🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <77f4kf$mlh@flatland.dimensional.com>,
   mackys@dim.com (Ben Cantrick) wrote:
>In article <369a70fe.0@news.mho.net>, Melissa <Melissa9Z@Zmho.net> wrote:
>>Let's get a few hundred Pro-Second Amendment folks together and go invade 
>>Dottie Wham's office and demand that she stay out of the way! Sort of a 60's 
>>style demonstration. :) I love it!
>>
>>We did this with SWARM a few years ago, and had about 30 of us march, 
>>unannounced,  into Gov. "Gunban" Roy's office to insist that he sign a CCW 
>>bill, backed up by about 100 NRA members who stayed out in the hall. Boy was 
>>Gov. Roy pissed! :)
>
>  Whatever. At least call the media so you can be on the news.

It would be cool if NRA and SWARM could actually organize a huge rally of maybe 
several THOUSAND people? And of course invite the media. Helloooo? Anyone 
listening out there?

>>>more and more states are passing shall-issue CCW laws, attempts
>>>to censor the Internet have been repeatedly and empahtically smacked down
>>>by the courts and medical marijuana referendums are passing like crazy.
>>
>>Let's pass one here! :)
>
>  Easy by me. But, uh, as the Boulder Weekly said, tongue in cheek, "When
>the members of NORML sober up, they might actually get something on the
>ballot. But we're not expecting major results this coming year." Heheh.

Too many people, including those in govt, are profiting from it being illegal.
People are spending entire careers fighting the WOSD ( War On Some Drugs ).

>>>  Really, Melissa, you need to pull your nose out of that Soldier of
>>>Fortune magazine and read http://civilliberty.miningco.com/ once in
>>>a while. Not all the news is bad.
>>
>>But come on. I think if the proof is there, that all our gun control and 
>>banning laws are patterned after Adolf's, don't you think this should be
>>looked into and that they should be repealed?
>
>  That would depend on the particular law, of course. I still don't
>agree that all gun control laws are a bad thing.

The only good gun control is being able to hit what you shoot at.

>>>The throwbacks in Washington are
>>>about 10 years behind the curve, but they're always like that. People
>>>in general are pretty liberty-oriented these days, with a few exceptions
>>>on certain issues.
>>
>>Now which magazine do YOU need to take your nose out of, with a silly
>>statement like that? Our liberty has been taking it in the ear.
>
>  Well, yeah, in some areas it sure has. Your rights to be free of
>unreasonable search and seisure has definitely been tattered. But
>free speech remains in pretty good shape. 

Oh? The feds have made it illegal to listen to certain radio transmissions ( 
like cell phones, police... ). Can there truly be free speech without the right 
to listen?

>Abortion rights seem to
>be holding up well.

Unless you're the doctor who happens to get murdered.

>>An email friend was telling me that in UK, they need to get permits to
>>exercise free speech. Are we headed for that too?
>
>  Doubtful. Too many people defend their free speech rights too vigorously.

They used to say that about guns too. "It could never happen. Not here!" - Anon 
Jew, 1930's Germany.

>>With no Second Amendment, there's nothing to stop them from slowly
>>deleting the rest.
>
>  Pah. If that's truly the case, then put your money where your mouth is
>and lead an armed revolution now. 

That would be inappropriate, being it's being done slowly, one gun at a time, 
and with bans, harassment, taxes etc. Big Brother knows this.

>You're crossing into gun nut territory
>here saying that guns are the first, last and only recourse to any problem.

Didn't say that, you're misquoting me. I said that the 2nd Amendment is the 
cornerstone of liberty and when that's gone, we'll have nothing to keep the 
govt from abolishing the rest.

Oh, and I'm not just among a few "gun nuts" who believe this:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. 
They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the
rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns]
by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When
firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of
Congress) - President George Washington
 
>Ever hear of "soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box - use in that order"?
>Seems like a lot of gun nuts want to use the ammo box first.

I really resent the term "gun nuts" being used to describe anyone who believes 
in our Bill Of Rights. How about "anti-civil rights nuts" for people like you?

