interfere anywhere in the globe, even if it can’t
>> even pronounce the names of the coutries correctly (Kossovo, Iraq)…..
>>
> Pronounce? Heck, the average USian can not find these countries on a map.
Here is Tom Sherman being as stupid as possible. The fact is that he can't
find his own asshole, just like all liberal scumbags.
>> <<I am in favor of 'realpolitik' at all times.>>
>>
>> I’m in favour of politicians who have enough grounding in world
>> culture and history to have the wisdom to tread carefully and revive
>> the true art of diplomacy. All we have these days trying to “lead the
>> free world” is jumped up Hollywood actors, oil barons and lawyers.
>> Tomorrow we could have reality TV contestants.
Typical liberal hogwash! How about I diplomacy up your ass!
>> <<And who is not also barking on the Internet? Surely not you? >>
>>
>> I’m not averse to a bit of a bark. Woof.
>>
> [1] I have worked at two different jobs where people listened to the man
> bloviate.
Just a couple of liberal assholes sniffing one another's butts. So what else
is new?
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Barry Harmon
news:icCdncubNIGNwDXV...@earthlink.com:
The crime drop is the one thing that the anti-gun forces both can't
explain and choose to ignore.
However, if the anti-gun forces had a little crreativity, they could
make the whole discussion moot. Here's how.
Guns are allowed. No problem with that.
However, lead styphnate is an explosive, as are lead azide and fulminate
of mercury. All of these can be used as primer mixtures, the content of
the primer, the dealie that makes the cartridge fire.
Why not just declare that these compounds are controlled explosives,
which they assuredly are in larger quantities, and make ammunition
subject to controls?
So the gun forces could have all the guns they wanted and the anti-gun
forces would see to it that the guns couldn't be fired.
I had a successful career with firearms and my father was also involved
with weapons, so please, no personal invective accusing me of anti-gun
bias.
Barry Harmon
Tom Kunich
>
> The truth in the US is that the final arbiter of the interpretation of the
> Constitution, the Supreme Court, will make judgments based solely on
> political factors (e.g. Bush v. Gore). Furthermore, the executive branch
> can violate the Constitution at will, and the Congress will do nothing
> since it is not "politically expedient".
I wish that I had absolutely no faith nor sense concerning the Supreme
Court. That way I could believe that they make Constitutional
interpretations based on political agendas instead of their conscious. After
all, one false move and they'd lose their jobs.
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>> You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG? That
>>> too. C4? Can't stop you.
>>
>> When did an explosive become a firearm?
>>
> But the Second Amendment says "arms", not firearms.
Psst - the context makes it clear - "A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You can argue the meaning only if you are interested in arguing instead of
reading English.
>> Did you even bother to read the decision before commenting on it?
>>
> With a few McCain appointed justices, organizations such as Blackwater
> might be allowed practically unlimited weaponry.
It appears quite strange to me that you've not bothered to study the history
of the Supreme Court and its decisions as well as the decision makers.
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> Hmm apparently you don't understand that the Constitution overrules any
>> lesser laws. Also you seem to have missed the point that after gun
>> control laws were voided in places like Florida, crime took a HUGE drop.
>> But of course you may pretend otherwise.
>>
> Having most everyone armed has also resulted in huge drops in violence in
> places like Iraq.
Yeah, you're right - Iraq was a much safer place when only Saddam Hussein
was "disappearing" people literally by the thousands. It was so much safer
than today when people can defend themselves.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>However, lead styphnate is an explosive, as are lead azide and fulminate
>of mercury. All of these can be used as primer mixtures, the content of
>the primer, the dealie that makes the cartridge fire.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>The crime drop is the one thing that the anti-gun forces both can't
>explain and choose to ignore.
And the pro-gun forces ignore the inconvenient fact that the highest
rates of homicide are in the countries with the highest rates of gun
ownership.
How many of these militant gun owners are members of the
well-regulated militia?
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Tim McNamara
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-F4BD6E....@news.iphouse.com...
> >
> > Well, it's an interesting discussion. The Second Amendment, as
> > (badly and almost incomprehensibly) written, could be construed as
> > preventing the government from regulating arms ownership in any way
> > whatsoever.
>
> Funny thing is that the Second Amendment didn't give the framers any
> problems at all. Strange that you have so much trouble reading it.
Not so much me, Tom, but agencies like the Supreme Court and Congress
have had trouble with the language for years. For the sake of
reference, the Second Amendment states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
This, of course, is the version as passed into law. A version with
different punctuation- which was the original and which is the version
that was ratified by the states- read "A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That version makes it clear
the the intent of the right of owning and bearing arms is specifically
for the purpose of having an armed militia available to defend the
nation. Indeed, the existence of the prefatory clause stating a
specific purpose for a right is unique in the Bill of Rights.
The framers did not initially plan on a large nationalized permanent
standing army but rather on militias operated by the states. This
version could be reasonably interpreted as not creating a right to
unlimited or unregulated individual gun ownership except for the
purposes of having a "well-regulated militia." Since the US has a
standing army with several branches which meets the clear intent of this
version of the Amendment- the defense of the nation- there would be no
need at all for private arms ownership. Indeed, under that wording of
the Amendment, all private arms ownership could conceivably be banned
except for those citizens serving in the armed forces.
The version that has the force of law and is the one upon which court
decisions must be predicated is the version with the extra commas that
ambiguate the meaning. This is the version cited by SCOTUS in District
of Columbia vs. Heller. Arguments in courts have hinged on the precise
effects of those commas on the meaning of the Amendment. With the
existing version of the Amendment that is in force, as I said earlier,
reasonable people will disagree on the interpretation and unreasonable
people will disagree vehemently.
There is some thought that the two extra commas in the version as passed
by the House and Senate were basically a transcription error by the
scribe, William Lambert. But there they are and we have to deal with
them. Even by the early 1800s there was controversy over the language
of the Second Amendment, with some writers enshrining the right to bear
arms as the central symbol and sine qua non of liberty. The NRA
continues this tradition, partly as a way to raise the stakes of the
discussion, and has appealed to emotion by claiming that the "rights" to
hunting and self-defense are under attack.
> > You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG?
> > That too. C4? Can't stop you.
>
> When did an explosive become a firearm?
The Amendment states "arms" not "firearms." Don't get yourself more
confused than you already are, Tom. "Arms" include all manner of
weapons including sticks, rocks, knives, swords, pikes, guns, etc. The
NRA has tried to obfuscate the issue so that "arms = guns," but that is
for their specific agenda and goals.
> > Your own private nukes arsenal? If you can afford it, go ahead.
> > The recent Supreme Court decision opened the way for these
> > scenarios and the current makeup of SCOTUS makes such decisions
> > possible.
>
> Did you even bother to read the decision before commenting on it?
Word for word, cover to cover? Nope. Have you? The decision, its
scope and its impact were well discussed by Constitutional scholars from
both sides in the days after the decision was released. SCOTUS did
attempt to limit the scope of the decision in its language, but that of
course was only a token effort that was nothing more than a sop to try
to forestall some of the inevitable outcry. The precedent has been
created, the this end of the wedge has been set, and now various forces
will push towards the conclusions they desire.
Part of the SCOTUS decision in Heller was that the Second Amendment
establishes a right of arms ownership for self-defense, despite the
absence of any such specific provision in the Amendment itself (were
Roberts and Alito the strict constructionists they claim to be, they
could not have agreed with the majority decision IMHO. Heller injects a
new meaning into the Second Amendment that was not previously present.
Whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing depends on how you
view handgun ownership, specifically).
> > Sure, those examples are absurd. The question is where the line
> > can and should be reasonably drawn. Reasonable people will
> > disagree on where than line is, unreasonable people will disagree
> > even more vehemently and in some cases violently.
>
> Pretending that there is a huge question about firearms is part of
> the problem. The fact is that 90% of the citizens of this country are
> not questioning the second amendment - only those whose entire
> purpose in life is to make problems where none exist.
The NRA, for example. The NEA, for another. Whether you see either of
those groups as troublemakers depends on which side you tend to agree
with.
Also, when you say idiotic things like "the fact is that 90% of the
citizens of this country are not questioning the second amendment," you
are begging the question to prove your claim.
A Muzi
> On 17 Aug 2008 18:00:54 GMT, Barry Harmon <john...@optonline.net>
> said in <Xns9AFD8E9FAC499jo...@209.197.15.254>:
>
>> The crime drop is the one thing that the anti-gun forces both can't
>> explain and choose to ignore.
>
> And the pro-gun forces ignore the inconvenient fact that the highest
> rates of homicide are in the countries with the highest rates of gun
> ownership.
>
> How many of these militant gun owners are members of the
> well-regulated militia?
What, like Chicago and DC with the oldest and most draconian bans?
We gun owners keep you free, just as the Founders knew. It's good to
live where this is a discussion.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Tom Sherman
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 2008 18:00:54 GMT, Barry Harmon <john...@optonline.net>
>> said in <Xns9AFD8E9FAC499jo...@209.197.15.254>:
>>
>>> The crime drop is the one thing that the anti-gun forces both can't
>>> explain and choose to ignore.
>>
>> And the pro-gun forces ignore the inconvenient fact that the highest
>> rates of homicide are in the countries with the highest rates of gun
>> ownership.
>>
>> How many of these militant gun owners are members of the
>> well-regulated militia?
>
> What, like Chicago and DC with the oldest and most draconian bans?
>
> We gun owners keep you free, just as the Founders knew. It's good to
> live where this is a discussion.
How does one explain the existence of free societies with almost
non-existent personal gun ownership?
The guns will not help you if the government decides to come for you.
Just ask the Branch Davidians in Waco.
Just zis Guy, you know?
said in <7dd0d$48a881d6$29...@news.teranews.com>:
>We gun owners keep you free, just as the Founders knew. It's good to
>live where this is a discussion.
No you don't. Where I live we have a very low homicide rate and
strict gun controls.
Tom Sherman
plus 250,000 to 500,000 casualties in the proxy war fought for the US
against Iran.
Compare to the million plus dead and 5 million refuges created by the
neo-colonial conquest of Iraq by the US.
Tom Sherman
embarrassed by the decision that they said it should not set future
precedent?
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g89o4j$h9r$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>>> You want to own a machine gun? Go ahead. Mortar? Ditto. RPG? That
>>>> too. C4? Can't stop you.
>>>
>>> When did an explosive become a firearm?
>>>
>> But the Second Amendment says "arms", not firearms.
>
> Psst - the context makes it clear - "A well regulated Militia, being
> necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
> keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
>
> You can argue the meaning only if you are interested in arguing instead
> of reading English.
>
Does the Second Amendment allow individuals to own heavy weapons?
>>> Did you even bother to read the decision before commenting on it?
>>>
>> With a few McCain appointed justices, organizations such as Blackwater
>> might be allowed practically unlimited weaponry.
>
> It appears quite strange to me that you've not bothered to study the
> history of the Supreme Court and its decisions as well as the decision
> makers.
>
Stack the court with neo-con ideologues and expect them to be bound by
precedent? Ha!
Alf
> Anyone but me struck by the idiocy of Tom Sherman? Yea, he is knowledgeable
> about recumbents, but he is ignorant when it comes to everything else under
> the sun. He equates that which cannot be equated. Islamic terrorists are
> freedom fighters to him! He does this because he is a liberal ideologue and
> he hates America and all it stands for in the world. I charge him with
> treason!
>
> What good does it do to kick his stupid ass? His ignorance is unconquerable
> because of his embrace of liberal ideology. He is a far left wing kook. The
> dumb bastard will vote for B. Hussein O. because he wants the destruction of
> this nation. He ought to be condemned to live elsewhere in the world where
> he would gain an education in the ways of thugs and dictators. Barring
> living in Russia or China, he should at least go live in la belle France.
> Those swine all hate Americans and he would be right at home there.
>
> Ed Dolan the Great maintains that not everything can be equated. Some
> nations are infinitely superior to others. America is such a nation, but for
> how long with traitors like Tom Sherman among us sowing discontent. He needs
> to emigrate. Let him go back to the land of his ancestors, Denmark, and see
> how he likes it there. Or maybe the fucking Netherlands or the god damn
> Swiss would suit him. He does not deserve to live in this country.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
Andy Evans
> Serbian ass.
I think you must be unaware of how abysmally ignorant you are about
European history.
> There is nothing we would like to do better, but the g.d. Europeans will not
> pull their weight in the world.
So how come Bush calls the United Nations "irrelevent" when he wants
to do something and they don't? Do you want other countries to have
more influence or not? Or is it OK when Europeans back the USA but not
OK when they don't?
> Typical liberal hogwash! How about I diplomacy up your ass!
Does this mean anything?
> Just a couple of liberal assholes sniffing one another's butts. So what else
> is new?
Oh, I see - you're obsessed with "asses". In Europe this is a word for
donkeys - don't know if you know this
Andy
Edward Dolan
>> M. was a Serbian thug and war criminal. Only Croatia knew how to kick
>> Serbian ass.
>
> I think you must be unaware of how abysmally ignorant you are about
> European history.
What the hell is there to know about the god damn Balkans, except that they
all hate one another. But the Serbs are the worst of the lot. The US is
presently being Balkanized and we will end up with a lot of different ethnic
groups too - all hating one another. Another gift from the diversity crowd
of scumbag liberals.
>> There is nothing we would like to do better, but the g.d. Europeans will
>> not
>> pull their weight in the world.
>
> So how come Bush calls the United Nations "irrelevent" when he wants
> to do something and they don't? Do you want other countries to have
> more influence or not? Or is it OK when Europeans back the USA but not
> OK when they don't?
The Europeans have been out to lunch ever since the end of WWII. They depend
totally on the US for their security, as does all the rest of the free
world. Please, do not ever mention the UN when in my presence. It will only
make me puke!
>> Typical liberal hogwash! How about I diplomacy up your ass!
>
> Does this mean anything?
It means 'diplomacy' is just another scumbag liberal word for doing nothing.
>> Just a couple of liberal assholes sniffing one another's butts. So what
>> else
>> is new?
>
> Oh, I see - you're obsessed with "asses". In Europe this is a word for
> donkeys - don't know if you know this.
Anyone who sides with Tom Sherman on any subject other than recumbents is an
asshole. What the hell do you think I have been doing here for the past 5
years?
SLAVE of THE STATE
> (e.g., that Americans only have the
> rights that are spelled out explicitly in the Constitution).
The constitution purportedly spelled out the enumerated powers the fed-
guv was to be granted by the people.
rr skools failin us?
SLAVE of THE STATE
> I'm in the UK - I guess one benefit of not having a constitution is
> that it doesn't get out of date.
An unwritten postitivist "living constitution" was exactly what was
*not* wanted by the founders. Hence the Stone Tablets we call a
constitution. But no matter, it is a dead letter, a mere parchment
barrier.
Tom Kunich
news:1f37e27f-5c51-492e...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
It doesn't take a whole lot of reading of Tim to get that feeling.
SLAVE of THE STATE
> "A well regulated militia being
> necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to
> keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That version makes it clear
> the the intent of the right of owning and bearing arms is specifically
> for the purpose of having an armed militia available to defend the
> nation.
No, "the nation" was the union of the States. They are talking in
plain language about free States, and their people, defending
themselves, not the nation.
They are saying, point blank, that the federal guvmint had no power to
regulate arms whatsoever. And this *should* have been obvious as the
constitution itself granted the fed-guv no power to regulate arms.
Whatever power there would have been to regulate arms would have been
left to the states, who were considered, by and large, to be
sovereign, except for what was explicitly spelled out and granted to
the fed-guv.
Tom Kunich
>
> Would a militia (as opposed to individuals) have a need for artillery?
> Does the Second Amendment allow individuals to own heavy weapons?
Do you understand what a militia is? "The term militia is commonly used
today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide
defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of
emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term
of service."
The military is responsible for things like armor, heavy weapons etc. The
militia is only responsible for themselves and sometimes the light weapons
they would normally carry in service.
Tom, why are you trying to make it seem like the founders were complete
fools? Is that to impress people with your powers of analysis? You seem an
unusually intelligent person yet you insist on arguing over any point you
can find.
Tom Kunich
>
> Iraq was a much safer place - only about 30,000 murdered under Hussein,
> plus 250,000 to 500,000 casualties in the proxy war fought for the US
> against Iran.
Why is it that you don't have any problems accepting those numbers?
> Compare to the million plus dead and 5 million refuges created by the
> neo-colonial conquest of Iraq by the US.
And grab those as if they were gospel?
In both Iraq and Pakistan we're seeing those really wonderful "freedom
fighters" committing suicides in the middle of poor religious gatherings
murdering old men, women and children. And somehow it hasn't yet sunken into
the heads of people such as yourself what precisely we're fighting.
Tom Kunich
>
> How does one explain the existence of free societies with almost
> non-existent personal gun ownership?
Completely homogenous racial groups tend to get along a great deal better
than mixed groups.
> The guns will not help you if the government decides to come for you. Just
> ask the Branch Davidians in Waco.
Why are you complaining about the acts of your pal Bill Clinton?
Tom Kunich
news:gk2ha4d4meq4dmqin...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:54:30 -0500, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
> said in <7dd0d$48a881d6$29...@news.teranews.com>:
>
>>We gun owners keep you free, just as the Founders knew. It's good to
>>live where this is a discussion.
>
> No you don't. Where I live we have a very low homicide rate and
> strict gun controls.
Do I need to point out that you can be grabbed by the navy and put on a ship
against your will at any time?
Bill C
That's what all their other writings say. The stacks of evidence would
take several tractor trailers to move, but since when has factual
supporting documentation meant anything to true believers determined
to strip citizens of their rights?
When that becomes indefensible, then they go with the "living"
constitution argument despite the fact thst most of what they are
legislating is directly in opposition to everything the Founders
intended for the Country.
I've said it before, and it's still true IMO, these folks beliefs and
actions have much more basis in Marx, Stalin, and Trotsky than they do
in Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and Franklin.
Bill C
Tom Kunich
news:e8ef5be9-396e-4516...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> I've said it before, and it's still true IMO, these folks beliefs and
> actions have much more basis in Marx, Stalin, and Trotsky than they do
> in Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and Franklin.
Amen brother. If they can't have socialism they'll destroy Democracy anyway.
Just zis Guy, you know?
com> said in <WJCdnZM8L9jdOzXV...@earthlink.com>:
>Do I need to point out that you can be grabbed by the navy and put on a ship
>against your will at any time?
You might need to point that out, since as far as I know I can't. I
think that's one of those old chestnuts that is no longer true; we
also removed hanging for arson in a naval dockyard some years back.
Bill C
wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Germany, The Soviet States, etc...werer much safer under their
leadership than under freedom too, if you don't count the governmet
actions. Iraq could be corrected quite quickly using these actions you
find so attractive.
How's disarming the folks worked out in Jamaica?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/01/060103_murderlist.shtml
Jamaica 'murder capital of the world'
PJ Patterson: crime is Jamaica's most pressing problem
Crime in the Caribbean region - especially that resulting in murder -
continues to concern authorities.
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/lrnylstk.htm
The country that I think has the most direct application for us,
however, is one that we don't have a lot in common with, and that's
Jamaica. In response to a sharply rising crime rate in Jamaica in the
early 1970s, the government imposed complete gun prohibition. In fact,
possession of a bullet meant a mandatory life sentence in prison.
There was a special gun court where people would be tried in secret
for gun possession offenses. And in conjunction with this tremendous
crackdown on guns, they also did everything else that you can imagine
Oliver North or Ross Perot doing to our Bill of Rights in your worst
nightmares. They had gun sweeps, drug sweeps, militarized law
enforcement, the government breaking into people's houses, with no
probable cause at all, to look for illegal weapons and drugs. Every
kind of oppressive measure you could want, censorship of violent
television and movies, everything you could want in terms of "let's
get really serious and crack down and get rid of all these silly
constitutional liberties that are standing in the way of rough and
tough law enforcement," they did. What happened was the crime rate and
the homicide rate dropped substantially for the first six months. They
then started to rise again, got back to their old levels, and within a
few years were far ahead of their old levels, and a few years later
were at double and triple the levels which had inspired this kind of
crackdown in the first place.
Bill C
Espressopithecus
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
> A. Muzi wrote:
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >> On 17 Aug 2008 18:00:54 GMT, Barry Harmon <john...@optonline.net>
> >> said in <Xns9AFD8E9FAC499jo...@209.197.15.254>:
> >>
> >>> The crime drop is the one thing that the anti-gun forces both can't
> >>> explain and choose to ignore.
> >>
> >> And the pro-gun forces ignore the inconvenient fact that the highest
> >> rates of homicide are in the countries with the highest rates of gun
> >> ownership.
> >>
> >> How many of these militant gun owners are members of the
> >> well-regulated militia?
> >
> > What, like Chicago and DC with the oldest and most draconian bans?
> >
> > We gun owners keep you free, just as the Founders knew. It's good to
> > live where this is a discussion.
>
> How does one explain the existence of free societies with almost
> non-existent personal gun ownership?
>
and much lower murder rates than the US, such as Canada. We know gun
ownership is correlated with many other phenomena, but we don't really
understand the causal relationships.
One thing is for sure -- having drug dealers and gang members roaming
the streets carrying guns isn't exactly a good thing. But how to stop
it? Unfortunately, anti-gun laws don't appear to do it.
Java
Dan O
>
> Tom, why... ? ... you insist on arguing over any point you
> can find.
:-)
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g8a29j$njs$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> Would a militia (as opposed to individuals) have a need for artillery?
>> Does the Second Amendment allow individuals to own heavy weapons?
>
> Do you understand what a militia is? "The term militia is commonly used
> today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to
> provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in
> times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a
> fixed term of service."
>
> The military is responsible for things like armor, heavy weapons etc.
> The militia is only responsible for themselves and sometimes the light
> weapons they would normally carry in service.
>
> Tom, why are you trying to make it seem like the founders were complete
> fools? Is that to impress people with your powers of analysis? You seem
> an unusually intelligent person yet you insist on arguing over any point
> you can find.
>
The founders were certainly not as unambiguous as they could have been
when writing the Second Amendment.
Tom Sherman
with the two party monopoly, and entry to Congress priced in the
millions of dollars.
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g8a1ta$njs$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> Iraq was a much safer place - only about 30,000 murdered under
>> Hussein, plus 250,000 to 500,000 casualties in the proxy war fought
>> for the US against Iran.
>
> Why is it that you don't have any problems accepting those numbers?
>
in trying to justify the conquest of Iraq are about as credible as
their claims of massive Iraqi stocks of "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION".
>> Compare to the million plus dead and 5 million refuges created by the
>> neo-colonial conquest of Iraq by the US.
>
> And grab those as if they were gospel?
>
The methodology is well established. No one had any problems accepting
the same methodology for numbers killed in Rwanda or Darfur. But wait,
those killings were not done by the US/UK.
> In both Iraq and Pakistan we're seeing those really wonderful "freedom
> fighters" committing suicides in the middle of poor religious gatherings
> murdering old men, women and children. And somehow it hasn't yet sunken
> into the heads of people such as yourself what precisely we're fighting.
>
People resisting foreign occupation?
Of course, Kunich is only going to believe what fits his ideology.
Tom Sherman
> On Aug 17, 4:34 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g89obf$h9r$3...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> Hmm apparently you don't understand that the Constitution overrules
>>>>> any lesser laws. Also you seem to have missed the point that after
>>>>> gun control laws were voided in places like Florida, crime took a
>>>>> HUGE drop. But of course you may pretend otherwise.
>>>> Having most everyone armed has also resulted in huge drops in violence
>>>> in places like Iraq.
>>> Yeah, you're right - Iraq was a much safer place when only Saddam
>>> Hussein was "disappearing" people literally by the thousands. It was so
>>> much safer than today when people can defend themselves.
>> Iraq was a much safer place - only about 30,000 murdered under Hussein,
>> plus 250,000 to 500,000 casualties in the proxy war fought for the US
>> against Iran.
>>
>> Compare to the million plus dead and 5 million refuges created by the
>> neo-colonial conquest of Iraq by the US.
>>
>
> leadership than under freedom too, if you don't count the governmet
> actions. Iraq could be corrected quite quickly using these actions you
> find so attractive.
Really? The US would need to put millions of troops on the ground to do
so. Get those draft boards organized.
> How's disarming the folks worked out in Jamaica?
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/01/060103_murderlist.shtml
>
> Jamaica 'murder capital of the world'
>
> PJ Patterson: crime is Jamaica's most pressing problem
> Crime in the Caribbean region - especially that resulting in murder -
> continues to concern authorities.
>
The crime is the result of letting an elite oppress the people into dire
poverty. Ever notice how much lower violent crime rates are when poverty
is effectively eliminated?
> http://www.davekopel.com/2a/LawRev/lrnylstk.htm
>
> The country that I think has the most direct application for us,
> however, is one that we don't have a lot in common with, and that's
> Jamaica. In response to a sharply rising crime rate in Jamaica in the
> early 1970s, the government imposed complete gun prohibition. In fact,
> possession of a bullet meant a mandatory life sentence in prison.
> There was a special gun court where people would be tried in secret
> for gun possession offenses. And in conjunction with this tremendous
> crackdown on guns, they also did everything else that you can imagine
> Oliver North or Ross Perot doing to our Bill of Rights in your worst
> nightmares. They had gun sweeps, drug sweeps, militarized law
> enforcement, the government breaking into people's houses, with no
> probable cause at all, to look for illegal weapons and drugs. Every
> kind of oppressive measure you could want, censorship of violent
> television and movies, everything you could want in terms of "let's
> get really serious and crack down and get rid of all these silly
> constitutional liberties that are standing in the way of rough and
> tough law enforcement," they did. What happened was the crime rate and
> the homicide rate dropped substantially for the first six months. They
> then started to rise again, got back to their old levels, and within a
> few years were far ahead of their old levels, and a few years later
> were at double and triple the levels which had inspired this kind of
> crackdown in the first place.
>
The Ross Perot quote casts doubt on the rest of the analysis. Ross Perot
made a fortune on no-bid government contracts, but was not more opposed
to civil rights than the run of the mill corporatist.
The above analysis also neglects to mention that this increase in
violence also coincided with the imposition of neo-liberal economic
policies.
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g8a1ks$lnp$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> How does one explain the existence of free societies with almost
>> non-existent personal gun ownership?
>
> Completely homogenous racial groups tend to get along a great deal
> better than mixed groups.
>
Are not the racial problems in the US the result of centuries of racist
policies by the dominant white majority?
>> The guns will not help you if the government decides to come for you.
>> Just ask the Branch Davidians in Waco.
>
> Why are you complaining about the acts of your pal Bill Clinton?
>
Dude, I never voted or supported Bill Clinton. By his actions, Clinton
was a (small c) conservative president.
Tom Sherman
Tom Sherman
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:29:16 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> said in <WJCdnZM8L9jdOzXV...@earthlink.com>:
>
>> Do I need to point out that you can be grabbed by the navy and put on a ship
>> against your will at any time?
>
> You might need to point that out, since as far as I know I can't. I
> think that's one of those old chestnuts that is no longer true; we
> also removed hanging for arson in a naval dockyard some years back.
>
Bill C
Nope the Shiites would be happy to exterminate anyone objecting, it
worked for Hussein using the minority Sunnis. Don't let reality
interfere, even when you cited it.
> > How's disarming the folks worked out in Jamaica?
>
> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/01/060103_murderlist.s...
>
> > Jamaica 'murder capital of the world'
>
> > PJ Patterson: crime is Jamaica's most pressing problem
> > Crime in the Caribbean region - especially that resulting in murder -
> > continues to concern authorities.
>
> The crime is the result of letting an elite oppress the people into dire
> poverty. Ever notice how much lower violent crime rates are when poverty
> is effectively eliminated?
>
Yep, once again we have the Stalinist approach and psycho liberal
answer. Typical. Noone is responsible for their behavior, and no Stae
excess is unexcuseable as long as it's done in the name of the
"people".
Zeig Heil Mein Freund! Power to the Proletariat!
>
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Freedom as long as it's controlled by the "peoples" government.
Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, East Germany, Cambodia, Tibet all salute
and support you for supporting their enslavement!
Bill C
Tom Sherman
fantasy world. The real world works a bit differently.
>>> How's disarming the folks worked out in Jamaica?
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/01/060103_murderlist.s...
>>> Jamaica 'murder capital of the world'
>>> PJ Patterson: crime is Jamaica's most pressing problem
>>> Crime in the Caribbean region - especially that resulting in murder -
>>> continues to concern authorities.
>> The crime is the result of letting an elite oppress the people into dire
>> poverty. Ever notice how much lower violent crime rates are when poverty
>> is effectively eliminated?
>>
> Yep, once again we have the Stalinist approach and psycho liberal
> answer. Typical. Noone is responsible for their behavior, and no Stae
> excess is unexcuseable as long as it's done in the name of the
> "people".
> Zeig Heil Mein Freund! Power to the Proletariat!
>
Ever notice how right-wingers trot out the strawmen and red herrings at
the first sign of challenge to their ideology based conclusions? The
above is too silly to deserve any further response.
> Freedom as long as it's controlled by the "peoples" government.
> Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, East Germany, Cambodia, Tibet all salute
> and support you for supporting their enslavement!
Apparently Bill C? is incapable of a reasoned argument, so he trots out
all the old "Red Scare" propaganda.
--
Paul M. Hobson
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Tom, why are you trying to make it seem like the founders were
>> complete fools? Is that to impress people with your powers of
>> analysis? You seem an unusually intelligent person yet you insist on
>> arguing over any point you can find.
Tom Sherman wrote:
> The founders were certainly not as unambiguous as they could have been
> when writing the Second Amendment.
At the time, it probably was quite unambigous. Muzzle-loading guns, and
various blades were available to ordinary folk. Not sure who made
cannons, but I doubt many could have afforded them back then. Not much
of a military buff - what other arms were available?
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
.:change the f to ph to reply:.
Bill C
authoritarian governments. Those you love were examples of those.
Freedom is messy. I'll take messy freedom any day:
'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' -
Benjamin Franklin
>
>
>
>
> >>> How's disarming the folks worked out in Jamaica?
> >>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/01/060103_murderlist.s...
> >>> Jamaica 'murder capital of the world'
> >>> PJ Patterson: crime is Jamaica's most pressing problem
> >>> Crime in the Caribbean region - especially that resulting in murder -
> >>> continues to concern authorities.
> >> The crime is the result of letting an elite oppress the people into dire
> >> poverty. Ever notice how much lower violent crime rates are when poverty
> >> is effectively eliminated?
>
> > Yep, once again we have the Stalinist approach and psycho liberal
> > answer. Typical. Noone is responsible for their behavior, and no Stae
> > excess is unexcuseable as long as it's done in the name of the
> > "people".
> > Zeig Heil Mein Freund! Power to the Proletariat!
>
> Ever notice how right-wingers trot out the strawmen and red herrings at
> the first sign of challenge to their ideology based conclusions? The
> above is too silly to deserve any further response.
Because you can't refute it in any intellectually honest way.
>
> > Freedom as long as it's controlled by the "peoples" government.
> > Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, East Germany, Cambodia, Tibet all salute
> > and support you for supporting their enslavement!
>
> Apparently Bill C? is incapable of a reasoned argument, so he trots out
> all the old "Red Scare" propaganda.
>
What a crock of shit. HRW and Amnesty have nicely documented their
actions, and the continuing actions in places like Vietnam, Tibet, and
China, but you don't want to discuss those records.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
> She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill C
A Muzi
> Does the National Guard have any weapons larger than a rifle?
YGBSM. You should get out more.
There are enough A10s at Truax to destroy this city.
not even talking F16s. Sheesh.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Tom Kunich
>
> Yeah, and the Shia would then by happy to be US puppets. Only in neo-con
> fantasy world. The real world works a bit differently.
After all, they've always been so ready to follow the US lead.
> Ever notice how right-wingers trot out the strawmen and red herrings at
> the first sign of challenge to their ideology based conclusions?
Excuse me but exactly what is that you just did?
>> Freedom as long as it's controlled by the "peoples" government.
>> Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, East Germany, Cambodia, Tibet all salute
>> and support you for supporting their enslavement!
>
> Apparently Bill C? is incapable of a reasoned argument, so he trots out
> all the old "Red Scare" propaganda.
Somehow history is on Bill's side and a long way off of yours.
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:g8a1ks$lnp$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> How does one explain the existence of free societies with almost
>>> non-existent personal gun ownership?
>>
>> Completely homogenous racial groups tend to get along a great deal better
>> than mixed groups.
>>
> Ah, the racial behavior expertise of Kunich.
My I hadn't considered that. So I guess you don't have any way to refute my
statement.
> Are not the racial problems in the US the result of centuries of racist
> policies by the dominant white majority?
Here's a clue - my father and his brothers couldn't attend public school
because they were Slav. Luckily that went away before my youngest aunt got
to high school age. You don't see Slav's fighting society. Oh, and in case
you weren't aware of it, the word "slave" comes from the name of my race.
Unlike blacks we weren't enslaved for a hundred years. It was more like a
thousand years.
Chinese and Japanese were sorely treated in the USA and yet they are some of
the highest achievers with the lowest crime rates.
So maybe you'd like to explain the "racial problem" in the USA?
> Dude, I never voted or supported Bill Clinton. By his actions, Clinton was
> a (small c) conservative president.
Uh, THAT'S why he instituted so many socialist policies! I had wondered
about that.
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:e8ef5be9-396e-4516...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> I've said it before, and it's still true IMO, these folks beliefs and
> >> actions have much more basis in Marx, Stalin, and Trotsky than they do
> >> in Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and Franklin.
>
> > Amen brother. If they can't have socialism they'll destroy Democracy
> > anyway.
>
> If you have not noticed, Democracy is in pretty poor shape in the US,
lol. I think one party would make it a monopoly, if "mono-" means
anything at all.
But if you're saying they are merely brands of the same thing, well...
Tim McNamara
A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2008 18:00:54 GMT, Barry Harmon <john...@optonline.net>
> > said in <Xns9AFD8E9FAC499jo...@209.197.15.254>:
> >
> >> The crime drop is the one thing that the anti-gun forces both
> >> can't explain and choose to ignore.
> >
> > And the pro-gun forces ignore the inconvenient fact that the
> > highest rates of homicide are in the countries with the highest
> > rates of gun ownership.
> >
> > How many of these militant gun owners are members of the
> > well-regulated militia?
>
> What, like Chicago and DC with the oldest and most draconian bans?
>
> We gun owners keep you free, just as the Founders knew. It's good to
> live where this is a discussion.
