Re: The Colorado Massacre Why

From: nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Apr 26, 1999 6:25 AM

In <smbi3UAIVyI3IALk@lastings.demon.co.uk> Andrew Steven Reed <areed@lastings.demon.co.uk> writes:

>The constitutional right to bear arms is based on the necessity for the
>people to be able to remove an unrepresentative government by force.

That's certainly an idea whose time has come and gone. It would be
much easier to simply vote them out of office.

Democracy is based on the premise that a million men are smarter than one
man. Now that we have the Internet, we realise this is not so.

Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: temujin9@io.com (Reverend Imposter Eliot)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Apr 26, 1999 9:30 AM
Message-ID: <37297863.3047502@localhost>

On 26 Apr 1999 21:25:34 +1000, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew) wrote:

>In <smbi3UAIVyI3IALk@lastings.demon.co.uk> Andrew Steven Reed <areed@lastings.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>The constitutional right to bear arms is based on the necessity for the
>>people to be able to remove an unrepresentative government by force.
>
>That's certainly an idea whose time has come and gone. It would be
>much easier to simply vote them out of office.

Really?

Izzat so?

Ever wonder why it isn't done, then? Why every incumbent voted out of
office is replaced by an equally weak and immoral asshole? Why the
government "by the people, for the people" seems not to have any
people actually running it?

When was the last time you saw a candidate who even showed up in the
primaries that wasn't either a) independently wealthy (uncommon) or b)
getting big contributions from various special interest groups? Would
it surprise you to learn that the war on marijuana started as a
pretext to eliminate hemp, a major competitor to large cotton
interests? Did it ever occur to you that our entire government has
been bought, paid for, and run for the wealthy few?

When was the last time government represented you?

>Democracy is based on the premise that a million men are smarter than one
>man. Now that we have the Internet, we realise this is not so.

Democracy is based on the premise that a million men are stronger than
one man. Which is true. What it fails to realize, in its modern
form, is that a million sheep are not. Its also based on the premise
that a million men will be fairer than one man. What it fails to
realize is that a million sheep will follow each other's assholes, and
mindlessly trample those who dislike their neighbor's puckered rectum
as a view.

--
Nathaniel Eliot THE Reverend Imposter Eliot
temujin9@io.com (AUTOEXCOMMUNICATED)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: slakk@mindspring.com (slakk)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: slakk@mindspring.com
Date: Mon, Apr 26, 1999 10:16 AM
Message-ID: <37248339.10436495@news.mindspring.com>

nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew) wrote:

>Nick.
>--
>Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
>G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Apr 26, 1999 11:34 AM
Message-ID: <geoff.bronner-ya02408000R2604991234100001@news.dartmouth.edu>

In article <7g1ife$n1p$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick
Andrew) wrote:
>
>>The constitutional right to bear arms is based on the necessity for the
>>people to be able to remove an unrepresentative government by force.
>
>That's certainly an idea whose time has come and gone. It would be
>much easier to simply vote them out of office.
>

Oh really? Maybe in your universe... but where I live incumbents and
challengers from the two major parties are the only ones with the money
necessary for a solid campaign and the rest of the candidates are iced out
of the election process. Replacing one CON dupe with another is NOT voting
them out of office, it is a serious tease!

-G
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Mon, Apr 26, 1999 12:12 PM
Message-ID: <37249E79.4911CD7D@succeeds.com>

It should also be mentioned that individual States have numerous means
to prevent third parties and independant candidates from getting on
the ballot in the first place.

And one for the record books: Washington, D.C. HELD a vote as to whether
medical marijauna should be legal. BUT AT THE LAST MINUTE, the Congress
of the United States (which provides the D.C. budget) WITHELD the $500.00
needed to push a button and SEE WHO WON!!!!

And it is not law until the votes are officially counted.

For $500.00, for only $500.00.

Politics is bloodsport. Never forget that.

Especially if they say it isn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Apr 26, 1999 12:34 PM
Message-ID: <3724A3AC.362D76A6@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Geoffrey V. Bronner wrote:
>
> In article <7g1ife$n1p$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick
> Andrew) wrote:
> >
> >> The constitutional right to bear arms is based on the necessity for
> >> the people to be able to remove an unrepresentative government by
> >> force.
> >
> > That's certainly an idea whose time has come and gone. It would be
> > much easier to simply vote them out of office.
> >
>
> Oh really? Maybe in your universe... but where I live incumbents and
> challengers from the two major parties are the only ones with the money
> necessary for a solid campaign and the rest of the candidates are iced
> out of the election process. Replacing one CON dupe with another is NOT
> voting them out of office, it is a serious tease!
>

In Britain, it takes a small amount of cash to be registered as a
candidate within a constituency. A couple of hundred pounds, I think.
This is why you see parties such as "The Monster Raving Loony Party",
or the "No More Raises In Dental Charges In Harringworth Central and
Goonbury Party". This money is refunded unless you gain only a pitiful
number of votes ("losing your deposit"). Political candidates are not
allowed to buy time on the radio/TV. Newspaper and billboard advertising
ARE, however, allowed (haven't seen any for the upcoming Scottish
election, next week). Leafleting is probably the main expense. While a
campaign therefore requires cash, having MORE cash doesn't help greatly.

Despite this, the situation is exactly the same: if you're not a member
of a major party, your chances are minimal. This results from the
first-past-the-post system, rather than being due to the "buying" of the
electorate.

I THINK THIS: you may not LIKE the fact that a "CON dupe" is in office,
but such a dupe is ENTIRELY a representative candidate.

PS -- I prefer this system to one in which government is decided by
force
of arms. I think the lesson from history tends to be that this is BAD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, Apr 26, 1999 3:03 PM
Message-ID: <geoff.bronner-ya02408000R2604991603070001@news.dartmouth.edu>

In article <3724A3AC.362D76A6@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
<petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Oh really? Maybe in your universe... but where I live incumbents and
>> challengers from the two major parties are the only ones with the money
>> necessary for a solid campaign and the rest of the candidates are iced
>> out of the election process. Replacing one CON dupe with another is NOT
>> voting them out of office, it is a serious tease!
>>
>
>In Britain, it takes a small amount of cash to be registered as a
>candidate within a constituency. A couple of hundred pounds, I think.
>This is why you see parties such as "The Monster Raving Loony Party",
>or the "No More Raises In Dental Charges In Harringworth Central and
>Goonbury Party". This money is refunded unless you gain only a pitiful
>number of votes ("losing your deposit"). Political candidates are not
>allowed to buy time on the radio/TV. Newspaper and billboard advertising
>ARE, however, allowed (haven't seen any for the upcoming Scottish
>election, next week). Leafleting is probably the main expense. While a
>campaign therefore requires cash, having MORE cash doesn't help greatly.
>

I think you need to be careful drawing comparisons between a parliamentary
system and a federal one. The dynamics are totally different.

Besides... in the US to get on the ballot you must provide a massive number
of signatures and in some states the major parties actually have it rigged
so other parities must provide more signatures than they do. Just fixing
this would be a step in the right direction.

I thought parties that stood more than 50 candidates for the House of
Commons got free TV time in the UK?

>I THINK THIS: you may not LIKE the fact that a "CON dupe" is in office,
>but such a dupe is ENTIRELY a representative candidate.

If other candidates are excluded from the process this is not true.

-Geoff
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>

The Third Millennium does not begin until January 1, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: David Tanstaafl <David@tanstaafl.cc>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: David@tanstaafl.cc
Date: Mon, Apr 26, 1999 11:21 PM
Message-ID: <37253B47.4371@tanstaafl.cc>

Geoffrey V. Bronner wrote:
>
> In article <7g1ife$n1p$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick
> Andrew) wrote:
> >
> >>The constitutional right to bear arms is based on the necessity for the
> >>people to be able to remove an unrepresentative government by force.
> >
> >That's certainly an idea whose time has come and gone. It would be
> >much easier to simply vote them out of office.
> >
>
> Oh really? Maybe in your universe... but where I live incumbents and
> challengers from the two major parties are the only ones with the money
> necessary for a solid campaign and the rest of the candidates are iced out
> of the election process. Replacing one CON dupe with another is NOT voting
> them out of office, it is a serious tease!

I am reminded of a piece of graffitti I first saw in Montreal, it was
written in French, I translated it and wrote it on a building in
Portland, Me.(My hometown) just in time for the '88 election.

"If voting changed the system it would be illegal."

Rev. Moxie
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 1:55 AM
Message-ID: <260419992355364856%p-lil@ZubJenius.com>

In article <7g1ife$n1p$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, Nick Andrew
<nick@zeta.org.au> wrote:

> Democracy is based on the premise that a million men are smarter than one
> man. Now that we have the Internet, we realise this is not so.

Bullshit. It's just harder to manipulate masses than it is to
manipulate individuals. But with enough money, anything is possible,
eh?

The Prophet Lilith

--
Popess Lilith von Fraumench * http://come.to/p.lil
SEATTLE BEWARE--The Final SubGenius RE-Devival is COMING
May 28--On The Boards--Visit http://ssucc.ragnarokr.com for details
==== "What is Zen? Duh!" --me === "What is Tao? D'oh!" --Jesus ====
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 6:02 AM
Message-ID: <37259938.55EAC6A6@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Geoffrey V. Bronner wrote:
>
> In article <3724A3AC.362D76A6@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
> <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> > In Britain, [snip]
> > Political candidates are not allowed to buy time on the radio/TV.
> > Newspaper and billboard advertising ARE, however, allowed.
> >
>

[snip]

>
> I thought parties that stood more than 50 candidates for the House of
> Commons got free TV time in the UK?
>

Yes. These are called Party Political Broadcasts; any party qualifying
gets approx. 10 minutes air time in the course of the election. In
unison the country switches off with groans of disgust. I like watching
the Natural Law Party ones, which inevitably demonstrate how the
country's
vibes will be sorted out using crack squads of "yogic flyers", i.e.
people
with elasticated bums bouncing off the ground.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 9:03 AM
Message-ID: <7g4g33$ho5$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>

In <37297863.3047502@localhost> temujin9@io.com (Reverend Imposter Eliot) writes:

>On 26 Apr 1999 21:25:34 +1000, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew) wrote:

>>In <smbi3UAIVyI3IALk@lastings.demon.co.uk> Andrew Steven Reed <areed@lastings.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>The constitutional right to bear arms is based on the necessity for the
>>>people to be able to remove an unrepresentative government by force.
>>
>>That's certainly an idea whose time has come and gone. It would be
>>much easier to simply vote them out of office.
>Ever wonder why it isn't done, then? Why every incumbent voted out of
>office is replaced by an equally weak and immoral asshole?

