Take away all guns NOW
Tinker Bell
being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
too.
As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by taking
away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we will
have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not need
them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
McQ
<snip>
>Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
>your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not need
>them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
Tinker Bell, huh?
Aptly named.
McQ
_______________________________
"Individual and inherent rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and
PROPERTY do exist and always have existed. They
exist because man is self-controlling and is thus
unavoidably responsible for maintaining his own
life, his own liberty, and his own property on
which both his life and liberty are necessarily
based. That is a universal law of nature and
life, and no wishful thinking or pious platitudes
can change it. If man had not generally followed
this principle, he would have disappeared from
this earth long ago. -- Dr. Dean Russell
fatsin...@got.net
Nurse Ratchet wasn't watching and the following lunacy got out........
>We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
>being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
>children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
>to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
>and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>
>I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
>we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
>too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
>the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
>cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
>by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
>too.
>
>As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by taking
>away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
>their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we will
Linus Zimmerman
I say keep the guns and ban reproduction. That way there will be
no children to shoot, abuse, corrupt or use up precious
resources. How can I shoot these pesky gophers without a gun?
Who will decimate those prairie dogs when they need decimating?
Must I forego those tasty venison and pheasant dinners? What if
people starve because the critters eat all the crops? Tinker
Bell needs a torpedo amidships and soon.
LZ
Joe Krolikowski
> We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
> being shot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could swear that we covered this particular patch
of ground with that long boring thread initiated by Trebor.
> I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
> children.
A laudable goal, indeed. However, lets examine this...
> If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
> to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
> and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
...bit of flotsam.
You are saying, I presume, that we should abjectly surrender the tools by which we
can protect ourselves just so that the aggressor can shoot first without fear of
reprisal? Further, are you suggesting that the mere existence of weapons was the
*sole* cause for the debacle in Littleton?
In answer to your little tirade about the army and police, I must state that I'm
not in the habit of giving freebies to those who would so blandly wish to be safe
while putting me in harm's way.
About Littleton, it has been demonstrated elsewhere in this forum (I'll have to
dig up the cites later, I'm running late for something) than despite an increased
number of obstacles in obtaining weapons, school shootings are becoming more
common then they should. It has also been demonstrated that during the '40's,
'50's and '60's, when weapons were more easily obtainable (through *mail order*
fer crissakes!) that there *weren't* any school shootings?
To be continued.
Joe Krolikowski
Nullifier
fatsin...@got.net wrote in message <3740a990....@news.got.net>...
>On 17 May 1999 23:14:34 GMT, TB...@mindspring.com (Tinker Bell) wrote:
>Nurse Ratchet wasn't watching and the following lunacy got out........
>>children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
>>to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
>>and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>>
>>we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
>>too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
>>the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
>>cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
>>by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
>>too.
>>
>>As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by taking
>>away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
>>their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we will
>>have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
>>your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not need
>>them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
>>And please if you see anyone who does not agree with our fine president
>>report them to your local police or at least tell them to not worry because our
>>president will be there soon to fix everything both here and in all the other
countries
>>cause he cries every night just thinking about all the suffering in the world and he
>>bites his lip too and that really hurts and gets him in trouble because Mrs.. Clinton
thinks
>>he has been fooling around and tries to throw things at him. Thank you.
Don Linsenbach
Tinker Bell <TB...@mindspring.com> >
> I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is
that
> we need cars but we dont need guns.
You're a troll but I'll answer anyways.
1) We NEED guns to protect ourselves from bad guys as there is no legal
basis for the police us.
2) We NEED guns to stop our tyrannical gov't from forcing us back into
slavery and oppression.
Identity of oppressors: LIBERALS
nee...@syix.com
BTW, are you any relation to ART???
MUCH BS SNIPPED......
> I am not selfish cause I want everybody to
> be safe especially the children.
That may be true.... BUT... in your quest for safety AGAINST yourself
(metaphorically speaking that is), YOU TRASH THE SINGULAR CONSTITUTION
AMENDMENT WHICH MAY BE YOUR ONLY HOPE AGAINST A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT!!!
> If only the army and the police have guns then
> they would not need to shoot us to arrest us.
Also true, but they could SHOOT instead of arresting you. Look at short
term European history say some 50+ years ago.
MORE BS SNIPPED......
> Why does everybody hate our President?
WHY DO YOU INSIST THAT BY PRESERVING THE US CONSTITUTION, ONE HATES THE
PRESIDENT......
I for one do not hate the president..... I don't know him, so how can I
hate someone I do not know???
I do, however, DISAGREE WITH HIS POTICAL AGENDA......
but maybe that's another CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT YOU'D LIKE TO DESPENSE
WITH TOO!!!
LN
Dean, Greg, SSG MI
country and our communities. But as long as I am the one on
the firing line, you are full of shit.
Tinker Bell wrote:
>
> We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
> being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
> children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
> to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
> and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>
> I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
Dean, Greg, SSG MI
> > We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
> > being shot.
>
> of ground with that long boring thread initiated by Trebor.
>
> > children.
>
>
> > to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
> > and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>
>
> You are saying, I presume, that we should abjectly surrender the tools by which we
> can protect ourselves just so that the aggressor can shoot first without fear of
> reprisal? Further, are you suggesting that the mere existence of weapons was the
> *sole* cause for the debacle in Littleton?
>
> In answer to your little tirade about the army and police, I must state that I'm
> not in the habit of giving freebies to those who would so blandly wish to be safe
> while putting me in harm's way.
>
> About Littleton, it has been demonstrated elsewhere in this forum (I'll have to
> dig up the cites later, I'm running late for something) than despite an increased
> number of obstacles in obtaining weapons, school shootings are becoming more
> common then they should. It has also been demonstrated that during the '40's,
> '50's and '60's, when weapons were more easily obtainable (through *mail order*
> fer crissakes!) that there *weren't* any school shootings?
>
In the fifties we would have had a quick trial and a good hanging.
tcrpe
Tinker Bell wrote in message <7hq7sq$rag$1...@ruby.digisys.net>...
>We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe
from
>being shot.
Well, hey, stupid, then you are gonna have to take them away from the ruling
class also (including the cops). See, stupid, they want your guns taken
away so that they can tell you what to do, or shoot you, with impunity.
Got it, Leftie?
TR
Dean, Greg, SSG MI
> Well, hey, stupid, then you are gonna have to take them away from the ruling
> class also (including the cops). See, stupid, they want your guns taken
> away so that they can tell you what to do, or shoot you, with impunity.
>
> Got it, Leftie?
>
> TR
Good point. Guys like me are already in the system, in fact we are the
system. Besides all you have to do is bribe, that is give a campaign
"contribution", to the mayor and you can be made a cop. That is how
Chicago does it.
Noam D. Guerre
Joe Krolikowski wrote:
> common then they should. It has also been demonstrated that during the '40's,
> '50's and '60's, when weapons were more easily obtainable (through *mail order*
> fer crissakes!) that there *weren't* any school shootings?
>
Yeah, but there were plenty of shootings during black
church burnings in Arkansas, back when Bill Clinton was
just a young psychopath.
Tom Kennedy
>I saw [Clinton] cry on CNN. I cried too
That is about as hokey as you can get. I think Tinker is having you on!
>Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has too many bullets. Why does
everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
>the right thing and take away our guns.
Everybody follow that? Why does everyone hate the lying rapist, indeed!
>If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need to shoot
us to arrest us.
Tinker Bell states the danger of an unarmed society very well.
>He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away their guns
so they cant kill each other.
Even Jennifer M hasn't spent enough knee-time to believe this one!
>After all guns are taken away we will have peace and our children will be
safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
>your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not
need them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
And we'll all be contented little comrades down on the commune. I'm telling
you this is a parody! And a funny one! Great job Tinker Bell.
Joel Argo
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223.html
Maybe we can get you back to the real world.
Cheers,
JArgo.
Some excerpts:
Executive Summary
The mayors of Chicago and New Orleans have filed lawsuits on behalf of their
cities against the gun industry, and two similar lawsuits filed on behalf of
private citizens are already moving through the courts, with a mixed verdict
rendered in one of the private suits. The Chicago suit and the private suits
contend that (1) guns are a public nuisance and (2) gun manufacturers
knowingly flood cities with more guns than they could expect to sell to
law-abiding citizens, thus aiding criminals to obtain firearms. [The New
Orleans lawsuit takes a different tack, alleging that without safety devices
which would prevent unauthorized users from firing them, guns violate
Louisiana's product liability laws.] The mayors argue that the firearms
industry should reimburse their cities for the public health and safety
costs associated with treating and preventing firearms injuries.
Gun industry critics and organizations working for stricter gun control laws
have compared the suits against the gun industry to those against the
tobacco industry. But unlike tobacco, guns produce tangible social benefits.
More crimes are prevented by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens every
year than are committed with guns. The savings to cities from these
defensive gun uses and the general savings to society from gun ownership
dwarf the cost to municipalities of gun violence.
Although fewer than half a million violent crimes reported to the police in
1996 involved firearms, more than 15 studies have shown that citizens use
guns in self-defense between 764,000 and 3.6 million times annually - often
merely showing the weapon. Criminologist Gary Kleck's estimate of about 2.5
million defensive gun uses annually is perhaps the most reasonable.
About 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed each year by armed civilians -
about three times the number killed by police.
Another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals are wounded by civilians each year.
Research supports the view that the best defense against violence is an
armed response. For example:
Women faced with assault are 2.5 times less likely to suffer serious injury
if they respond with a firearm than if they defend themselves with less
effective weapons or offer no resistance.
According to the Department of Justice, only one-fifth of the victims who
defended themselves with firearms suffered injury, compared to almost half
of those who defended themselves with weapons other than firearms or who had
no weapon.
Not only do guns protect potential victims of crime, they also save society
money.
Even using the statistics most favorable to proponents of lawsuits against
the gun industry, the benefits to society of defensive gun use are greater
than the costs of firearm crimes by at least $90.7 million and perhaps as
much as $3.5 billion per year.
Using more reasonable estimates, the benefits of defensive gun use exceed
the costs of firearm crimes by as much as $38.9 billion - an amount equal to
about $400 per year for every household in America.
There is evidence that one reason the overall rate of serious crime in the
U.S. is at a 20-year low is that since 1987, 22 states have made it easier
for private citizens to get what are called concealed carry permits. A
recent study by University of Chicago economist John Lott found that:
Concealed carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and
severe assault by 7 percent.
Had liberalized concealed carry laws prevailed throughout the country in any
given year, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and
60,000 fewer severe assaults.
The lawsuits against gun manufacturers are not just bad public policy, they
are also dubious as matters of law. The courts have recognized that firearms
are no different from many other potentially dangerous products and have
consistently held that legislatures should decide whether guns should be
legal and widely available. The suits also seek to reverse the
well-established tort law principle that manufacturers are not responsible
for the criminal misuse of their products.
To derail these lawsuits, Congress could revive legislation - successfully
opposed by trial lawyers and antigun groups in 1998 - that seeks to reduce
the number of frivolous product liability lawsuits reaching the courts and
to punish litigants who file such suits.
Another option would be for the public to file countersuits against their
officials on the grounds of public safety. Though unlikely to be successful,
such lawsuits would serve notice that the public opposes attempts at
restricting access to guns that would place law-abiding citizens at risk but
do nothing to deter criminals or reduce crime.
Bucky
>We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
You'll only succeed at the cost of your own liberty.
Furthermore, I'm not an ordinary American.
--
mfu...@somtel.com; Northern Franklin County, Maine $
The Constitution is the white man's ghost shirt. }>:-/> --->
Linus Zimmerman
>
> In article <3740af97...@news.uia.net>,
> Joseph R. Darancette <dar...@uia.net> wrote:
> >The Kosovars didn't have guns and the Government (Serbs) did. The
> >rest is history.
>
> Yes, and think how easy NATO's job would be if the Serbs didn't have guns.
>
> Hold that thought....
>
> { Why if the Serbs didn't have guns, then we could send in our ground forces }
> { armed with nothing more than shatterproof goggles (to above being hit in }
> { the eyes with Serbian slingshots..) and drag that nasty old Milosevic off }
> { to trial so we can find him guilty and hang him.
>
> Now lets extrapolate a bit. If we didn't have better nukes than the Chicoms,
> then the Chinese wouldn't have to steal them and threaten to bomb us with
> their new nukes. They could just march in with their old outdated People's
> Liberation Army nukes while we were busy ducking and covering.
>
> And we could get on with adding that new statue at Mount Clintmore.
>
> Opinion by A. Nonamus
>
> P.S..just wondering. Where is the safest place for a kid to be these days?
> At school or at a gun show? How many kids have been killed at gun shows
> in the last 5 years?
>
> How many people, whatever the age, have been killed at gun shows in the last
> five years?
>
> Gosh, I think I'll go to a gun show this weekend.
Good point!
LZ
Linus Zimmerman
>
> In article <7hqj5d$1tmk$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> Tom Kennedy <tken...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >And we'll all be contented little comrades down on the commune. I'm telling
> >you this is a parody! And a funny one! Great job Tinker Bell.
>
> then I realized it was someone with a sense of humor.
>
> Opinion by A. Nonamus
I guess nobody thought my reply was funny. I beat everyone to
the first reply and never saw it again. Shucks!
lz
Joel Argo
Cheers,
JArgo.
R. Wiley wrote in message ...
>.
>
>It looks like some of the users here have dead
>batteries in their sarcasm detectors.
>
>rw
>
Scott E
Tinker Bell <TB...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7hq7sq$rag$1...@ruby.digisys.net...
> We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe
from
the
> children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not
need
> to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have
guns
> and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
Fly away, Tinker Bell. Back to Never-Never Land for you.
You can play with the other trolls there.
Scott E.
Joe Krolikowski
"Noam D. Guerre" wrote:
LOL!
JK
kurn
Dean, Greg, SSG MI wrote in message <3740C071...@purdue.edu>...
>We will talk about this when you do your part in defending our
>country and our communities. But as long as I am the one on
>the firing line, you are full of shit.
>
>
>
>Tinker Bell wrote:
>>
from
>> being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially
the
>> children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not
need
>> to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have
guns
>> and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>>
that
It has
>> too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to
do
too. I
>> cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were
runied
>> by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night.
Adults
>> too.
>>
>> As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by
taking
away
>> their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we
will
>> have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away
guns. If
>> your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not
need
>> them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Nimby
need to cross-post to so many newsgroups but it looks more like Captain Hook
and is fairy dust has gotten the best of you.
keep thinking those happy thoughts Tink.
Tinker Bell wrote in message <7hq7sq$rag$1...@ruby.digisys.net>...
Billy Beck
Papa Budge <papa...@aol.com> wrote:
><wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
>>
>> <hah> Right.
>>
>> Come get mine. I dare you.
>
>Just the kind of ignorant bluster...
There is nothing "ignorant" about it. I know exactly what I'm
talking about in ways completely opaque to your ridiculous squint.
"Bluster"? Guess what: there is a very good way to test your
assertion.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
wayne mann
>
>Now tell us HOW to take away ALL the guns in a country with at least
>250 million of them, most unregistered. Reality is important to this
>debate.
I suggest that number is over one Billion, rather than a
quarter of that.
\\/ayne //\ann
"Don't take candy from strangers,
unless they offer you a ride first."
John Rower
misguided, ill informed, uninformed at that, child of a democrat. None
of the truth, all of the lies and touchy feel good non-reality views of
the world and how it is/should be come out in those posts.
John Rower
Linus Zimmerman wrote:
>
We know Clinton is good because he let the Chinese send him extra
> money to keep those EVIL Republicans out of office. They were
> going to starve children and old people, poison the air and water
> and make big holes in the ozone layer. Thank you Mr. Clinton for
> stopping them with your shrewd planning. I don't know what we
> will do when you and Hillary move to China.
> LZ>
Bucky
The Shadow <the_sh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Comments like Beck's are the best argument for gun control. Personally, I
> think that the breastbeating of fools like Beck is not being lost on the
> general public. It's the Becks that end up forcing gun control legislation.
Really? I thought gun control legislation was needed because of, you
know, violent crime and teenagers and stuff. You mean the actual motive
of gun control is to bring independent-minded, yet non-violent people
to heel?
Dean, Greg, SSG MI
> > >We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
> >
> > <hah> Right.
> >
> > Come get mine. I dare you.
>
> Congratulations, sir, for amply illustrating the sickening part of the
> Second Amendment computation: some people just can't say no to the
> godlike power of the gun.
>
So how are you going to enforce whatever laws you pass.
Clinton is failing to enforce the laws as it is. I am
surprised that someone has not made an issue of it.
Do you assume that people will joyfully obey laws they
disagree with? It did not happen with alcohol, even the
local cops fought against prohibition. And it isn't working
with drugs.
Turn your same agruements around and use them in the
abortion issue. They don't work. If we ban abortion,
we will have back alley abortions. Ban guns and we
will have backyard gunsmiths.
At best gun control is about making money. If guns could
be registered (most would not be) then it allows them to
be taxed when transferred. Say at $100 per transfer. This
raises the price of cheap guns so they are no longer affordable.
Expensive guns could absorb the price increase. This much
like making the rich, richer. They get guns (power) while
the poor lose power.
And you still must assume that people would go along with it.
If history is any guide, fat chance.
Papa Budge
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3741e0d7...@news.mindspring.com>, Billy Beck
<wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Papa Budge <papa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> ><wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
> >>
> >> <hah> Right.
> >>
> >> Come get mine. I dare you.
> >
> >Just the kind of ignorant bluster...
>
> There is nothing "ignorant" about it. I know exactly what I'm
> talking about in ways completely opaque to your ridiculous squint.
>
> "Bluster"? Guess what: there is a very good way to test your
> assertion.
Oh gosh, what way would that be, Billy Bluster?
--papa budge
"Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything:
That's how the light gets in."
--lc
"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
--jc
John Kennedy
>We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
Then only extraordinary Americans will have guns.
>I want to be safe from
>being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
>children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
>to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
>and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>
>I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
>we need cars
Why? Won't your children be safer when there are no cars? Isn't it
selfish to keep those cars when children are dying from them every
day?
When your children are roadkill do you want to be the one who explains
to their sad little corpses how we "needed" cars?
i
> but we dont need guns.
Sure we do, to take away the cars which kill far more children.
>Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
>too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
>the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
>cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
>by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
>too.
>
>As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by
...bombing their embasies
>taking
>away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
>their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we will
>have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
>your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not need
>them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
>
--
John Kennedy
-------
Best Anarchy Links:
David Friedman -> http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Niels Buhl -> http://www.math.ku.dk/~buhl/
Billy Beck -> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
--------
noe...@boxxful.org
>Tinker Bell wrote:
>>
>> We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
>> being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
>> children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
>> to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
>> and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>>
>> I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
>> we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
>> too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
>> the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
>> cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
>> by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
>> too.
>>
>> As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by taking
Joseph R. Darancette
>We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
>being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
>children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
>to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
>and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>
Sorry Tink "ordinary Americans don't shoot other people.
>I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
>we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
>too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
>the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
>cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
>by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
>too.
>
>As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by taking
>away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
>their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we will
>have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
>your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not need
>them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
>
The Kosovars didn't have guns and the Government (Serbs) did. The
rest is history.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
bre...@no-spam.com
Cheers,
Bredon
---
On 17 May 1999 23:14:34 GMT, TB...@mindspring.com (Tinker Bell) wrote:
>We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
>being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
>children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
>to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
>and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>
>I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
>we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
>too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
>the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
>cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
>by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
>too.
>
>As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by taking
>away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
>their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we will
>have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
>your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not need
>them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
********************************************************
Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
Julie Steele freed! Needs donations for $500,000 legal fees:
http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
Good info: http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm
WP article, Serb's offensive was planned before bombing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-04/11/035r-041199-idx.html
The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
*****************************************************
cd
>That's not Tinkerbell, it looks like a very bad Troll, to me.
>
Shorten the name to Tinkertroll.
Billy Beck
TB...@mindspring.com (Tinker Bell) wrote:
>We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
<hah> Right.
Come get mine. I dare you.
A. Nonamus
>rest is history.
Yes, and think how easy NATO's job would be if the Serbs didn't have guns.
A. Nonamus
McQ
following:
>Thank you for a very nice post. You are probably right.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
McQ
_______________________________
"Individual and inherent rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and
PROPERTY do exist and always have existed. They
exist because man is self-controlling and is thus
unavoidably responsible for maintaining his own
life, his own liberty, and his own property on
which both his life and liberty are necessarily
based. That is a universal law of nature and
life, and no wishful thinking or pious platitudes
can change it. If man had not generally followed
this principle, he would have disappeared from
this earth long ago. -- Dr. Dean Russell
R. Wiley
Codesmith at large
Tinker Bell wrote:
> We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
> being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
> children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
> to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
> and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>
> I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
> we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
> too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
> the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
> cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
> by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
> too.
>
> As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by taking
> away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
> their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we will
> have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
> your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not need
> them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
We need to take away guns from ordinary Americans (perverts, freaks, druggies,
felons, lunatic Americans, its OK).
