From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.french
Subject: Re: Guns, Motorcycles, and Internet Access in Paris
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:36:35 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <6323@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> 
yzarn@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Philip Yzarn de Louraille) writes:

>In article <1992Aug22.200627.15021@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <6322@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> 
>>yzarn@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (Philip Yzarn de Louraille) writes:

>>>In article <1992Aug22.152202.15017@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>>... deleted stuff ...

MZ:
>>>>polite inquiry on s.c.f.  Unfortunately, I haven't counted on the small but
>>>>vociferous presence of hypocritical, egocentric, condescending chauvinists
>>>>like you and Luc Maillet, the sort that confuse the crack of their ass with
>>>>the axis of the universe, just as they habitually confuse the incoherent
>>>>emissions of their gob with the _vox populi, vox Dei_, and their sincere,
>>>>ill-considered philistinism -- with the lofty Platonic ideal of morality,
>>>>the sort that readily grant themselves an unlimited license to prejudge and
>>>>insult their interlocutor, as well as to bashfully take umbrage at the
>>>>reciprocal deployment of strong language in their own direction.  Still,
>>>>you must pardon me for clinging to my naive conviction that the spectrum of
>>>>French political opinion is not exhausted by your effete and bombastic
>>>>sort; that there yet remain in France a few heirs of Baudelaire, Vall\`es,
>>>>Lautr\'eamont, Jarry, Apollinaire, Breton, and Char, who are not liable to
>>>>faint when confronted with strong language, nor to run away from the sight
>>>>of naked weapons.  As for the rest, you will understand my not finding them
>>>>too interesting, and consequently -- not paying too much attention to their
>>>>numerous opinions.
>>>>
>>>>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>>>>"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."

PYL:
>>>Say, Michael (or is it mikhail?),

MZ:
>>Either way, as you wish.

PYL:
>>>For your information, I did post last sunday a message which summed my
>>>knowledge of french laws and gun ownerships. When I lived in France, I
>>>owned several handguns (Smith&Wesson, 357 Magnum and 44 Magnum, in 6" and 8"
>>>and 3/8 barrel length). I had these legally and could carry them to and
>>>from the shooting range (dismantled, of course, with some parts in the
>>>trunk and other parts in the glove compartment).
>>>
>>>As you are making a pest of yourself, I am not going to repost my original
>>>post (what the hell happened to it? I myself never saw it being
>>>posted....)

MZ:
>>Well, your post never made it out here either.  But please tell me -- how
>>do you expect one to react to the sort of gratuitous, unprovoked insults
>>that have been meted out to me in the past week?  Would you have liked me
>>better, had I swallowed my dignity and beat a hasty retreat?  Or should I
>>have grovelled before the mighty pronouncements of your compatriots,
>>abjectly deferring to their wishes concerning the disposition of myself and
>>my weapons?  Sorry, but where I come from, one gives exactly as much
>>courtesy as one gets.

PYL:
>Some people might have gathered that the request was unwelcomed and would
>have accepted that fact. No one is obliged to answer you, you know.

And I am certainly not trying to coerce anyone into answering my inquiry.
However there is a vast difference between abstaining from making a
response, and responding in a gratuitously hostile manner, wouldn't you
agree?  Furthermore, Monsieur Le Pen certainly makes it known that foreign
Jews are unwelcome in France; nevertheless his valiant efforts have not
persuaded me to accept that as a fact by changing my travel plans.

PYL:
>>>If you really want to get to the bottom of french laws concerning
>>>foreigners importing (or carrying) weapons to France, please refer to your
>>>nearest french consulate. Either that or bring your "tools" to France and
>>>tell the custom agents when they ask you if you have something to declare
>>>that you are in possession of several weapons and see them getting in
>>>action. You will then learn of these laws right away.

MZ:
>>I *have* referred to my nearest French consulate, which wasn't terribly
>>helpful.  My purpose here consisted in eliciting information of private
>>experience of French shooting enthusiasts, including, but not limited to,
>>suggestions on how to deal with the local regulations in a relatively
>>painless fashion.  This sort of information just wouldn't be forthcoming
>>through the official channels.  Perhaps you might be able to relate to my
>>predicament, if you tried (for all I know, you already have) asking the US
>>Immigration and Naturalization service about the best ways for you to get a
>>US green card.

PYL:
>Got that a long time ago, and the US citizenship 2 years ago.

Well, then you must know how much administrative bullshit is involved in
the naturalization process.  Why would anyone assume me to be a maniac
solely because I am trying to find a way to deal with the French
administrative bullshit?

PYL:
>I'm curious to see why the consulate gave you a hard time. Hmmmm. Maybe
>they don't want you to bring weapons to France....?

The consulate didn't give me a hard time; they just weren't forthcoming
with the kind of information I was interested in.  For that matter, the US
INS isn't forthcoming with the most helpful information about immigration
to the US either.  Perhaps neither organization is terribly interested in
helping its clients; and in neither case is there a fact of the matter
concerning their right to be helped.  Still, as a matter of personal
preference, I wouldn't automatically discourage anyone from attempting to
immigrate to the US.  Thus I am curious why some people would react with
such hostility to someone attempting to lawfully bring some weapons to
France.

>[...]

PYL:
>>>Your last sentence above, when you mention that you do not pay much
>>>attention to numerous opinions that you do not find "interesting" is at
>>>the root of your problems. You are a gun fanatic, and fanatics do not
>>>reason well because they are unable to pay attention to other people
>>>differing opinions. Fanatics cannot make "reasonnable" judgements because
>>>they have a vision which is too narrow. It is a self-imposed impairment.

MZ:
>>More nonsense.  The sort of opinions I dismiss are the hostile ones, which
>>I have made abundantly clear in my own retaliatory message above.
>>Moreover, if you have any supporting evidence for pronouncing me a "gun
>>fanatic", whatever you might mean by that, please let me see it.  Hint:
>>nowhere have I made any allusion to any sort of right or principle which
>>would allow me to place myself above the law, nor have I dismissed or
>>otherwise failed to address any reasonable expression of opposing views.

PYL:
>I was under the impression, as I scanned past all the followups that your
>request generated thru this newsgroup (and thanks to your "cross-posting")
>that you were the author of many of those. Maybe I am wrong. For instance,
>there was one guy, who saw one "rambo" too many who claimed to be able to
>stop a tank division by shooting all the tank commanders. Well, then,
>Michael, if you were not the authors of these posts, then I agree that my
>labelling you of a gun fanatic does not apply.

Several superficially similar claims were in fact made; here is my own
statement from the article <1992Aug18.194737.14869@husc3.harvard.edu>:

>In article <26720@life.ai.mit.edu> 
>benjamin@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Benjamin Renaud) writes:

BR:
>>Well, the thing is you see, guns will -never- help you against a
>>government. The day there is a coup d'etat in the US (which will have
>>the support of the army, because it needs it),
>>
>>n ** you will look rather silly waving you little colt at a BIG TANK !!**

MZ:
>I would look far sillier standing in line for the showers.

BR:
>>The US has the biggest (and best of course...) military in the world.
>>A few (even a few milion) hunting rifles will do NOTHING against it.

MZ:
>As a matter of fact, I own no hunting rifles, since I no longer have the
>time to hunt.  Now let us perform a thought experiment.  I live in a city
>whose layout is intimately known to me.  Suppose a coup comes; I pick up my
>SIG AMT .308, with 4 extra magazines (100 rounds total), which allows me to
>hit a dinner plate-sized target at 600 meters with open sights, offhand.
>On my person I can easily carry another 100 rounds and a telescopic sight,
>which increases my effective range to 1000 meters, plus a 9mm P210 with 150
>rounds of pistol ammunition, plus camping supplies sufficient for several
>days.  Now think about the number of tank commanders I can take out before
>my luck runs out; then multiply this number by your estimate of the total
>number of like-minded individuals.  Consider Vietnam, Lebanon, Northern
>Ireland, Afghanistan, and other similar cases before you answer.

As you can see, at issue is not anyone's putative ability to stop a tank
division by shooting all the tank commanders, but a general question of the
efficacy of organized civilian resistance to military actions, considered
as ancillary to that of the desirability of civilian firearms ownership.
Interestingly enough, unlike several onlookers, Benjamin Renaud had
absolutely no problem understanding what I meant in the above passage.

PYL:
>>>You may have noticed that I eliminated the "talk.guns.?" that you had
>>>redirected these posts to. What is the matter, Michael? Can't you debate by
>>>yourself? Or do you need the help of others?

MZ:
>>It is my custom to cross-post to relevant groups.  However, since your
>>disagreement is stated with a modicum of good manners (the penis joke and
>>jumping to conclusions notwithstanding), I'll be happy to respect your
>>wishes in the present case.  Whatever you wish to debate in a calm,
>>reasoned manner, will be addressed likewise.

PYL:
>Well, then since we agree to treat each other gentleman like, I will
>append at the end of this diatribe my original post which I happened to
>find in the news spool directory a full ten minutes before the group was
>expired.

Thank you.

PYL:
>Thar it is:

MZ:
>>>>(i)	French legislation pertaining firearms importation, ownership,
>>>>possession, and carrying, especially by foreign nationals.

PYL:
>I do not know if this is true for non-french, but for a frog to be able to
>*buy* a handgun, he/she must first be part of a gun club for at least 6
>months (I think). After that period of time *and* after having shown up to
>the shooting range on a weekly basis, the club president signs a paper
>saying that you are a good person, then you must obtain an authorization
>from the prefecture, (and you have to say *what* gun you want, like model,
>brand, etc...), and then you can buy the "tool". You can only buy so many
>cartridges (forgot how many..) but not too many, like two boxes at a time
>(100 rounds).
>Then you can only be in possession of the gun to and from the shooting
>range. The gun must be disassembled in such a way
>-revolver: the cylinder and the body must be separated (if it is possible)
>with the cylinder in the car (glove compartment) the body *and* cartridges
>in the trunk.
>-pistol: the clip (unloaded, of course) in the glove compartment, the rest
>of the gun is disassembled, separated from the cartridges and in the
>trunk.

It's interesting how the law assumes car ownership and use.  What about
pedestrians or bicyclists?

PYL:
>Anyways, that covers most of what I remember from over 18 years ago when I
>was 18 and leaving in France.
>
>Rules may have changed since. Don't know. Also, I may have forgotten some
>but the above is quite correct for these times in spirit, at least.
>
>How does that applies for non-froggies: I would assume that you cannot
>bring your guns (shotguns and hunting rifles excepted) in France.
>Oh, by the way, in France, AR-15 like weapons, are not considered to be
>hunting weapons.... so if this is what you want to bring in France, forget
>it.

OK, that's what I wanted to know.  Also, I understand that military
calibers are explicitly proscribed, so that neither .308 Winchester (a.k.a.
7.62 NATO) nor 9mm Luger is allowed.  Moreover, things must have changed in
this century: Alfred Jarry used to comply with the law forbidding concealed
carry of firearms by strapping several to his body in plain view, before
mounting his bicycle.  In fact, I would like to know whether any private
citizens may be allowed to carry their weapons loaded and concealed,
whether by special dispensation, or by reasons of employment.

PYL:
>Further more, even though you can buy AR-15 like weapon in France (with
>considerable difficulty, I might add), modifying it in any way, shape or
>form, and trying to make it a fully automated weapon (ala M-16) is
>absolutely forbidden and punishable by prison terms. No excuses allowed.
>No Oliver North/Ronald Reagan excuses accepted: "I forgot", "I do not
>remember", "I was doing it for the good of the country, don't you know", or
>even a plain "I did not know".

Except for cases of a special permission, involving a rigorous FBI
background check and the payment of $200 tax, the same is true in the
United States. In fact, in California it is absolutely prohibited to
civilians, regardless of any Federal permits.

PYL:
>French laws can be so hostile, you know!

"Ha ha !  dit Bosse-de-Nage, sans plus de commentaires."
_Gestes et opinions du docteur Faustroll, pataphysicien_

>Good day.
>-- 
>  Philip Yzarn de Louraille                 Internet: yzarn@chevron.com
>  Research Support Division                 Unix & Open Systems
>  Chevron Information & Technology Co.      Tel: (310) 694-9232
>  P.O. Box 446, La Habra, CA 90633-0446     Fax: (310) 694-7709

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."
Newsgroups: soc.culture.french,talk.politics.guns