I'll hazard a guess. It's because "the peepul" are ignorant and stupid. Not
only do they get the government they deserve, they also get the government
they voted for!

>Democracy is based on the premise that a million men are stronger than
>one man. Which is true. What it fails to realize, in its modern
>form, is that a million sheep are not.

What then is the point of arming the million sheep?

Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 9:05 AM
Message-ID: <7g4g7t$i3b$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>

In <geoff.bronner-ya02408000R2604991234100001@news.dartmouth.edu> geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner) writes:

>In article <7g1ife$n1p$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew) wrote:
>>>The constitutional right to bear arms is based on the necessity for the
>>>people to be able to remove an unrepresentative government by force.
>>
>>That's certainly an idea whose time has come and gone. It would be
>>much easier to simply vote them out of office.

>Oh really? Maybe in your universe... but where I live incumbents and
>challengers from the two major parties are the only ones with the money
>necessary for a solid campaign and the rest of the candidates are iced out
>of the election process. Replacing one CON dupe with another is NOT voting
>them out of office, it is a serious tease!

Then explain to me how having guns will improve this situation.

Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 9:23 AM
Message-ID: <7g4h8m$k52$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>

In <260419992355364856%p-lil@ZubJenius.com> Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com> writes:

>Bullshit. It's just harder to manipulate masses than it is to
>manipulate individuals.

Not so! Teach one person to drink Coca Cola, and you have nothing. Teach
a hundred million to drink Coca Cola and you have a self-perpetuating
value system which puts you on the gravy train for life. The masses
manipulate themselves! Have you learnt nothing from Chomsky?

Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 9:17 AM
Message-ID: <7g4gt8$jfn$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>

In <3724A3AC.362D76A6@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> writes:

>Despite this, the situation is exactly the same: if you're not a member
>of a major party, your chances are minimal. This results from the
>first-past-the-post system, rather than being due to the "buying" of the
>electorate.

The preferential voting system doesn't make much of a difference either.

Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: cluelessnewbie@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 10:15 AM
Message-ID: <7g4kb9$sjg$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>

In article <260419992355364856%p-lil@ZubJenius.com>,
Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com> wrote:
> In article <7g1ife$n1p$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, Nick Andrew
> <nick@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> > Democracy is based on the premise that a million men are smarter than one
> > man. Now that we have the Internet, we realise this is not so.
>
> Bullshit. It's just harder to manipulate masses than it is to
> manipulate individuals. But with enough money, anything is possible,
> eh?

Strangely enough, I think the reverse might be true--propagandizing large
groups is almost certain to hit a few induhviduals, and it's been my
experience that large groups of people act dumber than individuals do....

But, what do I know? I'm just a clueless newbie.

Democracy is a great idea. The USA should try it sometime.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 11:34 AM
Message-ID: <geoff.bronner-ya02408000R2704991234360001@news.dartmouth.edu>

In article <7g4g7t$i3b$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick
Andrew) wrote:
>
>Replacing one CON dupe with another is NOT voting
>>them out of office, it is a serious tease!
>
>Then explain to me how having guns will improve this situation.
>

I didn't say it did.

-Geoff
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>

A strong conviction that something must be done is
the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 11:33 AM
Message-ID: <geoff.bronner-ya02408000R2704991233430001@news.dartmouth.edu>

In article <37259938.55EAC6A6@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
<petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I thought parties that stood more than 50 candidates for the House of
>> Commons got free TV time in the UK?
>
>Yes. These are called Party Political Broadcasts; any party qualifying
>gets approx. 10 minutes air time in the course of the election. In
>unison the country switches off with groans of disgust. I like watching
>the Natural Law Party ones, which inevitably demonstrate how the
>country's
>vibes will be sorted out using crack squads of "yogic flyers", i.e.
>people
>with elasticated bums bouncing off the ground.

This sounds like good entertainment.

So... for 500 pounds times 50... 25,000 pounds you get 10 minutes of
airtime? I wonder if that is a good deal in the UK television market. In
the US advertisers pay $50k+ for 30 seconds.

-G
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 3:36 PM
Message-ID: <270419991336596914%p-lil@ZubJenius.com>

In article <7g4h8m$k52$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, Nick Andrew
<nick@zeta.org.au> wrote:

> In <260419992355364856%p-lil@ZubJenius.com> Popess Lilith von Fraumench
> <p-lil@ZubJenius.com> writes:
>
> >Bullshit. It's just harder to manipulate masses than it is to
> >manipulate individuals.
>
> Not so! Teach one person to drink Coca Cola, and you have nothing. Teach
> a hundred million to drink Coca Cola and you have a self-perpetuating
> value system which puts you on the gravy train for life. The masses
> manipulate themselves! Have you learnt nothing from Chomsky?

Er. I was responding to your description of democracy. It was NEVER
founded on the notion that a million men are smarter than one man. And
it's still harder because... wait for it... it takes more resources.
Which means the rich have the jump on the gun.

Did you read more of your presumptions into my words, than the words
themselves? For shame.

The Prophet Lilith

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: temujin9@io.com (Reverend Imposter Eliot)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 6:54 PM
Message-ID: <37284e29.4666462@localhost>

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:34:36 -0400, geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu
(Geoffrey V. Bronner) wrote:

>In article <7g4g7t$i3b$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick
>Andrew) wrote:
>>
>>Replacing one CON dupe with another is NOT voting
>>>them out of office, it is a serious tease!
>>
>>Then explain to me how having guns will improve this situation.
>
>I didn't say it did.

The current situation sucks, but its tolerable until "Bob" gets back
with the Xists. The guns are there so that if the current government
goes really rabid in the mean time, we can do something about it.

--
Nathaniel Eliot THE Reverend Imposter Eliot
temujin9@io.com (AUTOEXCOMMUNICATED)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "König PreuBe, GmbH" <bbombere@erols.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, Apr 27, 1999 6:59 PM
Message-ID: <37264F5B.4C2899F6@erols.com>

Reverend Imposter Eliot wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:34:36 -0400, geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu
> (Geoffrey V. Bronner) wrote:
>
> >In article <7g4g7t$i3b$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick
> >Andrew) wrote:
> >>
> >>Replacing one CON dupe with another is NOT voting
> >>>them out of office, it is a serious tease!
> >>
> >>Then explain to me how having guns will improve this situation.
> >
> >I didn't say it did.
>
> The current situation sucks, but its tolerable until "Bob" gets back
> with the Xists. The guns are there so that if the current government
> goes really rabid in the mean time, we can do something about it.
>
> --
>

You forgot to say, "or kill me."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Apr 28, 1999 8:41 AM
Message-ID: <geoff.bronner-ya02408000R2804990941110001@news.dartmouth.edu>

In article <37284e29.4666462@localhost>, temujin9@io.com (Reverend Imposter
Eliot) wrote:
>
>The current situation sucks, but its tolerable until "Bob" gets back
>with the Xists. The guns are there so that if the current government
>goes really rabid in the mean time, we can do something about it.
>

"Rabid" ... I like the way that sounds. Excellent way to put it.

-G
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>

Cerebus for Dictator in 2000!!!
He doesn't love you, he just wants all of your money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, Apr 28, 1999 12:48 PM
Message-ID: <280419991048574656%p-lil@ZubJenius.com>

In article <37264F5B.4C2899F6@erols.com>, König PreuBe, GmbH
<bbombere@erols.com> wrote:

> You forgot to say, "or kill me."

Be careful when saying "or kill me" around THIS bunch. A few of us
would gladly take all of you up on it.

The Prophet Lilith

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: amturing@sexzilla.not (Alan M. Turing)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Fri, Apr 30, 1999 2:07 AM
Message-ID: <372e421d.79816242@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>

Nick Andrew wrote, in alt.slack:

Since when have they ever provided a selection "NONE OF YOUR GREEDY ASSES"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Fri, Apr 30, 1999 7:18 PM
Message-ID: <7gdh7u$co0$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>

In <270419991336596914%p-lil@ZubJenius.com> Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com> writes:

>Er. I was responding to your description of democracy. It was NEVER
>founded on the notion that a million men are smarter than one man.

Ah, ok. My description was somewhat flippant... the point I wanted to
get across was that a million men don't necessarily make a better
decision than one man.

Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "König PreuBe, GmbH" <bbombere@erols.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Fri, Apr 30, 1999 7:28 PM
Message-ID: <372A4A91.953A3F20@erols.com>

Nick Andrew wrote:

> In <270419991336596914%p-lil@ZubJenius.com> Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com> writes:
>
> >Er. I was responding to your description of democracy. It was NEVER
> >founded on the notion that a million men are smarter than one man.
>
> Ah, ok. My description was somewhat flippant... the point I wanted to
> get across was that a million men don't necessarily make a better
> decision than one man.
>
> Nick.
> --
>

Thanks! I needed that!

Now I don't have to get a group concensus on
which tie to wear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sat, May 1, 1999 11:31 PM
Message-ID: <7ggkf4$hn7$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>

In <37284e29.4666462@localhost> temujin9@io.com (Reverend Imposter Eliot) writes:

>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:34:36 -0400, geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner) wrote:

>>In article <7g4g7t$i3b$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>, nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew) wrote:
>>>
>>>Replacing one CON dupe with another is NOT voting
>>>>them out of office, it is a serious tease!
>>>
>>>Then explain to me how having guns will improve this situation.
>>
>>I didn't say it did.

>The current situation sucks, but its tolerable until "Bob" gets back
>with the Xists. The guns are there so that if the current government
>goes really rabid in the mean time, we can do something about it.

