Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Watcher Spirit horbach@*****.uni-mannheim.de
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:36:08 +0200
On Wed, 14 Jul. 1999 14:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Marc Renouf wrote:
Get it straight. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Anyone who says differently is fooling themselves. You will never
eliminate the part of our society that turns kids into killers by simply
banning guns.

While this is true, it has been quoted ad nauseam and is by now mainly a
way to be witty without saying anything of importance.
Of course people kill people, not the weapons themselves. Up to now that
is the logical result of weapons being crafted by people as tools to aid
in the killing of other people. However that saying completely ignores
the fact that people often get enraged or otherwise unhinged for trivial
reasons. It´s part of human nature. Since it seems to be part of the
"coding" to react to fear, anger and similar feelings with violence,
readily available weapons increase the potential danger of these
feelings. What is more, heavy projectile weapons create risks for
bystanders. While there is always the danger of getting killed by an
angry opponent even if he is armed with nothing but a stone, the risk
for those not involved is far smaller then it would be if he were armed
with a gun.
Of course the underlying problem will not be eliminated by banning or
restricting guns, but would it be sooo bad to reduce the bodycount a bit
while working on the reasons (it could take some time ya´know...).
Just my 0.2,
Watcher spirit
Message no. 2
From: Lloyd Vance ljvance@*******.edu
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:05:51
At 11:36 PM 7/15/99 +0200, you wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jul. 1999 14:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Marc Renouf wrote:
>Get it straight. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
>Anyone who says differently is fooling themselves. You will never
>eliminate the part of our society that turns kids into killers by simply
>banning guns.
>
>While this is true, it has been quoted ad nauseam and is by now mainly a
>way to be witty without saying anything of importance.
>Of course people kill people, not the weapons themselves. Up to now that
>is the logical result of weapons being crafted by people as tools to aid
>in the killing of other people. However that saying completely ignores
>the fact that people often get enraged or otherwise unhinged for trivial
>reasons. It´s part of human nature. Since it seems to be part of the
>"coding" to react to fear, anger and similar feelings with violence,
>readily available weapons increase the potential danger of these
>feelings. What is more, heavy projectile weapons create risks for
>bystanders. While there is always the danger of getting killed by an
>angry opponent even if he is armed with nothing but a stone, the risk
>for those not involved is far smaller then it would be if he were armed
>with a gun.
>Of course the underlying problem will not be eliminated by banning or
>restricting guns, but would it be sooo bad to reduce the bodycount a bit
>while working on the reasons (it could take some time ya´know...).
>Just my 0.2,
> Watcher spirit
>

I've seen someone on this list using this quote as a sig, but it seems
quite appropriate here.

"Those who would give up Freedom for Security deserve neither."
--Benjamin Franklin

I cannot justify banning guns. I belong to the frame of mind that whenever
someone has the opportunity to abuse power, they will. I don't think that
(in the US) we were given the right to bear arms for hunting. I don't care
if Bambi lives or dies, but I do want to be armed for personal defense.
The most important of these is defending yourself against your own
government. I am not a member of one of these militia groups. I do not
think the government is going to come after me any time soon. But I would
like to have some kind of chance if they ever do. That is why we have the
right. Besides. Who would invade a country where the general populace
could kill you? Makes things more secure for us that way, too.
I realize that this country has a major problem with violence involving
guns. But when you have a country that will put more money into the
development of weapons and the building of prisons than into education . .
. well, you reap what you sow.

I'm gonna get off this soap box before I get pushed off.

The Hamm
aka Lloyd Vance
Message no. 3
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:43:11 +1000
Lloyd Vance writes:
> "Those who would give up Freedom for Security deserve neither."
> --Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin lived in an era where a group of milita armed with rifles
could do a fairly decent job of holding out against a military force. Even
then, that wasn't true (the military force would just bring up the
artillery), but it was certainly more true than today.

The _correct_ way to preserve Freedom and Security is not to arm the
individual. It is to create a non-political body to defend the society as a
whole, both from internal and external threats, and arm that to the hilt.
That is why armies and police forces should not be politicised in any way,
shape, or form.

> I cannot justify banning guns. I belong to the frame of mind
> that whenever
> someone has the opportunity to abuse power, they will. I don't think that
> (in the US) we were given the right to bear arms for hunting. I
> don't care
> if Bambi lives or dies, but I do want to be armed for personal defense.
> The most important of these is defending yourself against your own
> government. I am not a member of one of these militia groups. I do not
> think the government is going to come after me any time soon. But I would
> like to have some kind of chance if they ever do. That is why we have the
> right.

If you preserve the right to bear arms so that a citizens milita has a
decent chance of overthrowing an oppressive government (which is the sole
point of that particular part of the US constitution), you are really
pissing in the wind these days with the right to carry a gun. You should be
out there arguing for the right to carry anti-tank and anti-aircraft
weaponry, because that's what you're going to need.

The idea that you can overthrow an oppressive government with personal
weaponry is just laughable. Utterly and totally laughable. Can anyone here
name a successful insurgent group that only had access to rifles?

> Besides. Who would invade a country where the general populace
> could kill you? Makes things more secure for us that way, too.

Lots of people would. What you do is you send the soldiers in, backed up
with overwhelming force, round up the citizens everywhere you go, loot the
houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens in reprisal
for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles can't really do
much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people gets crushed.

"Make hunting a sporting event. Arm the deer."

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 4
From: Lloyd Vance ljvance@*******.edu
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 16:57:55
At 09:43 AM 7/16/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Lloyd Vance writes:
>> "Those who would give up Freedom for Security deserve neither."
>> --Benjamin Franklin
>
>Benjamin Franklin lived in an era where a group of milita armed with rifles
>could do a fairly decent job of holding out against a military force. Even
>then, that wasn't true (the military force would just bring up the
>artillery), but it was certainly more true than today.
>
>The _correct_ way to preserve Freedom and Security is not to arm the
>individual. It is to create a non-political body to defend the society as a
>whole, both from internal and external threats, and arm that to the hilt.
>That is why armies and police forces should not be politicised in any way,
>shape, or form.
>

I'm not name-calling here, I actually am interested, but doesn't that sound
a lot like fascism? To have one force in charge of both fronts is just
asking for corruption.
Also, I don't believe that such a non-political body could be formed. And
even if it did, it wouldn't stay non-political for long. It is just too
important for those involved in politics not to weasel their way in there.

>> I cannot justify banning guns. I belong to the frame of mind
>> that whenever
>> someone has the opportunity to abuse power, they will. I don't think that
>> (in the US) we were given the right to bear arms for hunting. I
>> don't care
>> if Bambi lives or dies, but I do want to be armed for personal defense.
>> The most important of these is defending yourself against your own
>> government. I am not a member of one of these militia groups. I do not
>> think the government is going to come after me any time soon. But I would
>> like to have some kind of chance if they ever do. That is why we have the
>> right.
>
>If you preserve the right to bear arms so that a citizens milita has a
>decent chance of overthrowing an oppressive government (which is the sole
>point of that particular part of the US constitution), you are really
>pissing in the wind these days with the right to carry a gun. You should be
>out there arguing for the right to carry anti-tank and anti-aircraft
>weaponry, because that's what you're going to need.

That is a whole nother discussion, but yes. I do believe that as well.
But I also think that there are many ways that such weaponry is accessable
(not legally, of course), that if push came to shove, you would start out
with small, organized guerrilla attacks, and wait for the heavy stuff to
arrive (or capture it)

>
>The idea that you can overthrow an oppressive government with personal
>weaponry is just laughable. Utterly and totally laughable. Can anyone here
>name a successful insurgent group that only had access to rifles?

That is correct. But when you have people who are familiar with one type
of weapon, it easily defaults on the skill web when you want to train in
another weapon. :)

>
>> Besides. Who would invade a country where the general populace
>> could kill you? Makes things more secure for us that way, too.
>
>Lots of people would. What you do is you send the soldiers in, backed up
>with overwhelming force, round up the citizens everywhere you go, loot the
>houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
>groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens in reprisal
>for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles can't really do
>much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people gets crushed.
>

Ouch. Remind me never to be around when you are looking for some breathing
room. Besides, didn't you watch Red Dawn? That stuff can work. :) (I
swear, I'm kidding. Just bringing a little of the 80's back into action)

But like I said before the rifles are holding the spot for later when you
need the bigger equipment. Use them at first and then upgrade.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just delusional, but to me it makes sense.

The Hamm
aka Lloyd Vance
Message no. 5
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:19:09 EDT
In a message dated 7/15/99 7:44:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robert.watkins@******.com writes:

> Benjamin Franklin lived in an era where a group of milita armed with rifles
> could do a fairly decent job of holding out against a military force. Even
> then, that wasn't true (the military force would just bring up the
> artillery), but it was certainly more true than today.
um, the war was kinda fought that way:-)
(I know other things happened along the way of course)

This is also one of the reasons that the gun-banning laws are a true
infringment. The very weapons first banned were the ones most useful to the
overthrough of a government.
"You don't need an uzi to hunt deer>"
no, but yu may just need it when the drek hits the fan (mind you, not saying
it will, but we buy insurance "just in case")
Mind you, in a nuclear war, such things are inconsequential, but a war
fought to gain ground is fought differently.
Message no. 6
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:35:38 +1000
Lloyd Vance writes:
> >The _correct_ way to preserve Freedom and Security is not to arm the
> >individual. It is to create a non-political body to defend the
> society as a
> >whole, both from internal and external threats, and arm that to the hilt.
> >That is why armies and police forces should not be politicised
> in any way,
> >shape, or form.
> >
>
> I'm not name-calling here, I actually am interested, but doesn't
> that sound
> a lot like fascism? To have one force in charge of both fronts is just
> asking for corruption.
> Also, I don't believe that such a non-political body could be formed. And
> even if it did, it wouldn't stay non-political for long. It is just too
> important for those involved in politics not to weasel their way in there.

Actually, non-political bodies are fairly common. The army in the States is
fairly non-political. Can you see the US Army launching a coup at any point
in the foreseeable future?

Oh, and I didn't say one force... I said "armies _and_ police forces" should
not be politicised. Different organisations, different missions, but neither
should be political.

Non-political in this sense implies that it has a grand mission, a sense of
idealism, and loyalty to an ideal that is greater than the current political
leaders. Troops personally loyal to the current political time-server can
not ensure freedom and security. Troops that are loyal to the concept of
freedom and security can.

That is why the US Army swears an oath to preserve the Constitution, first
and foremost, above even obeying the orders of their Commander-In-Chief. As
long as the body of the army doesn't become corrupted, the life and liberty
of the people of the States is fairly secure.

As for not staying non-political for long: the US Army has managed a couple
of hundred years okay. Not even the Civil War managed to make it political.

> That is a whole nother discussion, but yes. I do believe that as well.
> But I also think that there are many ways that such weaponry is accessable
> (not legally, of course), that if push came to shove, you would start out
> with small, organized guerrilla attacks, and wait for the heavy stuff to
> arrive (or capture it)

You're going to pay a huge price to obtain the stuff, then...

> >Lots of people would. What you do is you send the soldiers in, backed up
> >with overwhelming force, round up the citizens everywhere you
> go, loot the
> >houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
> >groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens
> in reprisal
> >for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles
> can't really do
> >much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people
> gets crushed.
> >
>
> Ouch. Remind me never to be around when you are looking for some
> breathing
> room. Besides, didn't you watch Red Dawn? That stuff can work. :) (I
> swear, I'm kidding. Just bringing a little of the 80's back into action)
>
> But like I said before the rifles are holding the spot for later when you
> need the bigger equipment. Use them at first and then upgrade.
>
> I dunno. Maybe I'm just delusional, but to me it makes sense.

That is because you don't really think about what a truly oppressive
government will do. This is real life, not the movies. The bad guy doesn't
tell the hero his plans, laugh maniacally, then walk away to allow the hero
to escape from the convoluted and exotic death trap. An oppressive
government rules by fear.

Now, you can't rule by fear for too long... sooner or later, you get into
economic troubles, you weaken your grip, and everyone revolts. But an
oppressive government can ONLY rule by fear, and they don't do a half-arsed
job about it, either.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 7
From: Jyster Cap jyster007@*****.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:47:47 -0400 (EDT)
> >The idea that you can overthrow an oppressive
> government with personal
> >weaponry is just laughable. Utterly and totally
> laughable. Can anyone here
> >name a successful insurgent group that only had
> access to rifles?
>
> That is correct. But when you have people who are
> familiar with one type
> of weapon, it easily defaults on the skill web when
> you want to train in
> another weapon. :)

The big problem with government takeover would be
that the country we would be attacking is our home.
The Gov. doesnt have to ship supplies over the
ocean to get to the rebels, like the English had
to do.
Second, it would be wise to ask for outside help,
say from anybody how has a beef with the Gov.
Third it wouldnt be feasible in this time and
age unless a castrophe was involved.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 8
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:00:54 -0400
The Hamm correctly noted:
>But like I said before the rifles are holding the spot for later when you
>need the bigger equipment. Use them at first and then upgrade.
>
>I dunno. Maybe I'm just delusional, but to me it makes sense.


Your right. Some people just don't grasp that while violence is not the
preferred method of solving a problem but it is a good option to have in
reserve.

;)

Smilin' Jack
-----------------
"Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do
not."
Message no. 9
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:06:09 +1000
Schizi@***.com writes:
> um, the war was kinda fought that way:-)
> (I know other things happened along the way of course)

Yep... Didn't the British Expeditionary Force burn Washington to the ground,
then proceed to march without their artillery up the road to Baltimore, and
that's why they lost?

Imagine the American War of Independence today. Your civil militia has
lovely assault rifles, probably on a par with those of the opposition. But
the British Expeditionary Force now has tanks and aircraft support. A
beach-head is established with fire support from the ships, still, and tanks
are unloaded. After Washington is burnt down, the armoured force proceeds up
the road to Baltimore, where it meets the militia with their assault rifle
and proceeds to kick serious butt.

> This is also one of the reasons that the gun-banning laws are a true
> infringment. The very weapons first banned were the ones most
> useful to the
> overthrough of a government.

Umm... when was it _ever_ legal to own, say, a light anti-tank weapon? Or a
Surface-to-Air Missile? Or a working tank?

> "You don't need an uzi to hunt deer>"
> no, but yu may just need it when the drek hits the fan (mind you,
> not saying
> it will, but we buy insurance "just in case")

And in the meantime, while you wait for the drek to hit the fan, you have
teenage kids fighting gang wars with those same weapons. You don't need an
Uzi to hunt deer, but it comes in pretty bloody handy for holding up banks,
blowing away random passerbys, and committing suicide by holding up in the
office and waiting for the SWAT team to come.

Personally, I'm _glad_ I live in a society where we are comfortable with
having our freedom and security ensured by the armed and police forces.
Anyone who doesn't respect the "Boys in Blue (and Green)" should consider
the fact that they are allowed _not_ to respect them. I'd rather trust an
ethical (on the whole) police and army than see my neighbours bringing home
an AK-47.

> Mind you, in a nuclear war, such things are inconsequential, but a war
> fought to gain ground is fought differently.

And a war against an oppressive government would be very different again.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 10
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:12:22 +1000
Smiling Jack writes:
> "Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do
> not."

I don't advocate a demilitarisation of society as a whole. A demilitarised
society is just waiting for the invaders to come in and push them out.

What I was advocating was that you already have a group that is the
strongest armed force in your society: the army and police forces. Give them
the responsibility of ensuring security and freedom, and use ethical
training to ensure that they do the job right. Then you can disarm the rest
of society.

Objectors to this should take a few seconds to consider the problem of
opposing the army as it is right now.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 11
From: Geoff Skellams geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:13:46 +1000
On shadowrn@*********.org, Robert
Watkins[SMTP:robert.watkins@******.com] wrote:
> Imagine the American War of Independence today. Your civil militia has
> lovely assault rifles, probably on a par with those of the opposition.
But
> the British Expeditionary Force now has tanks and aircraft support. A
> beach-head is established with fire support from the ships, still, and
tanks
> are unloaded. After Washington is burnt down, the armoured force
proceeds up
> the road to Baltimore, where it meets the militia with their assault
rifle
> and proceeds to kick serious butt.

You obviously missed the show on the ABC the other night talking
about three wars in the last 50 years where poorly armed guerilla groups
have defeated better armed and better trained military powers: the Cuban
Revolution, Vietname and Afghanistan. If the locals want to maintain
their land and way of life, then having superior firepower is not
necessarily going to guarantee you victory in the war.
If the locals fight a conventional war, then you might be right.

But if the locals play smart and use hit and run tactics, the
big guys could have a serious headache on their hands.

cheers
G

--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

Hili hewa ka mana'o ke 'ole ke kukakuka
(Ideas run wild without discussion)
Message no. 12
From: Lloyd Vance ljvance@*******.edu
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 18:30:17
At 11:12 AM 7/16/99 +1000, you wrote:
>Smiling Jack writes:
>> "Those that beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do
>> not."
>
>I don't advocate a demilitarisation of society as a whole. A demilitarised
>society is just waiting for the invaders to come in and push them out.
>
>What I was advocating was that you already have a group that is the
>strongest armed force in your society: the army and police forces. Give them
>the responsibility of ensuring security and freedom, and use ethical
>training to ensure that they do the job right. Then you can disarm the rest
>of society.
>

I just don't understand why you would allow someone to have that kind of
power and control over you. In a perfect world, I would have no problem
with that, but it is always nice to have the options open, ya know?

>Objectors to this should take a few seconds to consider the problem of
>opposing the army as it is right now.
>

Yes, it would be a challenge. It may be impossible. But I would rather
have the chance than not.

On a similar note, I don't believe that the US government is doing poorly
overall, nor is it overly oppressive, IMHO. I think that we have very
little to worry about aside from gas prices in CA. But it is a right given
to us by those who created the country we (US cits) live in. Just like
freedom of the press. Privacy of the individual (which is another one of
those disappearing rights. Did you know that California is the only state
in the US where you are required to carry identity papers with you?), or
any of the others. I love the fact that I live in a place where I can
travel 2000 miles without being hassled at a border. I get great pride
from my relatives who have served this country in war and peace. I don't
want to oppose the army. I just think that a partially armed populace is
much harder to oppress than a totally disarmed one, and those in 'power'
know this.

>--
>.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com


The Hamm
aka Lloyd Vance
Message no. 13
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 21:34:41 -0400
Robert commented:
>What I was advocating was that you already have a group that is the
>strongest armed force in your society: the army and police forces. Give
them
>the responsibility of ensuring security and freedom, and use ethical
>training to ensure that they do the job right. Then you can disarm the rest
>of society.

Then try this quote, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely."

There is no such thing as ethical training and you are describing fascism.
How would you feel if such a group were created and then society disarmed,
then it was decided that because you were not part of the military
organization you could not go to college. After all your not really
responsible for protecting the common people so you should not need higher
education. And you really couldn't be expected to live in a nice coastal
city, after all the shores really need protection (no slur against
non-coastal areas, just giving an example). And you really don't need to
have a interesting job, you can work in a factory making supplies (you name
it) for the military group that has to spend all of it's time protecting
you. The politicians immediately shout against this condition, but since
they don't have any means to coerce the military group they sit quietly and
realize who they have to side with to get a BMW next month.

Now assuming this nightmare has come to pass how are you going to do
something about it? You don't have dick for weapons and you don't know how
to fight.

;)

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 14
From: Stephen Spence ss3961@***.edu
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:37:14 -0400
Robert Watkins wrote:

> Lloyd Vance writes:
> > "Those who would give up Freedom for Security deserve neither."
> > --Benjamin Franklin
>
> Benjamin Franklin lived in an era where a group of milita armed with rifles
> could do a fairly decent job of holding out against a military force. Even
> then, that wasn't true (the military force would just bring up the
> artillery), but it was certainly more true than today.
>
> ...

There is a side of this coin that is reflected in the darkness of the world of
Shadowrun.The issue of giving up personal freedoms so you can have a babysitter
make sure you are ok.
People want to ban guns becouse they feel the government can protect them so
good they will never need firearms.
People want to censor any word that might be offensive to any person. (Just look
at them censoring the word gun in music now.)
In Shadowrun many, many people sold out the right for personal freedom and the
ability of making a choice to be told what to do by a Corp.
This is a basic principle of Shadowrun, and in that world the Shadowrunners pity
the fools who sold out the ability to make a choice.
In Fact those who give up freedom for security are the poor slobs known as wage
slaves. If this is such a great option why isn't there a RGP gave out there
where you can be a wage slave and you get Karma for how brown your nose gets.



If someone breaks in my house the cops will be here as soon as the 911
dispatcher calls them, and they get in the squad car and get here, find the
house then come in. The bullet from my gun will make it to the attacker in 1650
feet per second. Guess what is faster?

Saven

"Gun Control means using both hands"
Message no. 15
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:56:38 +1000
Saven writes:
> If someone breaks in my house the cops will be here as soon as the 911
> dispatcher calls them, and they get in the squad car and get
> here, find the
> house then come in. The bullet from my gun will make it to the
> attacker in 1650
> feet per second. Guess what is faster?

The bullets from the guns of the goon's four buddies?

Remember... they're crooks. If any guns are illegal, you can assume that
they have bigger and badder weaponry than you.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 16
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:02:44 -0400
Saven poetically stated:
>This is a basic principle of Shadowrun, and in that world the Shadowrunners
pity
>the fools who sold out the ability to make a choice.
>In Fact those who give up freedom for security are the poor slobs known as
wage
>slaves. If this is such a great option why isn't there a RGP gave out there
>where you can be a wage slave and you get Karma for how brown your nose
gets.


I'm damn glad you play in my game.

;)

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 17
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:05:44 -0400
Robert stated:
>Remember... they're crooks. If any guns are illegal, you can assume that
>they have bigger and badder weaponry than you.


Yeah, but if you have a gun you have a chance. In your case you're meat.

;)

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 18
From: kawaii kawaii@********.org
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:59:35 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Robert Watkins wrote:

> Saven writes:
> > If someone breaks in my house the cops will be here as soon as the 911
> > dispatcher calls them, and they get in the squad car and get
> > here, find the
> > house then come in. The bullet from my gun will make it to the
> > attacker in 1650
> > feet per second. Guess what is faster?
>
> The bullets from the guns of the goon's four buddies?
>
> Remember... they're crooks. If any guns are illegal, you can assume that
> they have bigger and badder weaponry than you.
>
> --
> .sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
>
>
>

Exactly. The crooks will ALWAYS have guns, if they are legal or illegal.
Why take another form of self defense away from the common people? Sure we
may not have as badasss weaponry, but I'd rather fight an uzi with a
pistol than fight a pistol with my bare hands.


Ever lovable and always scrappy,
kawaii
Message no. 19
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:11:22 +1000
Smilin' Jack writes:
> Robert stated:
> >Remember... they're crooks. If any guns are illegal, you can assume that
> >they have bigger and badder weaponry than you.
>
>
> Yeah, but if you have a gun you have a chance. In your case you're meat.

No, in your case you're meat. In my case, the crooks have no reason to try
to kill me.

The crooks are there to _steal_ your stuff, not to kill you. If you put up a
fight, you're dead. If you aren't a threat to them, you'll probably have a
bit of a rough time, but you'll endure.

If they are there to kill you, either way you're probably toast. Your best
choice is to run and hide, not try and shoot it out with them.

Having a gun in the house is NOT a good way to protect your life, or the
lives of your family members. It's a decent way to endanger them.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 20
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:22:53 EDT
In a message dated 7/15/99 9:07:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
robert.watkins@******.com writes:

> And in the meantime, while you wait for the drek to hit the fan, you have
> teenage kids fighting gang wars with those same weapons. You don't need an
> Uzi to hunt deer, but it comes in pretty bloody handy for holding up banks,
> blowing away random passerbys, and committing suicide by holding up in the
> office and waiting for the SWAT team to come.
>

Actually, those kids never bought those guns legally, just like the drugs.
though that has been beat to death elsewhere.
Let me ask this; How many citizens rights must be infringed, because of the
actions of a few?
What percentage of the USA owns firearms? and what percentage uses firearms
in crime?
When the government decides that the real reason that kids do violence is
because of TV programming, and starts an anti-freedom of speech run, does it
matter?

(out of order, but oh well)
>Imagine the American War of Independence today. Your civil militia has
>lovely assault rifles, probably on a par with those of the opposition. But
>the British Expeditionary Force now has tanks and aircraft support.

well, if the USA had no military, and still relied on a militia, and such,
then it would be foolish for that militia to not have arms and armor(and
tanks) on par with the SOTA. The campaigns for which civilian firearms are
most useful, is in a fight where you own government has decided that your
rights are inconvinient, and stand in teh way of the government protecting
you.
Why should a government ban "assault weapons" when their own agencies say
that it will not reduce crime? when the same agency says that "assult
weapons" are used in such a small portion of crime, that they cannot be
accounted for?
Why ban the PSG-1, a 10,000 $ rifle? Has it become evil?
Message no. 21
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:57:37 +0200
According to Robert Watkins, at 9:43 on 16 Jul 99, the word on
the street was...

> Lots of people would. What you do is you send the soldiers in, backed up
> with overwhelming force, round up the citizens everywhere you go, loot the
> houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
> groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens in reprisal
> for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles can't really do
> much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people gets crushed.

To that I'll add a quote of American general Sheridan, when he was an
observer in the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71): "The people must be left
with nothing but their eyes to weep with after the war."

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Cooking with the devil, frying down in hell.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 22
From: Jyster Cap jyster007@*****.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:00:31 -0400 (EDT)
> Personally, I'm _glad_ I live in a society where we
> are comfortable with
> having our freedom and security ensured by the armed
> and police forces.
> Anyone who doesn't respect the "Boys in Blue (and
> Green)" should consider
> the fact that they are allowed _not_ to respect
> them. I'd rather trust an
> ethical (on the whole) police and army than see my
> neighbours bringing home
> an AK-47.

You should ask yourself what freedom truly is. And
see what happens when you decide to rock the boat
with protesting or any other act that disturbs the
status quo.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 23
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:41:41 +0200
Saven wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> If someone breaks in my house the cops will be here as soon as the 911
> dispatcher calls them, and they get in the squad car and get here, find
the
> house then come in. The bullet from my gun will make it to the attacker
in 1650
> feet per second. Guess what is faster?

"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."

Who says the burglar won't be strapped?

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 24
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:46:26 +0200
Smilin' Jack wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> Robert stated:
> >Remember... they're crooks. If any guns are illegal, you can assume that
> >they have bigger and badder weaponry than you.
>
>
> Yeah, but if you have a gun you have a chance. In your case you're meat.>

The point of the statement robert made, is that when it is difficult to get
weapons in general, due to the fact that trigger-happy,
I-read-guns-and-ammo-magazine, card-carrying-member-of-the-NRA weirdos stop
making it so damn easy to get hold of guns, then your average burglar won't
be carrying weapons at all.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 25
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:52:45 +0200
Schizi@***.com wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> Let me ask this; How many citizens rights must be infringed, because of
the
> actions of a few?

Until there is a sure way of finding those bad seeds, it should be more
difficult to get ahold of guns. I am not for punishing the ones who *can*
handle weapons because there are a few who can't, however the effects of a
gunshot are often so irreversible that you have to stop and wonder if it
isn't getting out of hand a little.
I say mandatory psychological tests are in order, and a parents should be
held accountable for the morals and values of their children, I consider it
negligence.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 26
From: Quindrael d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:12:09 +0200
>The point of the statement robert made, is that when it is difficult to get
>weapons in general, due to the fact that trigger-happy,
>I-read-guns-and-ammo-magazine, card-carrying-member-of-the-NRA weirdos stop
>making it so damn easy to get hold of guns, then your average burglar won't
>be carrying weapons at all.

And if they do, in most cases they will only use it to _threaten_ you. Thye
are out to get your stuff, not to kill you, and they will use the gun to
persuade you to let them walk away with all your goodies. Most people still
won't kill you unless they have to. And if you're pointing a gun back at
them, that counts for "they have to".

VrGr David

"Illusions born of the air, somethings seems so precious there.
I'll elude you, I'll loose you, as rehersal for my despair."
(Fields of the Nephilim - "For her light")
Message no. 27
From: Quindrael d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:29:12 +0200
Schizi@***.com wrote:
> Let me ask this; How many citizens rights must be infringed, because of
> the actions of a few?

You mean the right to get shot? Because why in heaven should there be a
right to have a weapon so you can kill someone else? What else are guns for?

VrGr David

"Shapes of angels the night casts lie dead but dreaming in my past and
they're here, they want to meet you, they want to play with you, so take
the dream."
(Fields of the Nephilim - "Sumerland (what dreams may come)")
Message no. 28
From: Jyster Cap jyster007@*****.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:46:05 -0400 (EDT)
> The point of the statement robert made, is that when
> it is difficult to get
> weapons in general, due to the fact that
> trigger-happy,
> I-read-guns-and-ammo-magazine,
> card-carrying-member-of-the-NRA weirdos stop
> making it so damn easy to get hold of guns, then
> your average burglar won't
> be carrying weapons at all.
>
> Dennis

I hate to point this out, but most criminals
dont buy guns from legal sources, they usually
steal them from people or businesses.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 29
From: Jyster Cap jyster007@*****.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:48:12 -0400 (EDT)
> And if they do, in most cases they will only use it
> to _threaten_ you. Thye
> are out to get your stuff, not to kill you, and they
> will use the gun to
> persuade you to let them walk away with all your
> goodies. Most people still
> won't kill you unless they have to. And if you're
> pointing a gun back at
> them, that counts for "they have to".

I guess you havnt been to East San Jose.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 30
From: Jyster Cap jyster007@*****.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:49:45 -0400 (EDT)
> Until there is a sure way of finding those bad
> seeds, it should be more
> difficult to get ahold of guns. I am not for
> punishing the ones who *can*
> handle weapons because there are a few who can't,
> however the effects of a
> gunshot are often so irreversible that you have to
> stop and wonder if it
> isn't getting out of hand a little.
> I say mandatory psychological tests are in order,
> and a parents should be
> held accountable for the morals and values of their
> children, I consider it
> negligence.
>
> Dennis

How many people die from car accidents or hit
and runs? Should we outlaw the use of vehicles?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 31
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:52:49 -0400
At 15.05 07-15-99, you wrote:
>At 11:36 PM 7/15/99 +0200, you wrote:
> "Those who would give up Freedom for Security deserve neither."
> --Benjamin Franklin

Clap, clap, clap.
I'm thinking about getting this tattoed on me someplace.

