Something must be done... this is something...

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Peter Allen, Sep 9, 2005.

  1. Charles

    Charles Guest

    On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:10:37 -0600, Hobbes <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 07:35:02 -0600, Hobbes <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <[email protected]>,
    >> > "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Peter Allen wrote:
    >> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?h
    >> >> > p&e
    >> >> > x=1126324800&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.
    >> >>
    >> >> This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    >> >> firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    >> >> just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    >> >> something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    >> >> comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    >> >>
    >> >> I hate/love when they prove us right.
    >> >
    >> >Question. And I'm Canuck, so don't shit on me cuz I don't know.
    >> >
    >> >I know there is martial law declared, but does that mean the
    >> >constitution is completely out?
    >> >
    >> >I mean - there is no way I'm going to give up my arms when everyone
    >> >around me is shooting. Throw me in jail. Sheesh.

    >>
    >> And they will, and they will take away your "arms" when they do, and
    >> then you'll be in jail, with no-one to care for your loved ones, so
    >> there would be no gain in opposing the overwhelming power of the
    >> elected government and the military.
    >>
    >> There has to be a better way and those with the best brains and the
    >> greater will to survive and do well, will emerge the victors. Take
    >> mental pictures and remember names for when it is all over, when it
    >> will be time to redress the balance.

    >
    >My guns would be hidden well - no policeman is going to find them. And
    >my loved ones will. And they would be trained to use them.


    They would still prefer and benefit more with your continuing presence
    and guidance. Your incarceration would be futile and achieve nothing.

    >
    >If faced with anarchy it would be silly to be law-abiding.


    It wouldn't necessarily be anarchy as the military are not opposed to
    the law-abiding.

    >Of course the
    >obvious solution would be to get out of NO. Which I would have done long
    >ago. With my guns.


    Which of course puts you, as I would have expected, in the category of
    " those with the best brains and the greater will to survive" who will
    always come out on top.
     


  2. Charles

    Charles Guest

    On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:42:50 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Charles <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:31:55 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>>Yes, and if you believe that the people that were shooting at the
    >>>police are handing over their weapons (instead of hiding them), then
    >>>you are quite possibly the densest person ever. One minute these
    >>>people are taking potshots at rescue workers and the next minute they
    >>>are handing those exact same weapons over to the authorities simply
    >>>because some policeman asked for them nicely. I'm quite sure these
    >>>hooligans would *never* think to say that their registered firearm got
    >>>"misplaced" during the calamity. Not to mention the fact that the
    >>>real criminals have weapons that aren't registered.
    >>>
    >>>Don't get me wrong. Most criminals turn to crime because they are too
    >>>stupid to do anything else, but even the densest of these criminals
    >>>knows enough to deny owning an illegal firearm.
    >>>
    >>>Believe me, I get your point. It's just a remarkably naive point, to
    >>>the point of being ridiculous. You can't get rid of firearms any more
    >>>than the prohibition era feds could get rid of moonshine. The only
    >>>thing that you can hope to do is disarm law abiding citizens. The
    >>>smart money in New Orleans is currently hiring rent-a-cops with
    >>>automatic weapons, and you would take away what little protection the
    >>>common man has. Heck, New Orleans is a perfect example of what
    >>>happens when you entrust the defense of your home and family to
    >>>someone besides yourself. The hurricane and flood were bad enough,
    >>>but you can bet that lots of people lost their lives in the
    >>>lawlessness that followed.
    >>>
    >>>Now that the army is involved things will probably settle down. On
    >>>the other hand there are a lot of angry desperate people in New
    >>>Orleans right now, and a lot could happen before it's over. Disarming
    >>>the law abiding citizens just makes it that much easier for the
    >>>hooligans to slip the leash again.

    >>
    >> Whatever the rights or wrongs of this very rare and difficult
    >> situation, it drives a coach and horses through Will Brink's redneck
    >> theory, that possession of firearms is an inalienable right of all
    >> American citizens, and a constant reminder to the government of the
    >> day of the threat of an armed citizenry.

