🚀 go-pugleaf

I still don't know what he did wrong! The feds had to have some reason to be
circling his place? WTF did he do wrong?

Mike

Mike <mik...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7m0n1r$2so$1@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
> I still don't know what he did wrong! The feds had to have some reason to
be
> circling his place? WTF did he do wrong?



Randy Weaver's principal crime against the government had been his failure
to appear in court on a charge of possessing illegal firearms. The first
crime was not his. He had been entrapped--intentionally, systematically,
patiently, purposefully entrapped--by a federal agent who solicited him to
cut off, contrary to Federal law, the barrels of a couple of shotguns.
Randy Weaver never owned an illegal weapon in his life. He was not engaged
in the manufacture of illegal weapons. The idea of selling an illegal
firearm had never entered his mind until the government agent suggested it
and encouraged him to act illegally. The government knew he needed the
money. He is as poor as an empty cupboard. He had three daughters, a son
and a wife to support. He lived in a small house in the woods without
electricity or running water. Although he is a small, frail man, with tiny,
delicate hands who probably weighs no more than a hundred and twenty
pounds, he made an honest living by chopping firewood and by seasonal work
as a logger.

This man is wrong, his beliefs are wrong. His relationship to mankind is
wrong. He was perhaps legally wrong when he failed to appear and defend
himself in court. But the first wrong was not his. Nor was the first wrong
the government's. The first wrong was ours.

That is sick.  America is the freest most prosperous nation in the world,
and here's some lamer bitching about not being "free"?  Like what?  Free to
kill blacks?  Free to spew on Jews?  Obviously the lamer did something
ignorant, and doesn't have a grip on reality.  Does anyone believe the feds
will just pick people at random and harrass them?  Who the hell has time for
that?

I'd like to brand this guy with a big fat "L" in the middle of his forehead.

Jon

Frank_Rizzo wrote in message ...
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Håvard K. Moen" wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:45:13 -0400, "Frank_Rizzo"
> <riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote:
> 
> > He is as poor as an empty cupboard. He had three daughters, a son
> > and a wife to support. He lived in a small house in the woods without
> > electricity or running water. Although he is a small, frail man, with tiny,
> > delicate hands who probably weighs no more than a hundred and twenty
> > pounds, he made an honest living by chopping firewood and by seasonal
> > work as a logger.
> 
> And now, thanks to the gun people, he is rich! Don't you just love
> America? :-)

	Is that supposed to make sense?  Are you trying to assume that the book is only
purchased by gun advocates?
	I love America, BTW. ;-).

	Dave

It appears there is a heated debate going on about why guns should or
should not be banned.

Here's my take on the issue.

I don't like guns.  Let me get that out in the open.  The amount of
suffering inflicted by their use is frightening.  

Except for the purposes of sport, guns have only one use.  That is to
kill.  They are instruments of death.  In the hands of the uninitiated
they are accidents waiting to happen.  How many children die each year
because of guns?  The sad thing is many of these guns were meant to
protect the family.

The same could be said of dogs, household chemicals, utensils, etc.
However, as I said, a gun's sole purpose is to kill.  

Sure, there was a time when guns were necessary.  When every american
needed to possess a firearm or perish.  When not owning a shotgun or
rifle meant starvation, or even death at the hands of robbers (local
law enforcement was a joke).  In those scenarios guns were a part of
life.  Every child was instructed in their use, and taught respect for
them.  They were seen as a tool. 

Also remember that these early americans were for the most part good
god fearing people, that worked hard for their meager existence.  They
knew the value of life, and strove to defend it.  Entire towns
survived, because the men of the town needed to be skilled marksman to
defend against indians or invading soldiers.

Guns were practically sacred objects in the days of yore.  They were
not disposable objects that anyone could pick up at the local shop.  

What I'm saying is simple.  No one will deny that guns were a vital
part of the United States success as a nation.  They served their
purpose, and served it well.  

While it is true that every american has a right to bear arms I feel
this nation is not the same that our forefathers created.  What
applied then does not apply now.  Do you think George Washington, or
Thomas Jefferson would approve of the current state of our nation?
Surely they would not.  For all of their good intentions the
constitution has become warped and misinterpreted.  For crying out
loud following the constitution to the letter it is legal to burn the
FLAG!  Is that right?  HELL NO!  I want to cry when I see some hippie
piece of shit burn "Old Glory."  I want to tell them they are
perverting the constitution to suit their own ideals.  

That is what is happening now with guns.  We have changed as a nation,
now it's time to change our views.  Our population has increased
ten-fold.  The general morality of the nation has gone to the
cess-pool.  

I reiterate.  This is not the same country from two hundred years ago.
It is a sad shadow of what once was.  Our people care not for the
prosperity of america.  Only for themselves.  As such somethings are
going to need to change.  

I hate to see freedoms lost.  But!  In the case of guns, I think stern
control is necessary.   


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

NOYB <no...@q3acenterxxx.com> wrote in message news:378579d5.32717690@news...
> It appears there is a heated debate going on about why guns should or
> should not be banned.
>
> Here's my take on the issue.
>
> I don't like guns.  Let me get that out in the open.  The amount of
> suffering inflicted by their use is frightening.

Me either... I do not own a gun, or have any intention in buying one.


>
> Except for the purposes of sport, guns have only one use.  That is to
> kill.  They are instruments of death.  In the hands of the uninitiated
> they are accidents waiting to happen.  How many children die each year
> because of guns?  The sad thing is many of these guns were meant to
> protect the family.

Agreed.

>
> The same could be said of dogs, household chemicals, utensils, etc.
> However, as I said, a gun's sole purpose is to kill.

And to "protect the family" as you stated up there.

>
> Sure, there was a time when guns were necessary.  When every american
> needed to possess a firearm or perish.  When not owning a shotgun or
> rifle meant starvation, or even death at the hands of robbers (local
> law enforcement was a joke).  In those scenarios guns were a part of
> life.  Every child was instructed in their use, and taught respect for
> them.  They were seen as a tool.

And still are for the most part. What do you suggest we use to "protect the
family"? If the criminals have guns? I guess what I'm trying to say is... as
long as the criminals have guns, we need guns to protect ourselves.


>
> Also remember that these early americans were for the most part good
> god fearing people, that worked hard for their meager existence.  They
> knew the value of life, and strove to defend it.  Entire towns
> survived, because the men of the town needed to be skilled marksman to
> defend against indians or invading soldiers.
>
> Guns were practically sacred objects in the days of yore.  They were
> not disposable objects that anyone could pick up at the local shop.
>
> What I'm saying is simple.  No one will deny that guns were a vital
> part of the United States success as a nation.  They served their
> purpose, and served it well.

And still will if someone used one to defend his/her family.


>
> While it is true that every american has a right to bear arms I feel
> this nation is not the same that our forefathers created.  What
> applied then does not apply now.  Do you think George Washington, or
> Thomas Jefferson would approve of the current state of our nation?

Absolutely not. Criminals need to be punished more harshly.


> Surely they would not.  For all of their good intentions the
> constitution has become warped and misinterpreted.  For crying out
> loud following the constitution to the letter it is legal to burn the
> FLAG!  Is that right?  HELL NO!  I want to cry when I see some hippie
> piece of shit burn "Old Glory."  I want to tell them they are
> perverting the constitution to suit their own ideals.

I agree completely... It makes me sick also.

>
> That is what is happening now with guns.  We have changed as a nation,
> now it's time to change our views.  Our population has increased
> ten-fold.  The general morality of the nation has gone to the
> cess-pool.


So true.

>
> I reiterate.  This is not the same country from two hundred years ago.
> It is a sad shadow of what once was.  Our people care not for the
> prosperity of america.  Only for themselves.  As such somethings are
> going to need to change.
>
> I hate to see freedoms lost.  But!  In the case of guns, I think stern
> control is necessary.


What's amazing is we have more gun laws than we ever had in the history of
our nation, and yet more people get killed by guns! Maybe we have been
looking in the wrong places? We have been giving our government more and
more control over our lives. Has it helped? I believe it's time we took a
stand and didn't pass our responcibilities over to our government, and more
laws and regulations. Somewhere there is a flaw. You can regulate the crap
out of guns, and if people want to kill, they will find a way. Simple. All
the school shootings recently... tons of _laws_ broken. Laws don't help
enough... We need restrictions, but we also need strong moral leaders. Look
at the Clinton/Lewinski deal... Most Americans said "Who cares.... no big
deal"... I think it is a big deal... not because he had sex, but because he
broke the law. What kind of moral example does that set? What does that
teach our children? It's okay to break the law for certain things? What
things? This has been the cause of the moral decay in this country. I
believe this moral decay has a major part in the crimes comitted by our
youth. It's our own fault, and no law is going to fix the problem.

You're 100% right.  However, there just seems to no end in sight.
Once you go down some paths there is no turning back.

Not only should punishment be more severe in this country, it should
be consistent.  What the hell is plea bargaining?  You don't make
deals with criminals.  You punish their freaking ass.  Cut and dry.  

I'm starting to stray off the topic though.  

Getting back to guns.  To me it's just a matter of time before all but
sport rifles and shotguns are banned outright.  And why not?  I see no
problem with that.  Tell me, what does your average citizen need with
a .44?  It's ridiculous to even think that Joe Bloe needs a hand
cannon at his disposal for "protection."  There are a number of
devices that could be used to incapacitate an assailant.  Personal
artillery is not necessary.  In my book it is quite literally
overkill.

Guns are not necessary for protection.  In many cases they give a
false sense of security.  Here's a true story for you.

I had a landlord that was killed because he thought his gun was
loaded.  He confronted a robber and when he went to pull the trigger.
The chamber was empty.  The robber shot his son in the chest and then
killed him shooting him between the eyes.  His wife was left sobbing
on the ground pistol whipped with a child dying in her arms.  Luckily
he lived.  He was fortunate.  The saddest part of the story was he had
taken the pistol out a few weeks earlier and was playing around with
it showing it off to his friends.  He never reloaded it.  

Had the guy not owned a gun, things may have turned out differently.
Sure I hear you say, what if the son had reloaded it?  It doesn't
really matter now does it?  Shit like this happens all the time.
Teen-agers blowing their own friends away on accident.  Toddlers
shooting themselves.  People killing themselves cleaning their
weapons.  These are all tragic accidents that are totally unnecessary.
What makes them unnecessary?  There is NO reason to have a gun in the
first place.  As I said, there are a plethora of devices that can be
used in defense that don't involve assault weaponry.

Once the weapons are banned.  Ban the ammunition.  Then ban devices
for making ammunition.  If anyone breaks accordance with any of those
laws put them away and throw away the key.  Treat them as if they were
domestic terrorists.  It may not solve the problem overnight, but I
promise you it wouldn't be long before handguns would be a memory.

On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:27:46 -0400, "Frank_Rizzo"
<riz...@FARTalltel.net.net> wrote:


>What's amazing is we have more gun laws than we ever had in the history of
>our nation, and yet more people get killed by guns! Maybe we have been
>looking in the wrong places? We have been giving our government more and
>more control over our lives. Has it helped? I believe it's time we took a
>stand and didn't pass our responcibilities over to our government, and more
>laws and regulations. Somewhere there is a flaw. You can regulate the crap
>out of guns, and if people want to kill, they will find a way. Simple. All
>the school shootings recently... tons of _laws_ broken. Laws don't help
>enough... We need restrictions, but we also need strong moral leaders. Look
>at the Clinton/Lewinski deal... Most Americans said "Who cares.... no big
>deal"... I think it is a big deal... not because he had sex, but because he
>broke the law. What kind of moral example does that set? What does that
>teach our children? It's okay to break the law for certain things? What
>things? This has been the cause of the moral decay in this country. I
>believe this moral decay has a major part in the crimes comitted by our
>youth. It's our own fault, and no law is going to fix the problem.
>

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

First off, I'd like to express my appreciation that you entered this discussion
using reason rather than one-line retorts.  It's quite refreshing.

NOYB wrote:
> 
> You're 100% right.  However, there just seems to no end in sight.
> Once you go down some paths there is no turning back.
> 
> Not only should punishment be more severe in this country, it should
> be consistent.  What the hell is plea bargaining?  You don't make
> deals with criminals.  You punish their freaking ass.  Cut and dry.

	I tend to agree with this.  This is why Roman law was so effective - you knew
what was coming.  There are too many laws creating too many loopholes.  Plea
bargains are meant to save time - but really they avoid the legal battle that
only exists because of our conflicting and confusing pile of laws.
 
> I'm starting to stray off the topic though.

	True.  I'll quit too.
 
> Getting back to guns.  To me it's just a matter of time before all but
> sport rifles and shotguns are banned outright.  And why not?  I see no
> problem with that.  

	Well, I don't think that this will always be true.  Just because our government
is reasonably trustworthy when it comes to personal protection right now, it
doesn't mean that it will later.  Britain took advantage of the colonies because
the colonies had no representation or choice.  The colonies used force as their
last resort to reclaim their freedoms.  Following this, our Constitution clearly
stated that we must 1) have certain individual freedoms, and 2) have the means
available to individually protect them.
	Put the candy jar on the table, and sooner or later, someone will take it. 
	To say that our society and technology have escaped the vision of the
constitution is an understatement ;-).  I.E., massive federal governments,
national democracy made possible only by mass media, weapons so powerful that
could wipe out entire populations at a time, etc.  
	However, the principles that the constitution set forth have not changed.  The
fact that we aren't exercising our right to bear arms in order to protect
ourselves from tyranny does not mean that the need doesn't exist.  I'd go so far
as to say that its working very well.  A person with guard dog has no way to
count how many crimes have been prevented.

	What has changed for the worse (IMO), is the ignorance of the public in the
use, safety, and power of guns.  Guns are tools, and yet they are looked at like
no other object in the world.  We fear what we do not understand.  The average
non-gun owner has never shot a gun or received any kind of training.  The few
who have will tell you how much more comfortable they are with them.

> Tell me, what does your average citizen need with
> a .44?  It's ridiculous to even think that Joe Bloe needs a hand
> cannon at his disposal for "protection."  There are a number of
> devices that could be used to incapacitate an assailant.  Personal
> artillery is not necessary.  In my book it is quite literally
> overkill.
> Guns are not necessary for protection.  In many cases they give a
> false sense of security.  Here's a true story for you.
> 
> I had a landlord that was killed because he thought his gun was
> loaded.  He confronted a robber and when he went to pull the trigger.
> The chamber was empty.  The robber shot his son in the chest and then
> killed him shooting him between the eyes.  His wife was left sobbing
> on the ground pistol whipped with a child dying in her arms.  Luckily
> he lived.  He was fortunate.  The saddest part of the story was he had
> taken the pistol out a few weeks earlier and was playing around with
> it showing it off to his friends.  He never reloaded it.
> 
> Had the guy not owned a gun, things may have turned out differently.
> Sure I hear you say, what if the son had reloaded it?  It doesn't
> really matter now does it?  Shit like this happens all the time.
> Teen-agers blowing their own friends away on accident.  Toddlers
> shooting themselves.  People killing themselves cleaning their
> weapons.  These are all tragic accidents that are totally unnecessary.
> What makes them unnecessary?  There is NO reason to have a gun in the
> first place.  As I said, there are a plethora of devices that can be
> used in defense that don't involve assault weaponry.

	I don't want to delve into this tradgedy, but the guy could be criticized for
making poor choices.  In a robbery situation, it is by far the safest thing to
give them everything they want until they directly threaten your life.  That is
when I believe the gun should be used.  I will give up anything material to
avoid drawing a gun.  I will extend myself to say that it doesn't sound like
this guy was a very responsible gun owner.

> Once the weapons are banned.  Ban the ammunition.  Then ban devices
> for making ammunition.  If anyone breaks accordance with any of those
> laws put them away and throw away the key.  Treat them as if they were
> domestic terrorists.  It may not solve the problem overnight, but I
> promise you it wouldn't be long before handguns would be a memory.

	And from this new weapons will be devised.  Bombs will become popular.  Knives
will become popular.  This idea is not rational.  It is the thoughts of the
people that change crime, not the tools that are available.  As a mechanical
engineer, I know how easy it is to make weapons of destruction from basic
materials that cannot be banned.  There is no secret, and there is no way to
control what lawbreakers choose to get their hands on or make.
	The countries that seem to have 'solved' their crime who have gun controls in
effect also have a populace that thinks differently about morals and crime.  I
don't need to be Jerry Falwell to tell you that our morals are worse and more
heterogeneous than other countries.
	The bottom line is that I firmly believe that guns are a scapegoat.  They are
easy to blame, and easy to add to a political platform.  Any idea that is so
easy is too good to be true.  Pointing to other countries which have gun
controls as an ideal model is the easy answer.
	The real reason is our people and how they think.  We need to change the
criminals, not their tools.  The UK has fewer criminals in general.  Perhaps its
their parenting, their schools, or the severity and certainty of punishment. 
Overall, it's in the head, not the barrel.
	This is not easy.  That is why politicians rarely profess it - it's bad for
their careers.  It involves citizens taking responsibility in taking care of
children and removing the seeds that make them criminals.  It involves citizens
being familiar with tools of crime and dissolving the ignorance that criminals
exploit when they show a weapon.  It involves removing the laws in place that do
nothing but crowd and compromise the laws that do work.  

