Ex-Marine Uses .357 Caliber Handgun to Slaughter Family
Chuckles the Clown
The following appears courtesy of today's American Broadcasting Company news
wire:
Searching for Clues
December 2, 1999
ABC
(BALDWIN) -- Police are still looking for clues on the deaths of a Baldwin
family. The bodies of Louis and Nancy Kramer, their eight-year-old son Sean and
five-year-old daughter Heather were found inside their home in Baldwin this
week. All four of them had been shot to death. Police say it appears Louis shot
his wife and children, then himself.
-------------------------------------------------------
The following appears courtesy of the 12/2/99 online edition of The
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper:
Pittsburgh News - December 2, 1999
Friend saw no warning before slayings in Baldwin
By Vince Guerrieri
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
A close friend who knew Louis Kramer for more than 30 years said Wednesday he
saw no signs of the turmoil that apparently led the ex-Marine to slaughter his
wife and two young children in their beds and then turn the gun on himself.
"His wife should be down there right now," Kramer's lifelong friend, Glen
Subbot, said as he stood outside the family's Baldwin Borough home and watched
school buses driving by around noon. "His daughter would be getting off the bus
now."
"There were no signs," said Subbot, who had talked with Kramer, 42, on Sunday.
That was the last day Nancy Kramer, 39, and the couple's children, Shaun, 8,
and Heather, 5, were seen, investigators said.
Baldwin police discovered their bodies Tuesday night after Subbot's brother,
who worked with Kramer as a security guard at a department store in Century III
Mall in West Mifflin, went to check on the family and found the car outside and
the home locked.
Nancy and Heather Kramer's bodies were found upstairs in the same bedroom, and
both had been shot in the right temple, according to the Allegheny County
Coroner's Office.
Shaun Kramer's body was found in another bedroom, also shot in the head.
Police said the three were clad in pajamas.
The coroner's office so far was unable to determine approximate times of death.
Inspector Ken Fulton of the Allegheny County police said Kramer, whose body was
found in a bathroom, left a note admitting he shot his family, but didn't
explain his motives very clearly.
A .357-caliber handgun was found near his body.
Investigators say Kramer shot himself once in the forehead sometime between 8
p.m. Monday, when his brother Chaz talked with him, and 8 p.m. Tuesday, when
police broke into the home in the 3500 block of Oakleaf Road.
Baldwin police Detective Sgt. Daniel Turner said that while no specific motive
has been found, he believes there may have been problems in the marriage.
"If you reach a tragedy of this point, there has to be some kind of problem,"
Turner said. "We just don't know what."
Turner said that police had checked out reports that Kramer told someone he
thought his wife was having an affair. But interviews with friends, family and
associates found no evidence to support any belief that infidelity had
occurred, Turner said.
Turner said police had never been called to the home before Tuesday.
"There's never been any problems there before that we're aware of," he said.
Friends said Kramer's family moved to the Oakleaf Road home in the early 1960s.
Glen Subbot and Kramer attended Oakleaf Elementary and Paynter Middle schools
together, and Shaun Kramer was a pupil at Paynter, now a grade school.
Kramer's parents divorced and he attended Brentwood High School, graduating in
1976. The men remained close over the years and Kramer even played Santa Claus
for Subbot's children.
Subbot and his brother, Denny Subbot, 44, who worked with Kramer at the mall,
said Kramer was an average guy who loved his wife, whom he married in 1990, and
his children.
He kept cassettes of Jimi Hendrix and Deep Purple in his car. He was a big Dan
Marino fan. Kramer also was patriotic and had a personalized license plate on
his car that read ILUV-USA.
Nancy Kramer, whose family lives in nearby Whitehall, graduated from Baldwin
High School in 1979. Her maiden name was Nesbitt.
Glen Subbot described Nancy Kramer as a nice woman who was devoted to her
children.
She took her daughter to dance lessons at Karen Tobias Dance Studio in Baldwin.
Tobias said Heather had started taking instruction there on Sept. 9, and came
every Thursday for a preschool combination dance class.
But because last Thursday was Thanksgiving, she hadn't seen Heather Kramer in
two weeks.
"I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow, when the students come to
class," Tobias said yesterday. "Those girls are 3 and 4 years old. What do you
say to them?"
The little girl also attended nearby First Impression day care center.
Denny Subbot said Kramer was very devoted to his job. He said Kramer never
missed work and was never late for work without calling first.
That is why Denny Subbot was surprised when he came home from hunting Tuesday
afternoon to find a message from Kaufmann's, saying that Kramer hadn't shown up
for work that day. After checking on the family, he called police.
Glen Subbot said he called Kramer about 9:30 p.m. Monday and got no answer.
Chaz Kramer declined comment, saying he didn't want to say anything while a
police investigation was still under way.
Calls to relatives of Nancy Kramer were referred to attorney Robert Sebastian
of Dormont, who released a statement giving funeral details.
Funeral arrangements for Nancy, Shaun and Heather Kramer will be handled by
Slater's Funeral Home in Brentwood, and the funeral will be at St. Gabriel's
Catholic Church in Whitehall. Arrangements for Louis Kramer had not been
announced.
---------------------------------------------------------
The following appears courtesy of the 12/2/99 online edition of The
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspaper:
Police begin to untangle what led Baldwin man to kill self and family
Thursday, December 02, 1999
By Jonathan D. Silver, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Moving from one bedroom to another inside his Cape Cod-style home in Baldwin
Borough early Tuesday morning, Louis Kramer Jr. shot and killed his wife and
two young children, each with a single bullet to the head, apparently while
they slept.
David Subbot cannot understand why his friend Louis Kramer Jr. would apparently
kill himself, his wife and two children. Subbot lives down the street from the
Kramer home. "This was out of the blue," he said.
His son Shaun, 8, was found in his upstairs bedroom, the one Kramer had painted
blue. His daughter Heather, 5, and his wife of nine years, Nancy, 39, were
found in a downstairs bedroom of the Oakleaf Road home.
Kramer was discovered lying in a hallway, his .357-caliber Magnum a short
distance away.
Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht yesterday ruled that Kramer's death
was a suicide and that the others were homicides.
Relatives, friends and neighbors were puzzled by the incomprehensible slaughter
of what some said was an all-American family. Initially investigators were,
too.
People described a father who dutifully mowed the grass, tossed a football with
his son, and threw popcorn at the TV in disgust while watching Steelers games.
They told of a stay-at-home mother, a 1979 graduate of Baldwin High School, who
played with her doe-eyed children every day, walked them to the bus stop and
picked them up there after school.
"Louie was the kindest, sweetest kid," said Phylis Chedwick of Brookline, who
had known Kramer since he was a child. "I'm trying to find reasons. Of course,
we're not in our right minds if we do something like this, but it's just not
Louie. It's not in his nature to be violent like that. Something just snapped."
The Kramers seemed like an ordinary family in an ordinary neighborhood, one
populated with nearly identical modest brick homes and flat, grassy yards.
There were no red flags to look for in Kramer's behavior, no warning signs that
violence was imminent. The police had never visited the premises. How, people
wondered, could anything go so wrong?
Eventually, investigators got an inkling that something indeed had been wrong.
It came from Denis Subbot, Kramer's lifelong friend and Chedwick's brother, who
lives at the other end of Oakleaf, said Baldwin Sgt. Daniel Turner.
Subbot was the one who first alerted police to trouble after fielding a
concerned call Tuesday from Kramer's employer for three years, Kaufmann's
department store at Century III Mall in West Mifflin. Kramer, who worked there
as a plainclothes store detective armed only with handcuffs, had not shown up
for work -- highly unusual for someone known to be punctual.
Subbot tried to reach his friend by phone. Then he went to his house, where the
lights were on. Parked in front was Kramer's black Chevrolet Cavalier, with the
ILUV-USA license plate, U.S. Marine Corps hat in the back and the Deep Purple
and Jimi Hendrix cassettes up front. The car bore a registration sticker for
2000. Sensing something was wrong, Subbot called police.
Baldwin officers arrived at 7:50 p.m. and broke down the back door to the
basement. They found blood that had seeped through the floor.
Investigators began canvassing, probing for any information that could explain
the shootings. They asked questions, checking the usual traps. Money problems.
Gambling debts. Drug use. Nothing was cropping up. The mortgage was paid, the
car was owned outright, Kramer had to submit to drug tests as part of his job.
"This was out of the blue," said Denis Subbot's brother, David. "There was no
indication this was going to happen."
Police inquired about whether the couple, who had met at a McDonald's where
Nancy Kramer worked, had marital problems, David Subbot said. It was the first
marriage for both.
That question provoked an intriguing response. Police said Denis Subbot told
investigators that a week earlier, Kramer had confided to him that he suspected
his wife was having an affair, Turner said.
Police have not turned up any evidence that Nancy Kramer was cheating on her
husband, Turner said.
And in an interview yesterday with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Subbot denied
that Kramer ever told him that.
But yesterday, the investigators' belief that Kramer suspected marital
infidelity deepened after a handwritten suicide note was found on Kramer.
Nothing, however, could make sense of why Kramer shot Shaun, a third-grader at
W. Robert Paynter Elementary School in Baldwin, and Heather, who attended First
Impressions Daycare Center and the Karen Tobias Dance Studio. Authorities had
previously said she was 2 but corrected it to 5 yesterday.
"I just don't understand what happened here," Denis Subbot said. "He's not a
monster."
Allegheny County homicide Inspector Ken Fulton refused to discuss the note or
disclose its contents.
Late yesterday afternoon, the television trucks were still parked on Oakleaf
Road, a quiet cul-de-sac, and curiosity seekers still drove past the house,
past the white shutters and unadorned facade that provided no clue about the
horrors within.
John F. Slater Funeral Home in Brentwood is handling arrangements for the
children and Nancy Kramer. Services have not yet been scheduled.
Nancy Kramer is survived by her mother, Catherine Ann Nesbitt of Whitehall; a
brother, Terry Nesbitt; and sisters Colleen Nesbitt, Sharyn Abbot, Kathleen
Collier, Patty Folsom and Cynthia Nesbitt.
There was no information last night on arrangements for Louis Kramer. He is
survived by his father, two brothers and a sister, according to David Subbot.
Liberty 4All
The-Trainers wrote in message ...
>Just goes to prove that it's the military and police that can't be trusted
>with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
>
>MT
Your conclusion is ridiculous. The *innocent* people here were his family.
What would your answer be here? That whole families should strap pistols on
themselves in case one of them starts shooting at another? I think the
problem's a lot more complex than that.
atwood
>
>The-Trainers wrote in message ...
>>Just goes to prove that it's the military and police that can't be trusted
>>with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
>>
>>MT
>
>
>Your conclusion is ridiculous. The *innocent* people here were his family.
>What would your answer be here? That whole families should strap pistols on
>themselves in case one of them starts shooting at another
This is exactly what he's suggesting, which proves the logical absurdity of
a core gun nut theme, which is that the answer to massacres by crazies is to
give everyone a gun.
Trebor
Possible Fly By Shooting
GEARHART, Ore., Posted 12:38 p.m. April 8, 1999 -- A sea lion washed
ashore on the Oregon coast near Gearhart, pregnant and shot.
Portland State University professor Debbie Duffield examined the
Stellar sea lion and found a series of bullet wounds inside the
animal.
Duffield says the patterns of the wounds suggest the animal had been
shot from an airplane with an automatic weapon, reports KOIN 6 News.
It is illegal to harm any sea lion, The Associated Press reports.
Stellar sea lions are listed as "threatened" under the federal
Endangered Species Act.
David E. Powell
Good luck, Mr. Chuckles.
David E. Powell
What if it was shot in international waters? That is a different law
altogether. I mean, ships and planes in international waters/airspace have
certain rights under the international law of the sea to carry arms, IIRC.
Or it could have been Canadians who did it, and it drifted south in the
Current.
Or - well, it could have been rich folk who can afford planes and pilots and
guides and stuff, and who would get guns no matter what.
Robert Frenchu
> Pregnant Sea Lion Found Shot
>Possible Fly By Shooting
>
>GEARHART, Ore., Posted 12:38 p.m. April 8, 1999 -- A sea lion washed
>ashore on the Oregon coast near Gearhart, pregnant and shot.
>
>Portland State University professor Debbie Duffield examined the
>Stellar sea lion and found a series of bullet wounds inside the
>animal.
Interesting. Were there any on the outside? If not, I suspect the seal
fetus as the culprit.
>Duffield says the patterns of the wounds suggest the animal had been
>shot from an airplane with an automatic weapon, reports KOIN 6 News.
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha! Like she is familiar with the wounds created
from automatic weapons when they're fired from airplanes.
Quit making this stuff up, you nut case.
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?
Bill Bonde
>
> The-Trainers wrote in message ...
> >Just goes to prove that it's the military and police that can't be trusted
> >with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
> >
> >MT
>
> Your conclusion is ridiculous. The *innocent* people here were his family.
> What would your answer be here? That whole families should strap pistols on
> problem's a lot more complex than that.
>
dock into a lake and killed everyone? How can you and I protect them
from that? The answer is that we can't. People who show themselves
willing to commit illegal and violent acts (such as the protesters in
Seattle), should be punished for their actions. People who beat up
family members need to be punished for domestic violence. If OJ had
actually been disciplined after his early attacks on his wife, perhaps
he wouldn't've chopped her to bits that awful night.
Bill Bonde
>
> On Sat, 04 Dec 1999 17:32:13 -0800, Bill Bonde <std...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Liberty 4All wrote:
> >>
> >> The-Trainers wrote in message ...
> >> >Just goes to prove that it's the military and police that can't be trusted
> >> >with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
> >> >
> >> >MT
> >>
> >> Your conclusion is ridiculous. The *innocent* people here were his family.
> >> What would your answer be here? That whole families should strap pistols on
> >> themselves in case one of them starts shooting at another? I think the
> >> problem's a lot more complex than that.
> >>
> >What if he had put the kids and family into their car and driven off a
> >dock into a lake and killed everyone?
>
>
No, HE didn't but I was hoping that you would be smart enough to
remember all the people who have done that including a crazy women who
cried on TV for days about her car being carjacked by Black thugs who
took her two little kids.
> >How can you and I protect them from that? The answer is that we can't. People who show themselves
> >willing to commit illegal and violent acts (such as the protesters in Seattle), should be punished for their actions. People who beat up
> >family members need to be punished for domestic violence. If OJ had actually been disciplined after his early attacks on his wife, perhaps
> >he wouldn't've chopped her to bits that awful night.
>
> Somehow Bill wants to blame the protestors in Seattle for this nut
> case slaughtering his family.
>
I've known for a long time that you can't read. It is only becoming
recently very clear that you can't think either. Anyone who commits
violent acts like breaking windows, beating people unconscious, needs to
pay a legal price for their actions. That way they will be discouraged
from doing worse the next time. The Seattle riots are a perfect example
of the police not enforcing the law until things got very out of control
and than having to use more force than would otherwise be needed. If
they had acted quickly from the start, the mess could've been avoided
just like the OJ murders could have been avoided. Likely there is
something that should've been done in the murder case you are mentioning
too.
> You are in serious gun buddy denial, Bill.
>
> Next time you buy a gun be sure to pick up a bottle of cheap booze.
>
How much booze do you have to drink not to care about killing people?
Greg
"Liberty 4All" <liber...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> The-Trainers wrote in message ...
> >Just goes to prove that it's the military and police that can't be
trusted
> >with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
> >
> >MT
>
> Your conclusion is ridiculous. The *innocent* people here were his
family.
> What would your answer be here? That whole families should strap
pistols on
> themselves in case one of them starts shooting at another? I think the
> problem's a lot more complex than that.
I think it is safe to say it is only as complex as an insane
man can be.
--
The only vote that you waste is the one you never wanted to make.
RICO- we were told it was a necessary surrender of our civil liberties.
Asset Forfeiture- the latest inevitable result of RICO.
http://www.ciphermax.com/book
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Salvador Flores
The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote:
>Just goes to prove that it's the military and police that can't be trusted
>with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
He *was* an innocent civilian... an *Ex* Marine....
or perhaps you'd support denying Ex-marines the right to keep firearms.
_Dave
Jason W. Arby
you compare cars to guns. Unless it suits their purposes, of course.
No gun control freak has ever been able to adequately explain how
Switzerland, with mandatory gun ownership, is the safest society on
earth.
On Sun, 05 Dec 1999 01:55:02 GMT, Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Dec 1999 17:32:13 -0800, Bill Bonde <std...@mail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Liberty 4All wrote:
>>>
>>> The-Trainers wrote in message ...
>>> >Just goes to prove that it's the military and police that can't be trusted
>>> >with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
>>> >
>>> >MT
>>>
>>> Your conclusion is ridiculous. The *innocent* people here were his family.
>>> What would your answer be here? That whole families should strap pistols on
>>> themselves in case one of them starts shooting at another? I think the
>>> problem's a lot more complex than that.
>>>
>>What if he had put the kids and family into their car and driven off a
>>dock into a lake and killed everyone?
>
>But he didn't did he Bill?
>
>>How can you and I protect them from that? The answer is that we can't. People who show themselves
>>willing to commit illegal and violent acts (such as the protesters in Seattle), should be punished for their actions. People who beat up
>>family members need to be punished for domestic violence. If OJ had actually been disciplined after his early attacks on his wife, perhaps
>>he wouldn't've chopped her to bits that awful night.
>
>Somehow Bill wants to blame the protestors in Seattle for this nut
>case slaughtering his family.
>
>You are in serious gun buddy denial, Bill.
>
>Next time you buy a gun be sure to pick up a bottle of cheap booze.
>
> Volt
>
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
>
>Join The War On Right Wing Ignorance:
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
>
>How Dumb is George DubYa?
>http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/dubya_transcript.jpg
>
>===========================================================================
>When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible and, unlike some,
>I grew from that initial position and clearly some are still stuck in it.
>
> --Steve Forbes on DubYa's refusal to own up to his wicked past
>===========================================================================
>
akoe...@sunnews.infi.net
>pistols on
It would sure put a new twist on l'eggo my eggo!
Joe1138
> Pregnant Sea Lion Found Shot
>Possible Fly By Shooting
>
>GEARHART, Ore., Posted 12:38 p.m. April 8, 1999 -- A sea lion washed
>ashore on the Oregon coast near Gearhart, pregnant and shot.
>
>Portland State University professor Debbie Duffield examined the
>Stellar sea lion and found a series of bullet wounds inside the
>animal.
>
>Duffield says the patterns of the wounds suggest the animal had been
>shot from an airplane with an automatic weapon, reports KOIN 6 News.
>
The-Trainers
On 5 Dec 1999, David Salvador Flores wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.10.99120...@shell11.ba.best.com>,
> The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote:
> >Just goes to prove that it's the military and police that can't be trusted
> >with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
>
> He *was* an innocent civilian... an *Ex* Marine....
Are you a complete IDIOT????
HE WAS A MULTIPLE MURDERER! He was NOT an innocent anything!
> or perhaps you'd support denying Ex-marines the right to keep firearms.
I support allowing people to be armed for self-defense as THEY choose!
What I was pointing out is the FACT that just because someone is
military or police does NOT make them "trustworthy".
In fact, according to the stats on those millions of civillians
in this nation who have permits to carry loaded & concealed
guns in public, these civillians have PROVEN to be far MORE
lawful and trustworthy than the average cop or military
person.
Time after time we hear the gun-control fanatics claim that ONLY
the cops and military should be trusted with guns, and yet the
truth about them is that they are LESS trustworthy than ordinary
armed citizens.
The gun-control idiots keep ignoring the history of this century
and all the tens of millions of dis-armed civillians who have
been dis-armed by gun-control laws and then slaughtered by
their OWN GOVERNMENTS or the neighboring one.
The gun-control idiots always IGNORE the FACT that there has
NEVER been any cases in any nation where any gun-control laws
have caused a reduction in violent crime rates in those places.
The gun-control idiots want to ignore the fact that violent crimes
and homicides in particular have been shown to go UP when strict
gun-control laws are enacted.
Basically, you gun-control morons want to ignore anything except your
own lies and destructive laws.
You want to be helpless sheep, fine, just leave the rest of us alone
and we will leave you alone.
Don't call us when you find criminals breaking into your now defenseless
homes, especially when those criminals wear the uniform of your
masters in the government.
MT
> _Dave
The-Trainers
By the way, it is really sad to see that someone as willfully ignorant
about history and truth as you would have access to an email account
from an American school, especially in Virginia!
I can only imagine what other irrational and illogical and ignorant
things you have been taught to believe.
Clearly they have NOT taught you to CHECK OUT THE FACTS before you
make a decision.
MT
The-Trainers
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Bill Bonde wrote:
> Liberty 4All wrote:
> >
> > The-Trainers wrote in message ...
> > >Just goes to prove that it's the military and police that can't be trusted
> > >with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
> > >
> > >MT
> >
> > Your conclusion is ridiculous. The *innocent* people here were his family.
> > What would your answer be here? That whole families should strap pistols on
> > themselves in case one of them starts shooting at another? I think the
> > problem's a lot more complex than that.
> What if he had put the kids and family into their car and driven off a
> dock into a lake and killed everyone? How can you and I protect them
> from that? The answer is that we can't.
If the wife knew he was a danger to her or the kids, then SHE should have
gotten a gun for self-defense.
Considering he was a military guy, there was no problem for him to find
a gun legally or not.
And considering he was military, he could have chosen to kill them
all with his bare hands.
The ONLY hope the innocent victims had was if they ran from him
or if the mother was ARMED!
> People who show themselves
> willing to commit illegal and violent acts (such as the protesters in
> Seattle), should be punished for their actions.
Considering Clinton has been braggin about 470,000 felons who have
broken FEDERAL laws by trying to buy guns and yet he wont talk
about the FACT that less than a dozen of them have ever been
prosecuted...
I don't think the anti-gun politicians give a damn about reducing crime
or punishing violent criminals.
Gun-control laws have NEVER been about crime, NOR has ANY gun-control
law EVER caused a reduction in crime rates anywhere.
> People who beat up
> family members need to be punished for domestic violence. If OJ had
> actually been disciplined after his early attacks on his wife, perhaps
> he wouldn't've chopped her to bits that awful night.
Since OJ's victim/ex KNEW OJ was violent and had feared for her life from
him in the past, then it would be reasonable for her to buy a gun,
learn how to use it and get a permit to carry it concealed with her
when she went out....
Oh, wait, she DIED in Kalifornia, which means she was DENIED the right
to self-defense. She could not have legally gotten and carried a gun.
MT
Liberty 4All
The-Trainers wrote in message ...
>
>
>If the wife knew he was a danger to her or the kids, then SHE should have
>gotten a gun for self-defense.
>
I think if the woman would have *known* this guy was dangerous, she'd likely
be alive today. That's the problem; people don't usually *know* that
someone's planning to blow them away in their sleep.
Don't get you dick in your zipper. I'm not arguing about people's second
amendment right to own a firearm. I'm just saying your original conclusion
is flawed. It's not about arming everyone equally. You think that's going to
prevent some deranged psychopath from blowing a family member away?
Panhead
It's not really all that flawed.
So many times it is found that the spouse "saw it coming"
...sorta speak. Meaning, she, and only she would knew what the
personal "family problems" were all about, not others.
Unfortunately, we can't find out and the police won't divulge
"the letter" that he left behind.
There must have been signs that we obviously were not being
aware of to other people. To wit: (according to Chuckles
blood-dance article)"There were no signs," said Glen
Subbot(Kramer's lifelong friend), who had talked with Kramer, 42,
on Sunday."
The article goes on to say: "Baldwin police Detective Sgt. Daniel
Turner said that while no specific motive has been found, he
believes there may have been problems in the marriage. [Possible
infidelity?]
"If you reach a tragedy of this point, there has to be some kind
of problem," Turner said. "We just don't know what."
Kramer, whose body was found in a bathroom, left a note admitting
he shot his family, but didn't explain his motives very clearly."
Truly a sad event regardless and, there IS no moral, or a blame,
to be put on private ownership of firearms.
The blame is TOTALLY put on the cold blooded, suicidal murderer
who did this incredibly viscous act of violence.
After all, he killed himself and wanted to take his immediate
family with him.
Where he planned on 'taking them" is a matter of opinion of
course.
For if there _is_ a god, his family that he murdered will indeed
go to the place called "heaven."
He, on the other hand, doesn't stand a snowballs chance in a
rather hot oven of resting in peace.
Liberty 4All
Panhead wrote in message <384ABC60...@intac.com>...
>
>
>Liberty 4All wrote:
>>
> Truly a sad event regardless and, there IS no moral, or a blame,
>to be put on private ownership of firearms.
> The blame is TOTALLY put on the cold blooded, suicidal murderer
>who did this incredibly viscous act of violence.
> After all, he killed himself and wanted to take his immediate
>family with him.
>
> Where he planned on 'taking them" is a matter of opinion of
>course.
> For if there _is_ a god, his family that he murdered will indeed
>go to the place called "heaven."
>He, on the other hand, doesn't stand a snowballs chance in a
>rather hot oven of resting in peace.
Agreed. I wasn't blaming the private ownership of firearms. I support the
second amendment. period. My problem was with his/her/their conclusion that
the problem would have been solved, had the innocent been armed. That, my
friend, is far too simple a conclusion to draw. Anyway, enough said about
the conclusion.
"Remember, nothing really valuable is absolutely free. There is a price to
pay for living in a free society. It is that some will choose to abuse their
freedoms to the detriment of others. The alternative has a price, as well.
There is no choice."
LT Higdon
Elrica
criminals. It basically disarms, or assures the unarmed status of
law-abiding citizens, which would logically lead to a possible increase
in violent crimes against our citizens. But, let's not fall into the
typical liberal trap of presenting information based on one or a few
inceidents as a general rule. I haven't seen any facts that would lead
me to believe that cops or military or, ex-military personnel are any
less dependable or more dependable with a gun in this country than are
the general population. I completely understand your initial point:
allowing only police and military to have guns in our country is
illogical and goes against the vision of the founding fathers where the
local citizenry armed(a "militia") would be able to, if necessary,
defend itself against aggression. They did not specify what that
aggression was, but at the time of the framers of the constitution they
had just fought a bloody war against what was the lawful government in
England for their individual rights. There was no standing military in
their time, in fact, I believe the thought of a standing military was
abhorrent to them. (They were true anti-establishment types!)
In the final analysis, this was truly a tragedy and all the social(I
don't mean government, I mean community/friends) safety nets failed.
If it had not been a gun, I believe it would have been another
available weapon, and we can't protect from that--even a spoon can be
used as a deadly weapon---not to mention bare hands.
To say there is any difference in this case between him killing his
family with a handgun and driving them off a cliff does not hold up to
the light of logic. People kill / inanimate objects don't.
On that subject, as a woman, I think the gun is the great equalizer
when it comes to self-defense. Any other self=defense weapon falls far
short of keeping an assailant who may be 1.5 or greater times my size,
my strength, my reach, from harming me. Handguns, even small ones
that are easily handled by women with less hand and wrist strength,
will get the job done if used properly. Why women, any women would be
for handgun control, I can not understand. Especially women like Rosie
O'donnell. She could be attacked just for the rumors that go around
about her. Ask the two so-called Lesbians that were living together
peacefully, unobtrusively in that small town in OK that were attacked
and killed by a man for no apparent reason a couple of years ago.
Anyway, I would like to start a new organization aimed at opening up
the door of logical thinking for women, especially, on the handgun
issue in this country. Making handguns illegal could be argued as an
attack on women and their ability to effectively defend themselves in
this country and in the world.
This is my first post, hope I didn't make any grammatical mistakes.
Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts whether you agree with
me or not. Logical, if impassioned, debate is what keeps this country
great!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Linus F. Zimmerman
to the ranks. Don't worry about grammar, it's the thought that
counts.
LZ
Ronin
The-Trainers wrote:
> By the way, it is really sad to see that someone as willfully ignorant
> about history and truth
I assume you mean David Salvador Flores? If so I have noticed the same
about him and many others. Some are much more intelligent and learned
than I. SO how do we acocunt for their "blindness?"
> as you would have access to an email account
> from an American school, especially in Virginia!
Why should this surprise you? The Church of Reason (credit; Pirsig) is
the prime perpetrator/purveyor of current politically correct thinking
and has always worked with the status quo to see to it that the public is
deceived/indoctrinated.
> I can only imagine what other irrational and illogical and ignorant
> things you have been taught to believe.
Forgive my skepticism: What, I must wonder, are you ignorant of? How have
you been indoctrinated? And so on.... It will be interesting to see if
the "pot isn't calling the kettle black."
> Clearly they have NOT taught you to CHECK OUT THE FACTS before you
> make a decision.
I've made the same mistake. And learned from it.
One of the major probs is we are taught that "precedence" (who said what
to whom, ie; Jefferson said it) replaces common sense. So when one
questions the, for example, Big C's (the US Constitution) validity he is
immediately thought a fool and no matter how much rational argument is
offered .... "none are so blind as those which refuse to see" .... Nuff
Said.
Ronin.
Docky Wocky
"Duffield says the patterns of the wounds suggest the animal had been
shot from an airplane with an automatic weapon, reports KOIN 6 News..."
____________________
It would be most entertaining to see the logic that lead to the suggestion
that this little baby sea lion was shot from an airplane. Were there
propeller marks on it's hide? Wheel marks on it's little sea lion butt?
It was most likely shot from the deck of a Chinese freighter whose crew
needed a bit of practice shooting stuff in Yankee territory.
The-Trainers
paragraphs though.
MT
The-Trainers
On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Liberty 4All wrote:
> The-Trainers wrote in message ...
> >If the wife knew he was a danger to her or the kids, then SHE should have
> >gotten a gun for self-defense.
> I think if the woman would have *known* this guy was dangerous, she'd likely
> be alive today.
NOT TRUE!
She MUST have known he was dangerous, she had to know he was a marine,
they are trained to kill with their bare hands or anything else.
The question was did she fear that SHE was personally in danger from him?
> That's the problem; people don't usually *know* that
> someone's planning to blow them away in their sleep.
That assertion flies in the face of ALL studies done about domestic
violence. In almost all cases the victims do indeed see it coming,
sometimes for years in advance. The problem is that women feel
"trapped" and "helpless", they believe there is nothing they can
do be hope they won't be killed.
You might want to do some reading before you make such ignorant remarks.
> Don't get you dick in your zipper.
Don't get you grammar in your brain.
> I'm not arguing about people's second amendment right to own a firearm.
Neither am I!
I may be fully aware that the Second Amendment was intended to protect
our pre-existing individual rights to own guns for any good use, but I
also consider that line of argument to eb the WEAKEST argument for
allowing Americans and all other humans to own guns as they so choose,
EXCEPT for those who have proven they cannot live in this world without
harming others.
The simple fact that guns in the hands of civillians are proven safety
devices and are the ONLY tools by which the weak can protect themselves
from the strong is a far better argument to keep our rights to own guns.
> I'm just saying your original conclusion is flawed.
You would not think so if you knew anything about domestic violence
cases.
> It's not about arming everyone equally.
Of course not. It's about letting each person decide for themselves
what their risk factors are for the moment and then letting them
choose to get a gun or not with their own best judgement as their
only restriction.
Heck, if it were not for the gun-control laws, I would NEVER have
bought any guns. The 1994 gun-ban made me buy my first gun
and I buy another each time a new bad law comes around.
> You think that's going to
> prevent some deranged psychopath from blowing a family member away?
It prevented a killer and rapist from beating the hell out of my
elderly mother, then raping her, robbing her home and leaving
her tied up to die, last year.
If he did to her what he did to all his other victims, my mother
would have died a rather nasty death.
Fortunatly, my mother believed in the Boy Scout motto:
"Be Prepared"
She has had a handgun in her home for decades and it finally saved
her life last year, with NO harm to anyone, by the way.
As usual, the armed, but cowardly, criminal turned white as a sheet
then jumped back out the window the instant he saw her handgun
pointed at him.
MT
The-Trainers
life was a .357 magnum revolver.
MT
On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Liberty 4All wrote:
>
> The-Trainers wrote in message ...
> >
>
> >
> >If the wife knew he was a danger to her or the kids, then SHE should have
> >gotten a gun for self-defense.
> >
> I think if the woman would have *known* this guy was dangerous, she'd likely
> be alive today. That's the problem; people don't usually *know* that
> someone's planning to blow them away in their sleep.
> Don't get you dick in your zipper. I'm not arguing about people's second
> amendment right to own a firearm. I'm just saying your original conclusion
> is flawed. It's not about arming everyone equally. You think that's going to
Richard G Cheek
Ronin <ad...@cdsnet.net> wrote in message
news:384B3E48...@cdsnet.net...
> Greetings.
> One of the major probs is we are taught that "precedence" (who said what
> to whom, ie; Jefferson said it) replaces common sense. So when one
> questions the, for example, Big C's (the US Constitution) validity he is
> immediately thought a fool and no matter how much rational argument is
> offered .... "none are so blind as those which refuse to see" .... Nuff
> Said.
The root problem is that too many think that the Constitution is the source
of our rights. It is not. Our inalienable rights come from God Himself and
the BoR only enumerates them; it does not authorize them.
And since the Constitution is the law, you can question it all you want, it
is the document that is supposed to define the Federal governments power, so
it IS relevant no matter what you or some other "intilektual" thinks about
it.
RGlenCheek
Bill Bonde
>
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Liberty 4All wrote:
>
> > The-Trainers wrote in message ...
>
> > >If the wife knew he was a danger to her or the kids, then SHE should have
> > >gotten a gun for self-defense.
>
> > I think if the woman would have *known* this guy was dangerous, she'd likely
> > be alive today.
>
>
> She MUST have known he was dangerous, she had to know he was a marine,
> they are trained to kill with their bare hands or anything else.
>
> The question was did she fear that SHE was personally in danger from him?
>
life can you say that someone who is trained in the military is simply
'dangerous' because of the training.
Ronin
Richard G Cheek wrote:
> The root problem
In *your* opinion. We consider it only *part* of the problems we deal with in
re pro-gubmint propaganda.
> is that too many think that the Constitution is the source
> of our rights. It is not. Our inalienable rights come from God
Whose God? What if I say they come from me? Or out of thin air? Or just are? Or
from a watermelon? IOW, please keep religious propaganda where it belongs, or I
shall have to preach to you in return. If you want to discuss religion with me
do it by email of other appropriate forums.
Our Human Rights exist because we, the people decide they do. And we, the
people embrace a creed which defines our rights and responsiblities to each
other and serves as a "blueprint" for the establishment of a new world order
based on Equal Rights with Liberty and Justice for All.
> Himself and
> the BoR only enumerates them; it does not authorize them.
The BoR is a perfect example of a conciously designed misnomer used to
disseminate propaganda thru ( we call it) newspeak. There is no such thing as
the BoR. It is just one portion of the Big C and as you point out, guarantees
nothing. But by naming it the "BoR" we promote the thought that these are our
rights and leave the "door wide open."
I could go on and on: Sufice it to say.... the Big C is just that... an effing
cancer devouring our human rights.
> And since the Constitution is the law,
No, the Big C used as a justification for unLawful conduct. Time to call a
spade a spade. Ie; A totalitarian enacment is NOT "the Law."
> you can question it all you want,
We do. Logically. Reasonably. Cogently. Forcefully. And we effing win every
time. Hard to argue with 2+2=4. And that is what people attempt. OTOH, we
simply have to quote the Big C vertabim to prove our arguments true.
> it
> is the document that is supposed to define the Federal governments power, so
> it IS relevant
Only as an example of what a Constitution should NOT be.
> no matter what you or some other "intilektual" thinks about
> it.
Yo... stuff the insults. Uncalled for.
> RGlenCheek
Are you sure I haven't killfiled you?
Ronin.
The-Trainers
That was exactly my point, he was dangerous, more that the average
American because of his training, just like anything else can be
dangerous.
The issue was if she knew he was an immediate danger to HER.
MT
David Salvador Flores
David E. Powell <David_Po...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Trebor wrote in message <3849597c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>> Pregnant Sea Lion Found Shot
>>Possible Fly By Shooting
>>
>>GEARHART, Ore., Posted 12:38 p.m. April 8, 1999 -- A sea lion washed
>>ashore on the Oregon coast near Gearhart, pregnant and shot.
>>
>>Portland State University professor Debbie Duffield examined the
>>Stellar sea lion and found a series of bullet wounds inside the
>>animal.
>>
>>
>>It is illegal to harm any sea lion, The Associated Press reports.
>>
>>Stellar sea lions are listed as "threatened" under the federal
>>Endangered Species Act.
>
>
Somehow I doubt sea-lions verture 12 miles off the coast.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
Richard G Cheek <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Ronin <ad...@cdsnet.net> wrote in message
>news:384B3E48...@cdsnet.net...
>> Greetings.
>> One of the major probs is we are taught that "precedence" (who said what
>> to whom, ie; Jefferson said it) replaces common sense. So when one
>> questions the, for example, Big C's (the US Constitution) validity he is
>> immediately thought a fool and no matter how much rational argument is
>> offered .... "none are so blind as those which refuse to see" .... Nuff
>> Said.
>
>of our rights. It is not. Our inalienable rights come from God Himself and
>the BoR only enumerates them; it does not authorize them.
Thouh Shalt Have no Other God But Me.
(We have no right to be anything other than Christians)
Thou Shalt Not Covet
(We have no right to desire other people's stuff)
Thou Shalt Make No Graven Image etc...
(We don't have the right to make Buddha statuettes)
Furthermore, it seems that women do not have the right
to speak in church.
Nor do we have the right not to give 10% of our earning to the church.
And a whole lot more stuff I wont bother going into.
Basically: Don't think so.
-Dave
David E. Powell
<82rucc$40p$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...
You'd be surprised. Remember, they are adapted well to the water, and the
fish move in and off shore over the year.
David Salvador Flores
David E. Powell <David_Po...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores wrote in message
><82rucc$40p$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>...
>>In article <ePzwofoP$GA.327@cpmsnbbsa04>,
>>David E. Powell <David_Po...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>Trebor wrote in message <3849597c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>>> Pregnant Sea Lion Found Shot
>>>>Possible Fly By Shooting
>>>>
>>>>GEARHART, Ore., Posted 12:38 p.m. April 8, 1999 -- A sea lion washed
>>>>ashore on the Oregon coast near Gearhart, pregnant and shot.
>>>>
>>>>Portland State University professor Debbie Duffield examined the
>>>>Stellar sea lion and found a series of bullet wounds inside the
>>>>animal.
>>>>
>>>>Duffield says the patterns of the wounds suggest the animal had been
>>>>shot from an airplane with an automatic weapon, reports KOIN 6 News.
>>>>
>>>>It is illegal to harm any sea lion, The Associated Press reports.
>>>>
>>>>Stellar sea lions are listed as "threatened" under the federal
>>>>Endangered Species Act.
>>>
>>>
>>>What if it was shot in international waters?
>>
>>Somehow I doubt sea-lions verture 12 miles off the coast.
>
>
>You'd be surprised.
Yes, I'd be really surprised.
Remember, they are adapted well to the water, and the
>fish move in and off shore over the year.
So are penguins... and I'd be surprised if they ventured 12 miles off the
Antaric shore too.
-Dave
Trebor
Salvador Flores) wrote:
>In article <ePzwofoP$GA.327@cpmsnbbsa04>,
>David E. Powell <David_Po...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>Trebor wrote in message <3849597c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>> Pregnant Sea Lion Found Shot
>>>Possible Fly By Shooting
>>>
>>>GEARHART, Ore., Posted 12:38 p.m. April 8, 1999 -- A sea lion washed
>>>ashore on the Oregon coast near Gearhart, pregnant and shot.
>>>
>>>Portland State University professor Debbie Duffield examined the
>>>Stellar sea lion and found a series of bullet wounds inside the
>>>animal.
>>>
>>>Duffield says the patterns of the wounds suggest the animal had been
>>>shot from an airplane with an automatic weapon, reports KOIN 6 News.
>>>
>>>It is illegal to harm any sea lion, The Associated Press reports.
>>>
>>>Stellar sea lions are listed as "threatened" under the federal
>>>Endangered Species Act.
>>
>>
>>What if it was shot in international waters?
>
>Somehow I doubt sea-lions verture 12 miles off the coast.
They might, with all the gun-nuts around shooting at them for target
practice.
PLMerite
Joe1138 wrote in message <384b0913...@news.earthlink.net>...
>Maybe it was an abortion that went awry.
Yeah, maybe the daddy sea lion didn't want to pay sea-lion-child-support,
and the mommy sea lion didn't want to "choose" abortion.
An "automatic weapon" from an "airplane" (helicopter)? Sounds military to
me. If this story is from April, did they ever come back with any
information on the calibre/type of weapon used?
It's bad enough the grabbers whine about the druggies killing each other;
now we have to listen to them whine about sea lions.
Regards, PLMerite
David Salvador Flores
The-Trainers <trai...@best.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Bill Bonde wrote:
>
>> Liberty 4All wrote:
>> >
>> > The-Trainers wrote in message ...
>> > >with guns and the innocent citizens who should be armed better!
>> > >
>> > >MT
>> >
>> > Your conclusion is ridiculous. The *innocent* people here were his family.
>> > What would your answer be here? That whole families should strap pistols on
>> > themselves in case one of them starts shooting at another? I think the
>> > problem's a lot more complex than that.
>
>> What if he had put the kids and family into their car and driven off a
>> dock into a lake and killed everyone? How can you and I protect them
>> from that? The answer is that we can't.
>
>gotten a gun for self-defense.
In the gun nut Utopia, not only does everyone walk around town with a gun
strapped to his hip to protect himself from everyone else in town, but
family members each individually carry guns to protect themselves from
each other.
-Dave
Ronin
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >The root problem is that too many think that the Constitution is the source
> >of our rights. It is not. Our inalienable rights come from God Himself and
> >the BoR only enumerates them; it does not authorize them.
Richard is suffering from a seroious case of brainwashing. Not to worry. If he
is willing to learn I am willing to teach him... and you also Dave.
> <silly diatribe snipped>And a whole lot more stuff I wont bother going into.
One of the reasons why we shouldn't bother to look for an "origin" to our human
rights......... EXEMPLARY...... thanks Dave.
> Basically: Don't think so.
I sure get tired of repeating myself: Where our rights come from and/or their
exact definition is irerelevant. All we need do is study the libertarian
Guiding Principles. Then, if we adopt the creed (or another) we simply
*declare* it so.
Ronin.
David E. Powell
>On 10 Dec 1999 22:21:00 GMT, ds...@node13.unix.Virginia.EDU (David
>Salvador Flores) wrote:
>
>>In article <ePzwofoP$GA.327@cpmsnbbsa04>,
>>David E. Powell <David_Po...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>>Trebor wrote in message <3849597c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>>>>Possible Fly By Shooting
>>>>
>>>>GEARHART, Ore., Posted 12:38 p.m. April 8, 1999 -- A sea lion washed
>>>>ashore on the Oregon coast near Gearhart, pregnant and shot.
>>>>
>>>>Portland State University professor Debbie Duffield examined the
>>>>Stellar sea lion and found a series of bullet wounds inside the
>>>>animal.
>>>>
>>>>Duffield says the patterns of the wounds suggest the animal had been
>>>>shot from an airplane with an automatic weapon, reports KOIN 6 News.
>>>>
>>>>It is illegal to harm any sea lion, The Associated Press reports.
>>>>
>>>>Stellar sea lions are listed as "threatened" under the federal
>>>>Endangered Species Act.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Somehow I doubt sea-lions verture 12 miles off the coast.
>
>They might, with all the gun-nuts around shooting at them for target
>practice.
Of course, the fact that the fish needed by this pregnant one move back and
forth off the shore over the year had nothing to do with it. : P
realist
Yes, Dave, and in your utopia, everyone has to worry about what
everyone else does, in a continential-sized area, 3000 miles wide
by 1500 miles tall. We have to fret about every crime everywhere,
and make it our business, until we are all dressed in straight-jackets
so we can't hurt ourselves. Count me out.
Ronin
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> Kuz them thar eggheads is booksmart, but they ain't got a spot a common
> sense!
>
> -Dave
David I can tell you (with some shame) I also was at one time a "Capitalist
Imperialist Clone." America.... Love it or Leave It." "Support Our Troops."
Better Red Than Dead." Etc., Etc. The usual.
Only after long yrs. of study have I learned that there is more to this life
than we have been told. We've been lied to and abused all our lives and the
only excuse, in the final analysis is that it's worse in other nations. *With
the implied threat that "it will be made worse" if one protests.)
Never mind the obvious Idjots, Kumar comes to mind (an eggheaad w/o a clue),
look at our "heores" and others, particularly the ones that obviously have
*good intentions,* (the LP) and there you will see the threat to liberty and
justice.
My only advice: Study the libertarian Guiding Principles. Unless you have a
better alternative (they have been revised by people just like you in the
past, in the future?) they are our only hope for freedom.
Your thoughts?
Ronin.
David Salvador Flores
>Greetings.
>
>The-Trainers wrote:
>
>> By the way, it is really sad to see that someone as willfully ignorant
>> about history and truth
>
>I assume you mean David Salvador Flores? If so I have noticed the same
>about him and many others. Some are much more intelligent and learned
>than I. SO how do we acocunt for their "blindness?"
David Salvador Flores
Are you saying the fish shot it? While a school of fish shooting at a
sea-lion might by chance resemble the spray-pattern of a fully automatic
rifle, the exit wounds would likely be on the opposite side of that which
one would expect if the creature had been shot from the air. So I think
that's unlikely.
-Dave
Matthew Butch
>
> Greetings.
>
> David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> > sense!
> >
> > -Dave
>
> Imperialist Clone." America.... Love it or Leave It." "Support Our Troops."
> Better Red Than Dead." Etc., Etc. The usual.
>
> Only after long yrs. of study have I learned that there is more to this life
> than we have been told. We've been lied to and abused all our lives and the
> only excuse, in the final analysis is that it's worse in other nations. *With
> the implied threat that "it will be made worse" if one protests.)
nations. You seem to forget that we are the most free people of this
world because we have a limited gov't and a Bill of Rights. Of course it
is not perfect nor the best , but it is better than anything out there
>
> Never mind the obvious Idjots, Kumar comes to mind (an eggheaad w/o a clue),
> look at our "heores" and others, particularly the ones that obviously have
> *good intentions,* (the LP) and there you will see the threat to liberty and
> justice.
>
> My only advice: Study the libertarian Guiding Principles. Unless you have a
Ronin
Matthew Butch wrote:
> What the hell are the Libertarian Guiding Principles
Guiding Principles:
1) All persons have inherent, unalienable human rights; in equal proportion to all
other persons.
2) All persons have inherent unalienable rights to property.
3) The inherent and unalienable right to property includes the right to acquire,
use and dispose of Lawfully owned property in any Lawful manner.
4) The Lawful use of property is defined by the Non Initiation of Force principle:
No one may initiate force (fraud is unLawful use of intellectual force) except in
defense of Lawfully owned property.
5) The Law’s sole purpose is to punish willful and unjust actual harm to another’s
property and/or a willful and unjust attempt to commit actual harm to another’s
property. The NIoF principle is the definitive and authoritative model used to
determine the Law’s jurisdictional limits.
Note A): NIoF does not preclude the use of preemptive force in situations where
there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that if force is not used preemptively
a person’s(s) inherent and unalienable right(s) to property will be unjustly and
adversely affected. Only the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent unjust
harm may be initiated in self defense. Punitive force may not be used
preemptively.
Note B): Property rights in regards to NBC weapons and matters detrimental to the
effective defense of our way of life are held in trust by appropriate agencies
hired by the public for our collective benefit. This includes the duty to protect
our nation from acts of economic warfare.
6) No person may interfere with another’s inherent and unalienable rights without
the affected person’s willing, informed consent.
7) In order to secure and preserve our unalienable human rights libertarians join
together in a social compact and hire public servants to administer social
programs which are best managed collectively.
8) The functions of these agencies and/or administrations are limited by
libertarian principles and may not infringe upon these principles in any manner.
The public servants hired for service in the needed agencies have equal inherent
and unalienable rights and may not exercise any rights beyond those of the public.
Nor may they in any manner infringe upon libertarian principles.
9) Government by definition is inimical to freedom.
10) We declare Statism, in all its forms, inimical to freedom.
11) We declare Anarchy utopian and unworkable as a principle used to define our
inherent and unalienable rights.
Note: Fourth revision since posted.
Ronin.
David Salvador Flores
>Greetings.
>
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
>> Kuz them thar eggheads is booksmart, but they ain't got a spot a common
>> sense!
>>
>> -Dave
>
>David I can tell you (with some shame) I also was at one time a "Capitalist
>Imperialist Clone." America.... Love it or Leave It." "Support Our Troops."
>Better Red Than Dead." Etc., Etc. The usual.
Same here... all through highschool.
>
>Only after long yrs. of study have I learned that there is more to this life
>than we have been told. We've been lied to and abused all our lives and the
>only excuse, in the final analysis is that it's worse in other nations. *With
>the implied threat that "it will be made worse" if one protests.)
>
>Never mind the obvious Idjots, Kumar comes to mind (an eggheaad w/o a clue),
>look at our "heores" and others, particularly the ones that obviously have
>*good intentions,* (the LP) and there you will see the threat to liberty and
>justice.
>
>My only advice: Study the libertarian Guiding Principles. Unless you have a
>better alternative (they have been revised by people just like you in the
>past, in the future?) they are our only hope for freedom.
>
>Your thoughts?
>
>Ronin.
>
Well, I'm pretty familiar with the theory behind libertarianism, or
liberalism as it was called in the 19th century, or neo-liberalism as it
is called today everywhere bu the US. I've even gotten complementary
e-mails from people in this newsgroup for my exposition of libertarian
thought (it was, of course, in the context of a much more civil
conversation.)
I've got lots of problems with libertarian "minarchist" conceptions of the
state. I believe there is a role for government regulation beyond simply
enforcing contract law and preventing crimes against persons and property.
I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
all of the wealth, just some of it). I believe there is a need for
government enforcement of worker protections and environmental protections
too.
I'm quite happy to enter into a civil debate concerning these matters,
though by and large what happens on these newsgroups is that discussion
degrades very quickly into sniping, accusations of dishonesty, name
calling etc. Don't get me wrong, though, I'm quite happy to engage in the
latter too. It winds up being lots of fun.
-Dave
W. E. Woods
Matthew Butch wrote:
>
> Ronin wrote:
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >
> > > Kuz them thar eggheads is booksmart, but they ain't got a spot a common
> > > sense!
> > >
> > > -Dave
> >
> > David I can tell you (with some shame) I also was at one time a "Capitalist
> > Imperialist Clone." America.... Love it or Leave It." "Support Our Troops."
> > Better Red Than Dead." Etc., Etc. The usual.
> >
> > Only after long yrs. of study have I learned that there is more to this life
> > than we have been told. We've been lied to and abused all our lives and the
> > only excuse, in the final analysis is that it's worse in other nations. *With
> > the implied threat that "it will be made worse" if one protests.)
> You are dillusional if you believe that the USA is worse than other
> nations. You seem to forget that we are the most free people of this
> world
Just not free enough.
> because we have a limited gov't and a Bill of Rights. Of course it
> is not perfect nor the best , but it is better than anything out there
Yep, but we've lost a hell of a lot.
"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
what ships are built for."
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
W. E. Woods
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
> all of the wealth, just some of it).
Why is that?
David Salvador Flores
W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
>
>> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
>> all of the wealth, just some of it).
>
>Why is that?
Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
>
>"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
> what ships are built for."
>
> "Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
-Dave
Ronin
"W. E. Woods" wrote:
> David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> > I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
> > all of the wealth, just some of it).
>
> Why is that?
Who cares? I've lost any respect I had for Flores. He is a Statist and an
Idjot! Not only for holding that opinion. But for presenting it in a
libertarian NG.
Ronin.
Ronin
"W. E. Woods" wrote:
> Matthew Butch wrote:
Again my server fails to send me all replies. So i'll try to answer both posts in
one.
> > > Only after long yrs. of study have I learned that there is more to this life
> > > than we have been told. We've been lied to and abused all our lives and the
> > > only excuse, in the final analysis is that it's worse in other nations. *With
> > > the implied threat that "it will be made worse" if one protests.)
>
> > You are dillusional
Not so delusional that I can't spell delusional. <g>
> >> nations.
Arguable. But, you are obviously delusional since nowhere above did I say so. I said
the opposite. Or maybe you just need to learn to read.
> >You seem to forget that we are the most free people of this
> > world
Again: Arguable. And irrelevant. I would say we are the freest *slaves* I know of.
(some would say no that others are more enslaved, it's a toss up)
> Just not free enough.
We are wasting time arguing with another poor, misinformed, disinformed, brainwashed
and therefore delusional "patriot."
> > because we have a limited gov't
"...limited...?" You are definitely delusional. The only limits on our govt. are
(essentially) what the people will endure before they "get a clue."
> >and a Bill of Rights.
Which, if you weren't delusional, you would not refer to as if it were a separate
document (ie; the Canadian BoR) and you would notice that the Big C does not protect
and secure ANY of our rights.
> >Of course it
> > is not perfect nor the best ,
It is a foul rag used to deceive (like you have been deceived) and enslave us.
> >but it is better than anything out there
You are definitely delusional if you believe this. Or are you just ignorant and/or
Trolling?
> Yep, but we've lost a hell of a lot.
"...lost...?" This implies that at one time we had a free nation. When was this
happy time? Let me guess: You also are delusional?
Ronin.
Matthew Butch
>
> Greetings.
>
> "W. E. Woods" wrote:
>
> > Matthew Butch wrote:
>
> Again my server fails to send me all replies. So i'll try to answer both posts in
> one.
>
> > > > Only after long yrs. of study have I learned that there is more to this life
> > > > than we have been told. We've been lied to and abused all our lives and the
> > > > only excuse, in the final analysis is that it's worse in other nations. *With
> > > > the implied threat that "it will be made worse" if one protests.)
> >
> > > You are dillusional
>
> Not so delusional that I can't spell delusional. <g>
>
> > >> nations.
>
> Arguable. But, you are obviously delusional since nowhere above did I say so. I said
> the opposite. Or maybe you just need to learn to read.
diagree with you that we are "delutional"
>
> > >You seem to forget that we are the most free people of this
> > > world
>
> Again: Arguable. And irrelevant.
usurpation, the people are trying to retore that liberty.
>I would say we are the freest *slaves* I know of.
> (some would say no that others are more enslaved, it's a toss up)
>
> > Just not free enough.
>
> We are wasting time arguing with another poor, misinformed, disinformed, brainwashed
> and therefore delusional "patriot."
>
> > > because we have a limited gov't
>
> "...limited...?" You are definitely delusional. The only limits on our govt. are
> (essentially) what the people will endure before they "get a clue."
checks, and the Bill of Rights, restrictions upon the gov't. I call that
limited.
Well, alot of people are starting to get a clue. And that is also why it
is limited
>
> > >and a Bill of Rights.
>
> Which, if you weren't delusional, you would not refer to as if it were a separate
> document (ie; the Canadian BoR) and you would notice that the Big C does not protect
> and secure ANY of our rights.
you.(Freedom of Speech remember!)
I consider it a document that is equal to the Constitution, Well guess
what, ours does, by recognizing, and protecting form gov'ts preexesting
rights.
>
> > >Of course it
> > > is not perfect nor the best ,
>
> It is a foul rag used to deceive (like you have been deceived) and enslave us.
have obviously not, made IMHO
>
> > >but it is better than anything out there
>
> You are definitely delusional if you believe this. Or are you just ignorant and/or
do read every fact I can get my hands on
> Trolling?
>
> > Yep, but we've lost a hell of a lot.
>
> "...lost...?" This implies that at one time we had a free nation. When was this
> happy time? Let me guess: You also are delusional?
the Bill of Rights was ratified.
>
> Ronin.
Ronin
Matthew Butch wrote:
> > You are definitely delusional if you believe this. Or are you just ignorant and/or
> I do believe this, because it is true.
Matthew, I am glad you have decided to do away with the insults. At least for the moment.
Onward....
Your assertion proves nothing. Please provide me with facts. As I provide you with facts
to justify my position.
> Show me something better.
The libertarian Guiding Principles.
But, let's say, just for the sake of learning something new, that the GPs didn't exist.
Would you then justify slavery?
That *is* what you are doing when you ask me to show you something better. You are in
fact advocating tyranny because you know of no free nations/systems in existence.
> And I
> do read every fact I can get my hands on
Gosh.... Tall order. We have collectively read dozens of books on the subject of
libertarianism/liberalism alone.
If you are serious: We can recommend that you start with a simple tome: Our Enemy the
State, by Alfred J. Nock. Then for a contemporary look try: From Freedom to Slavery, by
Gerry Spence.
For a detailed look at Capitalist Imperialism We would suggest: When Corporatiaons Rule
the World, by David Korent. (Not all works we recommend will be by libertarians. Nor will
we agree with all the content.)
Two extremely different looks at our gubmint: Why Government Doesn't Work, by Harry
Browne and A Call for Revolution, by Martin L. Gross. (Gross and Moore have written other
detailed and well researched books on this general topic.)
Thomas West and Robert Kennedy have also written historical books in re the Founders.
Both of them attempt to justify some of the egregious conduct I detail here. Their
failures are not only informative but hilarious (sick humor required) in that they end up
condemning them instead.......
> > "...lost...?" This implies that at one time we had a free nation. When was this
> > happy time? Let me guess: You also are delusional?
> Well lost wasn't the best word, but infringed. And, oh about 1791, when
> the Bill of Rights was ratified.
Ah, so Grasshopper, you failed to take the pebble. <g> And took the bait instead. <sigh>
Time for a short history lesson.
1) The Big C was written (app 1789) and passed deceitfully by a small group delegated to
make minor changes to the Articles of Confederation which were felt to be flawed and
unagreeable in *some* respects.
2) The Big C took so long to be ratified by all "States" due primarily to #1.
3) The Big C was written in order to establish a "merchant state." (aka; corporate
oligarchy) Free fron Crown imposed interference.
4) The writers idolized the Greco-Roman form of Democratic Republicanism. Slavery and
all. They felt that "landed gentry" should rule and the "common folk" should abide by
their decisions.
BTW, just in case; Jefferson didn't write it, he was off in France screwing whores, (He
appeared partial to mulatto whores.) and the French in general.
5) The Big C and the AoC before it, were written in part to repudiate the sentiments
expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
6) Those "guarantees" (along with other promises unkept, leading to more than one
rebellion and/or mini-civil war and threats of worse to come) were necessary for the
"common" folk to take up arms against their brethren and their King. Remember the
"colonists" were British subjects and for the most part as loyal as always. They were not
about to sacrifice, "life, fortune and sacred honor" just to trade one tyranny for
another.
7) The "Founders" could not abide a free nation wherein all could have a say in how govt.
operated. Their idea of Liberty and Justice for All.....did NOT include the vast majority
of the population. It went against everything they had ever been taught. Against
everything they believed in.
Side Note: The most vociferous crticism of the ruling regime came from "foreigners" and
those outside the usual social circles. (Ie; Paine, Burr, Jay.....) They denounced and
actively worked against slavery; among other ills.
8) During that period of time our govt., as a matter of policy, engaged in planned
genocide, slavery, child slavery, child labor, indentured servitude, armed robbery,
racial, cultural and religious repression, fraud and theft by deception, mysoginy and
certain of our most "revered heros" were personally responsible for same along with rape,
incest, etc.
9) It is necessary, if the people are to remain aquiescent, that they believe in the
*Myth.* "They are free. Living in a free nation." For this *Myth* to survive it is
necessary that the people be deceived, lied to, about our nation's history.
10) You may argue the questions of intent. You may argue the speficic examples of rape,
murder, etc. You may even argue that I am cynical and jaded. What you cannot do is
rewrite the US Constitution. (Yes, we might amend it, etc. I mean it's provenance is
certain)
11) All I need to prove we live and HAVE ALWAYS lived in a Statist nation is to quote the
Big C verbatim. "Words mean things." David Webster.
Your thoughts, along with proof of a time when at least a majority of the inhabitants of
this land were free, (Even 50.1% will do.) are most welcome.
Email is ok.
Ronin.
Ronin
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
> >
> >Why is that?
>
> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
We might argue the use of the word "deserves." Instead we will offer a
suggestion: Establish an NGO for the purpose of providing financial and other
support to those which *you* deem worthy. Or check with the NCIB. They will
gladly provide you with a list of NPOs/NGOs which might fit your personal views.
Considering that at at look there were app 500,000 orgs qualifying under 501C, 3
one would think that some might be suitable.
They will also provide oyu with listingsdand much other useful info. Including a
"recommended" list. NOPs that use at least 60% or their funds for programs. As
opposed to operating costs. Another example would be the *Most Successful*
gubmint programs; which are well known to have a 10% rating.
If that doesn't appeal to you... continue with your own personal charitable org.
Collect funds from like minded folk. Invest them and disburse the excess as you
see fit.
I could offer you financial advice. But, ofcourse, you don't need it
If your scheme fails, perhaps because you invested in Lloyds of Lubbock, some
Swampland in Florida and the odd Bridge or two..... no problem! You can complain
to the gubmint and they will promptly send a few dozen Jack Booted Thugs,
ooooops, I mean Federal Agents, over to your neighbor's home and force him at
gunpoint to assume the blame and financial responsibility for your unfortunate
circumstances.
No matter how destitute I would never advise anyone to engage in Armed Robbery
in order to help his "poorer" neighbors. But this is what you advocate. How
Nice.
BTW, please accuse me of being a "skinflint." My wife and family get real laughs
from those kind of responses...... considering our particular situation.
Ronin.
W. E. Woods
David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
> >
> >Why is that?
>
> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
W. E. Woods
PLMerite wrote:
>
> Joe1138 wrote in message <384b0913...@news.earthlink.net>...
> >Maybe it was an abortion that went awry.
>
> Yeah, maybe the daddy sea lion didn't want to pay sea-lion-child-support,
> and the mommy sea lion didn't want to "choose" abortion.
>
> An "automatic weapon" from an "airplane" (helicopter)? Sounds military to
> me. If this story is from April, did they ever come back with any
> information on the calibre/type of weapon used?
>
> It's bad enough the grabbers whine about the druggies killing each other;
> now we have to listen to them whine about sea lions.
>
> Regards, PLMerite
>
> >> Pregnant Sea Lion Found Shot
> >>Possible Fly By Shooting
> >>
> >>GEARHART, Ore., Posted 12:38 p.m. April 8, 1999 -- A sea lion washed
> >>ashore on the Oregon coast near Gearhart, pregnant and shot.
> >>
> >>Portland State University professor Debbie Duffield examined the
> >>Stellar sea lion and found a series of bullet wounds inside the
> >>animal.
> >>
> >>Duffield says the patterns of the wounds suggest the animal had been
> >>shot from an airplane with an automatic weapon, reports KOIN 6 News.
I'd sure like to see how he "figured" that out.
W. E. Woods
PLMerite wrote:
>
> Joe1138 wrote in message <384b0913...@news.earthlink.net>...
> >Maybe it was an abortion that went awry.
>
> Yeah, maybe the daddy sea lion didn't want to pay sea-lion-child-support,
> and the mommy sea lion didn't want to "choose" abortion.
>
> An "automatic weapon" from an "airplane" (helicopter)? Sounds military to
> me. If this story is from April, did they ever come back with any
> information on the calibre/type of weapon used?
>
> It's bad enough the grabbers whine about the druggies killing each other;
> now we have to listen to them whine about sea liX-Mozilla-Status: 0009LMerite
W. E. Woods
David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
> >
> >Why is that?
>
> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, X-Mozilla-Status: 0009es to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
The-Trainers
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, W. E. Woods wrote:
>
>
> David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >
> > In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
> > >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
> > >
> > >Why is that?
> >
> > Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> > deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
>
>
> So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
> children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
That IS the communist/socialist way.
They can ONLY make people "equal" by making certain that everyone will
fall down to the LOWEST performance of the most useless persons in
the nation so that nobody will be "better" off than anyone else.
Sure seems to have worked for the USSR!
MT
The-Trainers
MT
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!qcarh002.nortelnetworks.com!bcarh189.ca.nortel.com!zcarh46f.bnr.ca!despams.ocunix.on.ca!nocemed!udpcancel!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <cancel.Pine.BSF.4.21.99...@shell11.ba.best.com>
Control: cancel <Pine.BSF.4.21.991215...@shell11.ba.best.com>
Subject: cmsg cancel <Pine.BSF.4.21.991215...@shell11.ba.best.com>
From: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Sender: The-Trainers <trai...@best.com>
Approved: cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: uk.test,at.test,de.test,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
X-Original-Date: 15 Dec 1999 23:19:07 GMT
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.132.175.53
X-Cancel-ID: f3q5tyZlkp@8845162425^$MYXNIYKBXU
Lines: 1
Date: 15 Dec 1999 23:19:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.66.32.10
X-Trace: reader1.interactive.net 945299786 209.66.32.10 (Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:16:26 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:16:26 EST
VSNL spam <Pine.BSF.4.21.991215...@shell11.ba.best.com> cancelled by cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
David Salvador Flores
>
>> David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>
>> > I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
>> > all of the wealth, just some of it).
