OT: Unsolicted Email from NG Participants

[Leythos]

Well I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but countries with tight gun
controls or bans, have way less deaths by guns per capita than countries
that don't.

What you call a "simple fact," is merely BS.

And gun deaths are on the rise in most of those countries, but you left
that part out.

It's simple, weapon related deaths will always be around, it's just
easier to kill someone or rob them if you have a weapon, anything that's
enough of a threat that they do what you want or enough of a weapon to
kill them easily if you want.

Where the problem starts is when the criminals realize that the majority
doesn't have any power to defend their self/property, when they EXPECT
the victim to not be able to defend, and they go after them without much
if any fear.

If you are a typical robber, you think twice before entering a place
when the majority are expected to be holding/carrying, but, if you
expect no-one to be armed, you don't even think twice.

Just look at Japan if you want to see what's happening when citizens are
not permitted to carry/have guns.

 

[Guest]

haha some of us are old enough to remember the outcry from the religious
right when this song came out. It was madness!!

 

[R. McCarty]

It was one of the few times that the FCC (Federal Communications
Commission) actually sent out a mandate to Radio stations that the
"White Album" had songs which could not be played. This was due
in part to Charles Manson and the Tate murder. Manson stated that
he though the record gave him instructions. Best I remember, the
banned songs from the LP where "Piggies" and "Helter-Skelter". The
latter was painted on the walls with the victims blood. The "White
Album" wasn't it's formal title but instead was simply "The Beatles".
The original album had a Serial # affixed to the front cover.

 

[Guest]

9:45 AM 6/8/2006

Amendment II: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

How best to keep a free state secure? From whence might come a threat to
freedom? A government bent on tyranny would first attempt to disarm the
people. Can't happen here? The framers thought it could happen anywhere at
anytime and so gave the people this certain right.

 

[Alias]

Sorry Alias - but you also have misinterpreted that song.
I do not know how old you are, but when this song was first released, in the
mid to late 60's, there was some argument as to whether it should be 'played
on radio' due to its obvious sexual connotations.
Read then again, this time with a 'smutty mind engaged' - see what I mean

Antioch
P.S.
You get no help engaging the your mind!

Oh, there's sex too. I'm almost 60. I bought the White Album when it
came out. It uses sex to make the point about how gun fanatics "love"
their guns and how they are pen!s substitutes.

Alias

 

[antioch]

One of them I believe had a dislike to a Roman Catholic school - hence the
bit about the Moth Sup jumping on that warm gun!!!!!!!!!!!

Antioch

 

[antioch]

Are you off to one of the many WGA threads, then?
Bye ;-)

 

[Chris May]

| I do not munge my email address for four reasons:
|
| 1. My news provider doesn't like it,
| 2. It is a violation of RFC 1036,
| 3. I have great spam filters, and, most important
| 4. I love getting email.
|
| Up until now, all of the off-group mail I've ever received has been
| welcome.
|
| Unfortunately, tonight, I received a threatening email.
|
| Someone who reads this group has apparently been following the WGA
| threads, and he noticed that I had something of a brief, but mildly
| heated, exchange with one of the participants. He wrote to let me know
| that he has tracked this person to his home, and that he intends to pay
| him a surprise visit for the purpose of discussing his newsgroup posts
| and (this is really bizarre) having him served with process for the
| purpose of "shutting his filthy mouth."

If you're in the US, you should refer this matter to the FBI. They have a
department for dealing with such things.

ChrisM

 

[Steve N.]

Can somebody tell our Mr. Blair (PM of UK) that we the victims also have
human rights not only the villains! We are not allowed to use more than
a reasonabl force to protect ourselves but I would like to use a
"gun/rifle/shot-gun" to protect my property and family from harm!

No wonder America is more advanced than any other country on this
planet.

Oh Lord! Now _that_ is scarey! I have lived and thrived on this planet
for over 54 years and have never, _never_, _ever_ needed a gun or weapon
of any kind to ensure my well-being.

We all live on this little blue ball, spinning around a star and we're
all still here.

When viewed from space there are no borders. How wonderful is that?

You do the geography.

Steve N.

 

[Leythos]

Oh Lord! Now _that_ is scarey! I have lived and thrived on this planet
for over 54 years and have never, _never_, _ever_ needed a gun or weapon
of any kind to ensure my well-being.

You didn't need a gun/weapon because others were willing to make the
sacrifice for you.

 

[kurttrail]

You didn't need a gun/weapon because others were willing to make the
sacrifice for you.

LOL! I don't need anyone to make any sacrifice for me, with or without
a gun.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[Steve N.]

You didn't need a gun/weapon because others were willing to make the
sacrifice for you.

Steven Mark Nielsen, Petty Officer 3rd Class, Aviation Electronics
Technician, USN, Serial Number ###-##-####, Attack Squadron VA-195, USS
Kitty Hawk, Viet Nam veteran. Does the mining of Haiphong Harbor ring a
bell? I helped end the war, I volunteered and I didn't have to kill
anyone to do it.

Now, what were you saying?

Steve N.

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

Leythos wrote:

Steven Mark Nielsen, Petty Officer 3rd Class, Aviation Electronics
Technician, USN, Serial Number ###-##-####, Attack Squadron VA-195,
USS Kitty Hawk, Viet Nam veteran. Does the mining of Haiphong Harbor
ring a bell? I helped end the war, I volunteered and I didn't have to
kill anyone to do it.

Now, what were you saying?

Steve N.

In a perfect world, borders would be open, and everyone would be free to
live as they choose short of infringing on the right of others to live
as they choose.

Rational anarchy at its finest: "my right to swing stops at the end of
your nose."

I believe in it, and if I could see a way--short of shooting them
all--to stop the narcissistic, control-freak b@stards who are determined
to make others live their way, I would speak out for it relentlessly.

In the meantime, however, I grew up with the idea that there are
responsible uses for firearms, although I don't see a whole lot of
responsible people with firearms today. Still, I don't see what guns in
the home has to do with guns in war. But if we're going to mix the two
up, then I will say that regardless of how our government misuses our
young men, the reason most of them fight and die is to protect what they
hold dear.

Most recently, one of my tribe has died in pursuit of that goal and
another has lost his leg. I do not believe our government is on a very
steady course at the moment, but I do wish to distinguish between those
who fight and die for an ideal, and the businessmen at home who send
them to fight for oil and power and whatever else will line their
pockets. I don't believe that I am being protected by the sacrifices
made by my friends, but I do believe that my protection was their goal
and intent.

The only thing this has to do with your post, Steve, is that I thank you
for your service. For the rest of it, I'm just responding generally to
the general mishegoss in this thread. I no longer read Leythos' posts
unless someone else responds to him, but someone always does, and it
drives me crazy the way he can muddle two very separate issues (in this
case, guns in war and guns at home).

rl

P.S. My father was a Marine who was disabled in the Korean conflict.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[Eric]

In a perfect world, borders would be open, and everyone would be free to
live as they choose short of infringing on the right of others to live as
they choose.

Rational anarchy at its finest: "my right to swing stops at the end of
your nose."

I believe in it, and if I could see a way--short of shooting them all--to
stop the narcissistic, control-freak b@stards who are determined to make
others live their way, I would speak out for it relentlessly.

In the meantime, however, I grew up with the idea that there are
responsible uses for firearms, although I don't see a whole lot of
responsible people with firearms today. Still, I don't see what guns in
the home has to do with guns in war. But if we're going to mix the two up,
then I will say that regardless of how our government misuses our young
men, the reason most of them fight and die is to protect what they hold
dear.

Most recently, one of my tribe has died in pursuit of that goal and
another has lost his leg. I do not believe our government is on a very
steady course at the moment, but I do wish to distinguish between those
who fight and die for an ideal, and the businessmen at home who send them
to fight for oil and power and whatever else will line their pockets. I
don't believe that I am being protected by the sacrifices made by my
friends, but I do believe that my protection was their goal and intent.

The only thing this has to do with your post, Steve, is that I thank you
for your service. For the rest of it, I'm just responding generally to the
general mishegoss in this thread. I no longer read Leythos' posts unless
someone else responds to him, but someone always does, and it drives me
crazy the way he can muddle two very separate issues (in this case, guns
in war and guns at home).

rl

P.S. My father was a Marine who was disabled in the Korean conflict.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

The point you missed is that guns in war are guns at home. Without an army,
you are the army. I guess you never learned about the history of the USA.
When the country was first founded, every man had a gun in his home and used
it to protect the land from foreign invaders. You don't realize that need
for guns because we have secured our land from foreign invaders. We reached
the point where we can assign a few hundred thousand men to fight against
any who might try to forcibly take or destroy our property while a few
hundred million live here peacefully. If any try to march into our land,
the army is there with guns. If any try to break into your home, police are
there with guns. If you don't own a gun, you're simply saying you trust
your guns to those other people. You hope the people with guns assigned to
protect you don't get out of control and turn against you. The same goes
for Steve. Being in the military, you are assigned a gun. You may never
have to use it, but you support those who do. Those who are not out there
physically supporting the people who protect us with the guns are either
financially supporting them or living off the charity of those who do.

In an ideal world, no one needs guns. Our world is far from ideal. You
either own a gun to hunt and protect your family, or trust someone else to
do so.

 

[Steve N.]

Eric wrote:

The same goes
for Steve. Being in the military, you are assigned a gun.

Nope. I was never assigned a weapon. The only time I ever touched one in
the Navy was in boot camp for one session of target practice.

Steve N.

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

The point you missed is that guns in war are guns at home. Without
an army, you are the army. I guess you never learned about the
history of the USA. When the country was first founded, every man had
a gun in his home and used it to protect the land from foreign
invaders. You don't realize that need for guns because we have
secured our land from foreign invaders. We reached the point where
we can assign a few hundred thousand men to fight against any who
might try to forcibly take or destroy our property while a few
hundred million live here peacefully. If any try to march into our
land, the army is there with guns. If any try to break into your
home, police are there with guns. If you don't own a gun, you're
simply saying you trust your guns to those other people. You hope
the people with guns assigned to protect you don't get out of control
and turn against you. The same goes for Steve. Being in the
military, you are assigned a gun. You may never have to use it, but
you support those who do. Those who are not out there physically
supporting the people who protect us with the guns are either
financially supporting them or living off the charity of those who
do.
In an ideal world, no one needs guns. Our world is far from ideal.
You either own a gun to hunt and protect your family, or trust
someone else to do so.

You can save the sarcasm for someone else.

When I was growing up (I was born in '58), kids who grew up in the
country understood firearms. The only trouble we ever had with guns is
when the folks from the city showed up during hunting season and
demonstrated their inability to distinguish Flossie the cow or Tommy the
cat from Bambi. "Bag limit" meant nothing to them. Shooting from the
windows of a moving car was par for the course. But it was also a
limited problem.

Now the smartasses outnumber the sharpshooters, and I, for one, do not
believe you can make a valid comparison between 2006 and 1776. We do
have an army, so we need not be the army.

I trust myself with firearms, but when I consider some of the people I
know, I am quite happy with the idea that they are anti, because I would
not want them to own even a cap gun.

OTOH, a lot of the NRA types I run into are totally whacked-out cow
killers, and I wish someone would take their firearms away.

When you can figure out how to put firearms only in the hands of
responsible people and keep them out of the hands of criminals and
morons and guys who use them as a substitute for the balls they lack,
please let the rest of us know.

Because if the problem isn't solved soon, even those few who *are*
responsible will not be bearing arms.

rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

 

[Eric]

Maybe it's different in the Navy. They weren't worried about anyone
boarding your ship?
I believe everyone is given a weapon in the Army. Regardless, the point
stands. You either own and use a gun or support and trust someone else to.

 

[Eric]

You can save the sarcasm for someone else.

What sarcasm?

When I was growing up (I was born in '58), kids who grew up in the country
understood firearms. The only trouble we ever had with guns is when the
folks from the city showed up during hunting season and demonstrated their
inability to distinguish Flossie the cow or Tommy the cat from Bambi. "Bag
limit" meant nothing to them. Shooting from the windows of a moving car
was par for the course. But it was also a limited problem.

True, but increased idiocy is more than a firearm issue. There are also
issues with poaching, people hunting animals by hitting them with a
vehicle...

Now the smartasses outnumber the sharpshooters, and I, for one, do not
believe you can make a valid comparison between 2006 and 1776. We do have
an army, so we need not be the army.

So far, we do not need to be the army. There is always the potential. If
China declared conventional war against us, we would need far more soldiers
than we have...
The second amendment was written with the intent of every home having a gun,
and every gun owner being responsible, so that we may have the power to
overturn our government if they get out of hand, like I hear China's
government is busy bullying it's people lately.

I trust myself with firearms, but when I consider some of the people I
know, I am quite happy with the idea that they are anti, because I would
not want them to own even a cap gun.

OTOH, a lot of the NRA types I run into are totally whacked-out cow
killers, and I wish someone would take their firearms away.

When you can figure out how to put firearms only in the hands of
responsible people and keep them out of the hands of criminals and morons
and guys who use them as a substitute for the balls they lack, please let
the rest of us know.

Because if the problem isn't solved soon, even those few who *are*
responsible will not be bearing arms.

rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff

That is the price of our freedom. We give our people the freedom to be
idiots. Many people own guns who should not. We cannot create legislation
that would prevent legal citizens from owning firearms. We can only create
legislation to help them be responsible, like the hunter safety test we have
in some states. Irresponsible people also have the freedom to drive cars,
and do other things which have the potential to harm innocent people.

The bigger problem is that irresponsible people are becoming parents and we
have no legislation to control that.

 

[Steve N.]

Maybe it's different in the Navy. They weren't worried about anyone
boarding your ship?
I believe everyone is given a weapon in the Army. Regardless, the point
stands. You either own and use a gun or support and trust someone else to.

You and BSthos missed my point entirely. Nevermind.

Steve N.

 

[Rhonda Lea Kirk]

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:

What sarcasm?

The part about me not learning US history.

So far, we do not need to be the army. There is always the
potential.

When I was growing up, there was always the potential that the USSR and
the US were going to blow each other and the rest of the world to
smithereens, and as a result, an entire generation grew up believing
that there would be no tomorrow...and acting accordingly.

Much of what is wrong with our society can be traced to this one fact.

If China declared conventional war against us, we would
need far more soldiers than we have...
The second amendment was written with the intent of every home having
a gun, and every gun owner being responsible, so that we may have the
power to overturn our government if they get out of hand, like I hear
China's government is busy bullying it's people lately.

You've got a lot of "ifs" in there.

A more productive solution is working to prevent war, conquest and
carnage.

That is the price of our freedom. We give our people the freedom to
be idiots. Many people own guns who should not. We cannot create
legislation that would prevent legal citizens from owning firearms.

Yes. We give people the freedom to be idiots. And people die as a
result. My cousin was killed a few years ago by his ex-wife's boyfriend.
It was a sidewalk altercation that occurred when he arrived to pick up
his child for visitation, and the bozo boyfriend had a gun in the car.

The question is, why did the bozo boyfriend have a gun in the car?

We can only create legislation to help them be responsible, like the
hunter safety test we have in some states.

I forgot to mention, didn't I, that I taught a hunter safety course one
year. Not firearms, but bow. I find that bow hunters are, generally, a
better class of weapons owners, but a hunter safety test is not a
panacea. Even a total bozo can pass an eight-week course.

Irresponsible people also
have the freedom to drive cars, and do other things which have the
potential to harm innocent people.

And we have laws to take away the licenses of those who drive
irresponsibly.

The bigger problem is that irresponsible people are becoming parents
and we have no legislation to control that.

This is as old as time. And children never turn out quite the way you
think they will, because nature almost always trumps nurture.

The big problem is that it's not a black and white issue, but most
people insist on seeing it in only those colors.

Can we get back to the discussion of WGA? Even that's less obnoxious
than this. I cannot stand the entrenched positions on either side,
because there's a lot to be said for both sides, and a compromise is in
order. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, and discussing it is
just the blowing about of a lot of hot air.

rl
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk

Insisting on perfect safety is for people
without the balls to live in the real world.
Mary Shafer Iliff