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

<snip entire post for sake of brevity>

I'd like to make some comments on this thread so far.

I tend to agree with what you're saying.  There is no easy answer to
the problems that plague our country.  The real problem is that so
many of our problems are so intertwined.  

We can't continue to treat the symptoms that ail our nation.  Placing
band-aids on problems only covers up the real issues.  Things like
teen-age smoking, drinking, pregnancy, etc.  These issues are real
problems that demand attention, but the general consensus is that if
we air enough TV commercials the problem will somehow magically
disappear.  

Relating this to the gun issue.   How can, we the people, say we are
responsible enough to possess weapons of destruction when we can't
even talk to our kids about smoking pot?   

I for one know how to use a gun.  I was in the Army for six years, and
fired a wide variety of weapons.  I trained in using grenade
launchers, pistols, machine guns, mines, and even rocket launchers.  I
am very comfortable in handling a weapon.  
I know I am  responsible when handling guns.  I know I could teach my
children how to properly handle and maintain a weapon.  My fear
though, is of those that are ignorant in their use.  It is still legal
for anyone to just pick up a shotgun and start firing it.  No license
necessary.  No prior training.  Nothing.

These are the same people that cannot tie their shoe laces without
difficulty.  Yet the governement has deemed them competent to handle a
weapon, because they have a constitutional right.  That's just plain
silly.  Things need to change.  I don't know how or what, but it needs
to happen.  

I don't have a problem with guns, per se.  Guns aren't the real
problem.  Guns are a part of the problem.  The real problem is hard to
root out, because it's buried under hundreds of little problems.  The
easy solution is to ban guns.  (This goes back to the band-aid
analogy.)  The bleeding won't stop, but it may buy us enough time to
find the source.   

Why would a patriotic american want to ban guns?  It sounds silly I
know, but I fear that we must relinquish certain rights to protect us
from ourselves.  Americans have become their own worst enemy.    


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

>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.

Knifes doesn't kill people at 1000ft+. Knifes doesn't come at you 20+ stabs a
second. etc.

John Aadn�y
Team *Amiga*
WS: A4000(T)/CS-II-060-50Mhz/114MB/CV64-4MB/Zip/CD-ROM SCSI2 x16/3.8GB HD
PS: AMD-K6-3Dnow-350Mhz/Aopen MXT/128MB RAM/Pioneer x32 CD-ROM/10.1GB HD
    RivaTNT 16MB 2D&3D /PCI128/Accton 100Mbit net./HP 560C Printer
SD: Targa 19" Monitor/Dataswitch for Monitor / Zyxel Omni.net ISDN modem
"I understand that a train station is where the train stops 
and a bus station is where the bus stops. Now I'm sitting in 
front of a workstation..."
                   fra "Harry Hurt's Greatest Hits"

Some guy wrote:

> We can't continue to treat the symptoms that ail our nation.  Placing
> band-aids on problems only covers up the real issues.  Things like
> teen-age smoking, drinking, pregnancy, etc.  These issues are real
> problems that demand attention, but the general consensus is that if
> we air enough TV commercials the problem will somehow magically
> disappear.

    You're still talking about superficial wounds, here. The real wound
is the way the human species has chosen to organize itself in the last
10,000 years. If you want to really leapfrog the 'flesh wounds', let's
take a look at our system of agriculture and civic organization as a
source of massive trauma that needs addressing. The way our culture (not
just the West or anything; human culture as a whole) has evolved since
the populating of the fertile crescent is fundamentally flawed. We
weren't destined to live in cities and to farm (and abuse) the land the
way we do; it's just one possible avenue that we chose to pursue. Anyway,
in choosing to do so, we've set ourselves up for a whole lot of troubles
that are a result of our unprecedented population boom - violence, drugs,
disease, famine... you name it.  I wish we could go back in time and make
some better decisions as to the future of our species.

Yikes.

Well, let's try to set goals that are attainable short of world-wide
depopulation.  :)

Your outlook makes me feel worse than ever though.  Mainly because
you're suggesting that humans simply cannot coexist in harmony.
You're probably right.  There are certain aspects of us that I don't
think we can change.    

I'd like to think that someday we'll transcend alot of the
superficialities that have plagued our nation.  In the end though, it
all boils down to human nature.  

  

On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 01:39:53 GMT, "Blair J." <blairj@!.org> wrote:

>Some guy wrote:
>
>> We can't continue to treat the symptoms that ail our nation.  Placing
>> band-aids on problems only covers up the real issues.  Things like
>> teen-age smoking, drinking, pregnancy, etc.  These issues are real
>> problems that demand attention, but the general consensus is that if
>> we air enough TV commercials the problem will somehow magically
>> disappear.
>
>    You're still talking about superficial wounds, here. The real wound
>is the way the human species has chosen to organize itself in the last
>10,000 years. If you want to really leapfrog the 'flesh wounds', let's
>take a look at our system of agriculture and civic organization as a
>source of massive trauma that needs addressing. The way our culture (not
>just the West or anything; human culture as a whole) has evolved since
>the populating of the fertile crescent is fundamentally flawed. We
>weren't destined to live in cities and to farm (and abuse) the land the
>way we do; it's just one possible avenue that we chose to pursue. Anyway,
>in choosing to do so, we've set ourselves up for a whole lot of troubles
>that are a result of our unprecedented population boom - violence, drugs,
>disease, famine... you name it.  I wish we could go back in time and make
>some better decisions as to the future of our species.
>
>Yikes.

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

NOYB wrote:

> I'd like to think that someday we'll transcend alot of the
> superficialities that have plagued our nation.  In the end though, it
> all boils down to human nature.
>

You've got the right idea *almost*, but don't confuse human nature with the
ways of our culture. I think we're inherently good as humans. It's just the
way that we've chosen to set our civilizations up that makes us seem so
brutal. Controversy like gun control and imbalances in power and control can
be traced back to the very structure of our 'civilized' development itself.
At least, in my little mammal brain it can. Anyone interested in wacko
theories like this should really read The Story of B by Daniel Quinn. Very
persuasive, and IMHO, nothing short of revolutionary.

But whatever.

- B

Yep you called it, our problems are irrigation, crop rotation, the plow and
democracy.......

Blair J. <blairj@!.org> wrote in message
news:Jvxh3.28407$g02.77832@news.rdc1.ab.wave.home.com...
> Some guy wrote:
>
> > We can't continue to treat the symptoms that ail our nation.  Placing
> > band-aids on problems only covers up the real issues.  Things like
> > teen-age smoking, drinking, pregnancy, etc.  These issues are real
> > problems that demand attention, but the general consensus is that if
> > we air enough TV commercials the problem will somehow magically
> > disappear.
>
>     You're still talking about superficial wounds, here. The real wound
> is the way the human species has chosen to organize itself in the last
> 10,000 years. If you want to really leapfrog the 'flesh wounds', let's
> take a look at our system of agriculture and civic organization as a
> source of massive trauma that needs addressing. The way our culture (not
> just the West or anything; human culture as a whole) has evolved since
> the populating of the fertile crescent is fundamentally flawed. We
> weren't destined to live in cities and to farm (and abuse) the land the
> way we do; it's just one possible avenue that we chose to pursue. Anyway,
> in choosing to do so, we've set ourselves up for a whole lot of troubles
> that are a result of our unprecedented population boom - violence, drugs,
> disease, famine... you name it.  I wish we could go back in time and make
> some better decisions as to the future of our species.
>
> Yikes.
>

NOYB <no...@q3acenterxxx.com> wrote in article <37876846.55128005@news>...
> <snip entire post for sake of brevity>
> 
> I'd like to make some comments on this thread so far.
<rational and agreeable discussion snipped>
> I don't have a problem with guns, per se.  Guns aren't the real
> problem.  Guns are a part of the problem.  The real problem is hard to
> root out, because it's buried under hundreds of little problems.  The
> easy solution is to ban guns.  (This goes back to the band-aid
> analogy.)  The bleeding won't stop, but it may buy us enough time to
> find the source.   

	I'd like to agree, but banning guns is an ineffective short term solution.
 I disagree with a gun ban because of principle, but I also believe that a
gun ban won't work.  It will only remove guns from law-abiding citizens
like you and I.  Banning guns from criminals would be even bloodier than
our current situation and offer no short-term solution, much less a
long-term solution.  That a gun ban would not work has been hotly debated,
but I will sum up my most powerful reasoning by saying that laws do not
change lawbreakers.  There are many historical examples of this, past and
present, and guns would be no exception.

> Why would a patriotic american want to ban guns?  

	I hope my discussion didn't appear patriotic.  Patriotism is an old trick
designed to rally people based on emotion.  There are two ways to make a
decision: emotion and reason.  Both have their place.  I believe that
emotional decision making has no place in our laws.  Furthermore, I don't
agree with writing laws to fix short-term problems.  Laws are never
removed, and they eventually get in our way (e.g. the New Deal).

> It sounds silly I
> know, but I fear that we must relinquish certain rights to protect us
> from ourselves.  Americans have become their own worst enemy.    
> 
	I agree that we are our own worst enemy.  People do not become responsible
by insulating them from responsibility.  It's not fun believing in the
right to keep and bear arms, but its the only thing that makes sense.

	Dave

> NOYB [SC]

>>
>> Except for the purposes of sport, guns have only one use.  That is to
>> kill.  They are instruments of death.  In the hands of the uninitiated
>> they are accidents waiting to happen.  How many children die each year
>> because of guns?  The sad thing is many of these guns were meant to
>> protect the family.

>Agreed.

>>
>> The same could be said of dogs, household chemicals, utensils, etc.
>> However, as I said, a gun's sole purpose is to kill.

>And to "protect the family" as you stated up there.

>>
>> Sure, there was a time when guns were necessary.  When every american
>> needed to possess a firearm or perish.  When not owning a shotgun or
>> rifle meant starvation, or even death at the hands of robbers (local
>> law enforcement was a joke).  In those scenarios guns were a part of
>> life.  Every child was instructed in their use, and taught respect for
>> them.  They were seen as a tool.

>And still are for the most part. What do you suggest we use to "protect the
>family"? If the criminals have guns? I guess what I'm trying to say is... as
>long as the criminals have guns, we need guns to protect ourselves.

But then the intruder have to shot you, so you will not be any threat to
him/her. If you did not have it, he won't have to fire his gun at you.
And if the police took and throw every shithead who where not
supposed to have any gun into the jail for a long time, it would probably
make them think twice. And add a big fine to it.



John Aadn�y
Team *Amiga*
WS: A4000(T)/CS-II-060-50Mhz/114MB/CV64-4MB/Zip/CD-ROM SCSI2 x16/3.8GB HD
PS: AMD-K6-3Dnow-350Mhz/Aopen MXT/128MB RAM/Pioneer x32 CD-ROM/10.1GB HD
    RivaTNT 16MB 2D&3D /PCI128/Accton 100Mbit net./HP 560C Printer
SD: Targa 19" Monitor/Dataswitch for Monitor / Zyxel Omni.net ISDN modem
Never so bad that you can't blame it on Windows...

