From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Rifleman needs enlightment (was Re: Enlightenment)
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:11:25 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

>That is Mr. Archambeau to you.  I, unlike you, use my real name on the
>net.  And I expect to be addressed as such.  How can you expect anyone
>to take anything you say seriously?

What has my name got to do with the content of my posts?  If you're
concerned about the content, then don't dwell on a strawman!

>Circumstantial 
>evidence, yes...but convincing considering your known track record on rg 
>and tpg.  I think I've found the guilty party.

Good thing your not in charge of the judicial system.

>You probably do.   You're probably also cast from the same mold of those
>idiots that engage in rapid firing when 'no rapid firing' is clearly
>posted on the shooting range and end up hitting everything but the
>silhouette on a B-27 target.  You may be a gun owner, but you have
>demonstrated to be anything but responsible because of your poor
>attitude on the net.

Christ.  Well, I've got a number of things to say to that.  First,
what in the hell do my writings here on the net have to do with the
physical manner in which I handle firearms?  You may assume there's
a correlation, but I can assure you that when real danger is involved
I'm *very* careful.  I'm probably more careful the guys in the gun store
I go to regularly.  One of the guys points the gun at you when he's showing
it to you.  I'd never to that.  I've never pointed a gun capable of launching
a metal projectile at ANYONE, not even an AIR gun.  My range doesn't
have a "No rapid fire" sign, but even so, I would only consider firing
rapidly when drilling myself on how to react in a self-defense situation.
In any case, I'd never fire so fast as to miss the target in an indoor
range.  By the way, I only shoot at regulation ring targets, not
human silhouettes.
>
>I seem to recall an admission from you posted on here saying that you
>did indeed post those messages.

Why would I admit to something I never did.  Wouldn't make much sense.

>Maybe it's more circumstantial
>evidence or perhaps another forgery?   Maybe Sarah Brady hacked your
>account personally?

Plonk.

>But you, sir, have branded yourself in my mind as someone who shouldn't
>have a gun because you don't have the proper attitude about handling one.

What is the proper attitude(tm)?

>An accidental discharge waiting to happen.

Translation: "Witch!  Burn the witch!"

>Or I bet you're just waiting
>for that intruder to break into your apartment.  I bet you leave the door
>ajar at 3am hoping someone walks in so you can empty the magazine of your 
>Springfield Armory 1911A1 into him.

Definitely.  I can't wait to spend thousands of dollars in court, and
have the police accidently destroy my Springfield.
>
>With owning firearms comes a great set of responsibilities.  Having the
>proper attitude is one of them.

Gee, DAD.  I'll remember that.  What should I get you for Father's Day?
Would a new tie be nice?

>If you have a bad attitude, you're
>going to make a serious error in judgement.

And I have a "bad attitude"?  Maybe if I were Jeff Cooper, I'd take
that as a compliment, but in this case I won't.

>I've said my piece on this matter and I hope it sinks in.  You are now
>being entered into my kill file for tpg and rg.  Have a nice day.

What an open-minded person you are.  To show what a reasonable person
I am, I'm NOT going to put you in my kill file.  You see, I presume people
are innocent, and don't judge them completely by what they write in
a newsgroup.
 
                  "Judge not, lest thee be judged."
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:17932 alt.individualism:4559