Gunner

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:42:16 +0100, "Darkginger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"The Watcher" <don'[email protected]> wrote
    >> I suspect Reid is in Category 3. Dead(at least from the neck up).
    >> He reminds me of something an instructor told me one time. He said there
    >are 3
    >> types of people in the world-those who make things happen, those who sit
    >and
    >> watch things happen, and those who wonder what in the world happened. Once
    >> again, Reid seems to be firmly in Category 3.
    >As a fairly casual observer, it seems that at least one thing Mike manages
    >to make happen on a regular basis is to prompt a load of apparently rabid
    >right wingers to get their knickers in a twist and start typing strangely
    >constructed insults. I'm one of those who sit and watch this happen, and
    >very amusing it is too. Thanks for the entertainment, and a special thanks
    >to Mike for all his efforts <g>. Keep up the good work - my mornings
    >wouldn't be the same without it.
    >Jo
Knickers in a twist? Chuckle..its called baiting the Brit. We toss
out accurate information and watch them go into denial mode. Like
tossing a hook into a school of tuna, they simply cannot resist biting
down and watching them tenaciously hanging with that famed mindless
British Resolve is actually quite humorous for a bit. Then their
floundering and thrashing around attracts their kith and kin..and we
get to watch their mindless reactions too.

You Brits have a long tradition of bear baiting..and in this
case...its our version of Bulldog baiting...

Fascinating to watch the current British mindless cultural biases
totally overruling the intelligence of various young Brits who
respond.

Hey..we get amusement where we can. And this is more fun than pulling
the wings off flys and sets an example to others about the dangers of
social and governmental programming that they are victim to.

Reid himself has exibited denial, anger, rage, shame, embaressment and
when cornered, shows his programming by killfiling those he is unable
to refute or respond to. Quite sad actually.

Gunner


Gunner
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Frank F. Matthews

John P. Mullen wrote:

    >
    > Blake Loyd wrote:
    >
    >>"The Reids" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]...
    >>>Following up to Jeff McCann
    >>>>> What are the Americans who believe all this stuff about guns and
    >>>>> overthrowing government by force called? "Survivalist, neo
    >>>>> conservatives"?
    >>>>Oh, I see. You didn't like the answer I gave you, so, in your mind, I
    >>>>avoided the question. Is that it?
    >>>citizen clearly was not an answer, I now understand survivalist
    >>>is the correct answer.
    >>I doubt that you understand half of what you think you do.
    >>Lesson 1.
    >>There are three classes of people: 1. survivalist 2. non-survivalist 3.
    >>dead.
    >>1. Survivalist: A person that makes efforts to survive. Ex.. Working to
    >>obtain money to purchase food clothes and shelter. Looking both ways
    >>before crossing a street.
    >>2. Non-survivalist: A person that makes no effort to survive. Ex.. Not
    >>bothering to obtain food clothing or shelter. Walking out onto a street
    >>without looking to see if any vehicles are approaching.
    >>3.Dead. This one is pretty self explanatory.
    >>Which are you?
    >>Loyd
    >
    >
    > Perhaps where you live, "Survivalist" has the meaning you describe, but
    > in the US, it refers to people who feel the government will eventually
    > either fail or turn against its citizens and prepare for that day.
    >
    > John Mullen

I would say that is only a sub group of survivalists.

Gunner

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:00:39 +0100, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to John P. Mullen
    >>Perhaps where you live, "Survivalist" has the meaning you describe, but
    >>in the US, it refers to people who feel the government will eventually
    >>either fail or turn against its citizens and prepare for that day.
    >I suspect that is more what a Survivalist is.

Indeed that is simply ONE of the things we prepare for earthquakes,
fires, floods etc. I lost a home in an earthquake in 1982. However
the family and I were quite well prepared and managed to take care of
business with the minimal amount of fuss and bother for several weeks
after the fact. We also were able to assist our friends and
neighbors. While not fun, we were much better off than most in the
area.

Natural disasters are far more common than governmental ones.
However..natural disasters are generally quite localized and there is
a very good support network nationwide that springs into action
immediately. In my earthquake, the network had housing, food, medical
care etc moving in three days and was in full operation by the end of
two weeks. On the other hand..a governmental disaster occurs
nationwide and has extremely long term ramifications for everyone.
Earthquakes do not strip you of your goods and food to give to others,
at gunpoint. Governments do.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

The Watcher

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:57:58 +0100, The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Blake Loyd
    >>> They are designed to kill,
    >>It doesn't matter how many times you claim this it doesn't make it so.
    >It doesn't matter how many times you try and deny it.

Do you realize how stupid it makes you look to demonstrate your ignorance online
like this repeatedly?

The Watcher

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:57:22 +0100, The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:

(snip)
    >"the design purpose of a gun is to kill"

Which is not true.
    >is not the same as
    >"the outcome of killing may be good or bad".

Which is true.
    >When you have understood that, go back and read the original
    >thread so you understand the arguments and what has already been
    >debated and then post in a civilised way (I do not long continue
    >to talk to those who are too stupid to engage in *civilised*
    >debate, so be warned).
    >It is the *pro gunners* who keep insisting a gun is a tool and
    >not a weapon

Wrong, idiot. That is YOUR argument. A gun is both a tool and a weapon.
You are the one who keeps insisting that a weapon and a tool are mutually
exclusive, when they aren't.

    >and deny its design purpose is to kill[1].

If you actually knew anything about guns, you'd understand that. Since it's
already been demonstrated conclusively that you don't know anything about guns,
it's clear why you don't understand. What isn't so clear is why you continue in
your ignorance after it's been explained to you.

(snip)
    >1] It may seem a small point but then you have to ask why are
    >some (but not by anymeans all) pro gunners too scared to admit
    >to it?

It may seem a small point but then you have to ask why is THIS antigunloon
scared to admit to himself that his ignorance had him making a fool of himself
on misc.survivalism every time he denies the truth about guns.

Zemedelec

Dress well and speak a second language.
zemedelec

barney

In article <[email protected]. net>,
[email protected] (Tim Kroesen) wrote:

    > You're missing the point too. Consent or NO, people are harmed by
    > *both* STD's and firearms in certain percentages in the US. Many more
    > are harmed by STD's matter of fact in the US.

That's believable. But I do think consent to taking the risk /is/ the key
issue in this comparison.

I don't think anyone except the most extreme anti-gunner is saying that
the hunter or target shooter should be prevented from taking the risk that
their gun might malfunction and hurt them - informed consent, in other
words, comparable to the consent that a sexual partner gives to taking the
risk that they might contract an STD.

The problem is that it is much easier to get hurt by a gun /without/
giving that consent than it is to contract an STD without consenting to
sex. The hunter might accidentally wound or kill me just because I happen
to be walking in the wrong part of the woods at the wrong time. Unless
it's a clearly marked part of the woods set apart for hunters (and perhaps
there's a case for that?), we can't say that I have given consent to
taking that risk in any meaningful sense.

In any case, I'm not sure that...

    > So if we wish to
    > legislate 'safety' in the US let's start with the most risky and
    > socially damaging behavior first... Gay sex, not gun ownership.

...is much of an answer. If the damage wrought by gay sex and gun
ownership is greater than their benefits (both practical and in the sense
that the freedom to exercise personal choice is inherently desirable), we
should ban them both. In fact I don't believe we should ban either, but we
can't justify the one by pointing to the other.

ISTM the problem with this whole debate as it is generally seen on Usenet
is that it is perceived as being between two polarities: "ban all guns,
their effects are utterly negative" and "permit all guns, their effects
are utterly positive".

But really, I think we all (or at least nearly all) of us share a middle
ground, at least if we leave aside the particular constitutional issues
that apply only to the US: guns can be used in harmful ways but they can
also be used in harmless and even in positively desirable ways; there are
circumstances where people should be allowed to have them, and
circumstances where they shouldn't (only the most absurd pro-gunner would
argue that two-year-olds or convicts should have free access to automatic
weapons, for example).

IOW both sides are talking about a freedom limited by regulation (much as
with sex). The devil's in the detail.

Jeff McCann

"Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Now I'm confused. Which War of Independence? I cannot think of any
one
    > in which the French & Germans were involved. The closest I can think
of
    > was the late 19th century where Germany was consolidated under
Prussian
    > leadership. But the Germans won that one.
    > If you mean the US the only German involvement were a few mercenaries.
[snip]

More than a few Germans were engaged. IIRC, Washington captured 3 full
Hessian regiments at Trenton.

Jeff

Carl Nisarel

Bjórrúnar skaltu The Watcher rista --

    > Do you realize how stupid it makes you look to demonstrate
    > your ignorance online like this repeatedly?

Yet you keep doing it.

Strabo

In Re: There is no constitutional right... on Mon, 26 Jul 2004
21:51:15 GMT, by Dennis G. Rears, we read:

    >"Strabo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> In Re: There is no constitutional right... on Mon, 26 Jul 2004
    >> 08:34:56 +0100, by The Reids, we read:
    >> >Following up to Strabo
    >> >
    >> >>Just as the united states uses only a limited democratic
    >> >>process to elect representatives, other societies in other
    >> >>times have used democracy in different ways.
    >> >>
    >> >>The European states for example are socialist democracies
    >> >>which is one reason why they have difficulty understanding
    >> >>the united states.
    >> >
    >> >could you explain how the US uses "limited democracy" and what
    >> >the defining factor of a "socialist democracy" is?
    >> We have a system known as the Electoral College, whereby groups
    >> of electors from each state whose numbers are determined based on
    >> the population of the respective states, casts the votes that
    >> actually elect the president.
    >Not just the population. A state gets an elector for every senator and
    >representative they have. Thus the minimum amount of electors per state is
    >three. Every state gets two senators regardless of population. Those two
    >senators translate into two electors. Go to
    >http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm for complete detail.
    >> This means that the popular election for president in the US is
    >> a sham but, it makes people feel like that have some control over
    >> their lives.
    >The people vote for the electors. This is not a sham. The electors than
    >vote for President and vice President.

The people believe and are led to believe, that they are voting
directly for a president. This is a sham. It is the culmination
of generations of deceit by promoters of "democracy".

This was begun, and the 17th A. put into place, as part of a
program to alter the public mind and replace the concept of a
constitutional republic.


    >> These state electors are clumped by party affiliation BUT even an
    >> elector may switch their affiliation at the last minute and vote
    >> anyway he pleases. This assures us that contrived or rigged
    >> may be bypassed if necessary.
    >> This constitutional device, largely unknown or ignored by many
    >> Americans, was built into the system at the beginning, precisely
    >> to avoid the dangers inherent in a populist democracy. PLUS, in
    >> the beginning there was no plan for popular election in the
    >> central government BECAUSE the central government was formed by
    >> state representatives only as a means to enact the few
    >> obligations of government that individual states could not do.
    >> One example is the prosecution of war.
    >It also had a lot to do with preserving state rights. Until the 17th
    >amendment (1913), senators were chosen by the states not the people. The
    >senators were suppose to represent the state and the representative was
    >suppose to reporesent the people.

That's right.

Having the state senators under state control is key to the
proper balance of powers. The 17th A. needs to be removed.

1913 was a banner year - the 16th A. (Income Tax),
the 17th A. and the Federal Reserve Act appeared at
the same time. What a coincidence.


    >dennis

Strabo

In Re: There is no constitutional right... on 26 Jul 2004
21:56:03 GMT, by Jeffrey C. Dege, we read:

    >On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:48:06 GMT, Strabo <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>We have a system known as the Electoral College, whereby groups
    >>of electors from each state whose numbers are determined based on
    >>the population of the respective states, casts the votes that
    >>actually elect the president.
    >Exactly so.
    >>This means that the popular election for president in the US is
    >>a sham but, it makes people feel like that have some control over
    >>their lives.
    >The state legislatures determine how the electors are chosen. The people
    >elect the state legislators. All of the states currently choose to have
    >the people vote for the electors, because that's what the people want
    >the states to do.
    >>These state electors are clumped by party affiliation BUT even an
    >>elector may switch their affiliation at the last minute and vote
    >>anyway he pleases. This assures us that contrived or rigged
    >>may be bypassed if necessary.
    >Some states allow electors to switch votes with impunity. Others do not.
    >Again, it's up to the elected legislators of the state which way it
    >is done.
    >>A socialist democray...
    >>I'm not suggesting that European states (now the "EU")
    >>are Marxist or communistic.
    >>However, since WWII there has been a decided emphasis on
    >>the equality of people within defined groups. That is,
    >>identifiable groups of people (minorities, women, children,
    >>disables, etc.) sharing similar interests and goals
    >>which should all be treated equally under law. The UN reflects
    >>this through it's charter.
    >Yep. Equality of outcome, instead of equality under the law.

The problem is that there is no equality under law. Law is cited
as the leveler, the determinent of fairness and justice.
A "level playing field" is the common American term. But law
is of men and men create and apply law to suit their bias and
intent.

In a socialist democracy the pursuit of equality is the
pursuit of votes at the expense of liberty and freedom.


    >It's impossible to accomplish under the Rule of Law. It requires a
    >government with the power to arbitrarily intervene in every arena of
    >economic activity.

Sure does.

Capitalism combined with positive law today influences every move
and thought. As pervasive and invasive as once was the devine
right kingship.

This is all over the planet. The corporate security state using
capitalist devices has replaced the kingdom.

Westprog

"Jeff McCann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Now I'm confused. Which War of Independence? I cannot think of any
    > one
    > > in which the French & Germans were involved. The closest I can think
    > of
    > > was the late 19th century where Germany was consolidated under
    > Prussian
    > > leadership. But the Germans won that one.
    > >
    > > If you mean the US the only German involvement were a few mercenaries.
    > [snip]
    > More than a few Germans were engaged. IIRC, Washington captured 3 full
    > Hessian regiments at Trenton.

That's good enough for me. It was a one-liner, I don't plan a six-month
campaign defending it.

J/

SOTW: "Trash" - Morrissey

Strabo

In Re: There is no constitutional right... on Tue, 27 Jul 2004
10:42:12 +0100, by The Reids, we read:

    >Following up to Strabo
    >>>could you explain how the US uses "limited democracy" and what
    >>>the defining factor of a "socialist democracy" is?
    >>Limited - As an example, in the US national presidential
    >>election, a majority of popular votes does not elect. "What? How
    >>is that possible? The majority is supposed to 'rule'".
    >I see, you are pointing out that government is done by the
    >winning party which does not have 50% plus of the potential vote.

As I recall the winning party thus far has had 50% plus but it is
possible that the Electoral College may at some time differ with
the popular vote. The politcos dread this possibility as its
resolution will cause questions amongst those who swear by
democratism.

    >Some people favour compulsory voting and second preference votes
    >to cure that.

I think that compulsory voting serves only to condition a
compliant citizenry and possibly rationalize a corrupt result.

It's government's way of hanging the responsibility for
failure or dissatisfaction on the electorate even though
the electorate has few options.

    >I tend to think if they don't care enough to vote,
    >to hell with them.

The US has many who do not vote. Sometimes this is due to
satisfaction with the status quo and sometimes apathy.

So, a 'no' vote can be a vote of confidence or not.


As a final thought, there is no perfect system and the best
is often dissatisfying. This is why I'm a libertarian. With
absolutely minimal government the desires of the citizens
are more within their grasp, obligates no one else, and
the value of their choices is immediately known.

Strabo

In Re: There is no constitutional right... on 26 Jul 2004
21:50:25 GMT, by Jeffrey C. Dege, we read:

    >On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:13:20 +0100, The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Following up to Jeffrey C. Dege
    >>>>I don't know anybody who doesn't think Stalin as evil as Hitler,
    >>>>they are however aware that there are difference of ideologies
    >>>>between communism and fascism.
    >>>Meaningless details.
    >>not if your sat at your desk writing Das Capital
    >I don't generally worry to much about the thought processes of sociopaths.
    >>>The essential evil is that they had an ideology that they intended to
    >>>impose on society. That they believed that they knew how society should
    >>>be organized, and were willing to use force to impose it.
    >>Be "you lot" have an ideology[1] and that if the people elected
    >>the "wrong" government you would wish to overthrow that elected
    >>government and impose your view by force of arms. Just like
    >>Franco?
    >>1] Maybe your ideology is more one of non organisation than
    >>organisation but still an ideology.
    >Now we're back to Hayek.
    >The important thing is that the rules, whatever they are, be established
    >in advance, and that the results of individuals acting in accordance
    >with those rules be accepted.
    >There's a deep and fundamantal difference between a government that has
    >a stake in a predetermined outcome from economic activity and one that
    >does not.
    >The question is whether people are tools towards the ends of the state,
    >or whether they are independent actors serving their own ends.
    >To the extent that a government has a preferred end state, that government
    >is tyrannical. It doesn't really matter much what those ends are.
    >It's the difference between freedom and slavery.

Well done!

Strabo

In Re: There is no constitutional right... on 27 Jul 2004
12:40:59 GMT, by Jeffrey C. Dege, we read:

    >On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:40:07 +0100, The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Following up to Jeffrey C. Dege
    >>>>That doesn't sound like the various european states to me.
    >>>Only because you no longer understand what the Rule of Law is.
    >>Really? What an odd thing to say.
    >Really. That you believe it is appropriate for the state to have a
    >preference in the outcome of economic activity is a clear indicator of it.

The identification of a people with their government is a
dangerous thing. For sooner or later they learn that power
has no friends.