On 10 Jul 1999 22:48:40 GMT, "David Geesaman"
<gees...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:


>	I'd like to agree, but banning guns is an ineffective short term solution.
> I disagree with a gun ban because of principle, but I also believe that a
>gun ban won't work.  It will only remove guns from law-abiding citizens
>like you and I.  Banning guns from criminals would be even bloodier than
>our current situation and offer no short-term solution, much less a
>long-term solution.  That a gun ban would not work has been hotly debated,
>but I will sum up my most powerful reasoning by saying that laws do not
>change lawbreakers.  There are many historical examples of this, past and
>present, and guns would be no exception.

Let me set this straight.  I'm against weapons of destruction.
Pistols in my view are just that.  They serve no other purpose.  I
don't believe they deter crime.   In my opinion, they are the bane of
our society.  It has gotten to the point that children are shot by
police officers because cops fear for their life so much that a toy
gun illicits a death warrant.  Why is our culture so obsessed with
guns?  Why do we NEED to have them?  I for one think it's simply
ridiculous to think that we are better off with them than without
them.

You say we would be removing guns from the innocent and leaving the
guilty armed.  In the short term, yes.  That's true.  However, a ban
on guns could possibly work.  If the guns, ammunition, and supplies
are banned it wouldn't be long before most criminals wouldn't have
anything to shoot.  Sure, big time drug smugglers, and bank robbers
may have access to some form of ammunition, but your local crack
addict will not.

Considering that most crime in this country is not committed by big
time gangsters, I believe a gun ban will work.

>> Why would a patriotic american want to ban guns?  
>
>	I hope my discussion didn't appear patriotic.  Patriotism is an old trick
>designed to rally people based on emotion.  There are two ways to make a
>decision: emotion and reason.  Both have their place.  I believe that
>emotional decision making has no place in our laws.  Furthermore, I don't
>agree with writing laws to fix short-term problems.  Laws are never
>removed, and they eventually get in our way (e.g. the New Deal).

Emotion is what our constitution is based on.  It's what "rallied" the
people against tyranny.  The Boston Tea party was not a reasonable
action.  It was grounded strongly on emotion.  It was used as kindling
to ignite a passionate outcry against the throne.  Without emotion,
there is no reason to change.  A reasonable man, would not take on
Great Britain.  Only one with a strong faith in God, and knowing that
what he is doing is for the benefit of his children and his country.  

That is patriotism!  That is why we have rights.  That is why our
country is strong.  Not because some of intellectual debate.  

I am a patriot, and my decisions are based on my love for my country,
and her children.  Guns are a pestilence.  They are turning our cities
into warzones, and our schools into crime scenes.  They have no value
in our country.  Except to commit murder.  

If you can't see that, I'm sorry.  You have your belief, I have mine.

>> It sounds silly I
>> know, but I fear that we must relinquish certain rights to protect us
>> from ourselves.  Americans have become their own worst enemy.    
>> 
>	I agree that we are our own worst enemy.  People do not become responsible
>by insulating them from responsibility.  It's not fun believing in the
>right to keep and bear arms, but its the only thing that makes sense.

The right to bear arms is a joke.  Should the US decide to declare
facist rule, and enforce it with blood do you think we the people
would have a choice?  Not a chance.  We are a country divided.
Divided on every issue from birth control, to capital punishment.  Our
people vary from the politically correct, to the anarchistic gun
toters.  What makes you think that for one instant.  All of the sudden
the people of the US would turn around and unite for the common good?
I'm laughing out loud thinking about it.  Heck, if Uncle Sam decided
to pull "Friends" half of america might revolt, but increase their
taxes and everything's fine.  

Guns are a problem that we could do without.  The sooner we eradicate
them, the better off we'll be.


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

NOYB wrote:
> 
> On 10 Jul 1999 22:48:40 GMT, "David Geesaman"
> <gees...@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
> 
> >       I'd like to agree, but banning guns is an ineffective short term solution.
> > I disagree with a gun ban because of principle, but I also believe that a
> >gun ban won't work.  It will only remove guns from law-abiding citizens
> >like you and I.  Banning guns from criminals would be even bloodier than
> >our current situation and offer no short-term solution, much less a
> >long-term solution.  That a gun ban would not work has been hotly debated,
> >but I will sum up my most powerful reasoning by saying that laws do not
> >change lawbreakers.  There are many historical examples of this, past and
> >present, and guns would be no exception.
> 
> Let me set this straight.  I'm against weapons of destruction.
> Pistols in my view are just that.  They serve no other purpose.  I
> don't believe they deter crime.   In my opinion, they are the bane of
> our society.  It has gotten to the point that children are shot by
> police officers because cops fear for their life so much that a toy
> gun illicits a death warrant.  Why is our culture so obsessed with
> guns?  Why do we NEED to have them?  I for one think it's simply
> ridiculous to think that we are better off with them than without
> them.
> 
> You say we would be removing guns from the innocent and leaving the
> guilty armed.  In the short term, yes.  That's true.  However, a ban
> on guns could possibly work.  

	And you believe that we should 'test' this out on our entire nation?  That we
should jeopardize the safety of each of us and our liberities by guaranteeing
criminals and lawbreakers a huge advantage?  That we should permanently ink out
new laws and dump huge amounts of money for decades, just so that we can attempt
to treat a symptom of the underlying illness?
	The reason that we have violence and irresponsibility does not lie within the
steel of a firearm.  It is in the minds of our people - and the only thing that
can change how we think is by interaction.  This disease has no vaccine, no
antivenin.  It is more pervasive than the millions of guns in this nation.
	Lets not undercut the framework that has secured this country for two centuries
for the sake of 'why not?'.  Gun controls should only be implemented with a
complete understanding of the scope of such a change.

> If the guns, ammunition, and supplies
> are banned it wouldn't be long before most criminals wouldn't have
> anything to shoot.

	

> Sure, big time drug smugglers, and bank robbers
> may have access to some form of ammunition, but your local crack
> addict will not.

	Yet your local crack addict has easy access to the most controlled substance in
this country - this statement is contradictory.
 
> Considering that most crime in this country is not committed by big
> time gangsters, I believe a gun ban will work.

	Big time gangsters didn't exist until the doors were opened for them by the
opportunity of Prohibition.  Big time gangsters still exist in the form of drug
cartels - the only difference is that they live elsewhere, and their work in
this country is carried on by peons.

> >> Why would a patriotic american want to ban guns?
	
	I hope that no one ever buys a gun for emotional reasons.  This is why I favor
waiting periods, background checks, and mandatory training.

> >
> >       I hope my discussion didn't appear patriotic.  Patriotism is an old trick
> >designed to rally people based on emotion.  There are two ways to make a
> >decision: emotion and reason.  Both have their place.  I believe that
> >emotional decision making has no place in our laws.  Furthermore, I don't
> >agree with writing laws to fix short-term problems.  Laws are never
> >removed, and they eventually get in our way (e.g. the New Deal).
> 
> Emotion is what our constitution is based on.

	http://www.usia.gov/usa/usa.htm/facts/funddocs/consteng.htm
	The Constitution is a document of 7 articles which describes the framework of a
form of government.  The Bill of Rights is the first ten Amendments (additions)
which documents ideas that are not specifically tied to governemental
organization.  I'd hardly call it an emotional expression.

> It's what "rallied" the
> people against tyranny.

	The Constitution was written decades following the successful revolt of the
colonies.

> The Boston Tea party was not a reasonable
> action.  It was grounded strongly on emotion.  It was used as kindling
> to ignite a passionate outcry against the throne.
> Without emotion, there is no reason to change.  

	Reasoning and logic make us question.  Careful thought and planning prepare us
for what we may feel needs to be done.  Emotion only tells us when to act.

> A reasonable man, would not take on
> Great Britain.  Only one with a strong faith in God, and knowing that
> what he is doing is for the benefit of his children and his country.
> That is patriotism!  

	I'm not particularly patriotic, myself.  I'd rather focus my love and emotion
on better things like my family and spouse.  Fervent patriotism is a dangerous
state of mind.

> That is why we have rights.  That is why our
> country is strong.  Not because some of intellectual debate.

	The Constitution (and Declaration of Independence) were drafted by only a few
men in their private quarters and later approved by a body of delegates. 
Emotion played a role in our revolution, this is true.  John Hancock may have
fervently signed the Declaration in a gaudy and emotional style, but his emotion
was not a factor in its composition.  The principles in our founding documents
were not created by emotion.

> I am a patriot, and my decisions are based on my love for my country,
> and her children.  Guns are a pestilence.  They are turning our cities
> into warzones, and our schools into crime scenes.  They have no value
> in our country.  Except to commit murder.

	And restore order.  The underlying principle is that those who restore order
are not just the police or armed forces.  The second amendment states that each
of us has the responsibility and freedom to help maintain that the rights
outlined in the Bill of Rights is upheld.  Right now, I don't feel that citizens
need to intervene (or resort to force) more than in rare occasions, but then
again, we are fortunate that we rarely have our lives and rights threatened.

> If you can't see that, I'm sorry.  You have your belief, I have mine.

	I clearly see your view.  However, it is not that of the Constitution, or
myself.
 
> >> It sounds silly I
> >> know, but I fear that we must relinquish certain rights to protect us
> >> from ourselves.  Americans have become their own worst enemy.
> >>
> >       I agree that we are our own worst enemy.  People do not become responsible
> >by insulating them from responsibility.  It's not fun believing in the
> >right to keep and bear arms, but its the only thing that makes sense.
> 
> The right to bear arms is a joke.  

	I don't find any of this thread to be a laughing matter.  Government and human
rights strike me as very sobering issues.

> Should the US decide to declare
> facist rule, and enforce it with blood do you think we the people
> would have a choice?  Not a chance.

	Look at revolutions in history.  Hypothetically, should the US decide to
establish militant control, they would control the cities - where a small group
of well-armed and organized solidiers could keep watch many people at once. 
They would not control the countryside - there just aren't enough soldiers or
eyes to watch it all.  Guerilla warfare would be the primary strategy, and it
would not be a decisive, win-all confrontation.  If I lived in sparsely
populated place, I would have an excellent opportunity to make a difference. 
It's in the history books, and this is partly why the most successful
revolutionaries are those who understand history well.

> We are a country divided.
> Divided on every issue from birth control, to capital punishment.  Our
> people vary from the politically correct, to the anarchistic gun
> toters.  

	This 'anarchistic gun toter' that you have envisioned is really strange.  The
reasons that I cite the freedom to revolt is not for anarchy's sake - it is to
reestablish a more effective government.  There are many ways to do that - and
force is the last of all resorts.  It is the least likely way for this country
to reorganize - but only if this choice is available.  If you remove the power
to use force, you open the door for government or other powers to remove all of
the other more civilized options.  Hitler knew this well, and leveraged things
carefully and effectively, knowing that he had disarmed the populace should some
of them be pushed far enough to consider a forceful response.

> What makes you think that for one instant.  All of the sudden
> the people of the US would turn around and unite for the common good?

	No.  I imagine something more along the lines of our first revolution -
powerful, wealthy, idealists who used their power to establish something strong
and lasting.  They did not take control of the country - they merely set it into
motion.  They only ended up serving terms in office because the people wanted
them to.

> I'm laughing out loud thinking about it.  Heck, if Uncle Sam decided
> to pull "Friends" half of america might revolt, but increase their
> taxes and everything's fine.

	This is why some issues spark emotional response, and other issues evoke
reasoned thought.

> Guns are a problem that we could do without.  The sooner we eradicate
> them, the better off we'll be.

	I see guns as one of the tools that problem-makers happen to use, along with
media, money, and everything else.  You just can't cure a cold by stopping the
runny nose.

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

On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:31:02 -0400, David Geesaman
<gees...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>> 
>> You say we would be removing guns from the innocent and leaving the
>> guilty armed.  In the short term, yes.  That's true.  However, a ban
>> on guns could possibly work.  
>
>	And you believe that we should 'test' this out on our entire nation?  That we
>should jeopardize the safety of each of us and our liberities by guaranteeing
>criminals and lawbreakers a huge advantage?  That we should permanently ink out
>new laws and dump huge amounts of money for decades, just so that we can attempt
>to treat a symptom of the underlying illness?

Don't be so melo-dramatic.  It's not like it would be a crime wave
free for all, just because Joe Blow can't own a .44 magnum.  You're
blowing it way, way out of proportion.  Get an alarm system if you're
that afraid.  Put a nice big sign out front alerting criminals to stay
away, notifying them of your alarm.  

>	The reason that we have violence and irresponsibility does not lie within the
>steel of a firearm.  It is in the minds of our people - and the only thing that
>can change how we think is by interaction.  This disease has no vaccine, no
>antivenin.  It is more pervasive than the millions of guns in this nation.

The minds of people don't hurl projectiles at 1200 feet per second.  A
bullet can kill from a mile away.  So no, guns aren't the cause; they
just make killing easier.  Hell, why struggle with stabbing someone
when you can pull a trigger?

>	Lets not undercut the framework that has secured this country for two centuries
>for the sake of 'why not?'.  Gun controls should only be implemented with a
>complete understanding of the scope of such a change.

What you declare as "securing" our country is ripping it apart at the
seams.  
I wok in a hospital, and I see these kids riddled with bullets all the
time.  Just yesterday, there were 4 DOA's.  
I've seen a little girl shot in the face, by a bullet that went
through her God Damn WALL!  These  "tools" are destroying lives every
day.  

>
>> Sure, big time drug smugglers, and bank robbers
>> may have access to some form of ammunition, but your local crack
>> addict will not.
>
>	Yet your local crack addict has easy access to the most controlled substance in
>this country - this statement is contradictory.

I'm sorry, I fail to see the contradictory nature.  My point is even
the lowest degenerate in the country can get access to a gun.  They're
a dime a dozen right now.

Ban them, and destroy devices for producing them, and they become like
gold to the underworld.  Making guns a niche item, it would be alot
easier to police them up.
 
>> Considering that most crime in this country is not committed by big
>> time gangsters, I believe a gun ban will work.
>
>	Big time gangsters didn't exist until the doors were opened for them by the
>opportunity of Prohibition.  Big time gangsters still exist in the form of drug
>cartels - the only difference is that they live elsewhere, and their work in
>this country is carried on by peons.

Only making it that much harder for them.  Now instead of just having
to import drugs, they need to import guns as well.  

>> >> Why would a patriotic american want to ban guns?
>	
>	I hope that no one ever buys a gun for emotional reasons.  This is why I favor
>waiting periods, background checks, and mandatory training.

No one ever enforces mandatory training or background checks.  It's
just another ruse by the government to keep gun control people happy.



This thread is getting really long BTW.  I'd like to comment on the
rest later, but I'm getting tired.  :)  

give me break? you dislike gun control because the feds are in a conspiracy
to get back at some guy for breaking gun laws?
screw you! its people like you who killed those innocent kids in Colorado!

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.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>

Ashley Nugent <ashley...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:pXfl3.5190$r61.39266@ozemail.com.au...
> give me break? you dislike gun control because the feds are in a
conspiracy
> to get back at some guy for breaking gun laws?
> screw you! its people like you who killed those innocent kids in Colorado!



Do you hear that?... Listen really close.......hear it yet?.......


keep listening.....

..


...

...

Almost loud enough now...


Keep listening for it....



..
Hear it yet?

...



 Let me turn it up...............................


*Ker------ SPLONK!!!*

On Tuesday, July 6, 1999 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Frank_Rizzo wrote:
> This is a perfect example of why we dislike gun control here in the USA.http://www.georgiamountain.com/rweaver.htmBTW, 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


Dear friends,

I wanted to let you know about a new petition I created on We the People,  
a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add your  
name to mine?  If this petition gets 100,000 signatures by March 09, 2013,  
the White House will review it and respond!

We the People allows anyone to create and sign petitions asking the Obama  
Administration to take action on a range of issues.  If a petition gets  
enough support, the Obama Administration will issue an official response.

You can view and sign the petition here:

http://wh.gov/p7eN

Here's some more information about this petition:

REMOVE CURENT RESTRICTION ON CARRYING HANDGUNS AND REMOVE MILITARY  
STYLE WEPONS BAN IN NEW YORK AND NEW YORK CITY
REMOVE CURENT RESTRICTION ON CARRYING HANDGUNS AND REMOVE MILITARY STYLE  
WEPONS BAN IN NEW YORK AND NEW YORK CITY . GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO  
EDIT OUR CONSTITUTION  AND OUR RIGHT WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF  
AMERICA HAVE THE RIGHT  AND THE DUTY TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED