Gunners...SHEESH!
NoGuns4You
They want their guns to be above all sane and rational controls because:
1 - It's a Constitutional "Right"
2 - The "gummit" will turn on its own people, so we better be ready to fight.
3 - When the (fill in the blank) invade, we will be the ones holding them
off.
4 - We want to be able to kill anyone at the drop of a hat and guns are the
best
tool for that job.
Here's the facts they don't seem to want to recognize:
1 - The second amendment does not guarante the right of an individual to own
guns. It allows individuals who are members of state organized militias to own
guns for defense of the state only. Get that? Not for personal defense, not
for home defense, but for state defense. Gunner whine and cry that "everyone
is the militia" but that pure BS. EVERYONE is not the militia. Only those few
who sign up to enroll are militia members. Everyone else is in the pool of
possible members. If you use gunner logic, we everyone in the world works for
Microsoft because Microsoft *might* call you up and tell you to come to Redmond
to sweep out Bill's Lexus. If you gunners were serious in any way about
exercising the "right" to keep and bear arms, you'd be in the national guard or
your organized and well-regulated state militia forces.
2 - Just what is it about gunners that makes them think they can hold off a
professional fighting force? The big argument is "the troops wont shoot fellow
Americans" but most of these gunners have declared that *they* will fire upon
their fellow Americans. Who looks more dangerous to Ma and Pa at home when
they tune to Dan Rather? It sure isnt the men and women in uniform.
3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
rifle that holds back that armored column.
4 - The public is tired of gunners exercising their "right" in drive-by
shootings, schooyard masacres and post office firefights.
Your guns will be banned.
Your guns will be taken away.
Get used to it now.
Take up a new hobby, like bowling.
That's it,
No Guns 4 U!
alf sauve
1. The 2nd Amendment says ".....the right of the people", just like the 1st
and 4th. Unless of course you knew that and think those only apply to
select groups, not to individuals also.
2. Holding off professional soldiers? Let see, does Vietnam or Afghanistan
ring any bells?
3. see above.
4. You are sadly mistaken if you think any of these things are rights.
(Boy do you have it all wrong.) No I don't believe in the right to shoot
other people as you imply. Of course when you don't have facts on your side
you resort to name calling and innuendoes to confuse the issues.
Alf
.
NoGuns4You wrote in message <19981228115541...@ng136.aol.com>...
>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
[snip some]
tudor
>On 28 Dec 1998 16:55:41 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War era
>must have forced nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) to write:
>
>>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
>
><Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
>
>You are a hopeless idiot. Go back under your bridge. Swine.
More ad hominum as usual
David Voth
must have forced nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) to write:
>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
<Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
You are a hopeless idiot. Go back under your bridge. Swine.
*PLONK*
--
Spamtrap in effect due to excessive crap.
For email reply, use drv<numeral one><at>concentric<dot>net
tudor
>On 28 Dec 1998 16:55:41 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War era
>must have forced nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) to write:
>
>>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
>
><Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
>
>You are a hopeless idiot. Go back under your bridge. Swine.
You gun-nuts know all about bigotry. Better re-read your Turner Diaries
again fool
Bill Stockwell
: Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
: They want their guns to be above all sane and rational controls because:
: 1 - It's a Constitutional "Right"
: 2 - The "gummit" will turn on its own people, so we better be ready to fight.
: 3 - When the (fill in the blank) invade, we will be the ones holding them
: off.
: 4 - We want to be able to kill anyone at the drop of a hat and guns are the
: best
: tool for that job.
: Here's the facts they don't seem to want to recognize:
: 1 - The second amendment does not guarante the right of an individual to own
: guns. It allows individuals who are members of state organized militias to own
: guns for defense of the state only. Get that? Not for personal defense, not
: for home defense, but for state defense. Gunner whine and cry that "everyone
: is the militia" but that pure BS. EVERYONE is not the militia. Only those few
: who sign up to enroll are militia members. Everyone else is in the pool of
: possible members. If you use gunner logic, we everyone in the world works for
: Microsoft because Microsoft *might* call you up and tell you to come to Redmond
: to sweep out Bill's Lexus. If you gunners were serious in any way about
: exercising the "right" to keep and bear arms, you'd be in the national guard or
: your organized and well-regulated state militia forces.
The second amendment simply reaffirms a God given and PRE-EXISTING right to
self defense. As do many state constitutions, who say NOTHING about any
militia.
: 2 - Just what is it about gunners that makes them think they can hold off a
: professional fighting force? The big argument is "the troops wont shoot fellow
: Americans" but most of these gunners have declared that *they* will fire upon
: their fellow Americans. Who looks more dangerous to Ma and Pa at home when
: they tune to Dan Rather? It sure isnt the men and women in uniform.
Ask the Russians who fought in Afghanistan. Ask the British who fought the
militia at Lexington and Concord. Put it this way-- I sure as hell prefer
my chances ARMED as opposed to UNARMED.
: 3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
: rifle that holds back that armored column.
Your incorrect bigotry notwithstanding, you would be surprised at how well an
armed citizenry can resist if push comes to shove.
: 4 - The public is tired of gunners exercising their "right" in drive-by
: shootings, schooyard masacres and post office firefights.
At least 99.4% of guns are never used in these ways, and likewise the vast
majority of gun owners never do these things.
: Your guns will be banned.
: Your guns will be taken away.
If so I hope you enjoy your new life as a slave.
: Get used to it now.
: Take up a new hobby, like bowling.
: That's it,
: No Guns 4 U!
We'll see about that :)
--
Bill Stockwell: Department of Computing Science, University of Central Oklahoma
<http://www.comsc.ucok.edu/~stockwel/>
"Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Society is safer when criminals don't know
who is armed."
PLMerite
NoGuns4You wrote in message <19981228115541...@ng136.aol.com>...
>
>Your guns will be banned.
>Your guns will be taken away.
>Get used to it now.
>Take up a new hobby, like bowling.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Not you, not mine, not ever.
Put your ass where your big mouth is, volunteer for confiscation duty if
your fascist fantasy comes true anywhere. Don't obligate young soldiers and
dumb cops to get killed to bring about your govt'-as-nanny wet dream.
Idiots like you are the very reason I have the higher-end weaponry I do, and
why I went out of my way to acquire the knowledge to employ them
EFFECTIVELY. Does that make you feel good?
>That's it,
>No Guns 4 U!
Regards, PLMerite
Dean, Greg
>><Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
>>
>
>again fool
Look asshole, you are not a cop nor are you a member of the
military. What fucking right do you have to tell me how to live
my life? I do not subscribe to the Turner Diaries nor have I
read them. I find you to a jerk.
I do not need some coward, who thinks my life is worth less
than his because he is an over educated asshole, who wants
me to die to defend him because is too much a coward to defend
himself. So but we in the police and the military have no responsibility
to die for you. Hell, we do not even have to defend you.
Robert J. Christman
Damn, Ray (aka: GunsBGone) has gotten another free AOL
subscription. Wish they would quit sending him those
things.
--
Bob C. NRA Endowment USN (Ret)
Michael Richmann
>
> On 28 Dec 1998 10:15:08 PST, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth) wrote:
>
> >On 28 Dec 1998 16:55:41 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War era
> >must have forced nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) to write:
> >
> >
> >
>
You are quite overqualified to judge on that account.
--
Mike
Ian Underwood
>Here's the facts they don't seem to want to recognize:
> 1 - The second amendment does not guarante the right of an individual to own
>guns. It allows individuals who are members of state organized militias to own
>guns for defense of the state only.
That's not a fact, it's an opinion, and an unsupported one.
> 2 - Just what is it about gunners that makes them think they can hold off a
>professional fighting force?
They pay attention to history.
>The big argument is "the troops wont shoot fellow
>Americans" but most of these gunners have declared that *they* will fire upon
>their fellow Americans.
That doesn't seem to be anyone's argument except yours. The big
argument is, the troops won't know which Americans to shoot, because
they won't know which ones will have guns, and the ones with guns will
look, talk, and act just like the ones who don't.
> 3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
>rifle that holds back that armored column.
Possibly not. But John and Jane Citizen can raise the cost of
victory and occupation to an unacceptable level.
Obviously you're just trolling, but at least put some effort into it.
David Voth
era must have forced tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") to write:
>On 28 Dec 1998 10:15:08 PST, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth) wrote:
>
>>On 28 Dec 1998 16:55:41 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War era
>>must have forced nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) to write:
>>
>>>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
>>
>><Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
>>
>>You are a hopeless idiot. Go back under your bridge. Swine.
>
>More ad hominum as usual
I only resort to ad hominem in response to ad hominem. The post I was
responding to was one big fat pile of insults and bigotry. I feel
thoroughly justified.
Happy New Year!
David R. Voth
San Diego, California
USA
David Voth
era must have forced tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") to write:
<snip>
>You gun-nuts know all about bigotry. Better re-read your Turner Diaries
>again fool
I haven't read them, asshole.
Lazamataz
> No Guns 4 U!
Love, and more guns to you! I will buy a brand new model 19 S&W revolver
BECAUSE you posted today, and it will be a gift to my previously unarmed
cousin for his upcoming birthday! Keep doing your part to spread the joy
guns bring!
RD Thompson
>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
>
>They want their guns to be above all sane and rational controls because:
> 1 - It's a Constitutional "Right"
Nope. It exists outside the Consituttion. See Cruickshank 92 US 542
(1876)
> 2 - The "gummit" will turn on its own people, so we better be ready to fight.
Nope, at least not yet. The "gummit" is seriously eroding our Bill of
Rights, particularly the Fourth and Sixth Amendments in its misguided
attempts in the War on Drugs.
> 3 - When the (fill in the blank) invade, we will be the ones holding them
>off.
Since I don't know who you are putting in the blank, I can't answer
this one.
> 4 - We want to be able to kill anyone at the drop of a hat and guns are the
>best tool for that job.
This is so much bullshit. I have carried guns on and off for over 40
years and have not killed a soul.
>
>Here's the facts they don't seem to want to recognize:
> 1 - The second amendment does not guarante the right of an individual to own
>guns.
Correct. It is a right that exists outside the Constitution and is
not dependent on it.
> It allows individuals who are members of state organized militias to own
>guns for defense of the state only. Get that? Not for personal defense, not
>for home defense, but for state defense.
Correct. The Second Amendment does not grant a right of self defense.
That right is a natural one.
>Gunner whine and cry that "everyone
>is the militia" but that pure BS. EVERYONE is not the militia. Only those few
>who sign up to enroll are militia members. Everyone else is in the pool of
>possible members.
Wrong. The members of the militia is very explicitly spelled out in
10 USC 311.
>If you use gunner logic, we everyone in the world works for
>Microsoft because Microsoft *might* call you up and tell you to come to Redmond
>to sweep out Bill's Lexus.
Microsoft and Bill Gates are mentioned in the Constitution? Hot
damn., learn something new everyday.
>If you gunners were serious in any way about
>exercising the "right" to keep and bear arms, you'd be in the national guard or
>your organized and well-regulated state militia forces.
Why? That right exists ourside the Constitution.
> 2 - Just what is it about gunners that makes them think they can hold off a
>professional fighting force? The big argument is "the troops wont shoot fellow
>Americans" but most of these gunners have declared that *they* will fire upon
>their fellow Americans. Who looks more dangerous to Ma and Pa at home when
>they tune to Dan Rather? It sure isnt the men and women in uniform.
The men and women in uniform are also some of us. The US does not
know how to fight a war on its own turf. How can they sort out the
good guys from the bad guys? Declare war on everyone not in uniform?
> 3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
>rifle that holds back that armored column.
Of course not. We have the US Army for that.
> 4 - The public is tired of gunners exercising their "right" in drive-by
>shootings, schooyard masacres and post office firefights.
Why don't you get off your ass and try to resolve some of the reasons
why drive-bys, schoolyard shootings, etc.. happen? Too difficult for
you and no soundbytes that good on TV.
Sleep well tonight.....
RD (Sandman)
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman
Bill of Rights - The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution providing
for *individual* rights, freedoms and protections.
Black's Law, 6th Edition
Liberals wish to rid us of guns....conservatives wish to rid us of drugs...
Between the two, they are ridding us of our rights and freedom....
Sandman, (1997)
The biggest gap between liberals and conservatives is the blank space
between the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution.
Paraphrased - "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do" Peter McWilliams.
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is
not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it dependent in any manner on
that instrument for its existence."
Cruickshank 92 US 542 (1876)
no...@noplaceinparticular.com
>
> Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
You don't *have* perspective. Having your head up your ass
precludes you having any vision at all.
> Here's the facts they don't seem to want to recognize:
> 1 - The second amendment does not guarante the right of an individual to own
> guns.
Nyah, nyah, nyah. Yes it does. You can repeat it as often as you like,
but it won't change anything!
> EVERYONE is not the militia.
You're right. Only males, between 18 and 45. Not that that has anything
to do with the right to keep and bear, loser.
> 2 - Just what is it about gunners that makes them think they can hold off a
> professional fighting force?
Oh, how about Afganistan, Viet Nam, even Korea...
> 3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
> rifle that holds back that armored column.
Heh heh, wanna bet?
> Your guns will be banned.
> Your guns will be taken away.
I sure hope you're at the front of the line, loser...
> Get used to it now.
> Take up a new hobby, like bowling.
Heh heh, we bowl *too*!
You know, you're not even a very entertaining troll...
Steve Hix
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
> Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
>
> They want their guns to be above all sane and rational controls because:
False, not to mention misleading. The problem you have with them is
that they perfer to set limits on acceptable behavior...you think
that means is more important than intent.
> 1 - It's a Constitutional "Right"
> 2 - The "gummit" will turn on its own people, so we better be ready to
fight.
> 3 - When the (fill in the blank) invade, we will be the ones holding them
> off.
> 4 - We want to be able to kill anyone at the drop of a hat and guns are the
> best
> tool for that job.
>
> Here's the facts they don't seem to want to recognize:
> 1 - The second amendment does not guarante the right of an individual to own
> guns. [snippy]
Try again, cf "U.S. vs Verdugo-Urquidez".
> 2 - Just what is it about gunners that makes them think they can hold off a
> professional fighting force?[snippity]
Ask the Army about dealing with an urban insurrection. They don't like the
idea. (Don't forget that a lot of the insurrectos will either be, or be
trained by, veterans of the same military that they will be fighting.)
> 3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
> rifle that holds back that armored column.
Nope. Sugar and dirt in the fuel do a lot more to bollix up the works.
> 4 - The public is tired of gunners exercising their "right" in drive-by
> shootings, schooyard masacres and post office firefights.
noguns4you confuses criminal misbehavior with exercising a right.
Well, that's where he starts downhill.
pyotr filipivich
>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
Okay.
>They want their guns to be above all sane and rational controls because:
Well, there you go again - what perspective are you frothing
from?
> 1 - It's a Constitutional "Right"
It is.
> 2 - The "gummit" will turn on its own people, so we better be ready to fight.
And you have an iron clad guarantee that this is never going to
happen? That the Government will always be peopled by honest an
incorruptible individuals who will not abuse their positions of power?
Can I interest you in a bridge?
> 3 - When the (fill in the blank) invade, we will be the ones holding them
>off.
It is a constitutional duty of the militia.
> 4 - We want to be able to kill anyone at the drop of a hat and guns are the
>best tool for that job.
So there you are - this last one is a description of a
psychopath. Doesn't that make you special?
How would you feel if you were described as just the sort of
fascist wannabe that would denounce their own mother if they thought it
would get them in good with the local authorities?
>Here's the facts they don't seem to want to recognize:
> 1 - The second amendment does not guarante the right of an individual to own
>guns. It allows individuals who are members of state organized militias to own
Two wrongs in one sentence.
The right is "of the people". The same people who are to be
free in their person and possession from unwarranted search and
seizures, who have the freedom of speech and to assemble peace-ably to
petition congress (and I'd gather anyone else they care to) for redress
of grievances.
>guns for defense of the state only. Get that? Not for personal defense, not
>for home defense, but for state defense. Gunner whine and cry that "everyone
>is the militia" but that pure BS. EVERYONE is not the militia.
You are correct sir! (Gotta stop watching Dysney's "Hercules"
with the niece.) Only those between the ages of 18 and 45 are considered
to be in the militia. Those on active duty with either Federal or State
forces (but considering that the several states are prohibited from
keeping armies in time of peace ... it's moot. Currently.), and certain
elected officials are also considered exempt.
Which means that those in that class are part of the unorganized
milita. Which is no where near your fantasy of being employed by
Mircosoft because you might get a call.
Besides, that's what the "well-regulated" part is about. When
the time comes, you'll now what to do. You may need to dig out the manual
again, but you'll know what to do. No 'waiting for a call from MS HR.'
as it were."
> Only those few
>who sign up to enroll are militia members. Everyone else is in the pool of
>possible members. If you use gunner logic, we everyone in the world works for
>Microsoft because Microsoft *might* call you up and tell you to come to Redmond
>to sweep out Bill's Lexus. If you gunners were serious in any way about
>exercising the "right" to keep and bear arms, you'd be in the national guard or
>your organized and well-regulated state militia forces.
Well, considering that a) Microsoft isn't a constitutionally
required entity, I'd say your point is moot.
Unfortunately for you, the National Guard is no longer a State
force. It is now an integral part of the regular Federal Army's reserve
components. Oops.
> 2 - Just what is it about gunners that makes them think they can hold off a
>professional fighting force? The big argument is "the troops wont shoot fellow
>Americans" but most of these gunners have declared that *they* will fire upon
>their fellow Americans. Who looks more dangerous to Ma and Pa at home when
>they tune to Dan Rather? It sure isnt the men and women in uniform.
Ah - the old "If it came to a stand up fight, no bunch of
"militiamen" could stop the US army." This is true, and the US army
knows that nobody can stand up to them. Not even the US Army.
But somewhere along the lines, the gun-phobes, like noguns here,
failed to make any study of the art of war, so their ignorance is
understandable. What they don't know is that for several thousand years
(When did Sun Tzu right his book?) the smart commander doesn't attack
his enemy's strength with his own forces weakness.
Which means, in plain English, that were the US to be invaded,
the militia would be a) supprt tot he regualr forces, or b) partisans.
Militias/partisans do not want to stand up and slug it out with the
invaders. (That's what the regualrs are for). But they can do all
manner of mean nasty things to tie up the enemy for the regulars.
> 3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
>rifle that holds back that armored column.
Nope. That's what the A-10s are for. Assuming the Air Force
hasn't gotten ride of them all because they're "air to mud" and not
sexy.
But the militia is very good at one thing. "Plant rice by day,
kill imperialist running dogs by night."
> 4 - The public is tired of gunners exercising their "right" in drive-by
>shootings, schooyard masacres and post office firefights.
Actually this "public" is tired of "free speechists" exercising
their "right" to inflammatory rhetoric, criminal advocacy, and slanderous
actions. I'm tired of idiots who concentrate on the felonious _use_ of
_one_ technological artifact, and blithely refuse to apply their "logic"
to other technological artifacts when those are used to commit felonies.
It's not the crime that really concerns them, nor is it the death of
innocents, it's the guns. They really don't seem to care if a woman is
raped, as long she can't threaten the rapists with a gun.
They seem not to care how many women are beaten or killed by
stalkers, as long a she can't chose to defend herself with a gun.
They give the impression that they believe that they will never
be old or infirm or otherwise incapable of warding off aggressors by the
shear force of their aura.
>Your guns will be banned.
>Your guns will be taken away.
>Get used to it now.
>Take up a new hobby, like bowling.
Maybe you would feel better if the government decided that your
"disturbing the peace" arrest was the equivalent of a treason
conviction, and restrict your rights accordingly?
I'm afraid the rabid anti-gun nuts are equally as unlearned in
history and the human condition. Apparently they seem to feel that if
only the guns were gone, then there would never be another evil event.
Being the complete unlearned fools that they are, it never occurs to them
that they are advocating the return of "might makes right" and "to the
victor" goes the spoils.
Unless they have the delusion that they'll be one of the
victors.
--
pyotr filipivich, AKA Nickolai Petrovich.
"Do not argue with the forces of nature,
for you are small, insignificant, and biodegradable."
James F. Mayer
>
>On 28 Dec 1998 10:15:08 PST, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth)
wrote:
>
>>On 28 Dec 1998 16:55:41 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War era
>>must have forced nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) to write:
>>
>>>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
>>
>><Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
>>
>>You are a hopeless idiot. Go back under your bridge. Swine.
>
>You gun-nuts know all about bigotry. Better re-read your Turner
Diaries
>again fool
We know all about your bigotry, tudor. I have some of yours saved.
Want to see them again?
William Hughes
(NoGuns4You) wrote:
>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
>
>They want their guns to be above all sane and rational controls because:
> 1 - It's a Constitutional "Right"
> 2 - The "gummit" will turn on its own people, so we better be ready to fight.
> 3 - When the (fill in the blank) invade, we will be the ones holding them
>off.
> 4 - We want to be able to kill anyone at the drop of a hat and guns are the
>best
> tool for that job.
>
>Here's the facts they don't seem to want to recognize:
> 1 - The second amendment does not guarante the right of an individual to own
>guns. It allows individuals who are members of state organized militias to own
>guns for defense of the state only. Get that? Not for personal defense, not
>for home defense, but for state defense.
False. The Second Amendment reads, in part. "the right of the people". If you
refer to U.S. v Verdugo-Urquidez, a Supreme Court case, you will find that "the
people" is defined as each individual citizen of the United States. Strike One.
> Gunner whine and cry that "everyone
>is the militia" but that pure BS. EVERYONE is not the militia. Only those few
>who sign up to enroll are militia members. Everyone else is in the pool of
>possible members. If you use gunner logic, we everyone in the world works for
>Microsoft because Microsoft *might* call you up and tell you to come to Redmond
>to sweep out Bill's Lexus. If you gunners were serious in any way about
>exercising the "right" to keep and bear arms, you'd be in the national guard or
>your organized and well-regulated state militia forces.
False. Title 10 United States Code Section 311 clearly defines the militia. Most
of the populace is already a part of the militia -- no affirmative "sign up" is
required. Strike Two.
> 2 - Just what is it about gunners that makes them think they can hold off a
>professional fighting force?
Most of us are former members of that "professional fighting force", therefore,
we have been exposed to the same training. The disparity in skills that you
imply does not exist. Strike Three -- Yer Out!! Next batter.
> The big argument is "the troops wont shoot fellow
>Americans" but most of these gunners have declared that *they* will fire upon
>their fellow Americans.
Many active duty, Reserve and Guard troops have already indicated that they will
desert rather than follow orders to fire on American civilians. Those military
personnel who will follow those orders will be, by their actions, the enemies of
the people of the United States. Strike One.
> Who looks more dangerous to Ma and Pa at home when
>they tune to Dan Rather? It sure isnt the men and women in uniform.
Oh, really? Ma and Pa are busy watching their Social Security and/or retirement
funds being taxed into oblivion. What little is left goes to buy groceries at
ever increasing prices. Ma and Pa have little reason to trust anyone...
Strike Two.
> 3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
>rifle that holds back that armored column.
Bigotry. Strike Three -- Yer Outta There!! Next Batter
Tianamen Square -- a young man armed with a shopping bag held up an armored
column for several minutes. Strike One.
Tankers can't stay buttoned up indefinately. When they do open their hatches,
that deer rifle will become useful. Strike Two.