    >
    >It does no such thing. The kinds of people that would use guns in a
    >criminal act will be able to get guns no matter what laws we pass.
    >You can't legislate away firearms, we've been making them for hundreds
    >of years. The only useful defense against a criminal with a gun is to
    >have a gun yourself.
    >
    >And yes, an armed citizenry is a threat to the government. That's how
    >this country got started.
    >
    >> What say you now Slippery?

    >
    >The same thing that he's been saying over and over again.


    But events in the south are proving his theories wrong, as many of us
    have been telling him for years.

    All his statistics and data, and the swagger with his right to carry
    concealed, is proven in the light of reality to be just a lot of
    spurious rhetoric.

    The carrying of weapons is a personal choice and nothing whatsoever to
    do with keeping governments in check. The most likely time Slippery is
    to pull his six-shooter, is if he carves someone up at the traffic
    lights and the rotten bastard threatens to punch out his lights.

    I doubt whether our Willy would leap out and smack him one back, he'd
    think this was a classic case of self defence, where he starts the
    trouble, someone offers to sort him out, and our Slippery thinks it's
    Dodge City - bang bang.

    >Come up
    >with a plan to make millions of firearms magically disappear, and then
    >use some more of your mystical powers to make it impossible to
    >for any small machine shop to manufacture firearms and then perhaps
    >disarmament might be a good idea. As long as criminals can get access
    >to firearms law-abiding citizens should have the option as well.


    But they do have legal right.

    However, it is clear that events in NO negate that assumption of
    rights. Here we have the first real example of martial law depriving
    citizens of their legal right to bear arms.

    Where is the uprising of outraged American armed citizenry, marching
    to the aid of their beleaguered countrymen in the deep south?
     
  3. In article <[email protected]>,
    Jason Earl <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Charles <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:31:55 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >>Yes, and if you believe that the people that were shooting at the
    > >>police are handing over their weapons (instead of hiding them), then
    > >>you are quite possibly the densest person ever. One minute these
    > >>people are taking potshots at rescue workers and the next minute they
    > >>are handing those exact same weapons over to the authorities simply
    > >>because some policeman asked for them nicely. I'm quite sure these
    > >>hooligans would *never* think to say that their registered firearm got
    > >>"misplaced" during the calamity. Not to mention the fact that the
    > >>real criminals have weapons that aren't registered.
    > >>
    > >>Don't get me wrong. Most criminals turn to crime because they are too
    > >>stupid to do anything else, but even the densest of these criminals
    > >>knows enough to deny owning an illegal firearm.
    > >>
    > >>Believe me, I get your point. It's just a remarkably naive point, to
    > >>the point of being ridiculous. You can't get rid of firearms any more
    > >>than the prohibition era feds could get rid of moonshine. The only
    > >>thing that you can hope to do is disarm law abiding citizens. The
    > >>smart money in New Orleans is currently hiring rent-a-cops with
    > >>automatic weapons, and you would take away what little protection the
    > >>common man has. Heck, New Orleans is a perfect example of what
    > >>happens when you entrust the defense of your home and family to
    > >>someone besides yourself. The hurricane and flood were bad enough,
    > >>but you can bet that lots of people lost their lives in the
    > >>lawlessness that followed.
    > >>
    > >>Now that the army is involved things will probably settle down. On
    > >>the other hand there are a lot of angry desperate people in New
    > >>Orleans right now, and a lot could happen before it's over. Disarming
    > >>the law abiding citizens just makes it that much easier for the
    > >>hooligans to slip the leash again.

    > >
    > > Whatever the rights or wrongs of this very rare and difficult
    > > situation, it drives a coach and horses through Will Brink's redneck
    > > theory, that possession of firearms is an inalienable right of all
    > > American citizens, and a constant reminder to the government of the
    > > day of the threat of an armed citizenry.

    >
    > It does no such thing. The kinds of people that would use guns in a
    > criminal act will be able to get guns no matter what laws we pass.
    > You can't legislate away firearms, we've been making them for hundreds
    > of years. The only useful defense against a criminal with a gun is to
    > have a gun yourself.
    >
    > And yes, an armed citizenry is a threat to the government. That's how
    > this country got started.
    >
    > > What say you now Slippery?

    >
    > The same thing that he's been saying over and over again. Come up
    > with a plan to make millions of firearms magically disappear, and then
    > use some more of your mystical powers to make it impossible to
    > for any small machine shop to manufacture firearms and then perhaps
    > disarmament might be a good idea. As long as criminals can get access
    > to firearms law-abiding citizens should have the option as well.
    >
    > Jason


    To quote an old pithy phrase:

    "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

    And the old classic:

    "They can take my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers"

    With rampant gangs running around in NO that are NOT going to give up
    their guns, it's idiotic to disarm the remaining LAW ABIDING people and
    make them helpless to the gangs of roving thugs!

    It's just stupid.

    And wrong.
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  4. In article <[email protected]>,
    Jason Earl <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Bill Ropers <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 07:35:02 -0600, Hobbes <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >>Question. And I'm Canuck, so don't shit on me cuz I don't know.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Ok, we'll just shit on you 'cause your canadian then.
    > >
    > >>I know there is martial law declared, but does that mean the
    > >>constitution is completely out?
    > >>

    > >
    > > Aw shucks! You just went and spoiled their idiotic arguements, with
    > > facts. That's going to confuse them.
    > >
    > >>I mean - there is no way I'm going to give up my arms when everyone
    > >>around me is shooting. Throw me in jail. Sheesh.

    > >
    > > Of course if they confiscate all arms, the problem is solved.

    >
    > It would probably be easier to simply fly around the earth so fast
    > that time goes backward. Then you could use your superpowers to push
    > Katrina out to sea so that it doesn't make landfall at all.
    >
    > "Confiscate all arms" is science fiction, pure and simple. There is
    > no way that you are going to be able to confiscate all of the weapons
    > in New Orleans. You can rest assured that any criminal that would
    > shoot at rescue workers isn't going to hand over his weapon because
    > the police asked nicely.
    >
    > Jason


    And any halfway intelligent law abiding individual won't either. ;-)

    I'm no criminal, but I sure as HELL would never voluntarily give up my
    firearms! For a number of reasons, but primarily financial (guns are
    expensive and I doubt they plan to give them back) and it would leave me
    helpless against the lawless.
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  5. John Hanson

    John Hanson Guest

    On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:15:14 +0100, "Peter Allen"
    <[email protected]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

    >John Hanson wrote:
    >> BTW, you're on my list of terrorists just like tinypenis bob.

    >
    >I have the ability to cause widespread terror just by typing stuff on MFW?
    >Fear my awesome rhetoric...
    >
    >ATTENTION HOMELAND SECURITY!
    >
    >John's List of Terrorist Bad Guys who you should arrest:
    >
    >Osama bin Laden
    >Peter Allen
    >'tinypenis bob'
    >John Kerry
    >Hurricane Katrina
    >Randy Newman
    >Josiah Bartlet
    >

    Not my list and when did I say anything about me wishing someone would
    arrest those on my list?
     
  6. Bill Ropers

    Bill Ropers Guest

    On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:27:53 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >With rampant gangs running around in NO that are NOT going to give up
    >their guns, it's idiotic to disarm the remaining LAW ABIDING people and
    >make them helpless to the gangs of roving thugs!
    >
    >It's just stupid.


    Agreed, but they aren't disarming any "law abiding cirtizens" because
    all law abiding citizens left when ordered to do so. All that's left
    are criminal trespassers. Therefore all guns they can find will be
    confiscated, and the offender evicted. The NRA dipshits will say "you
    can't disarm the country" but that's irrelevant. We are discussing New
    Orleans under martial law, not disarming the whole country.
    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  7. JMW

    JMW Guest

    Hobbes <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>,
    > Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 07:35:02 -0600, Hobbes <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <[email protected]>,
    >> > "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Peter Allen wrote:
    >> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?h
    >> >> > p&e
    >> >> > x=1126324800&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.
    >> >>
    >> >> This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    >> >> firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    >> >> just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    >> >> something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    >> >> comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    >> >>
    >> >> I hate/love when they prove us right.
    >> >
    >> >Question. And I'm Canuck, so don't shit on me cuz I don't know.
    >> >
    >> >I know there is martial law declared, but does that mean the
    >> >constitution is completely out?
    >> >
    >> >I mean - there is no way I'm going to give up my arms when everyone
    >> >around me is shooting. Throw me in jail. Sheesh.

    >>
    >> And they will, and they will take away your "arms" when they do, and
    >> then you'll be in jail, with no-one to care for your loved ones, so
    >> there would be no gain in opposing the overwhelming power of the
    >> elected government and the military.
    >>
    >> There has to be a better way and those with the best brains and the
    >> greater will to survive and do well, will emerge the victors. Take
    >> mental pictures and remember names for when it is all over, when it
    >> will be time to redress the balance.

    >
    >My guns would be hidden well - no policeman is going to find them. And
    >my loved ones will. And they would be trained to use them.
    >
    >If faced with anarchy it would be silly to be law-abiding. Of course the
    >obvious solution would be to get out of NO. Which I would have done long
    >ago. With my guns.
    >
    >:^)


    But wait, that would be sensible, wouldn't it? :)
     
  8. Bill Rogdrs

    Bill Rogdrs Guest

    On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:30:09 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >and it would leave me
    >helpless against the lawless.


    But if you are there, you ARE the lawless. Law abiding citizens are
    gone, criminals remain.
    What part of that do you miss?
    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  9. In article <[email protected]>,
    Charles <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:42:50 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Charles <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:31:55 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>>Yes, and if you believe that the people that were shooting at the
    > >>>police are handing over their weapons (instead of hiding them), then
    > >>>you are quite possibly the densest person ever. One minute these
    > >>>people are taking potshots at rescue workers and the next minute they
    > >>>are handing those exact same weapons over to the authorities simply
    > >>>because some policeman asked for them nicely. I'm quite sure these
    > >>>hooligans would *never* think to say that their registered firearm got
    > >>>"misplaced" during the calamity. Not to mention the fact that the
    > >>>real criminals have weapons that aren't registered.
    > >>>
    > >>>Don't get me wrong. Most criminals turn to crime because they are too
    > >>>stupid to do anything else, but even the densest of these criminals
    > >>>knows enough to deny owning an illegal firearm.
    > >>>
    > >>>Believe me, I get your point. It's just a remarkably naive point, to
    > >>>the point of being ridiculous. You can't get rid of firearms any more
    > >>>than the prohibition era feds could get rid of moonshine. The only
    > >>>thing that you can hope to do is disarm law abiding citizens. The
    > >>>smart money in New Orleans is currently hiring rent-a-cops with
    > >>>automatic weapons, and you would take away what little protection the
    > >>>common man has. Heck, New Orleans is a perfect example of what
    > >>>happens when you entrust the defense of your home and family to
    > >>>someone besides yourself. The hurricane and flood were bad enough,
    > >>>but you can bet that lots of people lost their lives in the
    > >>>lawlessness that followed.
    > >>>
    > >>>Now that the army is involved things will probably settle down. On
    > >>>the other hand there are a lot of angry desperate people in New
    > >>>Orleans right now, and a lot could happen before it's over. Disarming
    > >>>the law abiding citizens just makes it that much easier for the
    > >>>hooligans to slip the leash again.
    > >>
    > >> Whatever the rights or wrongs of this very rare and difficult
    > >> situation, it drives a coach and horses through Will Brink's redneck
    > >> theory, that possession of firearms is an inalienable right of all
    > >> American citizens, and a constant reminder to the government of the
    > >> day of the threat of an armed citizenry.

    > >
    > >It does no such thing. The kinds of people that would use guns in a
    > >criminal act will be able to get guns no matter what laws we pass.
    > >You can't legislate away firearms, we've been making them for hundreds
    > >of years. The only useful defense against a criminal with a gun is to
    > >have a gun yourself.
    > >
    > >And yes, an armed citizenry is a threat to the government. That's how
    > >this country got started.
    > >
    > >> What say you now Slippery?

    > >
    > >The same thing that he's been saying over and over again.

    >
    > But events in the south are proving his theories wrong, as many of us
    > have been telling him for years.
    >
    > All his statistics and data, and the swagger with his right to carry
    > concealed, is proven in the light of reality to be just a lot of
    > spurious rhetoric.
    >
    > The carrying of weapons is a personal choice and nothing whatsoever to
    > do with keeping governments in check. The most likely time Slippery is
    > to pull his six-shooter, is if he carves someone up at the traffic
    > lights and the rotten bastard threatens to punch out his lights.
    >
    > I doubt whether our Willy would leap out and smack him one back, he'd
    > think this was a classic case of self defence, where he starts the
    > trouble, someone offers to sort him out, and our Slippery thinks it's
    > Dodge City - bang bang.
    >
    > >Come up
    > >with a plan to make millions of firearms magically disappear, and then
    > >use some more of your mystical powers to make it impossible to
    > >for any small machine shop to manufacture firearms and then perhaps
    > >disarmament might be a good idea. As long as criminals can get access
    > >to firearms law-abiding citizens should have the option as well.

    >
    > But they do have legal right.
    >
    > However, it is clear that events in NO negate that assumption of
    > rights. Here we have the first real example of martial law depriving
    > citizens of their legal right to bear arms.
    >
    > Where is the uprising of outraged American armed citizenry, marching
    > to the aid of their beleaguered countrymen in the deep south?


    Give it time... ;-)
    That move is best performed in political circles (or is it circuses?)

    Cheers!
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  10. Bill Rogdrs

    Bill Rogdrs Guest

    On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:35:56 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Bill,
    >
    >The criminals aren't going to give up their guns.
    >There are no working phone lines and even cell towers are down.
    >
    >If you are suddenly faced with a gang that wants to rape you and your
    >family and steal what little you had left from the storm destruction,
    >what are you going to do?
    >
    >If you are unarmed, you are screwed. Literally and figuratively.
    >
    >Think about it.


    You just don't get it, do you Om? I, my daughter, my wife WOULD NOT BE
    THERE, because only criminals remain. With only criminals remaining,
    who cares who rapes who?
    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  11. In article <[email protected]>,
    Bill Ropers <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:27:53 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >With rampant gangs running around in NO that are NOT going to give up
    > >their guns, it's idiotic to disarm the remaining LAW ABIDING people and
    > >make them helpless to the gangs of roving thugs!
    > >
    > >It's just stupid.

    >
    > Agreed, but they aren't disarming any "law abiding cirtizens" because
    > all law abiding citizens left when ordered to do so. All that's left
    > are criminal trespassers.


    That's not true.
    The MAJORITY of the folks left there were too poor to be able to afford
    to leave. They should have been bussed.

    > Therefore all guns they can find will be
    > confiscated, and the offender evicted. The NRA dipshits will say "you
    > can't disarm the country" but that's irrelevant. We are discussing New
    > Orleans under martial law, not disarming the whole country.
    > TBR
    >


    Wake up Bill.
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  12. WillBrink

    WillBrink Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Hobbes <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Peter Allen wrote:
    > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?hp
    > > > &e
    > > > x=1126324800&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    > > >
    > > > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    > > >
    > > > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.

    > >
    > > This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    > > firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    > > just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    > > something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    > > comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    > >
    > > I hate/love when they prove us right.

    >
    > Question. And I'm Canuck, so don't shit on me cuz I don't know.
    >
    > I know there is martial law declared,


    Actually, no it was not. News report I heard said it was, which appears
    to be false. The f-ing news gets it wrong more often then not.

    --
    Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
     
  13. Bill Rogdrs

    Bill Rogdrs Guest

    On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:41:47 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >That's not true.
    >The MAJORITY of the folks left there were too poor to be able to afford
    >to leave. They should have been bussed.


    Bullshit! We're talking now, not a week ago.
    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  14. In article <[email protected]>,
    Bill Rogdrs <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:30:09 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >and it would leave me
    > >helpless against the lawless.

    >
    > But if you are there, you ARE the lawless. Law abiding citizens are
    > gone, criminals remain.
    > What part of that do you miss?
    > TBR


    And what part of the poor and helpless do you not understand?
    NO has a high poverty rate.
    If you don't have a car or enough funds to pay the assinine gas prices,
    you could not afford to leave. You were stuck.

    What about those 30 people stuck in a nursing home?
    Were they lawless?

    I don't think so. :-(

    Their caretakers sure as hell were!
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  15. Bill Rogdrs

    Bill Rogdrs Guest

    On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:43:28 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >And what part of the poor and helpless do you not understand?
    >NO has a high poverty rate.
    >If you don't have a car or enough funds to pay the assinine gas prices,
    >you could not afford to leave. You were stuck.
    >


    Like I said, that's BS. Those that wanted to leave did, and rest left
    willingly in the last few days.

    >What about those 30 people stuck in a nursing home?
    >Were they lawless?
    >



    It was a prison hospital ward. Yes they were.

    >I don't think so. :-(
    >
    >Their caretakers sure as hell were!



    Then they should've left when ordered to do so.
    TBR

    "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
    the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
    White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
    "Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
    but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>,
    Bill Rogdrs <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:35:56 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Bill,
    > >
    > >The criminals aren't going to give up their guns.
    > >There are no working phone lines and even cell towers are down.
    > >
    > >If you are suddenly faced with a gang that wants to rape you and your
    > >family and steal what little you had left from the storm destruction,
    > >what are you going to do?
    > >
    > >If you are unarmed, you are screwed. Literally and figuratively.
    > >
    > >Think about it.

    >
    > You just don't get it, do you Om? I, my daughter, my wife WOULD NOT BE
    > THERE, because only criminals remain. With only criminals remaining,
    > who cares who rapes who?
    > TBR


    See my other posts...
    The vast majority of people that stayed behind were not criminals.

    What on earth ever made you think that???

    Geez!
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  17. Jason Earl

    Jason Earl Guest

    Charles <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 09:42:50 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Charles <[email protected]> writes:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:31:55 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>Yes, and if you believe that the people that were shooting at the
    >>>>police are handing over their weapons (instead of hiding them), then
    >>>>you are quite possibly the densest person ever. One minute these
    >>>>people are taking potshots at rescue workers and the next minute they
    >>>>are handing those exact same weapons over to the authorities simply
    >>>>because some policeman asked for them nicely. I'm quite sure these
    >>>>hooligans would *never* think to say that their registered firearm got
    >>>>"misplaced" during the calamity. Not to mention the fact that the
    >>>>real criminals have weapons that aren't registered.
    >>>>
    >>>>Don't get me wrong. Most criminals turn to crime because they are too
    >>>>stupid to do anything else, but even the densest of these criminals
    >>>>knows enough to deny owning an illegal firearm.
    >>>>
    >>>>Believe me, I get your point. It's just a remarkably naive point, to
    >>>>the point of being ridiculous. You can't get rid of firearms any more
    >>>>than the prohibition era feds could get rid of moonshine. The only
    >>>>thing that you can hope to do is disarm law abiding citizens. The
    >>>>smart money in New Orleans is currently hiring rent-a-cops with
    >>>>automatic weapons, and you would take away what little protection the
    >>>>common man has. Heck, New Orleans is a perfect example of what
    >>>>happens when you entrust the defense of your home and family to
    >>>>someone besides yourself. The hurricane and flood were bad enough,
    >>>>but you can bet that lots of people lost their lives in the
    >>>>lawlessness that followed.
    >>>>
    >>>>Now that the army is involved things will probably settle down. On
    >>>>the other hand there are a lot of angry desperate people in New
    >>>>Orleans right now, and a lot could happen before it's over. Disarming
    >>>>the law abiding citizens just makes it that much easier for the
    >>>>hooligans to slip the leash again.
    >>>
    >>> Whatever the rights or wrongs of this very rare and difficult
    >>> situation, it drives a coach and horses through Will Brink's redneck
    >>> theory, that possession of firearms is an inalienable right of all
    >>> American citizens, and a constant reminder to the government of the
    >>> day of the threat of an armed citizenry.

