Re: GUNS: Why here?

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000 - 23:52:18 MDT

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:15:14 -0400
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
>Subject: Re: GUNS: Why here?
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:46:18 -0500
>> >To:
>> >From: Chuck Kuecker <>
>> >
>> >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 and children.
>> 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 debunked),
>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.
>> 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 just 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.
>> 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 children, 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 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.
>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? What about those actually CONVICTED of violent crimes?
>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.
>> 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 Ownership 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.

Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT