Why Jews Must Oppose Gun Control

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Comrade Yehudi

unread,
Aug 27, 2001, 8:30:38 PM8/27/01
to
Why Jews Must Oppose Gun Control

(Originally published by JTF.ORG on November 25, 1998)

"Every Jew a .22" was a slogan coined by HaRav (The Rabbi) Meir Kahane.
HaRav Kahane actually preferred other guns to the small-caliber .22, but
used this slogan because it rhymes.

The concept that every Jew must possess firearms and know how to use them is
not a new one. "Jews, learn to shoot!" Zeev Jabotinsky exhorted the Jews of
Europe in the 1920s. It was indeed a requirement to be able to use a firearm
in order to join Jabotinsky's movement in Poland.

However, the vast majority of European Jewry was horrified with the notion
of Jews bearing arms. So European Jews remained unarmed and defenseless, and
when the Germans and the many other European Jew-killers came to destroy
them, the Jews were as usual easy targets.

In pre-Hitler Weimar Germany, the Jews frantically pushed for strict gun
control legislation. Germans, especially in rural areas, were enraged over
this attempt to take their weapons.

Hitler and the Nazis campaigned on a promise to protect the "historic German
right to bear arms." Hitler promised that he would void all "Jew-inspired
anti-gun laws" if elected Chancellor.

Of course, Hitler and the Nazis broke their promise when they did actually
seize power in 1933. One of the first things they did was to seize the vast
majority of guns which law-abiding citizens had in their possession. But the
point here is that gun control efforts by the Jews were instrumental in
giving Hitler crucial ammunition which he was able to use to take over
Germany and implement the Holocaust.

Furthermore, if the Jews had listened to Jabotinsky and were all armed and
fully trained, it would have been far more difficult to annihilate them.

When there were only 50,000 Jewish men, women and children left in the
Warsaw Ghetto, these Jews held out longer against the German Wehrmacht than
all of cowardly France, which had a larger standing army than Germany. Even
though the Jews were divided and fighting among themselves until the end,
with their home-made weapons they killed several thousand German soldiers
and bogged down the German Army for weeks.

Imagine if millions of Jews, fully armed and trained, had put up this type
of resistance. We know from the resistance put up by other groups targeted
for annihilation during World War II, such as the heroic Serbs, that
ferocious armed struggle frustrated German plans to wipe them out. But the
Jews always make the wrong decisions -- the cowardly decisions. The Jews
always trust those who wish to destroy them and mistrust those like
Jabotinsky who come to save them.

When Rabbi Kahane urged Jews in this country to arm and train themselves, he
was condemned in the same manner as Jabotinsky. Imagine if during the Crown
Heights pogrom, the Hassidic Jews had listened to Rabbi Kahane. Would the
black Jew-haters have been able to rampage and murder in a Jewish community
for four days and nights with no resistance? Would Yankel Rosenbaum have
been murdered if had drawn a .45 on the black Nazi mob that came to
slaughter him?

Gun control laws accomplish a number of things, and all of them are
terrible. They take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens so that it
becomes impossible to defend one's home or business from murderous
criminals. These fascistic laws also ensure that the only people in society
who will be armed will be the violent criminals, since they will obtain
their illegal firearms no matter what the law says.

These laws, which self-hating Semitic animals like the Judenrat Senators
Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer play such a prominent role in passing,
also cause tremendous anti-Semitic resentment.

Worst of all, these laws render Jews who wish to defend themselves helpless
in the face of numerous mortal threats that very much endanger the American
Jewish community.

JTF vociferously opposes all gun control laws directed against law-abiding
citizens as unconstitutional, un-American and immoral.


People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 28, 2001, 1:34:51 AM8/28/01
to
SLAVA HA RAV!! He was 100% right.

All women should own guns. All gays should own guns. Most blacks already
own guns :)

TJ

--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!


"Comrade Yehudi" <comrad...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9meoua$1sek2$1...@ID-105309.news.dfncis.de...

David Vorous

unread,
Aug 28, 2001, 9:03:59 PM8/28/01
to
Stylewriter wrote:
>
> comrad...@msn.com commented:

> >Gun control laws accomplish a number of things, and all of them are
> >terrible.
> >
>
> Bollox.

Don't you have a spell checker? It's spelled b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.
And I agree, the above statement is pure BS.
--
David J. Vorous
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com

Clan Cian - Flecti Non Frangi

Kerry Delf

unread,
Aug 29, 2001, 6:03:43 PM8/29/01
to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:

> Stylewriter wrote:
>
> > comrad...@msn.com commented:
> >
> > > Gun control laws accomplish a number of things, and all of them are
> > > terrible.
> >
> > Bollox.
>
> Don't you have a spell checker? It's spelled b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.
> And I agree, the above statement is pure BS.

Either of you (Stylewriter or David Vorous) care to make an attempt at
supporting your assertions? So far all you've done is declare that
Yehudi's statement was "bollocks" or "bullshit." Neither of you (surprise,
surprise) has supported that attack with a list of the wonderful effects
gun control has had.

Let's compare lists, shall we?

- Kerry "I'm not holding my breath" Delf

--
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire,
it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment
should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington

David Vorous

unread,
Aug 29, 2001, 7:29:13 PM8/29/01
to
Kerry Delf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:
>
> > Stylewriter wrote:
> >
> > > comrad...@msn.com commented:
> > >
> > > > Gun control laws accomplish a number of things, and all of them are
> > > > terrible.
> > >
> > > Bollox.
> >
> > Don't you have a spell checker? It's spelled b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.
> > And I agree, the above statement is pure BS.
>
> Either of you (Stylewriter or David Vorous) care to make an attempt at
> supporting your assertions?

Why should we bear the burden of providing support for
assertions? The pro gunners supply only rhetoric and highly
emotional assertions.

People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 4:32:08 AM8/30/01
to
What emotional assertians? What rhetoric? What's to know? The school of
hard knocks - the streets - can inform you. If ordinary people do not have
guns, sure, criminals will have them, outlaws will have them, and the
private security forces, cops and military will have them and you'll be
screaming for more protection from these latter groups. Soon enough,
they'll either kill all the criminals and outlaws, or put them in prisons
and hire them out for cheap labor (it's called slavery). And then? It's
not emotional at all. It's pure logic. That WILL happen.

What's to know? You WANT to rely on a police force, military, security
forces of whatever kind to protect you from "the bad people?" Oh, that's
Big Daddyism. Mommy, Daddy, he's picking on me, help help. Screw that.
It's Big Brother. It's fascism. Big Brother is therefore GIVEN the power,
by your kind, to create a totalitarian, fascist state.

Satanic Reds supports NRA - an unarmed revolutionary is a dead one. And
while we are at it - you can't fight an all out air attack by Big Brother
with AK 47s. Let's get some ICBM's. :) Way to go.

Seriously, I can't FATHOM what kind of logic anti-gun lobbiests are using, I
can't understand their stance on this at all. It makes NO sense. Everytime
I've tried to get one of them to explain why they feel that way, they've
deteriorated into fits of blithering hysteria and lost their ability to
speak. If the Jews had been armed back then, as the first post on this
thread suggested? Shit, there'd have been a fight and the Jews might have
won it. They'd have had a CHANCE. At Warsaw they were armed and, though
outgunned, they gave the Nazi shitheads a dose of their own shit.

TJ

"David Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3B8D7AC9...@thellamaranch.com...


> Kerry Delf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:
> >
> > > Stylewriter wrote:
> > >
> > > > comrad...@msn.com commented:
> > > >
> > > > > Gun control laws accomplish a number of things, and all of them
are
> > > > > terrible.

> > Either of you (Stylewriter or David Vorous) care to make an attempt at


> > supporting your assertions?
>
> Why should we bear the burden of providing support for
> assertions? The pro gunners supply only rhetoric and highly
> emotional assertions.
>
> --
> David J. Vorous
> Yosemite Llama Ranch
> da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
> http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
>
> Clan Cian - Flecti Non Frangi

Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/

People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 5:06:46 AM8/30/01
to
And assertions too, lmao. ah shit...

--


Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!


"People's Commissar" <tanija...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:torui6i...@corp.supernews.com...

Polymathic Endomorph

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:15:24 AM8/30/01
to
Tani;
Exactly! Very well put. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Also the "anti Gunners" tend to be hypocrites of the first order--like
Rosie O Donnel, who whines and whines about "evil gun ownders" but
wouldn't be seen without private armed escourt. Typical attitude of
the "limo-liberal". They also like to admonish working class whites
who bitch about the blacks they have to deal with every day--hah, of
course, THEY never have to live with them. Even rational thinking
blacks see this, everyone does except those "limo-liberals" and their
ilk.

They cloest they come to an "angry Negro" is channel surfing BET, they
don't have to deal with them. Oh well, typical!

It's like self hatred...and it's not just in America. Isreal has the
same problem. The self-hating rats there have OUTLAWED the Kach party,
but allow Arab nationalist parties to exist. Thankfully we still have
Shas though.

Professor Vonroach

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:21:26 AM8/30/01
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:03:43 -0700, Kerry Delf <k...@efn.org> wrote:

>Either of you (Stylewriter or David Vorous) care to make an attempt at
>supporting your assertions? So far all you've done is declare that
>Yehudi's statement was "bollocks" or "bullshit." Neither of you (surprise,
>surprise) has supported that attack with a list of the wonderful effects
>gun control has had.
>
>Let's compare lists, shall we?
>
>- Kerry "I'm not holding my breath" Delf

Quite simple Kerry, guns protect us from the daffy ignorance of punks
like you.

Professor Vonroach

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:25:56 AM8/30/01
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:29:13 -0700, David Vorous
<da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:

>Why should we bear the burden of providing support for
>assertions? The pro gunners supply only rhetoric and highly
>emotional assertions.

Quite true Davy, one gathers fruit with the intention of making a
tasty pie. Exactly what sort of pie do these punks who want to gather
guns want to make? What are their reasons? We know why the nazis
confiscated guns, what is the excuse of this latter-day bunch of
hoodlums

Professor Vonroach

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:30:17 AM8/30/01
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 04:32:08 -0400, "People's Commissar"
<tanija...@myself.com> wrote:
> snipped irrational ravings...
Laddy, you suffer from a serious mental disease known as paranoia. Get
medical attention before you turn from punk to hoodlum and hurt
someone.

Ninure Saunders

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 11:07:03 AM8/30/01
to
In article <torui6i...@corp.supernews.com>, "People's Commissar"
<tanija...@myself.com> wrote:

-
-Seriously, I can't FATHOM what kind of logic anti-gun lobbiests are using, I
-can't understand their stance on this at all. It makes NO sense. Everytime
-I've tried to get one of them to explain why they feel that way, they've
-deteriorated into fits of blithering hysteria and lost their ability to
-speak. If the Jews had been armed back then, as the first post on this
-thread suggested? Shit, there'd have been a fight and the Jews might have
-won it. They'd have had a CHANCE. At Warsaw they were armed and, though
-outgunned, they gave the Nazi shitheads a dose of their own shit.
-
From an OFFICIAL NAZI SITE:

============================================================================

Adolf Hitler has been the favorite whipping boy of the Jewish and
non-Jewish neo-liberal publicists alike for so long now that many persons
have, in all innocence, attributed to him a number of sins of which he was
absolutely blameless.

One of these imaginary sins was the alleged dispossession of the German
civilian population of firearms. American opponents of gun control
legislation are in the unfortunate habit of describing proposed firearms
laws as "Hitlerian" and issuing grim warnings that "it happened in
Germany, and it can happen here," referring of course to their predictions
that gun control advocates are aiming at the total confiscation of
firearms from U. S. citizens.

Well, they are undoubtedly right about what the anti-gun people in
Washington have in mind, but they are dead wrong about Hitler and Germany.
Under Hitler, German citizens were completely free to own and bear
firearms, both long guns and pistols.

Hitler's government recognized the basic rights of self-defense of German
citizens and encouraged cvilian marksmanship and sport shooting. Hitler
himself was an expertpistol shot.

There were no restrictions or licensing requirements at all for long guns
and ammunition, and only minimal licensing requirements for handguns-one
could not, for example, be a convicted felon in National Socialist Germany
and own a handgun legally. These loose gun laws were in force in Germany
until 1945, when the Allies and the Soviets occupied the country. After
that, German civilians in the eastern occupation zone were summarily shot
by Communists (and Allies) if they were found in possession of so much as
a single rifle cartridge.

#############################################################################

Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian

The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
-


Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com

Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com

To send e-mail, remove nohate from address

David Vorous

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 11:30:45 AM8/30/01
to
People's Commissar wrote:
>
> What emotional assertians? What rhetoric? .....

Pot kettle black. See if you can come up with a rational
statement, then we can talk.

David Vorous

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 11:33:32 AM8/30/01
to
Polymathic Endomorph wrote:
>
> Tani;
> Exactly! Very well put. Couldn't have said it better myself.
> Also the "anti Gunners" tend to be hypocrites of the first order....

Actually, the most hypocritical people I've met are
christians, pro-gunners come in close second. They get all
emotional and talk out their ass instead of trying to have a
rational conversation. I guess it's true, the bigger the gun
the bigger the guy thinks his dick is. They're not afraid of
losing their guns, they're afraid of losing their manhood.

David Vorous

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 11:34:29 AM8/30/01
to

But then who is to protect us from idiots like you with guns.

David Vorous

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 11:37:02 AM8/30/01
to

That's right roach, why do these latter-day hoodlums want to
keep their guns? Who do they want to kill or rob with them?

Kerry Delf

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 1:25:28 PM8/30/01
to
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:

> Kerry Delf wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:
> >
> > > Stylewriter wrote:
> > >
> > > > comrad...@msn.com commented:
> > > >
> > > > > Gun control laws accomplish a number of things, and all of them
> > > > > are terrible.
> > > >
> > > > Bollox.
> > >
> > > Don't you have a spell checker? It's spelled b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.
> > > And I agree, the above statement is pure BS.
> >
> > Either of you (Stylewriter or David Vorous) care to make an attempt
> > at supporting your assertions?
>
> Why should we bear the burden of providing support for assertions? The
> pro gunners supply only rhetoric and highly emotional assertions.

Tee-hee! "Bollocks!" "Bullshit!" Truly, these are not "rhetoric and highly
emotional assertions" -- they're well-supported analysis!

<laugh> Right, then. Chalk up another tally-mark for yet another
gun-grabber who is unable to back up his false claims.


A hint for you, David: See, Yehudi's statement above *can* be supported by
a long list o' damage done by gun control...while your denial of it
cannot. No rhetoric or emotional assertions, just the facts, man. Can I
provide this information myself? Sure -- so could anyone who did the
research. Am I gonna? Not if you're not gonna play. So give it a shot,
Davie. Demonstrate to us, without "rhetoric and highly emotional
assertions," just what the clearly positive benefits of gun control have
been. Again: Let's compare lists, shall we?


> David J. Vorous

- Kerry Delf
<k...@efn.org>

jeff george

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 4:10:51 PM8/30/01
to
Kerry Delf (k...@efn.org) wrote:
: On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:
:
: Either of you (Stylewriter or David Vorous) care to make an attempt at

: supporting your assertions? So far all you've done is declare that
: Yehudi's statement was "bollocks" or "bullshit." Neither of you (surprise,
: surprise) has supported that attack with a list of the wonderful effects
: gun control has had.
:

One of its aims is to keep ridiclous types of ammunition (such as teflon)
and ridiculous types of attachments (such as large load clips), things
which have no legit self-defense or sporting purpose, out of public hands.
These things may have military application, but none civilian. But evil
dolts like Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre oppose any reasonable limits
WHATSOEVER.

The idea of destroying gun check records within 24 hours is absurd. It
panders to the paranoia and idiocy of flannel-shirted morons who want
their toys with no limits.

the artist formerly known as IX Corp

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 5:49:44 PM8/30/01
to
In article <RainbowChristiannoh...@1cust72.tnt9.chin.da.uu.net>,

Unless, of course, you happened to be a Jewish German.

-Lupo
"Satan is the king of the world and he drives a big fucking Buick" <i...@io.com>

Kerry Delf

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 5:57:12 PM8/30/01
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Professor Vonroach wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:03:43 -0700, Kerry Delf <k...@efn.org> wrote:
>
> > Either of you (Stylewriter or David Vorous) care to make an attempt at
> > supporting your assertions? So far all you've done is declare that
> > Yehudi's statement was "bollocks" or "bullshit." Neither of you
> > (surprise, surprise) has supported that attack with a list of the
> > wonderful effects gun control has had.
>

> Quite simple Kerry, guns protect us from the daffy ignorance of punks
> like you.

Er...That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Care to try again?

- Kerry Delf
<k...@efn.org>

Kerry Delf

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 6:11:35 PM8/30/01
to da...@thellamaranch.com
[[Newsgroups trimmed and redirected...hope you're not posting from
alt.alien.visitors, David. I've cc'd this in case you are. :) ]]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:

> > Also the "anti Gunners" tend to be hypocrites of the first order....
>
> Actually, the most hypocritical people I've met are christians,
> pro-gunners come in close second. They get all emotional and talk out
> their ass instead of trying to have a rational conversation. I guess
> it's true, the bigger the gun the bigger the guy thinks his dick is.
> They're not afraid of losing their guns, they're afraid of losing
> their manhood.

Sorry, David, you're just spouting off about an inaccurate stereotype
there. *This* is your example of an argument for gun control that *isn't*
based on "rhetoric and highly emotional assertions"?

Amusingly, I'd agree with you on your assessment of Christians being (on
average) the most hypocritical group...but in my opinion it's the
*anti*-gunners who are in the running for the number-two spot.

All of that is neither here nor there, however. You've now made several
posts on this thread, most of them about how gun owners and gun-rights
proponents are hypocritical, emotional and illogical...yet in not a single
one of those posts have you offered any rational argument for gun control.
I invite you to do so. As I've said, we can discuss this...but only if
you'll play too. :)


> David J. Vorous

- Kerry Delf (120-lb. gun-owning female who has no
penis-size issues whatsoever)

People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:31:40 PM8/30/01
to
Obviously you are one of those bleeding heart liberal assholes who has not
YET been mugged at gun point, or not YET been held up by a gun holding thief
and forced to witness your wife getting raped.

Hey, get real. And if this ever happens, if ONLY you had had a gun to
defend yourself, yup.

--


Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!


"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3b942332...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...

People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:34:25 PM8/30/01
to
No one denies that the Nazis had guns. The point is, if the Jews ALSO had
guns they'd have had a fighting chance.

--


Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!


"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RainbowChristiannoh...@1cust72.tnt9.chin.da.uu.net...

People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:42:45 PM8/30/01
to
Sure, I already did. If I have a gun - I am a lot LESS likely to get killed
or harmed when an armed robber breaks into my home. I would much rather
shoot an armed robber breaking into my home, than get beaten half to death
or killed by him - and robbed of things my hard-earned money paid for
honestly.

Simple, yes? You failed to argue your side with the ORIGINAL poster on this
thread, posting for the JTF.

It's very simple - criminals have guns, they will get them one way or the
other; if not guns, some other weapon. YOU want to disarm me and prevent me
from being able to defend myself.

I'm pro NRA, 100% You are making the claim that the entire NRA and
Charleton Heston are nuts and need medicine? I suggest your side needs
medicine, or you people need to get the beating of your lives at the hands
of ARMED CRIMINALS just to beat the common sense into you.

There is no way in hell Americans will STAND for being disarmed. There'll
be a revolution here first.

--


Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!

"David Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message

news:3B8E5C25...@thellamaranch.com...

People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:47:00 PM8/30/01
to
Polymath is Jewish - he's in the Jewish Task Force which honors HA RAV
Kehane.

SLAVA HA RAV!!

--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!


"David Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message

news:3B8E5CCC...@thellamaranch.com...

People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:49:37 PM8/30/01
to
Amendment: we have the RIGHT to bear arms.

Were the framers of these amendments hoodlums? Is Charleton Heston a
hoodlum? Are the NRA people hoodlums?

Go take your tranquilizers.

--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!

"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:3b9321e1...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...

People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 7:59:10 PM8/30/01
to
Woah, out of line.

You make some big assumptions. No one on here defending the NRA stance is a
punk, has a criminal record, or is anything BUT a law-abiding, tax-paying
citizen of a country, the USA, where we have the RIGHT to bear arms.

You can't defend your stance, so you flame the pro NRA people here, you call
us names (wait, I'm defending Delf.... no, can't be)....

Anyway, comparing guns with penises is a no-brainer. Guns are for self
defense against bodily harm and etc., or for shooting enemies in wars.
Penises, on the other hand, create life. The connection doesn't compute
except in the mind of a Freudian psycho.

FTR, neither I nor Kerry have a penis.

TJ


--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!


"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:3b92216f...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...

David Vorous

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 8:17:52 PM8/30/01
to
Kerry Delf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:
>
> > Kerry Delf wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stylewriter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > comrad...@msn.com commented:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Gun control laws accomplish a number of things, and all of them
> > > > > > are terrible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bollox.
> > > >
> > > > Don't you have a spell checker? It's spelled b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.
> > > > And I agree, the above statement is pure BS.
> > >
> > > Either of you (Stylewriter or David Vorous) care to make an attempt
> > > at supporting your assertions?
> >
> > Why should we bear the burden of providing support for assertions? The
> > pro gunners supply only rhetoric and highly emotional assertions.
>
> Tee-hee! "Bollocks!" "Bullshit!" Truly, these are not "rhetoric and highly
> emotional assertions" -- they're well-supported analysis!

Right, it is an analysis if the pro gun lobby.

David Vorous

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 8:21:16 PM8/30/01
to

It's not just toys, these guys gauge their manhood by who has
the bigger gun. If you have to have a gun to be a man, then
you ain't much of a man.

Robert Frenchu

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 9:00:16 PM8/30/01
to
> David Vorous <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in <3B8ED973...@thellamaranch.com> :

>Kerry Delf wrote:
>>
>> [[Newsgroups trimmed and redirected...hope you're not posting from
>> alt.alien.visitors, David. I've cc'd this in case you are. :) ]]
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:
>>
>> > > Also the "anti Gunners" tend to be hypocrites of the first order....
>> >
>> > Actually, the most hypocritical people I've met are christians,
>> > pro-gunners come in close second. They get all emotional and talk out
>> > their ass instead of trying to have a rational conversation. I guess
>> > it's true, the bigger the gun the bigger the guy thinks his dick is.
>> > They're not afraid of losing their guns, they're afraid of losing
>> > their manhood.
>>
>> Sorry, David, you're just spouting off about an inaccurate stereotype

>> there....
>
>No, it's very accurate.
>
>I've trimmed the newsgroups and removed all those that aren't
>interested the BS from the gun lobby. Bye, and plonk.

ROFLMAO Something about her lacking a dick made you nervous, huh Dave?

Joel Crump

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 9:31:58 PM8/30/01
to


Only a Jewish Christian like yourself would care, retard.

--
Joel Crump

Panhead

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 9:27:18 PM8/30/01
to

Bob?
When did you become Jewish?

Should I tell yer Mom?

Should I tell mine?

Do tell me post haste, as I have all these cards I might have to
offer on E-bay.
...especially the "Jewish Christian" ones.

Robert Frenchu

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 11:02:36 PM8/30/01
to
> Joel Crump, Post Alterer <jo...@usa.net> wrote in <j9qtotsii2uucqcdr...@4ax.com> :

I guess when you take enough drugs that makes sense, right Joel Crump,
Post Alterer?

Joel Crump

unread,
Aug 30, 2001, 11:20:03 PM8/30/01
to
Robert Frenchu <robert_frenchu@ya-take_out-hoo.com> wrote:
>> Joel Crump, Post Alterer <jo...@usa.net> wrote in <j9qtotsii2uucqcdr...@4ax.com> :

>>Only a Jewish Christian like yourself would care, retard.

>I guess when you take enough drugs that makes sense, right Joel Crump,
>Post Alterer?


You would know.

--
Joel Crump

natalia

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 12:26:39 AM8/31/01
to

Kerry Delf <k...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.21.010830...@garcia.efn.org...

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:
>
SNIP

>
> A hint for you, David: See, Yehudi's statement above *can* be supported by
> a long list o' damage done by gun control...while your denial of it
> cannot. No rhetoric or emotional assertions, just the facts, man. Can I
> provide this information myself? Sure -- so could anyone who did the
> research. Am I gonna? Not if you're not gonna play. So give it a shot,
> Davie. Demonstrate to us, without "rhetoric and highly emotional
> assertions," just what the clearly positive benefits of gun control have
> been. Again: Let's compare lists, shall we?
>
>
Try: USA ~16,000 homicides a year, UK, ~600 a year. Population ratio ~5:1
Difference: gun control

The US looses the equivalent of a division of troops each year to firearm
deaths.


People's Commissar

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 1:02:01 AM8/31/01
to
Let's check out countries where every citizen is armed. Then compare.

--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!


"natalia" <natal...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3mEj7.124470$B37.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...

Madison

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 4:19:17 AM8/31/01
to
[Note the trimming of newsgroups]

"David Vorous" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
news:3B8D7AC9...@thellamaranch.com...


> Kerry Delf wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, David Vorous wrote:
> >
> > > Stylewriter wrote:
> > >
> > > > comrad...@msn.com commented:
> > > >
> > > > > Gun control laws accomplish a number of things, and all of them
are
> > > > > terrible.
> > > >
> > > > Bollox.
> > >
> > > Don't you have a spell checker? It's spelled b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t.
> > > And I agree, the above statement is pure BS.
> >

> > Either of you (Stylewriter or David Vorous) care to make an attempt at
> > supporting your assertions?
>

> Why should we bear the burden of providing support for
> assertions? The pro gunners supply only rhetoric and highly
> emotional assertions.

Wrong again. As usual, the conservative position is based on facts and
rational thought. Liberal positions are based on pure emotion. The most
comprehensive studies on the impact of gun laws clearly show that allowing
law abiding citizens to carry guns reduces crime and that making guns harder
to own increases crime.

The two most prominent researchers in this field are John Lott and Gary
Kleck. You can do a web search and find a large number of articles an
books. And it should be pointed out that both Lott and Kleck were pro-gun
control liberals before their research proved gun control does more harm
than good. That makes them rare birds indeed - liberals with an open mind.
But note that they do not agree on all the issues.

Here are the books to check out:

More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in
Law and Economics (Chicago, Ill.).) by John R., Jr. Lott (Paperback - July
2000)

Gary Kleck is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent
Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal
organizations. He is a life-long registered Democrat, as well as a regular
contributor to Democratic Party candidates. His books include:

Targeting Guns : Firearms and Their Control (Social Institutions and Social
Change)

Armed : New Perspectives on Gun Control

Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (this won him the Hindelang Award
for the most significant work by a criminologist )

The Great American Gun Debate : Essays on Firearms & Violence
by Don B. Kates, et

If you want something not so long, here are some shorter works and some
excerpts:

Safe Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?cfid=657177&cftoken=38536763&abstract
_id=228534

Safe Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime

JOHN R. LOTT, JR.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?cfid=657177&cftoken=3853676
3&per_id=16317
Yale Law School
JOHN E. WHITLEY
University of Adelaide


March 29, 2000

Yale Law School, Law & Economics Working Paper No. 237

Abstract:
It is frequently assumed that safe storage gun laws reduce accidental
gun
deaths and total suicides, while the possible impact on crime rates
are
ignored. However, given existing work on the adverse impact of other
safety laws, such as safety caps for storing medicine, even the very
plausible assumption of reduced accidental gun deaths cannot be taken
for
granted. Our paper analyzes both state and county data spanning nearly
twenty years, and we find no support that safe storage laws reduce
either
juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage
requirements appear to impair people?s ability to use guns
defensively.
Because accidental shooters also tend to be the ones most likely to
violate the new law, safe storage laws increase violent and property
crimes against low risk citizens with no observable offsetting benefit
in
terms of reduced accidents or suicides. During the first five full
years
after the passage of the safe storage laws, the group of fifteen
states
that adopted these laws faced an annual average increase of over 300
more
murders, 3,860 more rapes, 24,650 more robberies, and over 25,000 more
aggravated assaults. On average, the annual costs borne by victims
averaged over $2.6 billion as a result of lost productivity,
out-of-pocket
expenses, medical bills, and property losses.

Concealed guns prevent mass shootings
New study reveals truth about deterrence

By Jon E. Dougherty

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15159

While much of the nation and most politicians call for increased gun
control measures in the wake of mass murder by two students at
Columbine
High School in Littleton, Colo., April 20, a new study shows that the
best
way to prevent such incidents in the future is to pass more laws that
allow concealed carry of handguns.

The study, completed earlier this month by John R. Lott, Jr. and
William
M. Landes of the Chicago University School of Law, concludes "that the
only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is
the
passage of concealed handgun laws." The study also shows that other
crime
deterrent factors -- such as more police and wider use of the death
penalty -- tend to curb "normal" instances of murder. But they do
little
or nothing to prevent such tragedies as those that have occurred in a
number of the nation's public schools since 1997.

"Not only does the passage of a shall issue law have a significant
impact
on multiple shootings," wrote the authors, "but it is the only law
related
variable that appears to have a significant impact."

"We also find that shall issue laws deter both the number of multiple
shootings and the amount of harm per shooting," said the study. In
addition, the authors discovered that shooting deaths were steadily
increasing before a number of states began passing "shall issue" or
"concealed carry" laws several years ago.


Here are a few other references.

A wonderful, but long and scholarly (293 footnotes), article on the issue of
gun control from a civil liberties aspect is

ALL THE WAY DOWN THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: GUN PROHIBITION IN ENGLAND AND SOME
LESSONS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES IN AMERICA

Joseph E. Olson and David B. Kopel, All the Way Down the Slippery Slope:
Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons For Civil Liberties in America,
22 Hamline L. Rev. 399 (1999).

SUMMARY:

The following is a summary of the article prepared by the Hamline Law
Review.

This article examines the history of gun control legislation in England and
how the nation slid all the way down a slippery slope, from virtually no
restrictions on the right to bear arms to having virtually no right to bear
arms at all. The article encourages no particular point of view regarding
the right to own a gun, nor the propriety of British gun control
legislation. Instead, it focuses on how a widely respected right can be
extinguished, one "reasonable" step at a time.
The essay examines the legal background of the British right to bear arms
and traces its development from ancient times to the late nineteenth
century. It goes on to discuss the unrestricted right to bear arms and the
cultural changes that began to threaten that right, including how social
unrest prior to World War One intensified the pressure for more gun control,
resulting in the creation of a licensing system for rifles and handguns.
This system for gun control expanded in the 1930's, relaxed in the face of
Nazi influence during World War Two, and then regained full force.
The article also looks at the "turbulent" 1960's, when the government
enacted a "mild licensing system" for shotguns, in an effort to assuage the
public outcry for re-imposition of the death penalty following the murder of
three policemen by criminals using guns. It goes on to describe the
administration of the British gun licensing system today and the way that
police discretion makes the system more restrictive, even in the absence of
changes in statutory language. The essay examines the condition s which
have led to the gradual prohibition of firearm ownership in Great Britain
and how "isolated but sensational" crimes are sued to encourage further
prohibition. The essay further examines how armed self defense has gone
from being a good reason to grant a gun license to being prohibited and how
other British civil liberties, such as the freedom of speech and criminal
procedure safeguards have declined. Finally, the essay elaborates on some
of the conditions that make such a fall down the slippery slope possible.

CONCLUSION:

The following is an excerpt from the conclusion of the article, footnotes
omitted:

As with constitutional structure, the American system is considerably more
sound than the British one. Civil liberties organizations such as the
National Rifle association and the American Civil Liberties Union are bolder
than their British counterparts, and better able to articulate strong
theories of right than can withstand heavy political assault and pressure to
balance the right against other interests.
In the United States' political and legal debate, arguments for or against
slippery slopes have heretofore often been made in a simplistic manner, with
little more than assertions that slippery slope dangers do or do not exist.
We hope that this essay can provide a step toward a more complex analysis of
slippery slopes by highlighting some of the elements that can increase or
decrease slippery slope risks.
Slippery slopes are not inevitable, but neither are they imaginary. The
British experience demonstrates that many civil liberties, including the
right to arms, really can slowly slide all the way to the bottom of the
slippery slope. While we have not aimed to convince readers to value any
particular civil liberty, such as arms, speech, or protection from
warrantless searches, we have attempted to show that it is reasonable for
groups that do honor such rights, like the NRA, ACLU, or NACDL, to refuse to
acquiesce in "reasonable" infringements of those rights. Even though, as
John Maynard Keens observed, we are all dead in the long run, persons who
cherish a particular civil liberty want that liberty to endure not just in
their own lifetimes, but in the lives of subsequent generations. In the
long run, the best way to protect a given civil liberty from destruction may
be to resist even the smallest infringements in short run. 22 Hamline L.
Rev. 464-465.

Full text available at http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html as of
this posting. If it's not there, just do a search for the complete title
and you'll get plenty of references.

---

For an excellent article on the philosophical issue of self defense, check
out

A NATION OF COWARDS by Jeffrey R. Snyder available at
http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html and elsewhere.

---

Medical Sentinel: Gun Violence Studies Based on Flawed Methods, Political
Agendas

Most gun violence studies of the past two decades are based
on flawed methodology and unduly influenced by political
agendas, leading to biased and incorrect conclusions..

Those are the findings of a new two-part paper published in
the Spring issue of THE MEDICAL SENTINEL, The Official
Journal of the Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons, special edition titled "Doctors and Guns (Part II)
-- A Failure of the Public Health Model."

Author Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D., editor-in-chief, makes a
compelling case that many studies are prejudiced by the
public health establishment's 1979 stated objective of the
total eradication of handguns in the United States.

He debunks a number of incorrect, widely-accepted claims
promoted by anti-gun interest groups based on tainted
studies, instead proving:

Women in particular, are NOT in more danger if they carry or
own guns;

The ease of access to or availability of guns does NOT cause
crime;

Mass killings would NOT be avoided if guns were not
available;

Gun violence is NOT the leading accidental cause of death in
children.

---

Kids and guns
By Walter Williams

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22561

The fact of the matter is that gun accessibility in our country has
never
been as restricted as it is now. Lott reports that until the 1960s,
New
York City public high schools had shooting clubs. Students carried
their
rifles to school on the subways in the morning, then turned them over
to
their home-room teacher or the gym coach -- and that was mainly to
keep
them centrally stored and out of the way.
Students would retrieve their rifles after school for target practice.
Students regularly competed in citywide shooting contests for
university
scholarships. In Virginia, rural areas had a long tradition of
high-school
students going hunting in the morning before school, and sometimes
storing
their guns in the trunk of their cars during the school day, parked on
the
school grounds.
For most of our history, a person could walk into a hardware store,
virtually anywhere in the United States, and buy a rifle. Few states
even
had age restrictions for buying handguns. Buying a rifle or pistol
through
a mail catalog, such as Sears and Roebuck, was easy. Private transfers
of
guns to juveniles were unrestricted. Often a 12th or 14th birthday
present
was a shiny new .22 caliber rifle, given to a son by his father.
These facts of our history should confront us with the question: with
greater youth accessibility to guns in the past, why wasn't there the
kind
of violence we see with today's much more restricted access to guns?

---

There are lots of articles on how violent crime in the UK and Australia have
soared since they banned guns, surpassing the US. Here are a couple:

Ban fails to halt gun crime

Alison Gray

The Scotsman Online - Scotland's best selling quality national newspaper

THE criminal use of handguns increased by 40 per cent in the two
years immediately after the weapons were banned in the wake of
the
Dunblane shootings, according to a new study.

The number of crimes in which a handgun was reported to have
been
used increased from 2,648 in 1997-98 to 3,685 in 1999-2000, the
report claimed.

This marked the highest point since seven years previously, when
4,273 crimes involved handguns, which were outlawed in Britain
in
1997 following the Dunblane massacre when Thomas Hamilton killed
16
children and their teacher.

The 1997 Firearm (Amendment) Act banned handguns above .22
calibre
and restricted smaller calibre weapons to secure gun clubs. As a
result, 160,000 handguns were surrendered to police.
-----
February 28, 2001
Paul Craig Roberts


The last vestige of civilized Britain has fallen away --
the
unarmed British "Bobbie." For 170 years, British police
functioned
without guns. Since their founding by Sir Robert Peel in 1829,
Bobbies walked their beats armed only with their nightsticks.
Until
the last few years of these 17 decades, the British public was
armed. Now it is the other way around. The police have guns, and
the
law-abiding public doesn't. What happened?
Britain has the most severe "gun control" laws in the
world.
Not even members of the British Olympic Shooting Team are
allowed
pistols. The British are reduced to registered single- and
double-barreled shotguns, and the maximum permitted shell load
is
birdshot.
According to the arguments of gun-control advocates,
Britain
should be safe and crime free. But, alas, violent crime and
robberies have skyrocketed. Gunfights between rival immigrant
gangs
caused the revolution in British policing. In Robin Hood's
Nottinghamshire, constables now patrol in pairs armed with
semi-automatic pistols. They are backed up by armed-response
vehicles (ARVs) stocked with submachine guns.
If gun control makes society safe, why was it necessary to
overthrow British police tradition, arm police with
semiautomatic
weapons and provide machinegun backup? As a test case in gun
control, Britain proves it to be a total failure. The result is
exactly the one predicted by the National Rifle Association:
"When
guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
In Britain, a man's home may be his castle where the king
of
England cannot enter without a warrant, but robbers and rapists
enter at will. It is easier and less risky for a criminal to
have
his way with a victim in the privacy of the victim's home than
in
public. Gun control has made home invasion safe for criminals.

--------

Foes of gun ownership perpetuate many myths
Gregory Kane

The Baltimore Sun Jul 29, 2001

QUICKLY now, who said it?

"The great object is that every man be armed. ... Everyone who
is
able may have a gun."

Most Americans of the liberal/left persuasion, the ones who
believe
guns are evil, might think it's Charlton Heston, president of
the
National Rifle Association. These days, lefty anti-gun nuts
think of
Heston as something akin to the Antichrist. They revile the NRA
with
a passion previously reserved for the Ku Klux Klan and Nazis. So
Heston, of course, would be their prime suspect. No. 2 on the
list
would be anyone associated with the NRA.

But, as in their position on the Second Amendment, they'd be
wrong.
The one who said it was Patrick Henry. You might have heard of
him.
Yeah, the guy of "Give me liberty or give me death" fame. One of
the
Founding Fathers. A patriot. A revolutionary. One of those guys
who
knew the intent of the Second Amendment, because he was there
when
it was written.

That tidbit of information comes from The Seven Myths of Gun
Control, authored by Richard Poe, editor of
FrontPageMagazine.com.
If you're thinking of Poe as another gawd-awful conservative,
you'd
be right. FrontPageMagazine.com is the Web site of conservative
upstart David Horowitz, who caused a ruckus this year by taking
out
an ad in several college newspapers denouncing reparations for
slavery as a bad, racist idea.

It is on that issue of children and guns that the gun
controllers
get most frantic. But that's another of the seven myths that Poe
challenges. It's No. 3 on his list ("Guns pose a special threat
to
children") and Poe destroys it with statistics that show far
more
children die from drowning, burning and car crashes. Those
stories
about kids finding daddy's gun and accidentally shooting
playmates
make poignant news, but, compared to other activities that put
children at risk, simply don't happen that often.

Poe began his book with a tale of how the effort to keep guns
away
from children led to tragedy. In Merced, Calif., a man broke
into
the house of the Carpenter family and stabbed two children to
death.
All five children, ranging in ages from 14 to 7, had been
trained by
their father to use his .357-caliber Magnum. When the man broke
in,
the gun, as California law demanded, was high on a closet shelf
and
unloaded. Alas, the children were home alone. None could reach
the
gun.

The incident occurred last August. Poe stressed that news
reports
made no mention that a gun was in the home and that California
law
prevented any of the children from using it in their defense.
Those
passionate about gun control who are justifiably horrified when
a
child is shot by another playing with a handgun should consider
this: 9-year-old Ashley Carpenter and her 8-year-old brother
John
are just as dead as any child killed accidentally with a
handgun.
The other myths on Poe's list are:

Guns increase violent crime. Not so, Poe says, pointing to John
Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime, which argues that states with
right-to-carry laws have less crime than states that don't. Poe
also
says that England - one of those civilized industrial nations
with
strict gun laws that anti-gun nuts want us to emulate - had 40
percent more muggings than the United States in 1998. Assault
and
burglary rates were 100 percent higher. In the category of "hot
burglaries" - where the thieves enter houses while people are at
home - the rate for the United States is 13 percent of all
burglaries. It's 50 percent in Canada and England.

Any more and I'll have to charge you. :-)

How about a compromise. Liberals keep saying that a gun is a greater danger
to the gun owner than to a criminal who may break into his home. So let's
pass a law preventing liberals from owning guns. That will keep the guns
out of the hands of most of the criminals anyway. :-)


Bert Hyman

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 9:08:09 AM8/31/01
to
i...@bermuda.io.com (the artist formerly known as IX Corp) wrote in
news:Yxyj7.32607$4b5.8...@news6.giganews.com:
> In article
> <RainbowChristiannoh...@1cust72.tnt9.chin.da.uu.net>

>
>>
>>Hitler's government recognized the basic rights of self-defense of
>>German citizens and encouraged cvilian marksmanship and sport
>>shooting.
>
> Unless, of course, you happened to be a Jewish German.

People always conveniently forget that the Jews in Germany were NOT
"German citizens", so all this blather about the right of "German
citizens" to own guns is pure Nazi propaganda.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@visi.com

Eric Pinnell

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 11:57:03 AM8/31/01
to
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:11:35 -0700, Kerry Delf <k...@efn.org> wrote:

>Amusingly, I'd agree with you on your assessment of Christians being (on
>average) the most hypocritical group...but in my opinion it's the
>*anti*-gunners who are in the running for the number-two spot.

Sorry, but limousine liberals are number one. They are the ones
who scream that guns are bad, then go out and have gun toting
bodyguards. They breach morality then go father bsatards out of
wedlock. Look at Jessie Jackson.

>- Kerry Delf (120-lb. gun-owning female who has no
> penis-size issues whatsoever)

I just have to respond to this sig. Does this mean you are:

1) A Lesbian
2) A woman who doesn't care about size, as long as he knows what to
do with it?
3) A woman who has a man who is, well, big.
4) A woman who isn't getting any :-)


Eric Pinnell


Qui Desiderat Pacem, Praeparet Bellum
(Let Him Who Desires Peace, Prepare for War)

Flavius Vegetius Renatus - 3rd Century AD

jeff george

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 5:45:10 PM8/31/01
to
People's Commissar (tanija...@myself.com) wrote:
: Amendment: we have the RIGHT to bear arms.

Actually, that's wrong. The Amendment specifically allows for a
"well-regulated militia." Are you in that well-regulated, officially
recognized militia. No. Therefore the amendment doesn't apply, and
certainly doesn't guarantee squat.

:
: Were the framers of these amendments hoodlums? Is Charleton Heston a


: hoodlum? Are the NRA people hoodlums?

Yes, Charlton Heston values guns over lives. And Wayne LaPierre is a pig.
He reduces every election to a single issue. He has funded campaigns to
defeat well-meaning people based on this one single issue. He has
blinders on. Give me my toys, or I'll put money into fighting you, is
what he says.

jeff george

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 5:47:22 PM8/31/01
to
Japan and the UK have always had low gun ownership, and very low armed
crime rates, and VERY VERY low numbers of gun deaths. Every year the UK
(as an entire nation) loses fewer citizens to gun crime than my town does.