How are guns going to help you to "do something about it"? Who will you
kill - the President, Congress, or will you be waging open war against
the local Post Office? What exactly do the guns achieve? And is it
worthwhile to live in a kind of crime-riddled and violence-entrenched
society in "the mean time"?

Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: David Tanstaafl <David@tanstaafl.cc>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: David@tanstaafl.cc
Date: Sun, May 2, 1999 4:13 AM
Message-ID: <372C1731.465E@tanstaafl.cc>

Nick Andrew wrote:
> How are guns going to help you to "do something about it"? Who will you
> kill - the President, Congress, or will you be waging open war against
> the local Post Office? What exactly do the guns achieve? And is it
> worthwhile to live in a kind of crime-riddled and violence-entrenched
> society in "the mean time"?

I don't know, why don't you tell us? When concealed carry laws are
passed viloent crime rates go DOWN. Thugs have an understandable
reluctance to mug someone who is likely armed as well or better than
they. Vermont, the state that I live in, has the least restrictive gun
laws in the country we alos have the LOWEST crime rate in the country.
The argument could be made that our crime rate is so low because of the
rural nature of the State, however we also have an extremely low
percentage of LEO's. You could call the police if someone where breaking
into your home and raping your wife, or you could shoot them. With a 60
minute (at least) response time from the State Police which would you
choose? Oh right you would choose not to have a gun because they are
BAD.
One more thing to think about, imagine for a moment a Kosovo where all
of the people had guns and were willing to use them. Probably wouldn't
have been such one-sided ethnic cleansing would there?
Rev. Moxie
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "William Price" <absent@wcnet.org>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, May 2, 1999 5:44 AM
Message-ID: <7ghajf$h6i@woody.wcnet.org>

well, the first to be cleansed would be the ones who felt REALLY REALLY
strongly one way or the other about ethnic cleansing...And the ones who were
bad shots.
Two way bullets would clearly make you think twice about trying to "cleanse'
somebody.
And it would certainly make you more inclined to put a stop to it right
quick.

Think about it...

> One more thing to think about, imagine for a moment a Kosovo where all
> of the people had guns and were willing to use them. Probably wouldn't
> have been such one-sided ethnic cleansing would there?
> Rev. Moxie
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "Rev. Edward strange" <strange@enter.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, May 2, 1999 10:03 AM
Message-ID: <372C6934.1EFA@enter.net>

Nick Andrew wrote:
>

> How are guns going to help you to "do something about it"? Who will you
> kill - the President, Congress, or will you be waging open war against
> the local Post Office? What exactly do the guns achieve? And is it
> worthwhile to live in a kind of crime-riddled and violence-entrenched
> society in "the mean time"?
>

Yes!!!!!!
To find out why send $1 to:

"Bob" Loves Guns
P.O. Box 140306
Dallas, TX. 75214
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: ebear@MI$direct.ca (bipolar bear)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, May 2, 1999 6:28 PM
Message-ID: <ebear-ya02408000R0205991528560001@news.direct.ca>

In article <372C1731.465E@tanstaafl.cc>, David@tanstaafl.cc wrote:

> Nick Andrew wrote:
> > How are guns going to help you to "do something about it"? Who will you
> > kill - the President, Congress, or will you be waging open war against
> > the local Post Office? What exactly do the guns achieve? And is it
> > worthwhile to live in a kind of crime-riddled and violence-entrenched
> > society in "the mean time"?
>
> I don't know, why don't you tell us? When concealed carry laws are
> passed viloent crime rates go DOWN. Thugs have an understandable
> reluctance to mug someone who is likely armed as well or better than
> they. Vermont, the state that I live in, has the least restrictive gun
> laws in the country we alos have the LOWEST crime rate in the country.
> The argument could be made that our crime rate is so low because of the
> rural nature of the State, however we also have an extremely low
> percentage of LEO's. You could call the police if someone where breaking
> into your home and raping your wife, or you could shoot them. With a 60
> minute (at least) response time from the State Police which would you
> choose? Oh right you would choose not to have a gun because they are
> BAD.
> One more thing to think about, imagine for a moment a Kosovo where all
> of the people had guns and were willing to use them. Probably wouldn't
> have been such one-sided ethnic cleansing would there?
> Rev. Moxie

Let's be honest here. In order to defend yourself in the home you have to
be prepared to use deadly force AND have the means to do so, ie. adequate
training AND a loaded weapon close at hand. Of course this weapon can't be
inaccessible at the same time, so it will probably be found by your kids or
anyone who breaks into your home while you're out.

As for muggers, the way most of them operate they have the drop on you long
before you get a chance to go for your gun. Plus, the fact that you're
carrying is reason for them to be extra rough on you; you had a gun, which
means you were prepared to use it on THEM if you got the chance. Also,
muggers often operate in teams so you better make the first round count.
Add the wife and kids to the mix and you're just as likely to shoot one of
your own or have THEM shot by return fire.

Having said that, I should point out that in Canada we have far fewer guns
than in the USA. I don't own one, but if I lived in the USA I would,
simply because I feel the problem there is too far gone for any other
remedy. I doubt I'd be safer for it, I think the effect is mostly
psychological. Even though I have the training, I can't say with certainty
I'd have the necessary nerve, judgement or response to get the first shot
in and make a clean kill. It's a lot to deal with in a fraction of a
second, even without pause to consider how the law might interpret it after
the fact. Still, when everyone else has a gun it would be foolish of me
not to have one myself.

Realistically, no amount of gun control is going to make much of a dent in
the US situation. Canada has brought in stricter gun control over the
years, but we didn't start from a position of 4 hand guns per citizen and
thousands upon thousands of automatic weapons in the hands of "collectors"
and various bad guys. So far no one has explained how all those guns are
going to be rounded up. IMO, they won't be. They'll just go underground.

As for making Kosovo a safer place... I doubt it. All that does is
invite the FRY army to sit off at a distance using tanks and RPG's. I
imagine some of the heavy fire we've seen was for exactly that reason: they
didn't like being shot at from close range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: nu-monet <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Sun, May 2, 1999 6:20 PM
Message-ID: <372CDDA3.C4BCEC19@succeeds.com>

bipolar bear wrote:
>
> Let's be honest here. In order to defend yourself in the home you have to
> be prepared to use deadly force AND have the means to do so, ie. adequate
> training AND a loaded weapon close at hand. Of course this weapon can't be
> inaccessible at the same time, so it will probably be found by your kids or
> anyone who breaks into your home while you're out.

To add additional emphasis to the point: most civilians have no weapons
training and act like imbeciles with a gun, or any weapon for that matter.
Even people with weapons training all too frequently fuck up, especially
in making the critical judgement call as to whether to use deadly force
or not.

Having a weapon creates a bizarre situation. People will often opt to use
it in a defensive or offensive manner, subjecting themselves to unneccesary
danger, when otherwise they would concentrate on getting out of the
situation and contacting the police. Then, with the weapon in hand, they
focus on *using* the weapon, even if the situation is inappropriate.

The "Old West" rule that when a weapon is displayed by anyone, that it is
a de facto expression of the intent to use deadly force, is a good one.

Before the "SWAT" rules came into play in police training, where any
and every situation calls for the officer to brandish a gun, the
better police officers rarely, if ever, took their gun out of it's
holster.

Their common-sense rule was that a gun will not improve a bad situation,
but may certainly make an okay situation bad. Since "SWAT", over 90%
of police officers are killed with their own weapon (high, because
suicides are included in the statistic.)

As an aside, 4-5 times more Americans are killed by bladed weapons
than by guns every year (a lot of which is blamed on the difficulty
of repairing the wounds inflicted.)

>
> As for muggers, the way most of them operate they have the drop on you long
> before you get a chance to go for your gun. Plus, the fact that you're
> carrying is reason for them to be extra rough on you; you had a gun, which
> means you were prepared to use it on THEM if you got the chance. Also,
> muggers often operate in teams so you better make the first round count.
> Add the wife and kids to the mix and you're just as likely to shoot one of
> your own or have THEM shot by return fire.

Individual situations are hard to make blanket rules for. Again,
the paradox of the "judgement call."

>
> Having said that, I should point out that in Canada we have far fewer guns
> than in the USA. I don't own one, but if I lived in the USA I would,
> simply because I feel the problem there is too far gone for any other
> remedy. I doubt I'd be safer for it, I think the effect is mostly
> psychological. Even though I have the training, I can't say with certainty
> I'd have the necessary nerve, judgement or response to get the first shot
> in and make a clean kill. It's a lot to deal with in a fraction of a
> second, even without pause to consider how the law might interpret it after
> the fact. Still, when everyone else has a gun it would be foolish of me
> not to have one myself.

I would say that the cultural idea is different in Cananda than in the
U.S. In the States, the idea of the citizen soldier and the citizen
policeman are very well grounded. For example, who would more rapidly
react to defend you against a violent criminal, an American or a
Canadian?

Rest assured, in many parts of the United States, citizens take it upon
themselves to interefere with a violent crime (while in other places,
people would just stand there and gawk, of course.) However, oftentimes,
when citizens *do* interefere, they are successful, and stop the crime
without police help.

>
> Realistically, no amount of gun control is going to make much of a dent in
> the US situation. Canada has brought in stricter gun control over the
> years, but we didn't start from a position of 4 hand guns per citizen and
> thousands upon thousands of automatic weapons in the hands of "collectors"
> and various bad guys. So far no one has explained how all those guns are
> going to be rounded up. IMO, they won't be. They'll just go underground.

Ah, but I bet if you went to a more isolated part of Canada, the
locals would have a different idea. When you only have 1 policeman
for every 5,000 square miles, some things you just have to do yourself.

>
> As for making Kosovo a safer place... I doubt it. All that does is
> invite the FRY army to sit off at a distance using tanks and RPG's. I
> imagine some of the heavy fire we've seen was for exactly that reason: they
> didn't like being shot at from close range.

Except that most of Kos. is very mountainous, and has lots of forest, which
is to the advantage of guerilla fighters. They should try to take out
the paramilitaries and Yugo. police, hanging them from lightpoles, etc.
to make their point to the others.

The best bet for the KLA would *not* be to fight the Yugo army directly
or head on, but sabotage their supply lines and rear areas, and then try
to take the war to Serbia.

A small group of dedicated individuals could easily inflict the damage
on Belgrade that NATO's air forces have done, with low odds of being
captured or killed themselves.

Gee, was this thread about guns? Most all I talked about were knives and
bombs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "König PreuBe, GmbH" <bbombere@erols.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, May 2, 1999 6:29 PM
Message-ID: <372CDFF1.FE83EE94@erols.com>

nu-monet wrote:

>
>
> They should try to take out the paramilitaries and Yugo.

> police, hanging them from lightpoles, etc.
> to make their point to the others.

That part is funny to me because it's about the same as
Pat Buchanan said they should have done to the perps
in the Central Park jogger case.

I am a little disappointed with the Israelis for being less
that helpful with the Albanians. Maybe not all Israelis,
but officially they are still pissed-off at the Albanians
for aiding the Nazis. I can understand that, but it does
make it appear that they don't object to genocide and
enthnic cleansing on ethical grounds. So...

>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: David Tanstaafl <David@tanstaafl.cc>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: David@tanstaafl.cc
Date: Mon, May 3, 1999 1:02 AM
Message-ID: <372D3C0A.129A@tanstaafl.cc>

This article is from England, home of draconian gun laws. Low crime
rates right?

> THE TIMES
> April 24 1999 BRITAIN
>
> Fleeing gunmen shoot bystanders to slow down police
>
> BY RUSSELL JENKINS
>
> FIVE people were shot and injured yesterday during a 50-mile car chase as
> gunmen fleeing police fired indiscriminately at passers-by to slow down
> their pursuers.
> As the gunmen's car entered Rochdale, they started shooting at pedestrians.
> Most of those hit, including a 75-year-old man waiting at a bus stop, were
> injured in the legs.
>
> The gunmen had earlier taken a 27-year-old woman hostage when they dumped
> their car and took over her silver BMW. The chase came to an end in a
> suburban street when police rammed the BMW and it crashed into a lamppost.
> Two men were arrested by officers from Greater Manchester Police who were
> believed to have recovered an AK47 assault rifle, a pistol and a pair of
> gloves from the scene.
>
> Yesterday evening, police arrested another man after surrounding a
> builder's merchants in Bolton. A firearm was discovered near by. Assistant
> Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes said the man was not thought to have been
> in the car, but that information from the public had led them to believe
> that he might have been linked to the chase. He added that the incident was
> not thought to be linked to terrorism or armed robbery.
>
> The chase began at 12.55pm when an officer from the Lancashire Constabulary
> approached a car on the M6 between Lancaster and Garstang, apparently as
> part of a routine check. The vehicle sped off at high speed and turned on
> to the M61. Greater Manchester Police took over at junction 6 of the M61 at
> 1.20pm. The men dumped their car in Horwich, swapping it for the BMW. The
> woman driver was treated for shock in Rochdale Royal Infirmary after being
> freed when the car crashed. As the BMW, monitored by police helicopter,
> sped through Bolton to Rochdale, the ambulance service received the first
> of a flood of emergency calls soon after 2pm. A 50-year-old man was treated
> for a gunshot wound to his right arm. A 46-year-old man was shot in the
> right leg. A man aged 75 was shot in the lower right leg as he sat waiting
> at a bus stop outside a supermarket near the town centre. A 31-year-old man
> was shot in the right thigh and a 47-year-old cyclist was shot in the lower
> back.
>
> In Bolton, David Evans, manager of the Travis Perkins builder's merchants,
> where the third man had been holed up, said: "The guy came in and asked us
> to get him a taxi. He seemed suspicious so we rang the police. When the
> police came he tried to do a runner and jump in a taxi that was there, but
> one of our staff, Amanda Jones, jumped in front of the car to stop him,
> which was pretty brave.
>
> "He then doubled back into our yard and into the warehouse. He was badly
> marked around his face and his eyes were red - that's what made us
> suspicious."
>
> Assistant Chief Constable Hughes said last night: "Whilst members of the
> public have been injured, at all times during this police operation we
> applied tactics and tried our utmost to ensure the safety of the public.
> Officers at times during the pursuit acted with commendable restraint. No
> shots were offered by police. There was no gun battle."
>
> Muggings soar as police cut street searches
>
> STREET robberies have dramatically increased after a huge reduction in
> police stop-and-search checks in the wake of damning criticism in the
> Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
> Scotland Yard's confidential figures sent to Jack Straw, the Home
> Secretary, show that more than 100 street muggings are being committed in
> London every day.
>
> Sir Paul Condon, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has reported the
> trend to the Home Secretary after research by Yard statisticians on the the
> monthly figures for muggings and stop-and-search operations.
>
> The stop-and-search process has been used extensively against suspected
> street robbers but has also brought widespread criticism from black groups
> about the number of young blacks targeted in the operations.
>
> New figures show that the number of reported muggings in March this year
> was 3,300 compared with 2,600 in the same month last year, an increase of
> almost a third.
>
> Over the same period stop-and-search operations have dropped by 30 per cent
> from 26,300 to 16,000.
>
> The increase in street robberies is a worrying development for Sir Paul
> because an extensive investigation called Operation Eagle Eye has been
> targeting muggers for the past three years and had resulted in significant
> reductions in the crime.
>
> But stop-and-search operations have led to repeated criticism from MPs,
> evidence to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and from ethnic minority groups.
> Cases of innocent people halted under the powers include a senior race
> adviser to the Home Office, professional footballers and a large number of
> innocent passers-by.
>
> The Police Federation, which represents junior officers in London, said
> that the increase in the number of street robberies has been caused by a
> growing reluctance among officers to carry out stop-and-search operations
> because of the criticism that they may receive.
>
> Scotland Yard has been carrying out research in a number of areas of London
> to see if the stop-and-search operations can be targeted against clear
> suspects rather than the more general methods used by police.
>
> Sir Paul is understood to have warned the Home Secretary that the figures
> represented only an initial finding and that the trend would become clearer
> once a number of months had been covered.
>
> At their peak street robberies in London were climbing to 40,000 a year and
> had become a major source of anxiety for Londoners in public opinion
> surveys carried out by the police.
>
> They were concentrated in areas of Central and South London and many of the
> victims were young people.
>
> Sir Paul caused a furore when he instigated Operation Eagle Eye and pointed
> out that a high percentage of the suspects arrested for muggings were young
> blacks. He went ahead with the operation which has led to the deployment of
> undercover teams, secret video cameras and decoy officers posing as
> potential victims.
>
> After a slow start Eagle Eye has won praise for its effectiveness and the
> Yard had been congratulating itself on the reduction in a major crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: ebear@MI$direct.ca (bipolar bear)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, May 3, 1999 1:55 AM
Message-ID: <ebear-ya02408000R0205992255410001@news.direct.ca>

In article <372CDFF1.FE83EE94@erols.com>, "König PreuBe, GmbH"
<bbombere@erols.com> wrote:

> nu-monet wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > They should try to take out the paramilitaries and Yugo.
>
> > police, hanging them from lightpoles, etc.
> > to make their point to the others.
>
> That part is funny to me because it's about the same as
> Pat Buchanan said they should have done to the perps
> in the Central Park jogger case.
>
> I am a little disappointed with the Israelis for being less
> that helpful with the Albanians. Maybe not all Israelis,
> but officially they are still pissed-off at the Albanians
> for aiding the Nazis. I can understand that, but it does
> make it appear that they don't object to genocide and
> enthnic cleansing on ethical grounds. So...
>
Well they did send an army field hospital and some doctors. I guess that
counts for something. I imagine they're trying to avoid unwelcome
comparisons between the exiled Kosovo-Albanians and the Palestinians who've
been living in refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon since 1948.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: ebear@MI$direct.ca (bipolar bear)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, May 3, 1999 3:01 AM
Message-ID: <ebear-ya02408000R0305990001040001@news.direct.ca>

In article <372CDDA3.C4BCEC19@succeeds.com>, like.excess@sex.org wrote:

>
> Ah, but I bet if you went to a more isolated part of Canada, the
> locals would have a different idea. When you only have 1 policeman
> for every 5,000 square miles, some things you just have to do yourself.
>
In the remote parts of Canada the only guns around are hunting rifles.
You've got a far better chance of being mauled by a bear than being shot
at, hence the rifles. Most of the crime in remote communities is either a
drunken friday night brawl or family violence of one form or another. The
rcmp aren't around in great numbers but they ARE there in the form of
airborne detachments or native constables. Most settlements have a local
who's also a mountie. He can deputize anyone he needs, a dogteam driver, a
bush pilot, his girlfriend. It's a system that works because it draws on
local talent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "William Price" <absent@wcnet.org>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, May 3, 1999 3:34 AM
Message-ID: <7gjn0o$dgf@woody.wcnet.org>

>
> Let's be honest here. In order to defend yourself in the home you have to
> be prepared to use deadly force AND have the means to do so, ie. adequate
> training AND a loaded weapon close at hand. Of course this weapon can't
be
> inaccessible at the same time, so it will probably be found by your kids
or
> anyone who breaks into your home while you're out.

This is probably why gunowners should train their children in safety while
they are young.

>
> As for muggers, the way most of them operate they have the drop on you
long
> before you get a chance to go for your gun.

I would rather get shot while going for my gun than die not trying.
" It is better to live on your feet than to die on your knees"

Plus, the fact that you're
> carrying is reason for them to be extra rough on you; you had a gun, which
> means you were prepared to use it on THEM if you got the chance.

All the better reason to kill them.

Also,
> muggers often operate in teams so you better make the first round count.

READ: you'd better carry a full clip. And know how to shoot.

> Add the wife and kids to the mix and you're just as likely to shoot one of
> your own or have THEM shot by return fire.

If the wife and kids have a gun, they're backup.
If the fool is going to shoot you, he's going to shoot you. If you are a
good shot, you arent going to hit them unless you blow your cool. If you
blow you cool, well, at least your overly nervous offspring or you will be
out of the genepool. Tragic, yes, but so is a baby bear getting eaten by a
badger. That's nature for you.
I'd much rather get the mugger out of the gene pool, wouldn't you?
Eventualy he will mug the wrong person, like my Grand Master in Modern
Arnis, Remy Presis. In turn, he will get robbed and sent to the hospital
with his pocket picked for his troubles.
Or Killed.

Agreed

I doubt I'd be safer for it, I think the effect is mostly
> psychological. Even though I have the training, I can't say with certainty
> I'd have the necessary nerve, judgement or response to get the first shot
> in and make a clean kill.

You sound as if you lack confidence. Perhaps a martial arts course would
improve your self-esteem, and then you woould be certain through education
and physical tournament training (not to mention increased Chi) that you
wouldn't need to lose your cool. nine times out of ten the criminal is more
frightened than you are. Barring drugs, perhaps.

It's a lot to deal with in a fraction of a
> second, even without pause to consider how the law might interpret it
after
> the fact

There is no try...only do/tao.

. Still, when everyone else has a gun it would be foolish of me
> not to have one myself.

Like the insane government who wants to take them away from us and cannot as
long as they have them.
> As for making Kosovo a safer place... I doubt it. All that does is
> invite the FRY army to sit off at a distance using tanks and RPG's. I

They have choosen to shoot people on a house to house basis. the population
is too mixed for tanks to work.

> imagine some of the heavy fire we've seen was for exactly that reason:
they
> didn't like being shot at from close range.
]

-Response By William Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, May 3, 1999 5:58 AM
Message-ID: <372D8152.19EF02DA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

David Tanstaafl wrote:
>

[snip paean about sexy guns]

I've come to realise that guns are actually the UNIVERSAL PANACEA that
we have been looking for all these years!

1. If EVERYONE had a gun, there would be NO WARS!!!
2. If parents had guns, children would ALWAYS BEHAVE!!!
3. And if the children had guns, we could WIPE OUT child abuse!!!
4. If the DODOS had had guns, they wouldn't be EXTINCT now!!!
5. If the GUNS had guns, they could defend themselves if anyone tried
to circumvent the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that
timeless, PERFECT piece of work!!!!!1!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "König PreuBe, GmbH" <bbombere@erols.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, May 3, 1999 9:29 AM
Message-ID: <372DB2B0.3E343AD0@erols.com>

Peter Hipwell wrote:

> David Tanstaafl wrote:
> >
>
> [snip paean about sexy guns]
>
> > One more thing to think about, imagine for a moment a Kosovo where all
> > of the people had guns and were willing to use them. Probably wouldn't
> > have been such one-sided ethnic cleansing would there?
>
> I've come to realise that guns are actually the UNIVERSAL PANACEA that
> we have been looking for all these years!
>
> 1. If EVERYONE had a gun, there would be NO WARS!!!
> 2. If parents had guns, children would ALWAYS BEHAVE!!!
> 3. And if the children had guns, we could WIPE OUT child abuse!!!
> 4. If the DODOS had had guns, they wouldn't be EXTINCT now!!!
> 5. If the GUNS had guns, they could defend themselves if anyone tried
> to circumvent the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that
> timeless, PERFECT piece of work!!!!!1!

Guns don't kill people! Bullets kill people!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, May 3, 1999 11:19 AM
Message-ID: <030519990919571707%p-lil@ZubJenius.com>

In article <372D8152.19EF02DA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
<petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

I agreed with you up to point #4, but it'd be cruel to give guns to
guns without giving them fingers to pull the triggers. At least dodos
have some sort of bodily appendage they can use.

See, it's this sort of lack of reason which demonstrates why Europe
thinks its citizens don't need guns. They're too stoopid to know which
part makes the gun go BOOM.

The Prophet Lilith

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: ebear@MI$direct.ca (bipolar bear)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, May 3, 1999 3:37 PM
Message-ID: <ebear-ya02408000R0305991237500001@news.direct.ca>

In article <7gjn0o$dgf@woody.wcnet.org>, "William Price" <absent@wcnet.org>
wrote:
snip

>Tragic, yes, but so is a baby bear getting eaten by a badger. That's
nature for you.

This is an egregious slight against badgers! Badgers are humble creatures
who eat mostly worms and grubs. I've never even heard of a badger eating a
bear cub. You made that up, didn't you? Didn't you!

> You sound as if you lack confidence. Perhaps a martial arts course would
> improve your self-esteem, and then you woould be certain through education
> and physical tournament training (not to mention increased Chi) that you
> wouldn't need to lose your cool. nine times out of ten the criminal is more
> frightened than you are. Barring drugs, perhaps.
>
Confidence? Bob damnit I'm a Subgenius! I have TOO MUCH confidence.
Speaking of drugs, I was robbed at gunpoint once by a crazy junkie. He
got $60 dollars.
As for marital arts... welllll... I've been happily married for 13 years
now so I must be doing something right;)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: bmguth@mtco.com (Reverend AmphibiousAssault)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, May 3, 1999 3:56 PM
Message-ID: <MPG.1197c9665d6094f9989690@news.mtco.com>

In article <372D8152.19EF02DA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
says...
> 5. If the GUNS had guns, they could defend themselves if anyone tried
> to circumvent the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that
> timeless, PERFECT piece of work!!!!!1!

OK, Pete....you finally pushed one of my buttons.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you the Constitution is perfect. I
don't believe it is. Neither did the founding fathers. That's why they
included a system for amending it. But until such time as the
Constitution is so amended, we USAer's DO have a constitutional right to
own firearms.

And don't forget, it's because of YOUR fucking country that we needed
them in the first place.

-Amph
--
Reverend AmphibiousAssault
Church of the Inevitable Revolution
"History Ends Right Now!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 6:08 AM
Message-ID: <372ED51B.29777C99@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Popess Lilith von Fraumench wrote:
>
> See, it's this sort of lack of reason which demonstrates why Europe
> thinks its citizens don't need guns. They're too stoopid to know which
> part makes the gun go BOOM.
>

YM "BOUM" HTH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 6:55 AM
Message-ID: <372EE03C.71B539CE@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Reverend AmphibiousAssault wrote:
>
> In article <372D8152.19EF02DA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> says...
>
> > 5. If the GUNS had guns, they could defend themselves if anyone tried
> > to circumvent the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
> > that timeless, PERFECT piece of work!!!!!1!
>
> OK, Pete....you finally pushed one of my buttons.
>
> I'm not going to sit here and tell you the Constitution is perfect. I
> don't believe it is. Neither did the founding fathers. That's why they
> included a system for amending it. But until such time as the
> Constitution is so amended, we USAer's DO have a constitutional right to
> own firearms.
>

But I have sat here and been told that it is perfect. There are people
that believe that. There are people that actually worship the DESIGN on
a piece of material, and don't want anyone to BURN any material that
displays that design. There are almost a trillion ways to be annoyingly
fucked-up, and I haven't got TIME to BE more than a few of them.

> And don't forget, it's because of YOUR fucking country that we needed
> them in the first place.

So the fuck what? Ever heard of demobilisation? The USA has had
self-government for 200+ years. If you can't cope with it, drop us a
line and we'll send off Chris Patten pronto.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: gremlin@fakedomain.con (Birmingham Gremlin)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: Waiting on DNS info from my new service provider
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 11:40 AM
Message-ID: <slrn7iu8o9.28g.gremlin@maggie.uncg.edu>

On Mon, 03 May 1999 12:37:50 -0800, bipolar bear <ebear@MI$direct.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>This is an egregious slight against badgers! Badgers are humble creatures
>who eat mostly worms and grubs. I've never even heard of a badger eating a
>bear cub. You made that up, didn't you? Didn't you!

Ssshhhh, you might invoke Grantland with all this badger talk.

--
Birmingham Gremlin
For a good time visit: http://www.xenu.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "William Price" <absent@wcnet.org>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 2:44 PM
Message-ID: <7gnikj$9s1@woody.wcnet.org>

bipolar bear <ebear@MI$direct.ca> wrote in message
news:ebear-ya02408000R0305991237500001@news.direct.ca...
> In article <7gjn0o$dgf@woody.wcnet.org>, "William Price"
<absent@wcnet.org>
> wrote:

> This is an egregious slight against badgers! Badgers are humble creatures
> who eat mostly worms and grubs. I've never even heard of a badger eating
a
> bear cub. You made that up, didn't you? Didn't you!
>

Not that Badgers DO...Just that they CAN.
I think I was confusing them with woverines, however.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 2:59 PM
Message-ID: <geoff.bronner-ya02408000R0405991559430001@news.dartmouth.edu>

In article <372C1731.465E@tanstaafl.cc>, David@tanstaafl.cc wrote:
>
>I don't know, why don't you tell us? When concealed carry laws are
>passed viloent crime rates go DOWN. Thugs have an understandable
>reluctance to mug someone who is likely armed as well or better than
>they. Vermont, the state that I live in, has the least restrictive gun
>laws in the country

Except in the state capital and the city of Rutland. In one case the
politicians are protecting their own butts and in the other case the city
of Rutland actually has a crime rate.

>we alos have the LOWEST crime rate in the country.

Plus a damn low population density compared to the surrounding states.

>The argument could be made that our crime rate is so low because of the
>rural nature of the State,

I think this is a good argument too. Crime doesn't pay in small towns.
People notice things out of place more quickly and are willing to do
something about it. Maybe people are just nicer in rural areas?

>however we also have an extremely low
>percentage of LEO's. You could call the police if someone where breaking
>into your home and raping your wife, or you could shoot them. With a 60
>minute (at least) response time from the State Police which would you
>choose?

My paranoid side would like having a gun around if I had no neighbors
within a mile of the house. If some stranger comes up the driveway I'd want
an option.

>One more thing to think about, imagine for a moment a Kosovo where all
>of the people had guns and were willing to use them. Probably wouldn't
>have been such one-sided ethnic cleansing would there?

Depends on if NATO was around still. If I was oppressing people who had a
lot of small arms I'd stand off and pound them with artillery and air
strikes. Fat lot of good a 9mm handgun does against that.

Besides... it seems like everyone in the Balkans does have a gun!

-Geoff
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>

The Third Millennium does not begin until January 1, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: bmguth@mtco.com (Reverend AmphibiousAssault)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 4:58 PM
Message-ID: <MPG.1199297261257604989691@news.mtco.com>

In article <372EE03C.71B539CE@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
says...

> But I have sat here and been told that it is perfect. There are people
> that believe that. There are people that actually worship the DESIGN on
> a piece of material, and don't want anyone to BURN any material that
> displays that design. There are almost a trillion ways to be annoyingly
> fucked-up, and I haven't got TIME to BE more than a few of them.

Well, Pete, all I can say is that I think the Constitution is one of the
finer documents ever written, and every now and then, I do get a bit
sentimental when I see Old Glory. BUT...anyone who worships either one
of them like you mention above, ought to be have the constitution rammed
up his ass, and a piss-soaked flag shoved down his throat, because he's a
fucking PINK.

> > And don't forget, it's because of YOUR fucking country that we needed
> > them in the first place.
>
> So the fuck what? Ever heard of demobilisation? The USA has had
> self-government for 200+ years. If you can't cope with it, drop us a
> line and we'll send off Chris Patten pronto.

Please, don't send us anything...I'm still enjoying the absence of your
late Princess on our fair shores.

-Amph

--
Reverend AmphibiousAssault
Church of the Inevitable Revolution
"History Ends Right Now!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: bmguth@mtco.com (Reverend AmphibiousAssault)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 5:01 PM
Message-ID: <MPG.11992a28443fc440989692@news.mtco.com>

In article <geoff.bronner-
ya02408000R0405991559430001@news.dartmouth.edu>,
geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu says...
> People notice things out of place more quickly and are willing to do
> something about it. Maybe people are just nicer in rural areas?

Having spent most of my life in predominantly rural areas, I don't think
the people are that much nicer here. It's just that if you fuck up,
EVERYONE is going to know it, so most people don't cause much trouble.

Occasionally, the herd instinct has some positive side effects. Quiet
small towns are one of them.

-Amph
--
Reverend AmphibiousAssault
Church of the Inevitable Revolution
"History Ends Right Now!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 8:07 PM
Message-ID: <040519991807440989%p-lil@ZubJenius.com>

In article <372EE03C.71B539CE@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
<petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> There are almost a trillion ways to be annoyingly
> fucked-up, and I haven't got TIME to BE more than a few of them.

It's amazing how many more ways to be fucked-up can be accomodated if
only you planned your calendar in advance. Think of it, Pete, you could
be an American on Tuesdays, and on Saturday night you can be Belgian!
But you have to manage your time better, first.

The Prophet Lilith

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 8:05 PM
Message-ID: <040519991805131891%p-lil@ZubJenius.com>

In article <372ED51B.29777C99@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
<petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Popess Lilith von Fraumench wrote:
> >
> > See, it's this sort of lack of reason which demonstrates why Europe
> > thinks its citizens don't need guns. They're too stoopid to know which
> > part makes the gun go BOOM.
> >
>
> YM "BOUM" HTH.

Keep your heathen theology to yourself, thanks.

The Prophet Lilith

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: David Tanstaafl <David@tanstaafl.cc>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: David@tanstaafl.cc
Date: Wed, May 5, 1999 1:20 AM
Message-ID: <372FE338.72A5@tanstaafl.cc>

Geoffrey V. Bronner wrote:
>
> In article <372C1731.465E@tanstaafl.cc>, David@tanstaafl.cc wrote:
> >
> >I don't know, why don't you tell us? When concealed carry laws are
> >passed viloent crime rates go DOWN. Thugs have an understandable
> >reluctance to mug someone who is likely armed as well or better than
> >they. Vermont, the state that I live in, has the least restrictive gun
> >laws in the country
>
> Except in the state capital and the city of Rutland. In one case the
> politicians are protecting their own butts and in the other case the city
> of Rutland actually has a crime rate.

Rutland and Barre both repealed their ordinances restricting *loaded*
weapons. Montpelier kept theirs mainly because the city council held
their vote on the matter just after the shooting in Littleton. In all
cases the ordinances in question only apply to carrying the weapon
loaded. This is in direct violation of the Vt. State constitution and a
state law specifically prohibiting municipalities from restricting a
citizen's right to carry arms.

> >we also have the LOWEST crime rate in the country.
>
> Plus a damn low population density compared to the surrounding states.

Already addressed below.

> >The argument could be made that our crime rate is so low because of the
> >rural nature of the State,
>
> I think this is a good argument too. Crime doesn't pay in small towns.
> People notice things out of place more quickly and are willing to do
> something about it. Maybe people are just nicer in rural areas?

True but not true, people are more willing to step in and help others.
Yet how likely are you to notice someone invading your neighbor's home
when you can't even see his house? I wouldn't say nicer, just more
respectful.

> >however we also have an extremely low
> >percentage of LEO's. You could call the police if someone where breaking
> >into your home and raping your wife, or you could shoot them. With a 60
> >minute (at least) response time from the State Police which would you
> >choose?
>
> My paranoid side would like having a gun around if I had no neighbors
> within a mile of the house. If some stranger comes up the driveway I'd want
> an option.

No argument from me, I *do* have that option.

> >One more thing to think about, imagine for a moment a Kosovo where all
> >of the people had guns and were willing to use them. Probably wouldn't
> >have been such one-sided ethnic cleansing would there?
>
> Depends on if NATO was around still. If I was oppressing people who had a
> lot of small arms I'd stand off and pound them with artillery and air
> strikes. Fat lot of good a 9mm handgun does against that.

This is a valid point, but I'd still rather have the guns than not.

> Besides... it seems like everyone in the Balkans does have a gun!

It appears that way, but how many of the Albanians are actually fighting
back? I say the international community should tell the refugees that
they have two choices. Starve in no-man's land or fight their way back
home. We'll provide weapons and air support, the rest is up to them.
Rev. Moxie
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Richard Tucker <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 4, 1999 11:02 PM
Message-ID: <372FC2BE.2861@worldnet.att.net>

Geoffrey V. Bronner wrote:
>

>
> My paranoid side would like having a gun around if I had no neighbors
> within a mile of the house. If some stranger comes up the driveway I'd want
> an option.
>

Glazer frangible ammunition. Stops the perp, leaves the windows and
walls intact... and it doesn't even run down the battery!

> >One more thing to think about, imagine for a moment a Kosovo where all
> >of the people had guns and were willing to use them. Probably wouldn't
> >have been such one-sided ethnic cleansing would there?

That would depend on whether the Kosovars had 'gun control', ie a 5"
group at 50 yards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, May 5, 1999 6:45 AM
Message-ID: <37302F3D.59454CF9@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Popess Lilith von Fraumench wrote:
>
> It's amazing how many more ways to be fucked-up can be accomodated if
> only you planned your calendar in advance. Think of it, Pete, you could
> be an American on Tuesdays, and on Saturday night you can be Belgian!
> But you have to manage your time better, first.
>

I would like to make it clear that when I said "fucked-up", I did not
actually mean "dull".
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: nospamum@radix.net (Mumthra)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Reply-To: nospamum@radix.net
Date: Wed, May 5, 1999 2:09 PM
Message-ID: <373a965a.416200872@news1.radix.net>

On Wed, 05 May 1999 12:45:01 +0100, Peter Hipwell
<petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

:Popess Lilith von Fraumench wrote:
:>
:> It's amazing how many more ways to be fucked-up can be accomodated if
:> only you planned your calendar in advance. Think of it, Pete, you could
:> be an American on Tuesdays, and on Saturday night you can be Belgian!
:> But you have to manage your time better, first.
:
:I would like to make it clear that when I said "fucked-up", I did not
:actually mean "dull".

Of course not! Dull would be not a subset of fucked-up-ed-ness.

I would very much like to participate in this discussion, but it does
not include any aspects of linoleum. BUT! Linoleum can be both
fucked-up and dull, dull in spots and shiny in others, partially
fucked up in a shiny way and in a dull way edgeing toward
fucked-up-hood. Even shiny it is dull and possibly it is fucked-up in
its very nature of being a thing on which to skid and not eat. THeRe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usenet is just like FAMILY!
There's always that one ugly cousin between you and the buffet table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "König PreuBe, GmbH" <bbombere@erols.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, May 5, 1999 2:11 PM
Message-ID: <373097C6.D6859918@erols.com>

Mumthra wrote:

> On Wed, 05 May 1999 12:45:01 +0100, Peter Hipwell
> <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> :Popess Lilith von Fraumench wrote:
> :>
> :> It's amazing how many more ways to be fucked-up can be accomodated if
> :> only you planned your calendar in advance. Think of it, Pete, you could
> :> be an American on Tuesdays, and on Saturday night you can be Belgian!
> :> But you have to manage your time better, first.
> :
> :I would like to make it clear that when I said "fucked-up", I did not
> :actually mean "dull".
>
> Of course not! Dull would be not a subset of fucked-up-ed-ness.
>
> I would very much like to participate in this discussion, but it does
> not include any aspects of linoleum. BUT! Linoleum can be both
> fucked-up and dull, dull in spots and shiny in others, partially
> fucked up in a shiny way and in a dull way edgeing toward
> fucked-up-hood. Even shiny it is dull and possibly it is fucked-up in
> its very nature of being a thing on which to skid and not eat. THeRe.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Usenet is just like FAMILY!
> There's always that one ugly cousin between you and the buffet table.

Wull, like I'd RILLY want to talk to some fuked-up
linoleum-butt suburban hausfrau with a boil
on her butt named Piewacket! Like, duh!

--
To get random text files, put text files into a folder called
"Random Texts" in your Random Text text file folder text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: klink <klink@wilmington.net>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, May 5, 1999 7:38 PM
Message-ID: <3730E478.932EA704@wilmington.net>

European guns have rotten, crooked triggers...

klink
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "König PreuBe, GmbH" <bbombere@erols.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, May 5, 1999 9:42 PM
Message-ID: <37310191.BFE5531D@erols.com>

klink wrote:

Well, their fingers are different!