Government good. People bad. I saw Clinton cry. I cried too because I wanted
there to be perfect peace on earth and I knew Clinton wanted it too. Clinton is a
peaceful man because he has only used the military sixty times during his term.
Clinton blew up an aspirin factory because the aspirin was bad and could hurt
people. Clinton also blew up hospitals and ophanages because the people in ICU and
some of the little children may have had guns. Because bad people have guns
Clinton will blow them all up so that I will be safe. Dropping bombs on bad
people with guns is good.
I want Clinton to send in cops to do door to door searches so that I will be safe
from guns.... and sharp things, and scary dogs and things that go bump in the
night. When all the guns are gone and a soldier lives in each house, we will all
be safe, and we will never die, and then we can spend our times in a group hug
since crime will go away because everyone will be without guns except the police.
Then we will be happy because the whole world will follow our lead and never be
violent again - except for Hollywood because I like the action movies and I know
that they are only make believe.
I watched Clinton on CNN and I believe every word he says. He is such an honest
man. Some people say that he helped our friends in China by not keeping secrets
from them. See, Clinton is an honest man because he doesn't keep secrets from our
friends. China must be our friend because they want to get rid of guns too. I
heard that they put all kinds of machine guns in ships and sent them over to
California because they didn't want those bad guns in their country. I heard that
Clinton let them bring them here and give them to street gangs. Since Clinton is
good, he must be doing this to help our friends in China. I trust him so much.
Tinker Bell
>We need to take away guns from ordinary Americans (perverts, freaks,
druggies,
>felons, lunatic Americans, its OK).
Yes! Take the guns away from everybody. Then all these bad people will have to
be good because only the police will have guns and wont have to worry about
the criminals shooting them.
>Government good. People bad. I saw Clinton cry. I cried too because I
wanted
>there to be perfect peace on earth and I knew Clinton wanted it too. Clinton
is a
>peaceful man because he has only used the military sixty times during his
term.
Mr. Clinton is only trying to give us peace. Ethnic cleansing is bad and he
will not allow it. He is very brave. We cannot let Mr. Milosevic kill all
those people. Americans are free and that is our job.
>Clinton blew up an aspirin factory because the aspirin was bad and could hurt
>people.
No they were making poison to kill the world. Others in our high government
offices agreed that they were making poison. They told us about it on CNN. We
were lucky Mr. Clinton found out about it in time since so many people were
trying to stab him in the back about his personal life and his love affair.
Clinton also blew up hospitals and ophanages because the people in ICU and
>some of the little children may have had guns.
No he didnt. Mr. Clinton is always doing good things for the children.
He cares about us and our children. Everything he does is for the children.
Because bad people have guns
>Clinton will blow them all up so that I will be safe. Dropping bombs on bad
>people with guns is good.
No it is not good. We should just take away their guns. Then we will not have
bad people with guns.
>I want Clinton to send in cops to do door to door searches so that I will be
safe
>from guns
Yes! Take away all guns. Nobody needs a gun.
.... and sharp things, and scary dogs and things that go bump in the
>night. When all the guns are gone and a soldier lives in each house, we will
all
>be safe, and we will never die, and then we can spend our times in a group
hug
Hugs are nice. Perhaps you can get someone to hug you. It is hard to shoot
someone who is hugging and loving you. Take away the guns and people will have
more time to hug. Please dont shoot anybody for giving hugs.
>since crime will go away because everyone will be without guns except the
police.
>Then we will be happy because the whole world will follow our lead and never
be
>violent again - except for Hollywood because I like the action movies and I
know
>that they are only make believe.
I think you watch too many of those movies. Those movies show violence.
Ordinary americans should not be allowed to watch those violent movies with
all of the guns and shooting. Our children go watch those horrible movies and
then go shoot someone. Mr. Clinton just went to Hollywood to ask them to quit
making movies with guns.
>I watched Clinton on CNN and I believe every word he says. He is such an
honest
>man. Some people say that he helped our friends in China by not keeping
secrets
>from them. See, Clinton is an honest man because he doesn't keep secrets
from our
>friends.
Mr. Clinton loves everybody. He does not care if they are Chinese. He
especially loves the children and wants to do everything for them. Mr. Gore
also likes the Chinese.
China must be our friend because they want to get rid of guns too. I
>heard that they put all kinds of machine guns in ships and sent them over to
>California because they didn't want those bad guns in their country.
Chinese are smart. They dont have children running around with guns shooting
everybody. We could learn a lot from the Chinese. They are very smart and
peaceful. They do not have guns in China cause they are getting rid of them.
They have decided they dont need guns.
I heard that
>Clinton let them bring them here and give them to street gangs. Since
Clinton is
>good, he must be doing this to help our friends in China. I trust him so
much.
He will take away their guns too.
PBarker
>Hugs are nice. Perhaps you can get someone to hug you. It is hard to shoot
>someone who is hugging and loving you. Take away the guns and people will
have
>more time to hug. Please dont shoot anybody for giving hugs.
++Methinks someone has hugged you just a little too hard lately.
johnz
(McQ) wrote:
> >Tinker Bell contributed the following:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
> >your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does
not need
> >them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
>
> Tinker Bell, huh?
>
> Aptly named.
You know everybody, I havw the strong feeling that this is sarcasm, and
not an actual sentiment of Mr. Bell.
JS
Lynette Warren
>
> Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
> the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN.
> I cried too.
I'm in tears, too.
bwahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahhahah!! I can hardly catch my breath.
> They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults too.
Tinker, babe, you're phreaking genius. Keep the posts coming!
Lynette
--
Rob Robertson
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 00:56:55 GMT, bre...@no-spam.com contributed the
> following:
>
> >Thank you for a very nice post. You are probably right.
>
> Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Consider it a Public Service Announcement. Bredon removes
all doubt about hir intent by applauding an obvious troll.
Sure beats a few hundred laps on the merry-go-round, eh?
> McQ
> _______________________________
>
> "Individual and inherent rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and
> PROPERTY do exist and always have existed. They
> exist because man is self-controlling and is thus
> unavoidably responsible for maintaining his own
> life, his own liberty, and his own property on
> which both his life and liberty are necessarily
> based. That is a universal law of nature and
> life, and no wishful thinking or pious platitudes
> can change it. If man had not generally followed
> this principle, he would have disappeared from
> this earth long ago. -- Dr. Dean Russell
_
Rob
CJ
news:7hq7sq$rag$1...@ruby.digisys.net...
> We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe
from
> being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially
the
> children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not
need
> to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have
guns
> and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
This is a joke, right? Just in case it isn't, taking guns away only disarms
the law abiding.
Thugs and criminals will be able to get them the same way they always have,
illegally.
Besides, you think your children are safe? Stabbings do occur.
Papa Budge
<geo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >That's not Tinkerbell, it looks like a very bad Troll, to me.
> >
>
> Shorten the name to Tinkertroll.
What happened...character count disabled?
Papa Budge
<wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
>
> <hah> Right.
>
> Come get mine. I dare you.
Just the kind of ignorant bluster that gives gun owners a bad name.
Congratulations, sir, for amply illustrating the sickening part of the
Second Amendment computation: some people just can't say no to the
godlike power of the gun.
--papa budge
McQ
>>(McQ) wrote:
>
>> >Tinker Bell contributed the following:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
>> >your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does
>not need
>> >them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
>>
>> Tinker Bell, huh?
>>
>> Aptly named.
>
>You know everybody, I havw the strong feeling that this is sarcasm, and
>not an actual sentiment of Mr. Bell.
No kidding.
Think fairy dust, John. Fairy dust.
As I said ... aptly named.
Roger Shouse
>From: Papa Budge <papa...@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: Take away all guns NOW
>Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:46:59 -0500
>In article <3740bc87...@news.mindspring.com>, Billy Beck
><wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
>>
>> <hah> Right.
>>
>> Come get mine. I dare you.
>Just the kind of ignorant bluster that gives gun owners a bad name.
>Congratulations, sir, for amply illustrating the sickening part of the
>Second Amendment computation: some people just can't say no to the
>godlike power of the gun.
>--papa budge
Budge's response helps us understand why the French were unable to protect
themselves against two German invasions. Lucky for them that not everyone
fancies such wimpishness.
RS
Tommy T-Rex
Tommy T-Rex
Tinker Bell <TB...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7hq7sq$rag$1...@ruby.digisys.net...
> We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe
from
> being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially
the
> children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not
need
> to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have
guns
> and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>
> I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is
that
> we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It
has
> too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to
do
> the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too.
I
> cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were
runied
> by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
> too.
>
> As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by
taking
> away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
> their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we
will
> have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns.
Linus Zimmerman
>
> Tinker Bell wrote:
>
> > We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
> > being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
> > children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
> > to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
> > and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
> >
> > I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
> > we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
> > too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
> > the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
> > cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
> > by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
> > too.
> >
> > As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by taking
> > away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
> > their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we will
> > have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
> > your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not need
> > them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
>
> felons, lunatic Americans, its OK).
>
> there to be perfect peace on earth and I knew Clinton wanted it too. Clinton is a
> peaceful man because he has only used the military sixty times during his term.
> some of the little children may have had guns. Because bad people have guns
> Clinton will blow them all up so that I will be safe. Dropping bombs on bad
> people with guns is good.
>
> night. When all the guns are gone and a soldier lives in each house, we will all
> be safe, and we will never die, and then we can spend our times in a group hug
> Then we will be happy because the whole world will follow our lead and never be
> violent again - except for Hollywood because I like the action movies and I know
> that they are only make believe.
>
> man. Some people say that he helped our friends in China by not keeping secrets
> from them. See, Clinton is an honest man because he doesn't keep secrets from our
> heard that they put all kinds of machine guns in ships and sent them over to
> Clinton let them bring them here and give them to street gangs. Since Clinton is
> good, he must be doing this to help our friends in China. I trust him so much.
We know Clinton is good because he let the Chinese send him extra
money to keep those EVIL Republicans out of office. They were
going to starve children and old people, poison the air and water
and make big holes in the ozone layer. Thank you Mr. Clinton for
stopping them with your shrewd planning. I don't know what we
will do when you and Hillary move to China.
LZ
The Shadow
Papa Budge <papa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:180519990846592467%papa...@aol.com...
> >
> > Come get mine. I dare you.
>
> Just the kind of ignorant bluster that gives gun owners a bad name.
> Congratulations, sir, for amply illustrating the sickening part of the
> Second Amendment computation: some people just can't say no to the
> godlike power of the gun.
>
> --papa budge
Comments like Beck's are the best argument for gun control. Personally, I
think that the breastbeating of fools like Beck is not being lost on the
general public. It's the Becks that end up forcing gun control legislation.
The Shadow
Roger Shouse <rc...@psu.edu> wrote in message
news:rcs8.1658...@psu.edu...
> In article <180519990846592467%papa...@aol.com> Papa Budge
<papa...@aol.com> writes:
> >From: Papa Budge <papa...@aol.com>
> >Subject: Re: Take away all guns NOW
> >Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 08:46:59 -0500
>
> ><wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> >We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
> >>
> >> <hah> Right.
> >>
> >> Come get mine. I dare you.
>
> >Just the kind of ignorant bluster that gives gun owners a bad name.
> >Congratulations, sir, for amply illustrating the sickening part of the
> >Second Amendment computation: some people just can't say no to the
> >godlike power of the gun.
Oh yeah. It was also the French resistance that was fighting Hitler while
goosestepping right wing crackers in America were hanging pictures of Der
Fuhrer on their den walls.
Tinker Bell
tken...@frontiernet.net says...
>
>I think you all might be missing the parody in Tinker Bell's post. Consider:
Tinker Bell a parody? Maybe, but in many ways Tinker Bell is very real. She is
a loving, caring person and mother who is genuinely concerned about the safety
of her kids. She is a "soccer mom." She has never touched a gun and will not
allow one in the house. Much of her adult information input comes from stuff
like "Rosie." She feels she is keeping informed by watching the news on tv
every night that she can. She patriotically takes the time to vote in every
election. She is the perfect victim for unscrupulous politicians.
Yes, Tink is alive and well and you know what? Her vote will count just as
much as yours.
Here are a couple of clips you may find interesting.
>"I think it's wrong to let people carry
>concealed weapons." She continued saying, "I believe Americans
>want their presidents to be inspiring, effective and
>confident...and determined to ensure the safety of our kids on
>the streets and in their schools -- even if it means having the
>guts to stand up to the gun lobby."
That was Elizabeth Dole last week campaining in New Hampshire. Of course this
is the political version of Tinker Bell, Tinker Bell with an adgenda and some
political clout. Kinda scary, huh?
And here is another post that just popped up today under the topic "If I was
King for a day." This is not your average Tinker Bell since she posts to the
Net and so is hopefully getting some feedback other than the tv news.
>If I was queen for a day I would:
>
>1)Abolish both the GOP and Democratic Party and any other party in between.
>
>2)Tell everybody the best way to vote is to vote for the person and not the
>party.
>
>3)Have a " One Strike and You're Out" for murderers, rapists, and molesters.
>Any one serious crime committed and you're in prison for the rest of your
>life.
>
>4)Have a "Three Strikes and You're Out" program that sends any one that has
>committed a smaller crime (vandalization, theft, assault, etc.)3 times to be
>sent to prison for a life time sentence.
>
>5)Have a huge fine for racists that commit any form of racism.
>
>6)Raise salaries for teachers and social workers and anyone who works for
>the best of others.
>
>7)Abolish the death penalty and let the guilty criminal live out his life in
>prison.
>
>8)Abolish all National Holidays and declare Earth Day as the world holiday.
>
>9)Have everyone not live such an extremist lifestyle.
>
>10) Make everyone, including myself, vegetarian.
>
>--
>Suzanna
>xxx...@netdoor.com
Karen Horn
Nice troll, but you screwed yourself up by using correct grammar and
spelling. Stupid people never do, and that's where you blew your cover.
Karen
The Shadow
> In article <7hqj5d$1tmk$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
> tken...@frontiernet.net says...
> >
> >I think you all might be missing the parody in Tinker Bell's post.
Consider:
>
> Tinker Bell a parody? Maybe, but in many ways Tinker Bell is very real.
She is
> a loving, caring person and mother who is genuinely concerned about the
safety
> of her kids. She is a "soccer mom." She has never touched a gun and will
not
> allow one in the house. Much of her adult information input comes from
stuff
> like "Rosie." She feels she is keeping informed by watching the news on tv
> every night that she can. She patriotically takes the time to vote in
every
> election. She is the perfect victim for unscrupulous politicians.
Apparently not, since she isn't indiscriminately voting the straight GOP
ticket.
>
> Yes, Tink is alive and well and you know what? Her vote will count just as
> much as yours.
Thank God.
>
> Here are a couple of clips you may find interesting.
>
> >"I think it's wrong to let people carry
> >concealed weapons." She continued saying, "I believe Americans
> >want their presidents to be inspiring, effective and
> >confident...and determined to ensure the safety of our kids on
> >the streets and in their schools -- even if it means having the
> >guts to stand up to the gun lobby."
>
> That was Elizabeth Dole last week campaining in New Hampshire. Of course
this
> is the political version of Tinker Bell, Tinker Bell with an adgenda and
some
> political clout. Kinda scary, huh?
Must be very scary for the GOP when one of their own suddenly recognizes
that THINKING might be better than lockstepping with the right wing.
fatsin...@got.net
>If you were to take ALL the guns away why would the police need them?
They would still need their guns to force YOU to do things against
your will.
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
>------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Odin
>
> Tinker Bell wrote:
>
> > We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe from
> > being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially the
> > children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not need
> > to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have guns
> > and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
> >
> > I read about some who say cars kill too so take them away. The problem is that
> > we need cars but we dont need guns. Guns are bad. Especially the Tech9. It has
> > too many bullets. Why does everybody hate our President? He is trying to do
> > the right thing and take away our guns. I saw him cry on CNN. I cried too. I
> > cry every night when I see those hundreds of children whose lives were runied
> > by guns. They are more and more children crying on CNN every night. Adults
> > too.
> >
> > As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by taking
> > away guns. He is trying to help those poor people in Europe by taking away
> > their guns so they cant kill each other. After all guns are taken away we will
> > have peace and our children will be safe. Help Mr. clinton take away guns. If
> > your neighbor has guns tell the police and have him arrested. He does not need
> > them and he will be happy if his children are safe.
>
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON LOL :-)
Hippster
>In article <3740F29D...@warmoose.com>, agr...@warmoose.com says...
>>We need to take away guns from ordinary Americans (perverts, freaks,
>druggies,
>>felons, lunatic Americans, its OK).
>
>Yes! Take the guns away from everybody. Then all these bad people will have to
>be good because only the police will have guns and wont have to worry about
>the criminals shooting them.
>
>>Government good. People bad. I saw Clinton cry. I cried too because I
>wanted
>>there to be perfect peace on earth and I knew Clinton wanted it too. Clinton
>is a
>>peaceful man because he has only used the military sixty times during his
>term.
>
>Mr. Clinton is only trying to give us peace. Ethnic cleansing is bad and he
>will not allow it. He is very brave. We cannot let Mr. Milosevic kill all
>those people. Americans are free and that is our job.
>
>>Clinton blew up an aspirin factory because the aspirin was bad and could hurt
>>people.
>
>No they were making poison to kill the world. Others in our high government
>offices agreed that they were making poison. They told us about it on CNN. We
>were lucky Mr. Clinton found out about it in time since so many people were
>trying to stab him in the back about his personal life and his love affair.
>
>Clinton also blew up hospitals and ophanages because the people in ICU and
>>some of the little children may have had guns.
>
>No he didnt. Mr. Clinton is always doing good things for the children.
>He cares about us and our children. Everything he does is for the children.
>
>Because bad people have guns
>>Clinton will blow them all up so that I will be safe. Dropping bombs on bad
>>people with guns is good.
>
>No it is not good. We should just take away their guns. Then we will not have
>bad people with guns.
>
>>I want Clinton to send in cops to do door to door searches so that I will be
>safe
>>from guns
>
>Yes! Take away all guns. Nobody needs a gun.
>
>.... and sharp things, and scary dogs and things that go bump in the
>>night. When all the guns are gone and a soldier lives in each house, we will
>all
>>be safe, and we will never die, and then we can spend our times in a group
>hug
>
>Hugs are nice. Perhaps you can get someone to hug you. It is hard to shoot
>someone who is hugging and loving you. Take away the guns and people will have
>more time to hug. Please dont shoot anybody for giving hugs.
>
>>since crime will go away because everyone will be without guns except the
>police.
>>Then we will be happy because the whole world will follow our lead and never
>be
>>violent again - except for Hollywood because I like the action movies and I
>know
>>that they are only make believe.
>
>I think you watch too many of those movies. Those movies show violence.
>Ordinary americans should not be allowed to watch those violent movies with
>all of the guns and shooting. Our children go watch those horrible movies and
>then go shoot someone. Mr. Clinton just went to Hollywood to ask them to quit
>making movies with guns.
>
>>I watched Clinton on CNN and I believe every word he says. He is such an
>honest
>>man. Some people say that he helped our friends in China by not keeping
>secrets
>>from them. See, Clinton is an honest man because he doesn't keep secrets
>from our
>>friends.
>
>Mr. Clinton loves everybody. He does not care if they are Chinese. He
>especially loves the children and wants to do everything for them. Mr. Gore
>also likes the Chinese.
>
>China must be our friend because they want to get rid of guns too. I
>>heard that they put all kinds of machine guns in ships and sent them over to
>>California because they didn't want those bad guns in their country.
>
>Chinese are smart. They dont have children running around with guns shooting
>everybody. We could learn a lot from the Chinese. They are very smart and
>peaceful. They do not have guns in China cause they are getting rid of them.
>They have decided they dont need guns.
>
>I heard that
>>Clinton let them bring them here and give them to street gangs. Since
>Clinton is
>>good, he must be doing this to help our friends in China. I trust him so
>much.
>
>He will take away their guns too.
>
If tinker bell is not funnin' us he, or she, is one disillusioned
mo-fo.
Hippster
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend upon the support of Paul."
-- George Bernard Shaw
R. Wiley
Rep. Shiela Lee, D. Tx. has figured out how to subvert the
Bill of Rights. She realizes that no one if falling for
"gun control", that everyone realizes that it is a euphemism
for elimination of the right of the people to keep and bear
arms. She has decided that infringement of the right of the
people to keep and bear arms should be referred to as "gun
safety". That should fool 'em.
rw
R. Wiley
I believe in peanut butter.
rw
A. Nonamus
And the SAFEST place to be is at a gun show.
Matter of fact, I believe that gun shows are safer than schools,
and we should send all our kids there.
When was the last time you heard of a murder at a gun show,
I ask you...?
A. Nonamus
Rob Robertson
>
> I know what I will do, CELEBRATE! I think tinkerbell is the 5 year old
> misguided, ill informed, uninformed at that, child of a democrat. None
> of the truth, all of the lies and touchy feel good non-reality views of
> the world and how it is/should be come out in those posts.
Tinkerbell was *portraying* a misguided, ill-informed 'soccer mom', and
did an outstanding job, judging by the responses.
Well done, Tink.
> John Rower
>
> Linus Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> We know Clinton is good because he let the Chinese send him extra
> > money to keep those EVIL Republicans out of office. They were
> > going to starve children and old people, poison the air and water
> > and make big holes in the ozone layer. Thank you Mr. Clinton for
> > stopping them with your shrewd planning. I don't know what we
> > will do when you and Hillary move to China.
> > LZ>
_
Rob Robertson
David Steuber
-> They would still need their guns to force YOU to do things against
-> your will.
That's what a truncheon is for.
--
David Steuber | s/trashcan/david/ if you wish to reply by mail
Finagle's Third Law:
In any collection of data, the figure most obviously correct,
beyond all need of checking, is the mistake
Corollaries:
(1) Nobody whom you ask for help will see it.
(2) The first person who stops by, whose advice you really
don't want to hear, will see it immediately.
Billy Beck
Papa Budge <papa...@aol.com> wrote:
>[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
It did not make it to my e-mail, which is a good thing for you,
Budge. Now hear this: you are not welcome in my e-mail. The very
first time you appear there, the matter will be taken up with the
proper abuse desk. I have a very good record with this, and you will
be taken in hand.
Now then;
><wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans.
>> >>
>> >> <hah> Right.
>> >>
>> >> Come get mine. I dare you.
>> >
>> >Just the kind of ignorant bluster...
>>
>> There is nothing "ignorant" about it. I know exactly what I'm
>> talking about in ways completely opaque to your ridiculous squint.
>>
>> "Bluster"? Guess what: there is a very good way to test your
>> assertion.
>
>Oh gosh, what way would that be, Billy Bluster?
Come get them. That's how. It's very simple. Try it.
No matter what: nobody will ever lay a finger on my guns. I
might be taken away to prison and, depending who I'm dealing with,
that could easily be a peaceful affair, but that will be a very
different thing from confiscating my guns or any of my property,
whatever. I can, and would, see to it without fail. At the very
least: they would simply disappear, and nobody would ever know where
they went without my authorization.
You're pretty fond of that "bluster" thing, aren't you, Budge?
That's really ironic, when one stops to think about how completely
inept such a move as trying to take possession of my guns would be in
reality. I hear a lot of talk about this sort of thing now & then,
but it's kinda like the weather: "Nobody ever does anything about it."
If *you've* got anything more on your game than "bluster", then
go ahead and try it.
I will tell you this much: without your big daddy state in on the
caper, I wouldn't have the least compunction at shooting you dead like
any common thief invading my home.
"Come get some."
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Billy Beck
The original post under this subject heading may or may not have
been a joke.
What follows is no laughing matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forget Gun Control; Ban Them Altogether
Hartford Courant
May 14, 1999 Denis Horgan
Ban them entirely. Run a huge legal magnet over the country and
collect every gun we can. Melt them down. Use the hot, heavy metal to
make a monument to the hundreds of thousands of victims of firearm
violence. It would reach to the moon. Forget gun control. Ban guns
entirely. How can anyone believe there is any hope at all that
anything meaningful will be done to reduce the national gun carnage
when the craven Senate majority dances to its NRA marionette-master's
tune, killing a pathetically modest paperwork effort to monitor the
sale of some few weapons. Dump the outdated Second Amendment - the
only amendment that kills. There's no prospect of nickle-and-diming
the national bloodshed. The gun people would rather see humans die
than have anything happen to limit their precious guns. People are
being killed and wounded by the hundreds of thousands and the gun
fanatics worry about paperwork. It is sick. They are sick. Their
sycophants in Washington are worse than sick.
Just prohibit the blood-drenched things. England did it and the last
time anyone looked England survives.
We can change. We know that we have in our laws the skeleton key to
mayhem and mothers crying out in anguish. The senators may not care
that there is slaughter in their communities but the rest of us do. It
is wrong and we can change it.
In my time, the laws of the land allowed terrible discrimination
against our black neighbors, against women. We changed it. In my
father's time women were not allowed to vote; they changed it. In my
father's father's time it was legal to own another human being; they
changed that.
It makes no difference to the gun guys and their lap dogs in office
that children are being blasted to pieces. They don't care that the
country is turning into a huge arsenal where any lunatic with a few
bucks can find a way to slither through the porous rules. It doesn't
much bother them that we have nearly as many guns as we have people
and that kids can easily get pretty much anything they ``need'' to
conduct a symphony of murder at places like Columbine High School.
They don't care.
Their guns are more important than children. Imagine that.
People say that Prohibition didn't work, that it spawned gangsters and
lawlessness, inconvenienced millions. Maybe. And maybe for a dozen
years there was less pain and battering than there was before or
since. The gangsters did not vanish with repeal. We lose more lives to
people drinking than we do to people not drinking.
But, at the least and maybe the most, there is some good, too, in
alcohol or automobiles which stands in contrast to the ghastly harm
that occurs with such things badly used. Where is the good in guns
that outweighs the thousands and thousands of killings? The national
will was opposed to the prohibition of liquor, but where is the
national will to continue the gunplay?
Yet the gun people, with their politicians bought and paid for, fight
every tiny effort to bring sanity to the maniacal reality that stains
this country a bright red. The smallest, tamest, most procedural ideas
are assailed as if they threatened the fabric of the nation - when it
is the firepower and killing which endanger us.
Politicians bold enough to send us to war in distant lands are too
timid to battle the weapons of our war at home. Legislators ready to
build a Berlin Wall against immigrants who would contribute so much
will not lift a finger to keep out the millions of weapons that kill
us in pornographic numbers. Addicted to the money and influence of the
gun gang, they will do nothing about a national poison which destroys
as surely as any narcotic. What's wrong with these people? Don't they
hear the agony of their people living in terror of the flood of guns?
Don't they respect the true blue world whose police officers and
organizations speak out so forcefully for gun control? Cops know that
there is no honor in having the epithet, ``He died for someone's
perverse reading of the Second Amendment.''
But they do not care about the police officers whose lives are at
peril or the citizenry at risk. They demonstrate that with their
blood-stained, uncontrolled allegiance to gun money. They should be
ashamed of themselves.
No, the answer is not control.
Ban the guns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Harold
>Thank you for a very nice post. You are probably right.
I am sorry, but I must comment that I don't think you have any brains
at all.
This is an obvious troll.
Regards, Harold
----
"I am not for gun control."
--Bill Clinton (The Arkansas Gazette, 11/2/90)
Panhead
>
> fatsin...@got.net writes:
>
> -> They would still need their guns to force YOU to do things against
> -> your will.
>
> That's what a truncheon is for.
Violence, violence violence.
Perhaps if they just asked "nicely" to give up our guns?
(ahem)
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
Linus Zimmerman
>
> The original post under this subject heading may or may not have
> been a joke.
>
> What follows is no laughing matter.
>
HAVE THEY SUPPORTED WARS? THEN THEY HAVE ASSISTED IN KILLING A
LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN THE GUNS IN THE HANDS OF LAW ABIDING
CITIZENS. YET THEY DO NOT HESITATE TO POINT FINGERS AND ASSAIL
RIGHTS. HYPOCRITES!
LZ
Uriel And Ezrael
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3742578f...@news.mindspring.com...
Yah. Thanks for keeping it in all the gun-related newsgroups, bozo...
--
Midway http://home.att.net/~zazel/
Billy Beck
"Uriel And Ezrael" <za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3742578f...@news.mindspring.com...
>
>Yah. Thanks for keeping it in all the gun-related newsgroups, bozo...
Hush yourself. There is a lot more to this than just guns.
Spread it far & wide.
Uriel And Ezrael
>
> "Uriel And Ezrael" <za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3742578f...@news.mindspring.com...
> >
> >Yah. Thanks for keeping it in all the gun-related newsgroups, bozo...
>
> Hush yourself. There is a lot more to this than just guns.
>
> Spread it far & wide.
Well to me it looks like the opinion of one idiot liberal reporter from
Connecticut. I would be more concerned if it were the wording of actual
legislation.
I guess the reason I'm so fed up reading about guns is because you can't
seem to escape the subject. What are they talking about on the Colorado
Rockies newsgroup? Guns! I'm in Alt.impeach.clinton- the forum for the
resistance against this so-called president. If it's about guns, but
pertains specifically to Clinton in some way- fine. If not, it's alot like
spam as far as I'm concerned.
We're on the same side on this issue, so I apologize for being insulting. I
guess that it's kind of a moot point from my perspective. I don't own a gun
myself, though my dad is a card-carrying NRA member. But, regardless, I
live in a highly militirized area where there is not going to be alot of
crime whether the citizens have guns or not, and where, if they had to, they
would be glad to pry the gun from your dead, cold hands. Hell, they would
call out a tank and turn your home or compound into a smoking crater if
neccesary. But we have concealed-carry laws in our city, so there's really
no problems, right now.
I accept the fact that this is not the situation everywhere, and many
Republicans feel very,very strongly on the subject. I just wish we could
excersize som modration on the subject, and not cross-post to a dozen
newsgroup with some idiot liberal's irrelevent, matrubatory propaganda. The
best thing to do would be to utterly ignore him, and concentrate on
attacking liberalism in general, rather than compounding on the perception
of all Republicans being gun-nuts, and further exposing the soft under-belly
of a party that is struggling to maintain popular acceptance.
I would just like it if people would go to the proper forum, and tone it
down a notch, so I wouldn't have to kill-file Republican thinkers like
yourself, who might have things to say that I would't want to miss.
--
Midway http://home.att.net/~zazel/
KD
Tinker Bell wrote in message <7hq7sq$rag$1...@ruby.digisys.net>...
>As soon as Mr. Clinton saw the high school killings he tried to help by
taking
>away guns.
Or it could go a different way. If those kids in Colorado didn't have guns,
my guess, they would have set off some bombs and more people would have
died. People make do with what they've got.
Billy Beck
"Uriel And Ezrael" <za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:374315a5...@news.mindspring.com...
>> >Yah. Thanks for keeping it in all the gun-related newsgroups, bozo...
>>
>> Hush yourself. There is a lot more to this than just guns.
>>
>> Spread it far & wide.
>
>Well to me it looks like the opinion of one idiot liberal reporter from
>Connecticut. I would be more concerned if it were the wording of actual
>legislation.
Just how many baby steps do think could be measured from the one
to the other?
"Know your enemy."
>I guess the reason I'm so fed up reading about guns is because you can't
>seem to escape the subject. What are they talking about on the Colorado
>Rockies newsgroup? Guns! I'm in Alt.impeach.clinton- the forum for the
>resistance against this so-called president. If it's about guns, but
>pertains specifically to Clinton in some way- fine. If not, it's alot like
>spam as far as I'm concerned.
Fine. That's as far as you're concerned. (BTW: *the* forum for
for resistence against The Lying Bastard is
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, and has been since April of
1995. Don't let the name fool you: if you never saw Christopher
Lyons' "Whitewater FAQ", then let me know and I can arrange a copy for
you. It's where I'm posting from, as well as responding to
cross-posts into the group.)
If you don't think guns "pertain specifically" to The Boy
President, then you simply haven't been paying attention.
>We're on the same side on this issue, so I apologize for being insulting.
Thank you.
>I guess that it's kind of a moot point from my perspective. I don't own a gun
>myself, though my dad is a card-carrying NRA member. But, regardless, I
>live in a highly militirized area where there is not going to be alot of
>crime whether the citizens have guns or not, and where, if they had to, they
>would be glad to pry the gun from your dead, cold hands. Hell, they would
>call out a tank and turn your home or compound into a smoking crater if
>neccesary. But we have concealed-carry laws in our city, so there's really
>no problems, right now.
Well, I'm really happy to hear that. I think that's just swell.
I think it would also be nice if the issue of private property - which
subsumes the gun control issue - never reared its head, in your neck
of the woods, in the form herded to the shrieking forefront by various
Clintooniacs. For myself, I take a look at what's going on elsewhere
in the country and conclude that a defense of principles is necessary
to the greated extent that I can manage, even if I don't have the cops
knocking on *my* particular door to take my guns. That's because I
know that if they can do it to someone else, somewhere else, I could
easily be next, and I won't have anyone, really to blame for not
putting up a conceptual fight if I don't. It *would* be a lot easier
for me to not pay attention to it, because I wouldn't have a problem
finding other things to do with my life, but this is important to me.
*You're* free to disagree.
You could also make you way to the next post.
>I accept the fact that this is not the situation everywhere, and many
>Republicans feel very,very strongly on the subject.
I wouldn't know about that. I have observed, today, for
instance, that congressional Republicans "feel very strongly" that
they need to lick Democratic ass over this.
> I just wish we could
>excersize som modration on the subject, and not cross-post to a dozen
>newsgroup with some idiot liberal's irrelevent, matrubatory propaganda. The
>best thing to do would be to utterly ignore him, and concentrate on
>attacking liberalism in general,...
Think about this: one very good way to do that is to take on
*particular* applications of "liberal" politics as a matter of
demonstrating the *general* fallacies. I'm sorry if you find it
tedious, but there is serious work to do, and some have the energy for
it.
>I would just like it if people would go to the proper forum, and tone it
>down a notch, so I wouldn't have to kill-file Republican thinkers like
>yourself,...
I am not a Republican. Never. No Republican ever made a dime
off of me, nor ever counted a vote in my name, and never will.
This is not about party politics.
I am far more principled than that.
Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A)
[snipped emotional BS]
>
> People say that Prohibition didn't work, that it spawned gangsters and
> lawlessness, inconvenienced millions. Maybe. And maybe for a dozen
> years there was less pain and battering than there was before or
> since. The gangsters did not vanish with repeal. We lose more lives to
> people drinking than we do to people not drinking.
What the HELL does this last sentence mean? I mean, this entire screed is a
non-logical, emotional appeal based on little or no factual information,
but I really need to ask what emotional button the moron is trying to push
with that sentence.
Damn.
Karl A
--
The first lady has described the Arkansas land dealings known as Whitewater
as "the never-ending fictional conspiracy" that "reminds me of some
people's obsession with UFOs and the Hale-Bopp comet."
What does that say about her creation of the VRWC? She Bopp!
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <3742578f...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
Um, Karl? *Please* be a tad more careful with attributes, won't you?
Billy didn't "write" this, of course, he merely presented this article
with the header;
Forget Gun Control; Ban Them Altogether
Hartford Courant
May 14, 1999 Denis Horgan
> [snipped emotional BS]
>
> >
> > People say that Prohibition didn't work, that it spawned gangsters and
> > lawlessness, inconvenienced millions. Maybe. And maybe for a dozen
> > years there was less pain and battering than there was before or
> > since. The gangsters did not vanish with repeal. We lose more lives to
> > people drinking than we do to people not drinking.
>
> What the HELL does this last sentence mean? I mean, this entire screed is a
> non-logical, emotional appeal based on little or no factual information,
> but I really need to ask what emotional button the moron is trying to push
> with that sentence.
['the moron' being Denis Horgan, not Billy Beck]
I know you know, and you know that I know you know, but the others,...
...you know?
> Damn.
No kiddin'.
> Karl A
>
> --
> The first lady has described the Arkansas land dealings known as Whitewater
> as "the never-ending fictional conspiracy" that "reminds me of some
> people's obsession with UFOs and the Hale-Bopp comet."
>
> What does that say about her creation of the VRWC? She Bopp!
_
Rob
Uriel And Ezrael
>
> "Uriel And Ezrael" <za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >Yah. Thanks for keeping it in all the gun-related newsgroups, bozo...
> >>
> >> Hush yourself. There is a lot more to this than just guns.
> >>
> >> Spread it far & wide.
> >
> >Connecticut. I would be more concerned if it were the wording of actual
> >legislation.
>
> Just how many baby steps do think could be measured from the one
> to the other?
Quite a spell. They have to get a majority to draft any kind of effective
legislation and get it to pass.
>
> "Know your enemy."
>
> >I guess the reason I'm so fed up reading about guns is because you can't
> >seem to escape the subject. What are they talking about on the Colorado
> >Rockies newsgroup? Guns! I'm in Alt.impeach.clinton- the forum for the
> >resistance against this so-called president. If it's about guns, but
> >pertains specifically to Clinton in some way- fine. If not, it's alot
like
> >spam as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Fine. That's as far as you're concerned. (BTW: *the* forum for
> for resistence against The Lying Bastard is
> alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, and has been since April of
> 1995. Don't let the name fool you: if you never saw Christopher
> Lyons' "Whitewater FAQ", then let me know and I can arrange a copy for
> you. It's where I'm posting from, as well as responding to
> cross-posts into the group.)
I know all about Whitewater, but where has it gotten us? We can't expect
any justice from Arkansas.
>
> If you don't think guns "pertain specifically" to The Boy
> President, then you simply haven't been paying attention.
I had thought there were more newsgroups that dealt specifically with gun
issues, but I see I was wrong. Apparantly they are all for discussing gun
issues since that is all the rage these days. Two that I can see is
talk.politics.guns, and alt.current.events.littleton.tragedy (or something
like that.) I can't imagine why there aren't any NRA newsgroups.
Not Democrats, but Democratic pollsters, who are supposed to telling us what
the voters think. And they are scoring on this issue. Wipe out the
Democrats and no one will care what the Democratic pollsters say, and there
are a myriad of other issues that the Democrats can't win on. Know your
enemies, and *attack them where they are vulnerable*. The Democrats are
going to get clobbered in 2000, but not on the gun issues.
>
> > I just wish we could
> >excersize som modration on the subject, and not cross-post to a dozen
> >newsgroup with some idiot liberal's irrelevent, matrubatory propaganda.
The
> >best thing to do would be to utterly ignore him, and concentrate on
> >attacking liberalism in general,...
>
> Think about this: one very good way to do that is to take on
> *particular* applications of "liberal" politics as a matter of
> demonstrating the *general* fallacies. I'm sorry if you find it
> tedious, but there is serious work to do, and some have the energy for
> it.
The Liberals, I contend, are not percieved as being vulnerable on this
issue. Might as well talk about Whitewater, for all the good it's going to
do for the ultimate cause.
>
> >I would just like it if people would go to the proper forum, and tone it
> >down a notch, so I wouldn't have to kill-file Republican thinkers like
> >yourself,...
>
> I am not a Republican. Never. No Republican ever made a dime
> off of me, nor ever counted a vote in my name, and never will.
I hope that you're not one of those bonehead Libertarians that handed
Clinton two victories. It's a left-right two-party political vortex. There
is nothing in the middle but Clinton's unintentional, *moderate* allies, and
they are quickly swept away. Can you say "Ross Perot"?
>
> This is not about party politics.
>
> I am far more principled than that.
All I can say, if you're not going to pick a side (which means picking the
lesser of two evils)- Good luck! There is never going to be a third party
to hear your views in our lifetime, as much as I'd like to think there will.
--
Midway http://home.att.net/~zazel/
Kurt Lochner
>
> Papa Budge wrote:
>
> >[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
>It did not make it to my e-mail, which is a good thing for you,
Hey Becky, get over it, macho-boy...
>Now hear this: you are not welcome in my e-mail.
Nor you in mine, nor do I feel that your juvenile threats
against *ANYBODY* on the entire Usenet is deserved. Capish?
>The very first time you appear there, the matter will be
>taken up with the proper abuse desk.
Oh really? Isn't that special...
>I have a very good record with this,
Not as good as mine, you doorknob..
> >> >Just the kind of ignorant bluster...
> >>
> >>There is nothing "ignorant" about it. [...]
--Yes, it's beyond ignorance with you, it's intentional stupidity..
Ted Krueger
>> We need to take away all guns from ordinary Americans. I want to be safe
>from
>> being shot. I am not selfish cause I want everybody to be safe especially
>the
>> children. If only the army and the police have guns then they would not
>need
>> to shoot us to arrest us. If there are no guns then kids would not have
>guns
>> and shoot up high schools. I want my children to be safe.
>This is a joke, right? Just in case it isn't, taking guns away only disarms
>the law abiding.
>Thugs and criminals will be able to get them the same way they always have,
>illegally.
>Besides, you think your children are safe? Stabbings do occur.
How about the guy recently who drove his car into a daycare center
because he wanted to kill some innocent kids?
When do we take all cars away from ordinary Americans?
--
Ted the Cruel
Otis Booster
Creator of the HDr.CJotD award
kru...@neta.com
Lynette Warren
> Quite a spell. They have to get a majority to draft any kind of effective
> legislation and get it to pass.
It's being done now. Gun bans and ownership restrictions will eventually
lead to a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Maybe you think you could
live with that?
If the Second Amendment goes, the rest of the BOR isn't far behind. Your
passion for basic liberties would no doubt be stirred by then, but with the
right to keep and bear arms gone, it'll be too late to defend the others.