    >>
    >>It does no such thing. The kinds of people that would use guns in a
    >>criminal act will be able to get guns no matter what laws we pass.
    >>You can't legislate away firearms, we've been making them for hundreds
    >>of years. The only useful defense against a criminal with a gun is to
    >>have a gun yourself.
    >>
    >>And yes, an armed citizenry is a threat to the government. That's how
    >>this country got started.
    >>
    >>> What say you now Slippery?

    >>
    >>The same thing that he's been saying over and over again.

    >
    > But events in the south are proving his theories wrong, as many of
    > us have been telling him for years.


    What, the theory where when things go to hell the people that get
    killed or have their property stolen are those people that can't
    defend themselves.

    Oh, wait... That theory got proved in spades.

    > All his statistics and data, and the swagger with his right to carry
    > concealed, is proven in the light of reality to be just a lot of
    > spurious rhetoric.


    What specifically has been proven to be "spurious rhetoric?"

    > The carrying of weapons is a personal choice and nothing whatsoever
    > to do with keeping governments in check. The most likely time
    > Slippery is to pull his six-shooter, is if he carves someone up at
    > the traffic lights and the rotten bastard threatens to punch out his
    > lights.


    So, the answer is to simply let people hit you. That would explain
    quite a bit.

    > I doubt whether our Willy would leap out and smack him one back,
    > he'd think this was a classic case of self defence, where he starts
    > the trouble, someone offers to sort him out, and our Slippery thinks
    > it's Dodge City - bang bang.


    This sort of thing almost never happens. Unless, of course, the
    people are drunk. Drunk people do stupid things, film at eleven.

    >>Come up with a plan to make millions of firearms magically
    >>disappear, and then use some more of your mystical powers to make it
    >>impossible to for any small machine shop to manufacture firearms and
    >>then perhaps disarmament might be a good idea. As long as criminals
    >>can get access to firearms law-abiding citizens should have the
    >>option as well.

    >
    > But they do have legal right.


    Precisely, and that right almost certainly *saved* some lives during
    Katrina. It wasn't the people that were armed that had troubles with
    the hooligans, it was the people that *weren't* armed.

    > However, it is clear that events in NO negate that assumption of
    > rights. Here we have the first real example of martial law depriving
    > citizens of their legal right to bear arms.
    >
    > Where is the uprising of outraged American armed citizenry, marching
    > to the aid of their beleaguered countrymen in the deep south?


    Actually, there is quite a bit of political influence being brought to
    bear on the situation. Contrary to the belief of some anti-gun nuts
    law-abiding gun owners do not solve their problems by blasting away
    with their firearms. There is a good chance that this "problem" can
    be solved politically, and that's always a better idea than resorting
    to violence.

    Martial law isn't going to last forever, and with everything that has
    happened I can understand how the authorities would be a little
    worried about firearms. Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens
    isn't going to help with the criminals and hooligans, but with a
    significant military presence in the area there's a lot less need for
    personal protection.

    However, it's interesting to note that the authorities are *not*
    taking the weapons away from the expensive private armies. That's my
    biggest problem with gun control. The rich and famous can have armed
    guards, but apparently my family shouldn't be able to rate the same
    sort of protection.

    Jason
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>,
    Bill Rogdrs <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:43:28 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >And what part of the poor and helpless do you not understand?
    > >NO has a high poverty rate.
    > >If you don't have a car or enough funds to pay the assinine gas prices,
    > >you could not afford to leave. You were stuck.
    > >

    >
    > Like I said, that's BS. Those that wanted to leave did, and rest left
    > willingly in the last few days.
    >
    > >What about those 30 people stuck in a nursing home?
    > >Were they lawless?
    > >

    >
    >
    > It was a prison hospital ward. Yes they were.


    IT WAS NOT!!!
    It was an ordinary nursing home.
    Where do you get this crap from?

    Are you really that heartless?

    >
    > >I don't think so. :-(
    > >
    > >Their caretakers sure as hell were!

    >
    >
    > Then they should've left when ordered to do so.
    > TBR


    Nobody even made an attempt to move them prior to the storm.
    They were all found drowned.
    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  19. David  Cohen

    David Cohen Guest

    "Hobbes" <[email protected]> wrote
    > "David Cohen" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Peter Allen wrote:
    >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?hp&e
    >> > x=1126324800&en=1b27db938424d6bd&ei=5094&partner=homepage
    >> >
    >> > Someone hasn't thought this one through.
    >> >
    >> > I might even be in agreement with Brink here.

    >>
    >> This is EXACTLY the reason we of the firearms fraternity oppose ALL
    >> firearms registration programs. "They" always say, "don't worry, we'll
    >> just keep these records in case your gun gets used in a crime or
    >> something" and then, The Government, for whatever reason they choose,
    >> comes knocking on your door, demanding your guns.
    >>
    >> I hate/love when they prove us right.

    >
    > Question. And I'm Canuck, so don't shit on me cuz I don't know.


    Oh, we ALWAYS cut the Canadians a lot of slack. We're nothing if not
    patronizing.

    > I know there is martial law declared, but does that mean the
    > constitution is completely out?


    As Will pointed out elsewhere, martial law was NOT declared in an official
    way. But, assuming it had been, "they" could legally take away guns, which
    is why we of the sane Right fear both unrestricted Presidential directives
    AND any gun registration programs.
    >
    > I mean - there is no way I'm going to give up my arms when everyone
    > around me is shooting. Throw me in jail. Sheesh.


    Mega-sheesh.

    David
     
  20. Peter Allen

    Peter Allen Guest

    John Hanson wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 15:15:14 +0100, "Peter Allen"
    > <[email protected]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
    >
    >> John Hanson wrote:
    >>> BTW, you're on my list of terrorists just like tinypenis bob.

    >>
    >> I have the ability to cause widespread terror just by typing stuff
    >> on MFW? Fear my awesome rhetoric...
    >>
    >> ATTENTION HOMELAND SECURITY!
    >>
    >> John's List of Terrorist Bad Guys who you should arrest:
    >>
    >> Osama bin Laden
    >> Peter Allen
    >> 'tinypenis bob'
    >> John Kerry
    >> Hurricane Katrina
    >> Randy Newman
    >> Josiah Bartlet
    >>

    > Not my list and when did I say anything about me wishing someone would
    > arrest those on my list?


    As it happens, what I actually meant with my original post was that while I
    do not agree with your views on guns, I do think you would have the courage
    of your convictions (and in this case you'd be right, since the law supports
    you), unlike Brink. Which is not in fact an insult.

    But if you want to take it as an insult, spout a bunch of xenophobic crap
    and produce a laughably stupid sentence, do you really expect me not to call
    you on it?

    Anyway: if the above isn't your list of terrorists, feel free to post the
    correct list. Or is that likely to endanger national security?

    Peter
     
Loading...
Loading...