Kerry has voted against every pro-gun bill, and for every gun control
bill that ever came up in his terms. He has also voted against various
legislation that is pro-sportsman (read pro-hunter).
That photo op of him coming back from a goose hunt is nothing but a
publicity stunt, whether he hunted or not. Its just a feeble attempt to
get the hunter vote in spite of his voting record on hunting issues.
I'm surprised the Ducks unlimited president (I think it was?) was even
involved.
John
I'd just like to point out, there is no such thing as a gun show
loophole. Gun dealers must be licensed, period. And dealers at gun shows
must do the form 4473 and any applicable waiting periods too. So the
myth of a felon getting guns at a gun show is just that, a myth.
Only private individuals are exempt from this (except for californians),
just as if you were selling through a classified ad, word of mouth, or
to your buddy.
John
Gee, the Iraqis seem to be doing REALLY well against American troops
with just AK-47's, SKS's, and home made bombs.
If you've have paid attention at all to the various attempts to renew
the assault weapons ban, many of them actually banned outright many
semi-auto rifles, shotguns, handguns, high cap mags, and types of ammo.
No grandfather clauses, and permenant to boot.
John
hey! wake up! machine guns (10-20 rounds per second) and grenade
launchers are already regulated by the firarms act of 1934. Uzis have
been banned from import for over a decade.
The founding fathers did not have "single shot fowling pieces" in mind
when they wrote the Second Amendment. They had in mind the freedom of
man from government oppression. Did you know the british marched on
Concord to sieze cannons? privately owned cannons at that?
The whole Second Amendment concerns the individuals right to keep and
bear arms, to keep the government in check.
Show me where the founding fathers have referred to "single shot fowling
rifles".
Uzis and AK-47's aren't "offensive" purpose. They can be used in
defense. They can also be shot for sport, or even just collected for show.
Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is frightening. If you are
truly a NRA member, please reconsider your way of thinking, as it could
become a wedge of compromises that leads to complete disarmenment.
John
> The funniest moment in this campaign IMO was after the Kerry ticket carped
> for weeks about McCain running for veep with Kerry, and then McCain comes
> out at the Republican Convention and lambastes Kerry. A truly embarrasing
> moment for all Democrats. But what would you have McCain do? He is a
> Democrat who has found his party moving away from him, hijacked by the far
> left.
I find it amusing that anyone would consider the Democrats to be far left.
By world standards there's not that much of a difference in political
ideology between Democrats and Republicans.
Todd Fatheree said:
>Yet another liberal inconistency: they favor abortion and oppose capital
>punishment.
Yea, kinda like opposing abortion, but favoring gun ownership.
Let 'em grow up unwanted, poor, starving, and uneducated, but shoot
'em when they show up at your door.
A non-partisan observation - just playing devils advocate.
FWIW, I'm pro abortion within limits, and pro gun ownership.
Kill 'em all - starting with the politicians. ;-)
Greg G.
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote:
>All of you undecided voters who think Bush is just a good, responsible, well
>meaning "conservative", try to catch "A Patriot Act" on cable before next Tuesday.
Then watch "Stolen Honor". It's now freely available on the web.
My opinionated book reviews on sales topics -- http://book-reviews.hostpci.com
I seriously doubt that anyone waits a week before taking legal
possession of a machine gun. The feds need to do a background check on
you first (which takes months), then you need a OK from your county
sherrif (at his discretion), and of course, fingerprinting.
Not to mention how insanely expensive NFA (machine guns, cannons, etc) are.
John
"GregP"
> Fascism can be defined two ways: as a right-wing, authoritarian, and
> nationalistic philisophy, and as an ideology that closely aligns the
> interests of government with that of major corporations, to the
> benefit of those corporations and the elites that control them. Sound
> familiar?
Do you know what the definition of bigotry is? You're doing a good job
of playing the role. How does hurting business help the economy?
This is the kind of rhetoric the liberals use to whip up emotion to
further their political aims. Actually liberalism is far more facist, it
seeks to micromanage the citizens lives through larger and larger
government control and legislation. True conservatism calls for less
government control, not more.
> I've mentioned this a few times, but what the political discourse of
> the Western World needs to do is rehabilitate the word "Fascism" so it
> can be used appropriately,
You mean so liberals can use it to smear their enemies? They seem
to be doing a fine job of it already.
>plus consider the possibility of creating a
> new label, "Democratic Fascism", a philosophy that generally plays by
> the democratic rule of law but is otherwise dedicated to the
> principles of Fascism. I'm sure Republicans of an earlier age are
> turning over in their graves given the antics of the current crew that
> bears their proud name.
I would agree with that. Both parties have shifted left. JFK would not be
welcome in today's Democratic party, nor any other moderate. The
party bosses demonize those within their own ranks, it would be
unrecognizable
to it's forebearers. It won't be long before the word "socialist" becomes
acceptable
to the Democrats in the USofA.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:29:38 -0500, Prometheus
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>All right, all right- fine. There are all sorts of military and
>guerrilla tactics to accomplish almost any sort of military goal.
>That's freely granted. What isn't is my consent for every damn yahoo
>on the block to have a machine gun so that they can shoot up the
>neighborhood whenever they see a property tax increase.
Gun owners aren't the ones shooting up the neighborhood. Look
at any stat sheet by any group who has looked into it and you'll
see that. Criminals are the ones doing it. And they do it more
often with handguns than they do with assault rifles by a ratio
of nearly 100:1.
The odds are MUCH greater for death by doctor/hospital than
death by machine gun fire.
The old San Francisco Madame herself shows that assault weapon
use is way down there, near the 1:100 rate.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultwepsrate1.htm
I used to be anti-handgun until a friend had me look into it.
I did a 180 degree spin [joining Gary Kleck (a Florida criminology
professor) and Hans Toch (Professor at the School of Criminology,
NY State University Albany)] after reading stats from all sorts of
places, reading a good half-dozen books on the subject, and asking
the right questions. I dare you to do the same research.
Some good books:
"ARMED" by Gary Kleck & Don Yates
"More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott
Some stats:
http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/0900GUIC/Guns%20Used%20in%20Crime.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/index1.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.guncite.com/ spend some time here
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1010111/posts
The 10% of people who are against guns are all misled but are
keeping the lies alive. For your (our) own good, DO look into
it yourselves.
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:24:26 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:08 -0500, Prometheus
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>Again, I've seen all the stats. I'm not disagreeing with the
>>principle, but with the overblown rhetoric. The "they're gonna take
>>away mah gunz" folks are not always looking at the sane aspect of gun
>>ownership- they're often pushing for a personal right to fill up their
>>lawns with claymore mines and mount an anit-aircraft battery on the
>>roof. Call it hyperbole if you like, but I was raised by militia
>>supporters, and they and all their friends used the same damn
>>arguments. They were dangerous people with a high level of mental
>>illness, and I'm not going to defend that kind of loonyness.
>
>There are certainly a few loonies out there, but sanity prevails
>for the vast majority of the US population. A handful of loonies
>and the rabid anti-gun critters really are few in number. How many
>people have your militia friends killed so far? (My guess would be
>zero, as most loonies just look that way and don't follow through.)
A couple, but not gun-related. A few have been jailed for shooting
*at* people, but not hitting them.
>>>the right questions. I dare you to do the same research.
>>
>>I own a handgun. And a shotgun. And a rifle. Even some knives, too.
>>Your dare is a little weak- sometimes it takes a little courage to
>>look at the reasonable side of things, rather than just assuming that
>>"they're" out to get you.
>
>? Who just brought up paranoia? If you want that, the assault gun
>ban was that kind of trash, pure and simple. I looked at the issue
>and then jumped to the reasonable side of the fence, P.
Agreed. It was trash. I'm really in a quandry here, because I'm
really not on the opposite side of the gun-control issue here- I just
don't want to see Bush re-elected over such a relatively small
issue... the original post was smashing Kerry and declaring that he
was going to the race is close enough that the NRA vote could push it
over, and then we might *need* our guns if he keeps up his jingoistic
cowboy antics. I don't support Kerry either, but I believe that if he
is elected by a slim margin he won't treat it as a mandate- while Bush
will accept any lead as a message straight from God that he is
supposed to ram his agenda down everyone's throats. I've voted
straight-ticket Republican since I was 18 years old, and I've worked
for several political campaigns as a sign-stapler, neighborhood
canvasser, etc. and I've very dissapointed with the way the
ultra-religious right wing has hijacked an otherwise decent party and
turned it into an engine of social oppression.
The whole damn thing sickens me.
On 27 Oct 2004 15:47:37 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:29:52 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 26 Oct 2004 15:24:36 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Good to know you, you know, get all the facts and stuff before making
>>>up your mind on something.
>>
>> So by *all the facts* you mean all the facts you like, ignoring
>> whatever you don't see... Sure, most people are fine with guns.
>
>Great, you've got _some_ founding in reality.
Plenty. I try to keep it firm by not stuffing myself full of
propiganda from any quarter. That includes both the Brady faction and
the NRA equally. Again, you are misinterpreting my entire position.
You want me to be diametrically opposed to you, but I'm not- and never
was. The problem with memorizing the statistics and arguments from
gun magazines, and then trying to use them in conversation is that you
must presuppose that if someone is not 100% with you, then they are
against you. Keep your guns, enjoy them, don't blow your pinkie toe
off- it's all the same to me. I don't care to take away your guns, I
just cringe at puppet-like repetition of party lines.
>> But
>> there are plenty that are not,
>
>Yes, and they're called "criminals". You know, people who commit crimes.
That would be who I'm talking about, yes.
>> and they're they type -like it or not-
>> that tend to favor guns that look mean, have 100 round clips and come
>> with a bayonet.
>
>They do? Can you provide, you know, a cite, to back that up?
A cite? Nope. Just met a lot of criminals who like that kind of gun.
It's darn near universal in outlying areas, though it may be different
in inner city areas and such. Not everything that is true must be in
a book. Not every book contains the truth. I confront reality
through the avenue of my own senses, and have known them to decieve me
at times- so how can I possibly trust someone using a different set of
senses to tell me what is true or not, especially when I do not know
them intimately?
>> That's who I'm talking about, not joe average with
>> his nice over-under 16ga that he uses for bird hunting.
>
>So are you basing your problem on the person, or the function of the gun,
>or the appearance of the gun? I feel that where there is a problem it is
>with the person deciding to misuse it, personally. Perhaps you blame
>inatimate objects for the actions of people, but I reject that.
The person. And the propiganda.
I thought those photos were hilarious. The ones I saw never showed
Kerry actually TOUCHING the dead goose. Now if he actually gutted it
and cut off its head then ate it with Theresa over an open fire, I
might vote for him. Naw...don't think that would do it either.
Brings a tear to my eye as I conjure up growing up in central PA with a
22 by age 12 "right of passage" and the 16 ga Ithaca by the time you're
16. First day of hunting season - nobody in school except the girls.
Shootin' rats at the dump after school. Can't believe there going
Kerry there.
Of course, there is the 110% registration in Phila & Pittsburg - and
dead Dems are out-registering dead Republicans 10:1. Never forget mayor
John Street after the 2000 election proudly proclaiming that every
single registered voter in Philadelphia cast a ballot. Now that's
democracy (or something) in action!
I'm not going to get into a political debate tho. I had Bush & Kerry
filtered, but here I am ...damn!
Can't wait till the f*ckin' election is over.
Lou
In article <[email protected]>, Kerry
<[email protected]> wrote:
> How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
> this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
> shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
> your guns.
>
> Liberal
> There's a difference between "anti-gun" voting and "pro-common sense"
> voting. I'm anti-cop killing bullets, anti-mentals/felons being able to
> purchase guns at a gun show, and anti-assault weapons, and yet I own a
> shotgun and two hand guns. There really is something to be said for
> common sense.
This is still off topic, but since it's not directly related to who has (or
is) the bigger dick, I'll reply. As a gun owner, you should know this
about "cop-killer" bullets:
The bullet was invented by police officers in the 1960's to fire at suspects
hiding behind objects or wearing bullet-resistant vests. These specialty
bullets were only sold to police and were not available in stores anywhere
in the United States. While often labeled "Teflon bullets," teflon had
nothing to do with penetrating protective vests (the teflon simply helps
reduce the abrasion to the gun's barrel). The important feature instead was
their denser core, usually made out of tungsten.
Despite the phrase "cop-killer," only police used these bullets, and even
then extremely rarely. No officer has ever been shot at, let alone killed,
with such a bullet. Nor did the law even deal with bullets that might
actually be used to penetrate bullet-resistant vests. Most rifle ammunition
will do this, though to have banned these bullets would have essentially
outlawed most hunting.
As police know, there is still another irony attached to this discussion:
unless the intended victim has protection, these bullets have less stopping
power than hollow point bullets since they more easily pass through their
victim and they are more likely than other bullets to wound than kill.
This law changed nothing. Companies continued only selling these bullets to
police.
And this about "assault" rifles:
There is not a single published academic study showing that the ban has
reduced any type of violent crime. Even research funded by the Justice
Department under the Clinton administration concluded only that the ban's
effect on gun violence "has been uncertain." When those same authors
released their updated report in August looking at crime data up through
2000 - the first six full years of the law - they stated, "We cannot clearly
credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."
The reason for these findings is simple: There is nothing unique about the
guns that are banned under the law. Though the phrase "assault weapon"
conjures up images of the rapid-fire machine guns used by the military, in
fact the weapons covered by the ban function the same as any semiautomatic
hunting rifle; they fire the exact same bullets with the exact same rapidity
and produce the exact same damage as hunting rifles.
The firing mechanisms in semiautomatic and machine guns are completely
different. The entire firing mechanism of a semiautomatic gun has to be
gutted and replaced to turn it into a machine gun. This law had nothing to
do with machine guns.
Long guns are used in something like 2% of gun-related crime. Assault
weapons, something like .02%. It was feel-good legislation. I agree that
the gunshow loophole should be closed. Background checks should be
mandatory and thorough. But the assault rifle band was useless.
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:38:21 -0500, Richard A. <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's a difference between "anti-gun" voting and "pro-common sense"
> voting.
Maybe. Let's read on and see.
> I'm anti-cop killing bullets,
That's jingoism from the anti's right there. Any rifle bullet will
penetrate a ballistic vest, so by trying to label ammo as "cop-killer",
the can then try to leverage that to ban all rifles.
> anti-mentals/felons being able to
> purchase guns at a gun show,
The laws apply at gun shows just like they apply everywhere else, it is
illegal for a felon to touch, let alone own, a firearm or ammunition.
Same for certain psychological disorders. There is no "gun show loophole"
that magically makes this legal at one location and not another, that's
another myth.
> and anti-assault weapons,
Do you know that the "assault weapons ban" which recently expired had
nothing to do with machine guns? It also wasn't a ban, it was a
manufacturing stop order - you can own 'em, you just can't build any
more. Oh, and the definition of "assault weapon"? If a semi-automatic
rifle had a flash hider and a bayonet lug, it was an "assault weapon" as
defined by the ban. Now, I don't know how many bayonetings you have in
_your_ part of the country, but as I see it, it was a ban for superficial,
cosmetic differences. The only way they got it passed was by confusing the
people because they _look like_ machine guns.
> and yet I own a
> shotgun and two hand guns. There really is something to be said for
> common sense.
Yes, there is. Please go educate yourself on the issues, and you'll
see that Kerry's "moderate" stance on guns is there only during the
election. His anti-gun voting record is 100%. Your shotgun and two
handguns aren't safe either.
Dave Hinz
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:00:02 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> I didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
> that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
> easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.
My several thousand dollar Springfield Armory M1-A Match Rifle is
"Junk anyways"?
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:38:23 -0500, JohnT. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kerry has voted against every pro-gun bill, and for every gun control
> bill that ever came up in his terms. He has also voted against various
> legislation that is pro-sportsman (read pro-hunter).
Yes; it seems that on this issue, he actually shows up for work.
> That photo op of him coming back from a goose hunt is nothing but a
> publicity stunt, whether he hunted or not. Its just a feeble attempt to
> get the hunter vote in spite of his voting record on hunting issues.
> I'm surprised the Ducks unlimited president (I think it was?) was even
> involved.
As am I. Oddly enough, the ducks unlimited site had nothing about
it the day of, or the day following. I've been donating to them for
more than a few years, and want some explaination of what exactly
they are up to before I give them any more money.
Dave Hinz
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:57:01 -0400, DamnYankee <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pahleez...
> I am a member of the NRA and I am very mindful of the INTENT of our
> Founding Fathers. The Constitution was written with the concept of
> single shot fowling rifles (which had an accuracy of less than 200 yards).
It's clear that you have not read any of the scholarly works about
the constitution, nor have you read the Federalist Papers. Fowling
rifles? The second amendment is not, and never has been about,
hunting. "Militia" as defined at the time meant "all able bodied
males not in the military". Despite the lies of Kerry and his friends,
it didn't mean National Guard until 1906 when the National Guard was
created.
> I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
> constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
> second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
> incomprehensible.
It's also incorrect. This is a case of you either believing the FUD (fear,
uncertainty, and doubt) of the anti-gunners, or of you actually being
one of them, and trying to lie to spread that FUD. It's not about machine
guns, those are heavily restricted and not legal for me to go buy at
a gunshow or whatever the current lies are. Also, a grenade launcher
(the grenade, actually; the launcher is a piece of tubing) is classified
as a "destructive device" and would be a big-time felony for a civilian
to own.
> Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
> launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
> defend yourself?
Given that your argument (it's spelled Uzi by the way) is based on a
false assumption, this paragraph is meaningless.
> As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
> Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
> have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
You're wrong on this as well. I'm free to offend you as well, as you are
free to offend me. Good thing too, because your complete lack of
understanding of the language and intent of the constitution make it
clear to me that you're either very gullible and have accepted the
lies of the liars, or are one of the liars yourself, probably both.
> My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
> or your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.
And your right to tell me what I can't have ends when it's on my
property, to defend myself from criminals, be they foreign, domestic,
or a rogue government. Do you think it's coincidence that totalitarian
governments so often follow after citizens are disarmed?
Dave Hinz
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:20:29 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's a shop about 10 miles from me with a sign that just says "Guns
> Guns Guns" They sell any kind of firearm you could imagine, from the
> old thompson sub-machine guns to big anti-aircraft guns mounted on
> huge tripods. There you pay $200 for a full-auto permit (fee may've
> changed by now) wait a week, and get your insanely useless machine
> gun.
You skipped "get permission from your county sheriff", and "pass a very
stringent Federal background check".
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 19:37:22 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:31:49 -0500, "JohnT." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>I seriously doubt that anyone waits a week before taking legal
>>possession of a machine gun. The feds need to do a background check on
>>you first (which takes months), then you need a OK from your county
>>sherrif (at his discretion), and of course, fingerprinting.
>
> That's what they claim there, I never bought one.
Obviously, but you're happy to spread misinformation based on your
incomplete (wrong) guesses about the process, I see.
I don't mind someone having an opinion based on facts, but when they
go off, assume something, and decide they don't like it based on their
wrong assumptions, that's bad enough - when they spread that bad guess
to others as if it was fact, that's worse.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:25:59 -0600, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:57:01 -0600, DamnYankee wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> Pahleez...
>>
>> I am a member of the NRA and I am very mindful of the INTENT of our
>> Founding Fathers. The Constitution was written with the concept of
>> single shot fowling rifles (which had an accuracy of less than 200 yards).
> So what? the 2nd actually states we can only own flintlocks?
That language seems to be missing from my copy of the constitution.
> Did the Founders consider high speed presses and the internet before they
> wrote the first Amendment?
Nope, apparently according to this guy it only applies to parchment.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:33:15 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2004 17:36:28 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:00:02 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>those guns were junk anyways,
>>
>>My several thousand dollar Springfield Armory M1-A Match Rifle is
>>"Junk anyways"?
>
> I don't know. I live in a poor area, and people were worked up about
> the SKS and Ruger 10-23 modifications that were *banned*. Didn't have
> access to expensive "assault" rifles, so I couldn't determine their
> relative quality- all of the ones I personally encountered from that
> list were worthless junk.
So, once again, you expand your limited point of view to be the general
case and state your wrong guess as fact. I see.
Good to know you, you know, get all the facts and stuff before making
up your mind on something.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:39:57 -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>>It's really too bad that -more- of the anti-gun folks haven't
>>come to that awareness. Gun owners don't like criminal antics
>>and Saturday Night Specials, either.
> how about the gun owning criminals and SNS owners?
If the only gun someone can afford to defend themselves with is a
cheap revolver, they're still better protected than if only the criminal
was armed.
I mean, you're not suggesting taking the means of self-defense away
from poor people, are you?
Dave Hinz
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:33:45 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It's really too bad that -more- of the anti-gun folks haven't
>>come to that awareness. Gun owners don't like criminal antics
>>and Saturday Night Specials, either.
>
> Gun owners who like criminal antics and SNS's
> *ARE* gun owners....
Yes, some criminals own guns. Some gun owners are criminals. Most
gun owners are not criminals, and we don't like being punished for
the actions of criminals. It's a pretty simple venn-diagram to draw.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:34:24 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2004 08:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (Larry Bud)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>ALL bullets can be cop killing bullets. All bullets can also armor
>>pierce given enough velocity. So what do you propose for ammo?
> Spitballs ?
How do I defend myself, then, against the criminal who _doesn't_ disarm,
Greg?
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:40:20 -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:59:47 -0400, GregP <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On 26 Oct 2004 20:53:42 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>How do I defend myself, then, against the criminal who _doesn't_ disarm,
>>>Greg?
>>
>> That was a joke, Dave.
>
> there's your mistake.
> DH has no sense of humor.
No, just no tolerance for people pushing unworkable solutions based on
lies and disinformation, bridger. I'm sure you can relate.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:29:52 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2004 15:24:36 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Good to know you, you know, get all the facts and stuff before making
>>up your mind on something.
>
> So by *all the facts* you mean all the facts you like, ignoring
> whatever you don't see... Sure, most people are fine with guns.
Great, you've got _some_ founding in reality.