>someone has the opportunity to abuse power, they will. I don't think that

Bingo. It doesn't matter what kind of "power" is being discussed, be it
technology, charisma, money or those that science can't measure, stuff and
put on display, in the hands of a person who is not entirely right in the
head, it will be abused.
There is no such thing as a temporary relinquishment of rights. Rights
ARE. Every organism has the right to reproduce (well, there are a few
exceptions, but...), defend itslef (even single celled thingies) and try to
be happy. Take away one of those, and the individual dies out quickly and
the species soon after. But they carry those rights with responsability.
(I know, that is a dirty word to the politically correct.)

>government. I am not a member of one of these militia groups. I do not
>think the government is going to come after me any time soon. But I would
>like to have some kind of chance if they ever do. That is why we have the

Here, here!
If they want me, they can get me. Either tranq my butt while jogging
around the block, put something in the well, take me from three hundred or
just a drop a bomb on me. But if they are stupid enough to to kick in the
front door, I'll have company.

For our non-US members, most of you are not citizens, you are subjects.
Look it up in your legal codes. In the courts, you ARE subjects. Oxford
defines subject, in this tense as "under the power of authority". Your
governments recieve no authority from you at the most basic levels.
For American memebers- read the the Decleration, Constitution and the
Amendments. I have but one complaint with the uthors of the Bill of
Rights,and that is that they numbered things. But it is not thier fault
that thier decendents would be so stupid and complacent as to not actually
read the writings by the authors, which say that they were NOT ordered by
importance, but they are in the order the authors thought of them in. They
also wanted to stay under ten, becuase they had some idea about the future
generations. Why else do you think most of the Amendments cram so much
stuff into one package? Why do you think only two discuss a single issue?

>right. Besides. Who would invade a country where the general populace
>could kill you? Makes things more secure for us that way, too.

Lets see....
Only an enemy who was (a) positive they could nutralise all resistance
before hand, (b) is on a holy crusade, or (c) hasn't totally thought this
through yet.

Lets also consider the origions of weapons regs though history. The
nobility and the ruling castes were never restricted. But the peasents,
those lowly, disgusting little peons that society is built on, they were
never allowed to be as well armed as the nobles. Look at ANY culture. I
used to have standing bet, that I would pay anyone who could prove that
statement wrong and have it be backed up by three or more sources that are
reliable and credible, five bucks. In ten years, I never paid out once.
America was never intended to have a ruling class.
In America, the first weapons regs were passed so that free blacks and
native americans could not legally own weapons. It wasn't until the 60s
that blacks in certain counties in the South could own handguns.
Similiar laws were in place thorughout Europe and the Med before, during
(w00-boy, were they during) and after the fall of Rome. Every place that
the Brits and French "colonised", they had restrictions on local possesion
of firearms and swords. Look at the Japanese if you want a good example of
how fair rulers are to a disarmed populous.
Heck, even today, if you invade a country, you grab four things: the
media, the courts, the churches and civilian weapons (these are not rated
in order of priority- they have equal priority). When the US went into
Panama, Grenada, and now even what was once Yugoslavia, those are the four
things we tried to control first.


> the building of prisons than into education . .

Or you make those places of education into prisons....

>I'm gonna get off this soap box before I get pushed off.

Don't worry, I buy my soap by the pallet, ten cases to a pallet, ten boxes
to a case. (10 percent discount that way, but bring your own truck.) I
think I can spare you some room.
Besides, pushing someone off a soapbox is clear and undeniable violation
of their Freedom of Speech.



CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 32
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 00:24:13 -0400
At 09.43 07-16-99 +1000, you wrote:
>The _correct_ way to preserve Freedom and Security is not to arm the

By who's definition?
BTW, if you read the documents of the time, the Founding Fathers accepted
that freedom and safety are (a) only capitalised at the start of a sentance
or in a title, and (b) not the same thing. Not by a long shot. One is
part of the human soul, the other is somethign you make for yourself.

>individual. It is to create a non-political body to defend the society as a
>whole, both from internal and external threats, and arm that to the hilt.

OK, so how do they get funded if they aren't political? How do they get
organized, if they aren't politcal? How do they define threats if they
arn't political?

Human beings (gag, puke) are political animals.

>weaponry is just laughable. Utterly and totally laughable. Can anyone here
>name a successful insurgent group that only had access to rifles?

Initally, or at the end. If the later, can't think of a one. If the
former, can't think of any that were not military coups that had access to
the systems you discuss, but a lot of them were successful none the less.
The real key is getting outside support, and hanging on until you do.
When the Castro brothers and Che Guavera hit Cuba, they only had a handful
of guys with rifles and a few pistols. Guavera is held as a folk hero by
mcu of South and Cetnral America, and even though he is was a little commie
****, he is still one of the patron saints of guerilla warfare. As for the
Castros, thier only oops were mismanagement and bad PR.

>houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
>groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens in reprisal

You obviously don't know about guerillas, or how to successfully hunt them
out. First off, hurting civvies only gets a few guerillas to step forward,
while it creates more of them. That is what the Russians did in both
Afganistan and Chechnia.
Second off, as a guerilla, you usually know that the shit is about to hit
the fan, and have time to scatter, so the guerillas aren't hunting at home
and/or they've disperssed thier families before they take the field. Even
if you don't, what you are describing doesn't work as well as a lot of
folks (including politians with stars on thier collars) might think.
Witness the Kwuati resistance to the Iraqis- they were saying right up
until the shells started landing that the Iraqis would not go south, and
they believed it. But those guerillas held out and started gathering
intelligence, supplies and personnel weeks before anyone of the outside
started backing them with something more real-world than "well, done, keep
up the good fight" on shortwave.
The Afganis had been disarmed by the political leadership, and their
military effectively nuetralized within 72 hours back in '79. And it took
about a day after that before the first Russian paratrooper was found with
his thoat cut and his equipment missing. They started with horses, a
handful of weapons that had been smuggled or hidden (think street-gang type
stuff, but in worse shape and further behind the tech curve), and lot of
bad attitude, and conducted a successful, low-level, harrasment-based
resistance for two years before Regan ordered the supplies to flow. They
weren't getting diddly squat from anyone before 1981, except some dead
Russians.

>for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles can't really do
>much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people gets crushed.

Research resistance. If the "people" are pissed, the guerillas get
support. The guerillas get support, their odds improve. Unless you, as an
invading country, can win over the people (you can't crush the human
spirit), the gurrillas will win. It may be sixty years- that is how long
it took Vietnam. The Irish guerillas have been working at for a hundred
years, and unless the news has changed in 12 hours, they will keep right on
working. But it will happen.
A lot of folks think that a successful guerilla uprising results in tanks
packed with sweaty jungle or desert fighters waving rifles and flags,
rolling towards the airport to stop the government from flying away with
the national treasury as the Americans and Brits chopper thier people of in
panic. Sometimes it does, and I imagine it feels damn good win that way.
But loosing a guerilla war is usually more like dieing from a thousand
paper cuts rather than being decapitated. Best way to win one is what the
IRA are doing now- using political means wherever you can. Fewer people
get hurt, it doesn't break as much key resources (like hospitals, schools
and cropland), and everyone can tell thier constituants that they are
winners.



CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 33
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:59:21 -0400
At 16.57 07-15-99, you wrote:
>I'm not name-calling here, I actually am interested, but doesn't that sound
>a lot like fascism? To have one force in charge of both fronts is just

Suspisiously so, although to most people, Fascism has lost its meaning.

>with small, organized guerrilla attacks, and wait for the heavy stuff to
>arrive (or capture it)

Or improvise it. You can kill most armoured vehilces with gas and a
match. Rolling large rocks and dropping trees on them works as well, if
you are in hilly, rural country. Helicopters are easy to screw with in a
dozen ways. Target railways, fuel supplies, communications and electricity
routing with mechanical sabotage and fire. Don't fight large groups, but
take a lone soldier or a pair, quietly, then grab thier gear. Anybody who
stayed awake in college chemsitry and still has thier notes can make
explosives. An old VW bug gives you break cables and springs that are just
right for making a 175 pound or so crossbow (that will kill someone in body
armour, and punch a hole in most variety of Hummer-type vehicles) and a
dozen quarrels- you just need to find a good tiller and make the trigger
group. There are a number of decorative plants that produce fast acting
toxins, and even then, there is nothing quite like seeing Gunther tip over
into his soup at the mess hall, and be quite dead by the time you pull him
up. A hatpin through the ear is instant and nearly noiseless, with very
little mess.
The weapons are not the hardest part of guerilla warfare- that is
communications. If I had to pick three things to hang onto if I was going
underground, it would be a lap top computer, a scanner (radio type) and a
big stack of cash.

>of weapon, it easily defaults on the skill web when you want to train in
>another weapon. :)

Weapons skills are the easiest ones to teach to guerillas. Thinking, now
that is the hard part.

>room. Besides, didn't you watch Red Dawn? That stuff can work. :) (I

Be serious. That is how nearly every, repeat nearly EVERY, group that
fought against the Japanese, with the exception of the Chinese National and
Communist armies, got started. It is also the same way the Mujadean start
off, and the various Resistance cells against the Nazis. (Did you know
that the Pope ran a Reistance cell, which included using honeytrap agents
and garrottes in WWII Poland?)

>But like I said before the rifles are holding the spot for later when you
>need the bigger equipment. Use them at first and then upgrade.

Don't even need them unless you want to get obnoxious right away, just
patience, imagination and a very bad attitude. If I had to fault the
Kuwaiti reisistors with antying, they moved too fast, although in thier
tactical situation, I probably would have too.
There are five rules to guerrilla warefare:
1- Don't hurt your powerbase. That means, don't endanger the civilians
when you don't have to. Let the other side do it- it makes them look like
the bad guys.
2- Don't fight a fight you can't win. That means do't take on groups or
heavy weapons if you don't have to, unless you can match them.
3- Never break security. To do so it death.
4- Become invisable. Blend in.
5- If you don't have it, steal it from the enemy. If you can't steal it,
improvise it. If you can't improvise it, call of the op or admit you don't
REALLY need it.

