Joe Dees wrote:
> >Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:15:14 -0400
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: email@example.com
> >Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >Joe Dees wrote:
> >> >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:46:18 -0500
> >> >To: email@example.com
> >> >From: Chuck Kuecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> >
> >> >I know - I just wanted to make Joe think there. I am fully aware of the
> >> >process by which we are being stripped of all rights, not just guns. The
> >> >Million Moms "grassroots" movement is a prime example.
> >> >
> >> >I have yet to see any anti in public without an armed escort.
> >> >
> >> >If you have never been shooting, check out the nearest pistol range - most
> >> >of them rent guns. It's a real hoot! If you are ever in the Chicago area,
> >> >drop me a line, and I would be glad to let you check out an "assault rifle"
> >> >or two.
> >> >
> >> The Million Mom March began as an idea in the mind of a single mom, and spread like wildfire, as it resonated with a majority of the populace.
> >Ah, one more of your Gore-isms Joe. It resonated with about a hundred thousand
> >of the most militantly anti-constitutional women in the country. Nowhere near a
> >million, never mind a 'majority' of the populace. It was led by that
> >hypocrit-in-chief, Rosy, who doesn't think you should own any guns, but her
> >bodyguards should be able to carry machine guns in New York City, by Dog.
> Check the polls; a solid majority of Americans desire common-sense controls which while not interfering with the rights of sane and law-abiding adults to purchase, keep and bear, renders such activities much more difficult for psychos, violent criminals
Such people do not think that their 16 year old son or daughter should be prohibited from being taught to use firearms for self defense or for hunting. Funny how you claim that such people don't want a 17 year old to own a gun privately, but don't mind th
at we allow 17 year olds to fight and die for other people to have those rights.
> >> Actually, the well-orchestrated campaign belongs to, and always has belonged to, the NRA, which is unparalleled in their foisting of lies-with-statistics (the baby-drowning-in-buckets urban legend being a prime example, which I have previously debunk
> >Now you are getting into outright lies, Joe, since we showed you that my
> >statement that more babies and toddlers do in fact die in 5 gallon buckets than
> >from guns (which did NOT originate with the NRA) was completely accurate.
> Actually, the lying-with-statistics has to do with the claim that it applied to 'children', a phrase which most people interpret as a state that does not end at the age of five, but which continues until puberty. Many more prepubescent humans die from
gunshot than drown in buckets.
You seem to not be able to read Joe, you are keeping this going on the extropians list despite being invited to another forum, and you can't seem to be able to tell the difference between infants and toddlers versus children, just like your gun grabbing b
uddies can't tell the difference between a 25 year old and a 'baby'. I won't reply on this list to you any more. If you want to keep this going, do it on the exi-freedom list. Of course, since I said that you
actually have to use real facts on that list, I can understand why you have not signed up...
> >> and which spends more than twice as much as those who wish responsible and loophole-free gun laws in this country. As far as getting all the guns out of this country, that is, as far as I am concerned, a baldfaced propagandistic LIE, as my wish is j
ust to see them kept out of the hands of psychos, violent crinimals and children, as far as is legally possible, without infringing upon the rights of sane and law-abiding adults to purchase, keep and bear.
> >Which is exactly what the policy of the NRA is, Joe, so if you oppose them, you
> >must be lying about what your position truly is, Joe.
> Nope, the NRA are lying about THEIR position, claiming to support commonsense measures while at the same time opposing the closure of the gun show loophole and the frequent mass-purchase 'private collector' loophole.
You keep talking about 'private collectors' as some sort of rabid bunch of criminals, but fail to show any evidence, as usual, Joe. As far as I know there is no limit on the number of guns anyone can buy, and frankly I have never seen any data whatsoever
(from you or anyone) that 'private collectors' contribute to crime in any way. In fact, its been shown that less than three percent of gun crime guns were bought at gun shows, so your continued babbling about
this 'loophole' is as much of a straw man hysteria mongering tactic as the so called 'assault weapons ban'.
> >> To have the resonsible armed and the irresponsible unarmed is in my opinion the best of all possible worlds, and although this ideal is not achoeveable in practice, I would like to see it approached as closely as is practicably possible. Only childr
en, psychos and violent criminals would approve of children, psychos and violent criminals packing.
> >Except in cases where the definitions of what 'children, psychos, and violent
> >criminals' deviate from commonly accepted definitions, and are defined by
> >hysteria groups like HCI, NOW, and their lobbyists. A 21 year old person is not
> >a child (nor is an 17 year old, who is an adolescent).
> Oh, that's right; children are all below the age of five; right? Eighteen seems acceptable to me, since people can't legally drink until they're 21, and 18 is when most people are through with public high school.
A 14 year old I knew as a child (and his parents) is dead specifically because the State of Massachusetts said that he could not be taught the use of handguns. 17 year olds die all the time in the service of this country, and after having sworn to protect
and defend the constitution for ingrates like yourself. I turned 18 in January of my senior year of high school, and about 3/4 of my senior class was already 18 by that point, so no, most people are not
through with high school by the time they are 18. Three of the last school shootings were stopped by 18 year old students or other people who had private firearms on school grounds, but your buddies in the media have failed to report these rather importan
> > A person who sees a
> >shrink is not a psycho,
> No, but a person certified by a psychiatric board to be of such diminished capacity that they pose a danger to themselves and/or others IS.
Only so long as the members of that board have no financial interest in the commitment of that individual. As the incident in Roby illustrates, this is not always the case...
> >and a person who has been alleged to have possibly
> >threatened someone (without any corroborating evidence) is not a violent
> Allegations like from an abused wife, who has taken out a restraining order or peace bond?
Quite. Most jurisdictions require no evidence beyond the statement of the spouse. I have seen many cases (and witnessed a few) where the woman lied through her teeth vindictively.
> What about those actually CONVICTED of violent crimes?
Like a person who has previously defended themselves in a jurisdiction that recognises no right of self defense? (LA, Boston, San Francisco, New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, etc)
How about someone who has been convicted of cruelty to animals (which is a violent crime) for hitting a dog or deer crossing the road?
> >Unfortunately, many jurisdictions consider these to be reasonable
> >definitions for the untouchable persons you claim to disenfranchise.
> Most women in the US who are murdered are killed by their husbands or lovers.
That is a bald faced lie. Most people who are murdered are said by the FBI to be related or 'acquainted' to their assailant. Their definition of 'acquaintance' is anyone they have ever seen on one or more occasions in the past. This includes the drug deal
er down on the corner she sees on the way to Starbucks, as well as her neighbors lawnboy, her boyfreinds ex-girlfriends, every guy she has ever danced with at a night club, etc etc etc
> >> BTW; people praise George Soros' committment to marijuana decriminalization; well, finally the responsible gun ownership lobby has their own George Soros, and it is the NRA's worst nightmare, as their War On Drugs clone War On Responsible Gun Ownersh
ip is now facing principled, popular, committed and financed opposition.
> >> I have returned from a week camping in the Blackwater wilderness area and a week sunning and recuperating in a Fort Walton condo (without an armed guard); Hava Happy, Y'all!
> >I can see the vacation did not improve your grip on reality. You didn't stay
> >long enough.
> It wuz fun. I built a sweatlodge, smashing the pad of my right index finger between two river rocks used to heat it, cut my left knuckle on my SOG Pentagon while cutting the twine to interlace the framework, and got poison oak on my right ankle walking
through brush in shorts and sandals. The jacuzzi at the condo helped all of these things. My grip on reality is still locktight.
What? No snakebites?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT