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

[Charles]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:50:28 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

Why not, it is clear that they are as entitled to carry arms as the
bad guys?

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

How did it, they are being disarmed by the military?

>
>> 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 ******* threatens to punch out his
>> lights.
>
>So, the answer is to simply let people hit you. That would explain
>quite a bit.

Not likely mate, he'd as likely in the UK have some nasty injuries for
his pains (pun intended), but neither one of the participants run the
risk of being shot by some armed gutless ****, who is afraid to square
up.

>
>> I doubt whether our ***** 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.

I'm sure Slippery's statistics and data would prove that this does
happen, and more frequently than is apparent. Don't tell me that when
someone who is 'carrying' is faced with a physical hammering, even if
they did cause the trouble, that they wouldn't pull their piece to
escape the consequences.

>
>>>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.

It doesn't appear that he "hooligans" are the threat, it's the forces
of law and order that are disarming them. The "hooligans" were
shooting the police.

>
>> 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.

I'm all for that, but Slippery has been maintaining that the armed
population would rise up and oppose any political move to disarm them.

>
>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.

Thus disproving Slippery's point.

>
>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.

Twas ever thus Jason, we are not all equal, particularly in the eyes
of the law, which specifically includes those that are in law
enforcement!

 

[JMW]

OmManiPadmeOmelet <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Rogdrs <[email protected]> wrote:
>> OmManiPadmeOmelet <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >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 **** from?
>
>Are you really that heartless?

He is a troll. Why do you attribute any value to what he says?

 

[John Hanson]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:00:58 +0100, "Peter Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>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 ****
>and produce a laughably stupid sentence, do you really expect me not to call
>you on it?

Is it xenophobic to not want foreigners involved in our politics?
Perhaps we need to explore the issue of you Brits promoting terrorism
by letting terrorists live freely in your country. While the article
below points out Britain's love affair with Muslim extremists, the
writer turned out to be dead wrong in his assumption that allowing
these terrorists safe haven in Britain will prevent an attack on them.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090012

Why terrorists love Britain
Cover story
Jamie Campbell
Monday 9th August 2004




Is this country really threatened by violent attack? After talking to
potential martyrs, Jamie Campbell wonders if our rulers have hit on a
clever way to keep us safe

It is a wonderful, typically British scene. I am sitting in a
Manchester curry house, wondering whether to choose the Madras or the
korma. The place is humming with Arabic, and a number of extended
families have gathered to eat at adjacent tables. A few children skip
past. My lunchtime companion is, at 24, three years younger than me.
His name is Hassan Butt, and he'd like to martyr himself in Britain
for the sake of Islam. I order the korma.

In the past year, Hassan and I have become steadfast dining partners,
if not exactly firm friends. Over curries, pizzas and saccharine soft
drinks, in London and Manchester, I have discovered what makes him
tick. "Pray to Allah that he accepts me as a martyr," he muses. "If
that's tomorrow, then tomorrow. If not, then whenever Allah wills."
Why don't you get on with it, I ask. "Everything needs to be done in
an organised manner, with the current organisations that are working
around the world."

Hassan earned himself a reputation for hyperbole when he rang the
Today programme from Lahore in 2002. He asserted that, as a
representative of the Islamist organisation al-Muhajiroun, he had
recruited up to 1,000 British men to Islamic causes in the Middle
East. He then returned quite freely to the UK, where his appetite for
controversy remained undiminished.

He claims he has met a further thousand Brits who, like him, would
subscribe to a martyrdom operation within Britain if given the chance.
He knows of five Brits and one American, all university educated, who
have left the UK in the past two months heading for a desolate jihadi
training camp in Pakistan. Two weeks ago, he met with an autonomous
Islamist cell in the UK which possessed large quantities of Semtex,
and which was capable of launching an immediate and major attack. So
presumably, I say, MI5 are tracking you pretty constantly. "Without a
doubt," says Hassan.

In seeking to negotiate a rigorous course in its war against terror,
the British government has alluded persistently to the inevitability
and imminence of a terrorist strike against the UK. The recent
"revelations" that al-Qaeda plans to attack financial institutions in
London and New York will not have taken many by surprise. More than
400 have been arrested under anti-terrorist legislation since 9/11. It
is, we are reminded, a case of when and not if. Whatever view one
takes of this position, there can be little doubt that a combination
of political prudence and expedience has prevented the opposite case -
namely, that the threat to this country is low - being made either in
parliament or in the media. However, many private security firms would
agree that there is little risk of a terrorist attack in Britain. This
explains the paradoxes inherent in the British war on terror. It
explains why Britain has not yet been attacked. It explains the
government's intransigence in refusing to boost the budgets of
emergency planners. It explains why MI5 is only now beginning to
recruit more Arabic speakers; and why the task of forcing Abu Hamza to
trial was left to the Bush administration.

In reality, the threat to this country from terrorism is no greater
than the threat posed by a variety of terrorist groups in the course
of the past 30 years. You are still, statistically speaking, more
likely to take your own life than you are to be killed by terrorists.

The decision to overstate the threat to the UK is, in itself, a
plausible counter-terrorism strategy. One need not look far beyond the
spate of "London terror plot" headlines to learn that no specific
threat has been made against any British institution. Such a thesis -
that we're safer than we've been told - leaves a couple of pressing
questions. First, is it not likely after attacks in New York, Bali,
Istanbul and Madrid, that Britain will be the next target for Islamist
ire? And second, does not the presence of Islamist provocateurs such
as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Abu Hamza and Hassan Butt make our
streets dangerous?

To address these questions I spoke to Mohammed Sifaoui, a French
Algerian journalist who, posing as a terrorist sympathiser, managed to
infiltrate al-Qaeda cells in both France and the UK. Flanked by secret
service agents - the French government has pledged to protect him for
the foreseeable future - he met me in a Parisian hotel. Sifaoui, who
as a result of his bravery has become uniquely expert on the Islamist
mentality, believes that Britain exhibits paradoxical behaviour in
relation to terrorism. It is anomalous, for example, that Britain
quite evidently provides a safe haven for those, such as Butt and
Hamza, who have terrorist sympathies. "The most sought-after
terrorists in the world," he says, "have found shelter in the UK . . .
They propagate their ideology there. They distribute booklets on their
philosophy - giving them out freely outside mosques."

In addition, Britain is used as a convenient transitional home in the
travel plans of those with militant Islamic inclinations. "It's now
known," he says, "that the majority of the young guys who were living
in the west and who left to go to training camps in Afghanistan had a
tightly outlined itinerary - they went through London to Pakistan. And
then from Pakistan to Afghanistan." Hassan Butt reinforces this
impression, telling me that there is now a dedicated camp in Pakistan
specifically for the use of British Muslims seeking to obtain military
training. According to Butt, regular groups attend the camps for
periods of up to three months, and subsequently either return to the
UK or remain in the Middle East.

Sifaoui goes on to suggest that the significance of the roles played
by British-based Islamists in attacks abroad is unparalleled. Before
9/11, he says, "Islamists considered the UK as a secondary base for
their actions. To take a few examples . . . there were terrorist
attempts in France in 1995, financed from the UK - that's a reality.
General Massoud's assassination on 9 September 2001 was also financed
in the UK - that's a reality. The kidnapping of western tourists in
the Yemen was organised by London and probably by Abu Hamza - his son
was involved with it."



Post-9/11, this pattern of British Islamists being implicated in
attacks abroad has hardly altered. Here are just a few examples.
Zacharias Moussaoui, from Brixton, is charged with being 9/11's "20th
hijacker". In 2002, Richard Reid, a Brit, tried to blow up a plane out
of Paris with a bomb in his shoe. Last year, Asif Hanif, from
Hounslow, martyred himself in Israel. Omar Sheikh, the man convicted
of the murder of the Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl,
is British.

Yet British Islamists target other countries. Why? According to
Sifaoui, it has long been recognised by the British Islamists, by the
British government and by UK intelligence agencies, that as long as
Britain guarantees a degree of freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt,
the terrorist strikes will continue to be planned within the borders
of the UK but will not occur here. Ironically, then, the presence of
vocal and active Islamist terrorist sympathisers in the UK actually
makes British people safer, while the full brunt of British-based
terrorist plotting is suffered by people in other countries.

"The question becomes a moral one," concludes Sifaoui. "Should the
British authorities accept that there are terrorists in their country
who kill others abroad? I think that today the British authorities
must face their conscience . . . I would say the following: make the
choice - ensure your citizens' security [which is totally legitimate]
while putting at risk those abroad. Or put your citizens at risk and
maybe save those who are abroad. If the UK . . . can accept that an
attack was prepared in the UK to kill women and children in Germany,
France, Turkey, Scandinavia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Morocco or Algeria -
then everyone will come to their own conclusions."

I find Sifaoui's theory substantiated when I speak to Sheikh Omar
Bakri, who heads up al-Muhajiroun, perhaps the most contentious
Islamist group in the UK. He tells me the story of the companions of
the prophet Muhammad who, when travelling to Abyssinia, were given
protection and hospitality by that nation. The result of this
generosity is the Koranic notion of covenant, namely that as a Muslim
it is de rigueur not to attack the inhabitants of any country in which
one finds oneself living safely. This, according to Bakri, makes it
unlikely that British-based Muslims will carry out operations in the
UK itself.

If it is true that terrorist sympathisers use their freedoms in the UK
to focus on foreign operations, then two further questions must be
answered. First, can this "situation" be characterised as a
deliberately unethical policy, unspoken by the British government but
effected by the security service? A Foreign Office source suggested to
me that, technically, by proceeding in this manner, the government may
be flouting UN resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001 - ironically
drafted by the British. The resolution calls on states to: "(c) Deny
safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist
acts, or provide safe havens; and to (d) Prevent those who finance,
plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective
territories for those purposes against other states or their
citizens".

And, second, what of my lunch partner Hassan? Is he posturing in order
to fill me, and the wider British public, with fear? What of the
autonomous Semtex-ridden Islamist cell whose members are ready to
launch their strike at any moment? Hassan suggests that there are
Islamists who are prepared to break their covenant with the British.
And he warns that "any attack will have to be massive. After one
operation everything will close down on us in Britain".

The British must wait to see, therefore, whether the deliverer of the
massive attack will be Hassan himself. I, for one, will not be holding
my breath. Apart from anything else, I enjoy our lunches.


>
>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?
>
You are clueless.

 

[Peter Allen]

John Hanson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 19:00:58 +0100, "Peter Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>> 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
>> **** and produce a laughably stupid sentence, do you really expect
>> me not to call you on it?
>
> http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090012
>
> Why terrorists love Britain
> Cover story
> Jamie Campbell
<snip>

Doesn't match why I love Britain, and according to you I am a terrorist, so
I clearly know more than Jamie Campbell does about this.

>> 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?
>>
> You are clueless.

Does that mean you don't have a list or does it mean that you're unwilling
to post it here for fear of tipping off the Evil Leftist Rabbit Bugs Bunny
that you're on to him?

Peter

 

[OmManiPadmeOmelet]

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

> OmManiPadmeOmelet <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Bill Rogdrs <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> OmManiPadmeOmelet <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >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 **** from?
> >
> >Are you really that heartless?
>
> He is a troll. Why do you attribute any value to what he says?

Good point... ;-)
Everyone has so much emotion caught up in this situation
at the moment, it's easy to get carried away.

Thanks for the reality check.
--
Om.

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

 

[Bill Rogdrs]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 11:48:47 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The vast majority of people that stayed behind were not criminals.
>
>What on earth ever made you think that???

I never said that! The ones there NOW are criminals.
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."

 

[Bill Rogdrs]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 12:03:39 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

It was in the papers. Those old f**kers were up to no good, I know it!
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."

 

[Ellis]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:36:02 -0500, John Hanson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Is it xenophobic to not want foreigners involved in our politics?

Don't know. Ask the Iraqi people if they consider themselves
xenophobic.

Look up the word "hypocrite" whilst you're about it.

Ellis

 

[Dopey Bastard]

In article <[email protected]>,
OmManiPadmeOmelet <[email protected]> writes:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Ropers <[email protected]> wrote:
[Nothing of importance: Elided]
>
> Bill,
>
[snip]
>
> Think about it.

Objection: Assumes faculty not thus far shown to be in evidence!

Om, why do you keep trying to reason with that looney-tune? Notice
how he keeps munging his From address to evade kill-files? Sure sign
of a troll. Please stop. You're only encouraging the idiot. Then,
because he keeps munging his From to evade kill-files, the rest of us
end-up having to wade through his inane ramblings.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email protected] | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

 

[Jason Earl]

Charles <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:50:28 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Why not, it is clear that they are as entitled to carry arms as the
> bad guys?
>
>>
>>Oh, wait... That theory got proved in spades.
>
> How did it, they are being disarmed by the military?

Actually, that's not entirely true. So far the mayor has only
threatened to disarm the people. I have yet to see any reports of
actual disarmament. My guess is that people will simply keep their
guns hidden.

>>> 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 ******* threatens to punch out his
>>> lights.
>>
>>So, the answer is to simply let people hit you. That would explain
>>quite a bit.
>
> Not likely mate, he'd as likely in the UK have some nasty injuries
> for his pains (pun intended), but neither one of the participants
> run the risk of being shot by some armed gutless ****, who is afraid
> to square up.
>
>>
>>> I doubt whether our ***** 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.
>
> I'm sure Slippery's statistics and data would prove that this does
> happen, and more frequently than is apparent. Don't tell me that
> when someone who is 'carrying' is faced with a physical hammering,
> even if they did cause the trouble, that they wouldn't pull their
> piece to escape the consequences.

Yes, and unless the two participants are drunk the chances are very
good that brandishing a firearm will cool the attacker off right
quick. There is lots of evidence to suggest that this sort of thing
happens quite frequently.

>>>>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.
>
> It doesn't appear that he "hooligans" are the threat, it's the forces
> of law and order that are disarming them. The "hooligans" were
> shooting the police.

I don't know how to explain this so that it makes sense to you.
People that shoot at police shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.
Full Stop. If you can find these people and take away their firearms
you have my blessing. Good luck, though, they are almost certainly
hiding. The police, however, weren't the only people in New Orleans
to get shot at by criminals. Those citizens without firearms couldn't
even protect themselves. They are now listed among the dead.

>>> 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.
>
> I'm all for that, but Slippery has been maintaining that the armed
> population would rise up and oppose any political move to disarm
> them.

Will probably doesn't believe that, but if he does, then he's wrong
. Gun advocates realize that there is a time and a place for
everything and that civil war is obviously the last step. I can
understand why the law enforcement officers would be wary escorting
armed people out of New Orleans. Heck, in many ways it is a lot like
flying.

>>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.
>
> Thus disproving Slippery's point.

If Will's point was that Americans would rise up in arms if they are
separated from their handguns for fifteen minutes, then it's not
really much of a point. Somehow I would bet that wasn't the point he
was *trying* to make.

>>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.
>
> Twas ever thus Jason, we are not all equal, particularly in the eyes
> of the law, which specifically includes those that are in law
> enforcement!

If you work at enough of these problems then the corners begin to
round off .