It is good to live where this discussion among others can be had, but it
is rather arrogant for gun owners to claim that they are what is keeping
me free. The only freedom of mine that gun owners have protected is the
right to own a gun, in which I have no interest.
Locally at least, gun owners have been a greater danger to the right to
continue breathing than they have been defenders of freedom. There have
been zero reported successful self-defenses by permitted gun owners in
Minnesota since the conceal and carry law was passed in 2003. There has
been no decrease in the number of murders, typically 45-55 per year in
Minneapolis; the overall crime rate has in Minneapolis dropped slightly
thus far in 2008 versus 2007 but this appears to be related to various
law enforcement initiatives and not to the efforts of law-abiding gun
owners. There has been a spate of murders by gunshot this summer.
Unfortunately too many gun owners just parrot the empty rhetoric of the
NRA, long on assumptions and short of facts (just as too many anti-gun
people also parrot the empty rhetoric of the other side).
Tom Sherman
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Does the National Guard have any weapons larger than a rifle?
>
> YGBSM. You should get out more.
>
> There are enough A10s at Truax to destroy this city.
> not even talking F16s. Sheesh.
It was a rhetorical question for TK, who said militia would only have
light weapons.
Tom Sherman
Well, both parties feed at the same campaign contribution trough.
Tom Sherman
Can Bill C? debate honestly, or does he just throw out falsehoods like a
talk show host?
> 'Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither' -
> Benjamin Franklin
>>
Gee, but the political right in the US has been advocating restrictions
on many freedoms in the name of security for the last 6+ years.
>>>>> How's disarming the folks worked out in Jamaica?
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/01/060103_murderlist.s...
>>>>> Jamaica 'murder capital of the world'
>>>>> PJ Patterson: crime is Jamaica's most pressing problem
>>>>> Crime in the Caribbean region - especially that resulting in murder -
>>>>> continues to concern authorities.
>>>> The crime is the result of letting an elite oppress the people into dire
>>>> poverty. Ever notice how much lower violent crime rates are when poverty
>>>> is effectively eliminated?
>>> Yep, once again we have the Stalinist approach and psycho liberal
>>> answer. Typical. Noone is responsible for their behavior, and no Stae
>>> excess is unexcuseable as long as it's done in the name of the
>>> "people".
>>> Zeig Heil Mein Freund! Power to the Proletariat!
>> Ever notice how right-wingers trot out the strawmen and red herrings at
>> the first sign of challenge to their ideology based conclusions? The
>> above is too silly to deserve any further response.
>
> Because you can't refute it in any intellectually honest way.
Bill C? commenting on intellectually honest debating? There is an irony!
>>> Freedom as long as it's controlled by the "peoples" government.
>>> Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, East Germany, Cambodia, Tibet all salute
>>> and support you for supporting their enslavement!
>> Apparently Bill C? is incapable of a reasoned argument, so he trots out
>> all the old "Red Scare" propaganda.
>>
> What a crock of shit. HRW and Amnesty have nicely documented their
> actions, and the continuing actions in places like Vietnam, Tibet, and
> China, but you don't want to discuss those records.
What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Get a clue on
what a rational debate is, Bill C.
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g8acu5$uq1$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> Yeah, and the Shia would then by happy to be US puppets. Only in
>> neo-con fantasy world. The real world works a bit differently.
>
> After all, they've always been so ready to follow the US lead.
>
>> Ever notice how right-wingers trot out the strawmen and red herrings
>> at the first sign of challenge to their ideology based conclusions?
>
> Excuse me but exactly what is that you just did?
>
No.
>>> Freedom as long as it's controlled by the "peoples" government.
>>> Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, East Germany, Cambodia, Tibet all salute
>>> and support you for supporting their enslavement!
>>
>> Apparently Bill C? is incapable of a reasoned argument, so he trots
>> out all the old "Red Scare" propaganda.
>
> Somehow history is on Bill's side and a long way off of yours.
>
Bill C. is mostly claiming false positions of others, which is dishonest.
Tom Sherman
> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g8abmp$nhm$2...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunset...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g8a1ks$lnp$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>
>>>> How does one explain the existence of free societies with almost
>>>> non-existent personal gun ownership?
>>>
>>> Completely homogenous racial groups tend to get along a great deal
>>> better than mixed groups.
>>>
>> Ah, the racial behavior expertise of Kunich.
>
> My I hadn't considered that. So I guess you don't have any way to refute
> my statement.
>
differences, the only problems are causes by illogical and immoral
racism. In the US, there is a well documented history of white
supremacist racism, that only legally ended a few decades ago.
>> Are not the racial problems in the US the result of centuries of
>> racist policies by the dominant white majority?
>
> Here's a clue - my father and his brothers couldn't attend public school
> because they were Slav. Luckily that went away before my youngest aunt
> got to high school age. You don't see Slav's fighting society. Oh, and
> in case you weren't aware of it, the word "slave" comes from the name of
> my race. Unlike blacks we weren't enslaved for a hundred years. It was
> more like a thousand years.
>
Not in the US.
> Chinese and Japanese were sorely treated in the USA and yet they are
> some of the highest achievers with the lowest crime rates.
>
They were not brought here as slaves (totally destroying culture) and as
heavily discriminated against as people of black African descent. Duh.
> So maybe you'd like to explain the "racial problem" in the USA?
>
Simple - a culture created by slavery and perpetuated by discrimination
that continues to this day. When the rules of society are rigged against
a group, many of the members of that group no longer feel the need to be
bound by ANY of the rules. If Kunich actually got out and met some
people he would realize this.
>> Dude, I never voted or supported Bill Clinton. By his actions, Clinton
>> was a (small c) conservative president.
>
> Uh, THAT'S why he instituted so many socialist policies! I had wondered
> about that.
>
Socialist policies by Clinton? What planet have you been on? Kunich is
insane if he thinks Bill Clinton was a socialist or promoted socialist
policies.