Lynette
--
Lynette Warren
>
> I hope that you're not one of those bonehead Libertarians that handed
> Clinton two victories.
I doubt Harry Browne's less than one percent would have helped your
crippled party much, but thanks for the thought, anyway :)
> Can you say "Ross Perot"?
You need to quite making alibis for the Republicans. If they keep appeasing
the socialists, they'll certainly be kissing their Congressional majority
good-bye in 2000.
Lynette
--
Karl.A...@siinet.trw.com
rr...@gte.com wrote:
> Internet AgentMan (aka Karl A) wrote:
> >
> > In article <3742578f...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Um, Karl? *Please* be a tad more careful with attributes, won't you?
Sorry, Rob, but I unless I do a Lochner, I never change the default way
my newsreader "attributes" articles.
>
> Billy didn't "write" this, of course, he merely presented this
> article with the header;
Ah, I see what you mean. In my utter distain for the article, I left
out the simple fact that someone other than Billy actually WROTE that
worthless trash. I never should have snipped out the article
title/author.
Apologies to Billy.
>
> Forget Gun Control; Ban Them Altogether
> Hartford Courant
> May 14, 1999 Denis Horgan
>
> > [snipped emotional BS]
> >
> > >
> > > People say that Prohibition didn't work, that it spawned
> > > gangsters and
> > > lawlessness, inconvenienced millions. Maybe. And maybe for a dozen
> > > years there was less pain and battering than there was before or
> > > since. The gangsters did not vanish with repeal. We lose more
> > > lives to
> > > people drinking than we do to people not drinking.
> >
> > What the HELL does this last sentence mean? I mean, this entire
> > screed is a
> > non-logical, emotional appeal based on little or no factual
> > information,
> > but I really need to ask what emotional button the moron is trying
> > to push
> > with that sentence.
>
> ['the moron' being Denis Horgan, not Billy Beck]
Quite right. Double apologies to Billy.
>
> I know you know, and you know that I know you know, but the
> others,...
>
> ...you know?
Yep, and I won't do it again! Mea culpas all around
Karl A
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Bucky
> > I am not a Republican. Never. No Republican ever made a dime
> > off of me, nor ever counted a vote in my name, and never will.
>
> I hope that you're not one of those bonehead Libertarians that handed
> Clinton two victories. It's a left-right two-party political vortex.
Bush and Dole handed Clinton two victories, not the people who
refused to become ballot box whores for them.
> > This is not about party politics.
> >
> > I am far more principled than that.
>
> All I can say, if you're not going to pick a side (which means picking the
> lesser of two evils)- Good luck!
Your vote is your consent to be governed. You can convince
yourself all you want that by voting "for the lesser of two
evils," you're really only voting "against" someone worse,
but you're still giving your consent to be governed by evil.
I refuse to prostitute my values in that manner. I refuse to
legitimize, with my most sacred power as a citizen, evil's
presence at the throttles of government. I refuse to cheapen
the sacrifice of those who fought to ensure my right to vote.
I esteem my vote too highly; perhaps that's my problem.
> There is never going to be a third party
> to hear your views in our lifetime, as much as I'd like to think there will.
Too true. I'd just be happy with a "none of the above" on the
ballot.
--
mfu...@somtel.com; Northern Franklin County, Maine $
The Constitution is the white man's ghost shirt. }>:-/> --->
Uriel And Ezrael
Bucky <mfu...@somtel.com> wrote in message
news:7i16k7$pv2$1...@garnet.mint.net...
>
> > > I am not a Republican. Never. No Republican ever made a dime
> > > off of me, nor ever counted a vote in my name, and never will.
> >
> > I hope that you're not one of those bonehead Libertarians that handed
> > Clinton two victories. It's a left-right two-party political vortex.
>
> refused to become ballot box whores for them.
Hopefully, Republicans learned a lesson with Dole. There were dead people,
mentally handicapped people, and illegal aliens who voted Democrat, can you
really take pride in not having voted at all?
>
> > > This is not about party politics.
> > >
> > > I am far more principled than that.
> >
> > All I can say, if you're not going to pick a side (which means picking
the
> > lesser of two evils)- Good luck!
>
> Your vote is your consent to be governed. You can convince
> yourself all you want that by voting "for the lesser of two
> evils," you're really only voting "against" someone worse,
> but you're still giving your consent to be governed by evil.
Right. Next time I'll be sure to cast a vote for the Anarchy party...
>
> I refuse to prostitute my values in that manner. I refuse to
> legitimize, with my most sacred power as a citizen, evil's
> presence at the throttles of government. I refuse to cheapen
> the sacrifice of those who fought to ensure my right to vote.
You mean those who fought to ensure your right *not* to vote? You have the
right to *not vote* in any country. Apathy legitimizes "evil's prescence"
more than anything. Vote now, or by tombstone.
>
> I esteem my vote too highly; perhaps that's my problem.
Your problem is all too clear, "perhaps" doesn't enter into it. You are
committed to being non-commital.
>
> > There is never going to be a third
party
> > to hear your views in our lifetime, as much as I'd like to think there
will.
>
> Too true. I'd just be happy with a "none of the above" on the
> ballot.
We already have "None of the Above". He's called Bill Clinton, and he
appreciates your support.
--
Midway http://home.att.net/~zazel/
Rob Robertson
>
> Uriel And Ezrael wrote:
> > Quite a spell. They have to get a majority to draft any kind of effective
> > legislation and get it to pass.
"effective legislation",... Oy.
> It's being done now. Gun bans and ownership restrictions will eventually
> lead to a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Maybe you think you could
> live with that?
>
> If the Second Amendment goes, the rest of the BOR isn't far behind. Your
> passion for basic liberties would no doubt be stirred by then, but with the
> right to keep and bear arms gone, it'll be too late to defend the others.
Here's a little thought experiment;
One of our 'gun loon' friends in Concord, Massachusetts has a couple
cannon, bags of powder, and cannon balls that a free people can use
to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Now, since I've
told Elder Male Sibling about this by posting to an open forum, the
BATF will be mobilizing soon to confiscate them. In response, I and
dozens of my friends will stand on Lexington Green with full-auto
*assault* weapons and will defy "lawful" authority, even to the point
of shooting the bastards dead. As an added synchronistic twist, let's
say this transpires on April 19th.
Now, after the BATF calls in the local cops, State Police, HRT, etc,...
for back-up and my friends and I are dead, how many Americans will
see the historic connection? Will *thousands* of patriots stream from
every corner of New England to repulse the bloody tyrants, or will a
nation of fat-assed cowards shake their heads as Dan Rather intones
gravely about the "growing militia menace in America" and Clinton's
calls for ever greater gun control measures?
Extra credit: What happened on Patriot's Day in *1993*?
> Lynette
> --
_
Rob
Codesmith at large
>
> One of our 'gun loon' friends in Concord, Massachusetts has a couple
> cannon, bags of powder, and cannon balls that a free people can use
> to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Now, since I've
> told Elder Male Sibling about this by posting to an open forum, the
> BATF will be mobilizing soon to confiscate them. In response, I and
> dozens of my friends will stand on Lexington Green with full-auto
> *assault* weapons and will defy "lawful" authority, even to the point
> of shooting the bastards dead. As an added synchronistic twist, let's
> say this transpires on April 19th.
>
> Now, after the BATF calls in the local cops, State Police, HRT, etc,...
> for back-up and my friends and I are dead, how many Americans will
> see the historic connection? Will *thousands* of patriots stream from
> every corner of New England to repulse the bloody tyrants, or will a
> nation of fat-assed cowards shake their heads as Dan Rather intones
> gravely about the "growing militia menace in America" and Clinton's
> calls for ever greater gun control measures?
>
> Extra credit: What happened on Patriot's Day in *1993*?
>
Ooh! Ooh! I know ! I know!
And do you remember what happened exactly two years later?
JWo...@mail.fc.peachnet.edu
t...@callamerica.net wrote:
> On 18 May 1999 16:53:13 GMT, dan...@ix.netcom.com(Dan Z) wrote:
>
> >
> >Now tell us HOW to take away ALL the guns in a country with at least
> >250 million of them, most unregistered. Reality is important to this
> >debate.
>
> I suggest that number is over one Billion, rather than a
> quarter of that.
One thing that makes me laugh about the whole gun issue, is that
liberals are always bitching that conservatives and Christians are
fascists, but they want all the guns taken away. If all the guns are
taken away, then that means that the government can do what ever the
fuck they want with us citizens, like declare martial law, and we can't
do anything to defend ourselves. Just the typical hypocracy that comes
with being a liberal.
Bucky
> > > I hope that you're not one of those bonehead Libertarians that handed
> > > Clinton two victories. It's a left-right two-party political vortex.
http://www.attackcartoons.com/raised.GIF
http://www.attackcartoons.com/libman6.GIF
> > Bush and Dole handed Clinton two victories, not the people who
> > refused to become ballot box whores for them.
>
> Hopefully, Republicans learned a lesson with Dole. There were dead people,
> mentally handicapped people, and illegal aliens who voted Democrat, can you
> really take pride in not having voted at all?
I don't take pride in it. I *used* to be one of those people
who believed that if you don't vote, your voice doesn't count.
I've since discovered the hard way that if you knowingly vote
for the lesser of two evils, and he wins the election, you have
no more of a right to complain when he subsequently slips you
the pickle than if you didn't vote at all -- remember, you asked
for it.
> > > All I can say, if you're not going to pick a side (which means picking
> > > the lesser of two evils)- Good luck!
> >
> > Your vote is your consent to be governed. You can convince
> > yourself all you want that by voting "for the lesser of two
> > evils," you're really only voting "against" someone worse,
> > but you're still giving your consent to be governed by evil.
>
> Right. Next time I'll be sure to cast a vote for the Anarchy party...
Anarchy rules?
> >
> > I refuse to prostitute my values in that manner. I refuse to
> > legitimize, with my most sacred power as a citizen, evil's
> > presence at the throttles of government. I refuse to cheapen
> > the sacrifice of those who fought to ensure my right to vote.
>
> You mean those who fought to ensure your right *not* to vote? You have the
> right to *not vote* in any country. Apathy legitimizes "evil's prescence"
> more than anything. Vote now, or by tombstone.
>
> > I esteem my vote too highly; perhaps that's my problem.
>
> Your problem is all too clear, "perhaps" doesn't enter into it. You are
> committed to being non-commital.
Hardly. Just because I refuse to give my consent to be governed
by one of the two (or three) moral poltroons who make it to the
general election doesn't mean that I'm not politically active. It
doesn't mean that I don't work to get someone on the ballot for
whom I'd actually vote. It doesn't mean that I don't periodically
remind office holders and party politicians what they must do to
*earn* my support.
Pulling a lever in the general election isn't the be-all and end-
all of political participation. Those who think it is are the real
apathetic ones, and the reason why we're often saddled with a choice
between degrees of evil in the first place.
> > > There is never going to be a third party
> > > to hear your views in our lifetime, as much as I'd like to think
> > > there will.
> >
> > Too true. I'd just be happy with a "none of the above" on the
> > ballot.
>
> We already have "None of the Above". He's called Bill Clinton, and he
> appreciates your support.
I don't play the "a vote for X is a vote for Y" game anymore.
jonn...@my-dejanews.com
And if they couldn't get bombs, they would've thrown rocks and desks
and shit.
Codesmith at large
If you want to be heard, you need lobbyists - preferrably a large crowd of dead
presidents - Jacksons and Grants. If you want to really be heard, have lots of
fellas named Franklin arrange your meeting.
Uriel And Ezrael
> > > Uriel And Ezrael <za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I hope that you're not one of those bonehead Libertarians that
handed
> > > > Clinton two victories. It's a left-right two-party political vortex.
>
> http://www.attackcartoons.com/libman6.GIF
Rand-fu. Heh-heh...
Part of our problem is that most people don't even know who Ayn Rand or
Friedrich Nietzsche were.
(snip)
>
> I don't take pride in it. I *used* to be one of those people
> who believed that if you don't vote, your voice doesn't count.
> I've since discovered the hard way that if you knowingly vote
> for the lesser of two evils, and he wins the election, you have
> no more of a right to complain when he subsequently slips you
> the pickle than if you didn't vote at all -- remember, you asked
> for it.
What's going to stop me from complaining if my candidate betrays me? I
don't play that. What makes you sure your hand-picked candidate won't
betray you? No party or candidate is wholly immune to "power corrupts".
(snip)
> > > I esteem my vote too highly; perhaps that's my problem.
> >
> > Your problem is all too clear, "perhaps" doesn't enter into it. You are
> > committed to being non-commital.
>
> Hardly. Just because I refuse to give my consent to be governed
> by one of the two (or three) moral poltroons who make it to the
> general election doesn't mean that I'm not politically active. It
> doesn't mean that I don't work to get someone on the ballot for
> whom I'd actually vote. It doesn't mean that I don't periodically
> remind office holders and party politicians what they must do to
> *earn* my support.
Assuming they take the time to read your opinions on the Internet, right?
How do you propose to "remind" them?
>
> Pulling a lever in the general election isn't the be-all and end-
> all of political participation. Those who think it is are the real
> apathetic ones, and the reason why we're often saddled with a choice
> between degrees of evil in the first place.
Left issues- right issues. Left hand- right hand. There is *no* middle
hand. Anyone who tells you otherwise is decieving you. You'll ultimately
find they are on one side or the other. That's what it boils down to.
Third parties rise and collapse, and are absorbed back into the only two
parties, now and forevermore. Duality, being intrinsic human-nature, rules.
There is no fighting it, save for fighting against reality itself.
>
> > > > There is never going to be a third party
> > > > to hear your views in our lifetime, as much as I'd like to think
> > > > there will.
> > >
> > > Too true. I'd just be happy with a "none of the above" on the
> > > ballot.
> >
> > We already have "None of the Above". He's called Bill Clinton, and he
> > appreciates your support.
>
> I don't play the "a vote for X is a vote for Y" game anymore.
By not voting, you are not existing. No ammount of discontent or reform or
rebellion can change that.
--
Midway http://home.att.net/~zazel/
Billy Beck
"Uriel And Ezrael" <za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>By not voting, you are not existing.
Uh-huh.
I'll have to remember that the next time someone pays me for my
work, one of my neices gives me a hug, or I've got the Citabria on
final approach.
"How does it become a man to behave toward this American
government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be
associated with it."
(Henry David Thoreau)
Bear Bottoms
Billy Beck wrote in message <37445d52...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> I'll have to remember that the next time someone pays me for my
>work, one of my neices gives me a hug, or I've got the Citabria on
>final approach.
>
see an honest exchange from you.
>
> "How does it become a man to behave toward this American
>government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be
>associated with it."
>
> (Henry David Thoreau)
>
>
>Billy
>
at least attempt to make your vote count. What a fine
upstanding person you are...disdain voting, disdain
taxes, disdain disdain disdain and a foul mouth to boot.
A liar on top of all that. Is it clear that you lied and said
you never said you were a pilot...yeah right. You lied
when you claimed Welch never trashed Reed. I found the
post. It wasn't Goldman, it was you as I had remembered,
but man enough to admit I might have made a mistake.
I didn't. You aren't that much of a man Beck. A little
whiner.
Bucky
> > I don't take pride in it. I *used* to be one of those people
> > who believed that if you don't vote, your voice doesn't count.
> > I've since discovered the hard way that if you knowingly vote
> > for the lesser of two evils, and he wins the election, you have
> > no more of a right to complain when he subsequently slips you
> > the pickle than if you didn't vote at all -- remember, you asked
> > for it.
>
> What's going to stop me from complaining if my candidate betrays me? I
> don't play that. What makes you sure your hand-picked candidate won't
> betray you? No party or candidate is wholly immune to "power corrupts".
If they betray you, go nuts. I do. To be betrayed in the first
place, however, you have to believe that "your man" is going to
act in accord with your values. If you know from the outset
that the fellow is going to act otherwise, and you vote for him
anyway, then why should you be surprised, or feel betrayed?
Furthermore, what gives you a greater right to complain than
the fellow who sat on his hands on election day because he knew
this would happen?
As long as a politician knows that you're going to vote for him
regardless because he is the "lesser of two evils," why should
your complaints hold any weight with him? All he has to do is
stay the lesser evil. Most importantly, by voting "against" a
candidate, rather than "for" one, you are allowing your candidate's
behavior to be dictated, not by your values, but by those of his
political opponent -- the "greater evil" you're so eager to avoid
at any cost.
Gun rights supporters are right now reaping the fruits of voting
for the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, the ghost of Lee Atwater
strums on, laughing his ass off.
You have to withhold your vote -- leave your abusive political
relationship -- before any real change occurs. You have to
find a politician who'll treat you right, honey, and they ain't
gonna come falling out the sky into your voting booth, either.
[...]
> > Hardly. Just because I refuse to give my consent to be governed
> > by one of the two (or three) moral poltroons who make it to the
> > general election doesn't mean that I'm not politically active. It
> > doesn't mean that I don't work to get someone on the ballot for
> > whom I'd actually vote. It doesn't mean that I don't periodically
> > remind office holders and party politicians what they must do to
> > *earn* my support.
>
> Assuming they take the time to read your opinions on the Internet, right?
> How do you propose to "remind" them?
I actually write them a letter. Sometimes they even write back.
> >
> > Pulling a lever in the general election isn't the be-all and end-
> > all of political participation. Those who think it is are the real
> > apathetic ones, and the reason why we're often saddled with a choice
> > between degrees of evil in the first place.
>
> Left issues- right issues. Left hand- right hand. There is *no* middle
> hand. Anyone who tells you otherwise is decieving you. You'll ultimately
> find they are on one side or the other. That's what it boils down to.
I agree that there will never be third parties that are influential
in themselves over the long-term.
> Third parties rise and collapse, and are absorbed back into the only two
> parties, now and forevermore.
And therein lies their influence; what makes third parties worth-
while. When there are enough third-party voters to threaten, the
Demopublicans will come courting. There may not be a middle hand,
but what constitutes the left and right hands can be changed from
without.
> Duality, being intrinsic human-nature, rules.
> There is no fighting it, save for fighting against reality itself.
>
> > > We already have "None of the Above". He's called Bill Clinton, and he
> > > appreciates your support.
> >
> > I don't play the "a vote for X is a vote for Y" game anymore.
>
> By not voting, you are not existing. No ammount of discontent or reform or
> rebellion can change that.
Bushlips! I refuse to believe that my "existence" can be no greater
than that of the semi-moron who religiously goes to the polls and
pulls the lever for the most photogenic candidate.
Rob Robertson
Clinton's Reichstag Fire?
_
Rob Robertson
Mik Scheider
<agr...@warmoose.com> wrote:
Timothy McVeigh didn't blow up the Reichstagg.
http://www.constitution.org/ocbpt/ocbpt.htm
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/am/aman-bre-webjump/civil/e-index.html
By Rocket's Red Glare, By Bombs Bursting In Air, We Could See Our Flag...
j...@jahoopa.com
Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
> Billy Beck wrote in message <37445d52...@news.mindspring.com>...
> >
> >"Uriel And Ezrael" <za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>By not voting, you are not existing.
> >
> > Uh-huh.
> >
> > I'll have to remember that the next time someone pays me for my
> >work, one of my neices gives me a hug, or I've got the Citabria on
> >final approach.
> >
> I thought you weren't a pilot liar Beck. Maybe one day I will
> see an honest exchange from you.
Shut up, Bear, and take a few hundred deep breaths.
He's just started taking lessons. But he's made something
of a study of various aspects of aviation that have interested
him.
> >
> > "How does it become a man to behave toward this American
> >government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be
> >associated with it."
> >
> > (Henry David Thoreau)
> >
> >
> >Billy
> >
> Well, quit your whining then if you haven't the balls to
> at least attempt to make your vote count.
He's got the balls to call a spade a spade, Bottoms.
> What a fine
> upstanding person you are...disdain
Shut up, Bear. You're coming off as nasty as McP
ever was with you, to a man who has the spine to
live his life as he believes it ought to be led,
according to principles. That used to be something
you honored.
Uriel And Ezrael
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> I'll have to remember that the next time someone pays me for my
> work, one of my neices gives me a hug, or I've got the Citabria on
> final approach.
Oh, come on! That's parsing words just a little too much. You may
disagree, but you know what I mean...
>
>
> "How does it become a man to behave toward this American
> government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be
> associated with it."
>
> (Henry David Thoreau)
>
>
j...@jahoopa.com
Uriel And Ezrael wrote:
>
> Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:37445d52...@news.mindspring.com...
> >
> > "Uriel And Ezrael" <za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >By not voting, you are not existing.
> >
> > Uh-huh.
> >
> > I'll have to remember that the next time someone pays me for my
> > work, one of my neices gives me a hug, or I've got the Citabria on
> > final approach.
>
> Oh, come on! That's parsing words just a little too much. You may
> disagree, but you know what I mean...
I know what you mean. You mean what you wrote: Unless a
man or woman is an officially sanctioned citizen, according
to something or other external to him or her, he or she is
more expendable and less worthy, to put it nicely.