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 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 bastard 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 shit, who is afraid to square
    up.

    >
    >> 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.


    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!
     


  2. JMW

    JMW Guest

    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 crap from?
    >
    >Are you really that heartless?


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

    John Hanson Guest

    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 crap
    >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.
     
  4. Peter Allen

    Peter Allen Guest

    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
    >> crap 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
     
  5. 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 crap 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-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  6. Bill Rogdrs

    Bill Rogdrs Guest

    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."
     
  7. Bill Rogdrs

    Bill Rogdrs Guest

    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 crap 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."
     
  8. Ellis

    Ellis Guest

    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
     
  9. 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
     
  10. Jason Earl

    Jason Earl Guest

    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 bastard 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 shit, who is afraid
    > to square up.
    >
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    > 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
     
  11. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] (Dopey Bastard) 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-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
     
  12. Jim Seymour

    Jim Seymour Guest

    On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 13:58:21 -0000, [email protected] (Dopey
    Bastard) 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."
     
  13. Jim Seymour

    Jim Seymour Guest

    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."
     
  14. Charles

    Charles Guest

    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 bastard 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 shit, who is afraid
    >> to square up.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >> 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'ĂȘtre 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.
     
  15. Jason Earl

    Jason Earl Guest

    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 bastard 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 shit, who is afraid
    >>> to square up.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> 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'ĂȘtre 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
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. 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 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.


    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
     
  18. Charles

    Charles Guest

    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 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.

    >
    >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 prick 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
    prick 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 prick 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
    arse for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive little
    road hog.
     
  19. Charles

    Charles Guest

    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 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.

    >
    >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 prick 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
    prick 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 prick 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
    arse for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive little
    road hog.
     
  20. John Hanson

    John Hanson Guest

    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 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.

    >>
    >>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 prick to the disadvantage of other road users, it
    >is quite likely that someone will give you a smack alongside the ear.


    Quite likely? Bullshit! 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
    >prick 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 prick 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
    >arse for pointing out the error of his ways to some abrasive little
    >road hog.


    You're being an idiot.
     
Loading...
Loading...