Under Clinton, the social safety net was cut further than Reagan or Bush
I attempted, NAFTA was passed, the financial industry was deregulated, etc.
Tom Kunich
> A. Muzi wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Does the National Guard have any weapons larger than a rifle?
>>
>> YGBSM. You should get out more.
>>
> I hear the Wisconsin 128th on their training flights.
>
>> There are enough A10s at Truax to destroy this city.
>> not even talking F16s. Sheesh.
>
> It was a rhetorical question for TK, who said militia would only have
> light weapons.
Psst - National Guard is not "militia".
Tom Kunich
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> Unless you believe that there are inherent racial behavioral differences,
> the only problems are causes by illogical and immoral racism. In the US,
> there is a well documented history of white supremacist racism, that only
> legally ended a few decades ago.
So you're saying the Chinese don't have different reaction patterns because
of the society they grew up in compared to people of East Anglia? Japanese
don't react differently to some stimuli than Africans?
>> Unlike blacks, Slavs weren't enslaved for a hundred years. It was more
>> like a thousand years.
>>
> Not in the US.
Well, that makes a world of difference doesn't it?
>> Chinese and Japanese were sorely treated in the USA and yet they are some
>> of the highest achievers with the lowest crime rates.
>>
> They were not brought here as slaves (totally destroying culture) and as
> heavily discriminated against as people of black African descent. Duh.
Psst - Americans bought slaves - they were captured almost entirely by OTHER
black tribes and sold to Arabs. By the way - black slaves were sold ALL over
the world. They were treated the best here.
> If Kunich actually got out and met some people he would realize this.
I was born in and grew up in an almost entirely black neighborhood in
Oakland. But I'm sure that you've had a much more instructive bringing up.
Andy Evans
about the US Constitution and its interpretations. We have a complete
gun ban in the UK, but what we are seeing is an epidemic of knife
crime instead. This may be quite unrelated since it appears to be
teenagers who are using knives and adults who are using guns. As has
been said regarding Jamaica etc. there may be multiple factors at work
and it is hard to make the correct attributions.
Andy
Bill C
>
> What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? Get a clue on
> what a rational debate is, Bill C.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"In our country are evangelists and
zealots of many different political,
economic and religious persuasions
whose fanatical conviction is that
all thought is divinely classified
into two kinds -- that which is
their own and that which is false
and dangerous."
-- Justice Robert H. Jackson
(1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
You are NO different than the neocon nutcases, just a different
flavor of authoritarian true believer.
Bill C
Tom Kunich
news:d807c94a-ebd7-4b48...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Andy, I think that pretty much shows that some people are very violent and
it requires a strong society to control those urges. When society in the
form of the local government don't take rapid and rather strong actions
these hotheads can simply run wild.
Tom Kunich
>
> "In our country are evangelists and
> zealots of many different political,
> economic and religious persuasions
> whose fanatical conviction is that
> all thought is divinely classified
> into two kinds -- that which is
> their own and that which is false
> and dangerous."
> -- Justice Robert H. Jackson
> (1892-1954), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
>
> You are NO different than the neocon nutcases, just a different
> flavor of authoritarian true believer.
He will never understand that Bill.
Barry Harmon
017f87...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
The tragic thing about the people who want authoritarian rulers and
systems is that they don't realize that come the revolution, they are
the first ones up against the wall or hanging from the light pole.
The last thing the revolutionary doers want is a bunch of yammerers
hanging around.
Barry Harmon
Bill C
>
> Andy, I think that pretty much shows that some people are very violent and
> it requires a strong society to control those urges. When society in the
> form of the local government don't take rapid and rather strong actions
> these hotheads can simply run wild.
And the answer is NOT to disarm the law abiding folks. It should be
pretty clear, but doesn't seem to be to a lot of folks, that criminals
who break the law, will, and do break weapons laws. So the net effect
is to punish and endanger the law abiding while doing little to
nothing to the criminals.
Lots of places where they have fairly draconian wepaons bans and
violent crime has stayed the same or risen. The there are places like
our State of Vt., or Switzerland where weapons are freely available,
or mandatory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Gun crime
Further information: Gun violence and Crime in Switzerland
Police statistics for the year 2006[11] records 34 killings or
attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving
bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault
resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed
weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving
firearms since the early 1990s. Some 300 deaths per year are due to
legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being
suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are
perpetrated with army ordinance weapons, while the majority of gun
crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[
It's a societal problem, and stripping freedoms from law abiding
people isn't the answer. To answer the inevitable crying "What about
the suicides???WHahh", people should be free to choose to end their
lives, how they choose as long as it doesn't physically injure others.
Period. As for the domestic violence we are well down the road to
banning guns, knives, baseball/cricket bats, etc... where doews that
end?
The issue is people, not objects.
Bill C
Espressopithecus
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
> Ever notice how right-wingers trot out the strawmen and red herrings at
> the first sign of challenge to their ideology based conclusions?
>
Strawman arguments are equally likely to be offered by up by left-
wingers as right-wingers.
Java
Espressopithecus
@REMOVETHISyahoo.com says...
Java
Tom Kunich
news:Xns9AFE64B07A46Ejo...@209.197.15.254...
>
> The tragic thing about the people who want authoritarian rulers and
> systems is that they don't realize that come the revolution, they are
> the first ones up against the wall or hanging from the light pole.
>
> The last thing the revolutionary doers want is a bunch of yammerers
> hanging around.
As you say, Tom would be the first one to the gallows. Of course it would be
a private ceremony in which thousands of his kind were quietly disposed of.
Even though history is replete with that sort of thing the communists never
learn that the power hungry would use them and discard them without a single
thought.
Tom Kunich
news:b5238c40-6efe-4d11...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> people should be free to choose to end their
> lives, how they choose as long as it doesn't physically injure others.
Given their choice it appears that Liberals believe that the government
should save people from themselves. Of course these sorts of people end up
jailing or otherwise locking away people intent on doing themselves in.