Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 01:42:13 -0500
Today, in a vote fo 216 to 214, the House of representitives voted to
take some of the first steps towards the abolishment of the 2nd
amendments, which guarantees the rights of the citizens to keep and bear
arm.

Historically, this is the first step towards a totalitarian society.

How I dream for Oceania.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 2
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 11:45:02 -0500
Ah, it's not dead yet. Give it a few more years, of course, but...

Next Step: Enforcement (yeah right. This'll be a bigger joke than
drug control...with guns, you can shoot back).

----------------------- "Well, you see, they took the Bible literally.
Tim Skirvin Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple...took
(tskirvin@ it word for word. Unfortunately, their
superdec.uni.uiuc.edu) version had a misprint."
----------------------- - Rimmer, Red Dwarf (The Last Day)
Message no. 3
From: Joshua James Harrison <harrij4@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 13:26:08 -0400
On May 6, 1:42am, "Robert A. Hayden" wrote:
> Subject: RIP: U.S. Constitution
> Today, in a vote fo 216 to 214, the House of representitives voted to
> take some of the first steps towards the abolishment of the 2nd
> amendments, which guarantees the rights of the citizens to keep and bear
> arm.
>
> Historically, this is the first step towards a totalitarian society.
>
> How I dream for Oceania.

Are you talking about the vote on that bill that was being hotly debated the
last couple of weeks? With all those hearings and the NRA publicity and stuff?
Ouch... though I must admit I saw it coming...

Anybody want to put together a strike force? :-)


--
Josh Harrison | A Elbereth Gilthoniel | "The Hedgehog"
aka A.M. Hawke | o menel palan-diriel, | \ \ | / /
Internet: | le nallon si di'nguruthos! | \ \ | / /
harrij4@***.edu | A tiro nin, Fanuilos! | --- O O ---
------------------------------------------------------------| / C \
'Now come, you filth!' he cried. 'You've hurt my master, | / m\_/m \
you brute, and you'll pay for it. We're going on; but we'll |---------------
settle with you first. Come on, and taste it again!' - Sam, "The Two Towers"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GE/T/O d++(--) -p+ c+(++) l u e+ m+(-) s+/ !n h f+(*) !g w+@ t+@ r(+) y?
Message no. 4
From: Bryan Prince <WALAB@******.HH.VANDERBILT.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 12:36:50 -0600
My 0.02$ worth....

We, the American people, take our privilages far too lightly. We have
the worst record for voter turnout of any country where the citizens
have the right to vote. Voter turnout in S.Africa, where there were
bombings and threats of bombings was at 80+%, last my paper read. Yet
all we have to do is drive to the voter station (schoolhouse,ect..)
wait in line, push a button and go home. We, as a people, are allowing
'professional' politicians to ruin our Government, our Country, and
our lives. Remember"...Government of the People, for the People, and
by the People..."? It is not too late to take back our Government from the
hands of those who will not serve us, but serve themselves at our expense.
VOTE!! STOP APATHY!! Show our leaders that you expect them to lead_and_to_
serve_. If we do not excersize our rights we will lose them. They will be
slowly taken away from us in bits and pieces, until they are all gone.
What is happening in our Government today is proof....
Do you want your kids to live in a SR universe???
>>>exit soapbox<<<
Bryan Prince
Message no. 5
From: "I.M. Legion" <legion@***.SC.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 12:07:16 -0600
> Today, in a vote fo 216 to 214, the House of representitives voted to
> take some of the first steps towards the abolishment of the 2nd
> amendments, which guarantees the rights of the citizens to keep and bear
> arm.

Next is the right to privacy (Clipper), and free speech is a close second.

I think it's time to look at that clause about when the government turns
bad to wipe it out and start over. Something along those lines anyway.

(Just another American ignorant about the Bill of Rights' fine print.)

--
Legion
Students for War & Oppression
@@@@ @ @ @@@@ Counter productive, highly destructive!
@ @ @@ @ @ @ ---
@@@@ @ @@ @ @ @ Celebrating the occurrences of War &
@ @ @@ @ @ @ Oppression since the dawn of time
@@@@ @@@@ @@@@ -- Even the planets were born in turmoil... --
Message no. 6
From: Ahern T Stephan <maxim@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 13:37:45 -0500
On Fri, 6 May 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> Today, in a vote fo 216 to 214, the House of representitives voted to
> take some of the first steps towards the abolishment of the 2nd
> amendments, which guarantees the rights of the citizens to keep and bear
> arm.

Ah. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. _BUT_, that
is a right given to the _STATE_ not citizens. You know, an army and stuff.


--
Ahern T. Stephan
maxim@*******.mankato.msus.edu

***********************************************************
* Arthur: "But can we trust him?" *
* Ford: "Myself I'd trust him to the end of the Earth." *
* Arthur: "Oh yes, and how far is that?" *
* Ford: "About twelve minutes away." *
***********************************************************
Message no. 7
From: Quick Key <WAHERN@******.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 15:17:01 -0400
Bryan Prince, get back on that soap box.
Bravo!!!
Quick Key
Message no. 8
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 15:17:16 -0400
>>>>> "Ahern" == Ahern T Stephan
<maxim@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU> writes:

Ahern> Ah. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. _BUT_,
Ahern> that is a right given to the _STATE_ not citizens. You know, an army
Ahern> and stuff.

Nope; re-read it. The 2nd Ammendment is to provide a militia in times of
emergency. Now, the Reserves tend to act in this capacity, but a state
militia is comprised of private citizens and not active military personnel.

\||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||/
== Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==
== History shows again and again/How nature points up the folly of men ==
== --Blue Oyster Cult, "Godzilla" ==
/||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||\
Message no. 9
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 12:48:23 -0700
On Fri, 6 May 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> Today, in a vote fo 216 to 214, the House of representitives voted to
> take some of the first steps towards the abolishment of the 2nd
> amendments, which guarantees the rights of the citizens to keep and bear
> arm.
>
> Historically, this is the first step towards a totalitarian society.
>
> How I dream for Oceania.
>
I'm in full agreement! This country has just been sold out by a group of
traitors.
Ivy K. Ryan
I got's no sig.
Message no. 10
From: jacob hawkins <HAWKINSJ@********.WA.COM>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 22:07:37 +0200
If ya can't fight the system, be the system. That's what I always
say.


Snakebait
______________________________________________________________________
"Sealed with a curse as sharp as a knife | Doctor Emilio Lizardo
Doomed is your soul and damned is your life!"| a.k.a Lord John
| Whorphin
Message no. 11
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 15:33:09 -0500
On Fri, 6 May 1994, Ahern T Stephan wrote:

> Ah. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. _BUT_, that
> is a right given to the _STATE_ not citizens. You know, an army and stuff.

That is where you are wrong. it is given to the militia.

mi.li.tia \m*-'lish-*\ \-m*n\ n [L, military service, fr. milit-, miles] 1:
a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in
emergency 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as
being subject to call to military service - mi.li.tia.man n

ie, anyone who is registered with selective service could be defined as a
member of the militia. Besides, the 2nd amendment i there to give the
citizens the means to fight against that very same government.


____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 12
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 14:10:16 -0700
Well, it might be too late now to recover from the last 60 years
of apathy.
Just a thought.
Revolution calling. . .
Ivy K. (Who didn't spend 20 years protecting the Constitution in
the Army just to let a bunch of traitors wreck it now.)
Message no. 13
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 14:15:39 -0700
Sorry Ahern,
The words "The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed" are pretty clear.
The Militia they were talking about was every person who lived in
the country, not some professional military. Military, for info, means a
professional, trained, group. That covers regulars and reserves
incidentially. Militia is, and always has been, the untrained people of
the land.
Message no. 14
From: jacob hawkins <HAWKINSJ@********.WA.COM>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 00:26:24 +0200
I'm still pushing for the right to arm bears.


Snakebait
______________________________________________________________________
"Sealed with a curse as sharp as a knife | Doctor Emilio Lizardo
Doomed is your soul and damned is your life!"| a.k.a Lord John
| Whorphin
Message no. 15
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 18:02:02 -0500
On Sat, 7 May 1994, jacob hawkins wrote:

> I'm still pushing for the right to arm bears.

That's right. You've watched him on the small screen, now see him on the
big screen.

WINNIE THE POOH AND TIGGER II

Pooh is back and he's pissed off! Watch as he blows away evil badguys
and still manages to return home for a pot of honey.

WINNIE THE POOH AND TIGGER II

You'll grip your seat as Pooh's faithful sidekick Tigger bounds to the
rescuse of his big buddy.

WINNIE THE POOH AND TIGGER II

Don't wait! Get in line now!

You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll kiss five bucks goodbye.

Coming soon to a theatre near you.

(this film has not yet been rated)

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 16
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 19:53:43 -0500
The specific phrase is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Or on Clipper:

"...the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

I think the phrase about governmental overthrow is in the Declaration of
Independence, though. =)

Something about how it is the duty of the people to overthrow government when
its bonds are constricting their freedoms or somesuch...

Don't ask me! I've got Italian citizenship! *grin*
Message no. 17
From: Dave S Johnson <john0286@****.TC.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 20:09:00 -0500
On Fri, 6 May 1994, Ahern T Stephan wrote:

> On Fri, 6 May 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
>
> > Today, in a vote fo 216 to 214, the House of representitives voted to
> > take some of the first steps towards the abolishment of the 2nd
> > amendments, which guarantees the rights of the citizens to keep and bear
> > arm.
>
> Ah. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. _BUT_, that
> is a right given to the _STATE_ not citizens. You know, an army and stuff.
>
Also, you can still bear arms, just not 19 types of assault rifles.
God, I don't feel safe anymore, I cant carry my AK-47 to class anymore....


Dave S Johnson
Message no. 18
From: Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 00:21:36 -0400
AARGH! Here, most of us are in agreement that Congress (as we
know it) is the opposite of Progress and that the currently proposed gun
laws don't make anybody happy.
But if _we_ can't agree on the meaning of the Constitution, what
makes you think that a large body of people, most with opposing goals in
mind, could ever agree?

I don't want to let the current Government re-write the
Constitution. But I'd like to see it re-written in modern language and
SET IN STONE in such a way that everybody agrees on what it says _now_
before they go off and try to change it any further. It may end up saying
some pretty stupid things by modern standards, but that's okay, 'cause
we'll know what it says and be one _hell_ of a lot closer to being able to
fix the problems in it.
Perhaps Congress needs a FAQL.

/-----------------\
| Jai Tao | "Information is the currency of democracy."
| jdfalk@****.com | -Thomas Jefferson
\-----------------/
Message no. 19
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 00:03:46 -0500
[...comment about rewriting the constitution deleted to save space...]

NO!

If we were to rewrite the constitution, it would become the romper room
of every minority and protectionist interest and would be4come a body of
over-muddled and uninterpretable laws.

Look at RoboCop.

His rules in the first movie were:
Serve the public trust
Protect the innocent
Uphold the law
>classified< (Don't arrest OCP members)

In the second movie, they decided to rewrite his rules to make him "better".
Samples:
If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything
Be nice
Help little old ladies across the street

Basically, his whole purpose was destroyed because somebody decided to be
more specific instead of general DESCRETIONARY guidelines. As a matter
of fact, he shorted himself out (revolution) to get the rules erased.

The U.S. constitution has done remarkably well for a 200+ year old
document and is still able to be inturrpreted in modern times. The
problem is that the special interests have taken ahold of hte media, and
htat people as a whole are apathetic about WHY the parts of the
constitution exists. We can argue all we want about definitions, but
there were a good many papers written by the "founding fathers" that
pretty much spell out in intimate detail WHY the articles and amendments
were put in there.

Think of the constitution as the cliff notes for the entire rulebook.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 20
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 02:22:03 -0700
Chill out you gun toting NRA members. Civilization, or even America, is not
going to fall because you can't walk down to the corner store an buy an AK-47
or Uzi 9mm. Besides, it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendemnt. The 2nd Amendment
guarantees your right to bear arms, but it never said which ones.

That's the lovely thing about the Consititution. It was written so badly that
it was actually able to survive the test of time.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Keep your friends close, but keep *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * your enemies closer." *
* The Nightstalker * * Deep Throat -- The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 21
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 10:41:58 -0500
> Also, you can still bear arms, just not 19 types of assault rifles.
> God, I don't feel safe anymore, I cant carry my AK-47 to class
> anymore....

So the arms you can carry ARE RESTRICTED.

I hate gun-control...

Besides which, with this it's going to be a lot harder to overthrow
the government without decent weapons (one of the original purposes...)

----------------------- "Well, you see, they took the Bible literally.
Tim Skirvin Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple...took
(tskirvin@ it word for word. Unfortunately, their
superdec.uni.uiuc.edu) version had a misprint."
----------------------- - Rimmer, Red Dwarf (The Last Day)
Message no. 22
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 10:49:39 -0500
> going to fall because you can't walk down to the corner store an
> buy an AK-47 or Uzi 9mm. Besides, it doesn't violate the 2nd
> Amendemnt. The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms,
> but it never said which ones.

No, it'll fall because there will be no way to stop the goverment,
and the criminals will be having field years. Or maybe decades.

Gun control is doomed to faliure.

And it said that the right to bear arms would not be RESTRICTED. It's
restricted if I can't buy an "assault" rifle.

----------------------- "Well, you see, they took the Bible literally.
Tim Skirvin Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple...took
(tskirvin@ it word for word. Unfortunately, their
superdec.uni.uiuc.edu) version had a misprint."
----------------------- - Rimmer, Red Dwarf (The Last Day)
Message no. 23
From: Dave S Johnson <john0286@****.TC.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 10:59:52 -0500
On Sat, 7 May 1994, jacob hawkins wrote:

> I'm still pushing for the right to arm bears.
>
As am I! Assault weapons are not necissary though.
Message no. 24
From: Dave S Johnson <john0286@****.TC.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 11:21:03 -0500
On Sat, 7 May 1994, Timothy Skirvin wrote:

> > Also, you can still bear arms, just not 19 types of assault rifles.
> > God, I don't feel safe anymore, I cant carry my AK-47 to class
> > anymore....
>
> So the arms you can carry ARE RESTRICTED.
>
> I hate gun-control...
>
> Besides which, with this it's going to be a lot harder to overthrow
> the government without decent weapons (one of the original purposes...)
>
As afr as restricting gun carrying, yes. There are alot of really stupid
people out there who would use the gun they're carrying for ego purposes
and attention devices. These people scare me. As with a child, if people
can't use something responcibly, you restrict it. I own a gun and am very
responcible for it, although I prefer to hunt with bow and arrow.

Any overthrow of the government will probibly take place on the diplomatic
level. I think that trhe army would beat the hell out of us even if we
could get ak-47's. And if the military joins the public then we no longer
need assault weapons, the Joe's got em.

Dave S Johnson
Message no. 25
From: Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 13:37:44 -0400
On Sat, 7 May 1994, Dave S Johnson wrote:

> On Sat, 7 May 1994, Jai Tao wrote:
>
> > But if _we_ can't agree on the meaning of the Constitution, what
> > makes you think that a large body of people, most with opposing goals in
> > mind, could ever agree?
> >
> Silly boy, people will always argue. We can only hope that the MAJORITY
> of us can agree on some points.

AHEM! You have no proof of my sex. Though I will freely admit to
being male, I have not done so on SHADOWRN@***** in many months. The name
Jai Tao, or my real name, "J.D. Falk", give away nothing.
And, calling somebody a "silly boy" will usually be taken wrong on
the 'net -- it sounds extremely condescending, and is inappropriate as we
do not know each others' ages.

> > I don't want to let the current Government re-write the
> > Constitution. But I'd like to see it re-written in modern language and
> > SET IN STONE in such a way that everybody agrees on what it says _now_
> > before they go off and try to change it any further. It may end up saying
> > some pretty stupid things by modern standards, but that's okay, 'cause
> > we'll know what it says and be one _hell_ of a lot closer to being able to
> > fix the problems in it.
> > Perhaps Congress needs a FAQL.
>
>
> SET IN STONE? This violates a basic principal of the constritution. We
> can change it to meet the needs of TODAY! The rest of this paragraph is
> vague, to me, just realize that problems you may see may not be problems
> to others and changing the constitution is a quality that keeps us all happy.

We (by we, I mean the U.S. as a whole) spend more time arguing
over what it currently means than changing it to mean something current.
The only solutions are totalitarian dictatorship (which nobody wants), or
get all the arguing about the past _over_ with.

The general point of the first paragraphs of my message were that
our arguing isn't gonna solve anything. Lets let this thread die now.

"Well on his way, his head in a cloud,
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him, /-----------------\
Or the sound he appears to make, | Jai Tao |
And he never seems to notice..." | jdfalk@****.com |
-The Beatles \-----------------/
Message no. 26
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 13:04:54 -0500
> people out there who would use the gun they're carrying for ego
> purposes and attention devices. These people scare me. As with a
> child, if people can't use something responcibly, you restrict it.
> I own a gun and am very

No, restricting it doesn't help, generally. Teaching people to
BE responsible is generally a lot more effective.

The people are going to have the guns, there's no way to stop that.
The best thing to do is help them use them responsibly, ie with training
courses and the like.

> level. I think that trhe army would beat the hell out of us even
> if we could get ak-47's. And if the military joins the public then
> we no longer need assault weapons, the Joe's got em.

True. It used to be that the government had about the same kinds of
weapons. I don't advocate allowing tanks around either for private citizens
(now THAT can be abused to no end. Even self-defense goes out the window
when you're talking about something that big).

----------------------- "Well, you see, they took the Bible literally.
Tim Skirvin Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple...took
(tskirvin@ it word for word. Unfortunately, their
superdec.uni.uiuc.edu) version had a misprint."
----------------------- - Rimmer, Red Dwarf (The Last Day)
Message no. 27
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 13:11:23 -0500
It is the -right- of the American people to possess firearms. I don't mean
so-called "pop guns;" I think this means all reasonable weapons. I don't care
what my next-door neighbor has in his gun chest as long as HE DOESNT KILL ANYONE
OR OTHERWISE MISUSE THE WEAPON.

