gun wankers
Ferg
Douglas E.Denny. wrote in message ...
>IN response to comments by various contributors:
>
>eg.:-
>
>>>On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:35:47 UNDEFINED, ppro...@neosoft.com (Peter H.
>>>Proctor) wrote:
>>>
>>>> I may have missed something, but, about the closest Bob has
gotten to
>>>>being "antisemitic" is complaining that Jewish people in the US have
forgotten
>>>>the lessons of the Holocaust and are not as heavily- armed as those in
Israel
>
>
....................................oOo...................................
>
>The people of Britain have forgotten the lessons of two world wars too.
>
>Hypothetical questions:
>
>1. If gun control laws had not been enacted, and if all the millions of
Jews
>gassed by the Germans in WW2, had had access to arms before being
>dragged from their homes at night to be carted off to the death camps
.......
>how many would have ultimately died I wonder?
So we're playing "what if the Chermans gave all their enemies guns before
murdering them", are we?
Are you five years old?
>2. Why was Switzerland bypassed by Hitler? Was it because the whole
>population was AND STILL IS armed - BY LAW. A whole population
>instantly ready to fight back. Not an easy nut to crack perhaps?
ROTFL! again!
Yeah, like, for sure, weirdo!
Besides which, your little myth of universal firearms-ownership is
incorrect.
The point is, the Swiss are all *trained* in the safe use of firearms, it's
just a pity you fruit-cakes aren't.
>Obvious conclusion:-
>The best gun control is to allow *all* responsible adults to have access
to
obviously unnecessary and wrong, loopy one.
>personal weapons. No government or foreign power can then usurp the will
What? Being almost universally armed didn't save Iraq from USA's usurpation
of the people's will.
Another crackpot myth bites the dust.
>of the people as a whole. This is the precise reason the fathers of the
>American Constitution wrote-in the right to bear arms; and why America is
in which case they made a mistake, besides which the second amendment is
invalid.
We will obviously have to assume you are an american in exile on this
one........
Of course the poor state of American Education standards ensures most
americans can't even see that.
Why don't you post the full text to the soc ngs and ask some clever (ie,
non-american) people to debate it?
>likely to be the last place in the world where democracy can thrive.
Not wrong there, and the first where tyranny will also thrive.
and slavery
and political correctness
and political discrimination
and voter disenranchisement
and provoking world-wide mayhem
and selling vast quantities of weapons of killing
and developing the drug trade
and murdering innocent people all over the world.
In fact, why do we listen to you americans at all?
>Gun control of populations by governments has one purpose only .......to
>obviate any possibility of armed insurection.
Really? I thought it was so criminals couldn't get hold of them, silly me!
>Why do you think the Northern Ireland 'Peace Initiative' is foundering at
Because the rival political extremes both stand to lose their influence if a
settlement is reached and so are deliberately dragging things out with
British connivance?
>present? Answer: because the Unionists are insisting on the (unrealistic)
>dis-arming of the terrorist organisations before any further progress.
Oh, silly me, I thought you wanted the real sensible reason. My mistake,
fruit-loop!
>Question: Why insist on an unrealistic imperative when they (terrorists)
>have stopped using the arms anyway? and that the peace process has
>continued with them (arms) there anyway?
B e c a u s e t h e y w a n t t o d e l a y t h i n g s
Was that slow enough for you?
sbre...@zdnetmail.com
>>>>On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:35:47 UNDEFINED, ppro...@neosoft.com (Peter H.
>>>>Proctor) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I may have missed something, but, about the closest Bob has
>gotten to
>>>>>being "antisemitic" is complaining that Jewish people in the US have
>forgotten
>>>>>the lessons of the Holocaust and are not as heavily- armed as those in
>Israel
>>
>>
>....................................oOo...................................
>>
>>The people of Britain have forgotten the lessons of two world wars too.
>>
>>Hypothetical questions:
>>
>>1. If gun control laws had not been enacted, and if all the millions of
>Jews
>>gassed by the Germans in WW2, had had access to arms before being
>>dragged from their homes at night to be carted off to the death camps
>.......
>>how many would have ultimately died I wonder?
>
>So we're playing "what if the Chermans gave all their enemies guns before
>murdering them", are we?
>
>Are you five years old?
The Jews were a pious, non-violent people that endured various types
of ostracism throughout europe for centuries. They never imagined the
scale of barbarism that the Nazis had planned in their "final
solution" Of course, they have since learned, yes?
>
>>2. Why was Switzerland bypassed by Hitler?
<<<SNIP>>> Wha'?
>
>Besides which, your little myth of universal firearms-ownership is
>incorrect.
>The point is, the Swiss are all *trained* in the safe use of firearms, it's
>just a pity you fruit-cakes aren't.
There are many folks who own firearms and have no/little training or
understanding of what's in front of them. There are many more drivers
though will an equally similar unfamiliarity of basic physics, which
you can see demonstrated everytime you get on a roadway.
>>Obvious conclusion:-
>>The best gun control is to allow *all* responsible adults to have access
>to
>
>obviously unnecessary and wrong, loopy one.
There will always be people who are irresponsible. That's why we need
to put warnings on coffee cups to remind folks not to place them in
their crotches while they're driving. That and "not to be taken
internally" on things like shampoo.
>>personal weapons. No government or foreign power can then usurp the will
>
>What? Being almost universally armed didn't save Iraq from USA's usurpation
>of the people's will.
Universally armed? The people's will?? You may be confused there good
sir. Do you think Saddam allows the masses to do anything that he
doesn't wish? This is a man who will nerve-gas his own people and
enjoys boiling his foes in oil. No validity in this arguement.
>>of the people as a whole. This is the precise reason the fathers of the
>>American Constitution wrote-in the right to bear arms; and why America is
>in which case they made a mistake, besides which the second amendment is
>invalid.
Invalid? Please elaborate!!!
>
>We will obviously have to assume you are an american in exile on this
>one........
>Of course the poor state of American Education standards ensures most
>americans can't even see that.
Well, the whole social system in this country is fraying at the
edges....primarily due to the fact that too many children are raising
themselves, and having children of their own....a discussion for
another time perhaps??
>
>>likely to be the last place in the world where democracy can thrive.
>
>Not wrong there, and the first where tyranny will also thrive.
>and slavery
It was abolished last century..and the remnants of the racial
dis-equity (my new word!) here are slowly being eroded....civil rights
and all that....we still have a way to go....
>and political correctness
>and political discrimination
>and voter disenranchisement
>and provoking world-wide mayhem
>and selling vast quantities of weapons of killing
>and developing the drug trade
>and murdering innocent people all over the world.
>
>In fact, why do we listen to you americans at all?
Who says you have to? Please...come up with something better and
we'll all listen!!!
>
>>Gun control of populations by governments has one purpose only .......to
>>obviate any possibility of armed insurection.
He does make a good point here....Hmmmm...American Revolution?? How
did that get started?
>Really? I thought it was so criminals couldn't get hold of them, silly me!
Oooh...no I'm afraid.....criminals will always have guns (tools of the
trade you know) That's why we need to make sure they know we'll shoot
back!! If criminals can smuggle tons of drugs into this country (Ah,
the down-side of a free nation) they'll have no problems at all
getting firearms here too....
>
>>Why do you think the Northern Ireland 'Peace Initiative' is foundering at
<<SNIP>>
Oy vey!! I won't even touch that one...Christians killing
Christians!!!
>fruit-loop!
Name calling?
Ponderous..yes??
Steve
"If you're not a Socialist at 20, you have no heart. If your still a
Socialist at 30, you have no head"
Maria
> Do you think Saddam allows the masses to do anything that he
>doesn't wish? This is a man who will nerve-gas his own people and
>enjoys boiling his foes in oil.
ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!
Sorry.
Jim Alder
Ferg wrote in message <74km6q$t10$1...@bomb.dynamite.com.au>...
>
>Douglas E.Denny. wrote in message ...
>>1. If gun control laws had not been enacted, and if all the millions of
>Jews gassed by the Germans in WW2, had had access to arms
>
>So we're playing "what if the Chermans gave all their enemies guns before
>murdering them", are we? Are you five years old?
>
>>2. Why was Switzerland bypassed by Hitler? Was it because the whole
>>population was AND STILL IS armed - BY LAW. A whole population
>>instantly ready to fight back. Not an easy nut to crack perhaps?
>
>ROTFL! again!
>
>Yeah, like, for sure, weirdo!
>
>Besides which, your little myth of universal firearms-ownership is
>incorrect. The point is, the Swiss are all *trained* in the safe use
>of firearms, it's just a pity you fruit-cakes aren't.
I suppose it would be rude to point out that you didn't explain why this
man's points are invalid, you just laughed at him. As for the Swiss being
trained and the american militia not, who's fault is that? The government
can do the same thing the Swiss is doing anytime it wants to. Of course, the
Swiss government trusts its people.
>>Gun control of populations by governments has one purpose only .......to
>>obviate any possibility of armed insurection.
>
>Really? I thought it was so criminals couldn't get hold of them, silly me!
Silly? Not the word I would have chosen.
Maria
wrote:
>I suppose it would be rude to point out that you didn't explain why this
>man's points are invalid, you just laughed at him. As for the Swiss being
>trained and the american militia not, who's fault is that? The government
>can do the same thing the Swiss is doing anytime it wants to.
And the good old free US population wouldn't at all mind being
conscripted and doing 30 years compulsory military service either?
(which is how the Swiss get to keep all their equipment, guns,
ammunition at home)
BTW a third of Swiss people voted for abolition of the army in 1989 in
a national referendum. In some areas the motion gained a majority.
> Of course, the Swiss government trusts its people.
Switzerland is a whole different ball game to the US.
Comprehensive social security system, high standard of living and life
expectancy, majority vote required for changes to the Constitution,
not a member of the UN (by vote), political neutrality, low crime
rate, uncensored media.
Not surprising the Swiss trust the government. The government's
apparent trust in the Swiss turned out to be a bit dodgy though;
in 1989 it was dicovered that Swiss Federal Security police had kept
dossiers on 200,000 Swiss citizens and foreign residents due to their
'suspect' political beliefs.
What a Swizz.
R. Knauer
wrote:
>in which case they made a mistake, besides which the second amendment is
>invalid.
Now just who is the loopy one?
Bob Knauer
"Since the politician never believes what he says, he is
surprised when others believe him."
--Charles De Gaulle
R. Knauer
>The Jews were a pious, non-violent people that endured various types
>of ostracism throughout europe for centuries. They never imagined the
>scale of barbarism that the Nazis had planned in their "final
>solution" Of course, they have since learned, yes?
In Israel, yes. In America, no.
Apparently there are two kinds of Jews, those who escaped to America
and did not have to face the Holocaust, and those who managed to
survive the Holocaust and now are doing whatever it takes never to let
it happen again.
R. Knauer
>Switzerland is a whole different ball game to the US.
>Comprehensive social security system, high standard of living and life
>expectancy, majority vote required for changes to the Constitution,
>not a member of the UN (by vote), political neutrality, low crime
>rate, uncensored media.
>Not surprising the Swiss trust the government. The government's
>apparent trust in the Swiss turned out to be a bit dodgy though;
>in 1989 it was dicovered that Swiss Federal Security police had kept
>dossiers on 200,000 Swiss citizens and foreign residents due to their
>'suspect' political beliefs.
This is adapted from an article by Eric Margolis:
+++++
Switzerland has 7.2 million citizens and four official languages.
Sixty-five percent speak Swiss-German; 18% French; 10% Italian; and 1%
Romanche, an ancient mountain dialect. Protestants and Catholics are
evenly divided. In spite of this diversity, Switzerland runs like a
Swiss watch.
The Swiss Confederation, founded in 1291, is made up of 26 independent
cantons that are responsible for, and answerable to, their citizens on
nearly all political and economic matters. Each cantonal legislature
sets its own policy on taxes, education, welfare, health, and
language. Swiss citizens vote by direct referendum on all important
matters at least four times annually. Any question may be put to
voters provided a minimum number of signatures is received. Just last
week, for example, Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to
legalize drugs.
The Swiss federal government in Bern is a bare-bones operation that
oversees only defense, foreign relations, post and telecommunications,
the central bank, and the nation's superb railroads. Many Swiss don't
even know the name of their rotating president - or care - because
Bern has very little influence on the lives of Swiss citizens.
Everything that matters in Switzerland is transacted at the cantonal
level, where government is responsive and attuned to local needs.
Switzerland has no massive federal bureaucracy swallowing the nation's
wealth, no redundant levels of government, and limited regulation. As
a result, Swiss taxes are moderate, unemployment low, and
Switzerland's national debt currently stands at zero.
+++++
Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig
>2. Why was Switzerland bypassed by Hitler? Was it because the whole
>population was AND STILL IS armed - BY LAW. A whole population
>instantly ready to fight back. Not an easy nut to crack perhaps?
Congratulations on your brilliant knowledge of history and masterly
insights into European politics!
Hitler was poised to take over Switzerland when he was dissuaded by
his advisors because only Switzerland could provide the vital metals,
alloys, etc. needed by Germany for their war industries which were
only available from countries under Allied control/influence.
The ores came via Portugal, Spain and Vichy France by train and were a
regular weekly cargo run. The Swiss, as neutrals, paid for them to
avoid Allied interception, then secretly passed them on to the Germans
and got their money back from the Reichsbank.
The status of Switzerland vis-a-vis the Third Reich can easily be
determined from the fact that the Germans were welcome to bank their
stolen gold (from Jewish teeth) and other assets there in case of an
Allied victory. More importantly, ONCE that victory was inevitable,
the Nazis experienced little or no difficulty getting their money out.
Even ODESSA and its offshoot, Die Spinne, the Nazi escape and the Old
Comrade welfare organisations (the Old Comrades is run today by
Heinrich Himmler's daughter; a real little charmer she is), had their
main routes through Switzerland to Italy, including safe houses where
fleeing Nazis could hide, all with the knowledge of the Swiss
authorities.
The anger and revulsion of the Swiss people at the revelation of what
their government and banks had been doing in their name can scarcely
be imagined - after all; they're as decent a people as any other,
whether German-speaking or not.
The Wehrmacht estimated that it could take control of Switzerland in
under a week, including neutralizing all Swiss Army units operating
from the high Alps. The Swiss were fully aware of this and
collaborated totally with the Nazis to avoid being invaded. This
collaboration was even extended to handing back escaped Jews, in the
full knowledge that the apprehended escapers faced certain death.
And it's no news that Switzerland had to be threatened with a total
financial embargo by the US before it would even consider returning
that Nazi-stolen Jewish gold. Not that it's returned much - the
initial payments were for a couple of hundred dollars per head -
incredible! The US has now leaned heavily and things are speeding up.
Regarding collaboration, it is my understanding that Esso supplied oil
to the Nazis as late as 1943 through a Swedish subsidiary. I am at a
loss to understand why the directors of Esso were not executed for
treason as they would have been in Britain, but I suppose money talks
everywhere - it certainly did in Vietnam, where the US business
establishment is said to have made billions building infrastructures
which were essentially useless but vastly profitable. Thus the cynical
slogan of the time: "War is good business - invest your son!"
And during the Falklands War, the French happily continued to sell
Exocet missiles to the Argentinians for use against their British
allies and partners. Thus the outbreak of anti-French feeling shortly
thereafter.
Let's get serious! The German Army under the Nazis was the best in
Europe, bar none. They fought their way to the gates of Moscow - do
you think it would have taken them any effort to smash Switzerland
whenever they wanted? The only help the Allies had was Adolf Hitler's
reliance on his astrologer for military advice. The Allies sweated
buckets every time someone tried to assassinate Hitler - can you
imagine what would have happened if competent military men like
Doenitz, Rommel or Guderian had taken control of the German war
machine? If s.c.s. even existed, we'd be writing this in German.
However, allow me to pander to your fantasies...
------------------------------
(Associated Press)
Douglas E.Denny, registered handgun owner and NRA Pin-Up of the Week
has once again repelled the US Marines with heavy losses as they tried
to storm his basement room last night. The US Government is now
reportedly considering sending in Stealth bombers, according to a War
Department source. And as messages of support poured in from Libya,
Iraq and Bob Knauer, Denny said, "I'm getting a bit pissed with this
shit - either Washington backs off or it's no more Mr. Nice Guy! Who
do these hoplophobes think I am anyway - the Swiss Army?"
Dream along Douglas...
Mìcheil Rob Mac Phàdruig
"Faire faire dhuin' òig
cia do bharantas mór?
'N i do bharail bhith
beò 's nach eug thu?"
Douglas E.Denny.
>And the good old free US population wouldn't at all mind being
>conscripted and doing 30 years compulsory military service either?
>(which is how the Swiss get to keep all their equipment, guns,
>ammunition at home)
They do not "get to keep all their guns ammunition at home" as if it was a
rare privilege: they do it BY LAW: which in turn means they WANT to do
it and do so by majority vote.
My brother -in-law lives in Geneva. I am told the majority of Swiss are
happy to do their couple of weeks training every year considering it a
privilege as well as two weeks of fun. Most also are very aware of their
neutrality and fiercely wish to defend it and are aware of their
responsibilities of owning arms. They understand fully deterrence and
possession of arms go together.
Also, they all have to make provision for an atomic bomb shelter BY LAW
in every domicile, including all new building. The law which requires them to
stock it with food and provisions is now not enforced in these (relatively)
peaceful times.
>Switzerland is a whole different ball game to the US.
>Comprehensive social security system, high standard of living and life
>expectancy, majority vote required for changes to the Constitution,
>not a member of the UN (by vote), political neutrality, low crime
>rate, uncensored media.
They can also force a referendum on political matters with a relatively few
number of signatures. They also very sensibly voted in a referendum to
keep out of the European Union.
They may be a country of cuckoo clocks and dodgy finance, but they are the
most sensible in the world when it comes to the real world considerations of
arms and the population.
--
Douglas E.Denny. Chichester. England.
Lee E. Brown
Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
<366ee164...@news.whidbey.com>...
>Douglas E.Denny wrote in message ...
>
>>2. Why was Switzerland bypassed by Hitler? Was it because the whole
>>population was AND STILL IS armed - BY LAW. A whole population
>>instantly ready to fight back. Not an easy nut to crack perhaps?
>
>Congratulations on your brilliant knowledge of history and masterly
>insights into European politics!
[A competent and accurate summary of reasons behind Switzerland's "neutrality"
during WWII regretfully snipped]
>However, allow me to pander to your fantasies...
>
>------------------------------
>(Associated Press)
>
>Douglas E.Denny, registered handgun owner and NRA Pin-Up of the Week
>has once again repelled the US Marines with heavy losses as they tried
>to storm his basement room last night. The US Government is now
>reportedly considering sending in Stealth bombers, according to a War
>Department source. And as messages of support poured in from Libya,
>Iraq and Bob Knauer, Denny said, "I'm getting a bit pissed with this
>shit - either Washington backs off or it's no more Mr. Nice Guy! Who
>do these hoplophobes think I am anyway - the Swiss Army?"
>
>Dream along Douglas...
Your alleged satire falls way short of the mark; an armed population UNITED in
repulsion or rebellion is NOT the same thing as some lone goober in his
basement.
Glad I could clear that up for you. Carry on!
R. Knauer
Phŕdruig) wrote:
>Congratulations on your brilliant knowledge of history and masterly
>insights into European politics!
Oh no, not MacPhuckhead again.
Go crawl back under a rock - people do not need your alcoholic
ranting.
Douglas E.Denny.
>Congratulations on your brilliant knowledge of history and masterly
>insights into European politics!
Thank you very much for the recognition at last - fairly warms the cockles of
my heart ....and for your amusing contribution which has some valid points......
but some illusions too......... (you have an interesting name by the way,
..fairly rolls off the tongue... do you make whiskey?)
>Let's get serious! The German Army under the Nazis was the best in
>Europe, bar none. They fought their way to the gates of Moscow - do
>you think it would have taken them any effort to smash Switzerland
>whenever they wanted?
Being quite serious; yes I do think it would have been difficult for them to
'smash' Switzerland with its difficult terrain where fast armour cannot easily
make advances even with air support (which was the single most important
strategic advantage the Germans used), with all the bridges and tunnels
mined, and a fully armed population to confront. That they could have done so
is probable, ...... but _easily_ ; no! I disagree. You do have a good point that
it was economically useful to leave the Swiss alone; but the fact still remains:
why get a bloody nose when you don't have to? and **an armed population is
not so easy to overcome as an unarmed one**.
(I was tempted to use capitals for emphasis, but netties don't like it for some
obcure reason)
You clearly missed the point of the argument which is, (to spell it out):- those
who are armed are LESS likely to be attacked than those who are not. To
refuse acknowledgement of this is to refute the nose on your face in front of
you.
>Let's get serious! The German Army under the Nazis was the best in
>Europe, bar none.
Well for a start they were not 'best' enough to stop the re-invasion of Europe
by British and American forces, along with the Russians in the Eastern front.
So your comment is not just inappropriate but simply wrong.
The German Army was _not_ as invincible as their reputation which followed
their sucesses. This is the opinion of Sir Basil Liddell-Hart in 'History of the
Second World War' ; someone who's opinion , frankly , I would value more
greatly than yours. This book is an absolute must for all who want to fully
understand WW2. I commend it to you, and can guarantee you will be
surprised, as I was, to learn the opposite of your oft quoted opine above.
A small quote: "in sum, the German Army achieved its amazing run of
victories, not because it was overwhelming in strength or thoroughly modern
in form, but because it was a few vital degrees more advanced ( in strategy)
than its opponents"; and; "in sum, the Allied leaders did things too late or
did the wrong thing, and in the end did nothing effective to avert disaster".
They could have been stopped at the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Churchill wrote: "there was sense in fighting for Czechoslovakia in 1938,
when the German Army could scarcely put half a dozen trained divisions on
the Western Front, when the French with nearly sixty or seventy divisions
could most certainly have rolled forward across the Rhine or into the
Ruhr......."
Hitler was very anxious to avoid a major war and was even telling his generals
there would not be one as late as Aug 1939. Hitler's problem was not just with
armies but with economic resources.
L-Hart: "the strategic scales rested on an economic base, and it was doubtful
whether under the pressure of war this would long support the weight of
Germany's forces....... in any conflict the fortunes of the Axis would turn on
the chance that the war could be settled quickly". Once America entered the
war even Hitler conceded he was in trouble.
.................................
A few quickies...its getting late...
>Douglas E.Denny, registered handgun owner
ex-registered handgun owner. They arn't allowed here in the UK now. But
rifles are, and shotguns, and much more dangerous things in the hands of
untrained nutcases ....motorcars..........
.....................................
>NRA Pin-Up of the Week
>has once again repelled the US Marines with heavy losses as they tried
>to storm his basement room last night. The US Government is now
>reportedly considering sending in Stealth bombers,
Moi? a pin-up? Wish I was ... all those randy American girls in the NRA
wanting to learn how to hold a weapon............
You obviously think I am American........ wrong again! didn't you inspect the
signature?
......................................
> "Faire faire dhuin' òig
> cia do bharantas mór?
> 'N i do bharail bhith
> beò 's nach eug thu?"
Wots all this gobbledygook? Don't you know all the world speaks
English.....oops! sorry, I mean American..........!
--
Douglas E.Denny. Chichester. England.
the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood
of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
T. Jefferson 1787
Maria
<Dou...@ddbosham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> writes
>
>>And the good old free US population wouldn't at all mind being
>>conscripted and doing 30 years compulsory military service either?
>>(which is how the Swiss get to keep all their equipment, guns,
>>ammunition at home)
>
>They do not "get to keep all their guns ammunition at home" as if it was a
>rare privilege: they do it BY LAW:
By force.
> which in turn means they WANT to do
>it and do so by majority vote.
Except that a referendum produced a majority vote for the abolition of
the Swiss army in the cantons of Jura and Geneva.
>My brother -in-law lives in Geneva. I am told the majority of Swiss are
>happy to do their couple of weeks training every year considering it a
>privilege as well as two weeks of fun. Most also are very aware of their
>neutrality and fiercely wish to defend it and are aware of their
>responsibilities of owning arms. They understand fully deterrence and
>possession of arms go together.
>
>Also, they all have to make provision for an atomic bomb shelter BY LAW
>in every domicile, including all new building. The law which requires them to
>stock it with food and provisions is now not enforced in these (relatively)
>peaceful times.
>
>>Switzerland is a whole different ball game to the US.
>>Comprehensive social security system, high standard of living and life
>>expectancy, majority vote required for changes to the Constitution,
>>not a member of the UN (by vote), political neutrality, low crime
>>rate, uncensored media.
>
>They can also force a referendum on political matters with a relatively few
>number of signatures. They also very sensibly voted in a referendum to
>keep out of the European Union.
And surprisingly, for such an advanced country, women were only
allowed to vote in federal elections and hold federal office after
constitutional change brought about by a referendum in 1971.
>They may be a country of cuckoo clocks and dodgy finance, but they are the
>most sensible in the world when it comes to the real world considerations of
>arms and the population.
But maybe not for much longer?
Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig
wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 21:39:28 GMT, mik...@whidbey.com (Micheil Rob Mac
>Phŕdruig) wrote:
>
>>Congratulations on your brilliant knowledge of history and masterly
>>insights into European politics!
>
>Oh no, not MacPhuckhead again.
>
>Go crawl back under a rock - people do not need your alcoholic
>ranting.
>
>Bob Knauer
Doing a lot of business down your way these days, boy - oil rigs
moving up and down from Louisiana to Texas like nobody's business. I
always make it a point to tell everyone I talk to, "If you run into a
gun nut roustabout called Bob Knauer, he's a real prick!' You'd be
amazed how many reply, "You ain't whistlin' Dixie!"
Měcheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig
"Faire faire dhuin' ňig
cia do bharantas mór?
'N i do bharail bhith
beň 's nach eug thu?"
Robin
<rckt...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>Comprehensive social security system, high standard of living and life
>>expectancy, majority vote required for changes to the Constitution,
>>not a member of the UN (by vote), political neutrality, low crime
>>rate, uncensored media.
>>apparent trust in the Swiss turned out to be a bit dodgy though;
>>in 1989 it was dicovered that Swiss Federal Security police had kept
>>dossiers on 200,000 Swiss citizens and foreign residents due to their
>>'suspect' political beliefs.
>
>This is adapted from an article by Eric Margolis:
>
>+++++
>Switzerland has 7.2 million citizens and four official languages.
>Sixty-five percent speak Swiss-German; 18% French; 10% Italian; and 1%
>Romanche, an ancient mountain dialect. Protestants and Catholics are
>evenly divided. In spite of this diversity, Switzerland runs like a
>Swiss watch.
Hmmm, as they say YMMV. I was invited to address a symposium on Alpha1
Antitrypsin Deficiency just two months ago in Geneva.
When I arrived at the hotel the reservation that had been made in June
had not been recorded and for a while it looked like I would be sleeping
in the street. It was only when I threatened the hotel staff with severe
legal actions that a room was 'found'
>
>The Swiss Confederation, founded in 1291, is made up of 26 independent
>cantons that are responsible for, and answerable to, their citizens on
>nearly all political and economic matters. Each cantonal legislature
>sets its own policy on taxes, education, welfare, health, and
>language. Swiss citizens vote by direct referendum on all important
>matters at least four times annually. Any question may be put to
>voters provided a minimum number of signatures is received. Just last
>week, for example, Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to
>legalize drugs.
So saying they have very liberal views on drugs and actually give
addicts Heroin, quite right too, in my view.
>Switzerland has no massive federal bureaucracy swallowing the nation's
>wealth, no redundant levels of government, and limited regulation. As
>a result, Swiss taxes are moderate, unemployment low, and
>Switzerland's national debt currently stands at zero.
Will it still be zero when the pay back the money stolen from Jews?
The price of everything was amazingly high and I wonder how long they
can stay out of the EU now that the single currency has been launched.
I note that France has sucessfully blocked trading with Switzerland at a
meeting of the EU trade ministers ( report:Guardian 10/12).
The spat is over a Swiss wine called Champagne. As we know the French
are very uptight over protecting 'their' brandname. What's really crazy
is the Swiss wine is produced in the Swiss town of Champagne and
producers there claim to have been producing the bubbly for 700 years
longer than the French version.
The Swiss are asking just how much longer their much vaunted
inderpendence can survive.
European Unity anyone?
--
Robin
Please remove 'spam' on reply.
R. Knauer
<Dou...@ddbosham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig <mik...@whidbey.com> writes
>>Congratulations on your brilliant knowledge of history and masterly
>>insights into European politics!
>(you have an interesting name by the way,
>..fairly rolls off the tongue...
His real name is MacPhuckhead. Sometimes he goes by his alias,
MacPharthead.
>do you make whiskey?)
Make it? Hell, all he does is consume it.
Wait until he ties one on and threatens to send the Scottish Mafia
after you. That's always good for a laugh.
>(I was tempted to use capitals for emphasis, but netties don't like it for some
>obcure reason)
It's called SHOUTING. Use asterisks for *emphasis*, although an
OCCASIONAL shout is acceptable.
>Well for a start they were not 'best' enough to stop the re-invasion of Europe
>by British and American forces, along with the Russians in the Eastern front.
>So your comment is not just inappropriate but simply wrong.
The British and Americans had ULTRA (not a shout, but the actual
spelling) and other deciphering technology. Churchill had deciphered
German transmissions on his desk before the Field Marshalls even had
theirs deciphered.
Churchill warned Stalin of the impendingGerman invasion, discovered by
deciphering the German high commands message traffic. Stalin
purportedly did not pay attention.
>This book is an absolute must for all who want to fully
>understand WW2.
Does it discuss the crucial role that cryptanalysis played? If not, I
would be suspect of its insights.
> I commend it to you, and can guarantee you will be
>surprised, as I was, to learn the opposite of your oft quoted opine above.
You are assuming MacPhuckhead can read.
>You obviously think I am American........ wrong again! didn't you inspect the
>signature?
He doesn't actually read these posts - he just opens them and begins
his diatribes at random.
>> "Faire faire dhuin' òig
>> cia do bharantas mór?
>> 'N i do bharail bhith
>> beò 's nach eug thu?"
>Wots all this gobbledygook? Don't you know all the world speaks
>English.....oops! sorry, I mean American..........!
That's just MacPhuckhead babbling when he gets totally pissed.
Wait until you hear about his tales of bravery and heroism. Ha!
Bob Knauer
"The organization of American society is an interlocking system of
semi-monopolies notoriously venal, an electorate notoriously
unenlightened, misled by mass media notoriously phony."
--Paul Goodman
R. Knauer
>>They do not "get to keep all their guns ammunition at home" as if it was a
>>rare privilege: they do it BY LAW:
>By force.
I would expect that they have a "conscientious objectors" clause.
>Except that a referendum produced a majority vote for the abolition of
>the Swiss army in the cantons of Jura and Geneva.
Do you consider that a smart thing to have done?
>And surprisingly, for such an advanced country, women were only
>allowed to vote in federal elections and hold federal office after
>constitutional change brought about by a referendum in 1971.
That's why it was once an advanced country - only men voted.
Now that women have the vote they want to disband the Swiss militia,
for what reason no one knows.
R. Knauer
Phŕdruig) wrote:
>Doing a lot of business down your way these days, boy - oil rigs
>moving up and down from Louisiana to Texas like nobody's business. I
>always make it a point to tell everyone I talk to, "If you run into a
>gun nut roustabout called Bob Knauer, he's a real prick!' You'd be
>amazed how many reply, "You ain't whistlin' Dixie!"
More drunken babble from MacPhuckhead.
John Farrell
"Douglas E.Denny." wrote:
> Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig <mik...@whidbey.com> writes
>
> >Congratulations on your brilliant knowledge of history and masterly insights into
> European politics!
>
> Thank you very much.........<SNIP! SNIP! SNIP! .....wanting to learn how to hold a
> weapon............
>
> You obviously think I am American........ wrong again! didn't you inspect the
> signature?
> ......................................
> > "Faire faire dhuin' òig
> > cia do bharantas mór?
> > 'N i do bharail bhith
> > beò 's nach eug thu?"
>
> Wots all this gobbledygook? Don't you know all the world speaks
> English.....oops! sorry, I mean American..........!
>
> --
> Douglas E.Denny. Chichester. England.
>
Except the majority of Africa, Asia, South & Central America, China, India,
Europe...... to mention a couple of minor districts.
You a shoemaker by any chance? You certainly dish out more than your fair share of
cobblers....
JF
jos...@my-dejanews.com
Ness's on this side of the pond were too busy reading reports by other
Americans (all in English) on the evil Swiss, with no time to request
documents from the Swiss themselves - documents that were not in English.
Also, the Swiss absorbed more Jews per capita in the years leading up to and
including 1941 than any other country. I think at that point they gave some
leeway to the axis powers (Operation Tannenbaum was in the works) - probably
less leeway than would have been given by the U.S. if that luvable mug Joseph
Kennedy had been prez. I think I remember Shirer's tome mentioning $100
million N.S.D.A.P. monies in the U.S. at the outset which was frozen...then
what happened to it?
http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/jasonstanfield
<hack>
>
> Will it still be zero when the pay back the money stolen from Jews?
>
<cut>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Douglas E.Denny.
>>Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig <mik...@whidbey.com>
R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>His real name is MacPhuckhead. Sometimes he goes by his alias,
>MacPharthead.
He is quite MacPhunny isn't he.
................................
>>This book is an absolute must for all who want to fully
>>understand WW2.
[Sir Basil Liddell-Hart's 'History of the Second World War']
>
>Does it discuss the crucial role that cryptanalysis played? If not, I
>would be suspect of its insights.
Perhaps I should not have said 'fully' understand as it was written before
the Ultra secret was in the public domain. It does give, however, the most
rigorous and complete analysis in one book, of the war from an historian
who is acknowledged as being one of the greatest contemporary military
experts. The Ultra story adds meat to a few areas, giving better
explanations to some 'anomalous' goings-on.
To the Quote from the cover:
"So often ignored in his own country - to its eventual peril - .....was rightly
honoured in his later years as one of the outstanding teacher/historians of
this or any other age..." If he was ignored by us in Britain .. that says it
all .. he just has to be read....
He edited Rommel's papers at Frau Rommel's request; lectured at War
Colleges in Canada and America; and was made an honourary member of
the U.S. Marine Corps. He also wrote 'History of the First World War'.
It was he who (tried to) promoted the (new and heretical) fast armour/close
air support theories to the British Army in-between the Great Wars, which
were a result of his analysis of the effects on war strategy of the tank and
aircraft in the First War. He was ignored by the Brits of course!... but his
papers were read by Guderian and other German strategists, put into
practice by the latter in the Second War, later to be called 'Blitzkrieg'.
Incidentally, I am writing a book (too slowly unfortunately and crap
compared to above), which contains the proposition that the war was very
nearly lost not on land (the Germans were well entrenched on the European
land-mass and took a lot to dislodge but that was not impossible..as it so
proved) - but at sea in the Battle of the Atlantic.
Hitler, like Napoleon before him was mind-blind to the importance of sea
battles, and the route across the Atlantic; - he was only interested in his
grand land battles. If the proper priority had been given to sea warfare, and
Doenitz had been given the resources he wanted right from the start, then
Britain could have been completely cut-off, and America denied its
unsinkable aircraft carrier offshore from Europe.
Douglas E.Denny.
>>They do not "get to keep all their guns ammunition at home" as if it was a
>>rare privilege: they do it BY LAW:
>By force.
No - *by concensus*. Why you no listen? ... I have noticed this trait in
your postings before.
You seem to have a fixation for using inappropriate words for perfectly good
ones.
I have to repeat: 'which in turn means they WANT to do it and do so by
majority vote'.
Obviously the corollory to this is: if they did _not_ want to then they would
force a referendum and vote it out.
>And surprisingly, for such an advanced country, women were only
>allowed to vote in federal elections and hold federal office after
>constitutional change brought about by a referendum in 1971.
Yes, and they have just voted in their first wimmin prime minister
which just shows that even the Swiss aren't perfect ...........
they are the
>most sensible in the world when it comes to the real world considerations of
>arms and the population.
>But maybe not for much longer?
Wishful thinking?
Lee E. Brown
Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
>>Phŕdruig) wrote:
>>
>>>Congratulations on your brilliant knowledge of history and masterly
>>>insights into European politics!
>>
>>
>>Go crawl back under a rock - people do not need your alcoholic
>>ranting.
>>
>>Bob Knauer
>
>moving up and down from Louisiana to Texas like nobody's business. I
>always make it a point to tell everyone I talk to, "If you run into a
>gun nut roustabout called Bob Knauer, he's a real prick!' You'd be
>amazed how many reply, "You ain't whistlin' Dixie!"
I see you aren't fully aquainted with the local customs. "You ain't whistlin'
Dixie!" loosely translates as: "Bugger off, Kilt-Boy!"
Douglas E.Denny.
>> > "Faire faire dhuin' òig
>> > cia do bharantas mór?
>> > 'N i do bharail bhith
>> > beò 's nach eug thu?"
>>
>> Wots all this gobbledygook? Don't you know all the world speaks
>> English.....oops! sorry, I mean American..........!
>>
......................................oOo..............................
>Except the majority of Africa, Asia, South & Central America, China, India,
>Europe...... to mention a couple of minor districts.
Hmmm, (Thinks: this guy has to be thick, or is just stirring) ........ Well short
diatribe coming up, upon the English language sweeping all before it.... reel
one......
You don't really want me to point out the sun never set on the English
Empire do you?
You don't really want me to defend the fact that English (now American
English) is sweeping the World: - mainly through business and Grollywood
movies on TV .....that even in China they (the business and educated people
that is) can't learn it fast enough.
Are you French or something? ... it really _does_ get up their noses that the
"Lingua Franca" is now "Lingua Angleterra" ..... they even passed laws to
try and eliminate the "pollution" of English words now commonly used by
French people. (Official French words were to be invented for the purpose).
Your examples are poor.
Apart from South America; but even there English is taught in the schools
of Argentina and Chile (probably not for long in the latter after our
disgraceful and dishonourable disregard for guests of our country).
Central America: Belize, Costa Rica, English speaking; others Spanish
officially but English compulsory in schools in Columbia and Honduras (ask
yourself why?); others English spoken in Creole.
Africa? Wot about:
South Africa, Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
Namibia, Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Ethiopia, ... are all I can think of
with others like Egypt, Senegal, Benin that use English as well as their own
official language. That covers most of it.
India? ....... Are you suggesting English is not known there? ......You are out
of your tree! We ran the place for practically a couple of hundred
years.....English is found everywhere; in fact is the only way communication
takes place as common currency between the different languges of Gujurati,
Bengali, Hindi etc at an official level.
Europe? ...Definitely out of your Box! Most of the 'Western' countries
in Europe teach English as second language. The Germans and Swedes
speak it better (more correctly and understandably) than most Eastenders
(Area of London for our readers).
Here endeth the lesson. If you are English yourself (I note the address is
.virgin.net therefore probably yes) ...... go into the corner with the 'D' cap....
>You a shoemaker by any chance? You certainly dish out more than your fair share
>of
>cobblers....
Oh! you _are_ an Eastender.......... that explains it.
Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig
<leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>I see you aren't fully aquainted with the local customs. "You ain't whistlin'
>Dixie!" loosely translates as: "Bugger off, Kilt-Boy!"
Try bullshitting someone else, asshole.
Měcheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig
"Faire faire dhuin' ňig
cia do bharantas mór?
'N i do bharail bhith
Maria
<Dou...@ddbosham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> writes
>
>>>They do not "get to keep all their guns ammunition at home" as if it was a
>>>rare privilege: they do it BY LAW:
>
>>By force.
>
>No - *by concensus*.
I see.
So in spite of the fact that at least a third of the Swiss want to
abolish the Army, 100% of them want to be in it, (minus conscientous
objectors of course) and so no-one is forced to be in it. ?
I wonder how you come to this conclusion?
> Why you no listen?
I listen very carefully actually.
>... I have noticed this trait in
>your postings before.
Maybe there is a reason for that? Like the fact that at the time I am
responding to people who make assertions to the effect that a
government forced action is not a forced action because some of the
population think it's a good thing, (even though a large number of
them do not), but that government prohibitive law is a forced thing
and is bad (even if a majority think that law a good thing). For
goodness sake at least be consistent.
If the Swiss government has made it compulsory that people be
conscripted, then it is *forcing* those who do not want to be
conscripted to be conscripted, whatever the *source* of that law.
Mr. Knauer describes government compulsion as 'fascist' but curiously
supports it wrt Kennesaw (where it is compulsory to keep a gun).
I guess if the end justifies the means, even fascist compulsion is
acceptable.
>You seem to have a fixation for using inappropriate words for perfectly good
>ones.
Then I hope the explanation above has helped your comprehension of my
use of the word 'force' which I shall use again if you force me to do
so.
>I have to repeat: 'which in turn means they WANT to do it and do so by
>majority vote'.
I see.
Minorities don't count then, even large ones.
>Obviously the corollory to this is: if they did _not_ want to then they would
>force a referendum and vote it out.
a) Are you suggesting that the 33%-ish percent who voted for abolition
were in fact making it up?
b) Are there any rules wrt the frequency that forcing a referendum on
the same question can take place?
It seems reasonable to assume that there might be, given that if there
were not, the disatisfied minority would use repeat forcing of
referenda to try and get what they want.
>>And surprisingly, for such an advanced country, women were only
>>allowed to vote in federal elections and hold federal office after
>>constitutional change brought about by a referendum in 1971.
>
>Yes, and they have just voted in their first wimmin prime minister
>which just shows that even the Swiss aren't perfect ...........
Apparently.
I am simply challenging the premise that Switzerland seems to be
totally sorted because it has a high number of guns and a low crime
rate. I've seen it used several times in this ng.
>they are the
>>most sensible in the world when it comes to the real world considerations of
>>arms and the population.
>
>>But maybe not for much longer?
>
>Wishful thinking?
Not at all. Who am I to say whether someone in Switzerland is right or
wrong to want to keep/abolish their conscription law?
That is for the people of Switzerland.
Maria
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:11:43 GMT, mar...@clara.co.uk (Maria) wrote:
>
>>>They do not "get to keep all their guns ammunition at home" as if it was a
>>>rare privilege: they do it BY LAW:
>
>>By force.
>
>I would expect that they have a "conscientious objectors" clause.
But not one for people who simply don't want to keep guns in their
home?
>>Except that a referendum produced a majority vote for the abolition of
>>the Swiss army in the cantons of Jura and Geneva.
>
>Do you consider that a smart thing to have done?
I don't know. It has become apparent from previous that the only way
to know how it is to live in a country is to live there. (probably for
a long time)
So it's difficult to say whether that was smart or not without getting
the whole picture that a Swiss national would have.
>>And surprisingly, for such an advanced country, women were only
>>allowed to vote in federal elections and hold federal office after
>>constitutional change brought about by a referendum in 1971.
>
>That's why it was once an advanced country - only men voted.
Bleurgh.
>Now that women have the vote they want to disband the Swiss militia,
>for what reason no one knows.
a) how do you know that it was all women that voted for abolition? (An
educated guess perhaps?)
b)Maybe because in general, women seem to be more passive than men, or
at least have a higher tolerance threshold when it comes to the
possibility of using violent behaviour.
PS. I am responding to the other thread wrt the law and stuff
tomorrow.
I am really poorly with the 'flu and just looked in to Usenet briefly.
R. Knauer
>Mr. Knauer describes government compulsion as 'fascist' but curiously
>supports it wrt Kennesaw (where it is compulsory to keep a gun).
The city ordinance in Kennesaw has exceptions for anyone who objects
to keeping a gun, therefore it is not compulsory. BTW, the ordinance
has never been enforced.
>I guess if the end justifies the means, even fascist compulsion is
>acceptable.
You guess wrong.
>Not at all. Who am I to say whether someone in Switzerland is right or
>wrong to want to keep/abolish their conscription law?
>That is for the people of Switzerland.
What if the people of Switzerland all decided to pass a law permitting
them to murder British women. Would you agree they have that "right"
just because they voted in the majority to di it?
Remember that according to current British thinking, Statuatory Law
overrides Common Law, so those pesky old laws that prohibit murder
have just been overridden in this hypothetical example.
I suppose that makes killing British women legitimate, eh. After all,
the majority voted for it, and the legislature made it a new law.
R. Knauer
>>I would expect that they have a "conscientious objectors" clause.
>But not one for people who simply don't want to keep guns in their
>home?
There is a provision for that in the Texas Constitution:
+++++
The Texas Constitution
Article 16 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 47 - CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO BEARING ARMS
Any person who conscientiously scruples to bear arms, shall not be
compelled to do so, but shall pay an equivalent for personal service.
+++++
>>That's why it was once an advanced country - only men voted.
>Bleurgh.
Oh... you like what women vote for? Like BJ Clinton and Twinky Algore.
If that is the best women can vote for, then women do not deserve to
vote.
Now Texas women - that's a whole other matter. They voted
overwhelmingly for the Republican Part of Texas, a very wise decision.
>a) how do you know that it was all women that voted for abolition? (An
>educated guess perhaps?)
Eric Margolis had a piece on it a while back. If anyone would like a
copy, just send me a SASE along with 1 million pounds for shipping and
handling, and I will send you your very own copy.
>b)Maybe because in general, women seem to be more passive than men, or
>at least have a higher tolerance threshold when it comes to the
>possibility of using violent behaviour.
Perhaps, but when they lose it, they lose it far worse than men.
That's why more of them are hoplophobes than men. In fact, the male
male hoplophobes are poofters.
Real Men (tm) are not afraid of guns. Neither are Real Women (tm).
Richard Caley
rk> Any person who conscientiously scruples to bear arms, shall not be
rk> compelled to do so, but shall pay an equivalent for personal
rk> service.
Ie you can be let off if you bribe the government. Looks like
compulsion to me.
rk> Oh... you like what women vote for?
Same as men vote for, except on average a little more right wing and
authoritarian as I remember the statistics. Eg Thatcher had strong
female support as did her senile slightly less masculine twin the
pond.
rk> Real Men (tm) are not afraid of guns. Neither are Real Women (tm).
True, OTOH, real men and women have better things to spend their time
and money on.
I just bought a blow torch, far more useful than a gun (with a gun the
creme brulee spashes all over the place, though the powder burns do
add a piquant twist to the flavour.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Steve Martin
Douglas E.Denny. wrote in message <4Gs4JAAo...@ddbosham.demon.co.uk>...
>
> <SNIP>
>
>India? ....... Are you suggesting English is not known there? ......You are
out
>of your tree! We ran the place for practically a couple of hundred
>years.....English is found everywhere; in fact is the only way
communication
>takes place as common currency between the different languges of Gujurati,
>Bengali, Hindi etc at an official level.
>
I have it on good authority (i.e. from several Indian people) that English
is
not the common link between the languages. Hindi is the "universal"
language
in India. Any Indians reading this thread wish to reinforce this or am I
talking
out of my arse?
Steve
Maria
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:22:47 GMT, mar...@clara.co.uk (Maria) wrote:
>
>>Mr. Knauer describes government compulsion as 'fascist' but curiously
>>supports it wrt Kennesaw (where it is compulsory to keep a gun).
>
>The city ordinance in Kennesaw has exceptions for anyone who objects
>to keeping a gun, therefore it is not compulsory. BTW, the ordinance
>has never been enforced.
When you say 'objects', do you mean conscientious objectors, or all
people who don't want a gun say for example, because they can't be
bothered or because they are crap shooters?
And if it's the latter, what is the point of having the ordinance in
the first place!
When you say that the ordinance has not been enforced, do you mean
that they don't bother to enforce it, or that they have never needed
to enforce it?
BTW what is the penalty for non-compliance?
>>I guess if the end justifies the means, even fascist compulsion is
>>acceptable.
>
>You guess wrong.
Apologies. It's just that you seem so proud of the effect of this
particular piece of legislation that I wondered why you were not
objecting to the compulsory nature of it.
>>Not at all. Who am I to say whether someone in Switzerland is right or
>>wrong to want to keep/abolish their conscription law?
>>That is for the people of Switzerland.
>
>What if the people of Switzerland all decided to pass a law permitting
>them to murder British women. Would you agree they have that "right"
>just because they voted in the majority to di it?
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
(brain only partially functioning I think)
Are you asking if I think that majority rule is right?
Or that they would be wrong to pass such a law by majority rule?
Or that they would be wrong to pass such a law at all?
And do you mean British women is Switzerland only, or all British
women everywhere?
>Remember that according to current British thinking, Statuatory Law
>overrides Common Law, so those pesky old laws that prohibit murder
>have just been overridden in this hypothetical example.
Sorry; I don't really understand the example. I'll answer when I do.
(NB. Murder is a Statutory offence in the UK but even so, it can be
repealed by a new amended Statutory offence for murder)
>I suppose that makes killing British women legitimate, eh. After all,
>the majority voted for it, and the legislature made it a new law.
<shrug>
macdiarmid
Robin <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
> +++++
> >Switzerland has 7.2 million citizens and four official languages.
> >Sixty-five percent speak Swiss-German; 18% French; 10% Italian; and 1%
> >Romanche, an ancient mountain dialect. Protestants and Catholics are
> >evenly divided. In spite of this diversity, Switzerland runs like a
> >Swiss watch.
This is because it is virtually run on anarchist lines where power comes
from the bottom up, not from the top down, as in our representative system.
--
--
macdiarmid
Homosexual practice is unnatural, incompatible with the lifestyle of God's Kingdom and an affront to God's Law and Gospel. (Roman 1:28-7; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:8-11)
R. Knauer
wrote:
>Ie you can be let off if you bribe the government. Looks like
>compulsion to me.
Since when is paying your fair share for community services considered
compulsion? I suppose anything that obligates you in society could be
considered compulsion, even if you enjoy the benefits.
>Same as men vote for, except on average a little more right wing and
>authoritarian as I remember the statistics. Eg Thatcher had strong
>female support as did her senile slightly less masculine twin the
>pond.
That is exactly the opposite here. Women are the largest single block
vote for the FarLeft. Without them, BJ would not be in office.
The Wall Street Journal was the first to identify this surprising
shift in the women's vote before anyone else caught on to it. It is
based largely on the abortion issue, which the FarLeft espouses.
>rk> Real Men (tm) are not afraid of guns. Neither are Real Women (tm).
>True, OTOH, real men and women have better things to spend their time
>and money on. I just bought a blow torch, far more useful than a gun...
The gun is the single most effective device for self protection ever
invented. In fact, it is so effective that it does not even have to be
fired to stop aggression in 98-99% of the instances in which it is
brandished. How does your blow torch stack up against that?
BTW is that a semi-automatic blow torch with a black folding stock,
pistol grips, large capacity tank, bayonet lug and flash supressor? If
so, let me know where you got it, because I want one. <drool>
R. Knauer
>And if it's the latter, what is the point of having the ordinance in
>the first place!
The ordinance was originally passed to mock to the Morton Grove
(Chicago) ordinance that prohibited guns in people's houses.
>When you say that the ordinance has not been enforced, do you mean
>that they don't bother to enforce it, or that they have never needed
>to enforce it?
They never bothered to enforce it, because they never needed to
enforce it. Most people already had a gun in their homes.
>BTW what is the penalty for non-compliance?
I do not believe there is any.
>Apologies. It's just that you seem so proud of the effect of this
>particular piece of legislation that I wondered why you were not
>objecting to the compulsory nature of it.
The amazing thing about the Kennesaw Phenomenon, and why I make such a
big deal over it, is that this simple unenforced ordinance had such a
dramatic effect on the rate of violent crime.
Nothing really changed, people didn't go out in droves buying guns to
meet the ordinance, since they already had guns in their homes. All
that happened was that the city fathers announced that people were
armed in their homes - and the criminals went away almost overnight.
You really should read about Kennesaw just to get a feel for how
incredible it is when people let criminals know they are armed.
http://www.aimtec.com/rkba/kennesaw.html
>(brain only partially functioning I think)
You need to take my cure for the flu. But only if you are in excellent
health otherwise.
>Are you asking if I think that majority rule is right?
>Or that they would be wrong to pass such a law by majority rule?
>Or that they would be wrong to pass such a law at all?
All of the above.
>(NB. Murder is a Statutory offence in the UK but even so, it can be
>repealed by a new amended Statutory offence for murder)
Murder is also an offense against Common Law.
>>I suppose that makes killing British women legitimate, eh. After all,
>>the majority voted for it, and the legislature made it a new law.
><shrug>
What other conclusion can you reach?
In effect that is exactly what the Law-Abiding British Citizen Gun
Confiscation And Emasculation Act did - it condemned women to death at
the hands of violent criminals.
Lee E. Brown
Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:34:31 -0500, "Lee E. Brown"
><leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>>I see you aren't fully aquainted with the local customs. "You ain't whistlin'
>>Dixie!" loosely translates as: "Bugger off, Kilt-Boy!"
>
>Try bullshitting someone else, asshole.
My! Aren't we a bit sensitive? It's O.K. when you do it to Bob, but it's not
O.K. when someone does it to you? Sauce for the Gander, and all that?
R. Knauer
<macdi...@ronin37.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This is because it is virtually run on anarchist lines where power comes
>from the bottom up, not from the top down, as in our representative system.
I would prefer "minarchist lines", since the Swiss do have some govt.
But your point is well taken. However, the part I like best is the
power of Swiss citizens to effect things by petition any time they
chose.
We slaves do not get to do that - all we get to do is vote for the
lesser evil from a collection of complete demagogues.
R. Knauer
<leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in message
><367090ed...@news.whidbey.com>...
>>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:34:31 -0500, "Lee E. Brown"
>><leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>I see you aren't fully aquainted with the local customs. "You ain't whistlin'
>>>Dixie!" loosely translates as: "Bugger off, Kilt-Boy!"
>>Try bullshitting someone else, asshole.
>My! Aren't we a bit sensitive? It's O.K. when you do it to Bob, but it's not
>O.K. when someone does it to you? Sauce for the Gander, and all that?
Be careful or MacPhuckwit will send the Scottish mafia after you. Or
worse, he will bore us all to tears about how he was this war hero and
how he was a brave law enforcement agent.
I'd rather deal with the Scottish mafia than have to hear that crap
again. At least I can blow them away.
Alasdair Allan
> On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 03:01:40 GMT, sbre...@zdnetmail.com wrote:
>
> >The Jews were a pious, non-violent people that endured various types
> >of ostracism throughout europe for centuries. They never imagined the
> >scale of barbarism that the Nazis had planned in their "final
> >solution" Of course, they have since learned, yes?
>
> In Israel, yes. In America, no.
>
> Apparently there are two kinds of Jews, those who escaped to America
> and did not have to face the Holocaust, and those who managed to
> survive the Holocaust and now are doing whatever it takes never to let
> it happen again.
Why not just admit it that the Jewish people were too gutless to stand up
against the Germans and deserved all they got.
--
Alasdair Allan, Ibrox, Glasgow |I chose not to choose life,
x-st...@null.net |I chose something else...
X-Static's Rangers Webzine |Scottish Football
http://www.x-static.demon.co.uk/ |
Alasdair Allan
> On 11 Dec 1998 13:29:14 +0000, Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >True, OTOH, real men and women have better things to spend their time
> >and money on. I just bought a blow torch, far more useful than a gun...
>
> The gun is the single most effective device for self protection ever
> invented. In fact, it is so effective that it does not even have to be
> fired to stop aggression in 98-99% of the instances in which it is
> brandished. How does your blow torch stack up against that?
Oops.
Out of the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada and the United States, only the
United States has open ownership of handguns :-
In 1990, handguns were used to murder 22 people in Great Britain, 68 in
Canada, 87 in Japan, and 11,719 in the United States.
God bless America.
Alasdair Allan
> On Wed, 09 Dec 1998 21:39:28 GMT, mik...@whidbey.com (Micheil Rob Mac
> Phŕdruig) wrote:
>
> >Congratulations on your brilliant knowledge of history and masterly
> >insights into European politics!
>
> Oh no, not MacPhuckhead again.
>
> Go crawl back under a rock - people do not need your alcoholic
> ranting.
Thats strange. In other threads, you have been quite vehement in your
argument attempting to back up your phallic gun-lust with long winded and
utterly moronic tristes.
Yet now, once you are found out as completely wrong in *just one* of your
idiotic ramblings by a teuchter, you suddenly retreat into flame-war heaven
and forget any semblance of arguing your cause.
<chuckle>. Does your gun come up a nice sheen when you rub it off your
dick?
Alasdair Allan
> In article <tSnk5oAB...@droom.demon.co.uk>,
> Robin <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
> > +++++
> > >Switzerland has 7.2 million citizens and four official languages.
> > >Sixty-five percent speak Swiss-German; 18% French; 10% Italian; and 1%
> > >Romanche, an ancient mountain dialect. Protestants and Catholics are
> > >evenly divided. In spite of this diversity, Switzerland runs like a
> > >Swiss watch.
>
> from the bottom up, not from the top down, as in our representative
system.
Which makes the Swiss system *far* better under *any* definition of
democracy.
Douglas E.Denny.
>Mr. Knauer describes government compulsion as 'fascist'
You seem to have a problem with Mr. B. Knauer.
Bob Knauer is excedingly capable of defending himself; but let us make a
distinction here between government actions taken on behalf of the people
with the latter's consent through the normal channels of agreed
manifestoes before elections, party conferences and such like; - and the
overbearing undemocratic misuse of government power which so often
occurs here because of the 'Party' and 'whipping' system whereby there is
effectively an elected dictatorship.
The latter is definitely fascist, and it could not be better exempified than
with the present T.BLiar government. None of his MPs dares utter a word
which is not 'on message' (horrible offensive term) .... they even have
pagers to ensure the elected sheep say exactly what they are told!
It is a fact that cabinet concensus as one of the main instruments of
government policy-making went out of the window with Thatcher, and in
came Prime Ministerial fascism. She started the rot .... but it is raised to
unbelievably new heights with BLiar and the homosexual (BBC can't say it
but I can!) Mandelson.
>>No - *by concensus*.
>
>I see.
>So in spite of the fact that at least a third of the Swiss want to
>abolish the Army, 100% of them want to be in it, (minus conscientous
>objectors of course) and so no-one is forced to be in it. ?
>I wonder how you come to this conclusion?
You seem to have a problem with logic.
A concensus does _not_ mean 100% of people or even two thirds. It means
a majority in an election, no more or less.
>>>>They do not "get to keep all their guns ammunition at home" as if it was a
>>>>rare privilege: they do it BY LAW:
>By force.
and:
>Then I hope the explanation above has helped your comprehension of my
>use of the word 'force'
........ not one iota.
You seem to have a problem with the concept of (lawful) force.
Those (males) in Switzerland have a choice, they are not forced. Do
national service or go to jail. There is no more 'force' involved than the
normal due process of law as with any other law. I have the same choice in
the opposite sense .... do without my Colt 45 or go to jail. I am not forced,
the choice is mine.
>I see.
>Minorities don't count then, even large ones.
You seem to have a problem with the 'rights' of minorities.
They do _not_ have rights. Minorities do NOT count in law unless provision
is made specially for them: - nor should they, as it would violate the
principle of all being equal under the law. This principle has been pushed
out of the window in the pursuance of "political correctness" ending up with
ridiculous anomalies. When the motorcycle helmet law was introduced, I
was incensed when the Sikhs were allowed not to wear crash helmets, but by
law everyone else had to. This was patently absurd; either the rag-heads
should have been made to take them off and wear helmets - or do without
motorcycles. Or, recognise the law was anomalous and ditch it: which in my
opinion should have been the correct course of action.
The gun-owning minority in Britain had their *existing* rights in law
removed without any consultation. Nobody seemed to consider their rights,
and which actually were rights available and belonging to all. I don't
suppose you were in Trafalger Square, by any chance, rallying for their
rights as a minority group were you ?
They had their existing 'rights' being taken away, ...... an act which
diminished the 'rights' of _all_; (i.e. you, and future people would not be
able to shoot a handgun if you wanted to) but the mass hysteria overlooked
the rational arguments. Perhaps if gun owners were all black, unemployed,
one-legged,single parent, mentally deficient lesbians, millions of people
would have immediately rallied to help the 'downtrodden minority', crying
out these were ordinary well-deserving citizens being trampled upon by the
State.
........................
I confess to not being sure if conscientious objectors are catered for in law
in Switzerland; usually they are in modern armies .. being medical orderlies
or suchlike.
>I am simply challenging the premise that Switzerland seems to be
>totally sorted because it has a high number of guns and a low crime
>rate.
You seem to have a problem with factual evidence.
You state (correctly) above that Switzerland has low crime and high number
of guns (lets get it straight incidentally ....practically in every house!) and
yet you say you challenge this. The obvious conclusion from your own
factual statement is that gun-owning in a general population can be a
perfectly innocuous and reasonable state of affairs. And yet you want to
'challenge' this. (?)
In a previous posting of mine you _denied_ that the UK is now subject to
legislation and taxation by unelected bureaucrats in a foreign country. And
yet we are(subject to laws) and you are paying them (taxes).
What can one say in riposte? The nearest response on a keyboard is:
Whaa!t! !!??!? If you insist in denying facts then you might as well go
to a mirror and deny there is a nose on your face. I cannot help you, or me,
or anyone else come to reasonable conclusions in a debate.
I note you use the familiar female technique of diverting and sidestepping
arguments which you do not like by obfuscation and dissembling in an effort
to avoid them. Throwing in red herrings to deflect the 'unpleasant' things
you find repellent - superficial arguments which do nothing to enhance the
direction of the debate. Then getting rattled if you are pulled up short.
Semantics of using the word 'force' do nothing to enhance (or detract) the
original debating point.
I will not be deflected by such stratagems. Let's get back to the real
meat.....
The original proposition made by me is that the removal of arms from the
public domain and kept entirely by the State is for one reason only: to
prevent any possibility of armed insurection. The debate moved on to
Switzerland being an example of an armed population being at peace with
itself, and being armed for the purpose of deterrence and defence en masse.
(Now where do you want to take this from here?).
There is proof aplenty to support my propositions, both historically, and
better, existing today. Most of the arguments of the anti-gun lobby are
demonstrably emotional claptrap; those of any worth fly in the face of
factual evidence. The response of one person in this thread: "I just don't
like guns around" is hardly an adult response to a very real and important
issue.
The only argument which I have heard before, but not here, which holds
any credence as far as I am concerned (I will now play devil's advocate:) is
that there can be occasionally 'inappropriate' use of arms: a child plays with
Dad's gun and shoots himself or someone else; or disturbed adolescent (or
nutty adult) goes into school and shoots people. Now this is abhorent, but
is, mercifully, *extremely* rare even in America. The answer to these
tragic events is: training, and sensible gun control *by the owner*.... put
them in a safe!
It is, in my opinion, the price to pay for the advantages accrued from the
possession of arms, the main one being the guarantee of FREEDOM. (And
I mean that metaphorically for the 'people' as a whole).
The example of car (automobile) ownership and use, as a comparison to
gun ownership and use is entirely valid. Both are simply and literally heat
engines made out of metal. Both are potentially lethal. Automobiles kill
thousands every year, but the population accepts the carnage as the price to
pay for the FREEDOM of personal mobility. If the Dunblane nutcase had
chosen a long bus queue of children and driven into them at very high speed
he could have achieved the same aim. I have no doubt whasoever that had
he done so, automobiles would NOT have been instantly banned.
Switzerland is _the_ example of normal law-abiding people living peacefully
where they are all armed - but armed for a specific purpose - to act as a
deterent to aggression. They do not shoot each other. They are
comfortable with guns in their houses. They are sane ordinary people.
......... and it gets right up the noses of the anti-gun lobby like yourself.
Pity about the flu ........ try whiskey in hot milk; and menthol/eucaltptus
inhalent.
Douglas E.Denny. Chichester. England.
"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow
on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself."
--Joseph Sobran
Douglas E.Denny.
>I have it on good authority (i.e. from several Indian people) that English
>is
>not the common link between the languages. Hindi is the "universal"
>language
>in India. Any Indians reading this thread wish to reinforce this or am I
>talking
>out of my arse?
I am happy to be corrected, but I believe you are wrong.
My source for this little piece of information was one of the 'travelogues' on
the TV with some bod (cannot remember who .. might have been M. Palin)
going through India. Besides English being spoken by all the 'educated'
classes everywhere; apparently when there had to be communication
between different ares where there was a language difference, say, Hindi
and Gujurati .. then the only way of effectively communicating was by
writing it down in English on paper and presenting that, as they both had to
deal with written English all the time.
Ferg
sbre...@zdnetmail.com wrote in message
<366de1f7...@news.jax.bellsouth.net>...
>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 13:35:47 UNDEFINED, ppro...@neosoft.com (Peter H.
>>>>>Proctor) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I may have missed something, but, about the closest Bob has
>>gotten to
>>>>>>being "antisemitic" is complaining that Jewish people in the US have
>>forgotten
>>>>>>the lessons of the Holocaust and are not as heavily- armed as those in
>>Israel
>>>
>>>
>>....................................oOo...................................
>>>
>>>The people of Britain have forgotten the lessons of two world wars too.
>>>
>>>Hypothetical questions:
>>>
>>>1. If gun control laws had not been enacted, and if all the millions of
>>Jews
>>>gassed by the Germans in WW2, had had access to arms before being
>>>dragged from their homes at night to be carted off to the death camps
>>.......
>>>how many would have ultimately died I wonder?
>>
>>So we're playing "what if the Chermans gave all their enemies guns before
>>murdering them", are we?
>>
>>Are you five years old?
>
>The Jews were a pious, non-violent people that endured various types
>of ostracism throughout europe for centuries. They never imagined the
>scale of barbarism that the Nazis had planned in their "final
>solution" Of course, they have since learned, yes?
No, people have been exterminating Jews since Day 1, but specifically,
Europe has seen several large-scale exterminations of Jews in the last 1000
years.
>
>>
>>>2. Why was Switzerland bypassed by Hitler?
>
><<<SNIP>>> Wha'?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Besides which, your little myth of universal firearms-ownership is
>>incorrect.
>>The point is, the Swiss are all *trained* in the safe use of firearms,
it's
>>just a pity you fruit-cakes aren't.
>
>There are many folks who own firearms and have no/little training or
>understanding of what's in front of them. There are many more drivers
>though will an equally similar unfamiliarity of basic physics, which
>you can see demonstrated everytime you get on a roadway.
Yes, it's a pity some of the idiots in cars aren't removed from the road.
>>>Obvious conclusion:-
>>>The best gun control is to allow *all* responsible adults to have access
>>to
>>
>>obviously unnecessary and wrong, loopy one.
>
>There will always be people who are irresponsible. That's why we need
>to put warnings on coffee cups to remind folks not to place them in
>their crotches while they're driving. That and "not to be taken
>internally" on things like shampoo.
Yes, if there was a prize for stupidity, the competition would be fierce,
however this doesn't explain why a sane society should allow its citizens to
carry around firearms.
>
>>>personal weapons. No government or foreign power can then usurp the will
>>
>>What? Being almost universally armed didn't save Iraq from USA's
usurpation
>>of the people's will.
>
>Universally armed? The people's will?? You may be confused there good
>sir. Do you think Saddam allows the masses to do anything that he
>doesn't wish? This is a man who will nerve-gas his own people and
>enjoys boiling his foes in oil. No validity in this arguement.
So was the USA carrying out the will of all the american people?
Iraq has its own government, most iraqis have guns, but the US did what it
wanted to do.
>>>of the people as a whole. This is the precise reason the fathers of the
>>>American Constitution wrote-in the right to bear arms; and why America is
>
>>in which case they made a mistake, besides which the second amendment is
>>invalid.
>
>Invalid? Please elaborate!!!
The militia is *not* necessary for the security of the state, as it must
have been 200 years ago, so the amendment is invalid.
*****************************************
instan...@hotmail.com
de...@supertour.com
b...@cruiserbob.com
Starr...@cmisinc.com
car...@hotmail.com
laff...@laffaday.com
Ele...@earthlink.net
mot...@hotmail.com
ne...@pc4me.com
seek...@swbell.net
ln...@clark.net
moi_...@hotmail.com
kit...@hotmail.com
Best...@Webfisher.com
jo...@buildsuccess.com
tybr...@hotmail.com
amerip...@mailexcite.com
dv2...@apexmail.com
an...@laffaday.com
abe...@flash.net
callba...@targetmails.com
la...@laffaday.com
eu...@globalserve.net
ba...@cyberway.com.sg
ma...@fone-lock.com
gai...@ibm.net
fant...@iq.ca
scuban...@hargray.com
opport...@juno.com
dav...@bayview.net
pet...@voicenet.com
la...@psychic4all.com
pro...@simpledialup.com
Y...@Omni-Comm.com
ine...@internetwebsitehosting.com
wwi...@autowings.nl
sa...@remarkable-systems.com
ine...@internetwebsitehosting.com
wwi...@autowings.nl
uss...@email.msn.com
sa...@remarkable-systems.com
emai...@yahoo.com
jo...@ezyweb.com.audetective@sbinet.com
laff...@mail.laffaday.com
co...@registered-e-mail.com ,
Ret...@videoonline.net
p...@videoonline.net
webt...@angelfire.com
jeou...@hotmail.com
Ele...@spielbauer.com
taz...@surfree.com
oralsp...@usa.net
Ele...@spielbauer.com
stru...@dolfijn.nl
rem...@email.com
stru...@4u.net
xmas...@k-net.ostec.or.jp
xm...@k-net.ostec.or.jp
vs...@webtv.com
big...@worldnet.att.net
in...@sehn.com
abi...@bigfoot.com
A...@nowhere.com
advan...@emial.com
pa...@a-bulk-email-market.com
zapre...@resumezapper.com
ecs...@m2.is.net.tw
EEenter...@iname.com
adul...@hotmail.com
Casin...@hotmail.com
acid5...@yahoo.com
sr...@hotmail.com
2320...@dialupnet.com
rk...@justicemail.com
Step...@hotmail.com
popt...@usa.net
PJS
<mar...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:09:40 GMT, rckt...@ix.netcom.com (R. Knauer)
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:11:43 GMT, mar...@clara.co.uk (Maria) wrote:
> >
> >>>They do not "get to keep all their guns ammunition at home" as if it was a
> >>>rare privilege: they do it BY LAW:
> >
> >>By force.
> >
> >I would expect that they have a "conscientious objectors" clause.
>
> But not one for people who simply don't want to keep guns in their
> home?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I can remember, you can't be a "conchy" in Switzerland. You just get
thrown into prison.
---
No matter where you go in the World, there you are.
PJS
<rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 04:22:51 GMT, mar...@clara.co.uk (Maria) wrote:
>
> >>I would expect that they have a "conscientious objectors" clause.
>
> >But not one for people who simply don't want to keep guns in their
> >home?
>
> There is a provision for that in the Texas Constitution:
>
> +++++
> The Texas Constitution
> Article 16 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
> Section 47 - CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES AS TO BEARING ARMS
>
> Any person who conscientiously scruples to bear arms, shall not be
> compelled to do so, but shall pay an equivalent for personal service.
> +++++
>
> >>That's why it was once an advanced country - only men voted.
>
> >Bleurgh.
>
> Oh... you like what women vote for? Like BJ Clinton and Twinky Algore.
>
> If that is the best women can vote for, then women do not deserve to
> vote.
>
> Now Texas women - that's a whole other matter. They voted
> overwhelmingly for the Republican Part of Texas, a very wise decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the man who calls his government "fascist" and yet seems to believe
that the vote, for a woman, at least, is a privilege to be withdrawn if the
votes are cast incorrectly in his view.
PJS
<rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >True, OTOH, real men and women have better things to spend their time
> >and money on. I just bought a blow torch, far more useful than a gun...
>
> The gun is the single most effective device for self protection ever
> invented. In fact, it is so effective that it does not even have to be
> fired to stop aggression in 98-99% of the instances in which it is
> brandished. How does your blow torch stack up against that?
----------------------------------------------------------------
But which is more likely, that you will be attacked, or that you will want to
stip some paint or do a bit of soldering?
PJS
<rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:29:44 -0500, "Lee E. Brown"
> <leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> >Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig wrote in message
> ><367090ed...@news.whidbey.com>...
>
> >>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:34:31 -0500, "Lee E. Brown"
> >><leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>I see you aren't fully aquainted with the local customs. "You ain't
> whistlin'
> >>>Dixie!" loosely translates as: "Bugger off, Kilt-Boy!"
>
> >>Try bullshitting someone else, asshole.
>
> >My! Aren't we a bit sensitive? It's O.K. when you do it to Bob, but it's
> not
> >O.K. when someone does it to you? Sauce for the Gander, and all that?
>
> Be careful or MacPhuckwit will send the Scottish mafia after you. Or
> worse, he will bore us all to tears about how he was this war hero and
> how he was a brave law enforcement agent.
>
> I'd rather deal with the Scottish mafia than have to hear that crap
> again. At least I can blow them away.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Provided that, in characteristically American style, you don't accidentally
shoot all your mates in a "friendly fire" incident ...
John Farrell
"Douglas E.Denny." wrote:
> John Farrell <john.f...@virgin.net> writes
>
> >> > "Faire faire dhuin' òig
> >> > cia do bharantas mór?
> >> > 'N i do bharail bhith
> >> > beò 's nach eug thu?"
> >>
> >> Wots all this gobbledygook? Don't you know all the world speaks
> >> English.....oops! sorry, I mean American..........!
> >>
>
> ......................................oOo..............................
>
> >Except the majority of Africa, Asia, South & Central America, China, India,
> >Europe...... to mention a couple of minor districts.
>
> Hmmm, (Thinks: this guy has to be thick, or is just stirring) ........ Well short
> diatribe coming up, upon the English language sweeping all before it.... reel
> one......
>
> You don't really want me to point out the sun never set on the English
> Empire do you?
> You don't really want me to defend the fact that English (now American
> English) is sweeping the World: - mainly through business and Grollywood
> movies on TV .....that even in China they (the business and educated people
> that is) can't learn it fast enough.
>
Along with French, German, Japanese, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian.
>
> Are you French or something? ... it really _does_ get up their noses that the "Lingua
> Franca" is now "Lingua Angleterra" .....
Lingua Franca is Italian for "Frankish Language" - which was originally a mixed Italian
trade jargon used in the Levant. Nothing to do with France at all, really....
> they even passed laws to try and eliminate the "pollution" of English words now commonly
> used by French people. (Official French words were to be invented for the purpose).
>
These measures are protection against the gobbledegook that permeates the bureaucratic
community in Brussels and Strasbourg which has been heavily influenced by the British
contingent of civil servants in the EEC HQ agencies.
>
> Your examples are poor.
>
> Apart from South America; but even there English is taught in the schools of Argentina
> and Chile
in private schools.
> (probably not for long in the latter after our disgraceful and dishonourable disregard
> for guests of our country).
>
Wasn't it terrible how we treated that murdering bastard Pinochet ?
> Central America: Belize, Costa Rica, English speaking;
surely the two major powers in central america? Belize being a British protectorate of
some 8,866 square miles with a population of about 186000 and Costa Rica - Spanish
speaking, incidentally - about 20000 square miles and a population of just over 3 million.
> others Spanish officially but English compulsory in schools in Columbia and Honduras (ask
> yourself why?)
Only compulsory in Tertiary Education establishments in business or science related
subjects. Why? Because they want to trade with USA.
> ; others English spoken in Creole.
Creole is as different from English as Portuguese is from Spanish and has closer links with
Spanish and Portuguese than it does with English
> Africa? Wot about:
> South Africa - Bantu, Xhosa, Afrikaans and English.
> Cameroon - French
> Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia ? more Portuguese than English, Zambia, Zimbabwe former British
> colonies
> white Namibians tend to speak Afrikaans, Blacks tend to speak Bantu and other more
> localized dialects
> Lesotho ? Swaziland ? Botswana ? natives do not typically speak much English
> Ethiopia ? there are more Russian speakers in Ethiopia than English speakers
> ... are all I can think of
> with others like Egypt - what, no Arabic? Senegal - French, Benin - French
> that use English as well as their own
> official language. That covers most of it.
>
> India? ....... Are you suggesting English is not known there? ......You are out of your
> tree! We ran the place for practically a couple of hundred years.....English is found
> everywhere; in fact is the only way communication
> takes place as common currency between the different languges of Gujurati, Bengali, Hindi
> etc at an official level.
>
> Europe? ...Definitely out of your Box! Most of the 'Western' countries in Europe
> teach English as second language. The Germans and Swedes speak it better (more
> correctly and understandably) than most Eastenders (Area of London for our readers).
But only when speaking to the English - because they don't speak German or Swedish
> Here endeth the lesson. If you are English yourself (I note the address is .virgin.net
> therefore probably yes) ...... go into the corner with the 'D' cap....
>
Wrong again......keep your cap for yourself.
You assume too much
>
> >You a shoemaker by any chance? You certainly dish out more than your fair share
> >of
> >cobblers....
>
> Oh! you _are_ an Eastender.......... that explains it.
> Douglas E.Denny. Chichester. England.
yes - I am an East Ender, coming from somewhere not a million miles from Parkhead, Glasgow
--
Iàin Mac Feargaill
(That's John Farrell for the benefit of Douglas denny - little englander)
SableSW
>On 11/12/98 13:00, in message ><36718723...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, >R.
Knauer
><rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:29:44 -0500, "Lee E. >>Brown"
>> <leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Micheil Rob Mac Phŕdruig wrote in >>>message
>> ><367090ed...@news.whidbey.com>...
>>
>> >>On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 17:34:31 -0500, >>>>"Lee E. Brown"
>> >><leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>I see you aren't fully aquainted with >> >>>>> the local customs. "You
ain't whistlin'
>> >>>Dixie!" loosely translates as: "Bugger >> >>>off, Kilt-Boy!"
>>
>> >>Try bullshitting someone else, asshole.
>>
>> >My! Aren't we a bit sensitive? It's O.K. >>> when you do it to Bob, but
it's not
>> >O.K. when someone does it to you? >>>Sauce for the Gander, and all that?
>>
>> Be careful or MacPhuckwit will send the >>Scottish mafia after you. Or
>> worse, he will bore us all to tears about >>how he was this war hero and
>> how he was a brave law enforcement >>agent.
>>
>> I'd rather deal with the Scottish mafia than >>have to hear that crap
again. At least I can >>blow them away.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Provided that, in characteristically American >style, you don't accidentally
>shoot all your mates in a "friendly fire" >incident ...
Certainly not when there are Brit soldiers ready fora toasting in our sights.
PS: FYI the FF incident involving US and Brit forces during Desert Storm
occurred when a forward BRITISH observer panacked and called in an attack on
his own troops. Way to go you stoopid whiney fuckheads!
PS2: Care to look up Britians FF incidents in Desert Storm or any other war?
You arseholes act like you've never had any. And the US would not be hitting
you if your own troops would be so kind as to not wonder around out of place
and get mis-identified by some gape toothed myopic British military poofta.
Maybe Shaunie will look it up for you if he doesn't have too much homework this
weekend.
-----------------------
SableSW
ITFC Member # 0008
" Trimming newsgroups is against my religion " - Plastique
" Anarchy means having to put up with things that really piss you off."
- Unknown
shaun
<Dou...@ddbosham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The original proposition made by me is that the removal of arms from the
>public domain and kept entirely by the State is for one reason only: to
>prevent any possibility of armed insurection. The debate moved on to
>Switzerland being an example of an armed population being at peace with
>itself, and being armed for the purpose of deterrence and defence en masse.
>(Now where do you want to take this from here?).
>
>There is proof aplenty to support my propositions, both historically, and
>better, existing today. Most of the arguments of the anti-gun lobby are
>demonstrably emotional claptrap
(like: I don't like nutters with handguns shooting school kids)
>; those of any worth fly in the face of
>factual evidence.
(apart from Dunblain, Hungerford, the US postal service)
>The response of one person in this thread: "I just don't
>like guns around" is hardly an adult response to a very real and important
>issue.
(So important that only ex-gun users actually give a toss)
>
>The only argument which I have heard before, but not here, which holds
>any credence as far as I am concerned (I will now play devil's advocate:) is
>that there can be occasionally 'inappropriate' use of arms: a child plays with
>Dad's gun and shoots himself or someone else; or disturbed adolescent (or
>nutty adult) goes into school and shoots people. Now this is abhorent, but
>is, mercifully, *extremely* rare even in America.
So obviously a price worth paying.....
>The answer to these
>tragic events is: training, and sensible gun control *by the owner*.... put
>them in a safe!
Yes, teaching a potential nutter how to shoot fast and straight is a
great idea......
>It is, in my opinion, the price to pay for the advantages accrued from the
>possession of arms, the main one being the guarantee of FREEDOM. (And
>I mean that metaphorically for the 'people' as a whole).
In what way does having a gun guarantee the FREEDOM of the entire
British people ?
Were the gun owners of Great Bitain going to rise up and take over the
local post office ? Was the Olympic team poised for action to take on
a Tank Brigade with their .22s ?
When hand guns were banned they handed them in like frightened little
sheep. Surely they should of defended their freedom by blowing away a
few coppers
>
>The example of car (automobile) ownership and use, as a comparison to
>gun ownership and use is entirely valid. Both are simply and literally heat
>engines made out of metal. Both are potentially lethal. Automobiles kill
>thousands every year, but the population accepts the carnage as the price to
>pay for the FREEDOM of personal mobility. If the Dunblane nutcase had
~~~~~~~~~~~~
(What a mentally ill person given membership of a gun club. tut tut)
Its amazing. After Hungerford gun nuts all moaned and said it would
never happen again and they should be allowed to keep their machine
guns.
After Dunblaine they used the same arguments and yet wonder why no one
believes them.
>chosen a long bus queue of children and driven into them at very high speed
>he could have achieved the same aim. I have no doubt whasoever that had
>he done so, automobiles would NOT have been instantly banned.
>
I could put forward an equally valid argument claiming the potential
misuse of a milk bottle juistifies the private ownership of nerve gas.
Killing things with a car is misuse
Killing things with a gun is using it according to manufacturers
recomended instructions.
Hand guns are designed,made, sold, marketed and used as easily carried
personal weapons of lethal force. The pointless activity of shooting
a few holes in a piece of paper does not change that fact. In fact a
air pistol would be just as accurate for target shooting but firearm
owners like to tame the high powered force of their 44 calibre penis
substitutes
shaun
>>From: P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk (PJS)
>
>>On 11/12/98 13:00, in message ><36718723...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, >R.
>Knauer
>><rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 13:29:44 -0500, "Lee E. >>Brown"
>>> <leeb...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Micheil Rob Mac Phàdruig wrote in >>>message
Can't be arsed but
I think its great that US troops have learned from the Vietnam war
and now only shoot their own officers by mistake
David West
weekenders have guns? Get real.
Douglas E.Denny. wrote in message ...
>My brother -in-law lives in Geneva. I am told the majority of Swiss are
>happy to do their couple of weeks training every year considering it a
>privilege as well as two weeks of fun. Most also are very aware of their
>neutrality and fiercely wish to defend it and are aware of their
>responsibilities of owning arms. They understand fully deterrence and
>possession of arms go together.
>
>
>They may be a country of cuckoo clocks and dodgy finance, but they are the
>most sensible in the world when it comes to the real world considerations
of
>arms and the population.
David West
Douglas E.Denny. wrote in message <4Gs4JAAo...@ddbosham.demon.co.uk>...
>
>
>Apart from South America; but even there English is taught in the schools
>of Argentina and Chile (probably not for long in the latter after our
Ernst Blofeld
says...
>
>And the reason that Switzerland has not been invaded recently is that a few
>weekenders have guns? Get real.
You obviously have never been to Switzerland. I was shopping in the local
version of K. Mart and turned around to see a group of men of varying age,
buying their groceries ,dressed in military fatigues with automatic weapons
slung over their shoulders. I was the only one who looked up. My son drew
more stares wearing his bright Billabong surf shirt.
Every male age from 16 to 65 (i may be incorrect on the age range but im
close,) is required to do military service and have their weapons in their
homes.
>It is obvious the Swiss are more mature than many other countries.
It is not from stupidity that they are great survivors.
James McNair
who wish to ban firearms is demonstrated in postings that clearly
reveal an acute lack of knowledge on the subject upon which
they are pontificating.
Perhaps if the 'anti-gun' brigade actually took some time to check some
facts and find out what exactly shooting sports are all about the
pro-shooters
might be prepared to listen to some of their worries.
Ever since Dunblane happened the same old rubbish has been posted , printed
and broadcast , in all that time upto now ,it appears that no-one in the
'anti-gun'
mob has bothered to educate themselves.
Can you all please go away , find out about the sport and then come back for
the debate.
Hopefully armed with some facts and knowledge.
Hugh Davies wrote in message <74td28$a...@axalotl.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <3671cd95...@news.freeserve.net>,
sh...@spam.sjameson.freeserve.co.uk (shaun) writes:
>
>>>There is proof aplenty to support my propositions, both historically,
and
>>>better, existing today. Most of the arguments of the anti-gun lobby are
>>>demonstrably emotional claptrap
>>
>>(like: I don't like nutters with handguns shooting school kids)
>
>QED, I think.
>
>>Its amazing. After Hungerford gun nuts all moaned and said it would
>>never happen again and they should be allowed to keep their machine
>>guns.
>
>What "machine guns"?
>
>>After Dunblaine they used the same arguments and yet wonder why no one
>>believes them.
>
>Perhaps we'd have a *tiny* bit more respect for your position if you
spelled
>the name of the town correctly.
>
>>Killing things with a gun is using it according to manufacturers
>>recomended instructions.
>
>Wrong.
>
>>Hand guns are designed,made, sold, marketed and used as easily carried
>>personal weapons of lethal force.
>
>Wrong.
>
>> The pointless activity of shooting
>>a few holes in a piece of paper does not change that fact. In fact a
>>air pistol would be just as accurate for target shooting
>
>Wrong.
>
>> but firearm
>>owners like to tame the high powered force of their 44 calibre penis
>>substitutes
>
>Like the man said, "demonstrably emotional claptrap".
>
>Time to killfile all freeserve users, I think.
>
>
>--
>Politics: The business of getting power and privilege without possessing
merit.
>(P.J.O'Rourke, "All the Trouble in the World.")
http://www.axalotl.demon.co.uk
> [Substitute "axalotl" for "nospam" to email me]
>
>
>
Douglas E.Denny.
>yes - I am an East Ender, coming from somewhere not a million miles from
>Parkhead, Glasgow
>--
>
>Iàin Mac Feargaill
>
>(That's John Farrell for the benefit of Douglas denny - little englander)
>
Oh! so you're a Scot!
That _does_ explain it. .......don't take much notice of Scots; they are all
mad. They wear skirts with nothing on underneath ..... and run around in
the prickly heather. (Have _you_ ever tried sitting on heather!?)
They can be forgiven though for that bloody good stuff in bottles ..... I have
some as a nightcap daily. Dalwhinnie is my favourite.
>> >> > "Faire faire dhuin' òig
>> >> > cia do bharantas mór?
>> >> > 'N i do bharail bhith
>> >> > beò 's nach eug thu?"
>> >>
I had the gobbledygook translated: Roughly it goes.........
Dear Ole Pal,
How extreemly kind of you to send me that case of whiskey
for Christmas. I have never tasted such marvelous whishkey and I keep on
testing xxxx tasting it.
The whiskey you have sent me for Xmas was marvelous; I keep on tashing
and how kind of you to send me this wondelous whichkey for Xmus which i
keep on tashing.
Its really really its most kind of you to keep on sending me thish whishky in
cases whik I keep tashing for Xmiss and keep tashing Hic! doc dickery
dock.
What kind of whishkee, ole man, how ex tthas extreemly marvilous to tash
on Xmas you greatt fine und th hthank you ole man for extresheemm
incashh es ,,,, fffinnn whiS7e46 /zzzz %
macdiarmid
R. Knauer <rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> But your point is well taken. However, the part I like best is the
> power of Swiss citizens to effect things by petition any time they
> chose.
An essence of anarchist 'government'. Soem quite serious issues are
discussed in the town squares and voted on immediately by the citizenry.
--
macdiarmid
Homosexuals can have no natural rights for even a dog recognises a bitch. Jerry Ekandjo. Home Affairs Minister, Namibia. D.Tel 12-11-98
macdiarmid
Alasdair Allan <postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Switzerland has 7.2 million citizens and four official languages.
> > > >Sixty-five percent speak Swiss-German; 18% French; 10% Italian; and 1%
> > > >Romanche, an ancient mountain dialect. Protestants and Catholics are
> > > >evenly divided. In spite of this diversity, Switzerland runs like a
> > > >Swiss watch.
> >
> > This is because it is virtually run on anarchist lines where power comes
> > from the bottom up, not from the top down, as in our representative
> system.
> Which makes the Swiss system *far* better under *any* definition of
> democracy.
So go out and break windows to get it. Direct Action pays because it
changes.
Paul Hyett
this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>When hand guns were banned they handed them in like frightened little
>sheep. Surely they should of defended their freedom by blowing away a
>few coppers
Yeah, like that would REALLY have helped their case! :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
SableSW
>On 12 Dec 1998 01:02:45 GMT, >sab...@aol.com (SableSW) wrote:
>
>>>From: P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk (PJS)
>>
>>>>On 11/12/98 13:00, in message R. Knauer
>>>><rckt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> I'd rather deal with the Scottish mafia >>>>than have to hear that crap
again. At least >>>> I can blow them away.
>>>---------------------------------------------------------
>>>Provided that, in characteristically >>>American style, you don't
accidentally
>>>shoot all your mates in a "friendly fire" >>>incident ...
>>
>>Certainly not when there are Brit soldiers >> ready fora toasting in our
sights.
>>
>>PS: FYI the FF incident involving US and >>Brit forces during Desert Storm
>>occurred when a forward BRITISH >>observer panacked and called in an attack
>>on his own troops. Way to go you stoopid >>whiney fuckheads!
>>
>>PS2: Care to look up Britians FF incidents >>in Desert Storm or any other
war?
>>You arseholes act like you've never had >>any. And the US would not be
hitting
>>you if your own troops would be so kind as >>to not wonder around out of
place
>>and get mis-identified by some gape >>toothed myopic British military poofta.
>
>>
>>Maybe Shaunie will look it up for you if he >>doesn't have too much homework
this
>>weekend.
>
>Can't be arsed but
>I think its great that US troops have learned >from the Vietnam war and now
only shoot >their own officers by mistake
Another false distortion from Shaunie. Can you provide the name of any US
officer shot by his own troops under the same or similar cirumstances to which
you refer?
Douglas E.Denny.
E.Denny. <Dou...@ddbosham.demon.co.uk> writes
>Oh! so you're a Scot!
>
>That _does_ explain it. .......don't take much notice of Scots; they are all
>mad. They wear skirts with nothing on underneath ..... and run around in
>the prickly heather. (Have _you_ ever tried sitting on heather!?)
>
>They can be forgiven though for that bloody good stuff in bottles ..... I have
>some as a nightcap daily. Dalwhinnie is my favourite.
>
>>> >> > "Faire faire dhuin' ņig
>>> >> > cia do bharantas mór?
>>> >> > 'N i do bharail bhith
>>> >> > beņ 's nach eug thu?"
>>> >>
Sorry, the last translation was a teeny bit wrong; a slightly more accurate
translation is:-
Drunk drunk plastered again
Shall I do blather more?
No I won't blow into you bag
Bulls knackers are eaten by you?
The metre is a bit odd ... but then .. well it is Scot's .......
algoss
Davies) wrote:
You were doing ok up till then
>
>> but firearm
>>owners like to tame the high powered force of their 44 calibre penis
>>substitutes
True of some of them. Like car owners
R. Knauer
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>When hand guns were banned they handed them in like frightened little
>>sheep. Surely they should of defended their freedom by blowing away a
>>few coppers
>Yeah, like that would REALLY have helped their case! :)
Do you know for sure that it would not have? Ask the Irish what
happens when people do such things.
And recall the American Revolution - which BTW was also fought over
gun rights.
Bob Knauer
"The organization of American society is an interlocking system of
semi-monopolies notoriously venal, an electorate notoriously
unenlightened, misled by mass media notoriously phony."
--Paul Goodman
Alasdair Allan
> Maria <mar...@clara.co.uk> writes:
> >I am simply challenging the premise that Switzerland seems to be
> >totally sorted because it has a high number of guns and a low crime
> >rate.
>
> You seem to have a problem with factual evidence.
> You state (correctly) above that Switzerland has low crime and high
number
> of guns (lets get it straight incidentally ....practically in every
house!) and
> yet you say you challenge this. The obvious conclusion from your own
> factual statement is that gun-owning in a general population can be a
> perfectly innocuous and reasonable state of affairs. And yet you want to
> 'challenge' this. (?)
Not true. Your witterings are based on the belief that popular ownership
of guns is not affectant on the incidence of gun crime and murder. The
example of Switzerland is *irrelevant*.
Switzerland is a country with *required* gun ownership. Countries with
permitted gun ownership have a high incidence of gun crime. Countries with
either proscribed gun ownership or required gun ownership have a low
incidence of gun crime.
Therefore your argumetn has to be between *required* gun ownership or
proscription. THese are the only acceptable examples to the majority of
people in the UK.
Voluntary gun ownership results in murder and crime. Deal with it.
> In a previous posting of mine you _denied_ that the UK is now subject to
> legislation and taxation by unelected bureaucrats in a foreign country.
And
> yet we are(subject to laws) and you are paying them (taxes).
Europa is this country. It is not foreign in *any* way and the government
of Europa is democraticllay elected. Therefore you are clearly wrong.
[...]
> Switzerland is _the_ example of normal law-abiding people living
peacefully
> where they are all armed - but armed for a specific purpose - to act as a
> deterent to aggression. They do not shoot each other. They are
> comfortable with guns in their houses. They are sane ordinary people.
>
> ......... and it gets right up the noses of the anti-gun lobby like
yourself.
Again! Switzerland is *not* an example of what the pro-gun lobby are
advocating because gun ownership is *not* voluntary.
R. Knauer
>Provided that, in characteristically American style, you don't accidentally
>shoot all your mates in a "friendly fire" incident ...
That's only done by untrained govt personnel. The private individual
know better, and trains to avoid it. Otherwise there would be way more
hunting accidents than there are now.
If you point a gun at anyone while out hunting in Texas, you will find
it up your ass in a heartbeat.
R. Knauer
<postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Why not just admit it that the Jewish people were too gutless to stand up
>against the Germans and deserved all they got.
Because that was not the case in the Warsaw Ghetto.
R. Knauer
<postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In 1990, handguns were used to murder 22 people in Great Britain, 68 in
>Canada, 87 in Japan, and 11,719 in the United States.
Where did you get that statistic?
Did that source also tell you that 80% of gun murders are criminals
killing other criminals. You want to stop that? No me. I would gladly
give criminals more guns so they can kill more criminals.
And did that source tell you that most of the rest of the gun murders
were people killing someone they already knew. Would it make you feel
any better if they killed each other with knives instead? And why
weren't these victims armed to protect themselves?
BTW, in Kennesaw, Georgia, where residents must have a gun in their
home by city ordinance, since 1982 there have been only two murders
and they were knife murders. Kennesaw has a population of some 27K and
is an embedded suburb of Atlanta, the gun murder capital of the US.
Does your source tell you about Kennesaw?
>God bless America.
There is no other place left on Earth for God to bless except America.
And that's only because Texas is a part of it.
R. Knauer
<postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><chuckle>. Does your gun come up a nice sheen when you rub it off your
>dick?
At least I've got a dick.
Do you get a charge when you rub a gun on your slit?
<chuckle>
R. Knauer
>This is the man who calls his government "fascist" and yet seems to believe
>that the vote, for a woman, at least, is a privilege to be withdrawn if the
>votes are cast incorrectly in his view.
And you are someone who has not learned to watch out for a troll.
R. Knauer
<macdi...@ronin37.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>An essence of anarchist 'government'.
The term "anarchist govt" is an oxymoron.
Anarchy means the complete absense of any form of govt.
I think you mean to use the term "minarchist".
>Somequite serious issues are
>discussed in the town squares and voted on immediately by the citizenry.
We have the same system in Texas. The only difference is that we
discuss our serious issues at the gun shows.
And we vote there too - at the Cartridge Box. Much more effective than
the Ballot Box.
shaun
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 11:05:48 +0000, Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>When hand guns were banned they handed them in like frightened little
>>>sheep. Surely they should of defended their freedom by blowing away a
>>>few coppers
>
>>Yeah, like that would REALLY have helped their case! :)
>
>Do you know for sure that it would not have? Ask the Irish what
>happens when people do such things.
>
>And recall the American Revolution - which BTW was also fought over
>gun rights.
>
Yeh.,
the colonists wanted the right to be protected by British guns, but
were too greedy to pay the taxes which financed them
>
sbre...@zdnetmail.com
>>gun rights.
>>
>Yeh.,
>the colonists wanted the right to be protected by British guns, but
>were too greedy to pay the taxes which financed them
Protected from whom?
Review your history my friend...those taxes were to help good King
George recover funds paid for that war with those nasty French.
And there was also that other issue raised here in the colonies..
something about "taxation without representation" Perhaps this will
refresh your memory.
Steve B
"If you're not a Socialist at 20, you have no heart. If your still a
Socialist at 30, you have no head"
shaun
wrote:
>In article <3671cd95...@news.freeserve.net>, sh...@spam.sjameson.freeserve.co.uk (shaun) writes:
>
>>>There is proof aplenty to support my propositions, both historically, and
>>>better, existing today. Most of the arguments of the anti-gun lobby are
>>>demonstrably emotional claptrap
>>
>>(like: I don't like nutters with handguns shooting school kids)
>
>QED, I think.
So not wanting nutters with hand guns to shoot school kids is
"emotional claptrap" then ?
Thanks for clarifying your position.
>
>>Its amazing. After Hungerford gun nuts all moaned and said it would
>>never happen again and they should be allowed to keep their machine
>>guns.
>
>What "machine guns"?
Do you deny that prior to Hungerford firearm certificates were
availble for automatic weapons ?
>>>After Dunblaine they used the same arguments and yet wonder why no one
>>believes them.
>
>Perhaps we'd have a *tiny* bit more respect for your position if you spelled
>the name of the town correctly.
Can't think of an argument so have to resort to pointing out typos
then ?
>
>>Killing things with a gun is using it according to manufacturers
>>recomended instructions.
>
>Wrong.
Oh dear, someone's forgot to inform the armies,police forces, and
hunters of the world.
>
>>Hand guns are designed,made, sold, marketed and used as easily carried
>>personal weapons of lethal force.
>
>Wrong.
Oh dear, they've also forgot to inform the marketing departments of
the major American hand gun manufacturers.
>
>> The pointless activity of shooting
>>a few holes in a piece of paper does not change that fact. In fact a
>>air pistol would be just as accurate for target shooting
>
>Wrong.
>
>> but firearm
>>owners like to tame the high powered force of their 44 calibre penis
>>substitutes
>
>Like the man said, "demonstrably emotional claptrap".
>
>Time to killfile all freeserve users, I think.
What , you pay ten quid a month just to post the word "wrong" and
unsubstantiated single sentence replies. ?
I'd get my money back, mate
John Farrell
newsgroup. I suggest you try infantile.prick.ranting
"R. Knauer" wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 01:39:01 +0000, "Douglas E.Denny."
> <Dou...@ddbosham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >That _does_ explain it. .......don't take much notice of Scots; they are all
> >mad.
>
> No shit!
>
> >They wear skirts with nothing on underneath ..... and run around in
> >the prickly heather.
>
> That's where the sheep are.
>
> >They can be forgiven though for that bloody good stuff in bottles ..... I have
> >some as a nightcap daily. Dalwhinnie is my favourite.
>
> I used to drink Scotch until I learned that its distinctive taste
> comes from the Scots pissing in the kegs.
>
> Now it's Black Jack or nothing at all. At least the people in
> Tennessee know how to use the outhouse and not piss in their
> whiskey.
>
> >>> >> > "Faire faire dhuin' òig
> >>> >> > cia do bharantas mór?
> >>> >> > 'N i do bharail bhith
> >>> >> > beò 's nach eug thu?"
> >>> >>
>
> >I had the gobbledygook translated: Roughly it goes.........
>
> >Dear Ole Pal,
> > How extreemly kind of you to send me that case of whiskey
> >for Christmas. I have never tasted such marvelous whishkey and I keep on
> >testing xxxx tasting it.
> >The whiskey you have sent me for Xmas was marvelous; I keep on tashing
> >and how kind of you to send me this wondelous whichkey for Xmus which i
> >keep on tashing.
> >Its really really its most kind of you to keep on sending me thish whishky in
> >cases whik I keep tashing for Xmiss and keep tashing Hic! doc dickery
> >dock.
> >What kind of whishkee, ole man, how ex tthas extreemly marvilous to tash
> >on Xmas you greatt fine und th hthank you ole man for extresheemm
> >incashh es ,,,, fffinnn whiS7e46 /zzzz %
>
> I told you MacPhuchead is an alkie.
shaun
>>>And recall the American Revolution - which BTW was also fought over
>>>gun rights.
>
>
>>>
>>Yeh.,
>>the colonists wanted the right to be protected by British guns, but
>>were too greedy to pay the taxes which financed them
>
>
>Protected from whom?
>
>Review your history my friend...those taxes were to help good King
>George recover funds paid for that war with those nasty French.
British troops were still stationed in North America in case of
rebellion by the defeated French Canadian forces.
And would you of been happy for British troops not to have been their
in the first place, and given North America to the French ?
>
>And there was also that other issue raised here in the colonies..
>something about "taxation without representation" Perhaps this will
>refresh your memory.
>
Thanks for pointing out it had nothing to do with "gun rights", which
was what I was getting at in the first place.
R. Knauer
(shaun) wrote:
>Thanks for pointing out it had nothing to do with "gun rights", which
>was what I was getting at in the first place.
The first shot fired, the one "heard around the world", was fired by a
single militia man defending the colonists' firearms magazines.
General Gage had sent troops to confiscate the colonist's arms, and
they fought back. The Revolutionary War followed.
Those colonists weren't stupid - they knew fully well what would
happen if they lost their firearms. They knew the importance of
bearing arms - after all, they were Englishmen, Free Men precisely
because they were armed.
Too bad the British people today aren't as smart.
R. Knauer
wrote:
>The militia is *not* necessary for the security of the state, as it must
>have been 200 years ago, so the amendment is invalid.
Until you offer reasons for that statement, it is merely your opinion.
And please spare us that HCI crap.
BTW, you are gonna have some mighty tough rows to hoe, since most
constitutional scholars are fully behind the 2nd Amendment.
But I enjoy watching hoplophobes struggle - so struggle away.
R. Knauer
<postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Countries with
>either proscribed gun ownership or required gun ownership have a low
>incidence of gun crime.
Which I have been arguing for all along. That's why I keep pointing to
the Kennesaw Phenomenon.
>Voluntary gun ownership results in murder and crime. Deal with it.
Not true. My neighborhood in Houston is heavily armed, voluntarily.
Yet there is no murder or violent crime, other than the occasional
domestic dispute or car theft.
>Again! Switzerland is *not* an example of what the pro-gun lobby are
>advocating because gun ownership is *not* voluntary.
I am part of the pro-gun lobby, and I have been advocating compulsory
gun ownership all along. In fact I go so far as to argue that Natural
Law requires it. Of course, I excempt those who object from their
conscience, and that includes people who are phobic about guns. But
they are small in number, at least among adult males.
Most people can buy a gun and learn how to use it just like here in
Texas - and then put a sign on their house telling that they are armed
and trained. I guarantee violent crime will drop almost immediately -
like in Kennesaw, Georgia.
See: http://www.aimtec.com/rkba/kennesaw.html
R. Knauer
<john.f...@virgin.net> wrote:
>I suggest you try infantile.prick.ranting
Oh, because you're its only poster?
R. Knauer
(shaun) wrote:
>>>Killing things with a gun is using it according to manufacturers
>>>recomended instructions.
>>Wrong.
>Oh dear, someone's forgot to inform the armies,police forces, and
>hunters of the world.
You are making the point that the use of the gun is the determent of
its killing ability.
Marksmen do not kill anything with guns. And the armed citizen, who
uses a gun in self defense, only fires it in 1-2% of those instances
in which they actually draw the gun in a violent confrontation.
A gun is a device to send a projectile out of a barrel at high speed.
It's how you use the gun that makes it a particular kind of device.
In the case of self defense, it is used as a device to stop
aggression. If the aggression stops, it is rarely fired. If the
aggression continues, it is used to prevent a victim from being killed
or injured.
Guns Save Lives.
shaun
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 19:52:22 GMT, sh...@spam.sjameson.freeserve.co.uk
>(shaun) wrote:
>
>>Thanks for pointing out it had nothing to do with "gun rights", which
>>was what I was getting at in the first place.
>
>The first shot fired, the one "heard around the world", was fired by a
>single militia man defending the colonists' firearms magazines.
>General Gage had sent troops to confiscate the colonist's arms, and
>they fought back. The Revolutionary War followed.
>
>Those colonists weren't stupid - they knew fully well what would
>happen if they lost their firearms. They knew the importance of
>bearing arms - after all, they were Englishmen, Free Men precisely
>because they were armed.
>
In that case then, its a shame the right to bear arms wasn't given to
all the slaves your founding fathers kept.
Steve Fischer
>And the reason that Switzerland has not been invaded recently is that a few
>weekenders have guns? Get real.
>
>
>Douglas E.Denny. wrote in message ...
>
>>My brother -in-law lives in Geneva. I am told the majority of Swiss are
>>happy to do their couple of weeks training every year considering it a
>>privilege as well as two weeks of fun. Most also are very aware of their
>>neutrality and fiercely wish to defend it and are aware of their
>>responsibilities of owning arms. They understand fully deterrence and
>>possession of arms go together.
>>
>>
>>They may be a country of cuckoo clocks and dodgy finance, but they are the
>>most sensible in the world when it comes to the real world considerations
>of
>>arms and the population.
>>--
>>Douglas E.Denny. Chichester. England.
>
>
--
/Steve D. Fischer/Atlanta, Georgia/str...@netcom.com/
David Voth
era must have forced sh...@spam.sjameson.freeserve.co.uk (shaun) to
write:
<snip>
>So not wanting nutters with hand guns to shoot school kids is
>"emotional claptrap" then ?
<snip>
Of course not. But implying that people who support gun rights _want_
nutters with handguns to shoot school children IS emotional claptrap.
David R. Voth
San Diego, California
USA
--
Writers who abuse hyperbole deserve to be taken out and SHOT!
Lee E. Brown
shaun wrote in message <3672be19...@news.freeserve.net>...
>On 12 Dec 1998 09:29:44 GMT, hu...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Hugh Davies)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3671cd95...@news.freeserve.net>,
sh...@spam.sjameson.freeserve.co.uk (shaun) writes:
>>
>>>>There is proof aplenty to support my propositions, both historically, and
>>>>better, existing today. Most of the arguments of the anti-gun lobby are
>>>>demonstrably emotional claptrap
>>>
>>>(like: I don't like nutters with handguns shooting school kids)
>>
>>QED, I think.
>
>"emotional claptrap" then ?
It didn't happen for, oh, several hundred years up until Dunblane - in spite of
there being all these guns about.
No one likes nutters shooting children. No one likes nutters buggering children
either, but I have yet to see a call for banning genetalia.
If private ownership of fireamrs is so inherently and obviously dangerous, why
did it take Dunblane so long to happen? And why didn't you do something about
it *before* Dunblane?
The answer is quite obvious: Before it happened, no one thought about it much.
After it happened, there was an incredible knee-jerk reaction.
>>>Its amazing. After Hungerford gun nuts all moaned and said it would
>>>never happen again and they should be allowed to keep their machine
>>>guns.
>>
>>What "machine guns"?
>
>Do you deny that prior to Hungerford firearm certificates were
>availble for automatic weapons ?
And how many of them had been used in crimes prior to that time? In how many
years?
Hell, if you really wanted to save many more live for less money, you could have
simply stepped up enforcing the fire safety codes...
>>>>After Dunblaine they used the same arguments and yet wonder why no one
>>>believes them.
>>>Killing things with a gun is using it according to manufacturers
>>>recomended instructions.
>>
>>Wrong.
>
>Oh dear, someone's forgot to inform the armies,police forces, and
>hunters of the world.
I have fifty-some odd firearms in my closet, complete with the Manufacturer's
Instruction Booklets. NOT ONE OF THEM describes how to kill anything, nor have
any of them EVER been used to kill anything.
Oh Dear, looks like someone's just dispensing that ol' emotional claptrap again!
>>>Hand guns are designed,made, sold, marketed and used as easily carried
>>>personal weapons of lethal force.
>>
>>Wrong.
>
>Oh dear, they've also forgot to inform the marketing departments of
>the major American hand gun manufacturers.
Actually, some percentage of handguns ARE designed for a primary role of
self-defense. Last I looked, self-defense wasn't a crime.
However, a huge segment of the handgun market is aimed at activities OTHER than
self-defense. You'd have known that if you had done some research into the
subject instead of just spouting "emotional claptrap."
>>> The pointless activity of shooting
>>>a few holes in a piece of paper does not change that fact. In fact a
>>>air pistol would be just as accurate for target shooting
>>
>>Wrong.
>>
>>> but firearm
>>>owners like to tame the high powered force of their 44 calibre penis
>>>substitutes
And your basis for this assertion is... What exactly?
If your thinking of Freud, what he *actually* said was "A FEAR [emphasis mine]
of weapons is a symptom of retarded emotional or sexual development."
Lee E. Brown
Alasdair Allan wrote in message <01be2551$e1492b00$8d4b95c1@x-static>...
><chuckle>. Does your gun come up a nice sheen when you rub it off your
>dick?
Do we really need any further evidence of your fuckwitted bigotry?
Seahawk
Is that Schwabisch?;-}
Seahawk
algoss
wrote:
>>>And recall the American Revolution - which BTW was also fought over
>>>gun rights.
>
>
>>>
>>Yeh.,
>>the colonists wanted the right to be protected by British guns, but
>>were too greedy to pay the taxes which financed them
>
>
>Protected from whom?
>
>Review your history my friend...those taxes were to help good King
>George recover funds paid for that war with those nasty French.
>
>And there was also that other issue raised here in the colonies..
>something about "taxation without representation" Perhaps this will
>refresh your memory.
>
>Steve B
>"If you're not a Socialist at 20, you have no heart. If your still a
>Socialist at 30, you have no head"
And if you're a tory at any age keep your hands out of my
pockets
Gareth Jones
>>>Its amazing. After Hungerford gun nuts all moaned and said it would
>>>never happen again and they should be allowed to keep their machine
>>>guns.
>>
>>What "machine guns"?
>
>Do you deny that prior to Hungerford firearm certificates were
>availble for automatic weapons ?
No, it's just that he knows the difference between an automatic weapon
and a machines gun, while you are talking out of your arse.
Gareth
Lee E. Brown
shaun wrote in message <36730093...@news.freeserve.net>...
>local gun club with a .50 calibre from a tank.But obviously this
>couldn't remotely be classed as a machine gun.....
Cite the example for *what* reason, Shaun? As another example of a citizen
legally owning a piece of property and using it in a lwaful manner? Oh, the
Horror!
Lee E. Brown
shaun wrote in message <36731417...@news.freeserve.net>...
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 23:24:52 GMT, gar...@ibis.demon.co.uk (Gareth
>Jones) wrote:
>
>>sh...@spam.sjameson.freeserve.co.uk (shaun) wrote:
>>
>>>>>Its amazing. After Hungerford gun nuts all moaned and said it would
>>>>>never happen again and they should be allowed to keep their machine
>>>>>guns.
>>>>
>>>>What "machine guns"?
>>>
>>>Do you deny that prior to Hungerford firearm certificates were
>>>availble for automatic weapons ?
>>
>>No, it's just that he knows the difference between an automatic weapon
>>and a machines gun, while you are talking out of your arse.
>>
>
>Give weapons and training to a child killer, yet moan like hell if the
>media get the model number of the gun wrong.
No, tell us more about this fascinating story! Exactly who *knowingly* gave
"weapons and training to a child killer," please? What evidence do you have,
and why isn't this person being prosecuted?
Or would this be more "emotional claptrap?"
John Farrell
"R. Knauer" wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 19:45:44 +0000, John Farrell
> <john.f...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >I suggest you try infantile.prick.ranting
>
> Oh, because you're its only poster?
>
> Bob Knauer
>
You should get an agent. Why sit in your little room handling yourself
?
> JF
Douglas E.Denny.
<john.f...@virgin.net> writes
>This drivel may have a place in Chichester or Texas but you are way off topic in this
>newsgroup. I suggest you try infantile.prick.ranting
....... like I said, mad as hatters. No sense of humour either.
I think 'dour' is a Scots word isn't it?
Douglas E.Denny.
D.E.Denny wrote:
>> You state (correctly) above that Switzerland has low crime and high
>number
>> of guns (lets get it straight incidentally ....practically in every
>house!) and
>> yet you say you challenge this. The obvious conclusion from your own
>> factual statement is that gun-owning in a general population can be a
>> perfectly innocuous and reasonable state of affairs. And yet you want to
>> 'challenge' this. (?)
.....................................
Alasdair Allan <postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> then wrote:
>Not true. Your witterings are based on the belief that popular ownership
>of guns is not affectant on the incidence of gun crime and murder. The
>example of Switzerland is *irrelevant*.
It is entirely relevant.
I think it proves my case beyond all reasonable doubt.
>Switzerland is a country with *required* gun ownership. Countries with
>permitted gun ownership have a high incidence of gun crime. Countries with
>either proscribed gun ownership or required gun ownership have a low
>incidence of gun crime.
This is nonsense. The gun crime in the UK hasn't changed one iota since
'permitted' guns (handguns) were banned from licensed owners.
The gun crimes are committed by criminals; and I've news for you: the
number of illegal guns in the UK is at its highest ever and rising rapidly.
They simply cannot be stopped being brought into the country. One lorry
with a false bottom represents several armouries in one go. The police
know it, government knows it, and the educated know it. The sheep don't;
all they know is what the 'Sun' tells them ........ and would you know it?
...they believe whatever they are told.
>
>Therefore your argumetn has to be between *required* gun ownership or
>proscription. THese are the only acceptable examples to the majority of
>people in the UK.
>
I do not understand this at all.
>Voluntary gun ownership results in murder and crime. Deal with it.
Are you meaning licensed gun ownership? This is an absurd statement.
>Again! Switzerland is *not* an example of what the pro-gun lobby are
>advocating because gun ownership is *not* voluntary.
>
Well I am advocating Switzerland _is_ a good example of gun ownership.
Deal with it. What more proof do you need that an armed population does
NOT have all the undesirable things happen, that you anti-gun types insist
happens?
I have honestly tried to make sense of your negative arguments but find it
difficult. I don't think you have read my propositions correctly.