> But
> there are plenty that are not,
Yes, and they're called "criminals". You know, people who commit crimes.
> and they're they type -like it or not-
> that tend to favor guns that look mean, have 100 round clips and come
> with a bayonet.
They do? Can you provide, you know, a cite, to back that up?
> That's who I'm talking about, not joe average with
> his nice over-under 16ga that he uses for bird hunting.
So are you basing your problem on the person, or the function of the gun,
or the appearance of the gun? I feel that where there is a problem it is
with the person deciding to misuse it, personally. Perhaps you blame
inatimate objects for the actions of people, but I reject that.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:05:25 -0500, Henry St.Pierre <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> how about the gun owning criminals and SNS owners?
>
> Never thought about that. Why don't we make a law prohibiting criminals
> from owning guns
A felon is already prohibited by law from touching or owning a firearm
or ammunition. By definition, an armed felon is committing a crime for the
gun, and another crime for each round of ammo.
> and banning SNS?
The problem with that, is that a "Saturday Night Special" can be and has been
defined as any cheap handgun. If you're poor, you can't afford to go out and
buy a 600 dollar Colt or Glock, you've got to get what you can afford.
The cheap gun isn't the problem, it's the person misusing it.
Also, I'd rather that the criminal has something cheap and unreliable
when they try to shoot me; if they're carrying something well made, it'll
work every time. If they're carrying a Raven or Lorcin or some crap like
that, I'm safer.
> Or better yet, Why don't we make a law
> requiring criminals and/or SNS owners to undergo a background check prior
> to ownership?
Anyone buying a gun from a dealer has to fill out a federal form (4473 I
think) and pass a background check. Criminals, of course, don't buy their
guns from legal sources, just as they don't get their drugs from legal
sources. Prohibition would only stop honest people from defending themselves
from armed criminals.
Dave Hinz
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:19:24 -0500, Henry St.Pierre <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>> How do I defend myself, then, against the criminal who _doesn't_
>> disarm, Greg?
> Talk strongly to them (not so strongly that you lower their self esteem)
> and give them time out.
Am I allowed to give them a dirty look as well, or is that not nice?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:10:06 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2004 15:45:02 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>No, just no tolerance for people pushing unworkable solutions based on
>>lies and disinformation, bridger. I'm sure you can relate.
>
> So you seriously consider spitballs as a solution ?
Not real good at following the thread of a conversation, are you Greg.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:57:01 -0600, DamnYankee wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> Pahleez...
>
> I am a member of the NRA and I am very mindful of the INTENT of our
> Founding Fathers. The Constitution was written with the concept of
> single shot fowling rifles (which had an accuracy of less than 200 yards).
>
> I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
> constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
> second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
> incomprehensible.
So what? the 2nd actually states we can only own flintlocks?
What are ouzis?
What damage can a grenade launcher do? seems to me it'll just collect lint
like my belly button...
Did the Founders consider high speed presses and the internet before they
wrote the first Amendment?
>
> Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
> launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
> defend yourself?
What are Ouzis?
>
> As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
> Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
> have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
> My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
> or your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.
This is contrary to what you stated above dude...
>
> Peace,
>
> Dy
> Kerry wrote:
>> How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>> this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>> shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>> your guns.
>>
>> Liberal
>So by *all the facts* you mean all the facts you like, ignoring
>whatever you don't see... Sure, most people are fine with guns. But
>there are plenty that are not, and they're they type -like it or not-
>that tend to favor guns that look mean, have 100 round clips and come
>with a bayonet. That's who I'm talking about, not joe average with
>his nice over-under 16ga that he uses for bird hunting.
So you feel that criminals who misuse guns prefer those nasty looking
weapons covered by the assault weapons ban?? According to the
Department of Justice less than 1% of crimes are committed with
weapons covered by the AWB. Are you also aware that just over 12% of
all violent crimes are committed with a firearm of any type? Or that
less than 4/10 of 1% of firearms are used to commit a crime? Or that
nearly twice as many people are killed by drunk drivers than are
killed by firearms each year?? We have more than enough gun laws on
the books - what we need are lawyers who are more concerned with
providing their clients with a fair trial rather than "getting them
off", judges who impose maximum penalties for committing a crime with
a gun and fewer weenies who are more concerned with criminals self
esteem than with the suffering of victims.
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
> > this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
> > shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
> > your guns.
>
> And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?
>
> His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will do
>everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
>and demoCROOKS disagree with that.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:43:50 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>Gun owners aren't the ones shooting up the neighborhood. Look
>at any stat sheet by any group who has looked into it and you'll
>see that. Criminals are the ones doing it.
umm...
you have an odd definition of gun owner.
if they aren't gun owners, what are those criminals shooting?
>I used to be anti-handgun until a friend had me look into it.
>I did a 180 degree spin [joining Gary Kleck (a Florida criminology
>professor) and Hans Toch (Professor at the School of Criminology,
>NY State University Albany)] after reading stats from all sorts of
>places, reading a good half-dozen books on the subject, and asking
>the right questions. I dare you to do the same research.
>
>Some good books:
>
>"ARMED" by Gary Kleck & Don Yates
>"More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott
you're doing your cause more harm than good by citing kleck and lott.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>how about the gun owning criminals and SNS owners?
The problem isn't people *owning* guns, the problem is people *misusing* them.
I personally wouldn't care if every felon in the country owned an M-16 as long
as they never *used* them to commit crimes.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
> There's a difference between "anti-gun" voting and "pro-common sense"
> voting. I'm anti-cop killing bullets, anti-mentals/felons being able to
> purchase guns at a gun show, and anti-assault weapons, and yet I own a
> shotgun and two hand guns. There really is something to be said for
> common sense.
ALL bullets can be cop killing bullets. All bullets can also armor
pierce given enough velocity. So what do you propose for ammo?
"mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The one where I go to a gun show and meet someone there and they say, "Hey,
>I have something you might be interested in over in my van."
Every state in the union already has a law prohibiting the sale of
weapons to people not entitled to own one.
So, I repeat, which gunshow 'loophole' are you referring to?
--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:43:50 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:29:38 -0500, Prometheus
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>All right, all right- fine. There are all sorts of military and
>>guerrilla tactics to accomplish almost any sort of military goal.
>>That's freely granted. What isn't is my consent for every damn yahoo
>>on the block to have a machine gun so that they can shoot up the
>>neighborhood whenever they see a property tax increase.
>
>Gun owners aren't the ones shooting up the neighborhood. Look
>at any stat sheet by any group who has looked into it and you'll
>see that. Criminals are the ones doing it. And they do it more
>often with handguns than they do with assault rifles by a ratio
>of nearly 100:1.
Again, I've seen all the stats. I'm not disagreeing with the
principle, but with the overblown rhetoric. The "they're gonna take
away mah gunz" folks are not always looking at the sane aspect of gun
ownership- they're often pushing for a personal right to fill up their
lawns with claymore mines and mount an anit-aircraft battery on the
roof. Call it hyperbole if you like, but I was raised by militia
supporters, and they and all their friends used the same damn
arguments. They were dangerous people with a high level of mental
illness, and I'm not going to defend that kind of loonyness.
>The odds are MUCH greater for death by doctor/hospital than
>death by machine gun fire.
>
>The old San Francisco Madame herself shows that assault weapon
>use is way down there, near the 1:100 rate.
>http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-assaultwepsrate1.htm
>
>I used to be anti-handgun until a friend had me look into it.
>I did a 180 degree spin [joining Gary Kleck (a Florida criminology
>professor) and Hans Toch (Professor at the School of Criminology,
>NY State University Albany)] after reading stats from all sorts of
>places, reading a good half-dozen books on the subject, and asking
>the right questions. I dare you to do the same research.
I own a handgun. And a shotgun. And a rifle. Even some knives, too.
Your dare is a little weak- sometimes it takes a little courage to
look at the reasonable side of things, rather than just assuming that
"they're" out to get you.
>Some good books:
>
>"ARMED" by Gary Kleck & Don Yates
>"More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott
>
>
>Some stats:
>
>http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/0900GUIC/Guns%20Used%20in%20Crime.htm
>
>http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/index1.html
>
>http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
>
>http://www.guncite.com/ spend some time here
>
>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf
>
>http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1010111/posts
>
>The 10% of people who are against guns are all misled but are
>keeping the lies alive. For your (our) own good, DO look into
>it yourselves.
> I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
> constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
> second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
> incomprehensible.
These weapons are illegal for the general public to purchase. (yes, there
are exceptions, as I recently found out about Arizona -- but you still need
to pay lots of money, have an in-depth background check, and get the
approval of some governmental agency I can't remember the name of right
now...)
> Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
> launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
> defend yourself?
I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.
> As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
> Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
> have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
That isn't true. You do not have the right to NOT be offended by what I say.
You have the right to NOT be shut down by the government for what you say.
That's it.
> My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family, or
> your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.
Agreed.
> Peace,
>
> Dy
> Kerry wrote:
>> How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>> this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>> shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>> your guns. Liberal
mark notes:
>> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
>> defend yourself?
>
>I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
>breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
>would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.
There you go. And the extra rounds tear the shit out of someone else in the
house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge with 0
buck.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mark notes:
>
> >> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
> >> defend yourself?
> >
> >I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
> >breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
> >would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.
>
> There you go. And the extra rounds tear the shit out of someone else in
the
> house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge with 0
> buck.
>
> Charlie Self
> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is
not
> hereditary." Thomas Paine
Who says a semi-automatic has to be an M16? I know you know this, but some
people hear "semi-automatic" and think "Uzi". My 12-gauge (Browning Auto-5
lightweight) is semi-automatic.
todd
Charlie Self wrote:
> mark notes:
>
>>> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
>>> defend yourself?
>>
>>I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
>>breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
>>would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.
>
> There you go. And the extra rounds tear the shit out of someone else in
> the house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge
> with 0 buck.
And the pellets that don't hit the assailant tear the shit out of someone
else in the house or in the neighborhood.
By the way, what "extra rounds"? Are you saying that he's so innacurate
that he has to empty a magazine to put one round on target? And yet you're
so accurate with your shotgun that you hit the guy first time? And if you
think that a shotgun automatically hits everything downrange, you might
want to pattern it at the distances common in indoor combat. You'll get a
big surprise.
> Charlie Self
> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is
> not hereditary." Thomas Paine
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke notes:
>And the pellets that don't hit the assailant tear the shit out of someone
>else in the house or in the neighborhood.
Ah, mine own house but a pitiful thing? WTF are your walls made of?
>By the way, what "extra rounds"? Are you saying that he's so innacurate
>that he has to empty a magazine to put one round on target? And yet you're
>so accurate with your shotgun that you hit the guy first time? And if you
>think that a shotgun automatically hits everything downrange, you might
>want to pattern it at the distances common in indoor combat. You'll get a
>big surprise.
Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're nervous.
If you think a shotgun won't take out a target across a room without precise
aim, you need to redefine your thinking and get a little more experience.
Probably a sporting arm isn't the best, but a 19" or 20" barrel helps a lot.
Also reduces muzzle velocity, decreases swing time for any second shot, if
needed.
At short range, there is, and always will be, one helluva lot of difference
between shotguns and rifles and ease of hitting a target 20 feet away.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:20:11 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Right, that's why he should be encouraged to own an Uzi:
> make sure that he kills the mofo in his house, along with
> a few family members and the Joneses next door.
Greg, do you think you could go buy a fully-automatic Uzi today?
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:49:42 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2004 15:09:02 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Greg, do you think you could go buy a fully-automatic Uzi today?
>
> I suspect that if you really, really want one you will
> have very little problem buying one.
Greg, do you think that I could _legally_ go buy a fully-automatic Uzi
today? Or that you could? My record is squeaky-clean, but it would take
_months_ and possibly 10,000 dollars to get anything.
Illegal use of firearms is the problem, Greg, not Kerry pretending
that Osama wants semi-auto "assault weapons" from America this week,
but not last week because they didn't have bayonet lugs and flash
surpressors.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:53:42 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2004 20:06:29 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Greg, do you think that I could _legally_ go buy a fully-automatic Uzi
>>today? Or that you could? My record is squeaky-clean, but it would take
>>_months_ and possibly 10,000 dollars to get anything.
> So you *can* obtain one legally ? I didn't think you could,
> at least in the U.S. Some people have clearly been lying
> about this.
It's theoretically possible that with a clean record, and a cooperative
Sheriff, and a _lot_ of money, that someone could buy a "class 3" weapon
for themselves. It has been very difficult to do so since 1934,
and is "practically impossible". This, of course, is not how criminals
get machine guns, they get them illegally. So I'm not sure why you're
making this distinction over something which is even less of a problem
than flash surpressors and bayonet lugs on semi-automatic firearms
that are shaped like machine guns.
>>Illegal use of firearms is the problem, Greg, not Kerry pretending
>>that Osama wants semi-auto "assault weapons" from America this week,
>>but not last week because they didn't have bayonet lugs and flash
>>surpressors.
> Well, yes, the "assault weapons ban" was a joke: it was
> congress winking at the NRA while pretending to accomplish
> something.
Hardly. It was Clinton pushing through a law to ban as much as he could.
The only reason he could, is because he and his cronies in the press
lied to the public by making them think it was about machine guns.
Stock footage of people shooting machine guns, and then talking about
the ban, that sort of thing. Yes, these are documented and frequent.
Even this time when the ban was due to expire, people like you (yes,
that's intentionally inflamatory) tried to pretend it has anything
to do with machine guns, and uninformed but gullible people believe it.
> Now that the NRA and the pro-gun lobby are
> publicizing this so heavily, perhaps the next ban, if and when
> it comes, will be substantive. I doubt that anything will happen
> for a few years tho, or until a truly horrific mass killing takes
> place.
A more jaded and cynical person (such as myself) might point out that
anti-gun votes almost always follow a widely publicized event of that
nature.
> Personally I don't care much about it one way or another.
Good, because you also obviously don't understand it very well.
> IMO, it's a grossly overblown issue on both sides.
Well, it's good to know that you care so little about it that you're
willing to cave on something you don't care about. How about you
not be so free giving away my liberties, K?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:21:34 GMT, Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Greg, do you think you could go buy a fully-automatic Uzi today?
>
> After a background check, and a separate federal tax, it is perfectly
> legal to own an Uzi. In Texas, you can carry it concealed if you have
> the proper licenses.
Right, but the premise I was responding to was the statement that someone
could walk in to a gun shop and walk out with a machine gun, spur of the
moment-like.
How would you CCW with an Uzi, by the way? Wear a Duster or something?
I imagine it would print pretty much through any piece of clothing.
Dave Hinz
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 01:33:10 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2004 21:02:17 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Personally I don't care much about it one way or another.
>>
>>Good, because you also obviously don't understand it very well.
>>
>
> Given that all I've seen from you on this subject
> is some warmed-over NRA agit prop, you really
> don't have much to evaluate with.
I see you go for the personal attack rather than discuss the factual
problems in your posts that I pointed out.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:56:45 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Earth to Greg. The most horrific mass killing in the history of the United
>States was committed with box cutters. Perhaps we should ban _them_.
No, it was committed with airplanes. Perhaps we should ban *them*.
"Charlie Self" wrote in message
> If you think a shotgun won't take out a target across a room without
precise
> aim, you need to redefine your thinking and get a little more experience.
You betcha. IMO, the shotgun is the only weapon in close quarters. Its big
cousin, an M79 with buckshot round, was my weapon of choice for 13 long
months. Whichever way I was looking, it was too.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
Swingman wrote:
> IMO, the shotgun is the only weapon in close quarters.
I dunno. I had a "grease gun" for about a year; and decided that
hosing (600 rounds/minute) a room with .45's could be a fairly
effective method of ending disputes over who gets to stay and who
doesn't.
Rough on the woodwork, though.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
On 26 Oct 2004 21:02:17 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Personally I don't care much about it one way or another.
>
>Good, because you also obviously don't understand it very well.
>
Given that all I've seen from you on this subject
is some warmed-over NRA agit prop, you really
don't have much to evaluate with.
>> IMO, it's a grossly overblown issue on both sides.
>
>Well, it's good to know that you care so little about it that you're
>willing to cave on something you don't care about. How about you
>not be so free giving away my liberties, K?
I haven't done a damn thing to your "liberties."
You're in pretty poor shape if you really believe
that I can.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:56:45 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Earth to Greg. The most horrific mass killing in the history of the United
>States was committed with box cutters. Perhaps we should ban _them_.
ummm...
I think it was committed with atomic weapons. which we were well on
the way to banning before W came along....
On 26 Oct 2004 20:06:29 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:49:42 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 26 Oct 2004 15:09:02 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Greg, do you think you could go buy a fully-automatic Uzi today?
>>
>> I suspect that if you really, really want one you will
>> have very little problem buying one.
>
>Greg, do you think that I could _legally_ go buy a fully-automatic Uzi
>today? Or that you could? My record is squeaky-clean, but it would take
>_months_ and possibly 10,000 dollars to get anything.
>
So you *can* obtain one legally ? I didn't think you could,
at least in the U.S. Some people have clearly been lying
about this.
>Illegal use of firearms is the problem, Greg, not Kerry pretending
>that Osama wants semi-auto "assault weapons" from America this week,
>but not last week because they didn't have bayonet lugs and flash
>surpressors.
Well, yes, the "assault weapons ban" was a joke: it was
congress winking at the NRA while pretending to accomplish
something. Now that the NRA and the pro-gun lobby are
publicizing this so heavily, perhaps the next ban, if and when
it comes, will be substantive. I doubt that anything will happen
for a few years tho, or until a truly horrific mass killing takes
place. Personally I don't care much about it one way or another.
IMO, it's a grossly overblown issue on both sides.
On 24 Oct 2004 18:38:02 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>
>Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're nervous.
Right, that's why he should be encouraged to own an Uzi:
make sure that he kills the mofo in his house, along with
a few family members and the Joneses next door.
GregP responds:
>
>>
>>Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're nervous.
>
>
> Right, that's why he should be encouraged to own an Uzi:
> make sure that he kills the mofo in his house, along with
> a few family members and the Joneses next door.
I don't know many people who want to own an Uzi or any of its full auto
counterparts, but I do know a few. About half of them are combat vets who are
unlikely to spray fire unintentionally. The other half, though---
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:35:27 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:31:17 -0400, GregP <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The ones that worry me are
>> some of the guys I've seen at the local gun shows, where Nazi
>> "memorabilia" is very prominent, along with quite a bit of other
>> ugly stuff.
>
> And religious zealots who want to bring about the end of days. There
> are an awful damn lot of them, and they're not going away as I hoped
> they might after the millenium turned.
You guys must be going to different gun shows than I'm going to.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:27:58 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>> Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
>> are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.
>
>Re: On the whole, gun owners are much more responsible, upstanding
>citizens."
>
>Than what?
Than people asking silly questions, Jay. Pay attention, eh?
Gun owners aren't out shooting up the neighborhood. Got it?
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:31:17 -0400, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:49:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
>>actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
>>they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.
>>
>>Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
>>are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.
>
> There *is* the periodic employee-gone-crazy shooting up his
> plant, there was Columbine, the Wash DC snipers, etc. So it's
> not as tho these things don't happen. But overall you are right:
> most gun owners are not crazy. The ones that worry me are
> some of the guys I've seen at the local gun shows, where Nazi
> "memorabilia" is very prominent, along with quite a bit of other
> ugly stuff.
And religious zealots who want to bring about the end of days. There
are an awful damn lot of them, and they're not going away as I hoped
they might after the millenium turned.
On 26 Oct 2004 15:11:18 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:35:27 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:31:17 -0400, GregP <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The ones that worry me are
>>> some of the guys I've seen at the local gun shows, where Nazi
>>> "memorabilia" is very prominent, along with quite a bit of other
>>> ugly stuff.
>>
>> And religious zealots who want to bring about the end of days. There
>> are an awful damn lot of them, and they're not going away as I hoped
>> they might after the millenium turned.
>
>You guys must be going to different gun shows than I'm going to.
It all depends on the location and the locals. I've seen some real
nice ones with none of the garbage in downtown convention centers, but
head 20 miles out of town to a gun show in a flea market, and it's a
whole different story.
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 25 Oct 2004 17:27:31 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
> calmly ranted:
>
>>GregP responds:
>
>>>>Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're
>>>>nervous.
>>>
>>> Right, that's why he should be encouraged to own an Uzi:
>>> make sure that he kills the mofo in his house, along with
>>> a few family members and the Joneses next door.
>>
>>I don't know many people who want to own an Uzi or any of its full auto
>>counterparts, but I do know a few. About half of them are combat vets who
>>are
>>unlikely to spray fire unintentionally. The other half, though---
>
> Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
> actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
> they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.
>
> Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
> are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.
>
>
Re: On the whole, gun owners are much more responsible, upstanding
citizens."
Than what?
Jay
Oh. Then you were trying to say that gun owners are more responsible and
upstanding than non-gun owners.
That's not that really that hard to say. Ultimately embarrassing, but not
difficult.
Jay
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:27:58 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>> Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
>>> are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.
>>
>>Re: On the whole, gun owners are much more responsible, upstanding
>>citizens."
>>
>>Than what?
>
> Than people asking silly questions, Jay. Pay attention, eh?
>
> Gun owners aren't out shooting up the neighborhood. Got it?
>
>
> --
> "Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
> unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
> 150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
> the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
>
> VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
>
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:31:17 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:27:58 -0400, "Jay Knepper"
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>> Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
>>> are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.
>>
>>Re: On the whole, gun owners are much more responsible, upstanding
>>citizens."
>>
>>Than what?
>
>Than people asking silly questions, Jay. Pay attention, eh?
>
>Gun owners aren't out shooting up the neighborhood. Got it?
depends on the neighborhood.
wherever you are, you can be sure that those gunshots you hear in the
night aren't from _knife_ owners....
On 25 Oct 2004 17:27:31 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:
>GregP responds:
>>>Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're nervous.
>>
>> Right, that's why he should be encouraged to own an Uzi:
>> make sure that he kills the mofo in his house, along with
>> a few family members and the Joneses next door.