> 4 - The public is tired of gunners exercising their "right" in drive-by
>shootings, schooyard masacres and post office firefights.
Law-abiding citizens, whom you disparagingly refer to as "gunners", are not the
ones committing drive-by shootings, schooyard [sic] masacres [sic] and post
office firefights. Strike Three -- The side is retired.
How does it feel to be wrong nine out of nine times?
>Your guns will be banned.
>Your guns will be taken away.
>Get used to it now.
>Take up a new hobby, like bowling.
>
>
>That's it,
>No Guns 4 U!
In your dreams, bunkie.
This one gets the long sig.
================================================================================
William Hughes, San Antonio, Texas, USA
(Delete underscores in email address before replying)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Rifle Association (1996) - Member ID LSC2838R
Law Enforcement Alliance of America (1998) - Member ID 56081
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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."
Second Amendment, United States Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In memory of 85 un-charged, un-convicted victims of the U.S. government in Waco,
Texas - including over 20 children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_\| /\ |/_ Old hobo sign, meaning "Man in this house has a gun"
\/ \/ with thanks to Eric Oppen (cc...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu)
/____\ (use fixed-pitch font for ASCII graphic)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation.
Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the
only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and
execution is carried out automatically and without pity." (Robert A. Heinlein,
as "Lazarus Long" _Time_Enough_for_Love_ and _The_Notebooks_of_Lazarus_Long_)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Handgun Control, Inc. - The organization that would rather see a woman lifeless
in an alley with her pantyhose knotted around her neck than to see her with a
gun in her hand." (Bang <peat...@concentric.net>)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Quis costodiet ipsos custodes?" [Who will watch the watchers?]
(Juvenal, "Satires", 6:347)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any Jew who sees 'Schindler's List' and doesn't come away wanting every Jew in
the U.S. to own an assault rifle has something very wrong with him."
(Guy Norman LaFrance <Tauru...@aol.com>)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand
ready to do violence on their behalf." (George Orwell)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The core of the gun control movement is made up of people who believe
self-defense is fundamentally wrong and want to legislate their minority moral
belief onto everyone else." (Julia R. Cochrane <jb...@prism.gatech.edu>)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as
a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which
our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
(Charles Austin Beard, American Historian, 1874-1948)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Then I die. But I will not go down easily, and I will not go down alone."
(Captain John Sheridan, Commander, Babylon 5, "In The Shadows of Zha'Ha'Dum")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In Germany the Nazis came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak
up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was
left to speak up."
(Martin Niemoeller, 1892-1984)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The noblest fate that a man can endure is to place his own mortal body between
his loved home and the war's desolation." JEAN V. DUBOIS, Lt.-Col., M.I., rtd.
(_Starship Troopers_, Robert A. Heinlein)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled
and those who have no such desire." (Robert A. Heinlein, as "Lazarus Long"
_Time_Enough_for_Love_ and _The_Notebooks_of_Lazarus_Long_)
sbre...@zdnetmail.com
>On 28 Dec 1998 10:15:08 PST, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth) wrote:
>
>>On 28 Dec 1998 16:55:41 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War era
>>must have forced nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) to write:
>>
>>>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
>>
>><Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
>>
>>You are a hopeless idiot. Go back under your bridge. Swine.
>
>You gun-nuts know all about bigotry. Better re-read your Turner Diaries
>again fool
Glad to see *you're* not a bigot.....Is everyone who owns a gun a
"turner diary "reading, pick-up driving rube?
Please use logic, not emotions. People may take you more seriously.
"If you're not a Socialist at 20, you have no heart. If you're still a
Socialist at 30, you have no head"
NoGuns4You
Gee, buttmunch, many gunners dont use their real names here, so why should I?
NoGuns4You
>military. What fucking right do you have to tell me how to live
>my life?
Ohhhhhhh...so you admit that the military and police have the right to run you
life? GREAT! Turn in your guns, please.
NoGuns4You
>self defense. As do many state constitutions, who say NOTHING about any
>militia.
Sure, God says you can defend yourself. Now point out where it says you can
use a gun to do it!
NoGuns4You
>militia at Lexington and Concord. Put it this way-- I sure as hell prefer
>my chances ARMED as opposed to UNARMED.
Illogical. In both examples given, it was a foreign invader operating on enemy
territory. Thing would be very different if gunners refused the lawful order
issued by Congress and the President to turn in their guns and decided to
fight. Or are you gunners above and beyond the will of the people? More and
more, that will is coming down on the anti-guns side.
>At least 99.4% of guns are never used in these ways, and likewise the vast
>majority of gun owners never do these things.
And that is such a comfort to all the parnets in Jonesboro. "Aren't you glad
those two boys were only part of the 0.6% of gunners who actually listen to the
voices in their heads?"
Assuming that there are 100,000,000 guns in the US (and we've all seen both
sides quote higher numbers), that puts about 600,000 of them in the spotlight
as people killing devices. Would you accept cars that had only a .6% chance of
exploding every time you turned it on? Of course not! 600,000 guns used for
crime is too much. One is too much! Time to lose them all!
NoGuns4You
>your fascist fantasy comes true anywhere. Don't obligate young soldiers and
>dumb cops to get killed to bring about your govt'-as-nanny wet dream.
Surprise, asshole, I WOULD be the first to volunteer for that job and it is
very unlikely that gunners like you would survive a determined effort to round
you up, dead or alive. Personally, I'd prefer dead in your case. Water, air
and food conservation and all that... <vbg>
>Idiots like you are the very reason I have the higher-end weaponry I do, and
>why I went out of my way to acquire the knowledge to employ them
>EFFECTIVELY. Does that make you feel good?
Yup, just remember that we like nothing better than public declarations that
you bought your guns for the specific purpose of fighting the legitimate
government of the United States. Let's see..should this be Exhibit 238 or 239?
NoGuns4You
>BECAUSE you posted today, and it will be a gift to my previously unarmed
>cousin for his upcoming birthday!
Nothing like geometrically increasing the risk of gun death in his household as
a way to celebrate his life and say "I love ya, man!".
Got your pallbearer suit picked out yet?
NoGuns4You
>10 USC 311.
Oh, you mean the part that says males between 18 and 45? Then I guess all you
over the age of 45 better turn in your guns than. You have no legal reason to
keep them under 10 USC 311.
Yeager
> Your guns will be taken away.
> Get used to it now.
> Take up a new hobby, like bowling.
>
>
> No Guns 4 U!
Wake up...WAKE UP......there there... it was a bad dream. Its all over
now...
here...take your medicine
NoGuns4You
>therefore,
>we have been exposed to the same training. The disparity in skills that you
>imply does not exist.
Wanna bet? When was the last time you passed an APFT? CTT test? How good are
you at squad operation in urban or wilderness areas? Noise, light, or fire
discipline? Guess again, goober. "Former members" need quite a bit of
retraining to get back to any decent standards of a professional military. Get
the to FTC!
>Tianamen Square -- a young man armed with a shopping bag held up an armored
>column for several minutes.
Then was most likely arrested and later beaten into a thin red paste. Your
point? The tanks still rolled. The students ran. Things did not change.
>Law-abiding citizens, whom you disparagingly refer to as "gunners", are not
>the
>ones committing drive-by shootings, schooyard [sic] masacres [sic] and post
>office firefights
But they *were* "law-abiding" when they bought their guns.
sbre...@zdnetmail.com
>That's it,
>No Guns 4 U!
By Whatever Means Neccessary..........
Your arguement is without merit.
sbre...@zdnetmail.com
discussion.
>That's it,
>No Guns 4 U!
"If you're not a Socialist at 20, you have no heart. If you're still a
Dick Lander
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
Presumably you also still cling to the presumption that the electorate is
only male.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard W. (Dick) Lander; sportsman,
Macintosh devotee, proponent
of personal liberty.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"[Those] who are trying to read the Second Amendment
out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or
that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in
the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use
the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't
like."--Professor Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School