🚀 go-pugleaf

That really sucks.

I wouldn't doubt the apology was something to the note of, "Sorry
about that, we really feel bad about assassinating your wife and son
like that."

That's F***ed up.


On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:18:02 -0400, "Frank_Rizzo"
<riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote:

>This is a perfect example of why we dislike gun control here in the USA.
>
>http://www.georgiamountain.com/rweaver.htm
>
>BTW, I lived in Kennesaw... You may remember my saying how we have a law
>that every home must own a gun... This gun show is a regular attraction in
>Kennesaw.

--------------------------
NOYB [SC]
Remove xxx from my address to reply

OK Ok! I know Im over in UK where guns are very illegal so have no place to
comment. But what did he do! what law did he break?
If he didnot have a gun then woulfdthe feds have needed to take such action?
And whats this got to do with q3.
Remember I dont know the full story! Im am only asking questions. Just this
weekend a person was shot just 200yrs from windsor castle. We have gun
problems as well But this is extreme.
Where can I find more about this on the web?
kerr
Frank_Rizzo wrote in message ...
>This is a perfect example of why we dislike gun control here in the USA.
>
>http://www.georgiamountain.com/rweaver.htm
>
>BTW, I lived in Kennesaw... You may remember my saying how we have a law
>that every home must own a gun... This gun show is a regular attraction in
>Kennesaw.
>
>--
>FrankRizzo{OT}
>http://www.offtopic.com
>
>"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government
>from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of
>them."
>-- Thomas Jefferson
>
>
>

Frank_Rizzo <riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote in message
news:HTxg3.179$_4.5367@news3.giganews.com...
> This is a perfect example of why we dislike gun control here in the USA.
>
> http://www.georgiamountain.com/rweaver.htm
>
> BTW, I lived in Kennesaw... You may remember my saying how we have a law
> that every home must own a gun... This gun show is a regular attraction in
> Kennesaw.
>

So what if he didn't have a gun? What *would* a gun have done for him?
Nothing! It doesn't even say he was near his wife when it happened.  Even
lamer, this is now an advertisment for gun shows.  Nice way to sell guns, by
scaring people with a story that is as rare as gold.  Don't waste our time
promoting guns.  Stay on topic with Q3 and all those stories of gibbing
people...

H�vard K. Moen <hkm...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:378ba758.1118690@news.online.no...
> On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:18:02 -0400, "Frank_Rizzo"
> <riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote:
>
> > This is a perfect example of why we dislike gun control here in the USA.
> > http://www.georgiamountain.com/rweaver.htm
>
> "in August 1992 U.S. Marshals and FBI snipers killed his dog, only son
> Sammy and wife Vickie while she held their 10 month old child."
>
> What exactly was Randy supposed to have done, when they were _sniped_?
>
> This has got nothing to do with gun control. A criminal cowboy-wannabe
> (have a look at his pic!) gets parts of his family killed by the FBI
> and now blames the fact that he had no gun?

Where did he blame it on not having a gun? It's not about guns... Gun
control isn't about getting guns out of our hands so we don't hurt each
other. It's about getting guns out of our hands so our government will be
the only ones with guns, and therefore have the control. It's not about
guns, it's about control. It's not about safety... it's about control. Read
what Gary Spence (Randys lawyer) wrote to a friend of his:


"In this country we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we
know that we are not a democracy, that we are not free, that the government
does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the
notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the
people but, at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like
timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then
those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock
belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays.
they were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer
edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards
the center of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges.
Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when
the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was
our wrong.

That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a
part of an insidious progression. In the beginning the attention of the
flock was directed not to the marauding wolf but to our own deviant members
within the flock. We rejoiced as the wolf destroyed them for they were our
enemies. We were told that the weak lay under the rocks while we faced the
blizzards to rustle our food, and we did not care when the wolf took them.
We argued that they deserved it. When one of our flock faced the wolf alone
it was always eaten. Each of us was afraid of the wolf, but as a flock we
were not afraid. Indeed the wolf cleansed the herd by destroying the weak
and dismembering the aberrant element within. As time went by, strangely,
the herd felt more secure under the rule of the wolf. It believed that by
belonging to this wolf it would remain safe from all the other wolves. But
we were eaten just the same.

No one knows better than children of the Holocaust how the lessons of
history must never be forgotten. Yet Americans, whose battle cry was once,
"Give me liberty or give me death", have sat placidly by as a new king was
crowned. In America a new king was crowned by the shrug of our shoulders
when our neighbors were wrongfully seized. A new king was crowned when we
capitulated to a regime that is no longer sensitive to people, but to non
people--to corporations, to money and to power. The new king was crowned
when we turned our heads as the new king was crowned as we turned our heads
as the poor and the forgotten and the damned were rendered mute and
defenseless, not because they were evil but because, in the scheme of our
lives, they seemed unimportant, not because they were essentially dangerous
but because they were essentially powerless. The new king was crowned when
we cheered the government on as it prosecuted the progeny of our ghettos
and filled our prisons with black men whose first crime was that they were
born in the ghettos. We cheered the new king on as it diluted our right to
be secure in our homes against unlawful searches and to be secure in the
courts against unlawful evidence. We cheered the new king on because we
were told that our sacred rights were but "loopholes" but which our
enemies: the murderers and rapists and thieves and drug dealers, escaped.
We were told that those who fought for our rights, the lawyers, were worse
than the thieves who stole from us in the night, that our juries were
irresponsible and ignorant and ought not to be trusted. We watched with
barely more than a mumble as the legal system that once protected us became
populated with judges who were appointed by the new king. At last the new
king was crowned when we forgot the lessons of history, that:when the
rights of our enemies have been wrested from them, we have lost our own
rights as well, for the same rights serve both citizen and criminal."


You see, having the right to bear arms is one of our constitutional
*RIGHTS*. The more we give up our rights, the more we hand control over to
others. It's not about guns... It's about control of our own lives.



--
FrankRizzo{OT}
http://www.offtopic.com

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government
from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of
them."
-- Thomas Jefferson

> Where did he blame it on not having a gun? It's not about guns... Gun
> control isn't about getting guns out of our hands so we don't hurt each
> other. It's about getting guns out of our hands so our government will be
> the only ones with guns, and therefore have the control. It's not about
> guns, it's about control. It's not about safety... it's about control.
Read
> what Gary Spence (Randys lawyer) wrote to a friend of his:

Control eh?  Sounds more like paranoia.  America is a messed up country as
far as gun control goes.  I can't believe they sell guns at K-Mart there!!
How pathetic is that!!  Gee, I think I'll pick up some milk, eggs, and um
yeah, a semi automatic rifle today.  Sheesh.

Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cdUg3.19088

>
> Control eh?  Sounds more like paranoia.

Tell that to the Jews.

So, freedom is now paranoia? Look, take the gun issue out of it... Let's
make it knives... Okay? Let's say our constitution says we have the right to
bear knives. Knives kill right? Why not ban knives?  We don't ban them
because we have a *right* to own them not because we want to stab people
with them. That's what makes this country the best country in the free
world. Okay, so someone goes on a killing spree, and stabs, and kills 1,000
people. Do we ban knives? NO... Why not? Because we are free. The last I
checked this was _not_ a communist country. You can go right ahead, and ban
knives in your country...  I won't try to stop you.

>America is a messed up country as far as gun control goes.  I can't believe
they sell guns at K-Mart there!! Sheesh.

Why not? It's a department store! Where else would you buy them?



> How pathetic is that!!  Gee, I think I'll pick up some milk, eggs, and um
> yeah, a semi automatic rifle today.


You obviously have not been to a K-Mart... They don't sell milk and eggs.
It's not a grocery store. It's a *department* store.. They sell camping
supplies, home furnishings, automotive suppiles, clothes. The guns they sell
are hunting shotguns and such... In the "Camping" section. Sheesh yerself!

Hey try your theory with an atom bomb. The us government has atom bombs the
people dont. How unfair I want my atom bombs! They should sell them at
K-mart. Guns only kill or maim. Knives prepare food. If he had a gun and
shot at the feds he would also be dead,
kerr

Frank_Rizzo wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>
>Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cdUg3.19088
>
>>
>> Control eh?  Sounds more like paranoia.
>
>Tell that to the Jews.
>
>So, freedom is now paranoia? Look, take the gun issue out of it... Let's
>make it knives... Okay? Let's say our constitution says we have the right
to
>bear knives. Knives kill right? Why not ban knives?  We don't ban them
>because we have a *right* to own them not because we want to stab people
>with them. That's what makes this country the best country in the free
>world. Okay, so someone goes on a killing spree, and stabs, and kills 1,000
>people. Do we ban knives? NO... Why not? Because we are free. The last I
>checked this was _not_ a communist country. You can go right ahead, and ban
>knives in your country...  I won't try to stop you.
>
>>America is a messed up country as far as gun control goes.  I can't
believe
>they sell guns at K-Mart there!! Sheesh.
>
>Why not? It's a department store! Where else would you buy them?
>
>
>
>> How pathetic is that!!  Gee, I think I'll pick up some milk, eggs, and um
>> yeah, a semi automatic rifle today.
>
>
>You obviously have not been to a K-Mart... They don't sell milk and eggs.
>It's not a grocery store. It's a *department* store.. They sell camping
>supplies, home furnishings, automotive suppiles, clothes. The guns they
sell
>are hunting shotguns and such... In the "Camping" section. Sheesh yerself!
>
>

Frank_Rizzo <riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote in message
news:ucWg3.2190$_4.95962@news3.giganews.com...

> Tell that to the Jews.

Oh god, here we go....

> So, freedom is now paranoia? Look, take the gun issue out of it... Let's
> make it knives... Okay? Let's say our constitution says we have the right
to
> bear knives. Knives kill right?

Yes knives *could* kill

> Why not ban knives?

Because we need knives to butter our toast.

> We don't ban them
> because we have a *right* to own them not because we want to stab people
> with them.

Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They are a
tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't need a
gun.

> That's what makes this country the best country in the free
> world.

I disagree.

> Okay, so someone goes on a killing spree, and stabs, and kills 1,000
> people. Do we ban knives? NO... Why not? Because we are free. The last I
> checked this was _not_ a communist country. You can go right ahead, and
ban
> knives in your country...  I won't try to stop you.

Like I said, knives make our lives easier.  Guns make our lives worse.

> >America is a messed up country as far as gun control goes.  I can't
believe
> they sell guns at K-Mart there!! Sheesh.
>
> Why not? It's a department store! Where else would you buy them?

How about a GUN STORE!!!

> You obviously have not been to a K-Mart... They don't sell milk and eggs.
> It's not a grocery store. It's a *department* store.. They sell camping
> supplies, home furnishings, automotive suppiles, clothes. The guns they
sell
> are hunting shotguns and such... In the "Camping" section. Sheesh yerself!

I was being sarcastic.  However here in Canada they don't sell guns at
K-Mart as far as I know.  Mostly clothes and electronics.

I am getting so tired of your elitist BS Mr. Håvard K. Moen. Do you live in the United States of America?
I don't think so. Have you ever fought in any type of war at the request of your country? I doubt it. Right or
wrong, I will defend my country from ANY outside threat of ANY kind!! Not from this country, keep your damn
opinion to yourself! I have a RIGHT to own a gun, and I do. I have fought to defend that right! I will keep my
gun. I do not hunt for food, I shop in a grocery store. I do not go out of my way looking for trouble, but I will
defend myself, my family, and my country as I see fit, using a gun, a knife, a god damn rock if need be. You piss ant
liberal types can do what you like, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, who ya gonna call to defend your
worthless asses? The United States of America, again and again. I only wish we had an operational force field that
we could turn on and then let the rest of the world just go to hell. My opinion, and I WILL DEFEND IT TO THE DEATH!
My Email is totally in the open, but be aware, I will report spam, abuse, or other violations of law to all authorities
overseeing the internet at this time.

"Håvard K. Moen" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 07:01:24 GMT, "Capa422" <capa42...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They are a
> > tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't need a
> > gun.
> 
> Good point!

Joe "Big L" Bennett goes on a boring rant:  <3785198E...@home.com>...
>I am getting so tired of your elitist BS Mr. H�vard K. Moen. Do you live in
the United States of America?
>I don't think so. Have you ever fought in any type of war at the request of
your country? I doubt it. Right or
>wrong, I will defend my country from ANY outside threat of ANY kind!! Not
from this country, keep your damn


You sorry trash.  Like you'd make a difference in this day and age during an
"invasion" of the US.  Who the hell could possibly do that?  Mexico?
Canada?  The US doesn't need YOU to help, so just give up your gun
and watch TV like a good couch potato.

Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:81Yg3.19497$_A4.410632@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> Frank_Rizzo <riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote in message
> news:ucWg3.2190$_4.95962@news3.giganews.com...
>
> > Tell that to the Jews.
>
> Oh god, here we go....

Where we going? I do have a valid point. May I remind you, the Holocaust
wasn't *that* long ago!


>
> > So, freedom is now paranoia? Look, take the gun issue out of it... Let's
> > make it knives... Okay? Let's say our constitution says we have the
right
> to
> > bear knives. Knives kill right?
>
> Yes knives *could* kill
>
> > Why not ban knives?
>
> Because we need knives to butter our toast.
>
> > We don't ban them
> > because we have a *right* to own them not because we want to stab people
> > with them.
>
> Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They are a
> tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't need a
> gun.

Okay then, bow and arrows. What if guns were gone, and people started
killing using bow and arrows? You gonna ban them also? You don't need them
unless you hunt!...
>
> > That's what makes this country the best country in the free
> > world.
>
> I disagree.

Okay... How? You disagree about this being the best country in the free
world, or that we are free, and that's what makes this the best country in
the free world?


>
> > Okay, so someone goes on a killing spree, and stabs, and kills 1,000
> > people. Do we ban knives? NO... Why not? Because we are free. The last I
> > checked this was _not_ a communist country. You can go right ahead, and
> ban
> > knives in your country...  I won't try to stop you.
>
> Like I said, knives make our lives easier.  Guns make our lives worse.

Go back to my "Bow and Arrow" comment... Guns don't make my life any worse
or better.


>
> > >America is a messed up country as far as gun control goes.  I can't
> believe
> > they sell guns at K-Mart there!! Sheesh.
> >
> > Why not? It's a department store! Where else would you buy them?
>
> How about a GUN STORE!!!

Um... it is a gun store here. A gun store that sells other things. Glass
half empty, glass half full.


>
> > You obviously have not been to a K-Mart... They don't sell milk and
eggs.
> > It's not a grocery store. It's a *department* store.. They sell camping
> > supplies, home furnishings, automotive suppiles, clothes. The guns they
> sell
> > are hunting shotguns and such... In the "Camping" section. Sheesh
yerself!
>
> I was being sarcastic.  However here in Canada they don't sell guns at
> K-Mart as far as I know.  Mostly clothes and electronics.


Big mistake not selling guns in a gun store! Get rid of all the clothes and
electronics, and put the guns back where they belong in K-Mart... hehe

<inserts tongue firmly in cheek>   =)

Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hJbh3.20339

> >
> > Okay then, bow and arrows. What if guns were gone, and people started
> > killing using bow and arrows? You gonna ban them also? You don't need
them
> > unless you hunt!...
>
> Thats right, bows and arrows should be illegal.  Who uses a bow and arrow
to
> hunt these days?  Nobody.  Are they a valuable tool? No.

Plenty of peole hunt with bow and arrows!.. I live in the north Georgia
mountains... I see people all the time hunting turkey with bow/arrows.

>
>
> I disagree about America being the best country in the world.

You have your opinion.


>
> > > Like I said, knives make our lives easier.  Guns make our lives worse.
> >
> > Go back to my "Bow and Arrow" comment... Guns don't make my life any
worse
> > or better.
>
> Easy to say when you've never had a lunatic point one at you.

Exactly! So, when this lunatic has his hands on a gun pointed at you, are
you gonna stab him? Maybe you'll run over, and grab that baseball bat, and
smack him with it? Hey, I have an idea! Shoot him first!... naw... you
couldn't do that, you don't hunt, and therefore you can't own a gun for
protection from said lunatic!

H�vard K. Moen <hkm...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3785c029.8784363@news.online.no...
> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:58:50 -0400, "Frank_Rizzo"
> <riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote:
>
> > Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cdUg3.19088
> >
> > > Control eh?  Sounds more like paranoia.
> >
> > Tell that to the Jews.
>
> ROTFL!
>
> > So, freedom is now paranoia?
>
> No, but maybe this isn't about freedom. Perhaps you are paranoid. I
> wouldn't know, though, but you sound a bit paranoid when you talk
> about this.

Not paranoia. Free choice. And, YES, this is about freedom! Look, I have a
right under my constitution to bear arms, we have had this right since the
begining of this country. If my government takes this right away because
some whinny liberal doesn't want me to own a gun, then I have lost my
freedom to purchase a gun. If they don't want to own a gun, fine, but don't
tell me what I can/can't own under my constitutional rights. I won't tell
them what to do.

> <snip>
> > The last I checked this was _not_ a communist country. You can go right
ahead,
> > and ban knives in your country...  I won't try to stop you.
>
> Ah, the communists! The badguys! Hehe...
>
> Oh, and we (Norway) don't ban guns, but people who don't need guns
> won't be allowed to buy them. If you are a hunter and do not have a
> criminal record, yeah, you will get a gun, but you will need proper
> training too.

Oh yeah huh? Whom decides who "needs" a gun? You can't have a criminal
record and buy a gun here either. I agree, people should have proper
training.

It's not paranoia, our government is well known for slowly taking our rights
away. First it's special laws on guns, then it's a little more, then a total
ban. Prime example: Our seatbelt laws: First, you didn't have to wear one,
then you had to wear one in a car, but you couldn't be pulled over for not
wearing one, you had to be stopped for another offence first. (You still
didn't have to wear them in a pickup truck). Then, they passed another law
that they could pull you over for not wearing one be it in a car, or pickup.
That was their original intention. But it took years to accomplish... Slowly
taking our rights away. Seatbelts save lives, and I have always worn one
anyway, but it's the point. Do you think they care if you die from not
wearing a seatbelt? Nope... they care only about the almighty dollar, and
control. They accomplished both with the seatbelt law.

Just ignore this buttsteak. He's clueless, couldn't pooor piss out of a
boot with the instructions written on the heel, and I suspect he's an
experiment 
in Artificial Stupidity.

Bonk

"Håvard K. Moen" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:20:46 -0400, "Frank_Rizzo"
> <riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote:
> 
> > Håvard K. Moen <hkm...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:3785c029.8784363@news.online.no...
> >
> > > No, but maybe this isn't about freedom. Perhaps you are paranoid. I
> > > wouldn't know, though, but you sound a bit paranoid when you talk
> > > about this.
> >
> > Not paranoia. Free choice. And, YES, this is about freedom! Look, I have a
> > right under my constitution to bear arms, we have had this right since the
> > begining of this country. If my government takes this right away because
> > some whinny liberal doesn't want me to own a gun, then I have lost my
> > freedom to purchase a gun. If they don't want to own a gun, fine, but don't
> > tell me what I can/can't own under my constitutional rights. I won't tell
> > them what to do.
> 
> What do you need that gun for? Protection. Well, in Norway, we use
> guns for hunting only, and that's all we need them for.
> 
> The best thing would be if you didn't need the gun to protect yourself
> at all, right? In a perfect world, people don't need guns to protect
> themselves. I am correct, right?
> 
> > > Oh, and we (Norway) don't ban guns, but people who don't need guns
> > > won't be allowed to buy them. If you are a hunter and do not have a
> > > criminal record, yeah, you will get a gun, but you will need proper
> > > training too.
> >
> > Oh yeah huh? Whom decides who "needs" a gun? You can't have a criminal
> > record and buy a gun here either. I agree, people should have proper
> > training.
> 
> They have to apply for one. They need a reason to own the gun
> (hunting).
> 
> > It's not paranoia, our government is well known for slowly taking our rights
> > away. First it's special laws on guns, then it's a little more, then a total
> > ban. Prime example: Our seatbelt laws: First, you didn't have to wear one,
> > then you had to wear one in a car, but you couldn't be pulled over for not
> > wearing one, you had to be stopped for another offence first. (You still
> > didn't have to wear them in a pickup truck). Then, they passed another law
> > that they could pull you over for not wearing one be it in a car, or pickup.
> > That was their original intention. But it took years to accomplish... Slowly
> > taking our rights away. Seatbelts save lives, and I have always worn one
> > anyway, but it's the point. Do you think they care if you die from not
> > wearing a seatbelt? Nope... they care only about the almighty dollar, and
> > control. They accomplished both with the seatbelt law.
> 
> I don't think just any guy should be able to get a gun. To own a gun,
> you have to have a purpose for it, in my opinion. That way, you could
> get a gun if your were a hunter, for example, but not if you wanted to
> "protect yourself".

H�vard K. Moen <hkm...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
> What do you need that gun for? Protection. Well, in Norway, we use
> guns for hunting only, and that's all we need them for.

We here in the US need them for protection as well. If we banned all guns
except for hunting that the criminals who rob/rape, and deal drugs would
give up their guns? If they don't, wouldn't you like to be able to *protect*
yourself against them?

>
> The best thing would be if you didn't need the gun to protect yourself
> at all, right? In a perfect world, people don't need guns to protect
> themselves. I am correct, right?

Absolutely! I've been to the UK, and as you know they have no guns... even
the police don't carry guns... It was wonderful! That said, this is not a
perfect world, and here in the USA, there are too many guns to ban them
all.. The only ones to give up their guns would be the law abiding citizens
like myself (even though I don't own a gun). Then, the only ones with guns
would be the criminals... hey, wait... would that be a good thing? NOPE.

>
> > > Oh, and we (Norway) don't ban guns, but people who don't need guns
> > > won't be allowed to buy them. If you are a hunter and do not have a
> > > criminal record, yeah, you will get a gun, but you will need proper
> > > training too.
> >
> > Oh yeah huh? Whom decides who "needs" a gun? You can't have a criminal
> > record and buy a gun here either. I agree, people should have proper
> > training.
>
> They have to apply for one. They need a reason to own the gun
> (hunting).

Oh, so your government regulates gun ownership? Great, more government
regulation, we need that like we need higher taxes. You have seen our
government in action right? Bill Clinton/Monica ring a bell?

>
> I don't think just any guy should be able to get a gun. To own a gun,
> you have to have a purpose for it, in my opinion. That way, you could
> get a gun if your were a hunter, for example, but not if you wanted to
> "protect yourself".

Oh, I see... We shouldn't be able to "protect" ourselves from the criminals
with guns? Okay, you get them with a baseball bat while they shoot you down.
I would love to have no guns at all, even the criminals, and police should
have no guns... But, guess what? Not gonna happen. The criminals will have
guns... and the police need them to fight the criminals... Therefore, we the
law abiding citizens need to also be able to protect ourselves from the
criminal actions taken against us.

Yeah, no point in banning knives.  I've never heard of an automatic knife
before.  :)


Frank_Rizzo wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>
>Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cdUg3.19088
>
>>
>> Control eh?  Sounds more like paranoia.
>
>Tell that to the Jews.
>
>So, freedom is now paranoia? Look, take the gun issue out of it... Let's
>make it knives... Okay? Let's say our constitution says we have the right
to
>bear knives. Knives kill right? Why not ban knives?  We don't ban them
>because we have a *right* to own them not because we want to stab people
>with them. That's what makes this country the best country in the free
>world. Okay, so someone goes on a killing spree, and stabs, and kills 1,000
>people. Do we ban knives? NO... Why not? Because we are free. The last I
>checked this was _not_ a communist country. You can go right ahead, and ban
>knives in your country...  I won't try to stop you.
>
>>America is a messed up country as far as gun control goes.  I can't
believe
>they sell guns at K-Mart there!! Sheesh.
>
>Why not? It's a department store! Where else would you buy them?
>
>
>
>> How pathetic is that!!  Gee, I think I'll pick up some milk, eggs, and um
>> yeah, a semi automatic rifle today.
>
>
>You obviously have not been to a K-Mart... They don't sell milk and eggs.
>It's not a grocery store. It's a *department* store.. They sell camping
>supplies, home furnishings, automotive suppiles, clothes. The guns they
sell
>are hunting shotguns and such... In the "Camping" section. Sheesh yerself!
>
>

Joe Bennett <wcs...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3785198E.4FED648D@home.com...
> I am getting so tired of your elitist BS Mr. H�vard K. Moen. Do you live
in the United States of America?
> I don't think so. Have you ever fought in any type of war at the request
of your country? I doubt it. Right or
> wrong, I will defend my country from ANY outside threat of ANY kind!! Not
from this country, keep your damn
> opinion to yourself! I have a RIGHT to own a gun, and I do. I have fought
to defend that right! I will keep my
> gun. I do not hunt for food, I shop in a grocery store. I do not go out of
my way looking for trouble, but I will
> defend myself, my family, and my country as I see fit, using a gun, a
knife, a god damn rock if need be. You piss ant
> liberal types can do what you like, but when it comes down to the nitty
gritty, who ya gonna call to defend your
> worthless asses? The United States of America, again and again. I only
wish we had an operational force field that
> we could turn on and then let the rest of the world just go to hell. My
opinion, and I WILL DEFEND IT TO THE DEATH!


Joe, we are having a discussion here.  There is no need to yell or insult
people because of their opinions.  Defending your country against outside
countries is one thing.  Owning a gun as a citizen is another.  When you
enroll into the army you get proper training and are given a gun for a
reason.  I don't think anyone here is saying soldiers shouldn't have guns,
but citizens IMO should not.  Guns give people with short fuses a quick
outlet, and until EVERYONE decides that guns do more harm then good there
will be innocent people killed.

Frank_Rizzo <riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote in message
news:cc9h3.12602$AU3.324648@news2.giganews.com...

> > Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They are
a
> > tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't need
a
> > gun.
>
> Okay then, bow and arrows. What if guns were gone, and people started
> killing using bow and arrows? You gonna ban them also? You don't need them
> unless you hunt!...

Thats right, bows and arrows should be illegal.  Who uses a bow and arrow to
hunt these days?  Nobody.  Are they a valuable tool? No.

> > I disagree.
>
> Okay... How? You disagree about this being the best country in the free
> world, or that we are free, and that's what makes this the best country in
> the free world?

I disagree about America being the best country in the world.

> > Like I said, knives make our lives easier.  Guns make our lives worse.
>
> Go back to my "Bow and Arrow" comment... Guns don't make my life any worse
> or better.

Easy to say when you've never had a lunatic point one at you.

> > > Why not? It's a department store! Where else would you buy them?
> >
> > How about a GUN STORE!!!
>
> Um... it is a gun store here. A gun store that sells other things. Glass
> half empty, glass half full.

If you HAVE to sell guns, wouldn't it make sense to sell them at a REAL gun
store?  K-Mart is a place people take their kids to shop.  Next thing you
know you'll be able to pick up a gun at a drive-through.

> > I was being sarcastic.  However here in Canada they don't sell guns at
> > K-Mart as far as I know.  Mostly clothes and electronics.
>
>
> Big mistake not selling guns in a gun store! Get rid of all the clothes
and
> electronics, and put the guns back where they belong in K-Mart... hehe
>
> <inserts tongue firmly in cheek>   =)

I guess you know what sarcasm is after all <G>

Frank_Rizzo <riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote in message
news:D4dh3.13027$AU3.340422@news2.giganews.com...

> Plenty of peole hunt with bow and arrows!.. I live in the north Georgia
> mountains... I see people all the time hunting turkey with bow/arrows.

Ok, as long as it's for hunting purposes I don't have a problem.

> > I disagree about America being the best country in the world.
>
> You have your opinion.

As do you.

> > Easy to say when you've never had a lunatic point one at you.
>
> Exactly! So, when this lunatic has his hands on a gun pointed at you, are
> you gonna stab him? Maybe you'll run over, and grab that baseball bat, and
> smack him with it? Hey, I have an idea! Shoot him first!... naw... you
> couldn't do that, you don't hunt, and therefore you can't own a gun for
> protection from said lunatic!

Heh, if guns were illegal that maniac wouldn't have his would he.  He would
probably just beat you up a bit, hehe.  Like they use to do it in the old
days.

Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:86gh3.21076
>
> Heh, if guns were illegal that maniac wouldn't have his would he.

Oh, I see, criminals will obey the gun laws...  They'll just give up their
guns like the rest of us law abiding citizens.



> He would
> probably just beat you up a bit, hehe.  Like they use to do it in the old
> days.

Not in *our* old days. Back in *our* old days, everyone had a gun, or guns.
Lot less crimes committed back then. Why? Because criminals knew the chances
of getting shot by their victims were much greater. That is the law in
Kennesaw Ga.. Every homeowner must own a gun. Crime in Kennesaw is almost
non-existant because criminals see the street signs telling them the town is
armed, and they turn away.

Bing effin 0.

Crime and violent crime would skyrocket in the absence of the threat of
*real* physical harm. "what i might get a little harmless but
incapacitating jolt of electricity if i try to rape this women or rob
that liquor store? Pshaw!"

Shit if anything we should make mandatory gun safety training laws for
anyone owning or purchasing a gun. Hitler made his climb to power under
rigid gun control laws in Germany. Jews were beaten tortured
experimented on raped murdered under this regimes. The brave souls that
managed to obtain guns and fight back were instrumental in turning the
tide of the war.

Norway enjoys it's peaceful existence due to the actions of gun-toting
AMERICAN "psychotic shooting rampage gun nuts" in past World Wars, as do
many other European countries ;>

I wouldn't go as far as saying America is the best country in the free
world but I also wouldn't wanna shag a hairy legged/armpitted fraulein.
(hmm i got a woody typing that) All (almost) countries have their pros
and cons.

However I do see the sense in limiting streetsweeper type automatic
weapons as do many. I'm losing steam here so I'll quit. It's nearly
beer-thirty.

Frank_Rizzo wrote:
> 
> Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:86gh3.21076
> >
> > Heh, if guns were illegal that maniac wouldn't have his would he.
> 
> Oh, I see, criminals will obey the gun laws...  They'll just give up their
> guns like the rest of us law abiding citizens.
> 
> > He would
> > probably just beat you up a bit, hehe.  Like they use to do it in the old
> > days.
> 
> Not in *our* old days. Back in *our* old days, everyone had a gun, or guns.
> Lot less crimes committed back then. Why? Because criminals knew the chances
> of getting shot by their victims were much greater. That is the law in
> Kennesaw Ga.. Every homeowner must own a gun. Crime in Kennesaw is almost
> non-existant because criminals see the street signs telling them the town is
> armed, and they turn away.

Shryqe <shr...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:7m48df$phm@newsops.execpc.com...

> Well, then maybe there's just one guy who buys several
> hundred thousand bow licenses here in Michigan every year.
>
> ROFLMAO!!


Damnit! Stop laughing at me! ..... I lead a sheltered life, OK!!    :-)

Shryqe <shr...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:7m3pdd$43u@newsops.execpc.com...
> On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 07:01:24 GMT, "Capa422"
> <capa42...@yahoo.com> did say:
>
> >Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They are
a
> >tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't need a
> >gun.
>
> Only if you don't value freedom from tyranny.
>

And I do value freedom, but can we really be free when everyone is walking
around with guns?

Whatsovever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is
enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live
without other security, than what their own strength, and their own
invention shall furnish them withal.  In such condition, there is no place
for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no
culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be
imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and
removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the
earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is
worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of
man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan.

Apathy <dexters...@mindlessLY.com> wrote in message
news:2A572DFD89FFB41C.4D237C9E6E3A1386.D61BF4DD5F784D9A@lp.airnews.net...
> OMG!...LOL!... you have no idea what the context of that quote was, do
> you?
>
Yeah, I'm pretty sure I do know what the quote implies.  Please give me your
analysis of it.

> Yes knives *could* kill

             ^ Do ^
 
> > Why not ban knives?
> 
> Because we need knives to butter our toast.
> 
> > We don't ban them
> > because we have a *right* to own them not because we want to stab people
> > with them.
> 
> Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They are a
> tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't need a
> gun.

	This is not true.  There are several good reasons to own a gun.  A knife is
used frequently, for small tasks.  A gun (outside of hunting and target
shooting) is used infrequently, in extreme circumstances.  But they are both
tools, both incidentally used in crime, both completely controlled by the user.

	Where can a gun be used?  Here are a few very realistic cases: 

	1) Wild animals.  If you live anywhere outside of a city, you have certainly
seen bear, porcupine, wolverine, stray dogs, or rabid racoons, skunks, etc.  A
gun is the best protection against a large animal.  It doesn't happen often, but
having a gun around has saved many people in situations involving an
unpredictable animal.  Did you know that Shark fishermen frequently carry a
handgun (like a .38 or .357) in their boat so that they can quickly and
effectively kill a dangerous animal before bringing it into the boat?

	2) Intruders.  Having a gun is a deterrent.  A locked, alarmed gun case will
turn a burglar around quicker than a toothy dog.  They know that they are likely
up against a responsible, aware gun owner.  The argument over whether a gun is
always effective in preventing a crime is still up in the air, but here in the
US, the government explicitly protects my right to make that decision myself. 
This case is a big issue and I won't attempt to cover any more in this list.

	3) Political disturbances.  This is what our second amendment was most
explicitly written for.  The right to keep and bear arms represents the freedom
for each citizen to choose whatever tools they feel is most appropriate to
protect their freedom, be it from foreign invasion, civil war, or even their own
government.  
	Yes, folks, that means that our constitution says that each citizen has the
right to decide whether our government is doing its job correctly in protecting
our freedoms.  In essence, it protects the tools to revolt and create a
government in the same way our country was formed.   Just because we haven't
revolted in 200 years doesn't mean that we won't need to ever again.  I'm not a
revolutionary, but I can see how our government has bloated and degenerated from
the lightweight and powerful form that it once was.  Our culture, society, and
technology has changed in ways the the writers of the Constitution couldn't
forsee.  I can believe the idea of a major reshaping of the US government in a
couple hundred years, and you'd bet that I want the citizens to be able to fight
with the same tools as everyone else.  The fact that this happens rarely (hasn't
in over 200 years) doesn't make it less important.
	This last instance is, IMO, the single most important reason to allow guns and
every other form of weapon that is commonly available.  This philosophy requires
tremendous responsibility, but it offers the most to its citizens, and the US is
different from most major nations in this outlook.  Our Bill of Rights has a
very careful order: first, declare the rights that we hold most dear, second,
declare the right to protect our rights.  Many other countries don't believe
this philosophy, so comparing them to the the US is the real apples vs. oranges
issue.
 
> > That's what makes this country the best country in the free
> > world.
> 
> I disagree.

	Why?  He provided reasoning, we would all appreciate if you shared your
reasons.

> > Okay, so someone goes on a killing spree, and stabs, and kills 1,000
> > people. Do we ban knives? NO... Why not? Because we are free. The last I
> > checked this was _not_ a communist country. You can go right ahead, and
> ban
> > knives in your country...  I won't try to stop you.
> 
> Like I said, knives make our lives easier.  Guns make our lives worse.

	Guns made my life possible, and probably yours also.  Please share why guns
have made it worse.  
	I don't think that guns have made crime worse.  If that is so, then so have
cars, ski masks, knives, and subways (for quick urban getaways).

> > >America is a messed up country as far as gun control goes.  I can't
> believe
> > they sell guns at K-Mart there!! Sheesh.
> >
> > Why not? It's a department store! Where else would you buy them?
> 
> How about a GUN STORE!!!

	K-Mart is also a gun store.  They sell a limited selection of low-end hunting
arms in their hunting/camping/sporting good department.

> I was being sarcastic.  However here in Canada they don't sell guns at
> K-Mart as far as I know.  Mostly clothes and electronics.

	Your laws regarding gun sales are different, that is probably the difference.

	Dave

From: David Geesaman <gees...@newsguy.com>

> > Yes knives *could* kill
>
>              ^ Do ^

Could/Do, depends how you look at it.

> > Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They are
a
> > tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't need
a
> > gun.
>
> This is not true.  There are several good reasons to own a gun.  A knife
is
> used frequently, for small tasks.  A gun (outside of hunting and target
> shooting) is used infrequently, in extreme circumstances.  But they are
both
> tools, both incidentally used in crime, both completely controlled by the
user.
>
> Where can a gun be used?  Here are a few very realistic cases:
>
> 1) Wild animals.  If you live anywhere outside of a city, you have
certainly
> seen bear, porcupine, wolverine, stray dogs, or rabid racoons, skunks,
etc.  A
> gun is the best protection against a large animal.  It doesn't happen
often, but
> having a gun around has saved many people in situations involving an
> unpredictable animal.  Did you know that Shark fishermen frequently carry
a
> handgun (like a .38 or .357) in their boat so that they can quickly and
> effectively kill a dangerous animal before bringing it into the boat?

You shoot skunks and porcupine?  What are you afraid they'll do to you?
Yeah a gun saved many peoples lives when they were attacked by animals, but
so did knives, cameras, rocks, and other items people grabbed to defend
themselves.  There are better potential solutions out there to stop wild
animals then killing them.  How about using some kind of long distance
electric stun gun?  I'm sure if people wanted a better solution they could
come up with one.  If americans can send a man to the moon, I think they can
come up with ways to knock an animal out in its tracks.  Guns are a good
solution to hunting, but not for self defence.

> 2) Intruders.  Having a gun is a deterrent.  A locked, alarmed gun case
will
> turn a burglar around quicker than a toothy dog.  They know that they are
likely
> up against a responsible, aware gun owner.  The argument over whether a
gun is
> always effective in preventing a crime is still up in the air, but here in
the
> US, the government explicitly protects my right to make that decision
myself.
> This case is a big issue and I won't attempt to cover any more in this
list.

Why would a burglar turn around and run when he/she stumbles upon a gun
case?  This would only indicate that there are guns in the house and he
should shoot anyone who he sees because they are now a threat.  It could
also be the only guns in the house and the people inside are unarmed.  A gun
case would mean nothing to me if I were robbing a house except that I should
be more cautious.  One again, I think some form of weapon that stuns people
should replace the gun, specifically for paranoid home owners.  Then if guns
were banned (except for hunting/law inforcment/army) and laws were VERY
strict (such as 25+ yrs for illegal possesion of a gun, and 50+ yrs for
using a gun to commit a crime) even criminals might start carrying stun
guns.  Why kill someone if you can get the results you want with a
non-lethal weapon?

> 3) Political disturbances.  This is what our second amendment was most
> explicitly written for.  The right to keep and bear arms represents the
freedom
> for each citizen to choose whatever tools they feel is most appropriate to
> protect their freedom, be it from foreign invasion, civil war, or even
their own
> government.
> Yes, folks, that means that our constitution says that each citizen has
the
> right to decide whether our government is doing its job correctly in
protecting
> our freedoms.  In essence, it protects the tools to revolt and create a
> government in the same way our country was formed.   Just because we
haven't
> revolted in 200 years doesn't mean that we won't need to ever again.  I'm
not a
> revolutionary, but I can see how our government has bloated and
degenerated from
> the lightweight and powerful form that it once was.  Our culture, society,
and
> technology has changed in ways the the writers of the Constitution
couldn't
> forsee.  I can believe the idea of a major reshaping of the US government
in a
> couple hundred years, and you'd bet that I want the citizens to be able to
fight
> with the same tools as everyone else.  The fact that this happens rarely
(hasn't
> in over 200 years) doesn't make it less important.
> This last instance is, IMO, the single most important reason to allow guns
and
> every other form of weapon that is commonly available.  This philosophy
requires
> tremendous responsibility, but it offers the most to its citizens, and the
US is
> different from most major nations in this outlook.  Our Bill of Rights has
a
> very careful order: first, declare the rights that we hold most dear,
second,
> declare the right to protect our rights.  Many other countries don't
believe
> this philosophy, so comparing them to the the US is the real apples vs.
oranges
> issue.

Hypothetically if your govenrment wanted to take control, it would.  It has
a larger inventory of weapons then you and it always will.  I would like to
hear your explanation on what exactly the govenrment would have to do, to
put you in a position where you would have to rebel, and who exactly would
you be rebelling against?  If you're worried that the government would make
the army turn on its own people, then I suggest you start raising your
children with better morals so that when they join the army one day they
will be strong enough to say "NO!, I won't turn the gun on the american
public".  The governmet has no power if he has no army right?  The other
point I would like to make is the american way of thinking.  Like someone
mentioned alread, Americans seem to put up with a lot of law
breaking/bending when it comes to their presidents.  For a democratic
country to let someone like Clinton get away with *lying* to his country
shows where american morals are.  If americans wanted to send their
government a clear message, they would have kicked his ass out of the
presidents chair.  No wonder you carry guns, if I saw the majority of
citizens didn't care about what the govenrment did, I would carry a gun just
to protect myself from exactly those people.  Probably the same people that
make the american army, which coorelates with my first point.

> Why?  He provided reasoning, we would all appreciate if you shared your
> reasons.

I have my own reasons as to why I don't think america is the best country in
the world.  Much of it has to do with my views on how violent and over-sexed
most americans are.  My view on this topic, however, is off topic so I won't
expand on it.

> > Like I said, knives make our lives easier.  Guns make our lives worse.
>
> Guns made my life possible, and probably yours also.  Please share why
guns
> have made it worse.

Isn't it obvious?  Guns kill more innocent people then they do criminals.
Guns were good weapons for their time, but their time has passed as far as
I'm concerned.  Ordinary citizens should no longer have the right to bear
arms.

> I don't think that guns have made crime worse.  If that is so, then so
have
> cars, ski masks, knives, and subways (for quick urban getaways).

They might not have made crimes worse (although I doubt that, just look at
those two guys that robbed a bank about a year ago and were heavily armed
with armor piercing bullets and loaded up from head to toe with body armor.
They had more deadly fire power then the police.) but they make crimes
possible.  Yes, so do knives and ski masks, but I would rather take my
chances against someone with a knife (or any other hand held weapon) , then
someone with a gun.

> > I was being sarcastic.  However here in Canada they don't sell guns at
> > K-Mart as far as I know.  Mostly clothes and electronics.
>
> Your laws regarding gun sales are different, that is probably the
difference.

Yes, and that is why we don't have as much violence as you americans do.

Apologies for any incorrect spelling, I don't have a spell checker installed
:-)

"Håvard K. Moen" wrote:

> > We here in the US need them for protection as well. If we banned all guns
> > except for hunting that the criminals who rob/rape, and deal drugs would
> > give up their guns? If they don't, wouldn't you like to be able to *protect*
> > yourself against them?
> 
> Well, if I don't have a gun, does the criminal need to pull out his,
> or even use it? Further down I write about criminals/guns.

	Yes.  A criminal will always pull out the gun because it gives them nearly
absolute power.  They know that a gun held to an unarmed person will get them
what they want in the fastest manner possible.  An experienced criminal operates
on speed and absolute power.  1) Establish complete control of the situation, 2)
Get what you want, 3) Get the hell out as fast as possible.
 
> > > The best thing would be if you didn't need the gun to protect yourself
> > > at all, right? In a perfect world, people don't need guns to protect
> > > themselves. I am correct, right?
> >
> > Absolutely! I've been to the UK, and as you know they have no guns... even
> > the police don't carry guns... It was wonderful! That said, this is not a
> > perfect world, and here in the USA, there are too many guns to ban them
> > all.. The only ones to give up their guns would be the law abiding citizens
> > like myself (even though I don't own a gun). Then, the only ones with guns
> > would be the criminals... hey, wait... would that be a good thing? NOPE.
> 
> I think I agree to this, actually. But that is because the situatiioin
> is as it is, and this has already come "this far" - with guns being
> needed some places, to protect yourself.
> 
> Now. I know that the situation in the USA is different from Europe, at
> least this is the impression I get when I read about these matters.

	I think that it takes more than an 'impression' to hold productive discussions
on this topic.

> Banning guns just like that wouldn't solve anything. Since "everyone"
> has a gun, people wouldn't give up theirs easily, and when it is so
> easy to get hold of guns.
> 
> In a way, it seems to be a vicious circle for the USA, and I sure
> don't know how to break it.

	The problem, as I see it, it that we are stuck in the middle.  We don't have a
small / condensed enough population to ban guns and make it work (like the UK),
but we have too many gun-ignorant citizens to are scared to allow more gun
ownership.  Thus, we are stuck with gun-carrying criminals who victimize the
gun-ignorant populace.  The gun-ignorant populace also sucks up the media hype /
bullshit about anything guns (e.g. - the Rosie O'Donnell show) and perpetuates
the fear and gives even more power to a gun-wielding criminal.
	We're not going to get to where the UK is.  Being in the middle ain't working
too well either - it's kind of like the rich vs. the peasants, except that the
power comes from the understanding of the tool we call a gun instead of money.
	My opinion is that we must go the other direction - place more responsibility
on the citizens to learn and understand firearms so that each citizen can make
their own informed decision about guns.  Back when the constitution was written,
pretty much every household had a gun and everyone knew how to use it.  It was a
tool with many purposes, and citizens knew how to use it as well as a knife or
horse.  Now that guns have a place in fewer households, many misconceptions,
myths have come about from the heads of people who just don't know a damned
thing about guns.  Many rely on the media for their ideas about guns (and many
other issues).
	It comes down to this: it's easier to read the paper and watch the news to get
your ideas and opinions than to go out and learn about it for yourself.  That is
the difference between a well-read and an informed opinion.  You don't have to
agree with what you learn about, but we all need to understand the other side of
the issue.

> About criminals being the only ones with guns... It is inevitable that
> criminals, at least a lot of criminals will have guns, but not people
> like yourself (I assume you are not a criminal ;-)), unless you need
> it for hunting, or other such activities - if such a law did exist.
> But don't forget that strict control makes it easier to get rid of
> _illegal_ weapons.

	Strict control is a foolish idea.  Singling out 'illegal' weapons is
impractical.  It's too easy to change the gun a little bit and stay ahead of the
laws.
 
> I still disagree with you about guns being about "freedom". It is
> really a "prison", but the situation is like that, and I don't know
> what one can do about it...

	See my previous post (up the thread a bit) about why guns provide freedom.  It
isn't a 'free' freedom - it requires responsibility and understanding that isn't
necessary in a gun-controlled state.
 
> "prisoners" of the guns. This can only be done if there are strict
> rules for ownership. I don't really have a problem with that, since I
> don't feel like I need a gun anyway.

	But you don't have a choice.  I don't feel I need a gun, but I want to have the
choice.  My situation my change, my government may change, I just don't know.

> As the situation is like it is in the USA, I don't see a quick and
> easy solution to this...

	Then harsh criticism of the status quo is totally unacceptable.
	
	Quick and easy solutions never work.  Ever.  Lawmakers advertise all of their
quick and easy solutions, and every one of them has become dead weight.  No
answer is easy, and unfortunately, too many people think that banning guns is
the easy way out.  1) It won't be easy.  2) It won't work.

	Dave

I'd just like to add that I don't get this thing with guns. Americans say 
it's to protect themselves and their families, but really, is it that
dangerous not to possess a gun? Basically, the bad guys are the ones you
have to worry about, right? And usually, the bad guys are probably some 
sort of criminals, right? Hmmm... okay.. what beats me is this.. neither
me or my friends have actually seen a hardcore criminal.. actually, my
home has even been robbed once, but did I see the criminal? No.

What I'm trying to say is that carrying guns just because you're afraid
of criminals is like buying a box of rats because you fear elephants will
come down and demolish your home. That's how I feel the situation in 
Norway is, anyway. Is it really that different in the States? Are 
criminals and bad guys that common?
-- 
Graham-Jafri Salvador
A cat won't die unless I kill it!

"Håvard K. Moen" wrote:

> What do you need that gun for? Protection. Well, in Norway, we use
> guns for hunting only, and that's all we need them for.
> 
> The best thing would be if you didn't need the gun to protect yourself
> at all, right? In a perfect world, people don't need guns to protect
> themselves. I am correct, right?

	Do you live in a perfect world?  I doubt it.  If you think you do, how do you
know?  Have you lived in other countries?  Have you experienced the freedoms
that we are discussing?  Have you ever been threatened by the threats we
discuss?

	I don't live in a perfect world and I can't think of anyone who is.

	"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; In
practice, there is."
                -- Chuck Reid

> > > Oh, and we (Norway) don't ban guns, but people who don't need guns
> > > won't be allowed to buy them. If you are a hunter and do not have a
> > > criminal record, yeah, you will get a gun, but you will need proper
> > > training too.
> >
> > Oh yeah huh? Whom decides who "needs" a gun? You can't have a criminal
> > record and buy a gun here either. I agree, people should have proper
> > training.
> 
> They have to apply for one. They need a reason to own the gun
> (hunting).

	Hunting is an arbitrary 'reason'.  The only reason that is this way is because
lawmakers realized that this is the most convenient way to make the anti-gun
people happy without pissing off the hunters too much. In other words, its
arbitrary in principle but easy to implement.

> I don't think just any guy should be able to get a gun. To own a gun,
> you have to have a purpose for it, in my opinion. That way, you could
> get a gun if your were a hunter, for example, but not if you wanted to
> "protect yourself".

	I already mentioned this in another post, but our constitution explictly allows
us to decide what our reasons are.  The bottom line is that I don't want the
government (or some large voting body of idiots) to tell me what is or is not a
valid reason to own a gun.

	Dave

I need a gun, in case I'm ever locked out of my house.  Then I can get in,
and I will feel safer from criminals.  Yes indeed, it is my constitutional
right to be on my property, and to enter my property if I so choose.
Therefore I need a gun to get in, if the door is locked and I don't have a
key.  Some of my doors have multiple locks.  I would feel safer if I had an
automatic assualt rifle, so I could shoot each lock very very quickly, if I
was ever being chased by a criminal, and the door was locked, and I didn't
have a key.  Then, while I wait up all night for the locksmith to come and
fix the locks, I could guard my open house using the infrared scope on my
assault rifle to see in the dark.  If I didn't have this kind of weaponry, I
wouldn't feel safe...hey!  What's that?!  Someone is lurking between my
house and the neighbour's!  (BRRRRAP!!)  Take that you criminal!...oops,
Friday is bingo night for Mrs. Miller...

Jon Wiest <jwi...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DEbh3.145$v31.15497@news1.mts.net...
> Yeah, no point in banning knives.  I've never heard of an automatic knife
> before.  :)

You've never seen me slice up a turkey :-)

Shryqe wrote in message <7m48nk$3...@newsops.execpc.com>...
>On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:14:47 -0500, "Jon Wiest"
><jwi...@mb.sympatico.ca> did say:
>
>>Yeah, no point in banning knives.  I've never heard of an automatic knife
>>before.  :)
>
>Wow, you Canadians carve turkey the ol sucky way!
>
>What, no electricity up there yet?


Ha, we're so tough we don't need no pansy 'lectricity, eh?  And in the
winter, we use our knives to chip our way out of the ice block that forms
around our beds every night.   :)

Jon

Jon wrote in message <37867EB6...@gci.net>...
>

<snip>

>I wouldn't go as far as saying America is the best country in the free
>world but I also wouldn't wanna shag a hairy legged/armpitted fraulein.
>(hmm i got a woody typing that)

Perv <g>

 All (almost) countries have their pros
>and cons.
>

True...except France of course :-)

>However I do see the sense in limiting streetsweeper type automatic
>weapons as do many. I'm losing steam here so I'll quit. It's nearly
>beer-thirty.
>
Bah, ya lightweight. I'm suppin' some ouzo at the mo' (hic)  :)

---
Dylan.

http://www.quakeheads.freeserve.co.uk/qi.htm

Capa422 <capa42...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<2juh3.255$ml3....@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>...
> From: David Geesaman <gees...@newsguy.com>
> 
> > > Yes knives *could* kill
> >
> >              ^ Do ^
> 
> Could/Do, depends how you look at it.
> 
> > > Apples and oranges here.  There are benefits to having knives.  They
are
> a
> > > tool which we need in our daily lives.  Unless you hunt, you don't
need
> a
> > > gun.
> >
> > This is not true.  There are several good reasons to own a gun.  A
knife
> is
> > used frequently, for small tasks.  A gun (outside of hunting and target
> > shooting) is used infrequently, in extreme circumstances.  But they are
> both
> > tools, both incidentally used in crime, both completely controlled by
the
> user.
> >
> > Where can a gun be used?  Here are a few very realistic cases:
> >
> > 1) Wild animals.  If you live anywhere outside of a city, you have
> certainly
> > seen bear, porcupine, wolverine, stray dogs, or rabid racoons, skunks,
> etc.  A
> > gun is the best protection against a large animal.  It doesn't happen
> often, but
> > having a gun around has saved many people in situations involving an
> > unpredictable animal.  Did you know that Shark fishermen frequently
carry
> a
> > handgun (like a .38 or .357) in their boat so that they can quickly and
> > effectively kill a dangerous animal before bringing it into the boat?
> 
> You shoot skunks and porcupine?  What are you afraid they'll do to you?
> Yeah a gun saved many peoples lives when they were attacked by animals,
but
> so did knives, cameras, rocks, and other items people grabbed to defend
> themselves.  

	First off, I did not state when it is necessary to kill an animal.  The
animals I mentioned are nocturnal and generally very skittish, and they
will usually only approach a human when they have rabies.  And yes, the
answer to a rabid animal is to kill it.  Ask and park ranger or state
police trooper and they will agree.
	Large animals like bear can be attracted to food in trash cans or
backpacks - and they won't turn away easily.  Even a .22 rifle is an
excellent tool for removing gophers.

> There are better potential solutions out there to stop wild
> animals then killing them.  How about using some kind of long distance
> electric stun gun?  

	Are you willing to buy me one?  This isn't Star Trek, and you may be
thinking of a Taser, which more/less requires you to be very close or
touching your target.  I don't see any such thing available in stores, do
you?
	Again, I reserve the right to choose the best tool for the job, whether
its a gun, knife, or phillips-head screwdriver.

> I'm sure if people wanted a better solution they could
> come up with one.  If americans can send a man to the moon, I think they
can
> come up with ways to knock an animal out in its tracks.  Guns are a good
> solution to hunting, but not for self defence.

	Au contraire.  Guns are the best self defense in many situations, and I'm
not going to let any government or voter tell me what to use.

> > 2) Intruders.  Having a gun is a deterrent.  A locked, alarmed gun case
> will
> > turn a burglar around quicker than a toothy dog.  They know that they
are
> likely
> > up against a responsible, aware gun owner.  The argument over whether a
> gun is
> > always effective in preventing a crime is still up in the air, but here
in
> the
> > US, the government explicitly protects my right to make that decision
> myself.
> > This case is a big issue and I won't attempt to cover any more in this
> list.
> 
> Why would a burglar turn around and run when he/she stumbles upon a gun
> case?  

	Because they do.  Burglars don't want to be shot, they just want
valuables.  Why try to burglarize a house if you _know_ it has guns and the
owners know how to handle them?  In addition, a properly locked gun case is
a sign of a responsible and well informed gun owner - the most dangerous to
a theif.  Burglars are scared, too.

> This would only indicate that there are guns in the house and he
> should shoot anyone who he sees because they are now a threat.  It could
> also be the only guns in the house and the people inside are unarmed.  

	Or it couldn't.  Most theives will tell you that they'd rather not take
that chance when there is a house with NO guns further down the block.

> A gun
> case would mean nothing to me if I were robbing a house except that I
should
> be more cautious.  One again, I think some form of weapon that stuns
people
> should replace the gun, specifically for paranoid home owners.
	
	Again, no such tool exists which offers the inexpense, reliability, and
effectiveness of a gun.

>  Then if guns
> were banned (except for hunting/law inforcment/army) and laws were VERY
> strict (such as 25+ yrs for illegal possesion of a gun, and 50+ yrs for
> using a gun to commit a crime) even criminals might start carrying stun
> guns.  Why kill someone if you can get the results you want with a
> non-lethal weapon?

	You can't get the results with a non-lethal weapon.  If someone were
trying to victimize me with some wussy-stun-gun, I'd charge them swinging
some blunt object.  I'll gladly take a 'stun' if I know it won't kill me
and I know it'll stop the situation.  Think about it, it just won't work.

> > 3) Political disturbances.  This is what our second amendment was most
> > explicitly written for.  The right to keep and bear arms represents the
> freedom
> > for each citizen to choose whatever tools they feel is most appropriate
to
> > protect their freedom, be it from foreign invasion, civil war, or even
> their own
> > government.
> > Yes, folks, that means that our constitution says that each citizen has
> the
> > right to decide whether our government is doing its job correctly in
> protecting
> > our freedoms.  In essence, it protects the tools to revolt and create a
> > government in the same way our country was formed.   Just because we
> haven't
> > revolted in 200 years doesn't mean that we won't need to ever again. 
I'm
> not a
> > revolutionary, but I can see how our government has bloated and
> degenerated from
> > the lightweight and powerful form that it once was.  Our culture,
society,
> and
> > technology has changed in ways the the writers of the Constitution
> couldn't
> > forsee.  I can believe the idea of a major reshaping of the US
government
> in a
> > couple hundred years, and you'd bet that I want the citizens to be able
to
> fight
> > with the same tools as everyone else.  The fact that this happens
rarely
> (hasn't
> > in over 200 years) doesn't make it less important.
> > This last instance is, IMO, the single most important reason to allow
guns
> and
> > every other form of weapon that is commonly available.  This philosophy
> requires
> > tremendous responsibility, but it offers the most to its citizens, and
the
> US is
> > different from most major nations in this outlook.  Our Bill of Rights
has
> a
> > very careful order: first, declare the rights that we hold most dear,
> second,
> > declare the right to protect our rights.  Many other countries don't
> believe
> > this philosophy, so comparing them to the the US is the real apples vs.
> oranges
> > issue.
> 
> Hypothetically if your govenrment wanted to take control, it would.  It
has
> a larger inventory of weapons then you and it always will.  

	That is merely a coincidence.  Every war is different, and strategy is
always paramount.  The american revolution was a complete mismatch, and yet
they won.  If a revolution were brewing, you can bet that the citizens will
be better armed than they are at this moment.  The Viet Minh did a number
on the well-armed US forces, and they barely had guns in the early 1960s. 
Conjecture is pointless here.  A well-organized revolution always has a
chance, and this has been shown throughout history.

> I would like to
> hear your explanation on what exactly the govenrment would have to do, to
> put you in a position where you would have to rebel, and who exactly
would
> you be rebelling against?  

	There aren't any issues at this moment that I can forsee that could
justify change by violence.  I'd expect more of a political revolution. 
But for over a million years of humankind, force has been a necessary evil
to bring about change.  It's foolish to think that this no longer holds
true.  Like I said, things like this are rare, and the last one was our
Civil War 130 years ago.

If you're worried that the government would make
> the army turn on its own people, then I suggest you start raising your
> children with better morals so that when they join the army one day they
> will be strong enough to say "NO!, I won't turn the gun on the american
> public".  The governmet has no power if he has no army right?  The other
> point I would like to make is the american way of thinking.  Like someone
> mentioned alread, Americans seem to put up with a lot of law
> breaking/bending when it comes to their presidents.  For a democratic
> country to let someone like Clinton get away with *lying* to his country
> shows where american morals are.  

	My morals say Clinton should have his ass kicked.  He should be in jail
like any other perjuror.  Unfortunately, too many idiotic voters don't have
the fortitude to agree.  I'm not alone in this, and it is not a
generalization that I will allow.

> If americans wanted to send their
> government a clear message, they would have kicked his ass out of the
> presidents chair.  No wonder you carry guns, if I saw the majority of
> citizens didn't care about what the govenrment did, I would carry a gun
just
> to protect myself from exactly those people.  Probably the same people
that
> make the american army, which coorelates with my first point.

	I won't honor unjustified insults with a reasoned reply.

> > Why?  He provided reasoning, we would all appreciate if you shared your
> > reasons.
> 
> I have my own reasons as to why I don't think america is the best country
in
> the world.  

	I don't think America is the best country in the world.  It is, however,
the best for me.

> Much of it has to do with my views on how violent and over-sexed
> most americans are.  
	
	This generalization definitely requires some serious justification.  How
many Americans do you know well enough to judge?  How many regions of the
US have you experienced?

> My view on this topic, however, is off topic so I won't
> expand on it.

	This entire thread is off-topic, and any form of reasoning is welcomed, as
long as it is rational.

> > > Like I said, knives make our lives easier.  Guns make our lives
worse.
> >
> > Guns made my life possible, and probably yours also.  Please share why
> guns
> > have made it worse.
> 
> Isn't it obvious?  Guns kill more innocent people then they do criminals.

	I'm not saying that we need guns so that we can kill criminals.
	Moreover, I think the price to pay is frightening but worth it. 
Throughout our history, the price that has been paid is far greater than
the tragedies that have recently occurred.

> Guns were good weapons for their time, but their time has passed as far
as
> I'm concerned.  Ordinary citizens should no longer have the right to bear
> arms.

	Are you saying that you and I are not worthy of a tool as simple as a gun?
 Training and caution are all that is necessary to make it as safe as other
tools.  I feel that those who are not worthy are those who won't take the
responsiblity to correctly use them.

> > I don't think that guns have made crime worse.  If that is so, then so
> have
> > cars, ski masks, knives, and subways (for quick urban getaways).
> 
> They might not have made crimes worse (although I doubt that, just look
at
> those two guys that robbed a bank about a year ago and were heavily armed
> with armor piercing bullets and loaded up from head to toe with body
armor.
> They had more deadly fire power then the police.) 

	I don't see what that means.  When the police are outgunned, specialized
units with heavy firepower are called in.  The purpose of the police is not
to win shootouts with criminals.

but they make crimes
> possible.  Yes, so do knives and ski masks, but I would rather take my
> chances against someone with a knife (or any other hand held weapon) ,
then
> someone with a gun.

	And yet you disagree with the freedom to choose whatever tools (weapons)
you want?

> > Your laws regarding gun sales are different, that is probably the
> difference.
> 
> Yes, and that is why we don't have as much violence as you americans do.

	No, that is not.  I have spent an hour explaining why I believe that guns
are a scapegoat.  Again you put forth this statement and have not
substantiated it.
	In order for guns to be unfairly blamed, there must exist a real reason -
and that is decaying morals.  It is not represented by our President.  It
begins with parents and their children.  It continues with a toothless
punitive system.  It ends with a general public that is victimized by their
ignorance of armed violence.

> Apologies for any incorrect spelling, I don't have a spell checker
installed
> :-)

	FWIW, I didn't see any.
 
> 
	Dave 

You guys might want to check out the history of America's Gun Love in this
week's issue of the Economist ( www.economist.com ).  Turns out that less
than 10% of the population had a gun at all from the days of the Mayflower
up to the Civil War.  Guns had nothing to do with starting the nation or
winning the west, it's a myth.  Guns only became omnipresent during the
Civil War for two reasons:  the cost of manufacture came way down due to the
Industrial Revolution, from a year's wages to about 2 months wages; and
after the war the government let all the soldiers go home with their rifle.
Gun owing shot up 400% right then.

So all that "we won the west because of the gun" or "we fought off the
Indians because of the gun" is horseshit.  Most of America was unarmed in
those days.  In fact, most large cities in the west confiscated weapons when
the cowboys came to town.

Check it out, it's a good read.

Jon

I'm sadly disappointed if this is the best response you can provide.

David

Jon Wiest <jwi...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
<ULwh3.166$v31....@news1.mts.net>...
> I need a gun, in case I'm ever locked out of my house.  Then I can get
in,
<SNIP>
> assault rifle to see in the dark.  If I didn't have this kind of
weaponry, I
> wouldn't feel safe...hey!  What's that?!  Someone is lurking between my
> house and the neighbour's!  (BRRRRAP!!)  Take that you criminal!...oops,
> Friday is bingo night for Mrs. Miller...

Joe Bennett wrote:
> 
> My opinion, and I WILL DEFEND IT TO THE DEATH!

Ha ha!  OK... great case on why you should have a gun!  <sarcasm>

> My Email is totally in the open, but be aware, I will report spam, abuse, or other violations of law to all authorities
> overseeing the internet at this time.

Hmmm... and which ones would those be?  Looks like you're new to the
net...

-- 
-------------------------
Major Major Major Major
"If you're not smart enough to think up a witty quote, use this instead"
- Anonymous

Capa422 wrote:
> 
> Heh, if guns were illegal that maniac wouldn't have his would he.

Oh, of course not!  Just like nobody uses drugs either...
-- 
-------------------------
Major Major Major Major
"If you're not smart enough to think up a witty quote, use this instead"
- Anonymous

Anybody can grow a pot plant.  It takes a little more skill to produce
a .45 ACP.  

Unless you're a machinst, and have access to all the items necessary
for producing a working gun with ammunition.

Heh, maybe the government should ammend the constitution.  Sure, you
can own a gun, but you have to make your own.  After the first few
guys blew their own hands off it wouldn't take long before people
stopped even trying.





On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:38:02 -0400, "QuadMajor[AGQ2]"
<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

>Capa422 wrote:
>> 
>> Heh, if guns were illegal that maniac wouldn't have his would he.
>
>Oh, of course not!  Just like nobody uses drugs either...

David Geesaman <gees...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:01becb39$35f0cae0$b24ae4ce@mom...

> First off, I did not state when it is necessary to kill an animal.  The
> animals I mentioned are nocturnal and generally very skittish, and they
> will usually only approach a human when they have rabies.  And yes, the
> answer to a rabid animal is to kill it.  Ask and park ranger or state
> police trooper and they will agree.
> Large animals like bear can be attracted to food in trash cans or
> backpacks - and they won't turn away easily.  Even a .22 rifle is an
> excellent tool for removing gophers.

If the animal is rabid I agree, but if its just attacking you because you
got too close, I don't agree.

> Are you willing to buy me one?  This isn't Star Trek, and you may be
> thinking of a Taser, which more/less requires you to be very close or
> touching your target.  I don't see any such thing available in stores, do
> you?
> Again, I reserve the right to choose the best tool for the job, whether
> its a gun, knife, or phillips-head screwdriver.

Yes I am talking about a taser, but it's one that you can shoot and it
completly imobilizes anyone it hits.  It's not science fiction, this is a
device that is available now.  I'm not sure if it's being sold, but if you
ever watch TLC on high tech weapons you'll know what I'm talking about.  If
americans demanded that the government replace guns with these devices it
could stop a lot of senseless killing.  Again, the "taser" I'm talking about
isn't a wussie little static shock.  It *will* knock out its target.  Don't
dismiss the idea so easily.  You might also have seen an electric belt that
was supposed to have been used while transporting dangerous inmates.  The
police officers that tested it out on themselves looked like they were in an
awfull lot of pain when the thing was turned on.  There are other non-letal
ways to stop criminals, its just a matter of how bad people want these
devices.  You say you reserve the right to use the best tool for the job?
What if you were given a larger inventory to choose from, and non-lethal
weapons were an option.  Would you abandon your gun then?

> Because they do.  Burglars don't want to be shot, they just want
> valuables.  Why try to burglarize a house if you _know_ it has guns and
the
> owners know how to handle them?  In addition, a properly locked gun case
is
> a sign of a responsible and well informed gun owner - the most dangerous
to
> a theif.  Burglars are scared, too.

I don't buy it.  Unless you have some proof of this I simply do not agree.
And what about those pumped on adrenaline daylight burglars that simply kick
their way into your house before you have a chance to even react?  I don't
think they'll look at a gun case and go "Shit, I'll just turn my ass around
and run for my life."

> Or it couldn't.  Most theives will tell you that they'd rather not take
> that chance when there is a house with NO guns further down the block.

Sorry, I don't know any thieves.  Again, by the time they go through all the
trouble of breaking in, a gun rack will not stop them from completing their
task.

> My morals say Clinton should have his ass kicked.  He should be in jail
> like any other perjuror.  Unfortunately, too many idiotic voters don't
have
> the fortitude to agree.  I'm not alone in this, and it is not a
> generalization that I will allow.

See, you just confirmed my point.  There's a lot of idiots out there, the
same idiots that can purchase a weapon on a whim.

> I won't honor unjustified insults with a reasoned reply.

It wasn't an insult (unless you're one of those idiots mentioned above,
although you've proved you are not).

> I don't think America is the best country in the world.  It is, however,
> the best for me.

Fair enough.

> This generalization definitely requires some serious justification.  How
> many Americans do you know well enough to judge?  How many regions of the
> US have you experienced?

Well, my cousins and their friends are proof enough for me.  Look at all
those kids who cross the border into Mexico every weekend because of the
drinking laws there, or the big summer break in Florida where all the
students flock there to get pissed drunk and laid.  If I'm not fairly
accurate in about my points, then I blame your media (like fox files) who
air all this trash and the countless movies which always have some truth in
them.

> I'm not saying that we need guns so that we can kill criminals.
> Moreover, I think the price to pay is frightening but worth it.
> Throughout our history, the price that has been paid is far greater than
> the tragedies that have recently occurred.

Its worth it eh?  What if your kids were gunned down?  Would you still feel
that same way?  Or do you arm your kids and teach them how to shoot back,
because HEY, THATS WHAT GUNS ARE FOR!?  Like I've already mentioned before,
guns served their purpose in the past, but times have changed and I for one
think they should no longer be legal.

> Are you saying that you and I are not worthy of a tool as simple as a gun?

No, I'm saying the human race is not worthy of such weapons.

> I don't see what that means.  When the police are outgunned, specialized
> units with heavy firepower are called in.  The purpose of the police is
not
> to win shootouts with criminals.

Then where were those specialized units when they were needed.  I guess it's
ironic that the police had to go to a local gun shop inorder to purchase
better firepower then they were equipped with.  And you're wrong when you
say that the purpose of the police is not to win shootouts.  The police are
there to maintain law and order, and if it means getting into a shootout
with cirminals then so be it.

> > possible.  Yes, so do knives and ski masks, but I would rather take my
> > chances against someone with a knife (or any other hand held weapon) ,
> then
> > someone with a gun.
>
> And yet you disagree with the freedom to choose whatever tools (weapons)
> you want?

Lets get one thing straight.  A gun is a "tool" in the hands of a hunter who
will kill an animal and eat it.  A gun is a "tool" in the hands of a trained
soldier who is fighting for his country.  A gun in NOT a tool in the hands
of a citizen, it IS howeve a weapon, because that is what its sole purpose
is.

I disagree with idea that anybody can purchase a weapon in a matter of
minutes, and I disagree with that even being an option (for law obiding
citizens and criminals alike).

> No, that is not.  I have spent an hour explaining why I believe that guns
> are a scapegoat.  Again you put forth this statement and have not
> substantiated it.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way, because I think I have discussed some
valid facts (as vailid as yours) and if you weren't so quick to ignore my
points you would see this is true.  I'm not a closed minded person (at least
I try not to be), and I appreciate you taking the time to give me your
opinions on the whole gun matter.  My beliefs not being set in stone, I
would like to think the next time this topic comes up, my opinions will be
firmer on the matter thanks to this discussion.  I will however no longer
continue to debate this topic because it is a q3 forum and these rebuttals
(which I could producing for a long time) are cutting into some serious Q3
fragging time.  I just found out I slipped into the 6th spot on CLQ :-(  so
don't think for a moment that I gave in  when you no longer see any replies
from me = ^)

	Dave

Jon Wiest wrote:
> 
> You guys might want to check out the history of America's Gun Love in this
> week's issue of the Economist ( www.economist.com ).  

	Heres the direct link to save time:
http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/19990703/index_sf8740.html


> Turns out that less
> than 10% of the population had a gun at all from the days of the Mayflower
> up to the Civil War.

	Consider the notion that the population was basically families of several kids
and older grandparents, and that they probably also counted slaves who couldn't
own significant property.
	Quoted from the article: "From the time of the earliest settlement on the James
river, the English colonies required every freeman to own a gun for
self-defence"
	Freemen were definitely a minority of the population, perhaps even 1/10. 
Seeing that the article is an attempt to vilify the supposed 'gun cult', I
wouldn't be surprised if this idea completely accounts for the 10% statistic.

> Guns had nothing to do with starting the nation or
> winning the west, it's a myth.

	I don't buy the article's argument.  At no time was the American Revolution
supported by or contributed to by more than a fraction of the populus.  Most
people were busy getting on with the more immediate issues: money, food,
farming, etc.
	The argument about the inheritance records also presents questions: Since guns
were so expensive and valued, why would an ailing owner allow his guns to be
filtered through with the bent and tarnished spoons?  I would think that these
were passed down to a chosen heir before the owner's passing.  I would have made
certain that my most valued possessions did indeed reach my preferred heir
before the accountants arrived.

> Guns only became omnipresent during the
> Civil War for two reasons:  the cost of manufacture came way down due to the
> Industrial Revolution, from a year's wages to about 2 months wages;

	Another reason why gun owners were more responsible at that time and why so
many owners (esp. those who buy cheap guns) are so irresponsible today.

> So all that "we won the west because of the gun" or "we fought off the
> Indians because of the gun" is horseshit.

	I don't think the article provided any such proof.  It harps upon the idea that
not every single person owned a gun.  I certainly never asserted that and no one
ever has.  The fact is, the few who owned guns had a large impact.  There are
countless accounts of how riflemen were able to turn away Natives because of
their superior firepower (which, BTW, included horses).  Indians weren't dumb,
either, and those that fought hardest against the US military traded for guns. 
BTW, I don't approve of the way things happened in our past, but it must be
retold as correctly as possible.
	The article also mentioned a couple of isolated reports of poorly armed US
forces.  The army of our past was nothing like the armies of today - even the
Civil War is ripe with problems supplying troops - heck, even the battle of
Gettysburg took shape because of troop movements forced by shortages in supplies
from shoes to gunpowder.

> Most of America was unarmed in
> those days.  In fact, most large cities in the west confiscated weapons when
> the cowboys came to town.
> 
> Check it out, it's a good read.

	I liked it, it made me think, but I would need to answer all of my stated
questions before I feel that is presents any proof.
 
	Dave

> Jon

Shryqe <shr...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:7m9der$1da@newsops.execpc.com...

> Are you aware of what can happen when you zap someone that
> has a heart condition, has electrical devices surgically
> implanted, or is prone to seizures?
>
> You guessed it!

Heh, how many criminals do you know who have heart conditions?  I think its
safe to say this is a small minority of people, who have all the more reason
not to commit a crime.

There's another angle on this.  The military has guns.  If the
government attemps a coup, and the people have no guns, how do they
fight back?  They can't.

The Constitution is after all only paper without someone to enforce it,
and the people who could be counted on for that are the people whose
rights it protects, the general public. 

True, since the 2nd Amendment was passed new weapons technologies have
developed, and every citizen can't own a stealth bomber, tank, and
nuclear weapon.  But we should at least give the people a chance...


Graham-Jafri Salvador wrote:
> 
> I'd just like to add that I don't get this thing with guns. Americans say
> it's to protect themselves and their families, but really, is it that
> dangerous not to possess a gun? Basically, the bad guys are the ones you
> have to worry about, right? And usually, the bad guys are probably some
> sort of criminals, right? Hmmm... okay.. what beats me is this.. neither
> me or my friends have actually seen a hardcore criminal.. actually, my
> home has even been robbed once, but did I see the criminal? No.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that carrying guns just because you're afraid
> of criminals is like buying a box of rats because you fear elephants will
> come down and demolish your home. That's how I feel the situation in
> Norway is, anyway. Is it really that different in the States? Are
> criminals and bad guys that common?
> --
> Graham-Jafri Salvador
> A cat won't die unless I kill it!

-- 
-------------------------
Major Major Major Major
"If you're not smart enough to think up a witty quote, use this instead"
- Anonymous

If the government wanted to take control by force it would be so easy
it's not even funny.

Turn off the electricity, water, stop picking up garbage, shut down
railroads, shipping, you name it.

Within, weeks the people would be begging for their precious
necessities.

Not one bullet would need to be fired.  

If it came to violence, we wouldn't stand a chance.  A couple of
squadrons of Apache helicopters would weaken any resistance in hours.

Considering that most major cities have military bases nearby, it
would be child's play organizing a swift attack.  

Now you're telling me, a bunch of Monday Night Football couch potatos
are going to stand up against that?  Bwahahahaha, I can see it now.
Honey, get the shotgun, I think I can pick off that Abrams if I hit
him just right.  :)  Please...  LOL

The whole protecting your rights with weapons is so passe'.

On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 18:26:53 -0400, "QuadMajor[AGQ2]"
<nos...@nospam.net> wrote:

>There's another angle on this.  The military has guns.  If the
>government attemps a coup, and the people have no guns, how do they
>fight back?  They can't.
>
>The Constitution is after all only paper without someone to enforce it,
>and the people who could be counted on for that are the people whose
>rights it protects, the general public. 
>
>True, since the 2nd Amendment was passed new weapons technologies have
>developed, and every citizen can't own a stealth bomber, tank, and
>nuclear weapon.  But we should at least give the people a chance...
>
>
>Graham-Jafri Salvador wrote:
>> 
>> I'd just like to add that I don't get this thing with guns. Americans say
>> it's to protect themselves and their families, but really, is it that
>> dangerous not to possess a gun? Basically, the bad guys are the ones you
>> have to worry about, right? And usually, the bad guys are probably some
>> sort of criminals, right? Hmmm... okay.. what beats me is this.. neither
>> me or my friends have actually seen a hardcore criminal.. actually, my
>> home has even been robbed once, but did I see the criminal? No.
>> 
>> What I'm trying to say is that carrying guns just because you're afraid
>> of criminals is like buying a box of rats because you fear elephants will
>> come down and demolish your home. That's how I feel the situation in
>> Norway is, anyway. Is it really that different in the States? Are
>> criminals and bad guys that common?
>> --
>> Graham-Jafri Salvador
>> A cat won't die unless I kill it!

NOYB [SC] wrote in message <37891a7f.9316296@news>...
>If the government wanted to take control by force it would be so easy
>it's not even funny.
>(snip)
>The whole protecting your rights with weapons is so passe'.

I agree.  Nowadays, economic power is the real power.  All the people have
to do is REFUSE TO BUY and everybody is scrambling to console them.  You can
shoot at Walmart, or you can refrain from buying there.  Which do you think
will accomplish more?

Jon

"Håvard K. Moen" wrote:

> > > They have to apply for one. They need a reason to own the gun
> > > (hunting).
> >
> >       Hunting is an arbitrary 'reason'.  The only reason that is this way is because
> > lawmakers realized that this is the most convenient way to make the anti-gun
> > people happy without pissing off the hunters too much. In other words, its
> > arbitrary in principle but easy to implement.
> 
> Do you know a lot about Norway, since you can claim this?

	Have I attempted to bring Norway into this discussion?  I hope I didn't.  Here,
the idea of subjecting hunters to different regulations is basically a political
ploy that sounds good on paper.  It's drawing a line where a line already
exists.

	Dave

Håvard K. Moen wrote:
> 
> I don't think just any guy should be able to get a gun. To own a gun,
> you have to have a purpose for it, in my opinion. That way, you could
> get a gun if your were a hunter, for example, but not if you wanted to
> "protect yourself".

Why is "protecting yourself" not a valid purpose?
-- 
-------------------------
Major Major Major Major
"If you're not smart enough to think up a witty quote, use this instead"
- Anonymous

try a search engine!

kerr <ke...@tranzline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:931349834.22231.0.nnrp-08.c2de56eb@news.demon.co.uk...
> OK Ok! I know Im over in UK where guns are very illegal so have no place
to
> comment. But what did he do! what law did he break?
> If he didnot have a gun then woulfdthe feds have needed to take such
action?
> And whats this got to do with q3.
> Remember I dont know the full story! Im am only asking questions. Just
this
> weekend a person was shot just 200yrs from windsor castle. We have gun
> problems as well But this is extreme.
> Where can I find more about this on the web?
> kerr
> Frank_Rizzo wrote in message ...
> >This is a perfect example of why we dislike gun control here in the USA.
> >
> >http://www.georgiamountain.com/rweaver.htm
> >
> >BTW, I lived in Kennesaw... You may remember my saying how we have a law
> >that every home must own a gun... This gun show is a regular attraction
in
> >Kennesaw.
> >
> >--
> >FrankRizzo{OT}
> >http://www.offtopic.com
> >
> >"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
> government
> >from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care
of
> >them."
> >-- Thomas Jefferson
> >
> >
> >
>
>

We don't need to get rid of guns, we need to get rid of freaks and
criminals.  If we would model our society after the animal world, we
wouldn't let our freaks breed.  We need to pass laws that punish criminals,
not give them a free room with cable.  .  Throw them in a damp cell with no
lights and rats.
If you kill someone you die, very simple.  Some people say that what if they
are innocent and the system fails them, oh well, acceptable losses.  Will
send innocent Americans to die for other countries, but we have a problem
killing criminals to better the life of our society here.

Also, parents need to be held responsible for there punk ass, pimple faced,
freak, psycho kids.

Another problem with our society is that sex is viewed as being more wrong
than killing and death.  Example, go to a Block Buster and try to rent an
Adult movie, you can't.  Now turn around and try to rent a movie that show
real pictures of people getting there heads blown off, they will have many.
I am not saying that they should have adult movies, I am saying that should
people be getting desensitized to death watching these death movies.

Just my thoughts



Ashley Nugent <ashley...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:8Yfl3.5193$r61.39044@ozemail.com.au...
> try a search engine!
>
> kerr <ke...@tranzline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:931349834.22231.0.nnrp-08.c2de56eb@news.demon.co.uk...
> > OK Ok! I know Im over in UK where guns are very illegal so have no place
> to
> > comment. But what did he do! what law did he break?
> > If he didnot have a gun then woulfdthe feds have needed to take such
> action?
> > And whats this got to do with q3.
> > Remember I dont know the full story! Im am only asking questions. Just
> this
> > weekend a person was shot just 200yrs from windsor castle. We have gun
> > problems as well But this is extreme.
> > Where can I find more about this on the web?
> > kerr
> > Frank_Rizzo wrote in message ...
> > >This is a perfect example of why we dislike gun control here in the
USA.
> > >
> > >http://www.georgiamountain.com/rweaver.htm
> > >
> > >BTW, I lived in Kennesaw... You may remember my saying how we have a
law
> > >that every home must own a gun... This gun show is a regular attraction
> in
> > >Kennesaw.
> > >
> > >--
> > >FrankRizzo{OT}
> > >http://www.offtopic.com
> > >
> > >"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
> > government
> > >from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care
> of
> > >them."
> > >-- Thomas Jefferson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:40:39 -0400, "Thomas Parah Jr."
<tonm156<NO-SPAM>@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>We don't need to get rid of guns, we need to get rid of freaks and
>criminals.  If we would model our society after the animal world, we
>wouldn't let our freaks breed.

Interesting you mention the animal world. Does not nature itself arm
animals with fang and claw? Do not animals fight back when they're
being attacked? People who arm themselves with guns even the "playing
field" against the criminal predators in society. Unless you're a
sheep. Then you cower and wait to be killed. 

>We need to pass laws that punish criminals, not give them a free room with cable.
>Throw them in a damp cell with no lights and rats.

I agree. There's a sheriff in Arizona with the right idea. Ever heard
of Joe Arpaio? Not quite as inhumane as your solution, but he does
have them living in tents out in the desert. Bring back the chain
gangs!

>If you kill someone you die, very simple.  Some people say that what if they
>are innocent and the system fails them, oh well, acceptable losses.  Will
>send innocent Americans to die for other countries, but we have a problem
>killing criminals to better the life of our society here.

I fail to understand the utter disregard for human life in today's
society. I mean the side that says defending yourself and loved ones
from criminal attack is barbaric or uncivilised. These sheep would
call a police officer and ask him to risk his life for them, but they
wouldn't dare put their own life at risk to defend themselves or their
families. What hypocrites! What sheep! In the jungle, no animal waits
for another animal to show up and help out. It's either defend
yourself...or die! In past civilised societies, men were EXPECTED to
be armed to defend their own against thugs. We have become a nation of
cowards, and governments are a party to death by forbidding the
carrying of arms. Look at Israel and Switzerland, two of the most
heavily armed countries in the world, and two of the safest to live
in. 

>Also, parents need to be held responsible for there punk ass, pimple faced,
>freak, psycho kids.
>
>Another problem with our society is that sex is viewed as being more wrong
>than killing and death.  Example, go to a Block Buster and try to rent an
>Adult movie, you can't.  Now turn around and try to rent a movie that show
>real pictures of people getting there heads blown off, they will have many.
>I am not saying that they should have adult movies, I am saying that should
>people be getting desensitized to death watching these death movies.

You mean like the killing and death in video games like Quake et. al?
;-) (On topic for a change) But seriously, most grown-ups know the
difference and can separate entertainment and reality. Kids are
immature and impressionable. I won't let my kids watch violent movies
or TV. Movies are rated for a reason, and theaters are taking a step
in the right direction by enforcing the ratings codes. It's long
overdue. 

>Just my thoughts

...and my $0.02 worth too.

Mike