>
>I don't know many people who want to own an Uzi or any of its full auto
>counterparts, but I do know a few. About half of them are combat vets who are
>unlikely to spray fire unintentionally. The other half, though---
Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.
Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
Larry Jaques asks:
>Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
>actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
>they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.
>
>Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
>are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.
I'm sure there's a cite somewhere, but it may also prove zilch. The only local
gun incident involving homeowners that I recall around here involved a woman
and a shotgun. Some guy kicked down her door and she blew him back outside with
a shotgun. I don't recall the exact disposition, but suffice to say she did NOT
need a lawyer.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:49:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>Make you wonder. BUT, can anyone cite one such incident as having
>actually taken place? (other than driveby gang shootings since
>they are not Jane and Joe Average) There just may be 1.
>
>Bottom line: It's 99.9% fear and hype. On the whole, gun owners
>are much more responsible, upstanding citizens.
There *is* the periodic employee-gone-crazy shooting up his
plant, there was Columbine, the Wash DC snipers, etc. So it's
not as tho these things don't happen. But overall you are right:
most gun owners are not crazy. The ones that worry me are
some of the guys I've seen at the local gun shows, where Nazi
"memorabilia" is very prominent, along with quite a bit of other
ugly stuff.
Charlie Self wrote:
> J. Clarke notes:
>
>>And the pellets that don't hit the assailant tear the shit out of someone
>>else in the house or in the neighborhood.
>
> Ah, mine own house but a pitiful thing? WTF are your walls made of?
Sheetrock, same as most houses in the US these days. The outside walls
might stop a piece of buckshot, if the guy isn't standing in front of a
window or door.
>>By the way, what "extra rounds"? Are you saying that he's so innacurate
>>that he has to empty a magazine to put one round on target? And yet
>>you're
>>so accurate with your shotgun that you hit the guy first time? And if you
>>think that a shotgun automatically hits everything downrange, you might
>>want to pattern it at the distances common in indoor combat. You'll get a
>>big surprise.
>
> Oh, man. Did you ever see Joe or Jane Average shoot when they're nervous.
So? Are you saying that private citizens should not own hunting rifles
because if they should happen to use them defensively they might miss? If
not, what specific type of firearm do you have in mind?
> If you think a shotgun won't take out a target across a room without
> precise aim, you need to redefine your thinking and get a little more
> experience. Probably a sporting arm isn't the best, but a 19" or 20"
> barrel helps a lot. Also reduces muzzle velocity, decreases swing time for
> any second shot, if needed.
So what is the diameter of the pattern of your 19" shotgun at ten feet?
> At short range, there is, and always will be, one helluva lot of
> difference between shotguns and rifles and ease of hitting a target 20
> feet away.
Actually, the ease of hitting the target with a shotgun increases with
distance up to the point where the pattern starts to fall apart. At close
range the pattern simply is not very large, as you would know if you had
ever actually patterned your defensive shotgun.
"Spray and pray" is not an effective strategy.
> Charlie Self
> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is
> not hereditary." Thomas Paine
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
GregP wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2004 20:06:29 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:49:42 -0400, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 26 Oct 2004 15:09:02 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Greg, do you think you could go buy a fully-automatic Uzi today?
>>>
>>> I suspect that if you really, really want one you will
>>> have very little problem buying one.
>>
>>Greg, do you think that I could _legally_ go buy a fully-automatic Uzi
>>today? Or that you could? My record is squeaky-clean, but it would take
>>_months_ and possibly 10,000 dollars to get anything.
>>
>
> So you *can* obtain one legally ? I didn't think you could,
> at least in the U.S. Some people have clearly been lying
> about this.
Nobody has been lying about anything. There is a Federal background check
required that is only slightly less thorough than the one that is required
in order to be entrusted with the possession of atomic weapons or the
guarding of the President. That background check typically takes several
months.
And then you cannot obtain an Uzi made after 1986. Further, if you dispose
of it, anybody you sell it to has to pass the same check.
Now, tell us how many lawfully owned machine guns have been used in the
commission of a crime since 1934, when the Federal law was enacted, and
provide a source for those statistics. If lawful ownership of machine guns
is not creating a social problem then why do you want to ban them? And if
it is, then it is up to you to demonstrate that there is such a problem.
>>Illegal use of firearms is the problem, Greg, not Kerry pretending
>>that Osama wants semi-auto "assault weapons" from America this week,
>>but not last week because they didn't have bayonet lugs and flash
>>surpressors.
>
> Well, yes, the "assault weapons ban" was a joke: it was
> congress winking at the NRA while pretending to accomplish
> something.
Actually, it was the NRA throwing some of their members to the wolves in
order to preserve the privileges of the rest.
> Now that the NRA and the pro-gun lobby are
> publicizing this so heavily, perhaps the next ban, if and when
> it comes, will be substantive. I doubt that anything will happen
> for a few years tho, or until a truly horrific mass killing takes
> place.
Earth to Greg. The most horrific mass killing in the history of the United
States was committed with box cutters. Perhaps we should ban _them_.
> Personally I don't care much about it one way or another.
> IMO, it's a grossly overblown issue on both sides.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Greg, do you think you could go buy a fully-automatic Uzi today?
After a background check, and a separate federal tax, it is perfectly
legal to own an Uzi. In Texas, you can carry it concealed if you have
the proper licenses.
--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>How would you CCW with an Uzi, by the way? Wear a Duster or something?
>I imagine it would print pretty much through any piece of clothing.
If you can conceal it, and it's legal for you to own it, and you have
a CHL, you can carry it concealed.
If you are old enough to remember when "squeaky" tried to kill the
pres, you might remember that there were suddenly Uzis *everywhere*.
Those SS types didn't have any trouble concealing them.
--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
Howard responds:
>>How would you CCW with an Uzi, by the way? Wear a Duster or something?
>>I imagine it would print pretty much through any piece of clothing.
>
>If you can conceal it, and it's legal for you to own it, and you have
>a CHL, you can carry it concealed.
>
>If you are old enough to remember when "squeaky" tried to kill the
>pres, you might remember that there were suddenly Uzis *everywhere*.
>Those SS types didn't have any trouble concealing them.
>
Not many in belt or shoulder holsters, though, and I'd bet they did have some
trouble figuring out how to conceal them. IIRC, most were in attache cases and
similar carriers.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On 26 Oct 2004 15:09:02 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Greg, do you think you could go buy a fully-automatic Uzi today?
I suspect that if you really, really want one you will
have very little problem buying one.
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> mark notes:
>
> >> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
> >> defend yourself?
> >
> >I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
> >breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
> >would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.
>
> There you go. And the extra rounds tear the shit out of someone else in the
> house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge with 0
> buck.
>
At indoor ranges #8 will get the job done but won't overpenetrate
the target, walls, doors and so on.
--
FF
> There you go. And the extra rounds tear the shit out of someone else in
> the
> house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge with 0
> buck.
>
> Charlie Self
I was really just using that as an example. If you have neighbors, kids,
multiple people in the house, etc., that's different. If I lived in a
neighborhood, I'd use my 20ga mossberg with some birdshot or something. I
live in the sticks. I have no neighbors. It's me, and my wife. It takes
cops 30 minutes to get here.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:31:49 -0500, "JohnT." <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I seriously doubt that anyone waits a week before taking legal
>possession of a machine gun. The feds need to do a background check on
>you first (which takes months), then you need a OK from your county
>sherrif (at his discretion), and of course, fingerprinting.
That's what they claim there, I never bought one.
>Not to mention how insanely expensive NFA (machine guns, cannons, etc) are.
I can do nothing but agree with that one. They're awfully expensive.
>John
Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just met a lot of criminals who like that kind of gun.
I hang around with non-criminals.
And you are blowing smoke.
--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
On 26 Oct 2004 08:19:52 -0700, [email protected] (Larry Bud)
wrote:
>
>ALL bullets can be cop killing bullets. All bullets can also armor
>pierce given enough velocity. So what do you propose for ammo?
Spitballs ?
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:57:27 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> calmly
ranted:
>"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> So, I repeat, which gunshow 'loophole' are you referring to?
>OK, I fold. If the laws are upheld, there is no loophole. You are correct.
>I should have said, stricter enforcement of existing laws, which I think is
>the main problem anyway.
It's really too bad that -more- of the anti-gun folks haven't
come to that awareness. Gun owners don't like criminal antics
and Saturday Night Specials, either.
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:49:40 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Prometheus" wrote in message
>
>> You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
>> responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
>> who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
>> start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
>> falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
>> go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
>> thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
>> hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
>> really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
>> ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
>> do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.
>
>Apache helicopters don't seem to be having much impact on the Islamic
>fundamentalist of the world. The point is "registration" ... if you know
>where something, it is easier to confiscate it.
Who is trying to confiscate your guns? I've been hearing these dire
warnings since I was a tot, and none of it has ever happened- nor does
it even really seem to be in the works.
>Interesting to both sides of the issue are statistics on Australia's
>experience with gun control:
>
>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
On 27 Oct 2004 15:45:02 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>No, just no tolerance for people pushing unworkable solutions based on
>lies and disinformation, bridger. I'm sure you can relate.
So you seriously consider spitballs as a solution ?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Maybe someday when war machines are autonomous this argument will have some
> validity, but it does not right now.
They're coming sooner than you think.
Of course, you'd be loony enough to think that the only danger would
come from the left, even though totalitarian thinking comes much more
easily from neocons.
After all, who is it that is equating criticism to being disloyal
citizens?
just to clarify, in a previous occupation i was an armorer for SIG, and have
worked on and collected firearms for 40 years. NFA weapons of modern
manufacture require a $200 stamp and normally take 3-6 months to clear
paperwork, and some are as classic works of craftsmanship as any woodworking
piece. on the comment of the 30-06 the greatest combat rifle in history is the
M-1 Garand and fires this round "semi-automatically" and is more accurate than
most hunting rifles after sustained fire. the founding fathers had both a
disdain and dislike for any government and intended for us to be able to
protect ourselves from said government, and some need to check the definition
of militia at the time that line was wrote. btw charlie you should change to #
4 buck for that defensive load, has a much better pattern for dissuading
invaders whatever they may be. and just to keep on topic some of the finest
woodworking i have ever seen was on double rifles and shotguns, and some even
on war issue mausers and springfields
Madeuce responds:
> on the comment of the 30-06 the greatest combat rifle in history is the
>M-1 Garand and fires this round "semi-automatically" and is more accurate
>than
>most hunting rifles after sustained fire. the founding fathers had both a
>disdain and dislike for any government and intended for us to be able to
>protect ourselves from said government, and some need to check the definition
>of militia at the time that line was wrote. btw charlie you should change to
>#
>4 buck for that defensive load, has a much better pattern for dissuading
>invaders whatever they may be. and just to keep on topic some of the finest
>woodworking i have ever seen was on double rifles and shotguns, and some even
>on war issue mausers and springfields
I agree with the M1. It was what I got through Parris Island and four years of
the USMC with.
I think you're also right about the load. A lighter load might do a *safer*
job, maybe keep me from blowing my little mutt away by accident.
At 10 miles from the nearest town, I am not particularly worried about
encroachment, shall we call it, in my home, but should it happen, I have no
intention of waiting 15-20 minutes for a deputy to arrive.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:21:50 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Madeuce50bmg) wrote:
>
>> the founding fathers had both a
>> disdain and dislike for any government and intended for us to be able to
>> protect ourselves from said government,
>
> So why not sell bazookas, grenades, rocket launchers, mortars,
> howitzers, fully combat-ready Humvees, etc.? There's no way in hell that
> your piddly little gun is going to protect you for long from the
> weaponry of modern military when they come for you in their Apaches or
> with laser-guided bombs.
...which explains why things are going so well in Iraq at the moment, right?
> I personally don't own a gun but have no concerns if others choose to as
> long as they display intelligence and diligence in their use and
> storage. The greatest lapse in responsible ownership is when gun owners
> don't secure and make inoperable their weapons for storage - far too
> many kids and teens get their hands on them with heart wrenching tragic
> consequences.
Yes, a gun owner needs to be responsible for how it is stored, just as
a chemical owner needs to keep the poison substances up from the kids,
and a chainsaw onwer needs to...
You do have your poisons locked up, right?
Dave Hinz
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:00:30 GMT, mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I personally don't own a gun but have no concerns if others choose to as
>> long as they display intelligence and diligence in their use and
>> storage. The greatest lapse in responsible ownership is when gun owners
>> don't secure and make inoperable their weapons for storage - far too
>> many kids and teens get their hands on them with heart wrenching tragic
>> consequences.
>
> More kids drown in a five gallon pail of water than are killed by guns every
> year. Scads more teens die in alcohol-related car crashes.
Well, not if you use the Sarah Brady method of defining "kids" which includes
gangbangers and other convicted criminals well into their 20's...
> I personally don't own a gun but have no concerns if others choose to as
> long as they display intelligence and diligence in their use and
> storage. The greatest lapse in responsible ownership is when gun owners
> don't secure and make inoperable their weapons for storage - far too
> many kids and teens get their hands on them with heart wrenching tragic
> consequences.
More kids drown in a five gallon pail of water than are killed by guns every
year. Scads more teens die in alcohol-related car crashes. What's your
point? That the media sensationalizes one and not the other? Both can be
prevented with a little common sense.
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > I personally don't own a gun but have no concerns if others choose to
>> > as
>> > long as they display intelligence and diligence in their use and
>> > storage. The greatest lapse in responsible ownership is when gun owners
>> > don't secure and make inoperable their weapons for storage - far too
>> > many kids and teens get their hands on them with heart wrenching tragic
>> > consequences.
>>
>> More kids drown in a five gallon pail of water than are killed by guns
>> every
>> year. Scads more teens die in alcohol-related car crashes. What's your
>> point? That the media sensationalizes one and not the other? Both can be
>> prevented with a little common sense.
>
> Your argument has nothing to do with my original comment. Are you saying
> we ought not require gun owners to take responsibility for securing
> their weapons since young people die in larger numbers by other means?
>
> There are far too many reports of kids, age 4-15, coming across Dads gun
> and blowing a hole in a sibling or playmate. Just in the last year a
> sheriff's deputy's kid did this after the deputy got off duty and put
> his service gun in the most safe and secure spot in the house - on a top
> shelf in the closet. Even the people you'd think who've seen the
> consequences of shootings and would be vigilant with their own firearms,
> exhibit recklessness. Irresponsible, plain and simple.
>
> By the way, our local media runs a story on every fatal car crash
> involving teens, no matter the cause. I'd not say one is sensationalized
> more than the other - they are both heartbreaking.
I agree. If this happens to even one kid, it's a bad thing. That being said,
you can't have a knee-jerk reaction to "protect the children" and do so at
the expense of law-abiding, responsible gun owners. As for the media, my
point was that each teen-car crash is not a national story, like
child-related gun stories can sometimes seem to be. They seem to just LOVE
irresponsible gun-owner stories. A few years ago a naked guy with a sword
walked into a church and killed or wounded something like 9 people, if I
remember correctly. It certainly wasn't front page national news, like it
would have been had he used a gun. And the guy was *naked* for god's sake.
That's gotta be worth something, story wise....your point was well taken,
however. Responsibility for one's actions is something that is sadly lacking
in today's society, whatever the topic.
>>
>> More kids drown in a five gallon pail of water than are killed by guns
>> every
>> year. Scads more teens die in alcohol-related car crashes.
>
> Well, not if you use the Sarah Brady method of defining "kids" which
> includes
> gangbangers and other convicted criminals well into their 20's...
Ah yes. And don't leave out the criminals under 21 killed by the cops in
the commission of a crime. They count in the stats too.
I should have said "kids 5 and under."
In article <[email protected]>,
"mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
> And the guy was *naked* for god's sake.
> That's gotta be worth something, story wise
Naked as God intended, eh? You'd certainly think that would make the
news - but I don't recall the story and I read a large city daily,
daily, plus radio and internet news.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger
sorry i haven't had time to chime in but have been spending time with my two
children, one a doctor, and the other a twin major senior in college who both
somehow managed to grow up in a house and storage facility with several hundred
unsecured firearms, along with unsecured vehicle keys which they didn't take
and several pieces of woodworking equipment which never maimed them, of course
i grew up in ahouse with a couple of firearms and dangerous tools and managed
the same. stupidity combined with anything (cars, firearms, tools, living)
kills more people than anything and no-one is trying to outlaw stupidity, lest
it diminish the democrat voting base. i do appreciate the thomas paine quote as
probably two thirds of the past three generations have no idea who the hell he
was or what the founding fathers wrote and thought concerning the populace's
right to defend itself against it's government.
[email protected] (Madeuce50bmg) wrote:
>who both
>somehow managed to grow up in a house and storage facility with several hundred
>unsecured firearms
"It is far more effective to gunproof your child than to childproof
your gun." (don't remember who came up with that).
The founding fathers were unanimously in favor of teaching young boys
the care (respect) and use of firearms. Thomas Jefferson, in
particular, was of the opinion that proper firearms training prevented
deliquency. They didn't have much to say about girls, but I think
what's sauce for the goose works for the gander, too.
--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
both of my children are of the "fairer' sex, and by age nine both were
proficient with .22 cal, at 21 and 25 they both hobby shoot to this day. one of
the prerequisites for shooting is practice and discipline along with a desire
to work at it, much the same as woodworking. somehow liberals seem to think
that criminals, who are criminals because of a lack of discipline or work ethic
can magically make a firearm a useful tool of choice but the average person
cannot. i used to be an armorer for SIG and an instructor also but pursued
other options in midlife. the handle indicates one of the things i collect and
while some may be appalled by the fact that an average citizen owns a pair of
browning M2's this is precisely what the founding fathers had in mind for their
citizenry, besides there are few things more entertaining than hunting
groundhogs at 500 yds with a 50. glad to hear from you howard, and actually
enjoy the thread from both sides, for the record i'm a libertarian, but will be
voting republican primarily because they haven't sued to keep my candidate off
of 38 states ballots, even though it would benefit them, seems the dems only
care about disenfranchised democratic votes, what a load of shit
madeuce states:
>somehow liberals seem to think
>that criminals, who are criminals because of a lack of discipline or work
>ethic
>can magically make a firearm a useful tool of choice but the average person
>cannot
Now, I was right with you until you popped thjis piece of political horseshit
in. As a liberal and former Marine, I am not unusual, so your generality is
worthwhile only in your own mind and in the minds of those who are in lockstep
with you.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
sorry charlie but i really do enjoy your posts, and am sorry that i generalized
all liberals together, but i am quite sincere about the democrat party, i've
been registered as a democrat since 1972 and vote that way quite often on local
elections, but i'm a southern indiana democrat which would make me a republican
in new york or california from a philosophical point of view, the ideals of the
libertarian party are closer to my own on a national basis but i don't think
they've managed to find a viable candidate yet. i don't care what consenting
adults do among themselves but don't think they need a marriage license to do
it, if you want to smoke pot i don't care but you don't need to be driving or
shooting or woodworking while doing it or any other consciousness "expanding"
chemical. i am vehemently opposed to the killing of the most helpless of all
creatures, i.e. abortion, and i don't give a shit what your religion,
ethnicity, or race are if you share my values. i just detest what the
democratic party has become and gun control (and people control) are
centerpieces of the national agenda, not necessarily all liberals, so i
apologize again for the inference. but if the dems are for taking the guns out
of the criminls hands why haven't they ever attempted to take the car keys out
of ted kennedy's pocket.
tony
madeuce responds:
> am sorry that i generalized
>all liberals together, but i am quite sincere about the democrat party, i've
>been registered as a democrat since 1972 and vote that way quite often on
>local
>elections, but i'm a southern indiana democrat which would make me a
>republican
>in new york or california from a philosophical point of view,
Might be. I'm registered as an independent and tend to vote the person. Both
party platforms contain a fair amount of nonsense, so voting the party line is
not attractive. In fact, I believe that following ANY party line totally is
reprehensible.
> but if the dems are for taking the guns out
>of the criminls hands why haven't they ever attempted to take the car keys
>out
>of ted kennedy's pocket.
Irrelevant and you know it.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On 28 Oct 2004 00:33:09 GMT, [email protected] (Madeuce50bmg)
wrote:
>but if the dems are for taking the guns out
>of the criminls hands why haven't they ever attempted to take the car keys out
>of ted kennedy's pocket. ...
... and the presidency out of Bush's
In article
<[email protected]>,
"mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I personally don't own a gun but have no concerns if others choose to as
> > long as they display intelligence and diligence in their use and
> > storage. The greatest lapse in responsible ownership is when gun owners
> > don't secure and make inoperable their weapons for storage - far too
> > many kids and teens get their hands on them with heart wrenching tragic
> > consequences.
>
> More kids drown in a five gallon pail of water than are killed by guns every
> year. Scads more teens die in alcohol-related car crashes. What's your
> point? That the media sensationalizes one and not the other? Both can be
> prevented with a little common sense.
Your argument has nothing to do with my original comment. Are you saying
we ought not require gun owners to take responsibility for securing
their weapons since young people die in larger numbers by other means?
There are far too many reports of kids, age 4-15, coming across Dads gun
and blowing a hole in a sibling or playmate. Just in the last year a
sheriff's deputy's kid did this after the deputy got off duty and put
his service gun in the most safe and secure spot in the house - on a top
shelf in the closet. Even the people you'd think who've seen the
consequences of shootings and would be vigilant with their own firearms,
exhibit recklessness. Irresponsible, plain and simple.
By the way, our local media runs a story on every fatal car crash
involving teens, no matter the cause. I'd not say one is sensationalized
more than the other - they are both heartbreaking.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Madeuce50bmg) wrote:
> the founding fathers had both a
> disdain and dislike for any government and intended for us to be able to
> protect ourselves from said government,
So why not sell bazookas, grenades, rocket launchers, mortars,
howitzers, fully combat-ready Humvees, etc.? There's no way in hell that
your piddly little gun is going to protect you for long from the
weaponry of modern military when they come for you in their Apaches or
with laser-guided bombs.
I personally don't own a gun but have no concerns if others choose to as
long as they display intelligence and diligence in their use and
storage. The greatest lapse in responsible ownership is when gun owners
don't secure and make inoperable their weapons for storage - far too
many kids and teens get their hands on them with heart wrenching tragic
consequences.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger
>> And the guy was *naked* for god's sake.
>> That's gotta be worth something, story wise
>
> Naked as God intended, eh? You'd certainly think that would make the
> news - but I don't recall the story and I read a large city daily,
> daily, plus radio and internet news.
>
It was a while ago. Time flies....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/540600.stm
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:49:40 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Prometheus" wrote in message
> >
> >> You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
> >> responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
> >> who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
> >> start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
> >> falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
> >> go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
> >> thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
> >> hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
> >> really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
> >> ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
> >> do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.
> >
> >Apache helicopters don't seem to be having much impact on the Islamic
> >fundamentalist of the world. The point is "registration" ... if you know
> >where something, it is easier to confiscate it.
>
> Who is trying to confiscate your guns? I've been hearing these dire
> warnings since I was a tot, and none of it has ever happened- nor does
> it even really seem to be in the works.
Apparently, the NRA is working. I, for one, would like to keep it that way.
todd
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
> conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
> the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
> shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
> idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
> the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. I
> didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
> that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
> easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.
>
> You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
> responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
> who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
> start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
> falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
> go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
> thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
> hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
> really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
> ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
> do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.
Let's see...there are between 60-65 million gun owners in the US. Using
your example of a second revolution, unless someone is just going to nuke
the whole place, they're going to have a problem when every fourth person is
armed. Strength is in numbers. And the NRA is just like any other interest
group. They don't want the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
todd
"Prometheus" wrote in message
> You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
> responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
> who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
> start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
> falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
> go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
> thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
> hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
> really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
> ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
> do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.
Apache helicopters don't seem to be having much impact on the Islamic
fundamentalist of the world. The point is "registration" ... if you know
where something, it is easier to confiscate it.
Interesting to both sides of the issue are statistics on Australia's
experience with gun control:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I agree that
>>the gunshow loophole should be closed.
>
> And just which gunshow loophole is that?
The one where I go to a gun show and meet someone there and they say, "Hey,
I have something you might be interested in over in my van."
I realize that if you have a table, you also are supposed to have an FFL.
But it wasn't until a few years ago that you even needed a storefront in my
state. Used to be, all you had to do to sell guns out of the trunk of your
car was apply for the license.
[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> how about the gun owning criminals and SNS owners?
Never thought about that. Why don't we make a law prohibiting criminals
from owning guns and banning SNS? Or better yet, Why don't we make a law
requiring criminals and/or SNS owners to undergo a background check prior
to ownership?
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> In article
> <[email protected]>, "mark"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>OK, I fold. If the laws are upheld, there is no loophole. You are
>>correct. I should have said, stricter enforcement of existing laws,
>>which I think is the main problem anyway.
>
> Bingo. Use a gun to commit a crime -- go to jail. That's the way it
> oughta be.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
>
Damn Doug! Maybe we ought to pass a law to that effact. That should make us
all feel much better.
Regards,
Hank
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:34:24 -0400, GregP <[email protected]>
>
>> Spitballs ?
>
> How do I defend myself, then, against the criminal who _doesn't_
> disarm, Greg?
>
>
Talk strongly to them (not so strongly that you lower their self esteem)
and give them time out.
Hank
Pahleez...
I am a member of the NRA and I am very mindful of the INTENT of our
Founding Fathers. The Constitution was written with the concept of
single shot fowling rifles (which had an accuracy of less than 200 yards).
I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
incomprehensible.
Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?
As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
or your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.
Peace,
Dy
Kerry wrote:
> How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
> this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
> shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
> your guns.
>
> Liberal
>Pahleez...
>
>I am a member of the NRA and I am very mindful of the INTENT of our
>Founding Fathers. The Constitution was written with the concept of
>single shot fowling rifles (which had an accuracy of less than 200 yards).
Pahleez, yourself. If you had ANY concept of the intent behind the second
amendment you would know that it was INTENDED to allow citizens to own the same
weponry as the federal government so that they could effectively fight that
government if needed. The Revolutionary War could not have been effectively
fought and won if there had not been private citizens who owned serious (by the
standards of the day) weapons such as cannon or if there had not been privately
owned armories. If we were actually to follow the INTENT of the second
amendment it would be legal to own an M1-A1 tank, 105MM howitzers, etc. I, for
one, would like to see a rational replacement for the second amendment that
would allow for substantive gun control. On the other hand, while the 2nd is
still supposed to be the "Law of the Land" I think we should follow it. I think
that if we lived up to the Constitution it would take about a week to get the
2nd removed right after a few nuts openly kept and bore a few Stingers.
Dave Hall
>I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
>constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
>second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
>incomprehensible.
>
>Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
>launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
>purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
>defend yourself?
>
>As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
>Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
>have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
> My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
>or your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.
>
>Peace,
>
>Dy
>Kerry wrote:
>> How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>> this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>> shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>> your guns.
>>
>> Liberal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
>It's really too bad that -more- of the anti-gun folks haven't
>come to that awareness. Gun owners don't like criminal antics
>and Saturday Night Specials, either.
Gun owners who like criminal antics and SNS's
*ARE* gun owners....
"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>The one where I go to a gun show and meet someone there and they say,
>>"Hey,
>>I have something you might be interested in over in my van."
>
> Every state in the union already has a law prohibiting the sale of
> weapons to people not entitled to own one.
>
> So, I repeat, which gunshow 'loophole' are you referring to?
>
> --
> Howard Lee Harkness
> Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
> www.CHL-TX.com
> [email protected]
> Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
OK, I fold. If the laws are upheld, there is no loophole. You are correct.
I should have said, stricter enforcement of existing laws, which I think is
the main problem anyway.
"Wes Stewart" <n7ws_@_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> That said; in defense of Senator Kerry's voting record let me point
> out that if any senator's record were examined under a microscope
> there would appear to be gross inconsistencies. Unrelated riders are
> attached to bills all of the time, most of them as attempts to get
> something passed that would fail to pass on its own merits. A yes
> vote today and a nay vote tomorrow may not be inconsistent at all.
>
Very true indeed which is one good reason why most presidents do not come
from the Senate.
> Furthermore, remember that we live in a country with a
> "representative" form of government. Senator Kerry is supposed to
> "represent" his constituents and they are the citizens of the
> ultra-liberal Massachusetts. How else would you expect him to vote if
> he wanted to be reelected?
>
True also, however the rest of the country is not ultra liberal like
Massachusetts which is why I don't think he can represent the enitre
country.
> My senator, John McCain, is about the only one I know of who can speak
> his mind and still get reelected, although it pains me to see him
> campaigning for GWB, after what Bush said about him in the past. I
> thought McCain had more integrity than that, but it just further
> proves my point, these guys will do and say anything to get elected.
>
The funniest moment in this campaign IMO was after the Kerry ticket carped
for weeks about McCain running for veep with Kerry, and then McCain comes
out at the Republican Convention and lambastes Kerry. A truly embarrasing
moment for all Democrats. But what would you have McCain do? He is a
Democrat who has found his party moving away from him, hijacked by the far
left. He is in the same boat as Zell Miller. The thing is that these two
guys who speak the truth about their party, that there are some serious
internal problems, they are castigated for it.
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them. GregP,
> I'm with you 100%.
> Fight the good fight.
If you are unable to follow the thread, how do you know you are 100% with GregP?
Oh, I see. You were able to glean GregP's political bent, and just blindly followed his lead. Typical of the mindless, liberal
puppets.
>
> All of you undecided voters who think Bush is just a good, responsible, well
> meaning "conservative", try to catch "A Patriot Act" on cable before next Tuesday.
> I trust the motives of the right wing about as far as I could heave the Queen
> Mary on a bad day, and this still scared the shit out of me.
>
> JK
>
Al Reid snarls:
>"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them.
>GregP,
>> I'm with you 100%.
>> Fight the good fight.
>
>If you are unable to follow the thread, how do you know you are 100% with
>GregP?
>
>Oh, I see. You were able to glean GregP's political bent, and just blindly
>followed his lead. Typical of the mindless, liberal
>puppets.
Typical conclusion leap of a mindless neocon.
He said he couldn't follow the thread, not that he couldn't read GregP's
contributions. I'd guess it's twittery like yours that he has trouble with.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
--
Al Reid
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Al Reid wrote:
> > "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them. GregP,
> >>I'm with you 100%.
> >>Fight the good fight.
> >
> >
> > If you are unable to follow the thread, how do you know you are 100% with GregP?
> >
> > Oh, I see. You were able to glean GregP's political bent, and just blindly followed his lead. Typical of the mindless, liberal
> > puppets.
>
> Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
> puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
> overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
> am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
> ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
> see where the puppetry is.)
We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings. It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
unison the same talking points, lies and deception.
>
> JK
>
>
> --
> James T. Kirby
> Center for Applied Coastal Research
> University of Delaware
> Newark, DE 19716
>
> phone: 302-831-2438
> fax: 302-831-1228
> email: [email protected]
> http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Al Reid snarls (again):
>
> >We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
> >It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
> >unison the same talking points, lies and deception.
>
> I'm a liberal, too, Al, ol' neocon, and no one pulls my strings. It do seem
> like someone is yanking yours, though. You don't bother with fact one, just
> blithely blather on.
Charlie,
I am a conservative and a proud one at that. I spend a lot of time reading and following politics. Noone has ever or will ever
pull my strings. Just because you choose not to believe the facts doesn't change them.
>
>
> Charlie Self
> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
> hereditary." Thomas Paine
Al Reid snarls (again):
>We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
>It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
>unison the same talking points, lies and deception.
I'm a liberal, too, Al, ol' neocon, and no one pulls my strings. It do seem
like someone is yanking yours, though. You don't bother with fact one, just
blithely blather on.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
Al Reid wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Al Reid snarls (again):
>>
>>
>>>We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
>>>It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
>>>unison the same talking points, lies and deception.
>>
>>I'm a liberal, too, Al, ol' neocon, and no one pulls my strings. It do seem
>>like someone is yanking yours, though. You don't bother with fact one, just
>>blithely blather on.
>
>
> Charlie,
>
> I am a conservative and a proud one at that. I spend a lot of time reading and following politics. Noone has ever or will ever
> pull my strings. Just because you choose not to believe the facts doesn't change them.
Yeah, I can just imagine what you read......
JK
>
>>
>>Charlie Self
>>"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
>>hereditary." Thomas Paine
>
>
>
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Al Reid wrote:
>
> >Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
> >> puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
> >> overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
> >> am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
> >> ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
> >> see where the puppetry is.)
>
>
> >We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
> It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
> >unison the same talking points, lies and deception.
>
> Well, if I knew who Terry McAuliffe was, I may see your point better.
Let me enlighten you, who seems to be so ignorant of the party you so blindly follow. Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, a
Clinton chronie and a real slime. He was behind most, if not all of the dissemination of lies about GWB that have been parroted by
all of the democratic pundents, talking heads and Kerry supporters. McAuliffe, much like Kerry hemself, has no core convictions or
moral compas. The is the role model for dirty, negative politics.
>
> I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe - I've been working on that for
> 40 years. In that time, I've never seen
> a Republican president who I'd even want to be in the same room with, much less
> get to know. I fail to see the attraction.
>
> Jim Kirby
>
>
>
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Al Reid snarls again:
>
> >Let me enlighten you, who seems to be so ignorant of the party you so blindly
> >follow. Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, a
> >Clinton chronie and a real slime. He was behind most, if not all of the
> >dissemination of lies about GWB that have been parroted by
> >all of the democratic pundents, talking heads and Kerry supporters.
>
> You really skipped spelling classes by the bunch, didn't you? What lies has
> anyone spouted about GWB? He was a coke head? He was a drunk? He was nailed for
> drunken driving? He pulled himself off duty with the ANG in a way that would
> have gotten my ass tossed in the brig if I'd tried it during my time in the
> Marines? He has gotten 1100 young Americans killed for reasons that are
> specious at best? He has pissed away over 200 billion bucks on Iraq and is
> requesting 75 billion more for next year? He got into Iraq too lightly and had
> no exit strategy? Dick Cheney pulls his strings? Now, that one may be
> stretching it a bit, but check out Georgie Boy's pronouncements when he's on
> his own and when his puppetmaster is in place.
>
> Point out the lies.
>
>
> Charlie Self
> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
> hereditary." Thomas Paine
Charlie,
I appreciate you pointing out the fact that my spelling/typing is not as good as yours. You have really gone a long way to show
your superiority on the issues.
McAuliffe's and DNC's Lies:
1. GWB did coke.
2. GWB was AWOL
3. The war in Iraq, which Kerry supported, has already cost over $200 billion
4. GWB has a plan to suppress minority voting
5. GWB has a secret plan to take Social Security away from seniors.
6. GWB has a plan to reinstate the draft.
7. GWB failed to secure 350+ tons of explosives (that were already gone before the invasion)
8. GWB raised Medicare premiums on seniors by 17%.
I could go on, but you get the point. I know you don't subscribe to the same facts as I do. However, I would never stoop so low as
to subscribe to the Michael Moore "version" of the truth.
Have a good day.
> >
> > McAuliffe's and DNC's Lies:
> >
> > 1. GWB did coke.
>
> Totally irrelevant. Who could possibly care? I mean, really.
Charlie?
>
> > 2. GWB was AWOL
>
> ?? You think he wasn't?
No I don't . Can you prove he was?
>
> > 3. The war in Iraq, which Kerry supported, has already cost over $200 billion
>
> Probably a drop in the bucket by the time they get done. (Probably never).
>
> > 4. GWB has a plan to suppress minority voting
>
> I thought that had already happened.
I guess you thought wrong. Can you prove it EVER happened?
>
> > 5. GWB has a secret plan to take Social Security away from seniors.
>
> If somebody doesn't get proactive about that, it won't make a damned bit of
> difference who is in the white house
> for that one to happen.
>
Then it is about time to stop playing politics with the issue and to entertain ways of solving the problem.
> > 6. GWB has a plan to reinstate the draft.
>
> No way - reinstating the draft would mean that people who don't want to play
> GWB's totally fucked up mind games with
> the world would have a real reason to get pissed off. No way they'd go there.
> Iraq would then be Vietnam, and people would be in the
> streets. (At least not until they have mechanisms in place to suppress people
> being in the streets - then we'll see.)
>
> etc., etc.
>
> whatever.
>
We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
The only way that Iraq will ever become another Vietnam is if Kerry is elected and manages to engineer another defeat. Other than
that, there are no parallels to Vietnam.
> > 7. GWB failed to secure 350+ tons of explosives (that were already gone before the invasion)
> > 8. GWB raised Medicare premiums on seniors by 17%.
> >
> > I could go on, but you get the point. I know you don't subscribe to the same facts as I do. However, I would never stoop so
low as
> > to subscribe to the Michael Moore "version" of the truth.
> >
> > Have a good day.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> James T. Kirby
> Center for Applied Coastal Research
> University of Delaware
> Newark, DE 19716
>
> phone: 302-831-2438
> fax: 302-831-1228
> email: [email protected]
> http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
>
Al Reid notes:
>> No way - reinstating the draft would mean that people who don't want to
>play
>> GWB's totally fucked up mind games with
>> the world would have a real reason to get pissed off. No way they'd go
>there.
>> Iraq would then be Vietnam, and people would be in the
>> streets. (At least not until they have mechanisms in place to suppress
>people
>> being in the streets - then we'll see.)
>>
>> etc., etc.
>>
>> whatever.
>>
>
>We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a
>draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
>margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
>
>The only way that Iraq will ever become another Vietnam is if Kerry is
>elected and manages to engineer another defeat. Other than
>that, there are no parallels to Vietnam.
>
I spent half an hour going over these points earlier, only to have AOL/Verizon
gobble them, so this is my last shot:
Our military is all volunteer, highly trained and much too small for what it is
being told to do. Period. The latest word is that another 20,000 highly trained
bodies are needed in Iraq. These people are highly trained, but they are not
automatons. They can't rotate in and out twice a year, let their family lives
totally go to hell, and continue to fight effectively. Once the toll begins to
wear them down--and it has already--replacements are needed. At this point, at
least the Army is having some, fairly slight as yet, problems filling its
current enlistment needs. Thus, veterans who are due to be discharged are being
held on active duty.
Really, you need to check a fact or two before spouting off about things you
either know little about or lie about.
The military always supports conservative candidates. It's the military
mindset, and may well be a good one, though on a personal basis, I'd like to
see some more thoughtful responses before the voting levers are pulled.
Supporting our troops and voting Bush back in are quite probably antithetical.
Voting Nixon in the second time supported our troops. It got them out of 'Nam.
Unless things change, Iraq is going to be very similar. You don't know what
parallels to Vietnam there may or may not be, I'd guess. Kerry is not Nixon,
nor is he LBJ. And, totally in his favor, he is not GWB. Your statement that he
might manage to engineer another defeat is totally unsupported and unwarranted.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Al Reid wrote:
>
> >
> > We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
> > margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
>
> Well, since our military is not tasked with making political decisions, and
> hopefully will never be, I can't imagine why voting with
> them on that basis makes ANY COMPELLING SENSE AT ALL. That was just a stupid
> suggestion.
>
> JK
>
I think you just made a STUPID statement !
So, the opinions of the military personnel, who are there as a result of GWB's decision making, who are actively engaged in the
mission, who take their orders from the administration, and who do not want to take orders from Kerry makes no sense at all? Who,
if anyone, is more effected by the war in Iraq that our brave soldiers? And you just want to write off their support for their
commander-in-chief. You probably want to deny them the right to vote as well.
Al
Al Reid spouts:
>I think you just made a STUPID statement !
>
>So, the opinions of the military personnel, who are there as a result of
>GWB's decision making, who are actively engaged in the
>mission, who take their orders from the administration, and who do not want
>to take orders from Kerry makes no sense at all?
First, you don't know that they don't want to take orders from Kerry.
Preferring Bush is an entirely different thing. Second, it doesn't make a rat's
ass's bit of difference who they WANT to take orders from. They WILL take
orders from the Commander In Chief, no matter who he is, or they'll end up in
the stockade/brig (unless they've got the same kind of influential papa GWB
had).
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Al Reid spouts:
>
> >I think you just made a STUPID statement !
> >
> >So, the opinions of the military personnel, who are there as a result of
> >GWB's decision making, who are actively engaged in the
> >mission, who take their orders from the administration, and who do not want
> >to take orders from Kerry makes no sense at all?
>
> First, you don't know that they don't want to take orders from Kerry.
> Preferring Bush is an entirely different thing. Second, it doesn't make a rat's
> ass's bit of difference who they WANT to take orders from. They WILL take
> orders from the Commander In Chief, no matter who he is, or they'll end up in
> the stockade/brig (unless they've got the same kind of influential papa GWB
> had).
>
It would never come to that. Our military is pledged to defend the United
States and will do that even if the CIC is a cocker spaniel.
They did their job in Kosovo and Bosnia and the best they could despite
being hamstrung eight different ways in Somalia with a draft-dodging
Bill Clinton as CIC. At issue is what direction they will be given
and how they will be hampered or supported. Given that Kerry saw
combat in Vietnam, and given that he didn't much care for what he saw
*I* think he will be supportive of the troops and cautious about
committing them.
In Iraq Bush recklessly comitted our troops and now places them at
the disposal of a foreign government:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8960-2004Oct29.html?nav=hcmodule
...
[Brig. Gen. Dennis J.]
Hejlik said the Marines were awaiting orders from Iraq's
interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, to launch an offensive
in Fallujah and in Ramadi...
Of course we know that the offensive will not begin until after the
election.
--
FF
"Henry St.Pierre"
> Dave Hinz
>
> > Al Reid
> >
> >> McAuliffe's and DNC's Lies:
> >>
> >> 1. GWB did coke.
> >> 2. GWB was AWOL
> >> 3. The war in Iraq, which Kerry supported, has already cost over
> >> $200 billion 4. GWB has a plan to suppress minority voting
> >> 5. GWB has a secret plan to take Social Security away from seniors.
> >> 6. GWB has a plan to reinstate the draft.
> >> 7. GWB failed to secure 350+ tons of explosives (that were already
> >> gone before the invasion) 8. GWB raised Medicare premiums on seniors
> >> by 17%.
What was number 8?
> > 9. There is a "stem cell research ban".
> > 10. The expiration of the "assault weapons ban" helps OBL and his
> > terrorists.
> 11. Because of his stance on 'global warming' he's responsible for the
> Florida hurricanes.
12. Bush kept poor Christopher Reeve in a wheelchair.
"James T. Kirby"
> GregP wrote:
> >
> > If he wins, he won't give a damn about mothers complaining
> > about their dead children. And he won't have much choice,
> > unless he wants to admit defeat, like Reagan did in Lebanon,
> > and withdrawing, sending a message to terrorists that they
> > could push us out if they hurt us badly enough. And a surrogate
> > draft is already in place, manipulating National Guard units.
>
> I think he will care, because it's a lot easier for him to perpetuate his
> agenda if he ruffles as few feathers as
> possible.
>
> On the other hand, once people figure out that they are going off to fight
> these wars basically as a
> continual sideshow for nationalistic interests, the recruiting capabilities for
> a volunteer army may indeed
> dry up rapidly, and the strategy of using the National Guard as regular army
> will certainly backfire sooner or later
> too.
>
> We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like
> that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
> I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
> war to serve the strategic interests of the
> neocon warmongers?
How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?
"Jim Kirby" <
> "Fletis Humplebacker"
> > "James T. Kirby"
> > > We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like
> > > that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
> > > I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
> > > war to serve the strategic interests of the
> > > neocon warmongers?
> >
> >
> > How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?
>
>
> Why Fletus, that represented such a leap from the previous post that I
> considered sending a reply suggesting that you just go fuck yourself,
> but then I thought better of it.
Your comments were small minded, nothing honest or fair
about them so save us the indignation.
"GregP"
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:32:27 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
>
> >
> >How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?
>
>
> ... he says, as he sits safely behind his computer screen, 10-12
> thousand miles away from the war he is hyping.
That what they thought in the trade towers too.
>They could
> use a lot of help over there from you: washing dishes, cleaning
> latrines, driving a truck, guarding a facility. You think this war
> is a Good Thing,
No, a necessary thing. What's your plan?
>why aren't you over there helping out ???
> The truth is, when push comes to shove you only believe in what
> you can send others to die for.
I've done my time but would again if necessary. Unlike yourself
I'd die for my principles, people like you existed before WW2
and said the same things about Reagan.
"GregP"
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
> >I've done my time but would again if necessary.
> They could use you right now, Mr Patriot, and you don't
> even have to be in the military to help out. But you won't,
> will you, it's a lot safer to watch others die.
Your words are the words of a coward sir. You don't fool
anyone here.
> > Unlike yourself I'd die for my principles,
> Well, then, go ahead and do it: I'm not stopping you !
> But you won't, will you, it's a lot safer to watch others
> die.
I noticed that you said nothing about your military experience.
All you ever had was slander and propaganda. Good men have
died for your freedom to do so.
If he wins, he won't give a damn about mothers complaining
about their dead children. And he won't have much choice,
unless he wants to admit defeat, like Reagan did in Lebanon,
and withdrawing, sending a message to terrorists that they
could push us out if they hurt us badly enough. And a surrogate
draft is already in place, manipulating National Guard units.
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:45:47 -0400, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>I'm not sure I buy that, Greg - I think it would work against him. Having a
>professional army gives
>Bush a lot more political flexibility - you can attack anywhere you want and
>there won't be hundreds
>of thousands of people in the streets screaming "you took my baby to fight in
>that stinking place for
>your own personal reasons that you won't even admit to!". No, I think that
>reinstating a draft would open up
>a real can of worms. I think all he really needs to do (or intents to do) is
>to keep some sort of hopefully
>constrainable military adventurism going somewhere, so that the people who are
>susceptible to the
>thought that voting against a leader during time of war is somehow disloyal, or
>(my favorite from Al Reid )
>we should somehow buy into the notion that we should vote for Bush because the
>troops like him (moron)
>will vote the right way.
>
>Jim Kirby
Al Reid snarls again:
>Let me enlighten you, who seems to be so ignorant of the party you so blindly
>follow. Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, a
>Clinton chronie and a real slime. He was behind most, if not all of the
>dissemination of lies about GWB that have been parroted by
>all of the democratic pundents, talking heads and Kerry supporters.
You really skipped spelling classes by the bunch, didn't you? What lies has
anyone spouted about GWB? He was a coke head? He was a drunk? He was nailed for
drunken driving? He pulled himself off duty with the ANG in a way that would
have gotten my ass tossed in the brig if I'd tried it during my time in the
Marines? He has gotten 1100 young Americans killed for reasons that are
specious at best? He has pissed away over 200 billion bucks on Iraq and is
requesting 75 billion more for next year? He got into Iraq too lightly and had
no exit strategy? Dick Cheney pulls his strings? Now, that one may be
stretching it a bit, but check out Georgie Boy's pronouncements when he's on
his own and when his puppetmaster is in place.
Point out the lies.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:56:38 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [and all of you war lovers are war lovers here, hiding out safely
>> in your homes, while the action is over there, where lots of
>> people are dying for your bellicose beliefs. As long as you're
>> hiding out here, instead of helping out over there, you have
>> zero credibility.]
>
>Yeah, but you can use that argument for just about everything. You're not
>over there either, so everything you say is based on second-hand
>information, therefore by your argument, you have zero credibility as well.
I'm not talking about "information," I'm talking about you backing
up your happy war talk with action. It's a lot easier to watch
others die while you sit here playing the Great American Couch
Patriot.
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:56:38 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [and all of you war lovers are war lovers here, hiding out safely
>>> in your homes, while the action is over there, where lots of
>>> people are dying for your bellicose beliefs. As long as you're
>>> hiding out here, instead of helping out over there, you have
>>> zero credibility.]
>>
>>Yeah, but you can use that argument for just about everything. You're not
>>over there either, so everything you say is based on second-hand
>>information, therefore by your argument, you have zero credibility as
>>well.
>
>
> I'm not talking about "information," I'm talking about you backing
> up your happy war talk with action. It's a lot easier to watch
> others die while you sit here playing the Great American Couch
> Patriot.
Happy war talk? You're kidding. Well, then -- how come you're not over in
Iraq right now handing out food and rebuilding schools? What the hell?
Great american couch patriot? What about the great american couch activist?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:29:52 -0400, Al Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
> McAuliffe's and DNC's Lies:
>
> 1. GWB did coke.
> 2. GWB was AWOL
> 3. The war in Iraq, which Kerry supported, has already cost over $200 billion
> 4. GWB has a plan to suppress minority voting
> 5. GWB has a secret plan to take Social Security away from seniors.
> 6. GWB has a plan to reinstate the draft.
> 7. GWB failed to secure 350+ tons of explosives (that were already gone before the invasion)
> 8. GWB raised Medicare premiums on seniors by 17%.
9. There is a "stem cell research ban".
10. The expiration of the "assault weapons ban" helps OBL and his terrorists.
Put up or shut up, where's your proof? Is Charlie Rangle (sp?) going to
get it passed?
Ron Moore
GregP wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
>>margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
>
>
> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
> place within a year. Bush, of course, will claim that the
> military is responsible for it, not him, and then he will
> claim that he never said that he wouldn't allow one. He
> has lied about virtually every major decision or action
> during his administration, hiding behind others whenever
> he could, and he will go on doing it if he gets a chance.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:18:52 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
>> place within a year.
>
>Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
>Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.
Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
as the blame can be pushed on someone else.
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:31:27 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>
>Bush is already on record as stating that there will not be a draft while he
>is President. It's the Democrats who are trying to reinstate the draft, not
>Bush, not anyone else in the Republican party. And yet the lying hypocrites on
>the left accuse the Republicans of trying to bring it back.
Bush was "on record" for not engaging in nation-building. He
was "on record" for fiscal responsibility. He was "on record"
for being against a 9/11 investigation. He was "on record"
for going into Iraq only as a "last resort." He was "on record"
for being against a Homeland Security Office. He was "on
record" for believing that the war on terror is unwinnable. He
was "on record" for working with both Democrats and
Republicans in Congress. He was "on record" for a whole
buch of other stuff he's conveniently forgotten.
Based on Bush's record of being "on record," there will be a
draft within a year if he's reelected.
"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "James T. Kirby"
> > GregP wrote:
> > >
> > > If he wins, he won't give a damn about mothers complaining
> > > about their dead children. And he won't have much choice,
> > > unless he wants to admit defeat, like Reagan did in Lebanon,
> > > and withdrawing, sending a message to terrorists that they
> > > could push us out if they hurt us badly enough. And a surrogate
> > > draft is already in place, manipulating National Guard units.
> >
> > I think he will care, because it's a lot easier for him to perpetuate his
> > agenda if he ruffles as few feathers as
> > possible.
> >
> > On the other hand, once people figure out that they are going off to fight
> > these wars basically as a
> > continual sideshow for nationalistic interests, the recruiting capabilities for
> > a volunteer army may indeed
> > dry up rapidly, and the strategy of using the National Guard as regular army
> > will certainly backfire sooner or later
> > too.
> >
> > We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like
> > that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
> > I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
> > war to serve the strategic interests of the
> > neocon warmongers?
>
>
> How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?
Why Fletus, that represented such a leap from the previous post that I
considered sending a reply suggesting that you just go fuck yourself,
but then I thought better of it.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:29:52 -0400, "Al Reid"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>3. The war in Iraq, which Kerry supported, has already cost over $200 billion
It's amazing how you neo-cons are so desperate to legitimize
the war by trying to link Kerry to it.
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Al Reid snarls again:
>
> >Let me enlighten you, who seems to be so ignorant of the party you so blindly
> >follow. Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, a
> >Clinton chronie and a real slime. He was behind most, if not all of the
> >dissemination of lies about GWB that have been parroted by
> >all of the democratic pundents, talking heads and Kerry supporters.
>
> You really skipped spelling classes by the bunch, didn't you? What lies has
> anyone spouted about GWB? He was a coke head? He pulled himself off duty with the ANG in a way that would
> have gotten my ass tossed in the brig if I'd tried it during my time in the
> Marines? He has gotten 1100 young Americans killed for reasons that are
> specious at best? He has pissed away over 200 billion bucks on Iraq and is
> requesting 75 billion more for next year? He got into Iraq too lightly and had
> no exit strategy? Dick Cheney pulls his strings? Now, that one may be
> stretching it a bit, but check out Georgie Boy's pronouncements when he's on
> his own and when his puppetmaster is in place.
>
/\
/ \
||
||
||
> Point out the lies.
>
>
> Charlie Self
> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
> hereditary." Thomas Paine
"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm not sure I buy that, Greg - I think it would work against him. Having
a
> professional army gives
> Bush a lot more political flexibility - you can attack anywhere you want
and
> there won't be hundreds
> of thousands of people in the streets screaming "you took my baby to fight
in
> that stinking place for
> your own personal reasons that you won't even admit to!". No, I think
that
> reinstating a draft would open up
> a real can of worms. I think all he really needs to do (or intents to do)
is
> to keep some sort of hopefully
> constrainable military adventurism going somewhere, so that the people who
are
> susceptible to the
> thought that voting against a leader during time of war is somehow
disloyal, or
> (my favorite from Al Reid )
> we should somehow buy into the notion that we should vote for Bush because
the
> troops like him (moron)
> will vote the right way.
>
> Jim Kirby
>
>
>
You lefites just can't form or axpress an opinion without calling names.
This makes you the moron. When you can't win on the facts or provide a
persuasive argument, you inevitable resort to name calling. This reflects
well on you.
Have a good one.
--
Al
> --
> James T. Kirby
> Center for Applied Coastal Research
> University of Delaware
> Newark, DE 19716
>
> phone: 302-831-2438
> fax: 302-831-1228
> email: [email protected]
> http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
>
In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
> Based on Bush's record of being "on record," there will be a
> draft within a year if he's reelected.
I repeat, it's the DEMOCRATS who are trying to bring back the draft, not the
Republicans.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a
> draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
>>margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
>
> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
> place within a year.
Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:18:52 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
>>> place within a year.
>>
>>Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
>>Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.
>
>
> Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
> he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
> as the blame can be pushed on someone else.
Bush is already on record as stating that there will not be a draft while he
is President. It's the Democrats who are trying to reinstate the draft, not
Bush, not anyone else in the Republican party. And yet the lying hypocrites on
the left accuse the Republicans of trying to bring it back.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Doug Miller escapes filters long enough to state:
>>>> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
>>>> place within a year.
>>>
>>>Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
>>>Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.
>>
>>
>> Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
>> he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
>> as the blame can be pushed on someone else.
>
>Bush is already on record as stating that there will not be a draft while he
>is President. It's the Democrats who are trying to reinstate the draft, not
>Bush, not anyone else in the Republican party. And yet the lying hypocrites
>on
>the left accuse the Republicans of trying to bring it back.
>
Rangel supposedly was demonstrating something or other. Given that politicians
are idiots, it is not a good idea to take their efforts at demonstration too
seriously--IIRC, this one had to do with Congress's unwillingness to support a
draft at this moment.
The fact remains, the war in Iraq is going badly, doesn't seem likely to go
well under our political war leaders who set troops up for one thing this week
and pull them back or out the next week, then don't provide proper equipment at
any point, start "stop loss" efforts to retain people who legally should have
been civilians again, and on.
All of this points to one thing: too much military adventurism; too little
military. That indicates we're going to need a draft at some point to fulfill
"commitments" that Bush is making.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>Doug Miller escapes filters long enough to state:
>>>>> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
>>>>> place within a year.
>>>>
>>>>Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
>>>>Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
>>> he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
>>> as the blame can be pushed on someone else.
>>
>>Bush is already on record as stating that there will not be a draft while he
>>is President. It's the Democrats who are trying to reinstate the draft, not
>>Bush, not anyone else in the Republican party. And yet the lying hypocrites
>>on
>>the left accuse the Republicans of trying to bring it back.
>>
>
>Rangel supposedly was demonstrating something or other. Given that politicians
>are idiots, it is not a good idea to take their efforts at demonstration too
>seriously--IIRC, this one had to do with Congress's unwillingness to support a
>draft at this moment.
No matter how you try to spin it, Charlie, the fact remains that the only
bills in Congress to reinstate the draft were introduced by Democrats. The
lying hypocrites on the left then go on to claim that Bush is trying to bring
back the draft, when in fact *they* are the ones who are trying to.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:18:52 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
>
>>> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
>>> place within a year.
>>
>>Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
>>Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.
>
>
> Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
> he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
> as the blame can be pushed on someone else.
Wow. You have an answer for everything. Why do you bother? Nobody is going
to change your mind, and you're not going to change anyone else's mind.
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want
a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
> >margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
>
> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
> place within a year. Bush, of course, will claim that the
> military is responsible for it, not him, and then he will
> claim that he never said that he wouldn't allow one. He
> has lied about virtually every major decision or action
> during his administration, hiding behind others whenever
> he could, and he will go on doing it if he gets a chance.
What, on God's green earth would possess you to spout such nonsense? Do you
really think that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth?
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:29:52 -0400, Al Reid
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> McAuliffe's and DNC's Lies:
>>
>> 1. GWB did coke.
>> 2. GWB was AWOL
>> 3. The war in Iraq, which Kerry supported, has already cost over
>> $200 billion 4. GWB has a plan to suppress minority voting
>> 5. GWB has a secret plan to take Social Security away from seniors.
>> 6. GWB has a plan to reinstate the draft.
>> 7. GWB failed to secure 350+ tons of explosives (that were already
>> gone before the invasion) 8. GWB raised Medicare premiums on seniors
>> by 17%.
>
> 9. There is a "stem cell research ban".
> 10. The expiration of the "assault weapons ban" helps OBL and his
> terrorists.
>
>
>
>
11. Because of his stance on 'global warming' he's responsible for the
Florida hurricanes.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:28:33 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Wow. You have an answer for everything. Why do you bother? Nobody is going
>to change your mind, and you're not going to change anyone else's mind.
Yeah, but I'm right :-)
[and all of you war lovers are war lovers here, hiding out safely
in your homes, while the action is over there, where lots of
people are dying for your bellicose beliefs. As long as you're
hiding out here, instead of helping out over there, you have
zero credibility.]
Al Reid wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Al Reid snarls again:
>>
>>
>>>Let me enlighten you, who seems to be so ignorant of the party you so blindly
>>>follow. Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, a
>>>Clinton chronie and a real slime. He was behind most, if not all of the
>>>dissemination of lies about GWB that have been parroted by
>>>all of the democratic pundents, talking heads and Kerry supporters.
>>
>>You really skipped spelling classes by the bunch, didn't you? What lies has
>>anyone spouted about GWB? He was a coke head? He was a drunk? He was nailed for
>>drunken driving? He pulled himself off duty with the ANG in a way that would
>>have gotten my ass tossed in the brig if I'd tried it during my time in the
>>Marines? He has gotten 1100 young Americans killed for reasons that are
>>specious at best? He has pissed away over 200 billion bucks on Iraq and is
>>requesting 75 billion more for next year? He got into Iraq too lightly and had
>>no exit strategy? Dick Cheney pulls his strings? Now, that one may be
>>stretching it a bit, but check out Georgie Boy's pronouncements when he's on
>>his own and when his puppetmaster is in place.
>>
>>Point out the lies.
>>
>>
>>Charlie Self
>>"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
>>hereditary." Thomas Paine
>
>
>
> Charlie,
>
> I appreciate you pointing out the fact that my spelling/typing is not as good as yours. You have really gone a long way to show
> your superiority on the issues.
>
> McAuliffe's and DNC's Lies:
>
> 1. GWB did coke.
Totally irrelevant. Who could possibly care? I mean, really.
> 2. GWB was AWOL
?? You think he wasn't?
> 3. The war in Iraq, which Kerry supported, has already cost over $200 billion
Probably a drop in the bucket by the time they get done. (Probably never).
> 4. GWB has a plan to suppress minority voting
I thought that had already happened.
> 5. GWB has a secret plan to take Social Security away from seniors.
If somebody doesn't get proactive about that, it won't make a damned bit of
difference who is in the white house
for that one to happen.
> 6. GWB has a plan to reinstate the draft.
No way - reinstating the draft would mean that people who don't want to play
GWB's totally fucked up mind games with
the world would have a real reason to get pissed off. No way they'd go there.
Iraq would then be Vietnam, and people would be in the
streets. (At least not until they have mechanisms in place to suppress people
being in the streets - then we'll see.)
etc., etc.
whatever.
> 7. GWB failed to secure 350+ tons of explosives (that were already gone before the invasion)
> 8. GWB raised Medicare premiums on seniors by 17%.
>
> I could go on, but you get the point. I know you don't subscribe to the same facts as I do. However, I would never stoop so low as
> to subscribe to the Michael Moore "version" of the truth.
>
> Have a good day.
>
>
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
Al Reid wrote:
>
> We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
> margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
Well, since our military is not tasked with making political decisions, and
hopefully will never be, I can't imagine why voting with
them on that basis makes ANY COMPELLING SENSE AT ALL. That was just a stupid
suggestion.
JK
Al Reid wrote:
> "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Al Reid wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
>>>margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
>>
>>Well, since our military is not tasked with making political decisions, and
>>hopefully will never be, I can't imagine why voting with
>>them on that basis makes ANY COMPELLING SENSE AT ALL. That was just a stupid
>>suggestion.
>>
>>JK
>>
>
>
> I think you just made a STUPID statement !
>
> So, the opinions of the military personnel, who are there as a result of GWB's decision making, who are actively engaged in the
> mission, who take their orders from the administration, and who do not want to take orders from Kerry makes no sense at all? Who,
> if anyone, is more effected by the war in Iraq that our brave soldiers? And you just want to write off their support for their
> commander-in-chief. You probably want to deny them the right to vote as well.
>
> Al
>
>
Al - I don't care if they support their commander in chief. I still have a
right to make my own decision about their commander in chief.
I don't support him, never have, and never will. I don't personally think the
man could find his way out of a closed phone booth.
OK? Got it?
JK
James Kirby states:
>I don't support him, never have, and never will. I don't personally think
>the
>man could find his way out of a closed phone booth.
>OK? Got it?
I have to disagree. I don''t think he could find his way out of an open phone
booth without his puppetmaster Cheney.
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
GregP wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
>>margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
>
>
> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
> place within a year. Bush, of course, will claim that the
> military is responsible for it, not him, and then he will
> claim that he never said that he wouldn't allow one. He
> has lied about virtually every major decision or action
> during his administration, hiding behind others whenever
> he could, and he will go on doing it if he gets a chance.
I'm not sure I buy that, Greg - I think it would work against him. Having a
professional army gives
Bush a lot more political flexibility - you can attack anywhere you want and
there won't be hundreds
of thousands of people in the streets screaming "you took my baby to fight in
that stinking place for
your own personal reasons that you won't even admit to!". No, I think that
reinstating a draft would open up
a real can of worms. I think all he really needs to do (or intents to do) is
to keep some sort of hopefully
constrainable military adventurism going somewhere, so that the people who are
susceptible to the
thought that voting against a leader during time of war is somehow disloyal, or
(my favorite from Al Reid )
we should somehow buy into the notion that we should vote for Bush because the
troops like him (moron)
will vote the right way.
Jim Kirby
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
GregP wrote:
>
> If he wins, he won't give a damn about mothers complaining
> about their dead children. And he won't have much choice,
> unless he wants to admit defeat, like Reagan did in Lebanon,
> and withdrawing, sending a message to terrorists that they
> could push us out if they hurt us badly enough. And a surrogate
> draft is already in place, manipulating National Guard units.
I think he will care, because it's a lot easier for him to perpetuate his
agenda if he ruffles as few feathers as
possible.
On the other hand, once people figure out that they are going off to fight
these wars basically as a
continual sideshow for nationalistic interests, the recruiting capabilities for
a volunteer army may indeed
dry up rapidly, and the strategy of using the National Guard as regular army
will certainly backfire sooner or later
too.
We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like
that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
war to serve the strategic interests of the
neocon warmongers?
Kirby
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
James T. Kirby asks:
>We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like
>
>that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
>I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
>war to serve the strategic interests of the
>neocon warmongers?
About the same number as sent their kids off to war during 'Nam. Check with
GWB's daddy to see how influential people reacted.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
GregP wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:18:52 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
>>>place within a year.
>>
>>Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
>>Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.
>
>
>
> Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
> he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
> as the blame can be pushed on someone else.
A draft makes much more sense as a democratic principal. If a military action
is defensible morally and politically, than a democratic population should be
willing to fight it in an egalitarian manner. A draft of this nature should
allow no-one the opportunity to evade it. If Joe Senator from wherever, on either
side of the aisle, wants to
vote for this, then he better dammed well be ready to send his kid off (and
those of
his corporate buddies and lawyer friends), or he is a
lying, sniveling hypocrite.
A professional army is basically a set of hired guns. It's a job they choose.
Kirby
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
James T. Kirby states:
>
>A draft makes much more sense as a democratic principal. If a military
>action
>is defensible morally and politically, than a democratic population should be
>willing to fight it in an egalitarian manner. A draft of this nature should
>allow no-one the opportunity to evade it. If Joe Senator from wherever, on
>either
>side of the aisle, wants to
>vote for this, then he better dammed well be ready to send his kid off (and
>those of
>his corporate buddies and lawyer friends), or he is a
>lying, sniveling hypocrite.
>
Yes, well, take option #2, because option #1 has NEVER happened.
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
GregP wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:28:33 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Wow. You have an answer for everything. Why do you bother? Nobody is going
>>to change your mind, and you're not going to change anyone else's mind.
>
>
>
> Yeah, but I'm right :-)
Here, here !