People's Commissar (tanija...@myself.com) wrote:

: Let's check out countries where every citizen is armed. Then compare.

: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:

--
jeff george (no, not the idiot quarterback)
-------------------------------------------
http://yin.interaccess.com/~whizbang
-------------------------------------------
Whizbang's Unholy Empire of Correct opinions

Bill

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 6:33:58 PM8/31/01
to

"jeff george" <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:tp01b6m...@corp.supernews.com...

> People's Commissar (tanija...@myself.com) wrote:
> : Amendment: we have the RIGHT to bear arms.
>
> Actually, that's wrong. The Amendment specifically allows for a
> "well-regulated militia." Are you in that well-regulated, officially
> recognized militia. No. Therefore the amendment doesn't apply, and
> certainly doesn't guarantee squat.

Actually, you are wrong. While the Amendment -mentions- a well-regulated
militia as a reason that personal arms should be beyond the power of Federal
regulation, it does not use any conditional language that would -require- a
well-regulated militia.


an0...@hotmail.com

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 7:12:55 PM8/31/01
to

<

I spent all my life
in uniform fighting
for the survival of
this country...
(there is)
no mercy for the weak,
no second opportunity
for those who cannot
defend themselves.

-EHUD BARAK

jeff george

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 11:04:58 PM8/31/01
to
Bill (N...@Thankyou.com) wrote:
:
: "jeff george" <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote in message

Correct, it's not a requirement. But still, it's obvious that's the point
of the amendment. It's what the authors intended. And that spirit is
what the NRA and their ilk regularly warp for their own purposes.

Bill

unread,
Aug 31, 2001, 11:18:08 PM8/31/01
to

"jeff george" <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:tp0k2qs...@corp.supernews.com...

> Bill (N...@Thankyou.com) wrote:
> :
> : "jeff george" <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
> : news:tp01b6m...@corp.supernews.com...
> : > People's Commissar (tanija...@myself.com) wrote:
> : > : Amendment: we have the RIGHT to bear arms.
> : >
> : > Actually, that's wrong. The Amendment specifically allows for a
> : > "well-regulated militia." Are you in that well-regulated, officially
> : > recognized militia. No. Therefore the amendment doesn't apply, and
> : > certainly doesn't guarantee squat.
> :
> : Actually, you are wrong. While the Amendment -mentions- a
well-regulated
> : militia as a reason that personal arms should be beyond the power of
Federal
> : regulation, it does not use any conditional language that
would -require- a
> : well-regulated militia.
>
> Correct, it's not a requirement. But still, it's obvious that's the point
> of the amendment. It's what the authors intended. And that spirit is
> what the NRA and their ilk regularly warp for their own purposes.

It is -not- obviously the point of the amendment. The subject of the
amendment is that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be
infringed, a reason why they shall not be infringed is secondary.

As for what the authors intended, there is enough literature from that
period and from those authors that reiterates the individual and personal
nature of the right to bear arms that I am surprised that you have not
already read some of it.

I am sure some one who keeps up on these things can provide an
enlightening link.


IX Corp

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 4:05:15 AM9/1/01
to
In article <tp0k2qs...@corp.supernews.com>,

jeff george <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Bill (N...@Thankyou.com) wrote:
>:
>: "jeff george" <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
>: news:tp01b6m...@corp.supernews.com...
>: > People's Commissar (tanija...@myself.com) wrote:
>: > : Amendment: we have the RIGHT to bear arms.
>: >
>: > Actually, that's wrong. The Amendment specifically allows for a
>: > "well-regulated militia." Are you in that well-regulated, officially
>: > recognized militia. No. Therefore the amendment doesn't apply, and
>: > certainly doesn't guarantee squat.
>:
>: Actually, you are wrong. While the Amendment -mentions- a well-regulated
>: militia as a reason that personal arms should be beyond the power of Federal
>: regulation, it does not use any conditional language that would -require- a
>: well-regulated militia.
>
>Correct, it's not a requirement. But still, it's obvious that's the point
>of the amendment. It's what the authors intended. And that spirit is
>what the NRA and their ilk regularly warp for their own purposes.

Good grief; I can't believe people still vomit forth the idiotic claptrap
about the national guard horse shit.

Here it is from the author's pen:
'The American people are unique among all the people in the world because
they need not fear their government; they are armed in a manner similar to
any force the government may send against them.' -James Madison (author of
the 2nd amendment)

-Lupo
"When Xerxes wrote again: 'Deliver up your arms,' Leonidas wrote back:
'Come and take them.'" <i...@fnord.io.com>

Professor Vonroach

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 8:05:23 AM9/1/01
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:45:10 -0000, whiz...@interaccess.com (jeff
george) wrote:

>Actually, that's wrong. The Amendment specifically allows for a
>"well-regulated militia." Are you in that well-regulated, officially
>recognized militia. No. Therefore the amendment doesn't apply, and
>certainly doesn't guarantee squat.

Where in the Amendment does find this "officially recognized"? You
don't understand a militia. What good would an `officially recognized'
militia have done the colonists in 1776?
You are undoubtedly a child who belongs in school learning, not on the
internet spouting off.

Professor Vonroach

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 8:09:30 AM9/1/01
to
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:47:22 -0000, whiz...@interaccess.com (jeff
george) wrote:

>Japan and the UK have always had low gun ownership, and very low armed
>crime rates, and VERY VERY low numbers of gun deaths. Every year the UK
>(as an entire nation) loses fewer citizens to gun crime than my town does.

I suppose data would just confuse you. By the way have you heard of
the new way of anarchist violence sweeping Europe and the UK? These
misguided folks are being tutored by left wing extremist and people of
that ilk. They carry Marxist red flags bearing the face of Mao and
Stalin.

Professor Vonroach

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 8:11:42 AM9/1/01
to
On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 03:04:58 -0000, whiz...@interaccess.com (jeff
george) wrote:

>Correct, it's not a requirement. But still, it's obvious that's the point
>of the amendment. It's what the authors intended. And that spirit is
>what the NRA and their ilk regularly warp for their own purposes.

Obvious only to you. Don't play with the Constitution, kid.

Order In Chaos

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 9:36:15 AM9/1/01
to
>>Japan and the UK have always had low gun ownership, and very low armed
>>crime rates, and VERY VERY low numbers of gun deaths. Every year the UK
>>(as an entire nation) loses fewer citizens to gun crime than my town does.
>
>I suppose data would just confuse you. By the way have you heard of
>the new way of anarchist violence sweeping Europe and the UK? These
>misguided folks are being tutored by left wing extremist and people of
>that ilk. They carry Marxist red flags bearing the face of Mao and
>Stalin.

Of course, don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant ...

*sigh*

Incidentally Australia and New Zealand have a very low gun crime rate,
and have very extensive gun control. And I have friends who live and
work in the UK and in Slovenia who insist that what you're saying
about their countries is the best laugh they've had all week.

--
E-mail: shuttle # global.net.au

"It's all so clear to me
All we feel could really be
Could it all come to this?"

zolota

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 3:12:13 PM9/1/01
to

Professor Vonroach <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3b92cf2b...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...

