From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: a few words about election returns
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:32:08 GMT

In article <gate.sN94TB1w165w@pil.UUCP> alizard@pil writes:
>Re: Re: A Few Words About Election Results
>By: altheimm #0 @nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) USEnet      
> 
>> From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
>> Newsgroups: alt.pagan
>> Subject: Assault Weapons [Was: a few words about election results]
>> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:32:46 GMT
>> >As for assault weapons... I think it's time to find out what people are bein
>> >hysterical about, the descriptions of the power of assault weapons I've seen
>> >around here look like science fiction death rays, not any product of

Please note that the above is not my post. Please be more careful when 
editing. I don't exactly disown the comment, but I did not write it. 

>> I hope I'm not sounding hysterical. I have no particular belief in the
>> death ray theory. As discussed at some length in my earlier post, I have
>> a problem with two parts of "assault weapons": those that are automatic
>> weapons (or are easily modified to be automatic), and large magazine 
>> capacity. Neither are necessary for hunting, nor are appropriate for 
>> defensive purposes in an urban environment. And yes, I do understand how
>
>I was combining my responses to more than just your own post when I inserted
>the death ray comment, someone else said something absurd about spraying
>hundreds of bullets per second (quite possible, but we are talking about
>a Mini-gun too big for a human to carry) out of an assault rifle. Which is
>not possible.

[description of weapons types deleted...]

Yes, I understand the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic
weapons. It is not exactly occult knowledge. As to automatic weapons 
being difficult to get, I know of three people in the last ten years who
had automatic weapons, all of whom I think were dinks*, and I heard a
number of stories of them driving out into the desert to get their 
jollies firing the guns off. All were somehow obtained illegally, and 
all three in the hands of irresponsible and/or criminal types. And I'm 
hardly connected with the crime underworld.

Blessings,

Murray

* definition of dinks, dicks and pricks, according to my SO:

dink: a male, so inconsequential he can't even make dick status. These
  are the most dangerous in many cases, as they usually try to make up for
  being a dink by having an incredibly inflated ego. A few people come to
  mind. These are the types that accost women in bars, and upon being
  turned down, follow them home or try to call them up at work and harass
  them, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LIFE.

dick: your standard asshole, Bruce Willis obnoxious American male type.
  I suppose we can relax the "American" requirement around here. These
  are the types that accost women in bars, and upon being turned down,
  make some loud, rude comment and walk away.

prick: probably the only self-deserving label that some men strive for.
  Being a prick means having the loudest car in high school, cutting
  people off in traffic with your new BMW while talking on your car
  phone, or driving your yacht much too close to that sailboat. Being
  a prick means dating your best friend's girlfriend, or punching out
  your neighbor for dumping his leaves on your property. These are the
  types that accost women in bars, and upon being turned down, ignore
  the fact that they have been turned down until the woman finally gets
  hostile, then deliberately spilling a drink down the front of her
  blouse so he can see her nipples.

'nuff said. 

I hope this clears this matter up for you people.  :-)
  
-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."