JK
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:29:52 -0400, "Al Reid"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Al Reid snarls again:
>>
>> >Let me enlighten you, who seems to be so ignorant of the party you so blindly
>> >follow. Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, a
>> >Clinton chronie and a real slime. He was behind most, if not all of the
>> >dissemination of lies about GWB that have been parroted by
>> >all of the democratic pundents, talking heads and Kerry supporters.
>>
>> You really skipped spelling classes by the bunch, didn't you? What lies has
>> anyone spouted about GWB? He was a coke head? He was a drunk? He was nailed for
>> drunken driving? He pulled himself off duty with the ANG in a way that would
>> have gotten my ass tossed in the brig if I'd tried it during my time in the
>> Marines? He has gotten 1100 young Americans killed for reasons that are
>> specious at best? He has pissed away over 200 billion bucks on Iraq and is
>> requesting 75 billion more for next year? He got into Iraq too lightly and had
>> no exit strategy? Dick Cheney pulls his strings? Now, that one may be
>> stretching it a bit, but check out Georgie Boy's pronouncements when he's on
>> his own and when his puppetmaster is in place.
>>
>> Point out the lies.
>>
>>
>> Charlie Self
>> "When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
>> hereditary." Thomas Paine
>
>
>Charlie,
>
>I appreciate you pointing out the fact that my spelling/typing is not as good as yours. You have really gone a long way to show
>your superiority on the issues.
>
>McAuliffe's and DNC's Lies:
>
>1. GWB did coke.
>2. GWB was AWOL
>3. The war in Iraq, which Kerry supported, has already cost over $200 billion
>4. GWB has a plan to suppress minority voting
>5. GWB has a secret plan to take Social Security away from seniors.
>6. GWB has a plan to reinstate the draft.
>7. GWB failed to secure 350+ tons of explosives (that were already gone before the invasion)
>8. GWB raised Medicare premiums on seniors by 17%.
I just gotta mention it, since my wife had missed it- does anyone else
find it amusing that the most religious president (in a long time, at
least) who gets a kick out of war-mongering has initials that could
also mean "Great White Beast"? [from Revelations, IIRC]
Now before I get flamed [which will no doubt happen] I do not think
that this is an arguement for or against Bush, it is just an amusing
aside, especially after seeing that point-by point list using his
initials...
>I could go on, but you get the point. I know you don't subscribe to the same facts as I do. However, I would never stoop so low as
>to subscribe to the Michael Moore "version" of the truth.
>
>Have a good day.
>
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:59:14 GMT, "Al Reid" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>What, on God's green earth would possess you to spout such nonsense? Do you
>really think that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth?
You accolates of Joe Goebbels have been operating on
that principle for the past 4 years.
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:39:08 -0500, "Henry St.Pierre"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>11. Because of his stance on 'global warming' he's responsible for the
>Florida hurricanes.
Nah, that's Clinton's fault (as just about everything else)
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
>margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year. Bush, of course, will claim that the
military is responsible for it, not him, and then he will
claim that he never said that he wouldn't allow one. He
has lied about virtually every major decision or action
during his administration, hiding behind others whenever
he could, and he will go on doing it if he gets a chance.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:13:45 -0500, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
>war to serve the strategic interests of the
>neocon warmongers?
Michael Moore answered that question very effectively:
none of them. Just about all of them are chickenhawks,
anyway: war is great, as long as they don't go.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:32:27 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
>
>How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?
... he says, as he sits safely behind his computer screen, 10-12
thousand miles away from the war he is hyping. They could
use a lot of help over there from you: washing dishes, cleaning
latrines, driving a truck, guarding a facility. You think this war
is a Good Thing, why aren't you over there helping out ???
The truth is, when push comes to shove you only believe in what
you can send others to die for.
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:10:02 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>
>I repeat, it's the DEMOCRATS who are trying to bring back the draft, not the
>Republicans.
And Bush will sign the bill, blaming the Democrats for making
him do it. Kinda like his saying that it's Kerry's fault that Bush
sent troops to Iraq to be shot at without body armor.
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:28:33 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Wow. You have an answer for everything. Why do you bother? Nobody is
>>going
>>to change your mind, and you're not going to change anyone else's mind.
>
>
> Yeah, but I'm right :-)
>
> [and all of you war lovers are war lovers here, hiding out safely
> in your homes, while the action is over there, where lots of
> people are dying for your bellicose beliefs. As long as you're
> hiding out here, instead of helping out over there, you have
> zero credibility.]
Yeah, but you can use that argument for just about everything. You're not
over there either, so everything you say is based on second-hand
information, therefore by your argument, you have zero credibility as well.
I believe war is bad, but sometimes necessary. Was this war necessary?
That, I don't have the answer to. Nor do I have the classified information
that was evaluated (or ignored) to make the decision to go to war in this
way, at this time.
mark writes:
>I believe war is bad, but sometimes necessary. Was this war necessary?
>That, I don't have the answer to. Nor do I have the classified information
>that was evaluated (or ignored) to make the decision to go to war in this
>way, at this time.
>
The information was not and is not classified, I'm sure to GWB's chagrin. He's
admitted is intelligence was faulty.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Press10_21_04.pdf
Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mark writes:
>
>>I believe war is bad, but sometimes necessary. Was this war necessary?
>>That, I don't have the answer to. Nor do I have the classified
>>information
>>that was evaluated (or ignored) to make the decision to go to war in this
>>way, at this time.
>>
>
> The information was not and is not classified, I'm sure to GWB's chagrin.
> He's
> admitted is intelligence was faulty.
>
> http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Press10_21_04.pdf
>
> Charlie Self
Well, I'm not a Bush supporter, per se, but that report looks pretty strange
to me. None of the Bush supporters I know would have answered those
questions in those ways. None of them that I know think that in retrospect,
Iraq had WMDs, and none of them think Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11.
Is it impossible for you to envision a scenario where there is classified
data that cannot be revealed that may have played a hand in the go/no go
decision? Here's a hypothetical, not necessarily about Iraq. What if
israel intelligence had first hand knowledge of some country that had bad
missles pointed somewhere, but they couldn't reveal how they knew without
blowing their cover and putting the life of the agent in danger? What if
they knew they needed to pull the guy back out before doing anything, but
because he disappeared, country X got paranoid and did something with the
missles, so that when we got there they were gone. Do you think stuff like
that doesn't happen all the time? I know it sounds like a bad spy
novel...but I'm just trying to make a point. I'm voting for Badnarik --
yeah, I know, I'm throwing my vote away. I'm in NY, so it doesn't matter
anyway. Too many liberals in NYC.
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want
a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
> >margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
>
> Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
> place within a year.
More FUD from the left. If you actually believe this, you really have your
head up your ass. By the way, only Congress can order a draft. Don't
worry. You'll have Kerry in the Senate to vote against it (after he votes
for it, I presume).
todd
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > McAuliffe's and DNC's Lies:
>> >
>> > 1. GWB did coke.
>>
>> Totally irrelevant. Who could possibly care? I mean, really.
>
>Charlie?
>
>>
>> > 2. GWB was AWOL
>>
>> ?? You think he wasn't?
>
>No I don't . Can you prove he was?
>
>>
>> > 3. The war in Iraq, which Kerry supported, has already cost over $200 billion
>>
>> Probably a drop in the bucket by the time they get done. (Probably never).
>>
>> > 4. GWB has a plan to suppress minority voting
>>
>> I thought that had already happened.
>
>I guess you thought wrong. Can you prove it EVER happened?
There's some pretty clear references it in our history, both via poll
tax and via literacy tests. Obviously, nothing quite so overt is
happening these days, though I wouldn't rule it out.
>> > 5. GWB has a secret plan to take Social Security away from seniors.
>>
>> If somebody doesn't get proactive about that, it won't make a damned bit of
>> difference who is in the white house
>> for that one to happen.
>>
>
>Then it is about time to stop playing politics with the issue and to entertain ways of solving the problem.
>
>> > 6. GWB has a plan to reinstate the draft.
>>
>> No way - reinstating the draft would mean that people who don't want to play
>> GWB's totally fucked up mind games with
>> the world would have a real reason to get pissed off. No way they'd go there.
>> Iraq would then be Vietnam, and people would be in the
>> streets. (At least not until they have mechanisms in place to suppress people
>> being in the streets - then we'll see.)
>>
>> etc., etc.
>>
>> whatever.
>>
>
>We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
>margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.
>
>The only way that Iraq will ever become another Vietnam is if Kerry is elected and manages to engineer another defeat. Other than
>that, there are no parallels to Vietnam.
>
>> > 7. GWB failed to secure 350+ tons of explosives (that were already gone before the invasion)
>> > 8. GWB raised Medicare premiums on seniors by 17%.
>> >
>> > I could go on, but you get the point. I know you don't subscribe to the same facts as I do. However, I would never stoop so
>low as
>> > to subscribe to the Michael Moore "version" of the truth.
>> >
>> > Have a good day.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> James T. Kirby
>> Center for Applied Coastal Research
>> University of Delaware
>> Newark, DE 19716
>>
>> phone: 302-831-2438
>> fax: 302-831-1228
>> email: [email protected]
>> http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
>>
>
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:36:24 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:36:24 -0800, in rec.woodworking you wrote:
>
>I've done my time but would again if necessary.
They could use you right now, Mr Patriot, and you don't
even have to be in the military to help out. But you won't,
will you, it's a lot safer to watch others die.
> Unlike yourself I'd die for my principles,
Well, then, go ahead and do it: I'm not stopping you !
But you won't, will you, it's a lot safer to watch others
die.
mark wrote:
> I believe war is bad, but sometimes necessary. Was this war
> necessary? That, I don't have the answer to. Nor do I have
> the classified information that was evaluated (or ignored) to
> make the decision to go to war in this way, at this time.
I find myself agreeing with this. I am displeased that the
rationale for war offered by the administration seems, after the
fact, to have had so little basis in reality.
I'm also displeased that planning for the Iraq "adventure" does
not seem to have extended beyond the exercise of brute force to
defeat the Iraqi military forces and bringing down the Bathist
government.
FWIW, Greg, not everyone has a preference for playing "armchair
general". I'm an ex-paratrooper and MI (the great oxymoron!)
interpreter/translator/interrogator type (I can muddle my way
along in French, Arabic, and Portuguese) who'd held a TS
clearance while on active duty. For ten years my home had been in
the middle-east and I'd developed a reasonable degree of
mid-eastern cultural appreciation. I'm a ham radio operator and
computer geek; and when necessary can cut boards with a hand saw
and pound nails with a hammer. I can handle heat and I don't mind
getting sweaty and dirty nor doing my own cooking and laundry.
In April of 2003 I worked my way up through the chain of command
(by phone and in person) starting with the CO of the local Air
National Guard unit - and was finally asked to communicate (to
USAID by e-mail) my willingness to work as an unpaid, uninsured,
unsupplied, unhoused, (un-/everything/ that might have a cost
attached) volunteer facilitator/omsbudsman to help get public
facilities (schools, hospitals, etc.) in Iraq operating again as
quickly as possible.
USAID responded with the following e-mail:
-------- Original Message --------
From: - Wed Apr 30 11:19:01 2003
X-UIDL: MD50000004432:MSG:2674:29560628:2737490592
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from exwash005.usaid.gov by mail.jtmweb.com with SMTP
(MDaemon.PRO.v6.7.7.R) for <[email protected]>; Wed, 30 Apr
2003 11:22:04 -0500
Received: by exwash005.usaid.gov with Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19) id <J5M8VNX8>; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:19:25 -0400
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
From: Public Inquiries (LPA) <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Your Inquiry to USAID
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:19:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C30F34.3FB5F030"
X-MDRcpt-To: [email protected]
X-Return-Path: [email protected]
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Thank you for your inquiry to the U.S. Agency for International
Development.
We value your comments and suggestions. We endeavor to respond
to your e-mail as soon as possible. Please note that in many
cases, this will be within 5 days. However, depending on your
request and staff availability, please be aware that some
responses will take longer.
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact us at
[email protected].
Thank you for your interest in USAID.
-------- End Original Message --------
I never heard from them again. My conclusion was that (in spite
of what they said publicly) they didn't need/want anything of
what I had to offer.
I probably wouldn't have made a big difference in the overall
scheme of things - but I'm convinced that as few as 200 such US
volunteers teamed informally with Iraqi volunteers could have
made a major difference and produced a very different sense of
what Americans are all about.
Of course, that wouldn't have left quite as much opportunity for
the GWB/RC business associates...
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto, Iowa USA
>> > On the other hand, once people figure out that they are going off to
>> > fight
>> > these wars basically as a continual sideshow for nationalistic
>> > interests, the recruiting capabilities for
>> > a volunteer army may indeed dry up rapidly, and the strategy of using
>> > the National Guard as regular army
>> > will certainly backfire sooner or later too.
It will certainly weed out the volunteers that only wanted to volunteer for
the free college bucks, and not the possibility that they may have to go
fight somewhere.
Where do you get your information from. I find it incomprehensible that anyone, and for that matter any democrat, that follows
current events and/or politics doesn't know who Terry McAuliffe is. Ignorance is bliss, perhaps.
I follow the news/politics enough to know who the leadership of each party is, what each party stands for, and the records of the
candidates. I then form an opinion based on all of the available facts. You, however, seem to assume facts that are not valid and
jump to conclusions that suit you.
--
Al Reid
A government big enough to give you everything you want...
is big enough to take away everything you have.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:42:16 -0400, James T. Kirby <[email protected]> wrote:
> All of you undecided voters who think Bush is just a good, responsible, well
> meaning "conservative", try to catch "A Patriot Act" on cable before next Tuesday.
Is this the Patriot Act which both John Kerry, and John Edwards, voted for?
That one? The one which passed the Senate on a 98-1-1 vote?
If you want to disagree with someone on the Patriot Act, talk to Kerry
and Edwards and ask why they voted for it.
Dave Hinz
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:01:11 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
>
>No need to. I said bigot. You responded to it so apparently
>you did read it.
If you can't read what you yourself said, how can
you pretend to understand anything from anyone
else ?
>You claimed some sort of collusion if the government creates
>a friendly atmosphere foir business. I suspected your head was
>too far up your ass to understand the issue.
>
You believe in the fantasy that there is no
collusion betw this administration and certain
business interests and you accuse *me* of
being out of it ???
>> Is it the "liberals" who are whining for
>> a constitutional amendment to force people to marry only certain
>> other people ?
>
>You haven't got anything right so far. No one is forcing anyone to marry.
>The fact that civilization has always defined marriage as male/ female
>partners escaped your notice.
You don't have the foggiest idea of whether civilization
"has always defined" marriage to be strictly betw men
and women. And even if that were true, what gives you
the right to tell people that they have to do whatever
you decided they should do ?
>Most people opposed to abortion see it as murder. Murder is everyone's
>business, especially the victim.
So not only do you pretend to have the right to tell people
how they should live their lives, you're also insisting that
you have some sort of inalienable right to tell them how to
think and what to believe. And you complain about "liberals"
interfering with *your* life ?
>Your lack of concern for human life is also a hallmark of
>the liberal.
I have no doubt that if a few people took a very close
look at my life and yours from the point of view of ":concern
for human life," I would come out quite well in comparison.
Of course, it wouldn't take much to accomplish that: your
view of the world appears to be driven by the junkie on
the afternoon hate radio.
>
>What conservative wants laws against unions?
Once again, you blew your reading assignment.
>
>> Was it a "liberal" president who forbids what are
>> supposed to be free citizens to cross into Canada to buy drugs
>> more cheaply than they can here ?
>
>And if harmful drugs were let in the liberals would scream about
>too little concern.
Have you really been sucked into this "harmful drugs"
lie ? Do you have any idea of the structure of the pharmaceutical
industry and how it works ? Do you have the foggiest notion
of what are the quantities of fake drugs sold in Canada vs
the US ? But when the junkie or the president tell you that it's all
being done for your safety, you turn off whatever brain capacity
you do have and repeat the crap every chance you get.
>Liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same
>coin. It's liberals who make the drugs and health care so expensive to
>begin with.
Pharmaceutical companies have nothing to do with it, of
course. Why don't you get down to what you're *really*
thinking and take out the "liberals" word and plug in "jews"
or "kikes" or "niggers" or "spics ?" You clearly need
someone to scapegoat. And while you'd still be a fascist
bigot, at least you'd be just a wee bit more honest with
yourself.
>> Is it the "liberals" who are
>> throwing American citizens into jail for months at a time without any
>> charges or representation ?
>
>Which US citizen was that?
Once again you're showing that your knowledge
base is afternoon radio.
>> If it wasn't for "liberals," Republican as well as Democrat, this
>> country would still be a cesspool of no human or constitutional
>> rights for southern blacks;
>
>Like Lincoln huh? You're a complete idiot.
So what was Lincoln ? You got him all figgered out, eh ?
He was just like you, eh ?
>Rebuplicans passed the 60s civil rights laws, Einstein.
They helped, Einstein II, especially liberal Republicans such
as Nelson Rockefeller, who agitated for a civil rights bill for
a long time, while John Kennedy, who you held up as a "moderate,"
wouldn't And, Einstein II, you flunked reading again: I
specifically included such Republicans.
A civil rights bill wouldn't have a chance nowadays, with the
current neo-dominated congress and a president who likes
to escape responsibility by saying that he'll sign a controversial
bill if someone else writes it, negotiates it, and puts every-
thing on the line to make sure it's passed.
>I won't wastw anymore time with you,
Well, you've gotten this far, so obviously you have. How do
you get by not being honest with yourself ?
Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them. GregP,
I'm with you 100%.
Fight the good fight.
All of you undecided voters who think Bush is just a good, responsible, well
meaning "conservative", try to catch "A Patriot Act" on cable before next Tuesday.
I trust the motives of the right wing about as far as I could heave the Queen
Mary on a bad day, and this still scared the shit out of me.
JK
GregP wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:01:11 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
>
>
>
>>No need to. I said bigot. You responded to it so apparently
>>you did read it.
>
>
> If you can't read what you yourself said, how can
> you pretend to understand anything from anyone
> else ?
>
>
>>You claimed some sort of collusion if the government creates
>>a friendly atmosphere foir business. I suspected your head was
>>too far up your ass to understand the issue.
>>
>
>
> You believe in the fantasy that there is no
> collusion betw this administration and certain
> business interests and you accuse *me* of
> being out of it ???
>
>
>>>Is it the "liberals" who are whining for
>>> a constitutional amendment to force people to marry only certain
>>> other people ?
>>
>>You haven't got anything right so far. No one is forcing anyone to marry.
>>The fact that civilization has always defined marriage as male/ female
>>partners escaped your notice.
>
>
>
> You don't have the foggiest idea of whether civilization
> "has always defined" marriage to be strictly betw men
> and women. And even if that were true, what gives you
> the right to tell people that they have to do whatever
> you decided they should do ?
>
>
>>Most people opposed to abortion see it as murder. Murder is everyone's
>>business, especially the victim.
>
>
> So not only do you pretend to have the right to tell people
> how they should live their lives, you're also insisting that
> you have some sort of inalienable right to tell them how to
> think and what to believe. And you complain about "liberals"
> interfering with *your* life ?
>
>
>>Your lack of concern for human life is also a hallmark of
>>the liberal.
>
>
> I have no doubt that if a few people took a very close
> look at my life and yours from the point of view of ":concern
> for human life," I would come out quite well in comparison.
> Of course, it wouldn't take much to accomplish that: your
> view of the world appears to be driven by the junkie on
> the afternoon hate radio.
>
>>What conservative wants laws against unions?
>
>
> Once again, you blew your reading assignment.
>
>
>>>Was it a "liberal" president who forbids what are
>>> supposed to be free citizens to cross into Canada to buy drugs
>>> more cheaply than they can here ?
>>
>>And if harmful drugs were let in the liberals would scream about
>>too little concern.
>
>
> Have you really been sucked into this "harmful drugs"
> lie ? Do you have any idea of the structure of the pharmaceutical
> industry and how it works ? Do you have the foggiest notion
> of what are the quantities of fake drugs sold in Canada vs
> the US ? But when the junkie or the president tell you that it's all
> being done for your safety, you turn off whatever brain capacity
> you do have and repeat the crap every chance you get.
>
>
>>Liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same
>>coin. It's liberals who make the drugs and health care so expensive to
>>begin with.
>
>
> Pharmaceutical companies have nothing to do with it, of
> course. Why don't you get down to what you're *really*
> thinking and take out the "liberals" word and plug in "jews"
> or "kikes" or "niggers" or "spics ?" You clearly need
> someone to scapegoat. And while you'd still be a fascist
> bigot, at least you'd be just a wee bit more honest with
> yourself.
>
>
>>>Is it the "liberals" who are
>>> throwing American citizens into jail for months at a time without any
>>> charges or representation ?
>>
>>Which US citizen was that?
>
>
> Once again you're showing that your knowledge
> base is afternoon radio.
>
>
>>> If it wasn't for "liberals," Republican as well as Democrat, this
>>> country would still be a cesspool of no human or constitutional
>>> rights for southern blacks;
>>
>>Like Lincoln huh? You're a complete idiot.
>
>
> So what was Lincoln ? You got him all figgered out, eh ?
> He was just like you, eh ?
>
>
>
>>Rebuplicans passed the 60s civil rights laws, Einstein.
>
>
> They helped, Einstein II, especially liberal Republicans such
> as Nelson Rockefeller, who agitated for a civil rights bill for
> a long time, while John Kennedy, who you held up as a "moderate,"
> wouldn't And, Einstein II, you flunked reading again: I
> specifically included such Republicans.
>
> A civil rights bill wouldn't have a chance nowadays, with the
> current neo-dominated congress and a president who likes
> to escape responsibility by saying that he'll sign a controversial
> bill if someone else writes it, negotiates it, and puts every-
> thing on the line to make sure it's passed.
>
>
>>I won't wastw anymore time with you,
>
>
> Well, you've gotten this far, so obviously you have. How do
> you get by not being honest with yourself ?
>
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
Al Reid wrote:
> "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Threads like this depress the hell out of me, so I can't follow them. GregP,
>>I'm with you 100%.
>>Fight the good fight.
>
>
> If you are unable to follow the thread, how do you know you are 100% with GregP?
>
> Oh, I see. You were able to glean GregP's political bent, and just blindly followed his lead. Typical of the mindless, liberal
> puppets.
Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
see where the puppetry is.)
JK
>
>
>>All of you undecided voters who think Bush is just a good, responsible, well
>>meaning "conservative", try to catch "A Patriot Act" on cable before next Tuesday.
>>I trust the motives of the right wing about as far as I could heave the Queen
>>Mary on a bad day, and this still scared the shit out of me.
>>
>>JK
>>
>
>
>
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
Al Reid wrote:
>Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
>> puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
>> overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
>> am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
>> ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
>> see where the puppetry is.)
>We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
>unison the same talking points, lies and deception.
Well, if I knew who Terry McAuliffe was, I may see your point better.
I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe - I've been working on that for
40 years. In that time, I've never seen
a Republican president who I'd even want to be in the same room with, much less
get to know. I fail to see the attraction.
Jim Kirby
Al Reid wrote:
> "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>>Al Reid wrote:
>>
>> >Well, I guess I have difficulty figuring out just what a liberal would be a
>> >> puppet of, since there is no coherent leadership or
>> >> overarching agenda behind anything I can identify as being liberal. And boy, I
>> >> am sure one of those - thanks for the proper
>> >> ID - I'll take that anyday over fascist right wing extremist. (There, I can
>> >> see where the puppetry is.)
>>
>>
>> >We all know that Terry McAuliffe and the DNC are pulling all of your strings.
>> It could be no coincidence that you all spew in
>> >unison the same talking points, lies and deception.
>>
>>Well, if I knew who Terry McAuliffe was, I may see your point better.
>
>
> Let me enlighten you, who seems to be so ignorant of the party you so blindly follow. Terry McAuliffe is the head of the DNC, a
> Clinton chronie and a real slime. He was behind most, if not all of the dissemination of lies about GWB that have been parroted by
> all of the democratic pundents, talking heads and Kerry supporters. McAuliffe, much like Kerry hemself, has no core convictions or
> moral compas. The is the role model for dirty, negative politics.
Well, since you don't seem to get it, let me repeat. I don't need Terry
McAuliffe or anyone else to tell me
how I should form my opinions. Do you? Well, maybe, since you just don't seem
to get it.
JK
>
>
>>I don't need anyone to tell me what to believe - I've been working on that for
>>40 years. In that time, I've never seen
>>a Republican president who I'd even want to be in the same room with, much less
>>get to know. I fail to see the attraction.
>>
>>Jim Kirby
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:05 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I find it amusing that anyone would consider the Democrats to be far left.
>By world standards there's not that much of a difference in political
>ideology between Democrats and Republicans.
... except that a significant percentage of the Republican
leadership is fascist in beliefs. And almost none of them
served in the military, while they're more than happy to send
our kids (not theres) to die on ther behalf.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:42 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:57:27 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> calmly
>ranted:
>
>>"Howard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> So, I repeat, which gunshow 'loophole' are you referring to?
>
>>OK, I fold. If the laws are upheld, there is no loophole. You are correct.
>>I should have said, stricter enforcement of existing laws, which I think is
>>the main problem anyway.
>
>It's really too bad that -more- of the anti-gun folks haven't
>come to that awareness. Gun owners don't like criminal antics
>and Saturday Night Specials, either.
how about the gun owning criminals and SNS owners?
DamnYankee wrote:
> Pahleez...
>
> I am a member of the NRA and I am very mindful of the INTENT of our
> Founding Fathers. The Constitution was written with the concept of
> single shot fowling rifles (which had an accuracy of less than 200 yards).
Actually, it was written with the concept of single-shot military muskets,
but that's neither here nor there. At the time privately owned cannon were
also par for the course--in fact privately owned warships mounting many
cannon were not uncommon. Further, prior to the writing of the Constitution
the US goverment was presented with at least one demonstration of a working
firearm that discharged "10-20 rounds per second". Present were several of
those who were later present at the Constitutional Convention, so to claim
that they were unaware of the possibility of the existence of such a weapon
is simple ignorance. Incidentally one seldom uses a rifle for "fowling".
One usually uses a shotgun for that purpose.
> I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
> constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
> second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
> incomprehensible.
>
> Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
> launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
> defend yourself?
(a) What the Hell is an "Ouzi"? A squirt gun filled with a Greek liqueur?
(b) The firearms over which you express concern were in fact placed under
strict regulation in 1934. There have since been two documented cases of
the use of lawfully owned firearms of that nature being used in the
commission of a crime, and one of those was by a police officer.
Regardless, there is no "Constitutional right to defend yourself". The
right is "to keep and bear arms", possibly with some relation to a "well
regulated militia". Self defense doesn't enter into it at all. The
Supreme Court upheld the 1934 statute on the basis of a case in which
someone was charged with unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and
the wording of the ruling was that the shotgun was not protected by the
Second Amendment because it was not "within judicial notice" that such a
firearm had any relation to the maintaining of a well-regulated militia,
not because it had no utility for defensive purposes.
> As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
> Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
> have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
> My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
> or your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.
Huh? That is a very inconsistent statement. The right to free speech is
the right to speak your mind _especially_ when it is offensive to the
government. Political Correctness is turning into what you say though.
But if that's what you were trying to say your expression of the other two
does not reflect the similar change in values.
> Peace,
>
> Dy
> Kerry wrote:
>> How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>> this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>> shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>> your guns.
>>
>> Liberal
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Prometheus wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:19:44 GMT, "Courtney Mainord"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> > How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>>> > this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>>> > shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>>> > your guns.
>>>
>>> And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?
>>>
>>> His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will
>>> do
>>>everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
>>>and demoCROOKS disagree with that.
>
> Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
> conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
> the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
> shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
> idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
> the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. I
> didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
> that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
> easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.
>
> You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
> responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
> who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
> start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
> falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
> go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
> thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
> hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
> really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
> ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
> do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.
An Apache is totally worthless when the pilot and ground crew all got shot
coming out of a bar one night or refuse to fly because their wives and kids
are being held hostage and may be in the target zone. And if the workers
in the factory where the spare parts are made all decide to join the
rebellion it is going to quit flying due to lack of spares after a while.
Of course they destroyed the factory before they left, and being the
experts on using the tools, they did a right job of it. Assuming of course
that some F-15 jockey from the part of the Air Force that joined the
rebellion doesn't just blow the crap out of it. People who use this
argument simply do not understand the difference between a war and a
rebellion.
Maybe someday when war machines are autonomous this argument will have some
validity, but it does not right now.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Prometheus wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:38:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Prometheus wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:19:44 GMT, "Courtney Mainord"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> > How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>>>>> > this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a
>>>>> > real
>>>>> > shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>>>>> > your guns.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?
>>>>>
>>>>> His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will
>>>>> do
>>>>>everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
>>>>>and demoCROOKS disagree with that.
>>>
>>> Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
>>> conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
>>> the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
>>> shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
>>> idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
>>> the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. I
>>> didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
>>> that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
>>> easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.
>>>
>>> You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
>>> responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
>>> who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
>>> start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
>>> falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
>>> go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
>>> thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
>>> hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
>>> really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
>>> ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
>>> do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.
>>
>>An Apache is totally worthless when the pilot and ground crew all got shot
>>coming out of a bar one night or refuse to fly because their wives and
>>kids
>>are being held hostage and may be in the target zone. And if the workers
>>in the factory where the spare parts are made all decide to join the
>>rebellion it is going to quit flying due to lack of spares after a while.
>>Of course they destroyed the factory before they left, and being the
>>experts on using the tools, they did a right job of it. Assuming of
>>course that some F-15 jockey from the part of the Air Force that joined
>>the
>>rebellion doesn't just blow the crap out of it. People who use this
>>argument simply do not understand the difference between a war and a
>>rebellion.
>>
>>Maybe someday when war machines are autonomous this argument will have
>>some validity, but it does not right now.
>
> All right, all right- fine. There are all sorts of military and
> guerrilla tactics to accomplish almost any sort of military goal.
> That's freely granted. What isn't is my consent for every damn yahoo
> on the block to have a machine gun so that they can shoot up the
> neighborhood whenever they see a property tax increase.
In 1934 a Federal law was enacted requiring an extensive background check on
anyone desiring to purchase a machine gun, with a $500 tax on the sale to
cover the cost. Since that time, there have been two incidents of which I
am aware in which a lawfully owned machine gun was used to harm anyone, and
one of those was owned and used by a police officer. So what, exactly, are
you complaining about?
Perhaps you are thinking of the "assault weapon" ban? If so, be aware that
it had absolutely nothing to do with machine guns, and the fact that so
many people believe that it did is a monument to the ignorance of the press
and the dishonesty of politicians, lobbyists, and gun control advocates.
As for hunting not being in danger, (a) the Second Amendment is not about
hunting--if you don't want the government to obey it then be honest about
what you want and lobby for its repeal instead of claiming that it doesn't
apply to whatever type of "arm" you don't personally like, and (b) see
England and Australia. The gun control advocates claim that they aren't
after "sporting arms" but their actions elsewhere show them for the
hypocrites and liars that they are.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Prometheus wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:17:38 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
>>> constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
>>> second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
>>> incomprehensible.
>>
>>These weapons are illegal for the general public to purchase. (yes, there
>>are exceptions, as I recently found out about Arizona -- but you still
>>need to pay lots of money, have an in-depth background check, and get the
>>approval of some governmental agency I can't remember the name of right
>>now...)
>
> There's a shop about 10 miles from me with a sign that just says "Guns
> Guns Guns" They sell any kind of firearm you could imagine, from the
> old thompson sub-machine guns to big anti-aircraft guns mounted on
> huge tripods. There you pay $200 for a full-auto permit (fee may've
> changed by now) wait a week, and get your insanely useless machine
> gun. I say insanely useless because you can't shoot it anywhere but a
> licensed range, it chews up ammunition and there's no one around that
> you have any right to shoot.
In what nation is this? In the US you can shoot a machine gun anywhere that
you can shoot any other kind of gun that uses the same ammunition, however
to obtain one you have to pay a $500 Federal transfer tax and wait several
months for the background check. The requirements have not changed since
1934.
>>> Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
>>> launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
>>> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
>>> defend yourself?
>>
>>I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
>>breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
>>would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.
>>
>>> As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
>>> Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
>>> have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
>>
>>That isn't true. You do not have the right to NOT be offended by what I
>>say. You have the right to NOT be shut down by the government for what you
>>say. That's it.
>>
>>
>>> My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family,
>>> or
>>> your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>> Peace,
>>>
>>> Dy
>>> Kerry wrote:
>>>> How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>>>> this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>>>> shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>>>> your guns. Liberal
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:05 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I find it amusing that anyone would consider the Democrats to be far left.
>>By world standards there's not that much of a difference in political
>>ideology between Democrats and Republicans.
>
> ... except that a significant percentage of the Republican
> leadership is fascist in beliefs. And almost none of them
> served in the military, while they're more than happy to send
> our kids (not theres) to die on ther behalf.
Perhaps you should get a dictionary and find out what "fascist" really means.
Almost none of the Democrat leadership served in the military either, by the
way. This is apparently an unfamiliar concept to you, but the leaders of
*both* parties come, by and large, from backgrounds of wealth and privilege,
not just the Republicans.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:49:13 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Perhaps you should get a dictionary and find out what "fascist" really means.
>
> I have, but it sounds like you haven't. And dictionaries aren't
> exactly the be-all end-all of human knowledge.
Of course they're not -- but they do give accurate descriptions of the
meanings of words. And it does indeed appear that you have not, in fact,
consulted your dictionary on that particular point. Here's what mine says:
"fascism: a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing
an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
You claimed that the Republican leadership is fascist. Please identify, with
complete citations, which members of the Republican leadership have advocated
the system described above.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:42:38 -0400, "Al Reid"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>McAuliffe, much like Kerry hemself, has no core convictions or
>moral compas. ...
If that were really true, he would be working for the Bush
administration.
DamnYankee <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
> defend yourself?
>
Not to be too persnickety but I don't think you'll find a guarantee of
the righ tto self defense in the Constitution. The second Amendment
does not refer to personal self-defense.
Which goes to show that there are widely recognized fundamental human
rights not enumerated or explicitely protected in the Constitution.
--
FF
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>...
> >
> >Not to be too persnickety but I don't think you'll find a guarantee of
> >the righ tto self defense in the Constitution. The second Amendment
> >does not refer to personal self-defense. ...
> >
> At least one *state* Constitution *does* (Indiana): "The people shall have the
> right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
> Consequently, our ownership and concealed-carry laws are pretty permissive,
> and many of our prosecutors and judges are fairly tough on those who abuse
> that right -- which is IMHO exactly as it should be, in both respects.
There is some merit to Patrick Henry's argument that one should not
enumerate rights in a Constitution because then some dumb ass (BTW,
I'm paraphrasing Mr Henry) might come along, amend that Constitution,
and then argue that the right no longer exists.
--
FF
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:38:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Prometheus wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:19:44 GMT, "Courtney Mainord"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> > How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>>>> > this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>>>> > shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>>>> > your guns.
>>>>
>>>> And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?
>>>>
>>>> His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will
>>>> do
>>>>everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
>>>>and demoCROOKS disagree with that.
>>
>> Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
>> conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
>> the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
>> shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
>> idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
>> the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. I
>> didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
>> that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
>> easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.
>>
>> You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
>> responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
>> who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
>> start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
>> falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
>> go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
>> thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
>> hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
>> really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
>> ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
>> do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.
>
>An Apache is totally worthless when the pilot and ground crew all got shot
>coming out of a bar one night or refuse to fly because their wives and kids
>are being held hostage and may be in the target zone. And if the workers
>in the factory where the spare parts are made all decide to join the
>rebellion it is going to quit flying due to lack of spares after a while.
>Of course they destroyed the factory before they left, and being the
>experts on using the tools, they did a right job of it. Assuming of course
>that some F-15 jockey from the part of the Air Force that joined the
>rebellion doesn't just blow the crap out of it. People who use this
>argument simply do not understand the difference between a war and a
>rebellion.
>
>Maybe someday when war machines are autonomous this argument will have some
>validity, but it does not right now.
All right, all right- fine. There are all sorts of military and
guerrilla tactics to accomplish almost any sort of military goal.
That's freely granted. What isn't is my consent for every damn yahoo
on the block to have a machine gun so that they can shoot up the
neighborhood whenever they see a property tax increase.
On 25 Oct 2004 17:36:28 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:00:02 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
>> that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
>> easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.
>
>My several thousand dollar Springfield Armory M1-A Match Rifle is
>"Junk anyways"?
I don't know. I live in a poor area, and people were worked up about
the SKS and Ruger 10-23 modifications that were *banned*. Didn't have
access to expensive "assault" rifles, so I couldn't determine their
relative quality- all of the ones I personally encountered from that
list were worthless junk.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 20:28:08 -0500, Prometheus
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>Again, I've seen all the stats. I'm not disagreeing with the
>principle, but with the overblown rhetoric. The "they're gonna take
>away mah gunz" folks are not always looking at the sane aspect of gun
>ownership- they're often pushing for a personal right to fill up their
>lawns with claymore mines and mount an anit-aircraft battery on the
>roof. Call it hyperbole if you like, but I was raised by militia
>supporters, and they and all their friends used the same damn
>arguments. They were dangerous people with a high level of mental
>illness, and I'm not going to defend that kind of loonyness.
There are certainly a few loonies out there, but sanity prevails
for the vast majority of the US population. A handful of loonies
and the rabid anti-gun critters really are few in number. How many
people have your militia friends killed so far? (My guess would be
zero, as most loonies just look that way and don't follow through.)
>>the right questions. I dare you to do the same research.
>
>I own a handgun. And a shotgun. And a rifle. Even some knives, too.
>Your dare is a little weak- sometimes it takes a little courage to
>look at the reasonable side of things, rather than just assuming that
>"they're" out to get you.
? Who just brought up paranoia? If you want that, the assault gun
ban was that kind of trash, pure and simple. I looked at the issue
and then jumped to the reasonable side of the fence, P.
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
Larry Jaques posts:
>"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
>unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
>150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
>the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
Flat statement. Facts to back it up?
Charlie Self
"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not
hereditary." Thomas Paine
On 25 Oct 2004 15:01:36 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
calmly ranted:
>Larry Jaques posts:
>
>>"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
>>unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
>>150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
>>the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
>
>Flat statement. Facts to back it up?
Ask Michael. www.badnarik.org
;)
It was in one of his speeches.
http://badnarik.org/plans_economy.php
--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
VOTE LIBERTARIAN ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 OR YOU WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING.
"mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I agree that
>the gunshow loophole should be closed.
And just which gunshow loophole is that?
--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:31:02 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:
|
|"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
|news:[email protected]...
|>
|> And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?
|
|There's this thing called the United States Senate where Kerry has been for
|the last couple of decades or so and has cast hundreds of votes on a variety
|of topics. This is a pretty good indication of what his belief system is.
|It's odd that his campaign will talk about ANY subject before his voting
|record.
First let me say that I am a life-long registered Republican and cast
my first vote for president for Barry Goldwater (who must be turning
over in his grave watching this campaign). I have (forgive me) voted
for every Republican candidate for president since then, including the
current one.
That said; in defense of Senator Kerry's voting record let me point
out that if any senator's record were examined under a microscope
there would appear to be gross inconsistencies. Unrelated riders are
attached to bills all of the time, most of them as attempts to get
something passed that would fail to pass on its own merits. A yes
vote today and a nay vote tomorrow may not be inconsistent at all.
Furthermore, remember that we live in a country with a
"representative" form of government. Senator Kerry is supposed to
"represent" his constituents and they are the citizens of the
ultra-liberal Massachusetts. How else would you expect him to vote if
he wanted to be reelected?
My senator, John McCain, is about the only one I know of who can speak
his mind and still get reelected, although it pains me to see him
campaigning for GWB, after what Bush said about him in the past. I
thought McCain had more integrity than that, but it just further
proves my point, these guys will do and say anything to get elected.
Wes Stewart
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:06:35 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:05 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ... except that a significant percentage of the Republican
>> leadership is fascist in beliefs.
>
>Pop quiz for Greg---
>Identify the party that has a senator who was an active member of the KKK.
>Show your work.
>a) Republican party
>b) Democrat party
>
>
- and if you were really up on all this, you'd know that KKK
were closer to populist (nasty, but still populist) than
anything else.
>
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Maybe someday when war machines are autonomous this argument will have
some
> >validity, but it does not right now.
>
> All right, all right- fine. There are all sorts of military and
> guerrilla tactics to accomplish almost any sort of military goal.
> That's freely granted. What isn't is my consent for every damn yahoo
> on the block to have a machine gun so that they can shoot up the
> neighborhood whenever they see a property tax increase.
Wow, you're really ratcheting up the hyperbole. If I wanted to cause
property damage or shoot some folks, I wouldn't need an automatic weapon.
Most people don't want and can't afford automatic weapons anyway. If you're
gonna argue for gun control, you'd better come up with something other than
this lame argument.
todd
On 26 Oct 2004 15:24:36 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:33:15 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2004 17:36:28 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:00:02 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>those guns were junk anyways,
>>>
>>>My several thousand dollar Springfield Armory M1-A Match Rifle is
>>>"Junk anyways"?
>>
>> I don't know. I live in a poor area, and people were worked up about
>> the SKS and Ruger 10-23 modifications that were *banned*. Didn't have
>> access to expensive "assault" rifles, so I couldn't determine their
>> relative quality- all of the ones I personally encountered from that
>> list were worthless junk.
>
>So, once again, you expand your limited point of view to be the general
>case and state your wrong guess as fact. I see.
And you ignore all the fucking wackos around you. We could go back
and forth all day, but it's not worth it.
>Good to know you, you know, get all the facts and stuff before making
>up your mind on something.
So by *all the facts* you mean all the facts you like, ignoring
whatever you don't see... Sure, most people are fine with guns. But
there are plenty that are not, and they're they type -like it or not-
that tend to favor guns that look mean, have 100 round clips and come
with a bayonet. That's who I'm talking about, not joe average with
his nice over-under 16ga that he uses for bird hunting.
In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:56:41 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, GregP
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:49:13 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you should get a dictionary and find out what "fascist" really
> means.
>>>
>>> I have, but it sounds like you haven't. And dictionaries aren't
>>> exactly the be-all end-all of human knowledge.
>>
>>Of course they're not -- but they do give accurate descriptions of the
>>meanings of words. And it does indeed appear that you have not, in fact,
>>consulted your dictionary on that particular point. Here's what mine says:
>>
>>"fascism: a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing
>
>>an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
>>
>>You claimed that the Republican leadership is fascist. Please identify, with
>>complete citations, which members of the Republican leadership have advocated
>>the system described above.
>
> The Rush Limbaugh simple version of politics, eh ? All major
> principles and concepts reduced to one sentence.
>
> My view of it is as below, written by someone I know.
>
[irrelevant diatribe snipped]
You certainly do a marvelous job of evading the issue. I repeat:
You claimed that the Republican leadership is fascist. Please identify, with
complete citations, which members of the Republican leadership have advocated
the system described above.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
>DamnYankee <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
>> defend yourself?
>>
>
>Not to be too persnickety but I don't think you'll find a guarantee of
>the righ tto self defense in the Constitution. The second Amendment
>does not refer to personal self-defense.
>
At least one *state* Constitution *does* (Indiana): "The people shall have the
right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
Consequently, our ownership and concealed-carry laws are pretty permissive,
and many of our prosecutors and judges are fairly tough on those who abuse
that right -- which is IMHO exactly as it should be, in both respects.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 02:19:44 GMT, "Courtney Mainord"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>> > this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>> > shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>> > your guns.
>>
>> And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?
>>
>> His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will do
>>everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
>>and demoCROOKS disagree with that.
Somebody's been spending too much time with the NRA propiganda. I'm a
conservative, and was brought up in a NRA-card carrying family, but
the idea that Kerry could actually do a damn thing to take your
shotgun out of your hands is hysterical nonsense. Even when that
idiotic assult weapons ban was passed, they did nothing to take away
the guns on the list- it was just no longer legal to buy them new. I
didn't agree with that legislation, but it didn't cause any real harm
that I could see- those guns were junk anyways, and they were just as
easy to come by after they were "banned" as they were beforehand.
You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:06:35 GMT, "Frank Ketchum"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Pop quiz for Greg---
>Identify the party that has a senator who was an active member of the KKK.
>Show your work.
>a) Republican party
>b) Democrat party
Well, there's Byrd. And then there are sympathizers
such as Trent Lott. Byrd is past in that regard, Trent
showed that he's quite current.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:17:38 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I find it incredible that people today think they can stretch this
>> constitutional right to include rifles which fire off 10-20 rounds per
>> second to ouzis, AK-47s, and single shot grenade launchers in
>> incomprehensible.
>
>These weapons are illegal for the general public to purchase. (yes, there
>are exceptions, as I recently found out about Arizona -- but you still need
>to pay lots of money, have an in-depth background check, and get the
>approval of some governmental agency I can't remember the name of right
>now...)
There's a shop about 10 miles from me with a sign that just says "Guns
Guns Guns" They sell any kind of firearm you could imagine, from the
old thompson sub-machine guns to big anti-aircraft guns mounted on
huge tripods. There you pay $200 for a full-auto permit (fee may've
changed by now) wait a week, and get your insanely useless machine
gun. I say insanely useless because you can't shoot it anywhere but a
licensed range, it chews up ammunition and there's no one around that
you have any right to shoot.
>> Look at it this way: Ouzis, AK-47 and those ilk as well as grenade
>> launching firearms are not defensive in purpose - they are offensive in
>> purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
>> defend yourself?
>
>I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
>breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
>would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.
>
>> As we move further away from 1778, the Words & Intent of the Founding
>> Fathers are getting grossly slurred. The Right to Free Speech means you
>> have a right to speak your mind as long as it's not offensive to others.
>
>That isn't true. You do not have the right to NOT be offended by what I say.
>You have the right to NOT be shut down by the government for what you say.
>That's it.
>
>
>> My right to own my firearms ends when I point it at you, your family, or
>> your property. My right to swing my fist ends at your personal space.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Peace,
>>
>> Dy
>> Kerry wrote:
>>> How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>>> this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>>> shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>>> your guns. Liberal
>
In article <[email protected]>, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>OK, I fold. If the laws are upheld, there is no loophole. You are correct.
>I should have said, stricter enforcement of existing laws, which I think is
>the main problem anyway.
Bingo. Use a gun to commit a crime -- go to jail. That's the way it oughta be.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>But
>there are plenty that are not, and they're they type -like it or not-
>that tend to favor guns that look mean, have 100 round clips and come
>with a bayonet.
The vast majority of all gun crime is committed with small-caliber
handguns, and always has been. The ugly-weapons ban did not change
that one way or the other, and neither will the repeal of that silly
excuse for law.
--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:24:17 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:49:40 -0500, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Prometheus" wrote in message
>>
>>> You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
>>> responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
>>> who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
>>> start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
>>> falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
>>> go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
>>> thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
>>> hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
>>> really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
>>> ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
>>> do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.
>>
>>Apache helicopters don't seem to be having much impact on the Islamic
>>fundamentalist of the world. The point is "registration" ... if you know
>>where something, it is easier to confiscate it.
>
>Who is trying to confiscate your guns? I've been hearing these dire
>warnings since I was a tot, and none of it has ever happened- nor does
>it even really seem to be in the works.
>
For historical precedence, check out the history of gun control in Great
Britain, Canada, and Australia just to name a few. They all started out
with "just registration", then progressed to more and more draconian
measures. Not sure where Canada stands now, a few years ago, instead of
registering long guns because gun owners were getting wise to that
ploy,they started requiring that ammunition be registered. Nose of the
camel indeed.
>>Interesting to both sides of the issue are statistics on Australia's
>>experience with gun control:
>>
>>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:56:41 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:49:13 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should get a dictionary and find out what "fascist" really means.
>>
>> I have, but it sounds like you haven't. And dictionaries aren't
>> exactly the be-all end-all of human knowledge.
>
>Of course they're not -- but they do give accurate descriptions of the
>meanings of words. And it does indeed appear that you have not, in fact,
>consulted your dictionary on that particular point. Here's what mine says:
>
>"fascism: a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing
>an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
>
>You claimed that the Republican leadership is fascist. Please identify, with
>complete citations, which members of the Republican leadership have advocated
>the system described above.
The Rush Limbaugh simple version of politics, eh ? All major
principles and concepts reduced to one sentence.
My view of it is as below, written by someone I know.
*************************************************************
As soon as I read this:
"It was quite an ironic charge coming from a self-described activist
group whose left-wing, eco-extremist, anti-biotechnology,
anti-chemical, anti-nuclear, anti-defense and anti-business screeds
embody the very antithesis of the scientific ideal of objectivity."
then I knew the entire article was garbage. They made no effort to
refute anything the UCS said, they merely pandered to their fears and
ignorance of their readership via a heavy dose of gutter journalism.
It's the most distressing aspect of this particular brand of
right-wing ideology (I won't call them conservative because they're
not), in that their only response to any challenge is insult,
invective, fear-mongering, pandering, and ignorance. Their ideology
is so morally bankrupt and devoid of anything more than a hackneyed
version of economic and social Darwinism, that it offers society
virtually nothing beyond the pursuit of wealth and power by the elite
at the expense of everyone else. The more I head and read of this
particular brand of right wing extremism, the so-called "neo-cons",
the more I hear the echos of the Third Reich.
Am I guilty of doing the same thing? Just read the article and
similar ones by these ideologues and show me where the article isn't
at least in part about insult, invective, fear-mongering, pandering,
and ignorance. Can the left idulge in some of this? Of course it
can, but the ideology can stand on its own without it, and so can
traditional Republican (conservative) values, but this current version
can't. Without IIFP&I, it has nothing left to offer.
Hilter gained power democratically by appealing to fear and ignorance.
The "Jew" became his social bogeyman that motivated the ignorant and
selfish to vote him in. To see what I mean, take a lot of the crap
spewed about Liberals, remove "Liberal" and insert the word "Jew".
Traditional Conservatism is a proud ideology with an equally proud
history but this current crew are far more fascist than conservative.
Neo-cons are simply fascists with better PR and better suits. They
give thinking conservatives everywhere a bad name. And BTW, I'm not
name calling when I label them as fascists, I'm using the word in it's
correct political context, not as a slur. Fascism is a legitimate
political philosophy, no matter how distasteful it might be. I won't
let "fascist" the slur prevent me from using the word appropriately.
Fascism can be defined two ways: as a right-wing, authoritarian, and
nationalistic philisophy, and as an ideology that closely aligns the
interests of government with that of major corporations, to the
benefit of those corporations and the elites that control them. Sound
familiar?
I've mentioned this a few times, but what the political discourse of
the Western World needs to do is rehabilitate the word "Fascism" so it
can be used appropriately, plus consider the possibility of creating a
new label, "Democratic Fascism", a philosophy that generally plays by
the democratic rule of law but is otherwise dedicated to the
principles of Fascism. I'm sure Republicans of an earlier age are
turning over in their graves given the antics of the current crew that
bears their proud name.
On 26 Oct 2004 20:53:42 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>ALL bullets can be cop killing bullets. All bullets can also armor
>>>pierce given enough velocity. So what do you propose for ammo?
>
>> Spitballs ?
>
>How do I defend myself, then, against the criminal who _doesn't_ disarm,
>Greg?
That was a joke, Dave.
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Perhaps you blame
>inatimate objects for the actions of people, but I reject that.
Saw a bumper-snicker recently: "Guns kill people, just like spoons
made Rosie O'Donnell fat".
You want to legislate against the #1 killer? Ban automobiles.
--
Howard Lee Harkness
Texas Certified Concealed Handgun Instructor
www.CHL-TX.com
[email protected]
Low-cost Domain Registration and Hosting! www.Texas-Domains.com
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:05 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The funniest moment in this campaign IMO was after the Kerry ticket carped
>> for weeks about McCain running for veep with Kerry, and then McCain comes
>> out at the Republican Convention and lambastes Kerry. A truly embarrasing
>> moment for all Democrats. But what would you have McCain do? He is a
>> Democrat who has found his party moving away from him, hijacked by the far
>> left.
>
>I find it amusing that anyone would consider the Democrats to be far left.
>By world standards there's not that much of a difference in political
>ideology between Democrats and Republicans.
>
yep. both are tools of corporate hegemony.
remember the last election, where there really was no platform
difference between the dems and the repubs?
>>
>>I find it amusing that anyone would consider the Democrats to be far left.
>>By world standards there's not that much of a difference in political
>>ideology between Democrats and Republicans.
>>
You are right...and by even relatively recent historical standards they are
both far left. Just because other "civilized" countries want to be socialist
doesn't mean we should feel any need to go that way.
Dave Hall
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:31:03 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:
[snip]
> My senator, John McCain, is about the only one I know of who can speak his
> mind and still get reelected, although it pains me to see him campaigning
> for GWB, after what Bush said about him in the past. I thought McCain had
> more integrity than that, but it just further proves my point, these guys
> will do and say anything to get elected.
McCain and Kyle are also my senators, but I prefer Kyle over McCain.
Perhaps McCain remembers what Kerry said about him as a Viet Nam Vet and
considers those statements overwhelm anything Bush may have said? Had
McCain truly believed in Kerry, he would have accepted the VP nomination
as Kerry's running mate. That probably would have assured a Kerry victory.
-Doug
--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:50:39 -0700, Mark Reichert wrote:
> After all, who is it that is equating criticism to being disloyal
> citizens?
Teresa Kerry.
-Doug
--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson
"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?
There's this thing called the United States Senate where Kerry has been for
the last couple of decades or so and has cast hundreds of votes on a variety
of topics. This is a pretty good indication of what his belief system is.
It's odd that his campaign will talk about ANY subject before his voting
record.
Frank
"GregP"
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!>
> >Do you know what the definition of bigotry is?
> There are lots of them. How about: Fletis Humplebacker, the
> consummate fascist, screaming "liberal !" when someone
> questions his narrow-world view :-)
I think you just illustrated your potential quite well.
> >You're doing a good job of playing the role.
> I'm sure I am, in my own sweet way, but you didn't identify
> a role. Try again.
No need to. I said bigot. You responded to it so apparently
you did read it.
> >How does hurting business help the economy?
> "Hurting business" is one of those nice `n simple the-world-
> in-a-one-liner that you fas...... err, nice, upstanding people latch
> on to. What "hurt" are you talking about ? Which businesses ?
> What actions of theirs are *NOT* inviolate in your mind ?
> Is it anything goes ? Or are there some limits that even you
> would accept ?
You claimed some sort of collusion if the government creates
a friendly atmosphere foir business. I suspected your head was
too far up your ass to understand the issue.
> >This is the kind of rhetoric the liberals use to whip up emotion to
> >further their political aims. Actually liberalism is far more facist, it
> >seeks to micromanage the citizens lives through larger and larger
> >government control and legislation. True conservatism calls for less
> >government control, not more.
> There you go again with the "liberal" bigotry. *They* want to
> control lives ? Bullpucky.
Not from your vantage point but out here it's obvious.
> Is it the "liberals" who are whining for
> a constitutional amendment to force people to marry only certain
> other people ?
You haven't got anything right so far. No one is forcing anyone to marry.
The fact that civilization has always defined marriage as male/ female
partners escaped your notice.
> Is it the "liberals" who insist that *they* know
> best about whether a woman should have an abortion ?
Liberals often insist that parents don't have the right to know if their
underage daughter wants one so who's doing the micromanaging?
Most people opposed to abortion see it as murder. Murder is everyone's
business, especially the victim. Your lack of concern for human life is
also a hallmark of the liberal. The concern is the appearance of
caring so they can feel good about themselves, not caring itself.
> Was it
> the "liberals" on the Texas legislature that passed a law making it
> illegal to criticize the meat industry ? Was it "liberals" who
> passed laws making it illegal for human beings to get together
> into unions ?
What conservative wants laws against unions? It's unions that
oppose freewill. Try not funding the Democratic party while
working for a union.
> Was it a "liberal" president who forbids what are
> supposed to be free citizens to cross into Canada to buy drugs
> more cheaply than they can here ?
And if harmful drugs were let in the liberals would scream about
too little concern. Liberalism and hypocrisy are two sides of the same
coin. It's liberals who make the drugs and health care so expensive to
begin with. God forbid if we get an ambulance chaser as VP.
> Is it the "liberals" who are
> throwing American citizens into jail for months at a time without any
> charges or representation ?
Which US citizen was that?
> If it wasn't for "liberals," Republican as well as Democrat, this
> country would still be a cesspool of no human or constitutional
> rights for southern blacks;
Like Lincoln huh? You're a complete idiot.
>10-year old children working 12-hour
> factory shifts; and open and legal discrimination against blacks,
> women, Jews, and other minorities in the workplace and society
> at large (actually, I kinda suspect you'd prefer things that way....)
Rebuplicans passed the 60s civil rights laws, Einstein. I won't waste
anymore time with you, it would take a team of Clysdales to pull
your head out of your rear.
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:31:08 -0700, "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:
>
>Do you know what the definition of bigotry is?
There are lots of them. How about: Fletis Humplebacker, the
consummate fascist, screaming "liberal !" when someone
questions his narrow-world view :-)
>You're doing a good job of playing the role.
I'm sure I am, in my own sweet way, but you didn't identify
a role. Try again.
>How does hurting business help the economy?
"Hurting business" is one of those nice `n simple the-world-
in-a-one-liner that you fas...... err, nice, upstanding people latch
on to. What "hurt" are you talking about ? Which businesses ?
What actions of theirs are *NOT* inviolate in your mind ?
Is it anything goes ? Or are there some limits that even you
would accept ?
>This is the kind of rhetoric the liberals use to whip up emotion to
>further their political aims. Actually liberalism is far more facist, it
>seeks to micromanage the citizens lives through larger and larger
>government control and legislation. True conservatism calls for less
>government control, not more.
There you go again with the "liberal" bigotry. *They* want to
control lives ? Bullpucky. Is it the "liberals" who are whining for
a constitutional amendment to force people to marry only certain
other people ? Is it the "liberals" who insist that *they* know
best about whether a woman should have an abortion ? Was it
the "liberals" on the Texas legislature that passed a law making it
illegal to criticize the meat industry ? Was it "liberals" who
passed laws making it illegal for human beings to get together
into unions ? Was it a "liberal" president who forbids what are
supposed to be free citizens to cross into Canada to buy drugs
more cheaply than they can here ? Is it the "liberals" who are
throwing American citizens into jail for months at a time without any
charges or representation ?
If it wasn't for "liberals," Republican as well as Democrat, this
country would still be a cesspool of no human or constitutional
rights for southern blacks; 10-year old children working 12-hour
factory shifts; and open and legal discrimination against blacks,
women, Jews, and other minorities in the workplace and society
at large (actually, I kinda suspect you'd prefer things that way....)
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:36:51 -0500, Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yet another liberal inconistency: they favor abortion and oppose capital
> punishment. Which means they oppose the innocent while they favor the
> guilty.
But Todd, that's _remarkably_ consistant within the liberal framework of
thought. You and I should be stopped from having ugly guns, but don't
aggressively prosecute people who misuse guns. You wouldn't want to
_offend_ the criminal, you want to _rehabilitate_ them, y'see. You and
I are just criminals who haven't done anything yet, but can't be trusted
in any case. The criminal, though, can be trusted to have rehabilitated
themselves, just you and I who have done nothing wrong can't be trusted.
Does that make sense now?
Dave Hinz
In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:55:10 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>> My view of it is as below, written by someone I know.
>>>
>>[irrelevant diatribe snipped]
>>
>>You certainly do a marvelous job of evading the issue. I repeat:
>
>
> You asked a question, I answered you, you didn't
> like or understand the answer (true, it *was* more
> than one sentence long), so you insult it and insist
> that I bring it down to a kindergarten level for you.
> You need to try harder.
No, you didn't answer it at all, you evaded it. I repeat:
You claimed that the Republican leadership is fascist. Please identify, with
complete citations, which members of the Republican leadership have advocated
the system described above.
If you're unable to do that, then you should retract the claim.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
"kodiakman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> snip
>
> > Quiz question....who is the only sitting US Senator that was a member
> > of the KKK?
>
> Byrd
That damn racist Republican Byrd. Uh, wait a minute....
todd
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:55:10 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>> My view of it is as below, written by someone I know.
>>
>[irrelevant diatribe snipped]
>
>You certainly do a marvelous job of evading the issue. I repeat:
You asked a question, I answered you, you didn't
like or understand the answer (true, it *was* more
than one sentence long), so you insult it and insist
that I bring it down to a kindergarten level for you.
You need to try harder.
"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Liberals often insist that parents don't have the right to know if their
> underage daughter wants one so who's doing the micromanaging?
> Most people opposed to abortion see it as murder. Murder is everyone's
> business, especially the victim. Your lack of concern for human life is
> also a hallmark of the liberal. The concern is the appearance of
> caring so they can feel good about themselves, not caring itself.
Yet another liberal inconistency: they favor abortion and oppose capital
punishment. Which means they oppose the innocent while they favor the
guilty. If it makes any difference, as a Catholic, I'm opposed to both.
Which makes me think back to Kerry's statements about Bush's "faith without
deeds". Kerry claims to believe that life begins at conception. If he
really believes that, then he believes abortion is murder. Yet he is
unwilling to act on that belief. Another example of what a coward he is.
> > If it wasn't for "liberals," Republican as well as Democrat, this
> > country would still be a cesspool of no human or constitutional
> > rights for southern blacks;
Quiz question....who is the only sitting US Senator that was a member of the
KKK?
todd
>I seriously doubt that anyone waits a week before taking legal possession
>of a machine gun. The feds need to do a background check on you first
>(which takes months), then you need a OK from your county sherrif (at his
>discretion), and of course, fingerprinting.
>
> Not to mention how insanely expensive NFA (machine guns, cannons, etc)
> are.
>
> John
Good point. Most of them start at about 8 grand.
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:49:13 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>
>Perhaps you should get a dictionary and find out what "fascist" really means.
I have, but it sounds like you haven't. And dictionaries aren't
exactly the be-all end-all of human knowledge.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:15:50 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >Maybe someday when war machines are autonomous this argument will have
>some
>> >validity, but it does not right now.
>>
>> All right, all right- fine. There are all sorts of military and
>> guerrilla tactics to accomplish almost any sort of military goal.
>> That's freely granted. What isn't is my consent for every damn yahoo
>> on the block to have a machine gun so that they can shoot up the
>> neighborhood whenever they see a property tax increase.
>
>Wow, you're really ratcheting up the hyperbole. If I wanted to cause
>property damage or shoot some folks, I wouldn't need an automatic weapon.
>Most people don't want and can't afford automatic weapons anyway. If you're
>gonna argue for gun control, you'd better come up with something other than
>this lame argument.
Nah, I'm not for gun control. I just get tired of the same old
"They're going to take away my guns" line. It sounds way to close to
paranoid schizophrenia to make me comfortable with those people as gun
owners. I'm all for home defense and sporting arms, just not for
nutcases getting military-style firearms. That being said- I am fully
aware that the "assult weapons ban" applied to semi-automatic weapons
that were not any more dangerous than your average 30-06. They just
looked mean, so dopes went after them. I own guns, I keep them in my
home, and I use them when I hunt or shoot trap. If someone were to
break in to my home, I'd use one on the intruder with no hesitation.
The only reason I chimed in at all is because even though I consider
myself a conservative [conservative, not "republican"], I really do
not want to see the damn GWB get another four years over some
hysterical non-issue. The NRA does quite a few very good things, and
I feel that the hysteria that some of these folks try to evoke is not
only irritating, but damaging to an otherwise useful group. If
gun-control were one of the major issues in this election, I could
understand pushing the second-amendment's case, but it really is not.
As far as hyperbole goes, what exactly is it when people come up with
the ol' "they're gonna round up all our guns and enslave us in a
police state" arguement? Should the response to this be a mild *tut
tut*?
>todd
>
Courtney Mainord wrote:
> "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>How about this: The gun-grabbing liberals haven't been saying much
>>>this election cycle. Even see photo-ops of Kerry hunting with a real
>>>shotgun. Just wait though, if he gets in you'll see what happens to
>>>your guns.
>>
>>And how would you know? Something you read on the internet?
>>
>>His twenty year antigun voting record is plenty of proof that he will do
>>everything possible to get all guns out of circulation. Only DIM ocrats
>>and demoCROOKS disagree with that.
>
>
>
There's a difference between "anti-gun" voting and "pro-common sense"
voting. I'm anti-cop killing bullets, anti-mentals/felons being able to
purchase guns at a gun show, and anti-assault weapons, and yet I own a
shotgun and two hand guns. There really is something to be said for
common sense.
"Henry St.Pierre" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Never thought about that. Why don't we make a law prohibiting criminals
>from owning guns and banning SNS? Or better yet, Why don't we make a law
>requiring criminals and/or SNS owners to undergo a background check prior
>to ownership?
You forgot to include the smiley...
My opinionated book reviews on sales topics -- http://book-reviews.hostpci.com
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:59:47 -0400, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 26 Oct 2004 20:53:42 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>ALL bullets can be cop killing bullets. All bullets can also armor
>>>>pierce given enough velocity. So what do you propose for ammo?
>>
>>> Spitballs ?
>>
>>How do I defend myself, then, against the criminal who _doesn't_ disarm,
>>Greg?
>
>
> That was a joke, Dave.
there's your mistake.
DH has no sense of humor.
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:02:05 -0700, "mp" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ... except that a significant percentage of the Republican
> leadership is fascist in beliefs.
Pop quiz for Greg---
Identify the party that has a senator who was an active member of the KKK.
Show your work.
a) Republican party
b) Democrat party