>>
>> Why is that?
>
>Idjot! Not only for holding that opinion. But for presenting it in a
>libertarian NG.
I'm sorry if it causes you psychological distress to find opposing
viewponts argued in a public forum, but you do realize that there are
*moderated* newsgroups for people like yourself who can't stand to read
messages that might challenge the essential insularity of their world
view, don't you?
>
>Ronin.
>
>
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
>> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
>> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
>> >
>> >Why is that?
>>
>> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
>
>
>So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
>children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
A piece, yes.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
>
>> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
>> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
>> >
>> >Why is that?
>>
>> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
>> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
>
>suggestion: Establish an NGO for the purpose of providing financial and other
>support to those which *you* deem worthy.
If this would take care of the need, then I'd be perfectly content to do
it that way, but it won't.
-Dave
Ronin
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> If this would take care of the need, then I'd be perfectly content to do
> it that way, but it won't.
Why won't it?
Ronin.
David Salvador Flores
Because the need is too great.
>
>Ronin.
>
-Dave
W. E. Woods
David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> In article <38574E3B...@ix.netcom.com>,
> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
> >> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
> >> >
> >> >Why is that?
> >>
> >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> >> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
> >
> >
> >So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
> >children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
>
> A piece, yes.
Really? Justify that statement as anything but base thievery. I can give
what I wish, but no one has a right to steal from me.
Daniel J. Lavigne
>
> David Salvador Flores wrote:
> > >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of
> > >> >> wealth (not of all of the wealth, just some of it).
> > >> >
> > >> >Why is that?
> > >>
> > >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> > >> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
> > >
> > >So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
> > >children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
> >
> > A piece, yes.
>
> Really? Justify that statement as anything but base thievery. I can
> give what I wish, but no one has a right to steal from me.
No one is stealing from you. They are merely doing that which you
permit them by the same laws and societal arrangements (The social
contract.) which allow you to approve and applaud the development
of nuclear and other weapons of mass murder that, according to your
past posts, IIRC, you are pleased your government has threatened to
use, *If Need Be*, in order to protect your nation's access to the
world's now rapidly diminishing resources.
> "Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
> what ships are built for."
True. Nuclear weapons are not meant to be useless icons of depravity.
They are meant to enforce the evil will of depraved / foolish people.
> "Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
A GEM! Tax laws have given you just that!
And with that ambiguity, the deceit of taking according to what
you have in order to support those who are quite willing to sit
AND receive AND VOTE in favour of the ideathat the will of the
greatest number of fools prevail, has led you to the totality of
*ambiguity*. Feast on it as you:
*Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!*
Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
Pay Them All On Time!
Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
And Coat Your World With Slime!
Ignore The Madness Of Your Thoughts
Your Minds Not Yours To Change!
Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
And Live Your Lives In Vain!
Copyright. December 18, 1999 Daniel J. Lavigne
Now, if you have grown weary of supporting societal insanity, go to:
http://www.connection.com/~taxfree
and learn *why* the Canadian Government DARES NOT confront
my determined attempt to *FORCE* it to deal with the issue
of everyone's right and duty to stop supporting, or paying
taxes to, a society that is actively participating in plans
and preparations that are predicated on a will and capacity
to mass murder millions.
Then, should you wish to know more of the philosophy that
guides a Tax Refusal that is spreading like wildfire,
mail $50.00 to the indicated address for your copy of
*Mankind - Mancruel // A Choice - A Duty* and your
official -TAX EXEMPT STATUS- card.
IT IS BEING USED throughout Canada without challenge by CCRA;
and may be used anywhere in the world to confront the insanity
of humanity's will and capacity to use weapons of mass murder.
Please indicate how your name should appear on the card.
To a safer, saner world. To Duty.
Frank Ney
Ronin <ad...@cdsnet.net> to write:
>> If this would take care of the needy, then I'd be perfectly content to do
>> it that way, but it won't.
>
>Why won't it?
Because in today's legal climate you'd end up with a system much like the
federal welfare system we have today -- 50% of the funds going towards a
bureaucracy whose sole function is to flush out the one in a thousand who
abuse the system. And if you deny benefits to someone that the NGO deems
unworthy, you'll be spending the other half defending yourself from
government goons sent at the behest of the denied.
Keep welfare private and local. This is one of the functions of private
charities and religious institutions, not of government except as an
absolute last resort, and in those cases the Pauper's Oath should apply.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"On Time, On Budget, On Mars: Pick Two."
- The new motto of NASA
Just Say No to Gestapo Tactics http://www.freespeech.org/justsayno
Abuses by the BATF http://www.hamnet.net/~n4zhg/batfabus.html
L. Neil Smith for President! http://www.lns2000.org
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GAT d- s:+ a35 C$ L++>++++$ P+ W++ N++ o-- K- w>--- O(++) M-
PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+ 5++ X+ R tv+ b+++ DI+++ UF++ D++ G e+*
h* r++ y?*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Steve Hix
<wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >
> > In article <38574E3B...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of
> > >> >> wealth (not of
> > >> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
> > >> >
> > >> >Why is that?
> > >>
> > >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> > >> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
> > >
> > >
> > >So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
> > >children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
> >
> > A piece, yes.
>
> Really? Justify that statement as anything but base thievery. I can give
> what I wish, but no one has a right to steal from me.
It is much easier to justify if you know that you haven't got
what it takes to make anything of value on your own.
A problem with not a few academics and longtime government
employees, among others.
W. E. Woods
"Daniel J. Lavigne" wrote:
>
> "W. E. Woods" wrote:
> >
> > David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> > > >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of
> > > >> >> wealth (not of all of the wealth, just some of it).
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Why is that?
> > > >>
> > > >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> > > >> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
> > > >
> > > >So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
> > > >children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
> > >
> > > A piece, yes.
> >
> > Really? Justify that statement as anything but base thievery. I can
> > give what I wish, but no one has a right to steal from me.
>
> No one is stealing from you.
They certainly are.
> They are merely doing that which you
> permit them by the same laws and societal arrangements (The social
> contract.)
Nonsense. The government has extended its power far beyond what it was
granted.
> which allow you to approve and applaud the development
> of nuclear and other weapons of mass murder that, according to your
> past posts, IIRC,
You don't.
> you are pleased your government has threatened to
> use, *If Need Be*, in order to protect your nation's access to the
> world's now rapidly diminishing resources.
Gee, by your system it should be OK for us to take some from eveybody
for our own use. We'll call it taxation.
"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
what ships are built for."
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
Mary E Knadler
>> > >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of
>> > >> >> wealth (not of
>> > >> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Why is that?
>> > >>
>> > >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but
everyone deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort
into it.
>> > >
>> > >
So how much do you think other people owe you.......out of their
hard earned money.
You feel "entitled" to the fruits of others labor. A little
Marxism showing there I would say.
Have you thought of trying Cuba.........maybe you'll get a
better deal there........
David Salvador Flores
W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>
>> In article <38574E3B...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
>> >> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is that?
>> >>
>> >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
>> >> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
>> >
>> >
>> >children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
>>
>> A piece, yes.
>
>Really? Justify that statement as anything but base thievery. I can give
>what I wish, but no one has a right to steal from me.
It's called redistributive taxation. Its justification is social justice.
It is not theft, though property rights absolutists may howl a great deal
that it is.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
Mary E Knadler <yas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <sehix-8CB41D....@news7.slurp.net> Steve Hix
><se...@macol.net> writes:
>>
>><wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>> >
>>> > In article <38574E3B...@ix.netcom.com>,
>>> > W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
>>> > >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of
>>> > >> >> wealth (not of
>>> > >> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >Why is that?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but
>everyone deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort
>into it.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>
>hard earned money.
Me? Nothing. I lead a decent life after putting in an honest effort. I
need no help.
>
>You feel "entitled" to the fruits of others labor. A little
>Marxism showing there I would say.
Again, I personally don't need it. Call it Marxism if you wish.
>
>Have you thought of trying Cuba.........maybe you'll get a
>better deal there........
-Dave
ironhorzmn
While you're going after a 'piece' of what I have made, others are trying to
get a 'piece' of what YOU have!
Today, anyone who has made more than a million dollars is 'evil', and MUST
be punitively taxed to 'distribute the wealth'.....if this idea is followed
to its 'logical' conclusion, tomorrow those who eat THREE meals a day will
be 'evil' when others only eat TWO meals per day....think about it!
Mary E Knadler wrote in message <83p6ae$6s0$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>...
>In <sehix-8CB41D....@news7.slurp.net> Steve Hix
><se...@macol.net> writes:
>>
>>In article <385CBE56...@ix.netcom.com>, "W. E. Woods"
>><wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>> >
>>> > In article <38574E3B...@ix.netcom.com>,
>>> > W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
>>> > >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of
>>> > >> >> wealth (not of
>>> > >> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >Why is that?
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but
>everyone deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort
>into it.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>
>So how much do you think other people owe you.......out of their
>hard earned money.
>
>You feel "entitled" to the fruits of others labor. A little
>Marxism showing there I would say.
>
W. E. Woods
David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> In article <385CBE56...@ix.netcom.com>,
> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <38574E3B...@ix.netcom.com>,
> >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> >> >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
> >> >> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why is that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> >> >> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
> >> >children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
> >>
> >> A piece, yes.
> >
> >Really? Justify that statement as anything but base thievery. I can give
> >what I wish, but no one has a right to steal from me.
>
> It's called redistributive taxation.
Yeah, and whale shit is really rose petals. "Redistributive taxation" is
theft.
> Its justification is social justice.
There is no justification for it.
> It is not theft,
Sure it is. Hey, call a spade an earth redistribution device if you
wish, but it's still just a shovel.
> though property rights absolutists may howl a great deal
> that it is.
Correctly.
David Salvador Flores
ironhorzmn <ironh...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Just remember, you would-be government-backed parasites....
>
>While you're going after a 'piece' of what I have made, others are trying to
>get a 'piece' of what YOU have!
Yup... it's called taxes, and as you point out, we *both* pay them.
>
>Today, anyone who has made more than a million dollars is 'evil', and MUST
>be punitively taxed to 'distribute the wealth'.....if this idea is followed
>to its 'logical' conclusion, tomorrow those who eat THREE meals a day will
>be 'evil' when others only eat TWO meals per day....think about it!
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the economy is a zero sum
game, and that therefore are only so many meals to go around. This is
hardly the case. There's much, much more than enough for everyone to have
three square meals.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>
>> In article <385CBE56...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <38574E3B...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
>> >> >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
>> >> >> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Why is that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
>> >> >> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
>> >> >children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
>> >>
>> >> A piece, yes.
>> >
>> >Really? Justify that statement as anything but base thievery. I can give
>> >what I wish, but no one has a right to steal from me.
>>
>> It's called redistributive taxation.
>
>Yeah, and whale shit is really rose petals. "Redistributive taxation" is
>theft.
No it's not. Communists are wrong when they call property theft, and
Libertarians are just as wrong when they refer to taxation as theft.
-Dave
Alan Bush
>
> "W. E. Woods" wrote:
> >
> > David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> > > >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of
> > > >> >> wealth (not of all of the wealth, just some of it).
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Why is that?
> > > >>
> > > >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> > > >> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
> > > >
> > > >So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
> > > >children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
> > >
> > > A piece, yes.
> >
> > Really? Justify that statement as anything but base thievery. I can
> > give what I wish, but no one has a right to steal from me.
>
suggest that extortion that is backed up by the threat of being
kidnapped at gunpoint and held hostage isn't theft.
They are merely doing that which you
> permit them by the same laws and societal arrangements (The social
> contract.)
Yes, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that they would merely
arrest me instead of killing me, but the police would murder me if I
resisted arrest; surely being shot to death is preferable to spending a
lifetime in prison. Ask yourself this: What is law? Law is an order
issued by government officials that are authorized to do so. There are
some laws that are consistently enforced and others that aren't. Taxes
just happen to be backed up by laws that are. Government is not reason,
it is not eloquence, it is force. There is no social contract. A
contract is something you enter into voluntarily, and being born on a
gang's turf does not constitute consent even if that gang is large
enough and dishonest enough to claim that it is a government of the
people, for the people, and by the people. Forget what your civics
teacher told you in high school. The purpose of government is to levy
taxes, fight wars, and to come closer to monopolizing the use of force
than any entity that does not call itself a government.
> of nuclear and other weapons of mass murder that, according to your
> use, *If Need Be*, in order to protect your nation's access to the
> world's now rapidly diminishing resources.
for that is government land ownership. As for nuclear weapons, I don't
trust human beings with weapons of mass destruction. I consider it wrong
to kill a relatively innocent person, even if doing so is neccessary for
self defense. However, nuclear weapons are a great way to intimidate
foreign dictators. I admit it's a tough issue. Should the government do
what's right and dismantle the nuclear weapons or should it defend
itself by keeping such weapons and in the process protect our liberty
against foreign tyrants?
> > "Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
> > what ships are built for."
>
> They are meant to enforce the evil will of depraved / foolish people.
>
>
>
> And with that ambiguity, the deceit of taking according to what
> you have in order to support those who are quite willing to sit
> AND receive AND VOTE in favour of the ideathat the will of the
> greatest number of fools prevail, has led you to the totality of
> *ambiguity*. Feast on it as you:
Look, we all have our pet government programs which we would never want
Uncle Sam to cut spending on. For me that's military spending, for my
grandparents, whose computer I'm writing this message on, their pet
government program is Social Security. (Ever notice how statists call
everything they like either "security" or "social" and everything they
hate "antifamily" or "selfish?") Unfortunately, if the Federal budget is
ever going to be cut, we'll need to figure out a way to elect
politicians who will be able to guide the country and its tyrannical
government through a smooth transition to laissez-faire capitalism.
>
> *Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!*
>
> Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
> Pay Them All On Time!
> Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
> And Coat Your World With Slime!
>
> Ignore The Madness Of Your Thoughts
> Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
> And Live Your Lives In Vain!
>
> Copyright. December 18, 1999 Daniel J. Lavigne
>
> Now, if you have grown weary of supporting societal insanity, go to:
>
> http://www.connection.com/~taxfree
>
> and learn *why* the Canadian Government DARES NOT confront
> my determined attempt to *FORCE* it to deal with the issue
> of everyone's right and duty to stop supporting, or paying
> taxes to, a society that is actively participating in plans
> and preparations that are predicated on a will and capacity
> to mass murder millions.
but I have a much different complaint. You don't pay taxes to society,
you pay taxes to the government. In the US that includes the Federal
govenrnment, the state, the county government, and in some areas as many
as four other governments. I don't know what the case is in Canada, but
I imagine it's about the same.
Alan Bush
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:50:37 -0800, an orbiting mind control laser caused
> Ronin <ad...@cdsnet.net> to write:
>
> >> If this would take care of the needy, then I'd be perfectly content to do
> >> it that way, but it won't.
> >
> >Why won't it?
>
> Because in today's legal climate you'd end up with a system much like the
> federal welfare system we have today -- 50% of the funds going towards a
> bureaucracy whose sole function is to flush out the one in a thousand who
> abuse the system. And if you deny benefits to someone that the NGO deems
> unworthy, you'll be spending the other half defending yourself from
> government goons sent at the behest of the denied.
>
> Keep welfare private and local. This is one of the functions of private
> charities and religious institutions, not of government except as an
> absolute last resort, and in those cases the Pauper's Oath should apply.
doctor to have the broken leg fixed and to get crutches? Of course not!
Well, that's basically what the poor do. The government breaks their
legs (in other words, makes housing unaffordable for the underclass and
uses minimum wage and other red tape to deny them jobs) and then gives
them a crutch (welfare).
Welfare, food stamps, etc. aren't charity. They are theft followed by
redistribution. Charity is when you give money to bums. If you care
about the poor, go into Southeast DC with a wad of cash and hand it out
to the common folks. Just don't demand that someone else pay charity
through taxes. Most of the money the government claims to be giving to
the poor goes to rich people with government jobs.
Ronin
"W. E. Woods" wrote:
> > No one is stealing from you.
>
> They certainly are.
Correct.
> Nonsense.
Correct.
> The government has extended its power far beyond what it was
> granted.
Nonsense. Read the Big C (the us constitution) in whole, not just the parts you
like, and read exaclty what is written, not what you wish or have been told is
written therein all your life.
> You don't.
He might be referring to me. I do advocate R&D of NBC,
> > you are pleased your government has threatened to
> > use, *If Need Be*, in order to protect your nation's access to the
> > world's now rapidly diminishing resources.
>
> Gee, by your system it should be OK for us to take some from eveybody
> for our own use. We'll call it taxation.
Good response.....And he'll be the first to call for the use of dedly weapons if
you disagree with his taxation schemes.
Why argue with proven Statists that have no interest in libertarianism?
Ronin.
W. E. Woods
Ronin wrote:
>
> Greetings.
>
> "W. E. Woods" wrote:
>
> > > No one is stealing from you.
> >
> > They certainly are.
>
> Correct.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> Correct.
>
> > The government has extended its power far beyond what it was
> > granted.
>
> Nonsense. Read the Big C (the us constitution) in whole, not just the parts you
> like, and read exaclty what is written, not what you wish or have been told is
> written therein all your life.
Wrong assumption. I have studied the Constitution, many supporting
documents, and a good bit of conlaw over the years. I find it quite
interesting. I also find it quite interesting how little many people
know about it, especially those who think the FedGov is currently
working within Constitutional grounds and limits. They aren't.
>
> > You don't.
>
> He might be referring to me. I do advocate R&D of NBC,
Removal and destruction of a TV network? (The reference was missing).
OTOH, it could just be that I don't think he recalls correctly.
>
> > > you are pleased your government has threatened to
> > > use, *If Need Be*, in order to protect your nation's access to the
> > > world's now rapidly diminishing resources.
> >
> > Gee, by your system it should be OK for us to take some from eveybody
> > for our own use. We'll call it taxation.
>
> Good response.....And he'll be the first to call for the use of dedly weapons if
> you disagree with his taxation schemes.
Absolutely.
>
> Why argue with proven Statists that have no interest in libertarianism?
For the same reason you lance a boil, I suppose.
"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
what ships are built for."
"Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
W. E. Woods
David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> In article <3860E795...@ix.netcom.com>,
> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <385CBE56...@ix.netcom.com>,
> >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <38574E3B...@ix.netcom.com>,
> >> >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In article <3854D52A...@ix.netcom.com>,
> >> >> >> W. E. Woods <wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> I believe there is a need for government re-distribution of wealth (not of
> >> >> >> >> all of the wealth, just some of it).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Why is that?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because not everyone is as talented as everyone else, but everyone
> >> >> >> deserves to lead a decent life if they put an honest effort into it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So if I work my buns off and make something decent for myself and my
> >> >> >children, everybody else is entitled to a piece of it?
> >> >>
> >> >> A piece, yes.
> >> >
> >> >Really? Justify that statement as anything but base thievery. I can give
> >> >what I wish, but no one has a right to steal from me.
> >>
> >> It's called redistributive taxation.
> >
> >Yeah, and whale shit is really rose petals. "Redistributive taxation" is
> >theft.
>
> No it's not.
Yes it is.
> Communists are wrong when they call property theft,
True.
> and
> Libertarians are just as wrong when they refer to taxation as theft.
No, their not. OTOH, if taxes are being used for the common good, ie.
the national defense, etc. then a case can be made for that tax. OTGH,
if taxes are being used to house and feed punks, pukes, junkies,
slackers, and other refuse, it most definitely *is* theft. The
government has no right to "redistribute" wealth, nor was it granted
that power under the Constitution.
Ronin
"W. E. Woods" wrote:
> > Nonsense. Read the Big C (the us constitution) in whole, not just the parts you
> > like, and read exaclty what is written, not what you wish or have been told is
> > written therein all your life.
>
> Wrong assumption. I have studied the Constitution, many supporting
> documents, and a good bit of conlaw over the years.
I do not doubt your sincerity. I do not doubt you have put great effort into con
studies. I have done likewise. And until recent yrs. I believed as you do (or similar
to).
The assumption I made, based on your posts in support of the Big C is; that you fail
to read the document verbatim and *instead* impart attributes to it that are or seem
to be based on the DoI and other research. NOT on EXACTLY what is written. In
addition you fail to take into consideration, or just ignore, numerous factors (named
but wiling to do so again) that make the document completely worthless as written.
(from a freedom pov)
> I find it quite
> interesting.
Good. Honest, impartial study elevates us. It is difficult to do so with a mind free
of decades of pro-gubmint propaganda.
The MYTH, the Big Lie (credit; Goebbels) MUST be maintained for the statist quo to
remain in force.
The MYTH: We live in a free nation.
The Big Lie: The us constitution secures and protects our human rights.
Look at it this way: If we do not radically alter our socio-political system....we
can expect "more of the same" in the future.
> I also find it quite interesting how little many people
> know about it,
I find it disappointing. Pathetic coming from those seeking to argue same. (present
co. excepted <w>)
> especially those who think the FedGov is currently
> working within Constitutional grounds and limits. They aren't.
I can and have proven they are and have (with some exceptions, ies; the most
famous... the Loouisiana Purchase, the most infamous... Lincon's suspension of habeas
corpus.) always operated constitutionally.
"It's the Big C.... stupid." <humor>
> > He might be referring to me. I do advocate R&D of NBC,
>
> Removal and destruction of a TV network? (The reference was missing).
<chuckle>
> OTOH, it could just be that I don't think he recalls correctly.
Excusable. Happens to all of us. This is why I have a huge hard drive (20 gigs plus a
six gig Firewire and a 100 meg Zip) and file everything.
BTW, that's Reseach and Development of Nuclear, Bacteriological and Chemical......
weapons.
> > Why argue with proven Statists that have no interest in libertarianism?
>
> For the same reason you lance a boil, I suppose.
I find that this "project" (assigned, i didn't volunteer <sigh>) takes up so much of
my time that I refuse to waste too much of it on the undeserving.
Ronin.
W. E. Woods
Ronin wrote:
>
> Greetings.
>
> "W. E. Woods" wrote:
>
> > > Nonsense. Read the Big C (the us constitution) in whole, not just the parts you
> > > like, and read exaclty what is written, not what you wish or have been told is
> > > written therein all your life.
> >
> > Wrong assumption. I have studied the Constitution, many supporting
> > documents, and a good bit of conlaw over the years.
>
> I do not doubt your sincerity. I do not doubt you have put great effort into con
> studies. I have done likewise. And until recent yrs. I believed as you do (or similar
> to).
>
> The assumption I made, based on your posts in support of the Big C is; that you fail
> to read the document verbatim and *instead* impart attributes to it that are or seem
> to be based on the DoI and other research. NOT on EXACTLY what is written. In
> addition you fail to take into consideration, or just ignore, numerous factors (named
> but wiling to do so again) that make the document completely worthless as written.
> (from a freedom pov)
You assume too much.
>
> > I find it quite
> > interesting.
>
> Good. Honest, impartial study elevates us. It is difficult to do so with a mind free
> of decades of pro-gubmint propaganda.
>
> The MYTH, the Big Lie (credit; Goebbels) MUST be maintained for the statist quo to
> remain in force.
>
> The MYTH: We live in a free nation.
>
> The Big Lie: The us constitution secures and protects our human rights.
It does. The current government is simply out of control.
>
> Look at it this way: If we do not radically alter our socio-political system....we
> can expect "more of the same" in the future.
Yup. We must "radically alter our socio-political system" back to what
it is supposed to be.
>
> > I also find it quite interesting how little many people
> > know about it,
>
> I find it disappointing. Pathetic coming from those seeking to argue same. (present
> co. excepted <w>)
>
> > especially those who think the FedGov is currently
> > working within Constitutional grounds and limits. They aren't.
>
> I can and have proven they are and have (with some exceptions, ies; the most
> famous... the Loouisiana Purchase, the most infamous... Lincon's suspension of habeas
> corpus.) always operated constitutionally.
Only if you accept the idea that whatever the government decides is
Constitutional actually *is* Constitutional. That is a quicksand
arguement.
>
> "It's the Big C.... stupid." <humor>
>
> > > He might be referring to me. I do advocate R&D of NBC,
> >
> > Removal and destruction of a TV network? (The reference was missing).
>
> <chuckle>
>
> > OTOH, it could just be that I don't think he recalls correctly.
>
> Excusable. Happens to all of us. This is why I have a huge hard drive (20 gigs plus a
> six gig Firewire and a 100 meg Zip) and file everything.
>
> BTW, that's Reseach and Development of Nuclear, Bacteriological and Chemical......
> weapons.
Yeah, I know.
>
> > > Why argue with proven Statists that have no interest in libertarianism?
> >
> > For the same reason you lance a boil, I suppose.
>
> I find that this "project" (assigned, i didn't volunteer <sigh>) takes up so much of
> my time that I refuse to waste too much of it on the undeserving.
>
> Ronin.
--
W. E. Woods
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> Again, I personally don't need it. Call it Marxism if you wish.
Or simply theft.
Xpander
<wew...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> David Salvador Flores wrote:
>
> > Again, I personally don't need it. Call it Marxism if you wish.
>
> Or simply theft.
*Very* simply. As in manipulation of the simple.
HTH
Frank Ney
Ronin <ad...@cdsnet.net> to write:
>The MYTH: We live in a free nation.
>
>The Big Lie: The us constitution secures and protects our human rights.
>
>Look at it this way: If we do not radically alter our socio-political system....we
>can expect "more of the same" in the future.
I disagree.
We do not need to alter our political system.
We need to alter those people abusing our political system. From breathing
tyrants to object lessons swinging from lamp posts along Constitution
Avenue.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"On Time, On Budget, On Mars: Pick Two."
- The new motto of NASA
http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/99dec/19991212.html
Daniel J. Lavigne
Alan Bush <ssmi...@erols.com> wrote:
> Daniel J. Lavigne wrote:
> > No one is stealing from you.
> Oh right, the IRS is just extorting that. How dare he be so rash
> as to suggest that extortion that is backed up by the threat of
> being kidnapped at gunpoint and held hostage isn't theft.
> > They are merely doing that which you permit them by the same
> > laws and societal arrangements (The social contract.) which
> > allow you to approve and applaud the development of nuclear
> > and other weapons of mass murder that, according to your past
> > posts, IIRC, you are pleased your government has threatened to
> > use, *If Need Be*, in order to protect your nation's access
> > to the world's now rapidly diminishing resources.
> Yes, I permit them to, but only because they would kill me if
> I didn't. Yes, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that
> they would merely arrest me instead of killing me, but the police
> would murder me if I resisted arrest; surely being shot to death
> is preferable to spending a lifetime in prison.
You are *saying* a lot of things. Are you sufficiently aware
of your worth as a human being to simply refuse, whatever the
cost, ANY ORDER OR DEMAND THAT YOU HELP FOOLS AND COWARDS DO
WHAT THEY WILL TO ALL OTHERS??
> Ask yourself this: What is law? Law is an order issued by
> government officials that are authorized to do so. There are
> some laws that are consistently enforced and others that aren't.
I promote a full and wholesome adherence to *The Rule Of Law*.
Such an act requires that you refuse to accede to those who
would demand your compliance with unjust and insupportable
laws or dictates that purport to be the result of *The Rule
Of Law* acting for the *General Good*.
> Taxes just happen to be backed up by laws that are.
> Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.
True. Would you allow criminals to continue their acts
because insufficient of your neighbours dare to act in
concert to uphold *The Rule Of Law*??
> There is no social contract.
You err. Or you are speaking as one who simply refuses to
recognize that public roads and the will and determination
of young men and women to study for some nine years in order
to practice their skills as medical doctors and help thereby
the whole of society to enjoy the gifts that are ours, ARE
widely available due to our willingness to work *together* for
*The Common Good*. If you feel *left out* of that contract, can
it be that you have not spent enough time in or on your nation's
hospitals and highways so as to appreciate the fact that all such
services are the DIRECT result of the majority having sufficient
sense of self-worth as to support the need of a common will and
desire that an intelligent species work *together* in order that
otherwise unmanageable problems be brought in line and overcome
by a public will that all benefit thereby??
> A contract is something you enter into voluntarily, and being
> born on a gang's turf does not constitute consent even if that
> gang is large enough and dishonest enough to claim that it is a
> government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
True. A government that acts against the peoples true interests
must never be supported. Indeed, it must be subjected to actions
that will tend to bring about its collapse. Such was the result
when Mikhail Gorbachev decided TO FORCE the USSR to enter the
20th Century before the 21st Century rang the bell on the lack
of worthwhile achievement by its otherwise extremely intelligent
but misguided and badly led populace. His actions nearly cost him
his life. Dare you emulate the *men* of this world? Dare you *act*
on your *beliefs*?? Or is such *too much* to expect of you?
> Forget what your civics teacher told you in high school.
Sorry. I can't do that. He was right on most issues; the most
important being to listen to each and every argument and to be
very sure before taking sides. So far, I see no concept, or
coalescing abstract of thought, that would tend to have me
believe that you are interested in anything other than *self*.
> The purpose of government is to levy taxes, fight wars, and
> to come closer to monopolizing the use of force than
> any entity that does not call itself a government.
Do your neighbours share this view? Have you openly dicussed
your concerns with your local mayor; or sent a letter to your
President, Congress or the Supreme Court with regard to such
issues?? Have you offered to show a way by which *ALL* can live
together without reliance on a need to believe that we MUST
always be prepared to mass murder each other??
> The world's only rapidly diminishing resource is land, and
> the reason for that is government land ownership.
*Only*?? You err. And you should be aware that you err badly . .
> As for nuclear weapons, I don't trust human beings
> with weapons of mass destruction.
Hmmm; *weapons of mass destruction*??? Why are you adopting
your government's use of such terminology?? The correct
description, one that denies the wilful developers of such
weapons any moral defense of their will and capacity to use
such weapons, is: **WEAPONS OF MASS MURDER**
> I consider it wrong to kill a relatively innocent person,
> even if doing so is necessary for self defense.
How can murdering even *one* innocent person
EVER BE SEEN as *necessary* to self-defence?
It seems that you failed to take time to consider that
which you are delving into; matters for which you have
failed to prepare yourself to understand or recognize
as the focus of my non-stop efforts . . .
> However, nuclear weapons are a great way to intimidate foreign
> dictators. I admit it's a tough issue. Should the government do
> what's right and dismantle the nuclear weapons or should it defend
> itself by keeping such weapons and in the process protect our
> liberty against foreign tyrants?
Hmmmm . . Try posing *protect our liberty against
foreign tyrants* AGAINST YOUR OTHER STATEMENT:
> As for nuclear weapons, I don't trust human beings with
> weapons of mass destruction. I consider it wrong to kill
> a relatively innocent person, even if doing so is
> neccessary for self defense.
Hmmm. WHAT DO YOU WANT; really?? Perhaps I am correct
in assuming that you want *others* to bear the costs of
roads, hopsitals and schools and that you don't mind if
the government you claim to detest (By inference.), and
will not otherwise support, has to murder *innocents* in
order to grant you a continuing right to bitch and complain
that you shouldn't have to pay for roads, etc. AND PROTECTION
against your ilk wherever they may be in the world at large??
Can it be that you have, just about now, realized that
your silly, dusty and flightless feathers are now being
plucked, slow and painfully so . . . one by one??
> > > "Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
> > > what ships are built for."
> >
> > True. Nuclear weapons are not meant to be useless icons of depravity.
> > They are meant to enforce the evil will of depraved / foolish people.
> >
> > > "Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"
> >
> > A GEM! Tax laws have given you just that!
> >
> > And with that ambiguity, the deceit of taking according to what
> > you have in order to support those who are quite willing to sit
> > AND receive AND VOTE in favour of the idea that the will of the
> > greatest number of fools prevail, has led you to the totality of
> > *ambiguity*. Feast on it as you:
> > *Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!*
> >
> > Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
> > Pay Them All On Time!
> > Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
> > And Coat Your World With Slime!
> >
> > Ignore The Madness Of Your Thoughts
> > Your Mind's Not Yours To Change!
> > Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
> > And Live Your Lives In Vain!
> >
> > Copyright. December 18, 1999 Daniel J. Lavigne
> I think whoever wrote this was referring to welfare
> and social security.
I wrote the above. I was NOT referring to any such
matters. And *you* WERE NOT THINKING . . . . . .
It should have been adequately apparent that I am mocking
the costs of the greed of your ilk to have *ALL* while *others*
are made to bear the costs of your having that *ALL*; including
the will and capacity of your kind to turn a blind eye to that
which your government would do, in your name, and WITH YOUR TAX
DOLLARS, including the murder of millions, including the baking,
boiling or other butchering of innocents including children in
their beds or at school; in order that whiners such as your selfish
and continually whining ilk continue to have the first and secure
access to the common teat before any others have a chance to share
in the provenance of a naturally limited, and self-limiting, *Nature*.
> Look, we all have our pet government programs which we would never
> want Uncle Sam to cut spending on. For me that's military spending,
KA-BOOM! At the very least; one can say that your
utter and overwhelming hypocrisy is CONSISTENT!!!
> for my grandparents, whose computer I'm writing this message
> on, their pet government program is Social Security. (Ever
> notice how statists call everything they like either "security"
> or "social" and everything they hate "antifamily" or "selfish?")
Hmmm . . and a triple hmmm & hmmm!! See above . . and try
to *prove* to those who see through empty argument in mere
seconds that you are not a born in the manger *statist*
> Unfortunately, if the Federal budget is ever going to be
> cut, we'll need to figure out a way to elect politicians who
> will be able to guide the country and its tyrannical government
> through a smooth transition to laissez-faire capitalism.
Hmmm. I see . . you would have us believe that you expect
that *others* will pay your taxes, pave your roads, teach
your teachers, train your doctors and threaten all others
with mass murder if they dare to interfere with your government's
determination and acts to assure America access to the world's
rapidly diminishing natural resources such as oil???
OH! I forgot! You believe that *land* is the only
*diminishing resource*!! How gauche of me! I'm so
sorry!! BOO-HOO! Fun times over! Now, prepare to . .
> > *Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!*
> >
> > Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
> > Pay Them All On Time!
> > Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
> > And Coat Your World With Slime!
> >
> > Ignore The Madness Of Your Thoughts
> > Your Mind's Not Yours To Change!
> > Pay Your Taxes Promptly, Fools!
> > And Live Your Lives In Vain!
> >
> > Copyright. December 18, 1999 Daniel J. Lavigne
> >
> > Now, if you have grown weary of supporting societal insanity, go to:
> >
> > http://www.connection.com/~taxfree
> >
> > and learn *why* the Canadian Government DARES NOT confront
> > my determined attempt to *FORCE* it to deal with the issue
> > of everyone's right and duty to stop supporting, or paying
> > taxes to, a society that is actively participating in plans
> > and preparations that are predicated on a will and capacity
> > to mass murder millions.
> What you just said will be seen by many as being too strongly worded,
> but I have a much different complaint. You don't pay taxes to society,
> you pay taxes to the government.
Alan!! Your society is responsible for selecting the slate of
those who shall stand for election! Or are you trying to tell
us that your's is a dead *democracy* and thereby serves America's
elite, and no one else, in *The Land Of The Free*??
*Too strongly worded*? I charged the Federal Court Of
Canada - Trial Division with *Contempt Of Court* and stood
and cursed that court's fear for its own interests as it fled
the courtroom, not daring to challenge my determination to have
its masters publicly address my claim that *ALL* have a right and
duty as stated in the Tax Refusal's proclamation:
"All have a lawful right and duty to refuse to support or
assist any society participating in plans and preparations
involving the will and capacity to commit mass murder."
Truly . . the above is a mild call to action that has been heeded
by those with spine and character sufficient to reject any call
that they abandon hope that the few can make a difference in a world
that is populated by a majority that would have *others* do all the
difficult tasks . .
Now, read my latest appeal to those who remain
able and willing to think for themselves:
To all who have become disgusted at the total and outright
insanity and hypocrisy that marks and MUST proceed the payment
of taxes, or offering of other support, to ANY nation or
society that participates in plans and preparations that
are based on a will and capacity to mass murder millions;
go to: http://www.connection.com/~taxfree
Then, mail $100.00 to the indicated address for your copy of
*Mankind - Mancruel // A Choice - A Duty* and your
registered -TAX EXEMPT STATUS- card AND USE IT until
your government dares to demand that you cease and desist!!!
REMEMBER
(a) That your name will be registered and possibly subject to
illegal access by any government that chooses to use force to
obtain the names of the various participants in the Tax Refusal;
including those who do not yet wish to mail their *notice* to
their government; and,
(b) The Tax Refusal's proclamation:
"All have a lawful right and duty to refuse to support or
assist any society participating in plans and preparations
involving the will and capacity to commit mass murder."
Please indicate how your name should appear on the card.
If you don't have spine to *ACT* and use such a card at present, ask
your friends what you should do with the knowledge that *The Rule Of
Law* demands that you refuse to support the insupportable. Thank You.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ronin
Frank Ney wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:20:25 -0800, an orbiting mind control laser
I haven't killfiled you yet? Stick this kind of crap up your ass.
> caused
> Ronin <ad...@cdsnet.net> to write:
>
> >The MYTH: We live in a free nation.
> >
> >The Big Lie: The us constitution secures and protects our human rights.
> >
> >Look at it this way: If we do not radically alter our socio-political system....we
> >can expect "more of the same" in the future.
>
> I disagree.
Cool.
> We do not need to alter our political system.
Incorrect. I have offered unrefuted (hard to argue with direct quotes from the Big C,
2+2=4... whether you like it or not) evidence. But essentially all one needs to point
to is: Democracy.......
Democratic systems are BY NATURE Statist. No One Has Unalienable Rights in a
democracy. Slavery of the many over the few......
Game, set, match......
> We need to alter those people abusing our political system.
Correct. Along with those using it properly.
> From breathing
> tyrants to object lessons swinging from lamp posts along Constitution
> Avenue.
Perhaps we should start with you Frank. It is clear from your writings that you
rabidly support the status quo by your vehement defense of the Big C. (among other
rants)The very document designed and used to enslave us.
Whenever I find a person on the Net of obvious intelligence and learning that ignores
clear, irrefutable evidence and offers no reasoned, cogent, logical argument in
support of his own ops. A person that exhorts us to violence while spreading pro
Statist propaganda, misinformation, disinformation and even outright lies....
I think... Hmmmm.... Troll? Agent Provocateur???? Hmmmm.
Ronin.
Robert Frenchu
hat:
>Frank Ney wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 12:20:25 -0800, an orbiting mind control laser
>
>I haven't killfiled you yet? Stick this kind of crap up your ass.
Sensitive little bastard aren't you?
Oh yeah, you already kill-filed me.
--
If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?