For All the Michael Moore Fans

[Chuck Harris]

John Larkin wrote:

That's the theory, I guess. Fact is, the average gun owner is more
likely to kill his own kids than a burgler. Damned kids are just
around the house a lot more than burglers.

John

That silly statistic is utter BS!

The actual report made by the American Medical Association,
was that if you have a gun in your home, you are 43 times more
likely to kill a friend, family, or someone you know than if you
don't have a gun in your home.

Consider that in the group of people they consider "friend, family,
or someone you know" are the following:

Your estranged spouse who beats you,
The mugger whose picture you saw in the paper,
The gang kids that hang on the corner,
The neighbor that threatens everybody about everything.
That strange guy that lives in 3B and gives everyone the willies,
The bully that prey's on your kids,
Your drug addicted brother that keeps breaking into your house.
The stalker from that date that didn't work out...
Your father who beats you and mom when he gets drunk,
Your father who rapes you regularly...

and also,

Accidents, suicides and murders.

and, of course, they also included people killed by methods other than guns.

What they didn't do, is say how many of these "killings" were justifiable,
and how many were not.

It is time to stop dragging that hideous piece of propaganda
out as fact.

-Chuck Harris

 

[Chuck Harris]

John Larkin wrote:

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there."


Rifles are good, because you can't conceal them very well. What would
old George think of 12-year olds running around with automatic
pistols, killing the kids from down the block?

John

He would think it was past time for their parents to realign
the kids attitudes.

-Chuck

OBTW, the dozen or so states that have concealed carry permits have
all seen a marked reduction in violent crimes of all types. They cases
of permit holders misusing their guns has been so small as to be
insignificant.

 

[Chuck Harris]

xray wrote:

So, I'm thinking, you guys who keep arms on the premisses to defend
against the dangerous enemys that are surrounding you, could perform a
public service by posting your addresses on the internet. The real
robbers could avoid your place (for safety) just by checking, and the
suicide guys could make an appointment to get shot. This could take a
lot of stress off of our legally appointed law inforcement folks. It
would also give you weapon holders a chance to see if you really are up
to using your rights when it comes right down to it. And if you can
actually shoot straight when you need to.

Whaddaya think? Sounds like a win win to me.

I think it would be more useful for you guys that believe so
firmly in gun control to post signs in front of your houses saying

"This is a GUN FREE HOUSE"

-Chuck

The US is one of the only countries where more burglaries happen
when houses ares empty, then when people are home. The burglars
don't want to get shot!

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Chuck Harris <cf-NO-SPAM-
harris@erols.com> wrote (in <40ebf984$0$3077$61fed72c@news.rcn.com&gt
about 'For All the Michael Moore Fans', on Wed, 7 Jul 2004:

John Larkin wrote:




Rifles are good, because you can't conceal them very well. What would
old George think of 12-year olds running around with automatic
pistols, killing the kids from down the block?

John


He would think it was past time for their parents to realign
the kids attitudes.

How terribly non-PC. Parents have no right to restrict their children's
self-expression. They should be left to limit each other's self-
expression by summary execution. (;-)

-Chuck

OBTW, the dozen or so states that have concealed carry permits have
all seen a marked reduction in violent crimes of all types. They cases
of permit holders misusing their guns has been so small as to be
insignificant.

No doubt. This is the up-side of gun ownership. One of the down-sides is
that if a permit-owner does go mad, he/she often kills many people, so
it makes big news.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:24:19 -0400, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:


"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there."


Rifles are good, because you can't conceal them very well. What would
old George think of 12-year olds running around with automatic
pistols, killing the kids from down the block?

John


He would think it was past time for their parents to realign
the kids attitudes.

-Chuck

OBTW, the dozen or so states that have concealed carry permits have
all seen a marked reduction in violent crimes of all types. They cases
of permit holders misusing their guns has been so small as to be
insignificant.

The class that suffers most from access to guns is adolescent males.
In my teens, I knew five guys who died: two in car crashes, one idiot
who cleaned car parts in gasoline near a water heater, and two
suicides by gun. My best friend in junior high, David Cruma, got into
an argument with his step-father, a state legislator, and picked up a
revolver and shot him. He then called his girlfriend, said goodbye,
and swallowed a bullet. At least he had the good sense to take a
lawyer out with him. I'm sure neither of the suicides would have
happened sucessfully without a gun being handy.

But hell, we have too many teenage males around already. Clumsy,
surly, and useless, most of them.

John

 

[Roger Gt]

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:40ebfd17$0$3073$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
:
: I think it would be more useful for you guys that believe so
: firmly in gun control to post signs in front of your houses
saying
:
: "This is a GUN FREE HOUSE"
: -Chuck
: The US is one of the only countries where more burglaries happen
: when houses ares empty, then when people are home. The burglars
: don't want to get shot!

This would certainly allow the criminals to only go where a
supporter lives for his /her booty! Save everyone a lot of worry
since the very people who wish to protect criminals would support
them! Seems fair!

 

[Roger Gt]

"Chuck Harris" <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote in message
news:40ebf984$0$3077$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
: -Chuck
:
: OBTW, the dozen or so states that have concealed carry permits
have
: all seen a marked reduction in violent crimes of all types.
They cases
: of permit holders misusing their guns has been so small as to be
: insignificant.

The number is 37 now! And growing.

 

[Roger Gt]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:YCyzWvDxlA7AFwAe@jmwa.demon.co.uk...
: I read in sci.electronics.design that Chuck Harris <cf-NO-SPAM-
: harris@erols.com> wrote (in
<40ebf984$0$3077$61fed72c@news.rcn.com&gt
: about 'For All the Michael Moore Fans', on Wed, 7 Jul 2004:
:
: >OBTW, the dozen or so states that have concealed carry permits
have
: >all seen a marked reduction in violent crimes of all types.
They cases
: >of permit holders misusing their guns has been so small as to
be
: >insignificant.
:
: No doubt. This is the up-side of gun ownership. One of the
down-sides is
: that if a permit-owner does go mad, he/she often kills many
people, so
: it makes big news.

Not a problem, democrats and other gun control freaks are unable
to pass the simple competency test.

 

[Roger Gt]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com>
wrote in message
news:045oe0hgtlgpu60mr8tpg5j1ng57auodk7@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 09:24:19 -0400, Chuck Harris
: >
: >OBTW, the dozen or so states that have concealed carry permits
have
: >all seen a marked reduction in violent crimes of all types.
They cases
: >of permit holders misusing their guns has been so small as to
be
: >insignificant.
:
: The class that suffers most from access to guns is adolescent
males.
: In my teens, I knew five guys who died: two in car crashes, one
idiot
: who cleaned car parts in gasoline near a water heater, and two
: suicides by gun. My best friend in junior high, David Cruma, got
into
: an argument with his step-father, a state legislator, and picked
up a
: revolver and shot him. He then called his girlfriend, said
goodbye,
: and swallowed a bullet. At least he had the good sense to take a
: lawyer out with him. I'm sure neither of the suicides would have
: happened successfully without a gun being handy.

It WOULD have been messy to use a kitchen knife like they do in
England, or an Ax like Lizzy Borden used. When the decision is
made, the way is found! At least he didn't go crash head first
into a passing family on a Sunday drive!


: But hell, we have too many teenage males around already. Clumsy,
: surly, and useless, most of them.

Until they enlist in the military, after which even democrats cry
over the loss of even one!

BTW: with your sick attitude, how DID you survive?

 

[Chuck Harris]

John Larkin wrote:

I'm sure neither of the suicides would have

happened sucessfully without a gun being handy.

I'm sure that you are wrong. Japan has the highest suicide rate in
the world... and no legal gun ownership. How *DO* they do it?

-Chuck Harris

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:47:36 GMT, "Roger Gt" <not@here.net> wrote:

BTW: with your sick attitude, how DID you survive?

By thinking. They died by not thinking.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:55:49 -0400, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

I'm sure neither of the suicides would have
happened sucessfully without a gun being handy.

I'm sure that you are wrong. Japan has the highest suicide rate in
the world... and no legal gun ownership. How *DO* they do it?

-Chuck Harris

Well, David probably wouldn't have been able to kill the senator with
his bare hands (the old fart was BIG) so the whole thing likely would
have ended up in shouting or scuffling.

There's no way we're going to change the gun situation in this
country, but if you have teenagers around the house, especially males,
keep the guns locked up.

John

 

[Chuck Harris]

John Larkin wrote:

I'm sure that you are wrong. Japan has the highest suicide rate in
the world... and no legal gun ownership. How *DO* they do it?

-Chuck Harris


Well, David probably wouldn't have been able to kill the senator with
his bare hands (the old fart was BIG) so the whole thing likely would
have ended up in shouting or scuffling.

A piddling swing with a baseball bat to his head would do the trick
just fine. We should outlaw baseball bats.

There's no way we're going to change the gun situation in this
country, but if you have teenagers around the house, especially males,
keep the guns locked up.

Or, you could teach your kids what guns are all about, and make them
competent. You could teach your kids that people don't come back from
being dead like they do in the movies. You could teach your kids moral
values. Nah! Too much like work! Go back to your TV.

-Chuck

 

[John Miller]

John Larkin wrote:

Well, David probably wouldn't have been able to kill the senator with
his bare hands (the old fart was BIG) so the whole thing likely would
have ended up in shouting or scuffling.

You seem to be conveniently overlooking edged weapons and clubs.

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

Give me a Plumber's friend the size of the Pittsburgh dome, and a place to
stand, and I will drain the world.

 

[Roger Gt]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com>
wrote in message
news:4teoe05eu378qq4kbnphe312pqu9ks9or8@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 13:55:49 -0400, Chuck Harris
: <cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:
:
: >John Larkin wrote:
: > I'm sure neither of the suicides would have
: >> happened sucessfully without a gun being handy.

I notice you have a problem with the word "successfully" No
spelling checker?

: >I'm sure that you are wrong. Japan has the highest suicide
rate in
: >the world... and no legal gun ownership. How *DO* they do it?
: >-Chuck Harris
:
: Well, David probably wouldn't have been able to kill the senator
with
: his bare hands (the old fart was BIG) so the whole thing likely
would
: have ended up in shouting or scuffling.

I was taught in army hand to hand combat training that a persons
size is a disadvantage, and it is very easy to kill a person (or
dog) with your bare hands. I found it much easier to control my
temper after that revelation, knowing how to kill so easily may be
a problem if I was not in full control. It is too easy to kill
with any incidental weapon, like scissors, broomstick, hat pin or
ice pick, electric cord, or bare hands! A gun just makes it
easier to avoid being hurt yourself. Levels the playing field!

: There's no way we're going to change the gun situation in this
: country, but if you have teenagers around the house, especially
males,
: keep the guns locked up.
: John

Or teach them the proper way to handle guns like this country has
for 16 generations? I did, no problems, I am teaching my
grandchildren, also no problems! A friend used to teach Boyscouts
gun safety, none of them (Several hundreds) were ever involved in
an incident with a gun. To impart knowledge is a powerful weapon
against ignorance!

I belong to a historic re-enactment group, who fight in armor with
swords. No one has ever had more than a scratch due to the armor
shifting under impact during an attack with a two pound
"star-fire" fighting sword. Yet that same weapon could easily
behead a person with one swing. Knowing the proper manner to
handle a weapon makes it safe!

 

[Steve Sousa]

"Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast DOT net> wrote in message
news:v5OdnfwklLcm6nbdRVn_iw@comcast.com...

The problem here that you are overlooking is,
if they take MY guns away, that drug dealer
will still have his. He doesn't get them the

My understanding is:
In a life or dead situation, if you shot that dealer and live, you die
anyway. Am i wrong?

Greetings

Steve Sousa

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:24:35 -0400, Chuck Harris
<cf-NO-SPAM-harris@erols.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

I'm sure that you are wrong. Japan has the highest suicide rate in
the world... and no legal gun ownership. How *DO* they do it?

