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
Dick Lander
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
> >Gee Mr, "I'm afraid to use my real name",
>
> Gee, buttmunch, many gunners dont use their real names here, so why should I?
If you bother to actually check, you'll find that the majority who use
their real names are pro-gunners--buttmunch. This doubtless has to do with
anti-gunner pacifism, paranoia, elitism, and that which is stated below.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard W. (Dick) Lander; sportsman,
Macintosh devotee, proponent
of personal liberty.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
--Sigmund Freud
Dick Lander
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
> >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.
>
> 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.
I doubt that you'd survive your first day on the job, along with numerous
others who were foolish enough to accept the assignment.
> Personally, I'd prefer dead in your case. Water, air
> and food conservation and all that... <vbg>
Which has led to the old saying that a liberal is only liberal if you agree
with him.
> >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?
Oh, so now *you* are "the legitimate government of the United States" and
someone else isn't? How did you come to that astonishing conclusion? You
have some bizarre thought processes, like anti-gunners often do.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard W. (Dick) Lander; sportsman,
Macintosh devotee, proponent
of personal liberty.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Liberals have many tails, and chase them all."
-- H.L. Mencken
Ben Jacoby
: Your guns will be banned.
: Your guns will be taken away.
: Get used to it now.
: Take up a new hobby, like bowling.
Sorry. In the new gun-free world hobbies will NOT be allowed. And
certainly nothing as frivilous as bowling. Only service to the state
will be permitted and each will be instructed as to what work you
should do. Noguns4you has a list of all gun owners (provided by Brady
registration) and will be assigning you all to the appropriate "work camps".
Those not willing to serve the state after all benefits the state has
provided will be killed in a kindly manner. Resistance is futile.
: That's it,
: No Guns 4 U!
Yep. We understand perfectly!
--
Benjamin Jacoby | "Some rob you with a six-gun and some with
| a fountain pen." ..........Woodie Guthrie
(SPAM GUARD! Delete the no spam letters in name to email.)
Ben Jacoby
:>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.
: 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>
Whoa! Lookie here. Mr. (anonymous) GunsOnly4Me@AOL is really pro-gun! Ke
loves guns. He's ready to use them to murder as many persons as possible
if only it brings about his Nazi "final solution". NOW we know why he
wants noguns4us. Like any schoolyard bully he doesn't want a fight, he
just wants to show how "tough" he is by beating up the defenseless. Is
this guy an ATF troll? I presume once gun owners are taken care of,
he'll move on to "the Jew" and the "negro question".
NoGuns4Nazis !
Robert J. Christman
>
> Mr. Ray, this is the type of extremist I was referring to in our
> discussion.
>
I strongly suspect that THIS IS RAY. He did this before
with one of his "free time on AOL" offers. Then he called
himself "GunsBGone". Don't let Ray fool you, having read
his posts for years, he is quite dedicated to the removal of
ALL civilian ownership of firearms.
--
Bob C. NRA Endowment USN (Ret)
Robert J. Christman
>
> >Wrong. The members of the militia is very explicitly spelled out in
> >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.
>
But my state says I am still in the state militia. And that
I have to provide my own arms when called. Seems that
Indiana law states the normal, 17 to 45 and then goes on to
state that ALL former guardsmen or retired military who are
residents of Indiana remain subject to call up in the
militia for life.
Dick Lander
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
(snip)
> >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.
Yipes! Please (try to) explain that gargantuan leap of logic (good luck)!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard W. (Dick) Lander; sportsman,
Macintosh devotee, proponent
of personal liberty.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The human race divides politically into those who want
people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
--Robert A. Heinlein
Robert J. Christman
>
> 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.
Just what authority does the Congress, or the President,
have in ordering the confiscation of private property?
Where is that authorized in the Constitution, and when was
the amendment modifying or repealing the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments passed. Now if the government wishes to
institute condemnation procedures on an individual basis,
showing that each individually owned firearm is subject to
government procurement - for the improvement of the state -
and then offers just compensation for same they would be,
marginally, legal. Of course they are going to have a hard
time justifying the "improvement of the state" when asking
to confiscate firearms that have never been used illegally.
And the just compensation, not to mention the millions of
court cases, will probably break the federal budget.
Assuming they manage all of that, I suspect a lot of us who
are gun owners would take said just compensation and use it
to support political candidates who would reverse this
action. Since this action would require YEARS to accomplish
(court dates and all that), no politician supporting such a
pogrom (and no, that isn't a mis-spelling) would last out
more than one term of office.
Dick Lander
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
> >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.
>
> Sure, God says you can defend yourself. Now point out where it says you can
> use a gun to do it!
Oh boy...have you checked the Second Amendment recently, NoGuts? Try
reading it real slow or something.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richard W. (Dick) Lander; sportsman,
Macintosh devotee, proponent
of personal liberty.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"...No clause in the Constitution could by any rule
of construction be conceived to give the Congress a
power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt
could only be made, under some general pretence, by a
state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of in-
ordinate power either should attempt it, [the second]
amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
--William Rawle, "View of the Constitution," 1825
Steve Fischer
>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
There are over 50 MILLION legitimate gun owners in this country.
