Re: META: 2 small technical list change suggestions

Joe E. Dees (
Thu, 3 Jun 1999 18:23:07 -0500

Date sent:      	Thu, 03 Jun 1999 14:29:04 -0400
From:           	"Michael S. Lorrey" <>
Subject:        	Re: META: 2 small technical list change suggestions
Send reply to:

> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Problem: without a sophisticated AI, you're not going to be able to detect
> > > > messages which have *incorrect* keywords, so there's an easy way for anyone
> > > > to get around this kind of blocking.
> > >
> > > Well that's simple, if someone is going to be that much of an
> > > idiot, they are basically grouped into the category of spammers
> > > and removed from the list. i.e. if Joe and whoever he has
> > > enticed decide to use the keyword "META" in their gun debate
> > > posts instead of the obviously proper GUNS, they get banned.
> > >
> > For purposes of honesty and clarity, I enticed no one. I was
> > personally attacked by dogmatic and quasireligious absolutist
> > extremists for profferring a logical reasonable and rational
> > mainstream sensible center solution to a problem of current
> > interest to the US at large.
> The oldest post I have on this particular computer in this debate indicates that we
> were having a rather calm discussion of property rights and natural rights when you
> posted the following in response to one of my posts:
> > > Failure to insist upon the Natural source of individual human rights is
> > > the loophole through which all totalitarians are able to cloud the minds
> > > and hearts of humanity so that the people conduct the evils crimes of
> > > history for their opressors.
> > >
> > The very same tactic the Inquisitionists, Nazis and antiabortionists
> > use: First demonize those who disagree with you, call them villains
> > and consciousless subhumans; then you can feel righteous pride
> > when you kill them, rather than guilt or shame.
> > >
> > > If we do not insist upon our rights'
> > > Natural origins, then they are in fact merely fictions which rely purely
> > > upon the unjustified force we wish to bring to bear to force others to
> > > accept our version of reality.
> > >
> > This is a category mistake. You cannot use a moral argument to
> > decide upon the existence or nonexistence of a physical law.
> > Period.
> > >
> > > I need force no one when I stand upon my
> > > own two feet and insist upon my natural rights.
> > >
> > Nature grants no rights; People grant them to each other or take
> > them for themselves, or a combination of the two. A hurricane,
> > lightning bolt, earthquake, tornado, tsunami or any other act of
> > nature cares not one whit about your assertion of "natural rights".
> > The two words juxtaposed form a contradiction in terms. What is
> > natural is what obtains prior to any country, society, civilization, or
> > culture; the Darwinian Law of Survival of the Fittest For Their Niche
> > and the rest be damned by the scythe of Natural selection. The
> > "State of Nature" preceding mutually agreed upon norms of
> > acceptable conduct was nasty, brutish and short.
> > >
> > > They may kill me, but
> > > they will not enslave me.
> > >
> > You must be the kind of 2nd amendment gun nut who would dearly
> > love to kill all those "different' people whom you suspect of looking
> > at you sideways, and who fervently believes that those two
> > Colorado kids were a sinister Bradyite plant.
> > >
> > > You must love your freedom more than your
> > > life.
> > >
> > That, according to Hegel, was what originally separated the slave
> > from the master, although a fat lot of good it did the masters to
> > become weak incapable parasites ripe for revolution (to pursue
> > Hegel's master-slave dialectic further). One who is willing to die for
> > his own freedom has historically also been more than willing to kill
> > to maintain control of of others.
> > >
> > >Evil prospers upon the acquiescent surrender of the courage of the
> > > individual.
> > >
> > It takes courage to kill other people, whether your motives are
> > tainted or pure, or whether your cause is just or unjust, or whether
> > good or evil results (three different things). It would be nice if we
> > could equate evil and cowardice, but this we cannot do, for there
> > have always been the courageous evil and the cowardly good
> > among us.
> >
As can be seen, Mike was following his standard modus operandus of insisting that the very structure of the universe confirmed his personal views, and that anyone who disagreed with them was either evil, ignorant, or most likely both. At least he seems to have lightened up on his classic "looter" epithet.


> Two hours later you responded to on of Mark's posts with the following:
> > Subject:
> > Re: Property Rights
> > Date:
> > Mon, 24 May 1999 15:37:43 -0500
> > From:
> > "Joe E. Dees"
> > Reply-To:
> >
> > To:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Date sent: Mon, 24 May 1999 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
> > From:
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Property Rights
> > Send reply to:
> >
> > > Joe E. Dees [] wrote:
> > > >The very same tactic the Inquisitionists, Nazis and antiabortionists
> > > >use: First demonize those who disagree with you, call them villains
> > > >and consciousless subhumans; then you can feel righteous pride
> > > >when you kill them, rather than guilt or shame.
> > >
> > > And then:
> > > >You must be the kind of 2nd amendment gun nut who would dearly
> > > >love to kill all those "different' people whom you suspect of looking
> > > >at you sideways, and who fervently believes that those two
> > > >Colorado kids were a sinister Bradyite plant.
> > >
> > > Joe, how about you stop projecting the worst aspects of your personality
> > > onto the rest of us? Just because you can't see someone think differently
> > > without wanting to kill them doesn't mean that we can't. Indeed, us 'gun
> > > nuts' want to allow all those different people to own guns to protect
> > > themselves; to a rational mind I would have thought that would rather
> > > indicate that we're not actually intending to kill them... unlike the
> > > disarmers, who've been murdering 'different' people all century long.
> > >
It has been Mark who has not been able to stand the fact that I both hold and defend a different opinion from his, and has resorted to lying about what I said in order to slander me; when I called him on it, he began trying to have me removed so that he could restore his hegemonistic extremist purity to its previously unchallenged position on this list. If you doubt me, review the whole record, rather than allowing these self-serving fanatical zealots to pick and choose the references that they proffer to you.

> > > Mark
> > >
> > I was tired of hearing the raving randian bastards on this list label
> > everybody who disagreed with the slightest scintilla of their pet
> > dogmas as evil vermin who should be exterminated for the greater
> > good, and figured they'd like a gander of getting goosed by the
> > same slimestick themselves to see how the fuck it feels to be
> > slandered by association with extremists. It's simply karmic tit-for-
> > tat; you don't do it to others, it doesn't get done back to you! And
> > it's the people with the guns who are shooting everybody (always
> > has been); they play this little "Shane" home movie in their heads
> > about how they're righteous people pushed too far by bullying
> > cliques, and the next thing you know, fifteen kids are lying dead in
> > school halls, and the gun lobby steps on its dick by claiming that if
> > a guard had a gun he coulda stopped them when one did and
> > couldn't, and Li'l Einstein Danny Quayle kisses Wayne LaPierre's
> > ring by saying he hoped the massacre wasn't used as an excuse
> > to restrict gun sales! FUCK excuses; it's a goddamned REASON!
> > Finally the Senate got a testicle transplant and put some
> > safeguards on the criminal flea market gun shows where two of the
> > guns were bought, and insists on safety locks so's if Junior nurses
> > a carelessly left automatic and plays with the trigger, he won't get
> > a lead lunch! About Damned Time!
> >
> I would not call this a rational, reasonable, mainstream solution.
> Mike Lorrey

Remove the angry rhetoric and dispassionately view the content of the above post, and it is eminently rational, reasonable, and mainstream; however it is not complete. My more-or-less complete rational, reasonable, mainstream solution has been posted many times, Mike, as you well know, but just in case anyone missed it, I will post it again.

--------------------------My proposed gun regulations------------------------------

A purchase-prohibited registry should be created, containing the names of those forbidden to purchase or to possess firearms AND NO OTHERS. This registry should be easily accessible by gun shops, gun shows, pawn shops, flea markets, and any other venue where gun sales in which the buyer and the seller do not personally know each other are likely to occur. There should be no waiting period; once it is ascertained that the prospective purchaser's name is not included in the purchase-prohibited registry and that (s)he is of legal age, the sale is legal and should be allowed to expeditiously proceed. Anyone who knowingly sells a firearm to someone whom they have reason to believe is on the list, and who indeed is on the list, should be prosecutable for illegal gun sales, as well as civilly liable for the consequences of any crime the buyer subsequently committs using the purchaesd weapon. Those to be included in the registry are those who have been convicted in a court of law of a violent crime, violent being defined as the inappropriate attempt to physically harm an innocent other, those who have been convicted in a court of law of spouse or child abuse, minors (under age 18) (if they wish to target shoot or hunt, they can do so with weapons purchased by a responsible adult, under adult supervision), and those who have been found by a legitimate psychiatric authority to be mentally unfit/incompetent by reason of deficiency or derangement, unfit being defined as posing a danger to oneself or others. All inclusions on the list may be appealed, but names remain on the list while appeals are pending or proceeding. Likewise, people charged but not convicted of such offenses or whose case is before a psychiatric board which has not yet rendered a decision concerning their mental fitness/competence would have their names provisionally included, to be removed upon acquittal or a judgment of mental fitness/competence. Those charged with spouse or child abuse who have a restraining order or peace bond issued against them by a court of law would be included on the list if the court determined that there was credible evidence that the spouse against who the order was drawn would be predisposed to violate or ignore such an order, until such time as it was judicially determined that this spouse no longer represented a danger to the other spouse or their children. A trigger lock, either combination or key, would be required to be sold with each firearm. If the weapon were subsequently stolen with the trigger not locked down or with the key in the lock, the owner would be prosecutable for neglect, as well as civilly liable for the consequences of any crime the thief subsequently commits using the stolen weapon. If the trigger lock was in place absent the key, but was picked, broken off, or otherwise removed subsequent to the theft, the owner should not be held liable.

Now I ask you, which sounds more logical, rational and reasonable; the above specifically targetted and limited restraints, or permitting unrestricted access to firearms capable of long-range mass murder to violent criminals, spouse and/or child abuses, children and the mentally deficient and/or deranged?