And the homicide rates are still an order of magnitude lower than in the US.

zolota


jeff george

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 3:37:05 PM9/1/01
to
IX Corp (i...@bermuda.io.com) wrote:
: In article <tp0k2qs...@corp.supernews.com>,

:
ANd yet VERY few Americans actually owned guns back then.

jeff george

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 3:38:19 PM9/1/01
to
Professor Vonroach (vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:47:22 -0000, whiz...@interaccess.com (jeff

: george) wrote:
:
: >Japan and the UK have always had low gun ownership, and very low armed
: >crime rates, and VERY VERY low numbers of gun deaths. Every year the UK
: >(as an entire nation) loses fewer citizens to gun crime than my town does.
:
: I suppose data would just confuse you.

How would data confuse me? I just presented some.

By the way have you heard of
: the new way of anarchist violence sweeping Europe and the UK? These
: misguided folks are being tutored by left wing extremist and people of
: that ilk. They carry Marxist red flags bearing the face of Mao and
: Stalin.

I highly doubt anarchists are going to take over Europe. That's just
paranoia.

jeff george

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 3:36:12 PM9/1/01
to
Bill (N...@Thankyou.com) wrote:
:
: "jeff george" <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
: news:tp0k2qs...@corp.supernews.com...

: > Bill (N...@Thankyou.com) wrote:
: > :
: > : "jeff george" <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
: > : news:tp01b6m...@corp.supernews.com...
: > : > People's Commissar (tanija...@myself.com) wrote:
: > : > : Amendment: we have the RIGHT to bear arms.
: > : >
: > : > Actually, that's wrong. The Amendment specifically allows for a
: > : > "well-regulated militia." Are you in that well-regulated, officially
: > : > recognized militia. No. Therefore the amendment doesn't apply, and
: > : > certainly doesn't guarantee squat.
: > :
: > : Actually, you are wrong. While the Amendment -mentions- a
: well-regulated
: > : militia as a reason that personal arms should be beyond the power of
: Federal
: > : regulation, it does not use any conditional language that
: would -require- a
: > : well-regulated militia.
: >
: > Correct, it's not a requirement. But still, it's obvious that's the point
: > of the amendment. It's what the authors intended. And that spirit is
: > what the NRA and their ilk regularly warp for their own purposes.
:
: It is -not- obviously the point of the amendment. The subject of the

: amendment is that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be
: infringed, a reason why they shall not be infringed is secondary.
:
: As for what the authors intended, there is enough literature from that
: period and from those authors that reiterates the individual and personal
: nature of the right to bear arms that I am surprised that you have not
: already read some of it.
:
: I am sure some one who keeps up on these things can provide an
: enlightening link.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, very few individuals owned
guns. They were expensive, and more people who fed themselves did so
farming than hunting. The govt actually wasn't too hot on people having
their own guns. There were a handful of notable tax rebellions that were
easily put down by a handful of officials with a couple of guns. This set
of facts alone leads me to believe that the original authros weren't big
on the idea of just any old honker having a gun. But being able to arm a
MILITIA was a great idea, in the event they needed to raise an army, since
orignally the idea of a STANDING army was frightening, since such an army
could just as easily overthrow the govt.

Polymathic Endomorph

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 3:51:48 PM9/1/01
to
who gives a fuck about death rate in states verus UK? You mistakenly
assume I give a damn...not everyone shares your faggot ass hippy "love
everyone" values, go fuck yourself

Bill

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 4:01:18 PM9/1/01
to

"jeff george" <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote :
> :

> ANd yet VERY few Americans actually owned guns back then.

At a time when very few people had internet connections, people like you
and me were already sure that the right to have an internet connection
should be assured.


Professor Vonroach

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 5:35:06 PM9/1/01
to
On Sat, 01 Sep 2001 13:36:15 GMT, orderi...@gmx.net (Order In
Chaos) wrote:

>>>Japan and the UK have always had low gun ownership, and very low armed
>>>crime rates, and VERY VERY low numbers of gun deaths. Every year the UK
>>>(as an entire nation) loses fewer citizens to gun crime than my town does.
>>
>>I suppose data would just confuse you. By the way have you heard of
>>the new way of anarchist violence sweeping Europe and the UK? These
>>misguided folks are being tutored by left wing extremist and people of
>>that ilk. They carry Marxist red flags bearing the face of Mao and
>>Stalin.
>
>Of course, don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant ...
>
>*sigh*
>
>Incidentally Australia and New Zealand have a very low gun crime rate,
>and have very extensive gun control. And I have friends who live and
>work in the UK and in Slovenia who insist that what you're saying
>about their countries is the best laugh they've had all week.

Tell them if they want a real belly laugh, to watch the newsreels of
the violence and vandalism. Then they can enjoy their lying eyes. Gee,
it wasn't Australia where a guy took a wild shot at the Prince of
Wales a couple or so years ago, was it? New Zealand has a low crime
rate; really you are stretching and grasping at straws - incidentally
it isn't as low as Antarctica which is not far off. Who ever gets any
news of New Zealand? The area around the North Pole is also notable
for a lack of crime.

Professor Vonroach

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 5:43:51 PM9/1/01
to

Z man, you don't believe all the stories of genocide coming out of the
Balkans and those that took place all over Europe during the last
world war when the guns of the citizens were curtailed? If there was
not another murder in Europe in the next hundred years, the U.S. could
never match their record for murderous rampages, often against unarmed
citizens.

Delila

unread,
Sep 1, 2001, 9:21:07 PM9/1/01
to

Professor Vonroach wrote:
>
>
> New Zealand has a low crime
> rate; really you are stretching and grasping at straws - incidentally
> it isn't as low as Antarctica which is not far off. Who ever gets any
> news of New Zealand? The area around the North Pole is also notable
> for a lack of crime.

That's most likely due to the fact that those areas are very sparsely
populated.


D.

People's Commissar

unread,
Sep 2, 2001, 6:15:35 AM9/2/01
to
Excuse please....

'The American people are unique among all the people in the world because
they need not fear their government; they are armed in a manner similar to
any force the government may send against them.'

By James Madison OH, yeah, he's the guy that wrote up that 2nd amendment,
you know, the amendment?

I don't see the word militia in there. Lemme look over it again. Lemme do
a word search..... Nope. The word "militia" is not in there.

It says, "The American PEOPLE." "are unique in all the people in the world
BECAUSE?" "They need not fear their government, they (the American people)
are armed in a manner similar to ANY FORCE THE GOVERNMENT MAY SEND AGAINST
THEM." I had to do it. Caps lock. That would be, any force that could be
sent against them includine one of those miitias? Yup.

I really don't see how you can deconstruct that, author's intent or not. It
says what it says.

Want to get to the speech about the American people having the obligation,
right, moral duty, etc., to overthrow the government if it fails to be OF,
BY and FOR the people? Guess not. You hate the framers of this country?
You think they were thugs? Well, heh, they were REVOLUTIONARIES - oh my
gawd!

TJ

--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!

"Professor Vonroach" <vonr...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message

news:3b91ce1d...@NNTP.ix.netcom.com...

People's Commissar

unread,
Sep 2, 2001, 6:19:14 AM9/2/01
to
Nechayev on the rise again, eh? What, anarchists non violent? oooook.

--
Satanic Reds http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/
Unique - check it out! www.darktradition.com
Member of the Satanic Council
http://www.geocities.com/sataniccouncil/mainmenu.html
Dark Doctrines part of Satanic Reds Org.
http://www.apodion.com/vad/dark/
http://satanmuse.rules.it/
SLAVA NAM! POWER TO THE WORKING PEOPLE!

"jeff george" <whiz...@interaccess.com> wrote in message

news:tp2e9bb...@corp.supernews.com...