Problems arise with irresponsible people...
Message no. 28
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 13:31:11 -0500
Ooops, everyone, please make this SR relevant or stop it. I don't want a
RKBA flame fest.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

We know that banning firearms don't work. Criminals will get guns
whether the laws say they can or not (see, this is why they are called
criminals). This is very well represented in Shadwrun by the fact that
EVERYONE has guns, dispite laws that say you can't walk down the street
with your ingram.

The problem with gun control laws, also, is that it establishes a
precedence for FURTHER restriction. Bill "sig heil" Clinton and his
right-hand-man Janet "Flambe'" Reno are on record stating they want to
ban ALL firearms. Now they have more leverage to do it. All it takes is
a few more press conferences with the 'Save the children' theme and
Amerika is done for.

SR political structure can't be much different.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 29
From: Bryan Prince <WALAB@******.HH.VANDERBILT.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 14:02:30 -0600
Hopefully my final word on this debate...

I have read, with interest, the messages posted about the recent passage
of the gun control bill in the House last week. This thread is a good
example of the reasons why our founding fathers made the Constitution
the way they did. It is not ambigious, but I will admit it doesn't cover
all the issues we face today. Our Fearless Leader made a telling point when
he said that the founding fathers had left us not only the Constitution,
but also their reasoning about why it was written in that form. Our problem
is that we as Americans do not read past the Constitution, Bill of Rights,
or Declaration of Independence to the works of Jefferson , Adams, Franklin
and Washington. We do not do anything past what is necessary to pass
High School or College History/PoliSci. courses. [And my apologies to those
of you reading this who do] I have stated before that apathy is our biggest
enemy, and will state it again-every time you do not participate in
democracy, you lose part of those freedoms and liberties associated with
that democracy. You don't vote, fine- but be prepared to accept the
conquences of that action. Some time ago, our elected representatives
were involved in several scandals-the House Bank and Post Office, indivual
charges of selling votes to special interest groups and ect.- but what
have the American people done about it? We have told Congress, by our
own inaction, that whatever they do is ok-because these b******* still
hold public office. We have not removed them by our votes, which tells them
that whatever they do is OK. We cannot, should not, and hopefully will not
even attempt a re-write of our Constitution until we have elected officials
who serve the public interest instead of their own greed. To do so would
enact a riot of epic proportions as every special interest group tried
to rewrite it in its own image. The problem which must be addressed here
is one of RESPONSIBILITY. We must hold ourselves responsible for our own
actions, we must hold others responsible for their actions, and we must
hold our leaders responsible for their actions. The actions of the last 30
or so years by our Courts have given away too many of societies rights and
freedoms in favor of personal freedoms, and this has diminished us all.

If you want to change the way things are, get involved, read the documents
that were written for us, and VOTE. Because I promise you that if you
don't, you deserve what the government gives you. And it's only going
to get worse...
>>>exit soapbox<<<
Bryan Prince
Message no. 30
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 16:35:21 -0700
On Sat, 7 May 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> Chill out you gun toting NRA members. Civilization, or even America, is not
> going to fall because you can't walk down to the corner store an buy an AK-47
> or Uzi 9mm. Besides, it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendemnt. The 2nd Amendment
> guarantees your right to bear arms, but it never said which ones.
>
> That's the lovely thing about the Consititution. It was written so badly that
> it was actually able to survive the test of time.
>
I got to put my 0.2nuYen into this idea.
That new law doesn't do a thing about AK-47s or UZI-2s. They
have both been illegal since 1932! What that new law, if it actually
does get through the whole process, actually does is set a legal
precedent to ban certain firearms and types of firearms because of their
operating mechanisms.
Semi-automatic weapons fire one round each time the trigger is
pulled. The standard police pistols in use in this country are
semi-automatic. So are some 78% of the home defense weapons in the
country. Now the government has a way to ban *any* semi-automatic weapon
just by putting it on their list.
AK-47s and UZI-2s are a different breed altogether. They are
designed to fire both semi-automatic <one shot per trigger pull,
remember> and fully-automatic <pull the trigger and it keeps shooting
till you let loose of the trigger or it runs out of ammunition> Weapons
that can fire full-automatic have been illegal since the 30s. Those laws
haven't kept anyone who wanted one <gangers, mobsters, kooks> from
getting one to date. This new law won't make any difference either on
full-automatic weapons.
The crack is in the wall of the Bill of Rights, now the traitors
will continue to break it down. An unarmed populace is a controlled
populace. Franklin said it, Hitler used it. More will do the same.
Ivy K.
Message no. 31
From: Dave S Johnson <john0286@****.TC.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 19:06:58 -0500
On Sat, 7 May 1994, Jai Tao wrote:

> AHEM! You have no proof of my sex. Though I will freely admit to
> being male, I have not done so on SHADOWRN@***** in many months. The name
> Jai Tao, or my real name, "J.D. Falk", give away nothing.
> And, calling somebody a "silly boy" will usually be taken wrong on
> the 'net -- it sounds extremely condescending, and is inappropriate as we
> do not know each others' ages.

"Silly boy" is a figure of speech, sameas saying "oh-man"
The phrase can be used with any age. As far as taking something the wrong
way, as people on the net who do not have the opportunity to assess eqach
others affect, one should take what is written at face value only. Do not
infer meaning. If I truely offended you, or others, than I say "I'm
sorry" but keep in mind that I will continue to write in a style that
suits me. DO NOT TRANSFER ANY EMOTIONAL CONTENT IN TO IT.
>
> We (by we, I mean the U.S. as a whole) spend more time arguing
> over what it currently means than changing it to mean something current.
> The only solutions are totalitarian dictatorship (which nobody wants), or
> get all the arguing about the past _over_ with.
>
> The general point of the first paragraphs of my message were that
> our arguing isn't gonna solve anything. Lets let this thread die now.

Yes, our present state of "arguing" will solve very little and I have no
idea how to change this. . .

Dave S Johnson
Message no. 32
From: Dave S Johnson <john0286@****.TC.UMN.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 19:24:21 -0500
On Sat, 7 May 1994, Timothy Skirvin wrote:

> > people out there who would use the gun they're carrying for ego
> > purposes and attention devices. These people scare me. As with a
> > child, if people can't use something responcibly, you restrict it.
> > I own a gun and am very
>
> No, restricting it doesn't help, generally. Teaching people to
> BE responsible is generally a lot more effective.

Teaching, or informing, people rarely works! When a child wants to touch
the hot stove s/he won't listen to your warnings. S/he only avoids the
hot stove after a burn has resulted.

> The people are going to have the guns, there's no way to stop that.
> The best thing to do is help them use them responsibly, ie with training
> courses and the like.

Training is wonderful, I myself am certified with rifles, pistols, and bow.
Responcibility is a trait that is learned from childhood on up.
>
> > level. I think that trhe army would beat the hell out of us even
> > if we could get ak-47's. And if the military joins the public then
> > we no longer need assault weapons, the Joe's got em.
>
> True. It used to be that the government had about the same kinds of
> weapons. I don't advocate allowing tanks around either for private citizens
> (now THAT can be abused to no end. Even self-defense goes out the window
> when you're talking about something that big).

One only needs so much to defend one's self, I believe that assault rifles
are out of that need range.

Dave S Johnson
Message no. 33
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 19:40:34 -0500
> Teaching, or informing, people rarely works! When a child wants to
> touch the hot stove s/he won't listen to your warnings. S/he only
> avoids the hot stove after a burn has resulted.

Or after he or she has real experience of what happens.

IE if they figure out that they're going to get hurt without getting
hurt, it's a good thing, and they probably won't do it.

There ARE going to be ways to do it.

> One only needs so much to defend one's self, I believe that assault
> rifles are out of that need range.

How do cosmetics make it different?

And besides which, to defend yourself against an assault weapon you
are often times going to need another assault weapon.

Using your logic, one could say that you only need a knife to defend
yourself...and speak of everyone. While some might be able to do so, there
aren't very many.

And, of course, remember that the original intent of the amendment
was to allow the people to overthrow the government. It's a lot harder to
do that with single-shot items (hey! We're on topic! We're talking about
Single Shot, as opposed to Semi-Automatic, Burst Fire, or Fully Automatic!)

----------------------- "Well, you see, they took the Bible literally.
Tim Skirvin Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple...took
(tskirvin@ it word for word. Unfortunately, their
superdec.uni.uiuc.edu) version had a misprint."
----------------------- - Rimmer, Red Dwarf (The Last Day)
Message no. 34
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 19:48:23 -0500
Um, example. Try winning Doom (like I just did! Yay!) using ONLY your bare
hands, pistol, or the chainsaw. No shotguns, missile launchers, BFGs, etc. =)

By the way, an idea for an SR weapon -- some sort of nerve disruptor. Like a
taser, sort of, but nastier.
Message no. 35
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 21:42:57 -0500
> Um, example. Try winning Doom (like I just did! Yay!) using ONLY
> your bare hands, pistol, or the chainsaw. No shotguns, missile
> launchers, BFGs, etc. =)

Let me guess. You played on easy mode (to those that don't know,
G-P just got an IBM. He can now play real games. He's happier now...).
Congratulations anyway.

> By the way, an idea for an SR weapon -- some sort of nerve
> disruptor. Like a taser, sort of, but nastier.

I don't think that the BFG would be good for Shadowrun, sorry G-P.

(Alright, let's blow up all living creatures inside a building! You
get hit, you're dead, no die rolls for you!)

----------------------- "Well, you see, they took the Bible literally.
Tim Skirvin Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple...took
(tskirvin@ it word for word. Unfortunately, their
superdec.uni.uiuc.edu) version had a misprint."
----------------------- - Rimmer, Red Dwarf (The Last Day)
Message no. 36
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 20:59:13 -0700
Dave S. Johnson wrote that "Assault Rifles" aren't needed to
defend oneself. He was referring to the firearms banned by the new vote
of congress. I must take exception to your statement Dave.
That vote was *not* about Assault Rifles. Assault Rifles have
been illegal in this country since 1933! The weapons banned by that vote
are *NOT* Assault Rifles. They simply *look* like one. Y'see, the thing
that our very crooked and manipulative "news" dissemination system never
did was actually tell anyone what an Assualt Rifle really is.
An Assault Rifle is a weapon constructed to fire in either of two
modes. One mode is semi-automatic. (This means that one round will be
fired for each pull of the trigger) The other mode is full-automatic.
(This means that the weapon will continue to fire until it runs out of
ammunition or the trigger is released.)
The weapons that were banned were only capable of firing in the
semi-automatic mode. They were standard hunting rifles dressed up to
look military. Nothing more.
The standard police weapons are all semi-automatic, for the most
part. The police *do* have a few Assault Rifles, but very few. The
government really doesn't *trust* the police with military weapons.
The most ridiculous part of the whole charade is that the
government made weapons with full-automatic fire capability illegal back
in 1933. Those old laws haven't made any difference in the number of
full-auto weapons in this country. Why do the traitors in our government
think that new laws will do anything more? Actually, their bet is that
no-one will notice how useless those laws, and the police really are when
it comes to stopping crime.
The average police response time around where I live is over 30
minutes. That's going to help a lot in a robbery, rape, or murder
situation, isn't it? And the arrest rate nationwide is running about
13%. That means that in 13 out of 100 crimes the police actually catch
someone and charge them. The conviction rate is closer to 08%. So out
of every 100 people the police arrest, 8 get sentenced to punishment. It
comes out to 1 criminal in 100 might do jail time for a violent crime.
Amerika is here, enjoy it.
Ivy K.
Message no. 37
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 21:02:10 -0700
> ----------------------- "Well, you see, they took the Bible literally.
> Tim Skirvin Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple...took
> (tskirvin@ it word for word. Unfortunately, their
> superdec.uni.uiuc.edu) version had a misprint."
> ----------------------- - Rimmer, Red Dwarf (The Last Day)
>
OK, I'm slow! What the frag was the misprint???
Dia'mons
Message no. 38
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 23:37:35 -0500
> OK, I'm slow! What the frag was the misprint???

Ah. Someone actually payed attention to that (and to think that I just
found a quote to replace that one...)

That's not the whole quote, of course (it was almost a monologue).
In the show, the Bible had a misprint...instead of "on the seventh day, hope"
or something like that, it was "on the seventh day, hop". So, they spent
all day Sunday hopping around...which could be a problem when they're having
soup...

Great show. Watch it repeatedly.

Oh, and watch this space for a NEW .sig.

----------------------- "Well, you see, they took the Bible literally.
Tim Skirvin Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple...took
(tskirvin@ it word for word. Unfortunately, their
superdec.uni.uiuc.edu) version had a misprint."
----------------------- - Rimmer, Red Dwarf (The Last Day)
Message no. 39
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 23:45:14 -0500
STOP THE DISCUSSION ON THE GUN BAN, UNLESS IT IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO
SHADOWRUN.

Violators will be gleefully nuked.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 40
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 23:41:52 -0500
> STOP THE DISCUSSION ON THE GUN BAN, UNLESS IT IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT
> TO SHADOWRUN.

DIRECTLY relevant?

How about half-way relevant?

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"

(See? New .sig. I told you it would happen...)
Message no. 41
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 23:50:56 -0500
On Sat, 7 May 1994, Timothy Skirvin wrote:

> How about half-way relevant?

Half-way relevant isn't all-the-way relevant.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 42
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 23:57:14 -0500
> Half-way relevant isn't all-the-way relevant.

How about three 1/3 of the way relevant posts? Would that count
for a full relevant post?

Or would it not, since it's technically only .99999999...

<dodging a whole pile of thwaps>

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 43
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 00:06:25 -0500
On Sat, 7 May 1994, Timothy Skirvin wrote:

> How about three 1/3 of the way relevant posts? Would that count
> for a full relevant post?
>
> Or would it not, since it's technically only .99999999...
>
> <dodging a whole pile of thwaps>

Shaddap

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 44
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 08:27:13 -0700
Thank you, Tim. That was hilarious! Hop instead of hope! Great!
Dia'mons
Message no. 45
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 10:37:13 -0500
> Thank you, Tim. That was hilarious! Hop instead of hope!
> Great!

No problem. It's definitely better on the show, though...it's great
to see when he has a straight face...

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 46
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 10:37:40 -0500
I was thinking of having the neurodisruptor work by, say, playing around with
the way electricity is conducted. Of course it might misfire...

Read: Paranoia R&D weapon. ;-)

Actually, Skirv, I was playing on Ultra-Violence. *grin* No codes. =)
Message no. 47
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 16:24:42 -0500
> I was thinking of having the neurodisruptor work by, say, playing
> around with the way electricity is conducted. Of course it might
> misfire...

Ouch.

Of course, it would also screw up the gun (a one-shot mega-weapon).

> Actually, Skirv, I was playing on Ultra-Violence. *grin* No
> codes. =)

Good work.

Now, play the registered version.

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 48
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 16:32:42 -0500
On Sun, 8 May 1994, Timothy Skirvin wrote:

> Good work.
>
> Now, play the registered version.

And start the game as 'doom -respawn'.


____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 49
From: Timothy Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 16:30:29 -0500
> And start the game as 'doom -respawn'.

Ah. The ultimate way to make even the BEST game boring.

Make it impossible.

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 50
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 16:41:26 -0500
Here's what I mean, specifically. A stick, like a taser, that disrupts your
target's neurosystem. 'cept you're holding it too, and it's an R/D weapon, so
it might just frag you up too...say a 5% chance or something, that the GM can
make rise if it gets used a lot or dropped or something. =)

...or something. *GRIN*
Message no. 51
From: J Gavigan <csc086@*****.LANCS.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 02:16:20 +0100
> Next is the right to privacy (Clipper), and free speech is a close second.
>
> I think it's time to look at that clause about when the government turns
> bad to wipe it out and start over. Something along those lines anyway.
>
> (Just another American ignorant about the Bill of Rights' fine print.)

I bet bringing down the government wouldn't be that easy... Who
would administrate the country in the meantime? However, if you
guys need a hand in a bit of anarchy, let me know! I'm a profe-
ssional anarchist! :) Just figure out how to get me into the
country without the NSA finding out. Else I'll get arrested at
the barrier! ;)

Jackin' out...

/> Dodger
/<
O[\\\\\\(O):::<======================================-
\<
\>
Message no. 52
From: The Powerhouse <P.C.Steele@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 19:20:56 +0100
In reply to I.M. Legion .....

> > Today, in a vote fo 216 to 214, the House of representitives voted to
> > take some of the first steps towards the abolishment of the 2nd
> > amendments, which guarantees the rights of the citizens to keep and bear
> > arm.

> I think it's time to look at that clause about when the government turns
> bad to wipe it out and start over. Something along those lines anyway.

Well I don't know but I always thought that the right to bear arms was kinda
dumb. It seems to me that most of the violence in the US is made worst by the
easy availability of guns. When was the last time you heard of a drive by
shooting in Europe ?

By the way, the right to free speech and free expression I do think are very
important, shame Britain doesn't have similar laws.

Phill.
--
Phillip Steele - Email address P.C.Steele@***.ac.uk | Fighting against
Department Of Electrical & Electronic Engineering | Political Correctness !
University Of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England |
Land of the mad Geordies | The Powerhouse
Message no. 53
From: Adam Pedder <atp100@****.YORK.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 23:08:55 +0000
On Fri, 6 May 1994, Bryan Prince wrote:

> VOTE!! STOP APATHY!! Show our leaders that you expect them to lead_and_to_
> serve_. If we do not excersize our rights we will lose them. They will be
> slowly taken away from us in bits and pieces, until they are all gone.
> What is happening in our Government today is proof....
> Do you want your kids to live in a SR universe???
> >>>exit soapbox<<<
> Bryan Prince
>
None of my business, but if they take your guns away it won't be a SR
universe. Hell it might even be safe to roam the streets at night.
Adam Pedder
"And I swear that I don't have a gun..." - Kurt Cobain, but he did, and
look what happened to him !
Message no. 54
From: Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 08:14:14 CDT
Well, you see, that's the problem... You really can't assure or assume
responsibility on the part of your neighbor. He (or she) could be as
smart or reasonable as you or I; or they could be crazy as a loon (no
offense intended for all of you loon supporters out there :)).

How do you teach or insure responsibility and common sense? The fact is,
you can't. But you shouldn't either. This country was built on several
foundations, one of which is that I, and anyone else, should be as free
to do any damn thing we want. So I am against gun control (I'm also against
a speed limit... but that's another soap box). If some nut wants to own
a gun, gun control will not provide much of a deterrent to them. So when
they go and rampage a restaraunt or whatever, they should expect to pay
the price for their crime... namely prison or execution.

Bottom line, I don't think gun control is good nor will it work. Just a
little rambling on my part. ;)

-Blade
Message no. 55
From: Jeff Norrell <norrell@*******.ME.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 08:19:31 CDT
Ivy has a good point. Any person of reasonable ability and resources
(namely a library and a small machine shop) can convert a semi-auto gun
to a fully-auto gun fairly easily. It only takes a few parts to machine.
build, etc. So from the gov't viewpoint, the only answer is to ban all
semi-auto weapons... Then what the hell, let's go ahead and ban the rest
of the weapons for good measure... It's not going to stop until all of
the weapons are gone... Think about it.
-Blade
Message no. 56
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 11:06:38 -0400
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert A Hayden
<hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU> writes:

Robert> On Fri, 6 May 1994, Ahern T Stephan wrote:
>> Ah. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. _BUT_, that
>> is a right given to the _STATE_ not citizens. You know, an army and stuff.

Robert> That is where you are wrong. it is given to the militia.

Robert> mi.li.tia \m*-'lish-*\ \-m*n\ n [L, military service, fr. milit-,
Robert> miles] 1: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable
Robert> to call only in emergency 2: the whole body of able-bodied male
Robert> citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military
Robert> service - mi.li.tia.man n

Within the context of the US Constitution, the "militia" are state-level
troops, not national like the US Army.

Robert> ie, anyone who is registered with selective service could be
Robert> defined as a member of the militia.

No, that's the draft, and once drafted by the US Government you are a
member of the Army (or whatever) as defined in other sections of the
Constitution (giving the government the right to draft an army in time of
war).

Robert> Besides, the 2nd amendment i[s] there to give the citizens the
Robert> means to fight against that very same government.

Yup.

\||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||/
== Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==
== Good, bad... I'm the guy with the gun. --Ashe, "Army of Darkness" ==
/||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||\
Message no. 57
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 11:13:16 -0400
>>>>> "Ivy" == Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG> writes:

Ivy> I got to put my 0.2nuYen into this idea.
Ivy> That new law doesn't do a thing about AK-47s or UZI-2s. They
Ivy> have both been illegal since 1932!

You are correct, to a certain degree. Ownership of fully automatic weapons
(firearms which are capable of firing more than one round per squeeze of
the trigger) in the US has been restricted to federally licensed
individuals only (military troops, certain law enforcement organizations,
and licensed weaponsmiths, collectors, manufacturers, and salespeople)
since that time.

\||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||/
== Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> WWW Page: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox ==
== Character is what you are in the dark. --Lord John Whorfin ==
/||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||\
Message no. 58
From: Doc_X <northrup@*****.CAS.USF.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 11:32:25 -0400
Well, I have just waded through the several posts on how the government
is taking away our right to bear arms. However, I also just got finished
reading Jurassic Park (so I am a little behind the times. I still have
to go see the movie). The connection between the two? While reading
this discussion something that Ian Malcom, the mathematician, said kept
popping up in my head.

Paraphrased, he said that in most professionns there was a slow
accumilation of knowledge by the individual usually manifesting in an
apprentice/journeyman/master type progression. By the time one has
acquired great knowledge one has the wisdom to use it prooperly. A
martial arts master can kill. However in his training he also has the
discipline not to kill. Someone with a gun in their hands can also
kill. Oftentimes, though, they do not have the training or discipline to
wound, or to decide when other avenues of action would be preferable. I
would rather all weapons were banned and people rely on their own martial
skills to defend themselves. However the cat was let out of the bag 200
years ago and for better or for worse, there is nothing we can do about
it now.

SRRelevance: I prefer to play physical adepts than Street Samauri and
prefer to talk my way out of situations than fight my way out.

Real reason: I just got in here to read my mail and felt left out of the
fray :-)

Doc X
*****************************************************************************
* Dylan Northrup <northrup@*****.cas.usf.edu> * I'm not a computer genius *
*********************************************** I just play one in the lab *
* "It doesn't have to be like this. All we have to do is keep talking" *
* -- Steven Hawking / ***************************************************
* Pink Floyd * <http://www.cas.usf.edu/dylan.html>; Nice pic! *
*****************************************************************************
Message no. 59
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@*******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 12:35:24 -0500
On Mon, 9 May 1994, Doc_X wrote:

> I
> would rather all weapons were banned and people rely on their own martial
> skills to defend themselves.

You are under the (mistaken) assumption that all people have the skill to
learn a martial art, or the physical ability. That is seldom the case.

> SRRelevance: I prefer to play physical adepts than Street Samauri and
> prefer to talk my way out of situations than fight my way out.

I prefer not to get into the situations in the first place.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@*******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> Political Correctness is
\/ Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 60
From: Chris Yang <cyang@*****.UBC.CA>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 12:16:55 -0700
On Sat, 7 May 1994, Timothy Skirvin wrote:

> > going to fall because you can't walk down to the corner store an
> > buy an AK-47 or Uzi 9mm. Besides, it doesn't violate the 2nd
> > Amendemnt. The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms,
> > but it never said which ones.
>
> And it said that the right to bear arms would not be RESTRICTED. It's
> restricted if I can't buy an "assault" rifle.
>

Besides, what defines an "assault weapon"? Just because it is big and black,
or evil looking, or the bad guys used it in some movie which was really
violenet and a lot of people got killed and there was really bad
language and even the good guys were not very nice and used, evil, black
hi-capacity, nasty, mean, disgusting weapons with evil sounding names....

I don't really follow the politics of US gun control, and I'm not really
sure exactly which are the 19 weapons prohibited/restricted under the
AW ban, but if the Uzi is one, I will bet that there are several weapons
of similar make/style which are not included under the ban because they
are not as familiar to Working Class Joe and his family.

Anyways, just my .02

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Yang cyang@*****.ubc.ca
University of British Columbia cyang@******.ubc.ca
Dept of Botany
Message no. 61
From: "S.K. Khoo" <S.K.Khoo@*********.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 19:36:07 +0100
> How do you teach or insure responsibility and common sense? The fact is,
> you can't. But you shouldn't either. This country was built on several
> foundations, one of which is that I, and anyone else, should be as free
> to do any damn thing we want.

OFFICIAL SPEECH TIME ! :>

I think one can teach responsibility; insure it, perhaps not, but you
can certainly teach it. Teach with great care and love a child from young
and you will teach the adult that child grows up to be. I realise this isn't
a perfect world we live in and it's, oh, so much easier said than done. But
it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. You, Jeff, cannot, I think, say that
you've never been taught to be responsible, nor would you say that you wish
you had never been so taught. :) You are right to say that one of the
foundations upon which America was built assures you the right to "be as free
to do any damn thing [you] want" but it is a qualified right, it is a
responsibility. But not being an American and not being particularly fond
of the variety of fish around here (thwap!), I shall comment no further. :)

So I am against gun control (I'm also against
> a speed limit... but that's another soap box). If some nut wants to own
> a gun, gun control will not provide much of a deterrent to them. So when
> they go and rampage a restaraunt or whatever, they should expect to pay
> the price for their crime... namely prison or execution.

And what about the people these nuts kill and/or maim when they "go
and rampage restaurant or whatever" ? I agree with you that gun control is
not much of a deterrent to people determined to get their hands on a firearm
but it will make it that itsy bitsy much harder for them and that little bit
easier for the authorities to prosecute gun crimes.

> Bottom line, I don't think gun control is good nor will work.

Not having been in the US for a long time now, I don't know exactly
the situation. Coincidentally, the UK is now examining recommendations to
arm all its police officers following greater numbers of firearm-related crimes
and assaults on the police not to mention the threat posed by IRA operatives.
Britain and New Zealand ( the only other country in the world that fields an
unarmed police force ) proved to the world that gun control could work with
tough laws regulating the use and access of firearms, or any other weapon for
that matter, and a people steeped in a tradition of responsibility ( where
the government theoritically rules supreme since there isn't a bill of rights
in this country - there's not even a written constitution. The elected
govern solely on trust that they will do so responsibly ! ). The proposal
to arm all police officers should, however, not be seen as a sign of failure
of gun control. Arming the police was seen as a #deterrence# to assaults on
police and the commission of violent crimes; firearms are still notoriously
hard to come by in the UK unless you knew the "right" people. As it is, the
British police force has so far only adopted a stronger and longer baton in
the "arms race". There are roving special armed response teams ( SWAT teams,
basically ) and I for one feel that's the way to go. Criminals in this
nation have traditionally not employed the use of firearms because if they
were confronted by police, they had a chance to flee without the fear of
being shot or resist arrest with a good chance of escape ( if you thought
you were better at hand to hand than the bobbies ) - there was no need for
superior firepower. I know of triads in this country who have firearms but
don't use them because there is no need.

What I am rambling on about is that gun control can work and is NOT
a bad thing. The Americans are a responsible people; your very laws give you
great freedom and with great freedom comes great power, and with great power
comes great RESPONSIBILTY. I agree that guns do not do the killing; I agree
they are like any other tool to be out to good or bad use; I agree that
it is the people who put the guns to bad use that do the killing ... but if
the potential for bad use is so great, and if there are so many individuals
willing to abuse such a tool, then is it so bad to regulate the use of that
tool, to control the access to that instrument so that it might not be that
readily available to those individuals ? ...

... end of speech and off my borrowed soap box. :)

Jeff, no offence intended ... :> ... just rambling, too.

And to satisfy Rob on SR relevance, would anybody out there pack
heat if corp guards and cops carried nothing but stun batons or tasers at
the most - seriously ?
Message no. 62
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 14:03:48 -0700
Powerhouse,
If Britian had the right to keep and bear arms, they would be
able to get, and keep, the right to free speech.
Not having firearms makes you slaves to your government.
Enjoy
Ivy K
Message no. 63
From: sabrina <sabrina@******.MED.NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 22:39:15 -0400
> Besides, what defines an "assault weapon"? Just because it is big and
black,
> or evil looking, or the bad guys used it in some movie which was really
> violenet and a lot of people got killed and there was really bad
> language and even the good guys were not very nice and used, evil, black
> hi-capacity, nasty, mean, disgusting weapons with evil sounding names....

Usually, the local jurisdiction has the final say in what is and is not
classified as an assault weapon. Ammunition capacities are almost
universally looked upon for at least part of the definition. The logic is
rather sound, actually. If a gun is simply necessary for sporting or
defense, you should not really need more than a few rounds...in theory.

> I don't really follow the politics of US gun control, and I'm not really
> sure exactly which are the 19 weapons prohibited/restricted under the
> AW ban, but if the Uzi is one, I will bet that there are several weapons
> of similar make/style which are not included under the ban because they
> are not as familiar to Working Class Joe and his family.

This is unfortunately true... and is something no GM should forget to put
into his Shadowrun world! Politics generally reflects public opinion.
When the public becomes aware of something and reacts strongly (ie.
AK47's in the U.S. after some massacre in the midwest in real life or,
perhaps, some barely-moral research disclosed by a megacorp in your game)
politicians smell re-election votes. They make policies, speak out, start
doing things they're supposed to do...then it becomes old, falls from the
media's eye, the public forgets and we're all duped into allowing some
guy to own an M16 but not an AK47... Weird.

Sabrina
Message no. 64
From: Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.COM>
Subject: Re: RIP: U.S. Constitution
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 23:40:31 -0400
On Sat, 7 May 1994, Adam Pedder wrote:

> None of my business, but if they take your guns away it won't be a SR
> universe. Hell it might even be safe to roam the streets at night.

The Shadowrun gameworld is a lot of fun to role-play in, just as
much fun to think about, and its almost as enjoyable to argue about it
here on this list.
But I, for one, do _not_ want 97% of it to happen.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about RIP: U.S. Constitution, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.