I doubt that more than a few THOUSAND have read that stupid book.
I haven't, and I don't plan to. You're the bigot here - slandering
millions of gun owners with no proof to back up your ridiculous
charges.
Most of the vile language originates from people on YOUR side
of the argument. Anti-gun nuts degrade any civil discussion of
gun politics with their name calling and slanderous remarks.
Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Control: A new-age theory which posits, among other things, that
Afro-American citizens will be better off when only people
like Mark Fuhrman are allowed to carry guns.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"So for me and my family, all we need for protection
against crime is some basic knowledge of where not to
travel, and how to travel there if we have to. For
instance, I've had to go into the Cabrini and Taylor Homes
in Chicago a number of times, but because they are
high-crime areas, I go in daylight, to meet someone I know,
with a bodyguard."
Robert L. Ray aka ki...@interaccess.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If there's a stabbing, no one blames the knife.
If there's a vehicular homicide, no one blames the car.
If there's a drowning, no one blames the water.
If there's a strangulation, no one blames the rope.
So if there's a shooting, why do some people insist on
blaming the gun?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanlysis (1952)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Arrest rate of Washington DC police officers: 19 per 1000
Arrest rate of New York City police officers: 3 per 1000
Arrest rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000
Which one should we disarm?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
Steve Fischer
>>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.
>
>Sure, God says you can defend yourself. Now point out where it says you can
>use a gun to do it!
>
limp-wristed anti-gunners like you defend themselves against
the packs of feral urban teens who roam the streets without
restraint? Begging for their lives? Are Grandma and Granddad
going to karate chop them? <sarcasm>
What YOU and those like you are defending is survival of
the fittest, with the absolute worst kinds of people running
the forest.
************************************************************
"The body of medical/public health literature on guns-
violence links in particular is so thoroughly tainted
by either dishonesty, ignorance, or gross incompetence
that readers who take on face the conclusions expressed
therein do so at their peril."
Gary Kleck, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control"
[Aldine De Gruyter, New York, 1997; p 62]
************************************************************
Gun Control: A new-age theory which posits, among other things, that
Afro-American citizens will be better off when only people
like Mark Fuhrman are allowed to carry guns.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I'd rather have a gun in my hand, than a cop on the phone.
Steve Fischer
>>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.
>
>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>
This statement clearly shows that gun-banners like NOGUNS4YOU
are NOT the humanitarians they claim to be. They always claim that
they care about life, and that is why they want to ban guns. Here,
however, you see that he only cares about SOME lives. He certainly
doesn't care about the lives of those who have done no wrong - people
who simply own guns! He would kill them if necessary because of his
hatred of guns. Typical liberal. He's going to help us even if we
die in the process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gun Control: A new-age theory which posits, among other things, that
Afro-American citizens will be better off when only people
like Mark Fuhrman are allowed to carry guns.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"So for me and my family, all we need for protection
against crime is some basic knowledge of where not to
travel, and how to travel there if we have to. For
instance, I've had to go into the Cabrini and Taylor Homes
in Chicago a number of times, but because they are
high-crime areas, I go in daylight, to meet someone I know,
with a bodyguard."
Robert L. Ray aka ki...@interaccess.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If there's a stabbing, no one blames the knife.
If there's a vehicular homicide, no one blames the car.
If there's a drowning, no one blames the water.
If there's a strangulation, no one blames the rope.
So if there's a shooting, why do some people insist on
blaming the gun?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanlysis (1952)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Arrest rate of Washington DC police officers: 19 per 1000
Arrest rate of New York City police officers: 3 per 1000
Arrest rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000
Which one should we disarm?
************************************************************
"The body of medical/public health literature on guns-
violence links in particular is so thoroughly tainted
by either dishonesty, ignorance, or gross incompetence
that readers who take on face the conclusions expressed
therein do so at their peril."
Gary Kleck, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control"
[Aldine De Gruyter, New York, 1997; p 62]
************************************************************
Jim Patrick
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
>>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.
>
>Sure, God says you can defend yourself. Now point out where it says you can
>use a gun to do it!
Got some 'inside info' you want to share? Voices in the night?
I don't subscribe myself, but the Pope's latest said "by any meams
necessary."
JimP
"A right delayed is a right denied" - Martin Luther King Jr.
Bill Stockwell
: >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.
: 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.
Foreign invaders should have an easier time of it, so far as they would have
less reason not to kill. If the government issues an unlawful order to
confiscate all guns, a large part of the military would REFUSE to fulfill it,
and would fight the part that would do such a dastardly thing.
: >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!
People with cars cause more death each year than people with guns; why AREN'T
you trying to ban cars??
: That's it,
: No Guns 4 U!
--
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."
Rafe B.
<stoc...@smokebomb.hill> wrote:
>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?
>
So, you're saying that the reason you own this "higher-end
weaponry" is to somehow foil anyone who attempt to
deprive you of this same weaponry?
Not that I haven't heard this dumb-ass argument before.
Your typical gun nut will claim that he needs his guns
to protect himself from government "tyranny." Then,
when asked to define said "tyranny," the gun nut will
cite the government's alleged desire to disarm him.
rafe b.
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
agree with me.
Come out from under your rock.
Allan Lindsay-ONeal
argument here?
You want a majority? Okay: 85% of the American public believes that
dinosaurs and people roamed the earth together. That's a majority opoinion,
so let's change the histroy books!
Panhead
> question had been answered, although it was just asked in the very same
> post? Isn't there a psychological term for this aberration?
We on the planet Earth call it "Spooky".
tudor
>tudor wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>You are quite overqualified to judge on that account.
>
Another right-wing wacko extremist speaks his mind.
tudor
>>>
>>><Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
>>>
>>
>>You gun-nuts know all about bigotry. Better re-read your Turner Diaries
>>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.
Find me to a jerk ? What's that nonsense supposed to mean ?
Guess the NRA should be teaching grammer, not gun use.
>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.
No one asked you to. You dont need to own a gun to defend yourself.
tudor
>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"
Strike one !
> 2 - The "gummit" will turn on its own people, so we better be ready to fight.
Chicken-shit NRA types ?
Strike two !
> 3 - When the (fill in the blank) invade, we will be the ones holding them
>off.
See above.
Strike three !
> 4 - We want to be able to kill anyone at the drop of a hat and guns are the
>best
> tool for that job.
Yeap.
As Eric Pinnell points out here, the gun fetishist fanatics only want their own
kind to live. The rest will be liquidiated come the "Revolution".
>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.
And of course the NRA gun nut crazies are just sweet little lambs who would
never blow up a building, right ?
> 3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
>rifle that holds back that armored column.
The NRA bigots will be running for the hills in droves, shooting at each other
on the way.
> 4 - The public is tired of gunners exercising their "right" in drive-by
>shootings, schooyard masacres and post office firefights.
And you're outta here !
>Your guns will be banned.
>Your guns will be taken away.
>Get used to it now.
>Take up a new hobby, like bowling.
Games over folks !
tudor
>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 18:14:45 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War
>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.
Hate really just oozes out from the people on your side and out of their own
mouths doesnt it ?
tudor
>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 18:29:01 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War
>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.
Bullshit !! Why do you gun nuts sell the Turner Diaries at gun shows if you
dont agree with them ?
You are a complete liar like most gun nuts Voth
tudor
>In article <3687cda4...@news.iu.net> tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") writes:
>>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
>
> There are over 50 MILLION legitimate gun owners in this country.
>I doubt that more than a few THOUSAND have read that stupid book.
>I haven't, and I don't plan to. You're the bigot here - slandering
>millions of gun owners with no proof to back up your ridiculous
>charges.
>
You have no proof of your claim, like always, do you ? More gun nut lies.
pyotr filipivich
>>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.
>Illogical. In both examples given, it was a foreign invader operating on enemy
>territory.
And wrong again, oh historically illiterate.
The British Army in 1775 was deployed against English colonists
who were protecting their rights as Englishmen. (And naturally the
colonists won their war for independence - they were Englishmen (for the
most part) fighting to protect Englishmen's rights and freedoms against
a German King who hired German merchinaries.)
> 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.
Ah - the anti-gun crowd comes out in favor of mob rule. That if
50% + 1 of the Congress voted to expell all the Jews, Noguns would be
right there ar the forefront, pushing Jews onto the boats.
>>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!
There you go again -concentrating on the criminal use of the
particular technology, and not on the criminal use of all the
technologies.
Are you willing to ban the private ownership of telephones if
0.6% are used for criminal purposes? Apparently so. Do you feel that
the lethal misuse of automobiles is worthy of a concerted effort to ban
their private ownership and use? After all, "if it saves one life..."
And just think - if we banned the private ownership of
automobiles, there'd be no more hit and run homicides, no drunken
drving, no high speed chases endangering innocent pedestrians.
--
pyotr filipivich, AKA Nickolai Petrovich.
"Do not argue with the forces of nature,
for you are small, insignificant, and biodegradable."
And remember kids - homicide is the severest form of censure. :-)
Natividad Mendez Jr.
sbre...@zdnetmail.com
>--
>Bob C. NRA Endowment USN (Ret)
Very interesting Mr. C. That would be most interesting
indeed...............
Thanks.
Steve B
"If you're not a Socialist at 20, you have no heart. If you're still a
Socialist at 30, you have no head"
Panhead
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:29:48 -0500, "Dean, Greg" <N9...@GTE.net> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>again fool
> >
> >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.
>
> Find me to a jerk ? What's that nonsense supposed to mean ?
Confused by the meaning of a simple statement, Tudor?
>
> Guess the NRA should be teaching grammer, not gun use.
Not at all. People rely on schools and parental guidance to
teach grammar. I have no idea what "grammer" is. Those that have
the IQ over a wet box (you are therefor excluded Tudor) will use
the NRA to gain a better truth and knowledge about the proper use
and handling of weapons, safety, and self defense. Not to mention
the true meaning of the laws of our (the US's) land.
Perhaps you should join?
Regards.
