From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 23 Aug 92 12:00:15 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug22.223032.21185@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
> In article <1992Aug22.150137.9639@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug22.085607.10847@news.acns.nwu.edu>, query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green) writes:
>>> (argument for not using WD40 deleted)
>>> (counter argument and ego stroking deleted)
>>> 
>>>  NOT A CRIME FOR HER TO CARRY ANYTHING FOR
>>>>SELF-DEFENSE NOT SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT AS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE!
>>> 
>>> 	"Well, your honor, there isn't really a law that spells this one
>>> out..."
>>> 	Judge sits back and thinks for a few moments...
>>> 	"You're right.  Because there is no law specifically prohibiting
>>> the use of a Tomahawk (conventional) missile for self defense, I am afraid
>>> that the only charges we can prosecute for are wilful destruction of
>>> property..."
>>
>>Your ignorance of the law would be most amusing if it were not for the fact
>>that you are presenting it as true to people who might mistakenly act upon what
>>you are saying.
>>
>>Go to your local state staute and look up "primitive weapons", or similar
>>phrase. Further, go to your dictionary and look up "tomahawk", see if it
>>is defined as a weapon of sorts. Then look up "WD-40".
> 
> 	Your ignorance is quite amusing.  Did I say a tomahawk, meaning a
> little native american axe/hatchet?  No, I said Tomahawk (conventional)
> *missile*, which, in *EVERY* single government description, has been seen
> as a 'defensive <fill in the blank>' and NOT a weapon...  After all, nukes aren't even
> LEGALLY called weapons, but "DDeterrent aides" (I shit you not.  Had to
> answer a few bullshit questions rregarding that for PRP and SC screening and clearances)

You IGNORANCE of the law and legal matters is pathetic. Do you really think
that a state court is going to care WHAT the military calls an item in
its brochures? Do you think that a land-mine is going to NOT be called
a weapon because it is an anti-personell DEVICE according to the military
training manuals.

Jesus Christ. You are trying to say that since the military does not call
something a weapon, the state legislature is bound by their terminology?

GO READ YOUR STATUTES BEFORE DEMONSTRATING YOUR OVERWHELMING IGNORANCE!
READ THE DEFINITION OF WEAPON!!! READ ALL OF THE DESCRPTORS AND QUALIFIERS
THEY USE TO INLCUDE A DIVERSE VARIETY OF ITEMS!!!

THEN, come back and tell me that your tomahawk missle does not fall into
the enumerated items. 

Further, and I am sure this is a newsflash because you seem to think civilian
courts are bound by military decisions, in civilian matters, and MANY military
ones, the civilian courts call the shots. Do you really think a civilian court
gives a whit what the military calls an item when a civilian case is before it?
And, let me give you a newsflash, if this were a military matter, IT WOULDN'T
BE BEFORE A CIVILIAN COURT! Do you think or presume a military court would be
trying a civilian who used a military item? In a non-military action.

Stop sharing your igorance, it is most disgusting.


>>
>>Jesus--THINK AND RESEARCH before stating something is legal--someone might be
>>foolish enough to listen to what you were saying. 
> 	Oh, as opposed to taking what you say on faith?  Gee, and, after
> all, we know just how much your opinion would count to a reasoned
> individual, don't we. 
>>
>>> 	(further tripe deleted)
>>
>>> 	I think that there are probably enough blanket laws out there that
>>> would cover a lot of home and store bought defenses.  Probably a state that
>>> restricts mace and capicum and the like would also make use of other
>>> chemicals for defense equally illegal.  I mean, it wouldn't make sense to
>>> make mace illegal, and allow, say, concentrated hydrochloric acid to be
>>> used...  Even though mace is a wee bit easier to carry and utilize for
>>> defense (Unless, of course, you rig something up...)
>>
>>"probably enough blanket laws..." 
>>"probably a state that..."
>>"it wouldn't make sense..."
>>
>>Why are you shooting off your mouth on a legal subject you know nothing about?
>>And further, you haven't taken the time to look up your own statutes on the
>>subject! Have you done any reasearch on the subject WHATSOEVER???
>>	How is saying something 'probably' law stating that it IS a law?  I
> personally fail to see how, if someone as astute as your average lemur
> monkey (yourself.  Comeon, lets face it, you have prooven beyond doubt that
> we did indeed evolve from monkeys) can see that I used'probably'  in front of each of those statements
> to show that it could be different in their area

Fine, you are saying 'probably is the law' based upon nothing other than your
own wishes for it to be so. I wish I could walk to the moon. Should I go around
telling people we can "probably walk to the moon."???


> 	But, DC, whyever should I look things up?  You are always there to
> lend a hand!  And, of course, you are *never* wrong.  Or, if you are, all
> you do is argue with people.  Gah, get a grip.  *SLAP* Snap out of it.
> What a samaritan you are!  Oh, yeah, forgot.  You get sop hostile in your
> posts that no one really reads them for information, just amusement. 

No, I just am sick of people like you who want to sound like you know what you
are talking about when you need to pull a clue from the clue bag. Or just to
lazy to do some simple, basic, research. 

> 	Noticed in your response to the guy that posted about it probably
> being illegal in the first place, and your wonderfully polite, well
> reasoned response... Yeah, right.  Why don't you attempt a bit of civility,
> either that, or, maybe you should at the very least relax....  You are
> only succeeding in making even more people realize that you are, as it was
> quaintly called by one poster, an a**h****, or, as we call them here in
> Chicago, an asshole.

Who cares what you, or tohers think of me. I am right, while you and your buddy
not only are wrong, but you are trying to tell other people things that they
might act upon.

Did it ever occur to you that when a rape prevention device is available, when
you or your buddy say, "No, that probably falls under the same law as mace, and
a woman will get prosecuted for carrying it." that some people might be foolish
enough to listen to what you are saying? 

You kow, if you want to talk about the military, go for it. You want to spread
your misconceptions about the law--be aware that when you spout off false
information, I am going to come down hard on you so maybe, just maybe, you'll
be to embarrassed to do it again.

And, whther you like me here or not, that is the way it is.

> 
>>And you claim I am the one who just likes to talk to hear himself???
> 
> Well, hmm...  Can't see any other reason for you to go out and attack
> ANYONE who dissagrees with you, DC.  Perhaps you were neglected as a child,
> and now, you seek to either gain attention by flames, or, most prorbably,
> you use arguing as a freudian 'penis extension'?  There are, of course,
> many other possibilities, but, since you so obviously relish rersearch, go
> look for some.

Wrong, it is because I can not stand people who like to talk when they know
nothing about the subject. You know, a blowhard, the person YOU see in your
mirror. You do absolutley NOTHING to make yourself any more knowledgable on
asubject, but you are always there to show what you (do not) know to the world.

And you can try and turn this around to an attack on me all you want, but the
fact remains that you have spread information without a clue as to its
validity. Further, the ONLY thing that has stopped you from having better
information is you are too LAZY to go look it up.

Nothing you can say can change THAT.

You screwed up, you've been called for it, and now you are upset. Well, my
advice in the future is real simple--don't take such relish in speaking on
subjects you are ignorant of.

DC




Newsgroups: talk.rape