--
To get random text files, put text files into a folder called
"Random Texts" in your Random Text text file folder text.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Popess Lilith von Fraumench <p-lil@ZubJenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, May 6, 1999 12:09 AM
Message-ID: <050519992209081927%p-lil@ZubJenius.com>

In article <37302F3D.59454CF9@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
<petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Popess Lilith von Fraumench wrote:
> >
> > It's amazing how many more ways to be fucked-up can be accomodated if
> > only you planned your calendar in advance. Think of it, Pete, you could
> > be an American on Tuesdays, and on Saturday night you can be Belgian!
> > But you have to manage your time better, first.
> >
>
> I would like to make it clear that when I said "fucked-up", I did not
> actually mean "dull".

Point taken, but you still have to plan if you going to be, oh,
Pakistani.

The Prophet Lilith

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: "William Price" <absent@wcnet.org>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, May 6, 1999 2:15 AM
Message-ID: <7grfhv$ou3@woody.wcnet.org>

klink <klink@wilmington.net> wrote in message
news:3730E478.932EA704@wilmington.net...
> Popess Lilith von Fraumench wrote:
> >
> > See, it's this sort of lack of reason which demonstrates why Europe
> > thinks its citizens don't need guns. They're too stoopid to know which
> > part makes the gun go BOOM.
>
> European guns have rotten, crooked triggers...
>
> klink

I find the MAc-90 and the SKS to both have fine triggers enough to get the
job done.
In fact, commie guns are swell. Cheap, too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Edwin L Buck <ebuck@Bayou.UH.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Fri, May 7, 1999 11:14 AM
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.990507104452.16588A-100000@Bayou.UH.EDU>

On Tue, 4 May 1999, Peter Hipwell wrote:

> Reverend AmphibiousAssault wrote:
> >
> > In article <372D8152.19EF02DA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
> > says...
> >
> > > 5. If the GUNS had guns, they could defend themselves if anyone tried
> > > to circumvent the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
> > > that timeless, PERFECT piece of work!!!!!1!
> >
> > OK, Pete....you finally pushed one of my buttons.
> >
> > I'm not going to sit here and tell you the Constitution is perfect. I
> > don't believe it is. Neither did the founding fathers. That's why they
> > included a system for amending it. But until such time as the
> > Constitution is so amended, we USAer's DO have a constitutional right to
> > own firearms.
> >
>
> But I have sat here and been told that it is perfect. There are people
> that believe that. There are people that actually worship the DESIGN on
> a piece of material, and don't want anyone to BURN any material that
> displays that design. There are almost a trillion ways to be annoyingly
> fucked-up, and I haven't got TIME to BE more than a few of them.
>
> > And don't forget, it's because of YOUR fucking country that we needed
> > them in the first place.
>
> So the fuck what? Ever heard of demobilisation? The USA has had
> self-government for 200+ years. If you can't cope with it, drop us a
> line and we'll send off Chris Patten pronto.
>
What in the hell is perfect anyway? I might say it's perfect because it
is a general guideline open to interpertation. Others will say perfection
is a specific set of rules that cover all possibilities in a fair and
rational manner. Perfect is a matter of opinion, so if someone says it's
perfect, they cannot be wrong. (same goes for the imperfect crowd)

What is does gurantee is the right to bear arms. There's a deep rooted
cultural aspect that many foreigners miss when they see this right
defended so viciously. That is that the pre-US was opressed, taxed,
disreguarded, and ignored until they took arms into their own hands and
fought their (back then) government. The founders were unsure that the
Constitution would work (All previous democracies were short lived and
brutal) So they guranteed the right for all citizens to bear arms AND
MAINTAIN MILITIAS.

Be glad that the Colorado incident was not a militia attacking a public
school. Be sad that public grade and high schools are the best place to
learn about social alienasation. (excuse the spelling)

Truth is that there is little that the Constitution actually protects.
But restricting legal gun ownership is the government not paying heed to
its own charter. The last major battle like this one was over the first
amendment. Those who have studied the McCarthy period will remember how
innocent people were tried and convicted (and sometimes even executed) for
holding opposing views. It was a simple scenario that goes like this:

Soon to be victim: I believe that the US shouldn't get involved in foreign
wars.

Vicious politician: We must supress the evil Communist factions within our
borders which subvert and cripple the US. These
devils corrupt our children and weaken our defenses
allowing the Red facists to overthrow our
constitution.

Judge (who fears his own political career): You are hearby convicted of
crimes against the US. Your treasonous activities in
the sale of national secrets is dispicable. Your
sentence is death.

Victim: What secrets? Sold to whom?

Hey it took a lot of fighting to undo the damage casued by McCarthyisim.
Don't get all stupid and decide to rewrite the Constitution on a whim.
Guns are not just for high school punks who obtain them illegally. They
are for sportsmen, hunters, and people who desire to protect themselves.

Oh yeah, if you want the police to protect you, remember this. In rural
areas it can take nearly an hour for an officer to respond to an emergency
call. And if you want to make guns totally illegal, remember this. It
wouldn't change or prevent anything like the Colorado incident. After
all, those boys didn't have legal (registered) possession of any of those
guns.

Enough said.

Edwin
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: geoff.bronner@dartmouth.edu (Geoffrey V. Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Fri, May 7, 1999 3:37 PM
Message-ID: <geoff.bronner-ya02408000R0705991637000001@news.dartmouth.edu>

In article <372FE338.72A5@tanstaafl.cc>, David@tanstaafl.cc wrote:
>>
>> I think this is a good argument too. Crime doesn't pay in small towns.
>> People notice things out of place more quickly and are willing to do
>> something about it. Maybe people are just nicer in rural areas?
>
>True but not true, people are more willing to step in and help others.
>Yet how likely are you to notice someone invading your neighbor's home
>when you can't even see his house? I wouldn't say nicer, just more
>respectful.

Good point... this is the potential downside to being REALLY rural. I
recall a news story where a house burned down in a snow storm and the owner
died but nobody even knew about it until they missed some appointment.

>> My paranoid side would like having a gun around if I had no neighbors
>> within a mile of the house. If some stranger comes up the driveway I'd want
>> an option.
>
>No argument from me, I *do* have that option.

I live in a building with lots of neighbors who look out for each other and
a police station across the street (in semi-rural New Hampshire). So I
haven't felt a need for that option. Even if I did I would be reluctant to
keep a firearm in a rented apartment. I'd have to own a house or condo
where I could have better control of who has a key to the door.

Plus my employer does not permit firearms at work so even if I wanted to I
can't carry one.

>> Besides... it seems like everyone in the Balkans does have a gun!
>
>It appears that way, but how many of the Albanians are actually fighting
>back? I say the international community should tell the refugees that
>they have two choices. Starve in no-man's land or fight their way back
>home. We'll provide weapons and air support, the rest is up to them.

Sounds good... someone should send the Green Berets in to train the KLA.

-Geoff
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>

The Third Millennium does not begin until January 1, 2001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, May 9, 1999 7:12 AM
Message-ID: <37357BB9.51E1A3BE@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Edwin L Buck wrote:
>

[The Constitution]

>
> What is does gurantee is the right to bear arms. There's a deep rooted
> cultural aspect that many foreigners miss when they see this right
> defended so viciously. That is that the pre-US was opressed, taxed,
> disreguarded, and ignored until they took arms into their own hands and
> fought their (back then) government. The founders were unsure that the
> Constitution would work (All previous democracies were short lived and
> brutal) So they guranteed the right for all citizens to bear arms AND
> MAINTAIN MILITIAS.
>
> Be glad that the Colorado incident was not a militia attacking a public
> school. Be sad that public grade and high schools are the best place to
> learn about social alienasation. (excuse the spelling)
>
> Truth is that there is little that the Constitution actually protects.
> But restricting legal gun ownership is the government not paying heed to
> its own charter.

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem
them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They
ascribe to the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose
what they did to be beyond amendment. [...] I know also, that laws and
institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human
mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions
change with the change of circumstances, institutions must change
also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to
wear still the coat which fitted him as a boy, as civilized society to
remain ever under the regime of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: mbaranczak@FUCK-SPAM-earthlink.net (Mike Baranczak)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Mon, May 10, 1999 10:54 PM
Message-ID: <mbaranczak-ya02408000R1005992354540001@news.earthlink.net>

In article <37357BB9.51E1A3BE@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
<petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Edwin L Buck wrote:
> >
>
> [The Constitution]
>
> >
> > What is does gurantee is the right to bear arms. There's a deep rooted
> > cultural aspect that many foreigners miss when they see this right
> > defended so viciously. That is that the pre-US was opressed, taxed,
> > disreguarded, and ignored until they took arms into their own hands and
> > fought their (back then) government. The founders were unsure that the
> > Constitution would work (All previous democracies were short lived and
> > brutal) So they guranteed the right for all citizens to bear arms AND
> > MAINTAIN MILITIAS.
> >
> > Be glad that the Colorado incident was not a militia attacking a public
> > school. Be sad that public grade and high schools are the best place to
> > learn about social alienasation. (excuse the spelling)
> >
> > Truth is that there is little that the Constitution actually protects.
> > But restricting legal gun ownership is the government not paying heed to
> > its own charter.
>
>
> "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem
> them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They
> ascribe to the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose
> what they did to be beyond amendment. [...] I know also, that laws and
> institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human
> mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
> discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions
> change with the change of circumstances, institutions must change
> also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to
> wear still the coat which fitted him as a boy, as civilized society to
> remain ever under the regime of their barbarous ancestors."
> -- Thomas Jefferson

True, but irrelevant. The US Constitution specifically allows for
modifications (and it has been thus modified on many occasions...)
I'm not too crazy about the Second Amendment, but the fact is, it's still
a part of the US Constitution... And what the hell's the point of having a
constitution if the government refuses to abide by it? And don't even get
me started on the other 9/10 of the Bill of Rights... Fuck me, if they want
to outlaw Slack, they should just come right out and say it.

- MB
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 11, 1999 10:01 AM
Message-ID: <3738463B.5B4B227D@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Mike Baranczak wrote:

[snip]

> I'm not too crazy about the Second Amendment, but the fact is, it's
> still a part of the US Constitution... And what the hell's the point of
> having a constitution if the government refuses to abide by it?

Fine, it exists. So what are you arguing about?

Is the government refusing to abide by it? On what interpretation? How
do
you decide which interpretation is correct?

My only point was:

It's just plain bonkers to support the existence of a law on the basis
that it exists. I can understand and respect arguments that guns have
uses, that there are advantages in possessing them, even where I
disagree
e.g. "Hitler couldn't ever have got power in the US, because we have
lotsa guns! IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!". On the basis of a good argument, you
can support such-and-such a law: but its existence is not, or should
not,
be self-justifying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: mbaranczak@FUCK-SPAM-earthlink.net (Mike Baranczak)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 11, 1999 6:41 PM
Message-ID: <mbaranczak-ya02408000R1105991941250001@news.earthlink.net>

In article <3738463B.5B4B227D@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
<petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Mike Baranczak wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I'm not too crazy about the Second Amendment, but the fact is, it's
> > still a part of the US Constitution... And what the hell's the point of
> > having a constitution if the government refuses to abide by it?
>
> Fine, it exists. So what are you arguing about?
>
> Is the government refusing to abide by it? On what interpretation? How
> do
> you decide which interpretation is correct?
>
> My only point was:
>
> It's just plain bonkers to support the existence of a law on the basis
> that it exists. I can understand and respect arguments that guns have
> uses, that there are advantages in possessing them, even where I
> disagree
> e.g. "Hitler couldn't ever have got power in the US, because we have
> lotsa guns! IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!". On the basis of a good argument, you
> can support such-and-such a law: but its existence is not, or should
> not,
> be self-justifying.

The Second Amendment states pretty clearly that Americans have the right
to carry weapons, and that the govt may not fuck with that right. No, I'm
not supporting the EXISTENCE of that particular piece of law - matter of
fact, I wouldn't mind if they repealed it. I'm just saying that the people
who write and enforce the laws should, at the very least, respect the laws
that are currently on the books. I, of course, have absolutely zero respect
for the law, but that's cool because I'm special and I have the Divine
X-cuse, and the world DOES owe me a living, it's just getting to be a real
bitch trying to collect that debt... But I digress.
Shit, man, what the hell are we doing wasting our time on this? The whole
argument is purely academic. The whole scene is just a never-ending monkey
brawl... Don't get too close to it or you'll get a big tree branch upside
your head, or run for office, or both. And just because the monkeys are now
starting to make spears and flint axes doesn't change the basic rules of
the game, it just gives us reason to be a bit more cautious when we go out
in public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Edwin L Buck <ebuck@Bayou.UH.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Tue, May 11, 1999 11:15 PM
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95q.990511224536.91B-100000@Bayou.UH.EDU>

On Tue, 11 May 1999, Peter Hipwell wrote:

All (gun owners and gun haters) would agree that the interpertation of the
right to bear arms has grown stricter in its implementation over the
passing years. After all, who ever heard of a law that allowed for more
easily obtainable firearms?

> My only point was:
>
> It's just plain bonkers to support the existence of a law on the basis
> that it exists.

As long as some fruitcake dosen't confuse support and obey, I agree.

> I can understand and respect arguments that guns have
> uses, that there are advantages in possessing them, even where I
> disagree
> e.g. "Hitler couldn't ever have got power in the US, because we have
> lotsa guns! IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!". On the basis of a good argument, you
> can support such-and-such a law: but its existence is not, or should
> not,
> be self-justifying.

Unfortunately, existance of a law is self-justifying. Even a bad law.
Ignorance of its existance is not justification for breaking the law. The
only reason that a law is enforced is that it exists. Aside from the
obovious (you can't enforce it if it doesn't exist) there is a more
relevant issue here.

People (at one time or another) found a reasonable justification for the
passage of this (or any) law. If the law is outdated, too bad. Every law
is outdated because they are only created after it is obovious that the
law is needed. If the US ever overturns the 2nd ammendment of the
constitution, it too will soon be outdated. But that will not happen
until a reasonable justification for the removal of this law is found.
Although I have heard many arguments for the removal of the 2nd
ammendment, I have never heard a reasonable justification.

Most arguments revolve around the amount of crime committed with firearms.
This is a tiny fraction of the amount of crime that occurs without a
firearm. Also nearly every incident of fire-armed crime involves guns
which (under the current interpertation of the constitution) were not
protected by the 2nd ammendment. So changing it won't change the problem.

The other mainstream argument is that of children playing with guns (and
usually accidentally killing themselves) This is a clear case of
negligence on the part of the gun owner. It could be negligence to hide
the fire-arm, it could be negligence to unload the firearm, but the main
gripe of the NRA is that it is negligence to train children in the proper
use of the firearm. That's right! Too many kids see dad's gun as the
innocuous type that never seems to really kill anyone in GI Joe.

Ok, so why train kids when they can react with a Colorado Massacre repeat?
Well first, they won't desire to sneak into dad's hideaway when they
realize what a gun can really do. Second, if they do handle the gun, they
won't play around by pointing it at anyone. Truth is that more children
die in "gun play" a year than in the "Colorado Incident" Things like the
massacre in Colorado can only be prevented with parental guideance, and
too many parents push the responsibility of guideance onto the schools.

Would we be screaming about auto-control if the kids stole their parent's
truck and ran over the same number of people (with the same fatalities)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 7:10 AM
Message-ID: <37396FBC.F73A2F63@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Mike Baranczak wrote:
>
> In article <3738463B.5B4B227D@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, Peter Hipwell
> <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > My only point was:
> >
> > It's just plain bonkers to support the existence of a law on the basis
> > that it exists. I can understand and respect arguments that guns have
> > uses, that there are advantages in possessing them, even where I
> > disagree e.g. "Hitler couldn't ever have got power in the US, because
> > we have lotsa guns! IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!". On the basis of a good
> > argument, you can support such-and-such a law: but its existence is
> > not, or should not, be self-justifying.
>
> The Second Amendment states pretty clearly that Americans have the
> right to carry weapons, and that the govt may not fuck with that right.

Well, fine.

> No, I'm not supporting the EXISTENCE of that particular piece of law -
> matter of fact, I wouldn't mind if they repealed it. I'm just saying
> that the people who write and enforce the laws should, at the very
> least, respect the laws that are currently on the books.

As I said, it's entirely a matter of interpretation as to whether it
is being respected or not.

> Shit, man, what the hell are we doing wasting our time on this? The
> whole argument is purely academic.

Sometimes that gives a break from the normal run of scmeurlgh here.
Personally, I just get to that stage where granite-faced solid turgid
debate give me a hell of a lot more yaks than all the feeble attempts to
be wacky, zany and crazy by people without a humerus bone in their body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: The Colorado Massacre Why
From: Peter Hipwell <petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Wed, May 12, 1999 7:45 AM
Message-ID: <373977F9.57A3E7CE@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

Edwin L Buck wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Peter Hipwell wrote:
>
> > Mike Baranczak wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I'm not too crazy about the Second Amendment, but the fact is, it's
> > > still a part of the US Constitution... And what the hell's the point
> > > of having a constitution if the government refuses to abide by it?
> >
> > Fine, it exists. So what are you arguing about?
> >
> > Is the government refusing to abide by it? On what interpretation? How
> > do you decide which interpretation is correct?
>
> All (gun owners and gun haters) would agree that the interpertation of
> the right to bear arms has grown stricter in its implementation over the
> passing years. After all, who ever heard of a law that allowed for more
> easily obtainable firearms?
>

So does this mean that the government is refusing to abide by it, or
not?

> > My only point was:
> >
> > It's just plain bonkers to support the existence of a law on the basis
> > that it exists.
>
> As long as some fruitcake dosen't confuse support and obey, I agree.
>

Well, "obey" is another point. Seems to be that there have been and are
plenty of circumstances in which civil disobedience is justified.

> > I can understand and respect arguments that guns have
> > uses, that there are advantages in possessing them, even where I
> > disagree e.g. "Hitler couldn't ever have got power in the US, because
> > we have lotsa guns! IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE!". On the basis of a good
> > argument, you can support such-and-such a law: but its existence is
> > not, or should not, be self-justifying.
>
> Unfortunately, existance of a law is self-justifying. Even a bad law.
> Ignorance of its existance is not justification for breaking the law.
> The only reason that a law is enforced is that it exists.

If a law exists it may be enforced, sure. That doesn't mean it is a just
law; in this sense, it is not self-justifying.

You can't say: it exists, therefore it SHOULD exist.

> Aside from the obovious (you can't enforce it if it doesn't exist)
> there is a more relevant issue here.
>
> People (at one time or another) found a reasonable justification for the
> passage of this (or any) law. If the law is outdated, too bad.

Right. Where I originally started from was that maybe justifications
dating from that age are no longer valid. Maybe it is outdated. If those
reasons are outdated, what reasons are there here-and-now? Note I am not
arguing one way or the other about gun control. I just got the feeling
that there was a creepy element of ancestor-worship, an element
seemingly
embedded deep in the American psyche, in the argument that the status
quo must be defended because it is the status quo.

> Every law is outdated because they are only created after it is obovious
> that the law is needed. If the US ever overturns the 2nd ammendment of
> the constitution, it too will soon be outdated. But that will not
> happen until a reasonable justification for the removal of this law is
> found. Although I have heard many arguments for the removal of the 2nd
> ammendment, I have never heard a reasonable justification.

Well, fine. Does anyone want to persuade me that there would be
advantages in *introducing* liberalised gun ownership to the UK? To
justify the underlying philosophy, as it were. This would help me
get a tighter grip on the whole thing in terms of its basic formal
outline, the gestalt rationality underbellying this stance, as it were.

[snip gun arguments; this is ground too well explored]

> Would we be screaming about auto-control if the kids stole their
> parent's truck and ran over the same number of people (with the same
> fatalities)?

We should outlaw children, anyway.

Back to document index

Original file name: The Colorado Massacre Why

This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.