>I dunno. Maybe I'm just delusional, but to me it makes sense.

Most dangerous weapon is a good bookcase. There are a thousand different
topics a guerilla needs to know. Weapons, unarmed combat, and demolitions
are only the first. Communications, logistics, various mobility skills (if
you want to be a "resistor in place", learn it all- horseback riding, dirt
bike, motorcycles, boats, cars, trucks, tractors, construction equipment,
swiming, running, mountian climbing, even light aircraft and trains),
intelligence gathering, tactics, logistics, leadership, medicine (in a
guerilla situatin, going to the ER with a bullet int he chest is a death
sentance), lockpicking, survival, logisitcs, map and blueprint reading,
gunsmithing, arson, police procedure, disguise, electronics and computers
(those are new) and above all, communications and logistics. Not to
mention a "few" more. So long as you can hang onto your books, you can
learn enough to survive, and from there, it is all on the job. That is the
reason why HTML files with scanned images, burned onto CDs, scare so many
governments.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 34
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:48:31 +0200
Jyster Cap wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> I hate to point this out, but most criminals
> dont buy guns from legal sources, they usually
> steal them from people or businesses.

I know that, I am just saying, when there aren't many guns in general, then
they will be harder to come by, even for criminals. Like you said, they have
to steal them from businesses or people, but when those businesses and
people don't have many guns, then there will be less guns to be aquired in
shady ways.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 35
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:02:55 -0400
At 20.47 07-15-99 -0400, you wrote:
>The big problem with government takeover would be
>that the country we would be attacking is our home.

That is usually one of the defining charactersitics of a rebellion, yes.

>Third it wouldnt be feasible in this time and
>age unless a castrophe was involved.

Which isn't feasible? A totalitarian crack down? During the Civil War,
laws were passed that allowed the President to declarea national state of
emergency, placing the country under martial law and suspending the
Constitution, so long as he notified congress as soon as possible. Among
the things that would be interfeered with is the right to a jury trial and
a lawyer. It would be a simple matter of arresting those congressmen and
govenors who would disagree, on charges of treason, throw them beofre a
tribunal and have them executed within days. And at that point, no one who
would arguee the nessessity of the declaration of emergency will be left in
the government.
There have been some "interesting" (lets be honest- they scare the crap
out of people) exercises done at the Pentagon. They figure that seize
effective control of the country, so long as the grunts don't rebel,
withing ten days, but it would take years to get resistors out of the
pictures, if ever.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 36
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:11:52 -0400
At 11.06 07-16-99 +1000, you wrote:
>are unloaded. After Washington is burnt down, the armoured force proceeds up
>the road to Baltimore, where it meets the militia with their assault rifle

One of the first rules of fighting a guerilla war- don't take standup
battles. If you forget that, you will die.
I that situation, I'd go to ground for about a week.

>Surface-to-Air Missile? Or a working tank?

You can own tank, that isn't illegal. The ammunition of the main gun
reguires permits up the wazoo, though.

>And in the meantime, while you wait for the drek to hit the fan, you have
>teenage kids fighting gang wars with those same weapons. You don't need an

In the US, it was perfectly legal for a twelve year old to order a Tommy
gun through the mail prior to 1934, and a basic shotgun, rifle or pistol
through the mail until 1968. Street gangs are a sociological event, not a
technological one.
Also, look at Isreal. Ordinance of colors and flavors is available there.
They do't even have the street gang problem the Brits do. You are
argueeing that using or restricing technology will solve a sociological
issue is like saying you can cure cancer with a monkey wrench.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 37
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:02:55 -0400
At 20.47 07-15-99 -0400, you wrote:
>The big problem with government takeover would be
>that the country we would be attacking is our home.

That is usually one of the defining charactersitics of a rebellion, yes.

>Third it wouldnt be feasible in this time and
>age unless a castrophe was involved.

Which isn't feasible? A totalitarian crack down? During the Civil War,
laws were passed that allowed the President to declarea national state of
emergency, placing the country under martial law and suspending the
Constitution, so long as he notified congress as soon as possible. Among
the things that would be interfeered with is the right to a jury trial and
a lawyer. It would be a simple matter of arresting those congressmen and
govenors who would disagree, on charges of treason, throw them beofre a
tribunal and have them executed within days. And at that point, no one who
would arguee the nessessity of the declaration of emergency will be left in
the government.
There have been some "interesting" (lets be honest- they scare the crap
out of people) exercises done at the Pentagon. They figure that seize
effective control of the country, so long as the grunts don't rebel,
withing ten days, but it would take years to get resistors out of the
pictures, if ever.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 38
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:29:45 -0400
At 10:57 AM 7/16/99 +0200, you wrote:
>According to Robert Watkins, at 9:43 on 16 Jul 99, the word on
>the street was...
>
> > Lots of people would. What you do is you send the soldiers in, backed up
> > with overwhelming force, round up the citizens everywhere you go, loot the
> > houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
> > groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens in
> reprisal
> > for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles can't
> really do
> > much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people gets crushed.
>
>To that I'll add a quote of American general Sheridan, when he was an
>observer in the Franco-Prussian war (1870-71): "The people must be left
>with nothing but their eyes to weep with after the war."

But how often does that work? The US had all of the high-end military gear
in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese didn't have a lot of gear at all. The
South Vietnamese, and the US forces were certainly not above the occasional
atrocities. The more they were kicked when they were down, the more they
got up to fight.

Whether or not a group of people can stage an armed uprising against their
own government is a very dicey thing. Sometimes it succeeds (Iran in 1980)
and sometimes it fails (Hungary in 1956). Just because one side has the
secret police and the tanks does not mean they can win. And just because
the other side has Right on their side doesn't mean that they will win either.

But that really doesn't matter for the US. Its not impossible, but very
unlikely that the citizens of the US would ever be able to rise up and
stage a revolution against the government. However, there are legitimate
reasons for a citizen to hold a gun. And one of them is to defend himself.
In general, the military and police do a very good job protecting our
interests. But no matter how good they are, they cannot be everywhere. As a
citizen I have the right to defend myself if I so choose. As someone else
pointed out earlier, once I give up that right, its very hard for me to
take it back.


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 39
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:38:27 -0400
At 11.12 07-16-99 +1000, you wrote:
>What I was advocating was that you already have a group that is the
>strongest armed force in your society: the army and police forces. Give them

OK, so who will watch the watchers? The media? A bunch of money and
glory driven dogs who can't even be bothered to tell the whole story, not
that the average moron on the street cares to hear it. The politicians?
Show me a politician and the federal or state level who has never abused
power, and I'll show you someone who has only been office for a month.

>the responsibility of ensuring security and freedom, and use ethical
>training to ensure that they do the job right.

What happens if the dogs choose to bite the sheep? I hope you like
chains, because they might not be on you, but they would be on your
grandchildren. What you rae proposing is akin to Japanese occupation of
Okinanwa, the actions of the Vichy government in WWII, and the USSR in
Hungary. Are any of these the US gov? No, but there is a historical
precident for the species, and a few within our own country. Some of the
most bloody attacks on Native Americans by the military occured against
those who had moved onto reservations and were required by the local
military commanders to turn in their firearms.


>Objectors to this should take a few seconds to consider the problem of
>opposing the army as it is right now.

You seem to continue thinking that a guerilla force can immediately engage
regualr forces in a stand up fight. That is crap, pure and simple. YOu
see a tank, bolt. See a chopper, get under cover. See a squad of guys
outside your safehouse, turn around, hope none of them recognized you, and
write of the lost equipment.
Also, if Ameirca was to desolve into a military crackdown, within two
days, there would be missing men and equipment. I'm not talking an
infantry grunt with a rifle. I mentioned some table top exercises
concerning a "military suppresion of an internal state of emergency within
the contenental United States". There were some psych tests done on
memebers of the services to figure out what percentage of what units would
go AWOL. A quarter to a half of SOCOM (that includes folks like SPecial
Forces, Rangers, SEALs, AF special ops, etc) would disappear. So would
about one in ten Marine. Some of these folks know where the US military
stores stuff in case of extreme emergency. (In Europe and the US, the
military layed in caches of equippment, so that in the event of
conventional push by the Warsaw Pact, units that had gone to ground could
form reistance cells within days. Problem is, for various reasons, there
have been constant and credible rumors that some of the caches are
"misplaced".) They also figured that about a gfood chunk of the Guard and
state/local law enforcement would be a wash.
Part of this is, they calculated, correctly IMO, that many people would do
exactly what you are suggesting- taking on heavy weapons back units that
have full communications. Loosing proposition.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 40
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:56:25 -0400
At 22.37 07-15-99 -0400, you wrote:
>People want to ban guns becouse they feel the government can protect them so
>good they will never need firearms.

OK, folks, the next paragraph of this is little touchy, so if you have
weak stomach or an excessive amount of faith in the govenment, don't read it.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the average citizen is not entitiled
to police protection and service. Yes, you read that right. Teh "serve
and protect" does not refeer to you and me, Joe and Jane Average, but to
the "soverign body", which basically means the politicians and the
goverment property.
In the late 60s or early 70s, there were two young women renting a town
house in DC. Around 10 at night, thier door was kicked in. One of them
called the police, complete with breaking doors and a screaming room mate
in the background. Dispatch DID send a prowl car to take a look, but not
as a crisis call, even though they had heard of this in the background and
the phone was sudenly disconnected. The cops looked at the stove in front
door, and decided that nothing was amiss, so they never bothered to
investigate further. Over the next several hours, the two women were
repeatedly raped, sodomised and beated by a gang of at least five men,
leaving one of them dead and the other with perminant disabilites.
The survivor and the family of the deceased sued DCPD. And lost. They
appealed. And lost. Finally, they worked thier way to the Supreme Court.
And lost. No cops lost thier jobs, and the perps were never found.

Even without that, look at response times. 20% of Americans live in rural
areas with a 10 to 60 (!!!!!!!!) minute response time. That is if you
don't get a busy signal or put on hold when you call 911.

Those that choose to let other protect them, fine, let them place thier
trust in a total stranger. But please respect the rights of those of us
who don't share your confidence.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 41
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:56:18 -0400
Robert Watkins wrote:
>
> Lloyd Vance writes:
> > "Those who would give up Freedom for Security deserve neither."
> > --Benjamin Franklin
>
> Benjamin Franklin lived in an era where a group of milita armed with rifles
> could do a fairly decent job of holding out against a military force. Even
> then, that wasn't true (the military force would just bring up the
> artillery),...

Then, how did we manage to win the Revolution? Americans were just
militia forces going up against an established military force. :)


> ... but it was certainly more true than today.





>
> The _correct_ way to preserve Freedom and Security is not to arm the
> individual. It is to create a non-political body to defend the society as a
> whole, both from internal and external threats, and arm that to the hilt.
> That is why armies and police forces should not be politicised in any way,
> shape, or form.

So who would watch, the watcher? Giving any one body that kind of
power is asking for trouble. That's the main reason for the three
separate bodies of the American government (each has some power to
cancel the others, and two can team up to stop the third if need be).

<snip>

> If you preserve the right to bear arms so that a citizens milita has a
> decent chance of overthrowing an oppressive government (which is the sole
> point of that particular part of the US constitution), you are really
> pissing in the wind these days with the right to carry a gun. You should be
> out there arguing for the right to carry anti-tank and anti-aircraft
> weaponry, because that's what you're going to need.


I definately disagree here. Sure twenty men armed with rifles and
pistols might not be able to take out an active tank or aircraft.
But, tanks are not always secure. Sometimes they are opened for fresh
air making them vulnerable to internal attacks (molotav's are easy to
make and use). Sometimes their crew are outside making them
vulnerable to sniping and drive-bys.

Plus a large enough group of people could easily overun some of the
smaller armories located just about everywhere. I know of two places
where a well planned B&E could net me some armored fighting vehicles
(Bradleys), about 2 or 3 dozen military rifles, grenades, grenade
launchers, and some military body armor.

And as for aircraft, if the American government decided to start
bombing American communitites for any reason, they (the gov't) would
lose a hell of a lot of support. Most likely the militia movement
would swell with new volunteers.

>
> The idea that you can overthrow an oppressive government with personal
> weaponry is just laughable. Utterly and totally laughable. Can anyone here
> name a successful insurgent group that only had access to rifles?

The American Revolutinaries?

Later they had cannons and such, but for the most part they aquired
those from defeated British forces.

>
> > Besides. Who would invade a country where the general populace
> > could kill you? Makes things more secure for us that way, too.
>
> Lots of people would. What you do is you send the soldiers in, backed up
> with overwhelming force, round up the citizens everywhere you go, loot the
> houses for weapons and valuables, and deal with the various resistance
> groups by committing atrocities such as shooting random citizens in reprisal
> for resistance attacks. The militia groups with their rifles can't really do
> much more than annoy, and eventually the spirit of the people gets crushed.

Less crushed than if there were no resistance. Militia/Partisan
attacks against an outside enemy would aid not the local citizenry,
but instead would aid the national defense. Why? Because partisan
attacks tie up enemy forces that would otherwise be used to push the
front forward.


>
> "Make hunting a sporting event. Arm the deer."

Hunting should not be classified as a sport, around here many people
still hunt for food (although probably not for their complete diet).

--
Iridios
"Accept what you cannot avoid,
Avoid what you cannot accept."
Message no. 42
From: Quindrael d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:44:34 +0200
>However, there are legitimate
>reasons for a citizen to hold a gun. And one of them is to defend himself.
>In general, the military and police do a very good job protecting our
>interests. But no matter how good they are, they cannot be everywhere. As a
>citizen I have the right to defend myself if I so choose.

Problem is, that the harder you defend yourself, the greater the chance
someone will not only try to intimidate or subdue you, but actually hurt or
even kill you, because they are "defending" themselves (maybe it's not
defense in a legal way, but it is from the viewpoint of surviving).

VrGr David

"Shapes of angels the night casts lie dead but dreaming in my past and
they're here, they want to meet you, they want to play with you, so take
the dream."
(Fields of the Nephilim - "Sumerland (what dreams may come)")
Message no. 43
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:51:35 +0200
According to Jyster Cap, at 7:46 on 16 Jul 99, the word on
the street was...

> I hate to point this out, but most criminals dont buy guns from legal
> sources, they usually steal them from people or businesses.

I didn't want to say anything in this thread before, because I've seen it
all and I know there is no way in hell we'll ever change your mind, but
what you just said is the #1 reason for tight firearms control: if nobody
has a weapon, there aren't any to steal.

Oh yes, they can be smuggled in, and that will happen. But in a country
where firearms are hard to come by, using one will make you (and/or your
crime) stand out and become a target of very serious police investigation
extremely rapidly.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Cooking with the devil, frying down in hell.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 44
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:51:35 +0200
According to IronRaven, at 7:52 on 16 Jul 99, the word on
the street was...

> For our non-US members, most of you are not citizens, you are subjects.

Bullshit. I am a staatsburger -- literally translated, a "state's
citizen." And I am to be treated exactly the same as anyone else in this
country, whether citizen or not, with the exception of members of the
royal family.

> Look it up in your legal codes. In the courts, you ARE subjects. Oxford
> defines subject, in this tense as "under the power of authority". Your
> governments recieve no authority from you at the most basic levels.

??? Please elaborate, I don't understand what you mean at all.

> For American memebers- read the the Decleration, Constitution and the
> Amendments. I have but one complaint with the uthors of the Bill of
> Rights,and that is that they numbered things. But it is not thier fault
> that thier decendents would be so stupid and complacent as to not actually
> read the writings by the authors, which say that they were NOT ordered by
> importance, but they are in the order the authors thought of them in. They
> also wanted to stay under ten, becuase they had some idea about the future
> generations. Why else do you think most of the Amendments cram so much
> stuff into one package? Why do you think only two discuss a single issue?

Because of an obsession with virtually non-existant tradition?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Cooking with the devil, frying down in hell.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 45
From: Damian Robinson max.robinson@**.net.au
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 01:07:25 +1000
Gurth wrote:
>
> According to Jyster Cap, at 7:46 on 16 Jul 99, the word on
> the street was...
>
> > I hate to point this out, but most criminals dont buy guns from
> > legal sources, they usually steal them from people or businesses.
>
> I didn't want to say anything in this thread before, because I've
> seen it all and I know there is no way in hell we'll ever change
> your mind,

What you said works both ways...

> but what you just said is the #1 reason for tight
> firearms control: if nobody has a weapon, there aren't any to steal.
>
> Oh yes, they can be smuggled in, and that will happen. But in a
> country where firearms are hard to come by, using one will make you
> (and/or your crime) stand out and become a target of very serious
> police investigation extremely rapidly.

Point of order, if this is the case, then why is the armed crime rate
in switzerland so low? By your reasoning (no guns = lower crime rate)
switzerland should be having huge amounts of firearms crime! After
all, just about every home has a fully automatic firearm in it! But,
the truth is that firearms crime there is almost nil.

Washington DC has some of the harshest gun laws in all of america. It
also has one of the largest crime rates, including firearms offenses.
By your reasoning the crime rate should be lower, but its not.

Crime is a symptom of many things wrong with society today. Banning
firearms is not going to help solve any of the problems that the high
crime rates show are there. All banning firearms is is a Band-Aid
after you've had a heart attack. Something to point to to say "look,
we've done something!" for the politicians

An old saying, that is more true than many.

An Armed society is a polite society.
--
Cheers
Damian

Home Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dreamworld/4808/
pay a visit, and please don't forget the Guestbook...

ICQ?
#14030875
Message no. 46
From: Darrell L. Bowman darrell@******.dhr.state.nc.us
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:11:52 -0400
On 15 Jul 99, at 23:36, Watcher Spirit wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul. 1999 14:23:03 -0400 (EDT) Marc Renouf wrote:
> Get it straight. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

This reminds me of a Smilin' Jack quote!!!

"Guns don't kill people -- geez, do you know how many
times you have to hit someone with a gun to kill them?!?
-- Smilin' Jack.

I collect 'em. :-)

---
When Fate taps you on the shoulder, you'd best pay
attention. Unfortunately, she has that blasted habit
of tapping you on the opposite shoulder, so that when
you turn around she's actually on your other side,
giggling like a schoolgirl. I hate that.
-- Harlequin, Immortal Elf,
from Harlequin's Back, A Shadowrun Adventure,
from FASA Corporation.


Nightshade, Human Racoon Shaman
or
Raven, Elven Irish Rigger with an attitude.

Darrell Bowman
darrell@******.dhr.state.nc.us
Message no. 47
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:41:32 +0200
Damian wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> Point of order, if this is the case, then why is the armed crime rate
> in switzerland so low? By your reasoning (no guns = lower crime rate)
> switzerland should be having huge amounts of firearms crime! After
> all, just about every home has a fully automatic firearm in it! But,
> the truth is that firearms crime there is almost nil.
>
> Washington DC has some of the harshest gun laws in all of america. It
> also has one of the largest crime rates, including firearms offenses.
> By your reasoning the crime rate should be lower, but its not.

You tell me, why does it work in Switzerland, and not in the USA?

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 48
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:49:11 +0200
Gurth wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> According to IronRaven, at 7:52 on 16 Jul 99, the word on
> the street was...
>
> > For our non-US members, most of you are not citizens, you are subjects.
>
> Bullshit. I am a staatsburger -- literally translated, a "state's
> citizen." And I am to be treated exactly the same as anyone else in this
> country, whether citizen or not, with the exception of members of the
> royal family.
>
> > Look it up in your legal codes. In the courts, you ARE subjects.
Oxford
> > defines subject, in this tense as "under the power of authority".
Your
> > governments recieve no authority from you at the most basic levels.
>
> ??? Please elaborate, I don't understand what you mean at all.

This is clearly an issue of generalization. Oxford might define anything
Oxford wants, it still won't have any bearing on the Dutch court. Anyway,
you are getting stuck up on somantics dating back several hundred of years.

Dennis

"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 49
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:58:01 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Dennis Steinmeijer wrote:

> Saven wrote in his infinite wisdom:
> > If someone breaks in my house the cops will be here as soon as the 911
> > dispatcher calls them, and they get in the squad car and get here, find
> > the house then come in. The bullet from my gun will make it to the
> > attacker in 1650 feet per second. Guess what is faster?
>
> "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
>
> Who says the burglar won't be strapped?

I'd rather face a "strapped" burglar with a gun of my own then to
just have to sit there like a schmoe while he takes all my shit. And who
knows, maybe he originally only busted in because he liked my TV, but now
he's taken a shine to my wife. Wouldn't *you* want to be armed?

Marc
Message no. 50
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:48:18 +0100
In article <4.2.0.58.19990716082051.0098d810@*****.engin.umich.edu>,
Sommers <sommers@*****.edu> writes
>But how often does that work? The US had all of the high-end military gear
>in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese didn't have a lot of gear at all.

I am acquainted with a number of pilots who would strongly disagree with
that statement.

> The
>South Vietnamese, and the US forces were certainly not above the occasional
>atrocities. The more they were kicked when they were down, the more they
>got up to fight.

Bear in mind that the victorious North Vietnamese were _not_ civilians
with personal weapons: the North was extensively equipped with modern
Soviet air defences, aircraft, artillery, and armour.

The Afghan muhadejin were all but defeated by airmobile Soviet troops
with well-coordinated artillery: it took the widespread availability of
manpack SAMs to neutralise the Soviets' air superiority (forcing fixed-wing
air up too high to be effective, and preventing the lethally effective use of
Hind-Ds as gunships carrying their own infantry support).




--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 51
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:12:44 -0400
At 12.56 07-16-99 +1000, you wrote:
>Remember... they're crooks. If any guns are illegal, you can assume that
>they have bigger and badder weaponry than you.

Average criminal these days still carries a short barreled revolver,
reguardless of what the media shows, has no training, and is used to
getting compliance at the sight of a weapon. Compare that to someone who
is knows what they are doing, doesn't fear getting shot (I'm a
reincarnationalist- what are you going to do, kill me?), and uses an
agressive defense (break an ambush with killing fire and advance).
Shotguns are pretty uncommon, and rifles of all types are still less
popular methods of murder than hands and feet. If there is more than one,
(a) they are an oddity, and (b) they are probably going to pause while
thier friend's brainpan splatters all over them. Figure a pause of a
second? That is at least one more down.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 52
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:12:37 -0400
At 23.22 07-15-99 EDT, you wrote:
> What percentage of the USA owns firearms?

~50% of households

> and what percentage uses firearms in crime?

~.00001%

>When the government decides that the real reason that kids do violence is
>because of TV programming, and starts an anti-freedom of speech run, does it
>matter?

Folks, he's right. The Bill Rights is designed so that the various
provisions support the others. Start screwing with one, and they all start
getting hurt.
As for 1st ammendment, I have a question for Americans. If a man chooses
to carry a sideamr becuase he has little confidence in the police to be
able to save his life in a crisis, is that not a manner of expressing that
emotion, and thus protected under the First Amendment? Rember that the
Bill of Rights is a set of ten EQUALS, and is not in order of priority.

> Why ban the PSG-1, a 10,000 $ rifle? Has it become evil?

Or an inexpensive revolver? Do not the poor deserve to defend themselves?
Or do only celebrities and politicians who can surround themselves with
squads of men with automatic weapons need protection?


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 53
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:30:57 -0400
At 12.52 07-16-99 +0200, you wrote:
>Until there is a sure way of finding those bad seeds, it should be more
>difficult to get ahold of guns. I am not for punishing the ones who *can*

You just made two, totally opposing statements. Which is it. Punish a
couple hundred million law abidding gun owners for the crimes of a few tens
of thousands of societal rejects, or not?

>I say mandatory psychological tests are in order, and a parents should be

That would be quashed under Right to Privace and Freedom from
Self-Incrimination, just like maditory finger printing or DNA sampling of
people, if was to go before the Supreme Court.

>held accountable for the morals and values of their children, I consider it
>negligence.

You consider what negligence?
As for holding parents accountable, lets try the kids. At age 14, you can
knive someone, get sent to juvie hall, and have the slate whiped clean in
four years. Yet at age 14, do you not know that this is wrong? I'd say a
Family Services call is definantly in order if there are any other kids at
home, but that 14 year old is considered an adult by most of the world's
population. If he is a man enough to commit an adult crime, he is man
enough to do adult time.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 54
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:34:42 -0400
At 13.12 07-16-99 +0200, you wrote:
>And if they do, in most cases they will only use it to _threaten_ you. Thye

Huh, not so. In the early 70s, criminals started realising that "dead men
tell no tales" is a truth. Most of them, you are correct, don't want to
kill. But you can't tell that. Someone points a gun at me, I figure it is
loaded and they are willing to use it. Why do you think cops have shot
people with realistic looking squirt guns?

>won't kill you unless they have to. And if you're pointing a gun back at
>them, that counts for "they have to".

Actually, if you had done any research into criminal psychology, you would
know that most criminals would run or surrender at that point, and don't
like targets that can defend themselves.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 55
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:37:01 -0400
At 07.46 07-16-99 -0400, you wrote:
>I hate to point this out, but most criminals
>dont buy guns from legal sources, they usually
>steal them from people or businesses.

Or they get them on the black market. It isn't hard to run a quarter ton
of heroin or cocaine through customs. Running twenty rifles and two
thousand rounds of ammunition takes up as much room and weight, and the
dogs and chem sniffers aren't as likely to pick it up. It isn't as
profitable, but the jail time isn't as long either.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 56
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:24:29 -0400
At 12.46 07-16-99 +0200, you wrote:
>weapons in general, due to the fact that trigger-happy,
>I-read-guns-and-ammo-magazine, card-carrying-member-of-the-NRA weirdos

Excuse me, but are you familiar with the technical defintion of slander?

You obvioulsy don't know any NRA members, you would relise that we are not
"trigger happy", if by that term, you mean that we would WANT to shoot
someone. I've come closer to taking a life in an accident (on job) than I
care to think about, and I still wake up in a cold sweat. I have every
intention of allowing a someone in a defensive situation the chance to turn
and run, unless my life is in clear and present threat, or the lives of
those I am a gaurdian of. After that, I fully expect to placed on a
suicide watch for a couple weeks. 99% of the gun owners I know are in the
same boat, while the rest got to the point while they were in the service
that a dead body was a dead body.



CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 57
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:45:36 -0400
At 08.29 07-16-99 -0400, you wrote:
>reasons for a citizen to hold a gun. And one of them is to defend himself.

Here's an interesting exercise. Find out what the response time for a 911
call is in your area. The agencies in question are required to hand out
that info to those who ask for it. And then consider this? Most violent
crime happens very quickly, the longest being rape (averaging about 15
minutes, according to teh FBI) and the shortest being "random" street
killing for the victem's money (at about a minute and half).
Someone sticks a knife in your kidney, and you are screwed. But which of
these is more valuble:
1) the life of a criminal
2) loss of physical ability due to a significant beating, resutling in
total disability or blindness
--OR--
the trauma of sexual assualt (murder is argueably the only thing worse,
but once you are dead, you are dead, you don't keep dying over and over
again for years on end)

Ask yourself that question. Answer honestly.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 58
From: Lloyd Vance ljvance@*******.edu
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:50:46
<snip careless judgement and reaction to it>

> You obvioulsy don't know any NRA members, you would relise that we are not
>"trigger happy", if by that term, you mean that we would WANT to shoot
>someone. I've come closer to taking a life in an accident (on job) than I
>care to think about, and I still wake up in a cold sweat. I have every
>intention of allowing a someone in a defensive situation the chance to turn
>and run, unless my life is in clear and present threat, or the lives of
>those I am a gaurdian of. After that, I fully expect to placed on a
>suicide watch for a couple weeks. 99% of the gun owners I know are in the
>same boat, while the rest got to the point while they were in the service
>that a dead body was a dead body.
>CyberRaven

I, while not an NRA member, agree with CR. I don't own guns so that I can
go kill people at any chance I get. I also haven't been doing martial arts
for the past sixteen years so I could beat people up. You have these
things/abilities so that you never have to use them. I own a gun, living
in fear of the day I _have_ to use it. Not _get_ to. I go to the practice
range and put up with the redneck jackasses because I want to be able to
shoot straight when I have to.

I never want to have to hurt someone. I got beat up enough as a kid (which
is why my father signed me up for my first Tae Kwon Do class) to know that
it really hurts physically and mentally to get beaten. I also know what it
does to people to lose someone violently (also my father).

I'm just stacking the deck.

The Hamm
aka Lloyd Vance
Message no. 59
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:02:31 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990715235921.0090ac80@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 16.57 07-15-99, you wrote:
> Or improvise it. You can kill most armoured vehilces with gas and a
>match.

Not really. In the old days, a molotov cocktail would cripple an armoured
vehicle if you hit the engine deck: the solder in the radiator's joints
melted, the coolant escaped and the engine seized very quickly.

That hasn't worked in a _long_ time: AFVs are designed to survive napalm
attacks and flamethrowers, much less molotovs (button up and floor it to
drive out of the flame zone), and even Land Rovers can be built to shrug
off petrol bombs.

> The weapons are not the hardest part of guerilla warfare- that is
>communications. If I had to pick three things to hang onto if I was going
>underground, it would be a lap top computer, a scanner (radio type) and a
>big stack of cash.

Comms are a major problem, no doubt about it. Radio is easily
monitored, telephones cut or tapped. _Their_ comms, on the other hand,
are likely to at best be in BATCO or equivalent, at worst encrypted and
frequency-agile.

> There are five rules to guerrilla warefare:
> 1- Don't hurt your powerbase. That means, don't endanger the civilians
>when you don't have to. Let the other side do it- it makes them look like
>the bad guys.

Absolutely. Every atrocity the enemy commits recruits for you. Maybe not
overtly, but covertly. British forces in Malaya, Brunei, Borneo and
Indonesia used that - the Communist insurgents began harassing and
attacking villagers and stealing food as support flagged.

> 2- Don't fight a fight you can't win. That means do't take on groups or
>heavy weapons if you don't have to, unless you can match them.

I'd add "never start a fight you can't run away from". Better by far to
inflict one or two casualties and fade, than inflict five or six but take
losses in return.