-Chuck Harris


Well, David probably wouldn't have been able to kill the senator with
his bare hands (the old fart was BIG) so the whole thing likely would
have ended up in shouting or scuffling.

A piddling swing with a baseball bat to his head would do the trick
just fine. We should outlaw baseball bats.

I can only cite my personal experience (since nobody will believe
statistics when they contradict his prejudices):

Two guys I knew, dead from self-inflicted gunshots

One murder by gunshot

Two killings of people I didn't know, on my block, when I lived across
from the Projects.

Zero murders/suicides by other means. Note zero murders/suicides in
households that had baseball bats, but no guns.

Zero examples of defense of home/hearth against intruders

Zero examples of defense of the Constitution against the ravages of
facist governments

One recent neighborhood domestic quarrel with gun, involving about 20
cops who locked down the neighborhood for about 2 hours. One arrest,
nobody got hurt.

There's no way we're going to change the gun situation in this
country, but if you have teenagers around the house, especially males,
keep the guns locked up.

Or, you could teach your kids what guns are all about, and make them
competent. You could teach your kids that people don't come back from
being dead like they do in the movies. You could teach your kids moral
values. Nah! Too much like work! Go back to your TV.

Kids sometimes get depressed; they outgrow it, if they live.

Of course your personal experiences may be different from mine. The
death rate by gun is only about 140 PPM per year in this country
(Japan is about 4) so it's unlikely that you or yours will ever be
involved in a gun death. For middle-class adults, cars are far more
dangerous.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:23:06 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

[snip]

I can only cite my personal experience (since nobody will believe
statistics when they contradict his prejudices):

Two guys I knew, dead from self-inflicted gunshots

One murder by gunshot

Two killings of people I didn't know, on my block, when I lived across
from the Projects.

Zero murders/suicides by other means. Note zero murders/suicides in
households that had baseball bats, but no guns.

Zero examples of defense of home/hearth against intruders

Zero examples of defense of the Constitution against the ravages of
facist governments

One recent neighborhood domestic quarrel with gun, involving about 20
cops who locked down the neighborhood for about 2 hours. One arrest,
nobody got hurt.


There's no way we're going to change the gun situation in this
country, but if you have teenagers around the house, especially males,
keep the guns locked up.

Or, you could teach your kids what guns are all about, and make them
competent. You could teach your kids that people don't come back from
being dead like they do in the movies. You could teach your kids moral
values. Nah! Too much like work! Go back to your TV.

Kids sometimes get depressed; they outgrow it, if they live.

Of course your personal experiences may be different from mine. The
death rate by gun is only about 140 PPM per year in this country
(Japan is about 4) so it's unlikely that you or yours will ever be
involved in a gun death. For middle-class adults, cars are far more
dangerous.

John

At my old location I had a neighbor about a block away, took a swing
at his wife, but she ducked and his arm went thru a glass window...
bled to death before the next-door neighbor (a doctor) could do
anything.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Roger Gt]

"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$znvh0i$lyg$1@newsfront4.netvisao.pt...
:
: "Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast DOT net> wrote in message
: news:v5OdnfwklLcm6nbdRVn_iw@comcast.com...
:
: > The problem here that you are overlooking is,
: > if they take MY guns away, that drug dealer
: > will still have his. He doesn't get them the
:
: My understanding is:
: In a life or dead situation, if you shot that dealer and live,
you die
: anyway. Am i wrong?
: Greetings Steve Sousa

Yes you are! It altogether depends upon the situation and whether
you were in fear of your life (Police are always in fear of their
lives and they shoot anyone or anything that moves without
consequence!)

And if I am on the jury, you walk!

 

[Robert C Monsen]

"Roger Gt" <not@here.net> wrote in message
news:4AOGc.12298$vP1.11915@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...

"Robert C Monsen" wrote
: "Roger Gt" wrote
: > "Robert C Monsen" wrote
: > : "Roger Gt" wrote
: > : > "John Larkin" wrote
: > : > : "Roger Gt" wrote
: > : > : >"John Larkin" wrote
: > : > : >: Greg Pierce wrote:
: > : > : >: >As they say, gun control isn't about guns, it's
about
: > : > : >: >control. It's about people being dead, instead of
: > : > : >: >merely yelled at or bruised. : John
: > : > :
: > : > : >"Gun Control" means hitting the intended target
everytime!
: > : > : >Roger Gt
: > : > :
: > : > : That's the theory, I guess. Fact is, the average gun
owner
: > is
: > : > : more likely to kill his own kids than a burglar. Damned
kids
: > : > : are just around the house a lot more than burglers. John
: > :
: > : > That's total BS! My entire family have handled and used
guns
: > for as far back and we have records (About 1453) and while
there
: > have been some mishaps, (During war) no one has been killed.
That
: > : > whole story about the likelihood of killing your own
family
: > : > members came from the Anti-American scum who think they
should
: > : > control everyone's lives. Besides guns are a lot less
: > dangerous than the political despots who would try to take
them away!
: > :
: > : Talk to a policeman or a fireman. All of their organizations
are
: > : for gun control. Why would that be, if gun ownership was
'helping'
: > : them?
:
: > Those are public servants, they are NOT in charge! Their
opinion
: > is irrelevant to the constitution! Also, here in California
: > there are a lot of pissed off police who had their rifles
: > confiscated by the state. I really don't need to ask!
Besides
: > the local NRA in full of Policemen who support the rights of
all
: > honest citizens to own arms. They are also in the California
: > Pistol association. At least in the chapter I belong to.
:
: All moot. The point is that guns are NOT helping them in their
job.

No! If they didn't carry, or use guns your thin argument might
(only might) carry some weight. It has nothing to do with
"Helping them" to do what they are hired to do. If guns are "Not
Helping them" do their jobs THEY should give them up for something
more helpful! BUT they can not propose (except as individuals)
any ban or confiscation of the publics arms.

No, again, simply, the point is that YOU having a gun doesn't help
THEM. Please, pay attention.

: > If Those servants are in favor of violating the law they
should be
: > fired without prejudice and possibly jailed for suborning a
crime!
:
snip
: > : > BTW, My brother kneecapped a burglar, so the police could
pick
: > : > him up a couple blocks away. You do not always have to
kill them.
: > : > The mere presence of the capability to put them down is
: > : >usually enough!
: > :
: > : Wow! Cool! Some poor teenager gets kneecapped cause he
crawled
: > : into the wrong house looking for a TV set. Probably on
disability
: > : right now. I guess your brother feels really proud of that!
Who
: > : wouldn't?
:
: > He does, the 47 year old drifter had been burglarizing various
: > places in the area for several months and the police had not
been
: > able to catch him.
: > He can't run any more, but he walks ok with a cane. He and I
both
: > use a cane, the difference is I can also own a gun, he is a
: > convicted felon. But you want to protect criminals don't you?
: > Criminals are after all the core of the Democratic party!
:
: What a thing to say. Just because people don't believe what you
: believe doesn't make them criminals.

So believing that crime is a good profession doesn't make them
criminals? I agree, committing the crime does!

This is really getting lame. You attempt to misdirect what I'm saying
again and again. Can't your arguments, such as they are, stand up to
any scrutiny?

But You are truly dense! Democrats are the ones proposing the
lame laws to restrict private ownership, they do everything to
protect the criminal from the honest citizen who will try to
protect their property or lives by disarming them, the law however
says you can not require a criminal to register or turn in their
weapon because doing so will self incriminate them. (5th
Amendment) So the laws the Democrats propose protect the criminal
from harm while engaging in the criminal activity.

I believe you are trying to say that you believe Democrats are
fostering crime by attempting to enact legislation that would limit
gun ownership, thereby protecting criminals, since honest citizens
could otherwise protect themselves and their property with their guns.

You also seem to be saying that its illegal for criminals to turn in
guns, because by doing so, they would be incriminating themselves.
Requiring them to do so is thus a violation of the 5th ammendment,
which states that a person may not be forced to testify against
himself in a court of law.

If that is what you are saying, then I would counter on two fronts.
First, my belief is that private gun ownership does not, in fact,
deter crime. Neighborhoods with more guns are subject to more crime.
If gun ownership prevented crime, that would probably not be true.

Secondly, many guns that are owned by criminals are unregistered.
Since they are already illegal, the criminals are already supposed to
give them up, or be subject to prosecution. So, this is already the
case; if they decide to give up the weapons voluntarily, and that act
is used to prosecute them for illegal gun ownership, they are
voluntarily giving up the weapon, and thus volunteering the
information. There is nothing in the 5th ammendment which precludes
one from giving testimony against oneself. Its only stated that one
cannot be forced to give such testimony. If, on the other hand, they
do NOT give up the weapon, and it is discovered, they can be
prosecuted without their own testimony. Thus, your point is both silly
and moot.

: If you are scared of burglars, buy (or design and build!) a
burglar
: alarm. That works (if you set it!) 99% of the time. The other
1%, a
: gun probably wouldn't have helped with, because smart burgulars
(who
: can get around an alarm) won't break in if somebody is home.
They may
: take your gun case, though, cause guns are, pound for pound, one
of
: the more expensive things you have in your house.

My Burglar alarm is made by Mossburg! Works fine. also use a
perimeter warning system I designed for the US military to detect
anyone approaching my home at night, or when I am away.

BTW: My gun case is buried in about three tons of concrete in the
floor of my home. And that safe does not contain my most valuable
items.

snip
: > Having been in the Military I can tell you that the Armed
forces
: > of this country will not attack civilian targets in this
country,
: > but they will repel invaders.
:
: Ok, that means its not important for us to protect ourselves
against
: them by owning our (well oiled) guns?
You are grasping at straws, your inability to understand is
annoying!

You also have a tendency to ad hominem attack. Please, try to be
civil. If you are wrong, be a man and admit it. If you are right, back
it up with rational arguments. Don't call democrats 'criminals', or
call me 'lame', simply because you have no argument.

: Wasn't that your justification for owning guns?
No!
: Protecting ourselves from big brother?
Not the only function!
: My point was that you aren't going to protect yourself
: from a soldier in a flak jacket with an M16 by using a
: saturday night special or an old hunting rifle. Its silly.
I could, if there were only a few!

: Also, you aren't going to protect us from invasion.
That is the primary function of the militia, along with prevention
of crime, capturing and turning in criminals, and the entire list
of the duties you have never bothered to read about!

These were duties that were required of us in the 1780s? Well, times
have changed for some of us.

: Thats even sillier.
Like your lame position?

If I were to have to go up against a trained military force I
would use the tactics I learned in gorilla warfare classes. A
BMG50 will pierce any body armor anyway.
But the US Military is not the problem, you are!

: > Your remark is the silliest thing I have ever heard. If you
: > really believe it, get help soon. No one allows a rifle to
rust.
: Ah, my stepfather let his guns rust. I'm sure lots of people do.
They
: just aren't very useful anymore.

Two Fools! Figures!

Again with the attacks. You really shouldn't get so worked up. My
father in law didn't need the guns, he no longer hunted, and didn't
really expect to be called up to serve the minutemen.

snip
: > : Our best weapon against those revennooers is our vote. Our
best
: > weapon
: > : against crime is more opportunity for the poor, not more
guns.
: > : Bob Monsen
:
: > I take it your poor! Since you favor welfare over freedom!
I've
: > been there, but it only requires individual effort to move
into a
: > better economic status, not welfare.
:
: Nobody said anything about welfare.

Actually YOU did!

No, I didn't.

Indirectly, since all public servants ARE

functionally on welfare!

Are you talking about the ones that educate our kids? Or the ones that
build our roads? Which ones are you talking about, I think you should
explain yourself here, so everybody can understand the depth of your
thought.

(They receive money from the government!)

No one said anything about "revennooers" until you interjected
that bastardized word into the discussion. The language of an
literate? What the hell is it? I'm not into dialects!

Sorry, it was a joke, referring to a certain form of anti-government
activity (moonshine). I'll try to keep my remarks simple for you in
the future.

: However, you may have been reading
: the papers recently, and noticed that wages are going down, jobs
are
: scarce, and most of this ends up on the heads of minorities. Did
you
: know that the number of blacks that are unemployed is double
that of
: whites? Further, did you know that crime statistics correlate
quite
: nicely with unemployment statistics? That was my point. Caring
for the
: disadvantaged is in the privileged class' enlightened self
interest.

First the Democrats support a policy that results in a reduction
in income for the average citizen, then tax the same citizen to
pay welfare to buy off criminals? You make no sense!

You don't have any evidence to back that up.

Keeping your gun serviceable is also in your best interests, but
you neglect self defense in favor of paying a toll to the unruly!

No, as I pointed out, (in a civil way, I might add,) I believe that
when you own a gun, serviceable or not, it is NOT in anyone's best
interests.

: > A vote IS violence against the government! They know it. But
the
: > Constitution guarantees a right to own and bear arms, no
: > government in America has the right to revoke that!
:
: > I didn't want to restart a gun control vs. following the
: > Constitution discussion. Your the one who wants to violate
the
: > Constitution!
:
: It always comes down to this. Have you ever actually read the
second
: ammendment, as opposed to what gets printed in those NRA
handouts? If
: so, which part of "a well-regulated militia" are you and your
gun
: going to be part of? Or, is the NRA now forming a militia? The
: founders were talking about the national guard, for crissakes,
state
: militias. They don't make you bring your own gun anymore, and
wouldn't
: let you use it even if you brought it.

So? Yes, unlike yourself, I have read it, and the papers and
discussion about it by the founders. James Madison said it
included "Swords, muskets, and cannon, and all the terrible
weapons of war!" If your mentally fit and a citizen you ARE a
member of that militia!

Isn't that nice! And so appropriate for 2004!

When asked what the Militia was, George Mason, one of the Framers
of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist
now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we
also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able-
bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in
section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have
made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United
States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of
different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.
For a complete history of the Militia See:

http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/what_mil.htm

: The essential point is that NRA members own guns as toys.
There is nothing essential about it, your language is at the third
grade level.

: They are playthings, to be fondled and savored and collected
: and taken out and shown off on weekends on the firing range.

Is that a sentence? What were you trying to say?

You really didn't understand what I was trying to say? I guess I'll
have to word things more carefully for you in the future.

: There are hunters, but
: thats a game too, not required for survival. Guns are also
supposedly
: for protection, but that's a fantasy, not borne out by
statistics or
: common sense. You are far more likely to use your handgun in an
: argument with your spouse, or in a traffic dispute, or in a
suicide,
: (or by proxy, in a crime, like John Larken's gun is probably
being
: used now) than you are protecting your family in any meaningful
way.

Your delusions are not germane to any rational discussion.

Cover your ears, close your eyes, and hum all you want. Guns don't
make people safer. They are dangerous in the best of situations, allow
impulse to translate into deadly action much more readily than other
weapons, and are prone to falling into the hands of criminals.

: Gun ownership is a harkening back to the frontier days, when
guns were
: actually important for survival and protection.

As they are now! In the Frontier days there was less crime and
far fewer murders (per/100,000 population) than now, it is much
more dangerous now!

That might have something to do with the fact that there are far more
handguns now, per person, than there was back then.

My point was that guns were tools on the frontier and in rural
America. Guns were used for hunting and for protection. Now, they are
used for recreation by middle aged NRA members. Police are forced to
use them for protection due to their proliferation in society. Owning
a gun does not make you or your family safer. It makes you more likely
to be killed or injured by a gun.

: That day is long past,
: thank God and Reason.

God and Reason are strangers. God doesn't believe in reason! As
her yourself if you don't believe me!

And best regards to you too!

Bob Monsen