From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Phill Hallam-Baker (was Re: Clinton = Death of the Second Amendment?)
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:23:28 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <ARCHER.376.720378030@utkvm1.utk.edu> ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct23.004647.8997@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>>There is of course a serious point to all this, the flamage that certain 
>>members
>>of t.p.g generate demonstrates precisely why they are unfit to have 
>>guns. 

Let me see if I got this correct:  The fact that some people respond in
strong terms to postings ranging from direct insults to often repeated
arguments based on either emotion or or non-factual information means
that they are unfit to own a gun?!  In other words, only those that
quietly 'bend over and take it' are of a fit temprament?  Considering
if all gunowners used the latter reaction, they would have been relieved
of their guns long ago...

Thats a rather cute arrangement!  By protesting against injustice, one
establishes their unfitness to have the means of personal defense...
That would mean that those considered fit to own weapons would be only
those that allow injustices to go unchallened - not surprising, most
anti-gun politicians arrange for themselves to be exempt from their
restrictions one way or another (having armed guards paid for by the
taxpayer protect their worthless hides, or by virtue of their position
as a part of the government, the laws are not applicable to them), and
they definitely remain silent about correcting injustices that would
mean some degree of sacrifice or inconvenience on their part....

Example:  The guards at Ted Kennedys estates, or who accompany him
are definitely heavily armed - yet this fellow is totally against the
common person who lacks the financial means to hire full-time guards
obtaining the means to handle their own protection.  Hell, even the
guards who protect him, that are deemed to possess proper judgement
and temprament to handle/possess a gun while protecting HIM or those
of similar type suddenly loses that temprament and judgement when he
goes off duty - magically this person is no longer wise enough to
defend someone when it comes to defending himself, his wife and family.
Isn't that what clauses like "... security guards ... while on duty
... are exempted from the ... provisions of this law ..."

Isn't this another example of the Liberal Art Form (AKA Double Standard)?

>Until someone either makes a credible threat or a violent action, this 
>statment is inaccurate.
>
>>I may
>>be guilty of these character faults as well, but I am not the 
>>one who wishes to have possesion of a lethal weapon. 
>How is this relevant.  No one is trying to force you to carry reasonable 
>means of self-defense, only to prevent you from taking theirs away.  

Isn't this the point most gun-baning types either change the subject,
develop selective hearing difficulty, or decide they want to fight?

>>
>
>>Look it's very simple, there is a lunatic asylum for every hierarchy, for 
>> alt it is alt.flame, for comp it is comp.os.mine.is.better.than.yours.
>>flame for talk it is talk.politics.guns. When we get looney posts equating 

Correct me if I am wrong:  Definition of 'looney' is anything that is not
in agreement with the politically correct position, and/or not expressed
in servile tones to our "betters" (read those who are 'Enlightened')?

Like the guy who was at a Clinton rally, who had full-blown AIDS (in
other words, looking at a nasty death in the face, and therefor desprate)
who interrupted a slogan-filled stemwinding speech to say in a loud
voice "Hey!!  What are you doing about AIDS??" -- and Clintos response
was "If you don't like it, support someone else!  Don't talk to ME like
that!!"  Allready the arrogance and lack of genuine concern is showing...

He was not correctly servile, not addressing Clinton as Your Honorship,
Sir (or perhaps Master) - therefore he is unfit (for anything...)

>Well, when I was a boy and being taught debate, they told me, "When the law 
>is against you, argue the facts.  When the facts are against you, argue the 
>law.  When the law and the facts are against you, call the other guy 
>names."  We must have had the same teacher.  Thank you for conceding the 
>issue.
>
>>a few minor restrictions on a lethal hobby with the rape of the Sabine 
>                               ^^^^^^ ^^^^^
> No one here makes a hobby out of homicide.  What are you talking about?

Since some folks enjoy firearms as a hobby, it therefore means that ALL
firearm related needs are relegated to 'hobby' status, thus are
to be rejected out-of-hand...  (never mind that there are many other
hobby activities that generate a considerably higher body count when
the hobby is practiced).  Unless, of course, in this one case, 'hobby'
and 'criminal activity' are regarded as synonyms...

>>women, the assasination of Julius Ceasar and the iminent end of the Simpson'
>I can't recall any post making these claims.
>
>>s then someone has clearly lost a sense of proportion. It is perfectly O.K. 
>>to have such views at home, just don't go ramming them down our throats in 
>It has been my observation that the OTHER side of the issue is famous for 
>trying to make its opinions the law of the land.  "Throat-ramming" is a 
>relative concept.
>
>>talk.politics.misc ad nauseam which is the standard modus 
>>operandi of t.p.g, the only newsgroup that is 100% populated by mutlii. 
>I surrender.  Your command of the language exceeds mine.         ^^^^^^
>What in blazes is/are a mutlii?

Most likely a term he just made up to describe a group of people that
hold positions he and other Enlightened persons disagree with.  No doubt
the policy of the New Order, soon to be enforced by 100,000 Federal
Police Officers, will be that 'mutlii' are to be considered a class of
people who have had their Constitutional Rights (what little are left)
stripped (for the Greater Good, of course...).

>
>>Nope lets go for an unarmed police force, like the Brits do. We will also 
>>disarm the armed forces and instead of tanks give them mobile Mc Donalds 
>>restaurants.>
>This is a popular fallacy.  While British bobbies do not go armed as a 
>matter of course, it is a common practice for British police to check out 
>firearms from an armory when they feel that they will be needed in the 
>course of thier duties that day.  Further, bobbies have on call, heavily 
>armed SWAT forces that have, on average, a fifteen minute response time.
>
>>Blather blather, do you really think you are convincing anyone here? Just 

A not uncommon response to arguments one has no real response to.

>>about the only people on the net who will have sympathy with that kind of 
>>talk are those who are already paid up NRA members with bar. 

What is an 'NRA member with bar'?  And how come belonging to a pro-gun
lobby is so terrible, yet belonging to or sympathizing with an anti-gun
lobby HCI, NCBH, etc (which are anything but hard up for cash) is proper?
Both loggy politicians, both have lots of money to threaten to donate
or withold from political candidates, and use that as a lever to get
support for their positions.  Another double standard being applied
here, maybe?

>>I am afraid that you are in error.  I have seen a large number of 
>>intelligenrt people approach the issue with an open mind and be convinced 
>>by the facts laid bare before them.

So have many of us.   The facts I have seen to make an anti-gun person
reconsider usually are liberally sprinkled with cites so the reader can
check the info out for themselves.  In various anti-gun 'facts' that are
posted, I note that a liberal sprinling of cites is extremely rare.  Usually
when there are any cites, they are usually sources such as HCI, or some
other source with an ax to grind.  References to sources like the FBI
UCR are nonexistant in anti-gun 'facts'.  I wonder why.  Certainly one
is not going to claim the FBI is a pawn of the evil NRA, are we?  If
anything, they would tend to be the pawns of HCI and friends....

>>You think that the
>>definition of the english language should be the preserve of the military eh?
>Hardly.  I do, however, listen to people who are specialists in their 
>fields.  When I want to know what a sub-dural hemotoma is, I ask a doctor.  
>When I want to know what an assault rifle is, I think that the military is a 
>reasonable source of definition.

>>I have, several times. I am also fully aquainted with the federalist papers and
>>the historical context in which the decisions were taken. Making the principle
>>of separation of powers the central focus of the constitution was one of the
>>most important decisions made. Indeed it is modeled on the British parliamentary
>>practice.
>I find it interesting that you can make this claim, yet still take a stance 
>that indicates an appreciation for the current efforts to undermine civil 
>liberties as protected under the Second Amendment.

>>|>> The ambitious interpretation of the second ammendment used by the NRA would
>         ^^^^^^^^^ Not ambitious at all.  Just taking the words to mean what 
>they say.

That is not fashionable. One is supposed to use CREATIVE interpretation,
where a different dictionary is used with the Second Amendment than is
used with the First, etc.

>>|>be
>>|>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>|>> rissable enough were it not for the fact that they seriously propose armed
>>|>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>|>> insurrection against the government to be a practical safeguard for
>>|>democracy.
>>|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>It is.
>
>>|>
>>|>Please provide evidence.  Show me *ONE* NRA document that states that.  As
>>|>I recall, the NRA requires it's members to swear an oath that they will
>>|>*NOT* take up arms against the legal US government.
>>
>>Try reading t.p.g. You will see in at least one post in ten a statement to the
>>effect "possetion of arms by private citizens is a check upon the Federal
>>Governemnt". 

>While arguably true, it is also irrelivant.  T.P.G is not an NRA document, 
>which was what he requested.  Don't dodge the issue.

>>|>> We shall leave asside the fact that european countries have managed to
>>|>maintain
>>|>> democracies without resort to such means.
>I find this an entertaining claim each time I hear it.  Less than fifty 
>years ago, tyrants disarmed the populations of a number of european 
>countries and it led to one of the worst bloodbaths in world history.

>>Owning a gun is an uncivil liberty sir. 

Please explain how one can have the right to life, and the right to
protect that life, if they are denied an effective means to do so.
Or is the right to defend one's life no longer a civil liberty?

>No, it is not.  It is a constitutionally protected civil liberty and a 
>political right, no different from the right to speak and assemble, or to 
>vote.

>>In a civilized society you don't need to
>>carry a pistol to be safe walking the street.

Fine.  Have the Demo and Liberal VIPs discharge their bodyguards, or
tell them to no longer carry guns.  Or is that 'DIFFERENT"?

>We don't live in a civilized society.

>True.  Since when has a need for a civil liberty mandated it's presence.  
>You don't need to vote, but it is your right.

>>Yes, a lot of people wearing pillow cases wanting to "take some uppity nigger
>>down a peg or two" is the usual cause. People who live out fantasies of
>>violence, buying magasines such as soldier of fortune and playing survivalist
>>games are not in general the sort of people who take ideas contradictory to
>>their own happily. 

Interestingly, the original gun control laws were supported by those
wearing pillow cases, since they found that the fun was gone
when those 'uppity niggers' had the means to repel those folks who
wanted to take them down a peg or two - as in lynching them.  In fact
a common characteristic of gun control laws is that the social elites
are always provided a means to have the law not apply to them, so not
much has changed.  Note that blacks are usually not a member of that
social elite, just like 'white trash' isn't either.

The old truism still applies:  Nothing scares white america like a
nigger with a gun.  The fact the laws, to appear more 'polite' now
apply to non-blacks of similar social status is no doubt considered
a plus.  Note that to be a 'social elite' means to be wealthy, and/or
politically well-connected.  SO WHAT IS NEW, other than the surface
trappings?

I am sure the above will be rejected as 'embarrasing history' but it
is no less true.

>No one takes ideas contrary to their own happily.  It comes with being human.

>>And who prey defines "wishes to be our ruler". The only coherent principle the
>>collected minds of t.p.g can agree on is that they don't want their toys taken
>>away. 
>An over-generalization.  We can also agree that when one idiot has a bad 
>idea, one gets an idiot with a bad idea.  When the governemnt gets a 
>bad idea, we get bad law.  We also tend to agree that firearms are not "
>toys."

Since the issue is the ability to effectively defend oneself, this is
hardly a 'toy' issue.  The common referral to 'toys' is merely a smoke
screen, as is the crime issue.  I have yet to see a verifiable instance
of where a restrictive gun law benefitted ANYBODY other than the politicians
and those that dislike the idea of not having a monopoly on ALL types
of power.
-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket" 
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:59815 alt.rush-limbaugh:9542 alt.politics.elections:23606