Panhead
>
> On 28 Dec 1998 14:00:34 PST, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 18:29:01 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War
> >era must have forced tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") to write:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>again fool
> >
>
> Bullshit !! Why do you gun nuts sell the Turner Diaries at gun shows if you
> dont agree with them ?
>
> You are a complete liar like most gun nuts Voth
Voth? Are you drinking again?
Please take care of your liver.
According to you, I am a "Gun Nut" because I own one and,
believe that any (legal) person that wants any form of one,
should be able to own one. I never read this "Turner Diaries".
As it "appears", it is you "anti-freedom" geeps that read this
particular publication more than anybody.
Please tell us what it says.
Steve T.
>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:29:48 -0500, "Dean, Greg" <N9...@GTE.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>><Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You gun-nuts know all about bigotry. Better re-read your Turner Diaries
>>>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.
>
>Find me to a jerk ? What's that nonsense supposed to mean ?
>
>Guess the NRA should be teaching grammer, not gun use.
>
>
>>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.
>
>No one asked you to. You dont need to own a gun to defend yourself.
Tudor, if the NRA teaches Greg grammar, can we count on HCI teaching
you a little spelling and punctuation? Jeez, what a maroon.
Steve T.
Panhead
>
> Hey! FUCK YOU! If you don`t like guns then find another newsgroup.
Dear WebDweebVer,
This IS a discussion newsgroup about the POLITICS and viewpoints
thereof.
Therefor, if we all had the same viewpoint here, there would BE
no discussion.
Please learn how to use the usenet properly and 1) Quote
properly and, 2) Attribute correctly so that we know who in the
heck you are responding to.
And also, 3) Your verbiage and usage of the vernacular is not
appropriate in ANY news group where adults exchange ideas and
thoughts.
Watch your tongue please or, I will have my Grandmother re-dug
up from the bowls of hell, rejuvenated, and have her come at you
with a bar of soap and a switch blade....then place you in the
corner for a week with NO TV!
Robert J. Christman
Steve,
At this point I only "suspect" that NoGunsForYou is Ray. I
had strong circumstantial evidence that GunsBGone was Ray,
based on similarities between posts and some particular
specific attempts at derogatory humor. I see many
similarities between "GunsBGone" and "NoGunsForYou",
including threats to peoples health and well being. I
strongly suspect that this is simply Ray trolling again with
another free AOL subscription. When it runs out he, like
GunsBGone will disappear. Of course if AOL insists on
sending Ray these free minutes of use under an alias, we can
expect more later in the same adolescent vein.
Steve Fischer
>On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:34:53 GMT, str...@netcom.com (Steve Fischer) wrote:
>
>>In article <3687cda4...@news.iu.net> tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") writes:
>>>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:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>again fool
>>
>>I doubt that more than a few THOUSAND have read that stupid book.
>>I haven't, and I don't plan to. You're the bigot here - slandering
>>millions of gun owners with no proof to back up your ridiculous
>>charges.
>>
>
>You have no proof of your claim, like always, do you ? More gun nut lies.
Since you didn't either, then you admit you had no cause to say
what you did.
Why don't you check with the publisher? Hmmmm? Afraid to find
out the truth, fuckwad?
Michael Cidras
NoGuns4You wrote in message <19981229002908...@ng156.aol.com>...
>>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.
>
>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>
Hey, it's Roger Denney using a free AOL account. Roger, when you're leading
the confiscation, make sure you're the one kicking in the door like a good
JBT.
>
>>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?
PLMerite
Rafe B. wrote in message <36890db5...@199.1.13.10>...
>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:23:19 -0500, "PLMerite"
><stoc...@smokebomb.hill> wrote:
>
>
and
>>why I went out of my way to acquire the knowledge to employ them
>>EFFECTIVELY. Does that make you feel good?
>>
>
>weaponry" is to somehow foil anyone who attempt to
>deprive you of this same weaponry?
>
>Not that I haven't heard this dumb-ass argument before.
>
>Your typical gun nut will claim that he needs his guns
>to protect himself from government "tyranny." Then,
>when asked to define said "tyranny," the gun nut will
>cite the government's alleged desire to disarm him.
>
>
I don't like the idea of the government, in the form of Federal Agents,
Cops, and the military, being in sole posession of the means of deadly
force. Them and the criminals - while there's still a difference, that is.
The less able someone is viewed as being able to fight back, the more it
encourages potential bullies. Prize fighters and linebackers usually don't
get mugged, except by the IRS, which is even bigger and meaner than they.
People who are able to resist are treated with more respect than those whose
only option is "non-violent protest" or other forms of begging and pleading.
If some future "government" tried to silence you, would you not counter by
speaking out - doing the very thing they were trying to keep you from doing?
Of course, that would be your only option, since you wouldn't have any
weapons to fight back with by that time.
I think I'll go out tomorrow and get some more assault-rifle ammunition;
maybe a night-vision gizmo, too...
Here's looking at ewe.
Regards, PLMerite
"Unarmed, one can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing
from it." Jeff Cooper
PLMerite
NoGuns4You wrote in message <19981229002908...@ng156.aol.com>...
>>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.
>
>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.
Not due to any personal action on YOUR part, I'm sure.
>>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?
Exhibit .223 or maybe .308, and in quantity.
I took an oath to the Constitution of the United States many years ago, and
I don't anticipate ever violating that oath. How you might see it matters
not one whit to me.
>That's it,
>No Guns 4 U!
Regards, PLMerite
PLMerite
NoGuns4You wrote in message <19981229003929...@ng156.aol.com>...
>>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.
>
>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.
Probably wishing the whole time, like the Jews in line for the showers at
Auschwitz, that he'd had a gun and been able to fight back.
>Your point?
That with nothing to fear from the people, governments can do whatever they
please and cloak it all in slogans like "for the children."
>The tanks still rolled.
They rolled all right, but they rolled buttoned up. Wanna take a potshot at
what the tank commanders were afraid of?
>The students ran. Things did not change.
The students were unarmed, and unarmed, were only able to flee (paraphrasing
Jeff Cooper).
I often wonder how different things might be in China today if the "leaders"
were afraid to show their faces in public for fear of getting their heads
blown off. You make a good case for private ownership of firearms and you
don't even realize it.
PLMerite
sbre...@zdnetmail.com wrote in message
<36887099...@news.jax.bellsouth.net>...
>On 29 Dec 1998 05:18:12 GMT, nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Sure, God says you can defend yourself. Now point out where it says you
can
>>use a gun to do it!
>>
>>
>>No Guns 4 U!
>
Be careful, only the politically correct are allowed to threaten or use
violence.
Regards, PLMerite
PLMerite
Ben Jacoby wrote in message ...
>NoGuns4You <nogun...@aol.com> spake thusly:
>:>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.
>
>: 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
air
>: and food conservation and all that... <vbg>
>
>loves guns. He's ready to use them to murder as many persons as possible
>if only it brings about his Nazi "final solution". NOW we know why he
>wants noguns4us. Like any schoolyard bully he doesn't want a fight, he
>just wants to show how "tough" he is by beating up the defenseless. Is
>this guy an ATF troll? I presume once gun owners are taken care of,
>he'll move on to "the Jew" and the "negro question".
>
>NoGuns4Nazis !
I love you, man!
>--
>Benjamin Jacoby | "Some rob you with a six-gun and some with
> | a fountain pen." ..........Woodie Guthrie
>
>(SPAM GUARD! Delete the no spam letters in name to email.)
David Voth
era must have forced tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") to write:
[Tuweeeep! Chirp, Chirp, Chirp. Tuweeeep! Chirp, Chirp, Chirp...]
>Bullshit !! Why do you gun nuts sell the Turner Diaries at gun shows if you
>dont agree with them ?
Now tudor, I'm not going to hurt you. It's going to be OK. All
right? Nobody here means you any harm.
>You are a complete liar like most gun nuts Voth
These nice men will take you back to the hospital now, tudor. Please
just go with the nice men. Your doctor will be there with your
medicine. They'll teach you to remember to take it next time.
David R. Voth
San Diego, California
USA
--
Spamtrap in effect due to excessive crap.
For email reply, use drv<numeral one><at>concentric<dot>net
no one of consequence
]>Gee Mr, "I'm afraid to use my real name",
]
]Gee, buttmunch, many gunners dont use their real names here, so why should I?
So you can pretend you are brave a bit more convincingly.
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
|her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
no one of consequence
]On 28 Dec 1998 13:59:17 PST, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth) wrote:
]
]>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 18:14:45 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War]>
]>>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.
]
]Hate really just oozes out from the people on your side and out of their own
]mouths doesnt it ?
Actually, tudor, that appears to be a condition you have suffered from
ever since you waltzed into talk.politics.guns.
no one of consequence
]On 28 Dec 1998 14:00:34 PST, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth) wrote:
]
]>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 18:29:01 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War]><snip>
]>
]>>You gun-nuts know all about bigotry. Better re-read your Turner Diaries
]>>again fool
]>
]>I haven't read them, asshole.
]
]Bullshit !! Why do you gun nuts sell the Turner Diaries at gun shows if you
]dont agree with them ?
Did you actually get around to ATTENDING a gun show, tudor? Oh, btw, did
you actually get around to READING the Turner Diaries?
]You are a complete liar like most gun nuts Voth
What was that phrase in Vietmanese that someone felt described Isham so
well? I think tudor is competing for the honor of being the best example
of that phrase.
(Translated in English it was "beating a drum loudly while committing
robbery" IIRC)
no one of consequence
]On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:34:53 GMT, str...@netcom.com (Steve Fischer) wrote:
]
]>In article <3687cda4...@news.iu.net> tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") writes:
]>>
]>>>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.
]>>
]>>again fool
]>
]>I doubt that more than a few THOUSAND have read that stupid book.
]>I haven't, and I don't plan to. You're the bigot here - slandering
]>millions of gun owners with no proof to back up your ridiculous
]>charges.
]>
]
]You have no proof of your claim, like always, do you ? More gun nut lies.
You are the one who has to prove your claim linking the Turner Diaries
with 'gun nuts' and your earlier broadbrush remarks are no sufficient
proof.
no one of consequence
NoGuns4You <nogun...@aol.com> wrote:
]>Wrong. The members of the militia is very explicitly spelled out in
]>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.
Wrong, nameless one. That defines who the militia is considered. The right
to bear arms is 'of the people' so more's the pity for your fantasies.
no one of consequence
]>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.
Gee, you must be SO glad the students were unarmed.
You also missed the point: an UNARMED student delayed the tank column. By
your touching belief, he should have been 'pasted' right then and there.
Guess you are relieved that he didn't have a bottle full of flammable
liquids and a piece of cloth. That student might have hurt one of your
role-models.
]>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.
Your point? Oh, wait. You don't like that 'innocent until proven guilty'
concept in addition to owning guns?
no one of consequence
]>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!
]
]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!".
Oh please.
]Got your pallbearer suit picked out yet?
*snrk* Um, why would he? Are you going to select him as one of the six who
carries you to the grave when you die someday? What an honor to award to
your enemy.
no one of consequence
]On 28 Dec 1998 16:55:41 GMT, nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
]
]>Let's see if we can put gunners in perspective:
]>
]
]> 1 - It's a Constitutional "Right"
]
]Strike one !
]
]> 2 - The "gummit" will turn on its own people, so we better be ready to fight.
]
]Chicken-shit NRA types ?
]
]Strike two !
]
]> 3 - When the (fill in the blank) invade, we will be the ones holding them
]>off.
]
]See above.
]
]Strike three !
...and tudor's out. Perhaps T-ball is more your game?
]> 4 - We want to be able to kill anyone at the drop of a hat and guns are the
]>best
]> tool for that job.
]
]Yeap.
]
]As Eric Pinnell points out here, the gun fetishist fanatics only want their own
]kind to live. The rest will be liquidiated come the "Revolution".
As Eric claimed... and you decided to lie by attributing it to everyone.
]> 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.
]
]And of course the NRA gun nut crazies are just sweet little lambs who would
]never blow up a building, right ?
...you're still peeved that all you can do is make lame smear attempts
claiming all NRA members are just like McVeigh. Poor tudor... the targets
of his bigotries aren't anywhere as bloodthirsty as he claims they are.
*playing world's smallest violin in sympathy*
]> 3 - Again, if we are invaded, it will not be Bubba-Joe Redneck with his deer
]>rifle that holds back that armored column.
]
]The NRA bigots will be running for the hills in droves, shooting at each other
]on the way.
Oh look, another lie from tudor. Or maybe I'm being too harsh and holding
tudor's WISHFUL THINKING to be a lie.
]> 4 - The public is tired of gunners exercising their "right" in drive-by
]>shootings, schooyard masacres and post office firefights.
]
]And you're outta here !
Why yes, you both are quite out of there. As in way off.
Not that concepts like truth ever meant anything to bigots like you and
NoGuns4U, tudor.
James F. Mayer
writes:
>
>On 28 Dec 1998 14:00:34 PST, davi...@catholic.org (David Voth)
wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 18:29:01 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War
Diaries
>>>again fool
>>
>
>Bullshit !! Why do you gun nuts sell the Turner Diaries at gun shows
if you
>dont agree with them ?
Why do Gun control advocates go to the National Alliance [a known
neo-Nazi organization] home page to support some of their assertions?
>
>You are a complete liar like most gun nuts Voth
There is more lying that comes out of the gun control advocates
mouths that any other group including the Liars Club.
Jim Patrick
wol...@dillinger.io.com (no one of consequence) wrote:
>NoGuns4You <nogun...@aol.com> wrote:
>]>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.
>
>Gee, you must be SO glad the students were unarmed.
>
>You also missed the point: an UNARMED student delayed the tank column. By
>your touching belief, he should have been 'pasted' right then and there.
>
>Guess you are relieved that he didn't have a bottle full of flammable
>liquids and a piece of cloth. That student might have hurt one of your
>role-models.
Don't know if anyone still remembers some of the fallout from that
sorry episode. I do remember an interview with H.Kissinger where he
said that the Chinese government "did what any government should do"
JimP
"A right delayed is a right denied" - Martin Luther King Jr.
Rafe B.
<stoc...@smokebomb.hill> wrote:
>
>Rafe B. wrote in message <36890db5...@199.1.13.10>...
>>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:23:19 -0500, "PLMerite"
>><stoc...@smokebomb.hill> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>
>>So, you're saying that the reason you own this "higher-end
>>weaponry" is to somehow foil anyone who attempt to
>>deprive you of this same weaponry?
>>
>>Not that I haven't heard this dumb-ass argument before.
>>
>>Your typical gun nut will claim that he needs his guns
>>to protect himself from government "tyranny." Then,
>>when asked to define said "tyranny," the gun nut will
>>cite the government's alleged desire to disarm him.
>>
>>
>>rafe b.
>
>I don't like the idea of the government, in the form of Federal Agents,
>Cops, and the military, being in sole posession of the means of deadly
>force. Them and the criminals - while there's still a difference, that is.
>
>The less able someone is viewed as being able to fight back, the more it
>encourages potential bullies. Prize fighters and linebackers usually don't
>get mugged, except by the IRS, which is even bigger and meaner than they.
With salaries in five or six figures, who exactly is being mugged
here?
>People who are able to resist are treated with more respect than those whose
>only option is "non-violent protest" or other forms of begging and pleading.
Depends on how you define respect. Who has the "higher"
place in history? Martin Luther King, or Eldridge Cleaver?
>If some future "government" tried to silence you, would you not counter by
>speaking out - doing the very thing they were trying to keep you from doing?
Yes, though I fail to see why I need weapons in order to
"speak out..."
>Of course, that would be your only option, since you wouldn't have any
>weapons to fight back with by that time.
You haven't demonstrated the utility of your weapons yet, though
I've certainly heard this (tired old) argument before.
>I think I'll go out tomorrow and get some more assault-rifle ammunition;
>maybe a night-vision gizmo, too...
Whatever floats your boat, pal.
>Here's looking at ewe.
>
>Regards, PLMerite
>"Unarmed, one can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing
>from it." Jeff Cooper
Oh, and BTW, Jeff Cooper is a racist pig.
rafe b.
uspc...@my-dejanews.com
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
> >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.
> 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.
Wow, where the hell did you go to school? Did you go? The Brits were a
FOREIGN INVADER? Doi!
> >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?"
Well, I'm sure the parnets of the 86 people murdered by a gasoline fire would
be equally comforted knowing it to was an rare, isolated incident. So too
would be the parnets of the thousands killed in bombings, suicidal airline
pilots, mass murderers (most kill without guns), etc etc.
> 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.
Then why aren't 600,000 people killed by such devices?
> Would you accept cars that had only a .6% chance of exploding every time you
> turned it on? Of course not!
Nor would we accept a gun that has a .6% chance of blowing up every time you
pull the trigger. Your point?
> 600,000 guns used for crime is too much. One is too much! Time to lose them
> all!
Nah, to gun grabbers, the more gun crime the better. You guys just LOVE
seeing the bodies of dead kids - why else would you be against gun safety in
schools.
Jim
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
uspc...@my-dejanews.com
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
> >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.
> 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!
How good are you? Would YOU bet your life on your skills at clearing a
building when the opponents are NOT cardboard cutouts?
> >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.
Ohh, I bet you had to run to the bathroom after thinking about that.
> >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.
Really? And exactly how does a 16 year old gang member LEGALLY buy a gun?
> That's it,
> No Guns 4 U!
If that's it, it ain't much.
uspc...@my-dejanews.com
tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") wrote:
> And of course the NRA gun nut crazies are just sweet little lambs who would
> never blow up a building, right ?
Are you referring to US Army vet Tim McVeigh? You gun grabbers really need
to get some new material instead of the same 5 things/people replayed over
and over and over and over and over and over again and again...
But then again, you guys really don't have a whole lot to choose from, nor a
whole lot upstairs to know what to do with it.
PLMerite
Rafe B. wrote in message <368a32a0...@199.1.13.10>...
Steal from the rich, give to the poor, eh?
>>People who are able to resist are treated with more respect than those
whose
>>only option is "non-violent protest" or other forms of begging and
pleading.
>
>Depends on how you define respect. Who has the "higher"
>place in history? Martin Luther King, or Eldridge Cleaver?
I don't remember troops interfering with any of King's marches like would
have been the case in Soviet Russia, China or any number of other countries.
And the threat of violence always underscored King's activity. It was
easier for the government to concede, which fit into it's plans anyway, than
to fight all those "long, hot summers."
Don't confuse official sanction with real power or authority. If it had not
been in the game plan of the Federal government, King's strategy wouldn't
have worked. He would have ended up dead (sooner) or in jail, and then it
would have been Eldridge Cleaver's fight.
Tell me about how apartheid would have succeeded if South African blacks had
always had access to firearms, or how the transition came about without the
existence of SWAPO and the ANC?
Tell me about how blacks in the south (and the north, for that matter) would
have had to put up with all the shit they did if laws weren't aimed at
keeping them disarmed.
>>If some future "government" tried to silence you, would you not counter by
>>speaking out - doing the very thing they were trying to keep you from
doing?
>
>Yes, though I fail to see why I need weapons in order to
>"speak out..."
You don't need any right now, but that's because the system still sort of
works. If they decided to call your point of view "hate speech," you might
find it more difficult to get your side of the story out.
This is not to be confused with conservatives wanting to make National
Proletarian Radio/Television pay their own way, although the
socialist-loony-left wants people to think it.
>>Of course, that would be your only option, since you wouldn't have any
>>weapons to fight back with by that time.
>
>You haven't demonstrated the utility of your weapons yet, though
>I've certainly heard this (tired old) argument before.
Of course, if you're not willing to fight for something, you don't deserve
to have it, and won't long posess it.
>>I think I'll go out tomorrow and get some more assault-rifle ammunition;
>>maybe a night-vision gizmo, too...
>
>Whatever floats your boat, pal.
>
>>Here's looking at ewe.
>>
>>Regards, PLMerite
>>"Unarmed, one can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing
>>from it." Jeff Cooper
>
>Oh, and BTW, Jeff Cooper is a racist pig.
Yeah, there's that "hate speech" thing rearing its ugly head. I've
heard/read Mr. Cooper referring to criminals and other lowlifes as
"goblins," but nothing more than that.
Not that I really give a shit what you think of him.
Regards, PLMerite
"...front sight, squeeze!" Jeff Cooper
>
>
>rafe b.
Michael Cidras
Roger Denney wrote in message <3690a8bc...@news.inreach.com>...
>On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 15:04:22 -0700, "Michael Cidras" <cidr...@pcisys.net>
>wrote:
>>>>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>
>>
>>
leading
>>the confiscation, make sure you're the one kicking in the door like a good
>
to
>discredit me, as usual.
It wasn't completely baseless, just saw the <vbg> and thought of most of
your inane postings.
>
>Sorry Mike, but I don't do AOL.
>
>I'll leave that "service" for clueless individuals like you to play around
in.
Roger, Roger, you don't pay much attention to the headers do you. You'll
notice there is no AOL.COM in my ISP.
>
>Roger
>
>Have an Unarmed Day.....For Life !
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>General George Washington (1732-1799):
>
>"To place any dependence upon the militia is, assuredly, resting upon a
>broken staff."
>
>---------------------------------------------
> --Letter to the president of Congress, Heights of Harlem -
> September 24, 1776
>
>"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
>
> --President Thomas Jefferson
>
>
>
>
>
>
no...@noplaceinparticular.com
> Here's two cents for you....get a clue, stupid.
I'd be happy to give him the 2 cents, if you promise to shove
the resulting clue up your ass. (Free clue: you'll have to
remove your head first...)
no...@noplaceinparticular.com
> Hey, it's still early out Voth. If you hurry, you ought to be able to find some
> street tramp at the nearest biker bar to take your sorry ass home with her
>
> It's for damn sure no one else will, chump.
Say, butch, what's your fascination with his ass anyway?
no...@noplaceinparticular.com
> >Please use logic, not emotions. People may take you more seriously.
>
> You haven't been on the internet long, have you dork ?
You've never been long, dork, have you?
Steve Hix
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
> >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.
>
> Sure, God says you can defend yourself. Now point out where it says you can
> use a gun to do it!
Means is not specified.
Again, intent is more important than means.
Steve Hix
> >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.
>
> Illogical. In both examples given, it was a foreign invader operating
on enemy
> territory.
Sorry, the Brits were operating among their own citizens, on their own
territory. The break didn't occur until *after* the revolutionaries
succeeded.
Try again.
Steve Hix
> nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
>
> > >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.
> >
> > 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.
Judging from responses to polls of military and police on the
question, ol' NoGuns4You's greatest threat would be from the
officers and enlisted men "with" him.
Steve Hix
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
> >Wrong. The members of the militia is very explicitly spelled out in
> >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.
No, it just means you aren't subject to callup.
Nothing says you can't volunteer. Nothing says
you can't possess, either.
Steve Hix
nogun...@aol.com (NoGuns4You) wrote:
> >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!
>
> 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!".
Cite?
Didn't think so.
tudor
>On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:51:20 GMT, a brain implant from the Cold War
>era must have forced tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") to write:
>
>[Tuweeeep! Chirp, Chirp, Chirp. Tuweeeep! Chirp, Chirp, Chirp...]
>
>>Bullshit !! Why do you gun nuts sell the Turner Diaries at gun shows if you
>>dont agree with them ?
>
>Now tudor, I'm not going to hurt you. It's going to be OK. All
>right? Nobody here means you any harm.
Hurt me ? You and what navy, popeye ?
>>You are a complete liar like most gun nuts Voth
>
>These nice men will take you back to the hospital now, tudor. Please
>just go with the nice men. Your doctor will be there with your
>medicine. They'll teach you to remember to take it next time.
Hey, it's still early out Voth. If you hurry, you ought to be able to find some
tudor
>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 18:29:01 GMT, tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") wrote:
>
>>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.
You haven't been on the internet long, have you dork ?
Just for your information ,the gun nuts love dishing out plenty of nasty, vile
rhetoric, but watch anyone respond in kind they become such sensitive
souls and defenders of the 1st amendment -- for themselves.
tudor
>On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 18:50:54 GMT, tu...@supernews.com ("tudor") wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Dec 1998 14:29:48 -0500, "Dean, Greg" <N9...@GTE.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>><Recycled bigoted nonsense mercifully deleted>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You gun-nuts know all about bigotry. Better re-read your Turner Diaries
>>>>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.
>>
>>Find me to a jerk ? What's that nonsense supposed to mean ?
>>
>>Guess the NRA should be teaching grammer, not gun use.
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>No one asked you to. You dont need to own a gun to defend yourself.
>
>Tudor, if the NRA teaches Greg grammar, can we count on HCI teaching
>you a little spelling and punctuation? Jeez, what a maroon.
>
Yeah you sure are, but maybe the NRA will get you a life too. You need one.