Jason

 

[OmManiPadmeOmelet]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Dopey *******) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> OmManiPadmeOmelet <[email protected]> writes:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bill Ropers <[email protected]> wrote:
> [Nothing of importance: Elided]
> >
> > Bill,
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > Think about it.
>
> Objection: Assumes faculty not thus far shown to be in evidence!
>
> Om, why do you keep trying to reason with that looney-tune?

'cause I find it mildly entertaining when I am bored and there are not
many posts? ;-)

> Notice
> how he keeps munging his From address to evade kill-files? Sure sign
> of a troll. Please stop. You're only encouraging the idiot. Then,
> because he keeps munging his From to evade kill-files, the rest of us
> end-up having to wade through his inane ramblings.

I understand... and JMW made the same request.
You may note I did NOT respond to his reply to the last comment
I made to him on the nursing home incident.

I'll try to behave. Promise!
I really don't want to end up in killfiles for troll feeding...

Cheers!
--
Om.

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

 

[Jim Seymour]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:58:21 -0000, [email protected] (Dopey
*******) wrote:

> Notice
>how he keeps munging his From address to evade kill-files?

What Kind of a jerk would do that?


--
Jim Seemore | "It is never wrong always,
everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything
upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email protected] | - W. K. Clitord,
ca. 1876
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."

 

[Jim Seymour]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:25:28 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I understand... and JMW made the same request.
>You may note I did NOT respond to his reply to the last comment
>I made to him on the nursing home incident.
>
>I'll try to behave. Promise!
>I really don't want to end up in killfiles for troll feeding...
>
>Cheers!
>--
>Om.

Good boy Om. I'll be over tonight, lubed and ready to fullfill my
"end" of the bargain.

--
Jim Seeymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere
and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything
upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
[email protected] | - W. K. Clitord,
ca. 1876
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."

 

[Charles]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:31:08 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Charles <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:50:28 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Why not, it is clear that they are as entitled to carry arms as the
>> bad guys?
>>
>>>
>>>Oh, wait... That theory got proved in spades.
>>
>> How did it, they are being disarmed by the military?
>
>Actually, that's not entirely true. So far the mayor has only
>threatened to disarm the people. I have yet to see any reports of
>actual disarmament. My guess is that people will simply keep their
>guns hidden.
>
>>>> 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 ******* threatens to punch out his
>>>> lights.
>>>
>>>So, the answer is to simply let people hit you. That would explain
>>>quite a bit.
>>
>> Not likely mate, he'd as likely in the UK have some nasty injuries
>> for his pains (pun intended), but neither one of the participants
>> run the risk of being shot by some armed gutless ****, who is afraid
>> to square up.
>>
>>>
>>>> I doubt whether our ***** 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.
>>
>> I'm sure Slippery's statistics and data would prove that this does
>> happen, and more frequently than is apparent. Don't tell me that
>> when someone who is 'carrying' is faced with a physical hammering,
>> even if they did cause the trouble, that they wouldn't pull their
>> piece to escape the consequences.
>
>Yes, and unless the two participants are drunk the chances are very
>good that brandishing a firearm will cool the attacker off right
>quick.

What happens if they are both armed?

>There is lots of evidence to suggest that this sort of thing
>happens quite frequently.

You said earlier: "This sort of thing almost never happens".

>
>>>>>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.
>>
>> It doesn't appear that he "hooligans" are the threat, it's the forces
>> of law and order that are disarming them. The "hooligans" were
>> shooting the police.
>
>I don't know how to explain this so that it makes sense to you.
>People that shoot at police shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.
>Full Stop. If you can find these people and take away their firearms
>you have my blessing. Good luck, though, they are almost certainly
>hiding. The police, however, weren't the only people in New Orleans
>to get shot at by criminals. Those citizens without firearms couldn't
>even protect themselves. They are now listed among the dead.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I'm all for that, but Slippery has been maintaining that the armed
>> population would rise up and oppose any political move to disarm
>> them.
>
>Will probably doesn't believe that, but if he does, then he's wrong
>.

Which is what I've been telling him for some time.

>Gun advocates realize that there is a time and a place for
>everything and that civil war is obviously the last step.

Slippery says it's the raison d'être for bearing arms.

> I can
>understand why the law enforcement officers would be wary escorting
>armed people out of New Orleans. Heck, in many ways it is a lot like
>flying.
>
>>>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.
>>
>> Thus disproving Slippery's point.
>
>If Will's point was that Americans would rise up in arms if they are
>separated from their handguns for fifteen minutes, then it's not
>really much of a point. Somehow I would bet that wasn't the point he
>was *trying* to make.

Try Googling some of his more extravagant rants, particularly those
where he is tellling the Brits how stupid they are because they don't
carry guns.

>
>>>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.
>>
>> Twas ever thus Jason, we are not all equal, particularly in the eyes
>> of the law, which specifically includes those that are in law
>> enforcement!
>
>If you work at enough of these problems then the corners begin to
>round off .

Thanks for a reasoned response, it's most unusual on this topic.

 

[Jason Earl]

Charles <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 10:31:08 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Charles <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:50:28 -0600, Jason Earl <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> Why not, it is clear that they are as entitled to carry arms as the
>>> bad guys?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, wait... That theory got proved in spades.
>>>
>>> How did it, they are being disarmed by the military?
>>
>>Actually, that's not entirely true. So far the mayor has only
>>threatened to disarm the people. I have yet to see any reports of
>>actual disarmament. My guess is that people will simply keep their
>>guns hidden.
>>
>>>>> 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 ******* threatens to punch out his
>>>>> lights.
>>>>
>>>>So, the answer is to simply let people hit you. That would explain
>>>>quite a bit.
>>>
>>> Not likely mate, he'd as likely in the UK have some nasty injuries
>>> for his pains (pun intended), but neither one of the participants
>>> run the risk of being shot by some armed gutless ****, who is afraid
>>> to square up.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I doubt whether our ***** 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.
>>>
>>> I'm sure Slippery's statistics and data would prove that this does
>>> happen, and more frequently than is apparent. Don't tell me that
>>> when someone who is 'carrying' is faced with a physical hammering,
>>> even if they did cause the trouble, that they wouldn't pull their
>>> piece to escape the consequences.
>>
>>Yes, and unless the two participants are drunk the chances are very
>>good that brandishing a firearm will cool the attacker off right
>>quick.
>
> What happens if they are both armed?

What do you think? Let's imagine that some guy came up to you and was
mad enough that he was going to assault you. People die every day
from plain old fashioned beatings, and so you brandish a weapon hoping
that will cool the other guy off a little.

Instead he pulls out his own weapon. Clearly this is a perfect time
for diplomacy .

On the other hand, if you are dealing with someone that is so enraged
that a brandished weapon isn't enough to make them rethink their
course of action, then you are probably screwed any way you cut the
deck. If I was faced with someone *that* upset with me, then I would
probably be glad to have the firearm, because a fist fight could turn
out to be just as dangerous.

>>There is lots of evidence to suggest that this sort of thing happens
>>quite frequently.
>
> You said earlier: "This sort of thing almost never happens".

No, I said that people that aren't drunk, suicidal, or criminals
rarely *shoot* guns at each other. It just doesn't happen. Criminals
also aren't generally interested in bothering people that they know
are armed. There's plenty of evidence that brandishing a weapon
deters crime.

In short, discouraging criminals with a weapon happens fairly
regularly. People not under the influence of alcohol or drugs getting
angry and shooting at each other doesn't happen very regularly.

If you are going to get drunk you should seriously consider doing so
away from dangerous machines like automobiles, firearms, garden tools,
and just about anything else. The difference is that when someone
kills someone while driving drunk society has no problems blaming the
drunk. When someone gets liquored up and *shoots* someone, this
becomes a *gun* problem.

>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>> It doesn't appear that he "hooligans" are the threat, it's the forces
>>> of law and order that are disarming them. The "hooligans" were
>>> shooting the police.
>>
>>I don't know how to explain this so that it makes sense to you.
>>People that shoot at police shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.
>>Full Stop. If you can find these people and take away their
>>firearms you have my blessing. Good luck, though, they are almost
>>certainly hiding. The police, however, weren't the only people in
>>New Orleans to get shot at by criminals. Those citizens without
>>firearms couldn't even protect themselves. They are now listed
>>among the dead.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I'm all for that, but Slippery has been maintaining that the armed
>>> population would rise up and oppose any political move to disarm
>>> them.
>>
>>Will probably doesn't believe that, but if he does, then he's wrong
>>.
>
> Which is what I've been telling him for some time.
>
>>Gun advocates realize that there is a time and a place for
>>everything and that civil war is obviously the last step.
>
> Slippery says it's the raison d'être for bearing arms.

If there is one thing that I have learned from history, it is that
communities that experience peace and prosperity over a long period
tend to be willing to kill people to maintain that peace and
prosperity.

Just a thought.

>> I can understand why the law enforcement officers would be wary
>>escorting armed people out of New Orleans. Heck, in many ways it is
>>a lot like flying.
>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> Thus disproving Slippery's point.
>>
>>If Will's point was that Americans would rise up in arms if they are
>>separated from their handguns for fifteen minutes, then it's not
>>really much of a point. Somehow I would bet that wasn't the point
>>he was *trying* to make.
>
> Try Googling some of his more extravagant rants, particularly those
> where he is tellling the Brits how stupid they are because they
> don't carry guns.

That's just fine. I think that I'll just take your word for it .

>>>>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.
>>>
>>> Twas ever thus Jason, we are not all equal, particularly in the eyes
>>> of the law, which specifically includes those that are in law
>>> enforcement!
>>
>>If you work at enough of these problems then the corners begin to
>>round off .
>
> Thanks for a reasoned response, it's most unusual on this topic.

I agree. That was fun. Part of the problem is that gun advocates
tend to believe that you can't be patriotic, or a true American, or
whatever and be uncomfortable about being surrounded by firearms.

On the other side of the fence the gun control advocates often act as
if law abiding gun owners are responsible for gun violence. Even if I
wanted to there is nothing I can do to take us back to the time before
firearms, and those people probably spent all of their time
complaining about the long bow or something.

Jason

 

[Seth Breidbart]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Rogers <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:43:45 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
>Breidbart) wrote:
>
>>If they confiscated the guns of people who shot at police, paramedics,
>>or rescue workers, that would be fine. They should arrest those
>>people, too.
>>
>>But they're confiscating the guns of people who haven't shot at
>>anybody, or threatened anybody. By what right are they doing that?
>
>So are they supposed to hold field trials to decide whose guilty, and
>who is not? Or does it just make sense to disarm everyone? A little
>common sense wouldn't hurt you.

A little bit of understanding the Constitution of these United States
wouldn't hurt you. (You can leave out the middle phrase and still
have a correct sentence.)

>>Which law, precisely, is a random gun owner in New Orleans (say, the
>>one posting to http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/)
>>violating?
>
>All of them. They were ordered to leave, they did not. They are
>trespassing amongst others.

Trespassing on property they _own_? Strange concept, that.

> Get it now, idiot?

I get it: you're an idiot who believes everything the government says
is valid.

Seth
--
Note to self: a powerlifting meet is not a recommended taper
for a track event. --Ted K.

 

[Seth Breidbart]

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

>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 ******* threatens to punch out his lights.
>
>I doubt whether our ***** 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.

MN passed a "must issue" (license to carry) law a few years ago, and a
lot of licenses have been issued under it. The number of licensed
carriers involved in such shooting incidents over traffic problems
here is how many? Oh, right, none.

On the other hand, the state best known for road-rage shootings is
California, where carry licenses aren't easily available. Strange how
that works, isn't it?

Seth
--
When I'm telling you to get a life, it's time to consider suicide very
seriously. -- Lyle McDonald

 

[Charles]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:26:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
Breidbart) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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 ******* threatens to punch out his lights.
>>
>>I doubt whether our ***** 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.
>
>MN passed a "must issue" (license to carry) law a few years ago, and a
>lot of licenses have been issued under it. The number of licensed
>carriers involved in such shooting incidents over traffic problems
>here is how many? Oh, right, none.
>
>On the other hand, the state best known for road-rage shootings is
>California, where carry licenses aren't easily available. Strange how
>that works, isn't it?

It's all quite alien to me Se th, given that I live in a country where
if you drive like a ***** to the disadvantage of other road users, it
is quite likely that someone will give you a smack alongside the ear.

If you give a gun to "the person who is capable of driving like a
***** to the disadvantage of other road users", it comes as no
surprise to me Se th, that if someone takes exception to such
behaviour that the ***** will pull his gun if anyone should attempt to
point out the error of his ways.

It doesn't make a very good case for the carrying of concealed weapons
Se th, given that the last thing any of us want is a bullet up the
**** for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive little
road hog.

 

[Charles]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:26:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
Breidbart) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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 ******* threatens to punch out his lights.
>>
>>I doubt whether our ***** 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.
>
>MN passed a "must issue" (license to carry) law a few years ago, and a
>lot of licenses have been issued under it. The number of licensed
>carriers involved in such shooting incidents over traffic problems
>here is how many? Oh, right, none.
>
>On the other hand, the state best known for road-rage shootings is
>California, where carry licenses aren't easily available. Strange how
>that works, isn't it?

It's all quite alien to me Se th, given that I live in a country where
if you drive like a ***** to the disadvantage of other road users, it
is quite likely that someone will give you a smack alongside the ear.

If you give a gun to "the person who is capable of driving like a
***** to the disadvantage of other road users", it comes as no
surprise to me Se th, that if someone takes exception to such
behaviour that the ***** will pull his gun if anyone should attempt to
point out the error of his ways.

It doesn't make a very good case for the carrying of concealed weapons
Se th, given that the last thing any of us want is a bullet up the
**** for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive little
road hog.

 

[John Hanson]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:17:59 +0100, Charles <[email protected]> wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:26:18 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Seth
>Breidbart) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>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 ******* threatens to punch out his lights.
>>>
>>>I doubt whether our ***** 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.
>>
>>MN passed a "must issue" (license to carry) law a few years ago, and a
>>lot of licenses have been issued under it. The number of licensed
>>carriers involved in such shooting incidents over traffic problems
>>here is how many? Oh, right, none.
>>
>>On the other hand, the state best known for road-rage shootings is
>>California, where carry licenses aren't easily available. Strange how
>>that works, isn't it?
>
>It's all quite alien to me Se th, given that I live in a country where
>if you drive like a ***** to the disadvantage of other road users, it
>is quite likely that someone will give you a smack alongside the ear.

Quite likely? ********! The argument could be made that you'd be
quite likely to receive a one finger salute.

>
>If you give a gun to "the person who is capable of driving like a
>***** to the disadvantage of other road users", it comes as no
>surprise to me Se th, that if someone takes exception to such
>behaviour that the ***** will pull his gun if anyone should attempt to
>point out the error of his ways.

Again you show your idiocy. A carry permit only allows one to carry a
firearm legally. It does NOT, allow that person to pull it.

>
>It doesn't make a very good case for the carrying of concealed weapons
>Se th, given that the last thing any of us want is a bullet up the
>**** for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive little
>road hog.

You're being an idiot.