> As often as
>they quote the founders, they seem to forget that the founders put not
>only the second amendment in the constitution but also a bunch of stuff
>about due process and redress of grievances. Stuff that seems to work
>pretty well, most of the time. We're a young nation yet, but I predict
>that if we last a good long time, it's going to be because we managed
>to form a system of government that encourages non-violent ways to
>solve problems.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in 
peace.  We seek not your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the 
hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may 
posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."        -- Samuel Adams

>>>  I really can't agree that it's only apathy and authoritarianism that's
>>>driving gun control. Some gun control, maybe, but probably not all of it.
>>>I think people have good reasons to want gun control. If nothing else,
>>>simply to protect their own life and liberty.
>>
>>Ah but it doesn't. The sheeple have been purely propagandized into believing
>>it does, just like they believe the millenium ends this year. 
>>
>>[...]
>
>  No, you give other people too little credit, as usual. We may not agree
>with your opinions, but there are people out there who have thought well
>through their beliefs and believe them for rational rather than dogmatic
>reasons. And I don't care when some religious nuts claim the ultimate savior
>of mankind (ha!) was born - I'll just take any excuse to go party that I can.

And as usual, you refer to anyone you disagree with as some kind of "nut".

>>>  Hm. Somehow, I doubt it. I suspect that if that happened, there'd be
>>>70 or more million non-gun owners arguing against it. (And I'd probably be
>>>one of them, come to think of it. The idea of repealing *all* gun control
>>>laws is simply not something I think would be good.)
>>
>>I know, you've been propagandized badly. It takes the recognition of the fact 
>>that gun ban and control laws only take liberty from the already law abiding. 
>>By definition, criminals don't obey laws. They don't care. They don't have 
to.
>
>  Har! Here we are again with the "You don't agree with me, so you must be
>stupid or brainwashed." I know criminals don't obey laws, but let me repeat
>my mantra: That doesn't mean laws prohibiting criminal behavior shouldn't
>be passed.

No one disagrees with that.

>>>  Because people are generally rationally lazy and ignorant. If we don't
>>>require something, there will be people who don't do it.
>>
>>Time for my macro again:
>>The difference between a libertarian and an authoritarian, is that the 
>>authoritarian thinks most people are too stupid, evil, and/or incompetent to
>>be trusted, but that government is not. The flaw to that way of thinking is,
>>that the government is made up of people.
>
>  Don't think I'm saying I trust the government any more than the common
>man. I sure don't. I consider both of them incompetent. I'm not sure what
>that makes me. Concieted, perhaps. Or hypocritical. Take your pick.

Yet you trust govt with lethal weapons more than the people.

>>> Most of the time
>>>this isn't a big deal, but the few idiots *always* ruin it for everyone
>>>else.
>>
>>Yes, we can trust govt with lethal weapons, but we can't trust the people. 
>
>  As I said, I don't trust the government with lethal weapons. Hell, I
>don't usually trust the government with making and enforcing laws, and
>that's their whole purpose.

Ah but you must, being you'd rather that govt have them than citizens.

>>> Even if these classes you're talking were offered free, there
>>>will always be the people who claim they're too busy, or those whose
>>>ego makes them think they already know how to safely handle a gun despite
>>>evidence to the contrary. These "ignoramouses" and "cowboys" are exactly
>>>the ones who need training to educate them. So unfortunately we have to
>>>dictate that everyone take classes just to catch the idiots. It's stupid,
>>>but I can't think of any better way.
>>
>>Most authoritarians can't. :)
>
>  Well, I'm open to suggestions. If you think you have a better way, do tell.
>
>  Just as an example, let's consider the following situation... Why don't
>we have my little brother live at your house for a year. We'll give him a
>Glock, something in double-action with a 15 round magazine. He'll keep it
>under his pillow. You and anyone else won't be allowed to train him in the
>proper use, storage, or even the most elementary safety precautions
>related to firearms. What do you think of that scenario? Sound a little
>dangerous?

Sounds like a stupid straw man argument.

>  So how come you advocate people who have the same gun safety knowledge
>as my little brother being able to carry a gun, concealed, on the street?

Never said that.

>To quote South Park... "This... is Chewbacca! This... does not make sense!"
>
>  If there's any logic at all to your position besides repetition of the
>statement "people should be able to do whatever they want even if it
>endangers others," 

Never said that either.

>please tell me what it is. Even free speech is not
>allowed if it unduly endangers other people.

Free speech never endangers others. Even in the case of some jerk yelling fire 
in a crowded theatre, the people can always look around and see no fire and 
tell him to shut the hell up. Stupid people endanger others.


And that's probably JUST my opinion. I could be wrong. :)

- Melissa

"It's not easy being cute." - The Warner Brothers' sister Dot.

To email me, remove the spam proofing capital letters on each side of the @
in my email address.