From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:30:32 GMT

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)
>
>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
	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. 
	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.

>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.
	>
>DC
>
> 
>
>> 	Sam