> 3- Never break security. To do so it death.
> 4- Become invisable. Blend in.
> 5- If you don't have it, steal it from the enemy. If you can't steal it,
>improvise it. If you can't improvise it, call of the op or admit you don't
>REALLY need it.

Guerilla warfare only really works with outside support. The guerillas can
harass, buy time, weaken an enemy and sap his will: but guerillas don't
win military victories.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 60
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:54:57 +0100
In article <378F2BF2.60759379@*********.com>, Iridios
<iridios@*********.com> writes
>Robert Watkins wrote:
>> Benjamin Franklin lived in an era where a group of milita armed with rifles
>> could do a fairly decent job of holding out against a military force. Even
>> then, that wasn't true (the military force would just bring up the
>> artillery),...
>
>Then, how did we manage to win the Revolution? Americans were just
>militia forces going up against an established military force. :)

Back then, the difference between a militiaman and a regular soldier was
the cut of your coat.

Now... the military's a much more extensively equipped force and most
civilians are in major trouble trying to take on tanks or helicopter
gunships, or survive under artillery fire cued by drones using thermal
imagers...

>I definately disagree here. Sure twenty men armed with rifles and
>pistols might not be able to take out an active tank or aircraft.
>But, tanks are not always secure. Sometimes they are opened for fresh
>air making them vulnerable to internal attacks (molotav's are easy to
>make and use).

Got to get close enough to hit the hatch with your bottle: either carrying
a bright IR source, or taking time to light it once close.

There's a reason treadheads post sentries...

>Sometimes their crew are outside making them
>vulnerable to sniping and drive-bys.

Usually when they're in company with their mechanised infantry, who may
object to this behaviour.


This sort of technique works only if you're willing to accept a hideous
casualty ratio.

>> The idea that you can overthrow an oppressive government with personal
>> weaponry is just laughable. Utterly and totally laughable. Can anyone here
>> name a successful insurgent group that only had access to rifles?
>
>The American Revolutinaries?

Technology has advanced just a little since then.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 61
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:08:55 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990716075249.0090b5b0@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
> For our non-US members, most of you are not citizens, you are subjects.
>Look it up in your legal codes. In the courts, you ARE subjects. Oxford
>defines subject, in this tense as "under the power of authority". Your
>governments recieve no authority from you at the most basic levels.

Uh... not quite. We elect our government. They work for us, but take
authority from the Crown. If the Crown gets uppity, well, ask Charles I
how well he imposed his will on his subjects :)




--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 62
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:01:17 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/1999 6:25:02 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl writes:

> Schizi@***.com wrote:
> > Let me ask this; How many citizens rights must be infringed, because of
> > the actions of a few?
>
> You mean the right to get shot? Because why in heaven should there be a
> right to have a weapon so you can kill someone else? What else are guns
for?
>
Oh gods, this is where the ULTIMATE Gray Line comes into play here in the
states. I had kept telling myself I wanted to stay away from this topic, but
its' my day off, and I'm taking a break from HHH stuff (characters, magic,
tek, yeppers, bunches of stuff in hiding).

The CORE of the argument is a conflict of terms/interests around Freedom &
Rights. Freedom of speach is effectively gone, we (in the states) should
admit that much at least. Freedom of expression went with it (otherwise
people like me wouldn't be afraid to admit we're not like everyone else).

("I want this V-chip out of me .... it has stunted my vocabulary....")

Rights to Possess deadly weapons still remains however. Reason? Right of
Self Defense AND the Right to obtain food (Hunting; be it sport or actual
*HUNTING*).

Please, everyone that is involved in this discussion/deliberation, consider
what it means. Sure, everyone has their own opinion. Sure, some people like
the security of their lives in their own hands (self defense in your own home
for instance). However, its' stuff *LIKE* that concern (and developing
paranoia) that has allowed for the entire situation to explode to the limits
(and beyond) the way it has now.

("I'm trying to protect my neighbors, my family, from *THEM*. I don't want
THEM coming into my neighborhood anyway, WE don't need THEIR kind here.")

Ultimately, this is all about Posturing. What is *MY* Freedom worth to me?
What are *MY* Rights worth to me? How much *BETTER* am *I* than anyone
around me? Narcism (derived from Vanity) is the most powerful cultural force
I've seen lately, even to the point my best friends and family have been
absorbed by it. For so long, "America" was about "We, the People".
Perhaps
the writing should now be "I the Person"?

("Hey, I ain't no dumbie like the rest of you are...")

Face it folks, this is the MOST selfish nation on the face of the earth ATM.
Is it the best one? In my opinion, perhaps yes (I would *REALLY* like to see
what Australia is like ;). However, considering the volume of
self-perpuating lies, misdirections (and ensuing misconceptions), and
ego-building (and stroking) tactics of the "American Leaders" to date, I'd
say ultimately, its' just not worth it anymore. I want to believe in a
growing, GLOBAL, society ... but I just don't think the majority of people
are ready for it.

What's the phrase? *Individually* (the "I"), the Human Being is the most
incredible, awe-inspiring, force of inspiration known. Collectively (the
"We"), its' dumber, stupider, more immature, a species than anything else.
Sums it up to me. America, through fate or manipulation, has merely become
the biggest, expressionable, example of this truth currently on the planet.

-K (Gosh, I wish Erik Jameson were still here to get into this one)
Message no. 63
From: Ahuizotl cuellare@***.telmex.net.mx
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:22:35 -0500
> Yep... Didn't the British Expeditionary Force burn Washington to the ground,
> then proceed to march without their artillery up the road to Baltimore, and
> that's why they lost?
>
> Imagine the American War of Independence today. Your civil militia has
> lovely assault rifles, probably on a par with those of the opposition. But
......
> and proceeds to kick serious butt.
>
> > This is also one of the reasons that the gun-banning laws are a true
> > overthrough of a government.
>
> Umm... when was it _ever_ legal to own, say, a light anti-tank weapon? Or a
> Surface-to-Air Missile? Or a working tank?
>
> > "You don't need an uzi to hunt deer>"
....
> it will, but we buy insurance "just in case")
>
> And in the meantime, while you wait for the drek to hit the fan, you have

....
> office and waiting for the SWAT team to come.
>
> Personally, I'm _glad_ I live in a society where we are comfortable with
.....
> an AK-47.
>

I´m sooo agre with you. Today some idiot want to hurt me with a security
car lock using like a bat. I was youger and have some martial arts train
so i kick his ass. but make me wonder. Why if this idiot atack mi sister
o mi mother, or anybody else without train, then i think "if he have a
gun he will use it because i dont drive fast enought for him". That kind
of weapons is not going to made a diferece in a "war" but a lot of
people is going to die becuase of idiots like the one i found it.

Ahuizotl
Message no. 64
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:09:10 -0400
At 08.56 07-16-99 -0400, you wrote:
>The American Revolutinaries?
>
>Later they had cannons and such, but for the most part they aquired
>those from defeated British forces.

Err... Not quite... That was what the Brits were amrching on on Concord
and Lexington Day. It was all entirely legal when it was purchased, then
no new weapons could be purchased and grandfathered ones were taxed and
registered, and then finally they were confiscated. (Does that sound like
New York, or what?)


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 65
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:14:59 -0400
At 13.48 07-16-99 +0200, you wrote:
>people don't have many guns, then there will be less guns to be aquired in
>shady ways.

Ern, you've guessed wrong and don't get to buy a vowel. <g>

Look at the UK. To describe thier gun laws as "tight" is like saying that
a magnisium flare is "hot". From what I've read, a lot of the guns they
are finding are comming in from other parts of the world.
Germany is a little looser, but they have some much ordinance comming in
from all over, that they have people dropping the eqiuvelent of ten bucks
on a hand grenade, going into church, and reducing themsleves to
extra-chunky/extra-crispy style meat by products.
Hog Kong is real restrictive, and they had weapons come in quite
frequently, either left overs from the actions in SEAsia or from China. I
ahven't seen figures for thier crime rates in the post consolidation era.



CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 66
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:18:33 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/1999 10:07:58 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
max.robinson@**.net.au writes:

>
> An old saying, that is more true than many.

Actually, its' very wrong now....

> An Armed society is a polite society.

Really? Look at America then. Outside of certain other people that can't
get the hint on some things early enough about their own perpetual
self-developed value, I'd say on average "Americans" are the rudest bunch
I've ever known. And yes, I've known people from lots of places too.

Only an American would come to *EXPECT* so much without asking ...

-K
Message no. 67
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:22:23 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/1999 10:54:46 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
dv8@********.nl writes:

>
> This is clearly an issue of generalization. Oxford might define anything
> Oxford wants, it still won't have any bearing on the Dutch court. Anyway,
> you are getting stuck up on somantics dating back several hundred of years.

That's okay, we're (in America) stuck on a bunch of rules that are a couple
hundred years old too...

-K
Message no. 68
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:30:28 -0400
At 20.02 07-16-99 +0100, you wrote:
>That hasn't worked in a _long_ time: AFVs are designed to survive napalm
>attacks and flamethrowers, much less molotovs (button up and floor it to

In combat, you are right. However, a guerilla (nor a Shoadwrunner) should
play with AFVs in a stand up fight. Giving them the gas while the hatches
are open, on the other hand.....

>Guerilla warfare only really works with outside support. The guerillas can
>harass, buy time, weaken an enemy and sap his will: but guerillas don't
>win military victories.

Without outside support, they don't. But political victories count too.
Look at the Contras. Even though they had our backing, it was fairly
minor. However, they were able to win a political victory. Same thing
goes for the IRA- once Sein Fein was let into Parlement, that insurgency
was pretty much over, unless the Brits decide to through SF out. (The joys
of living as a subject.)


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 69
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:37:58 -0400
At 19.54 07-16-99 +0100, you wrote:
>Technology has advanced just a little since then.

Show me a piece of technology short of chemical warfare and nukes, and
"half-assed mountain boys" have figured out a way to negate the advantage.
For example, the IR sig of a molly can be defeated by using chemical
ignition. To get around sentries for amoured units, take them on the move,
preferably in urban terrain.

I hate cities, but they are the fueture of guerilla warfare, beauce the
only way you can be really sure is carpet bomb the city. Although the
counter to that is real easy: keep your troops out of the city, seige it
in, and use your high tech gizmos and extenisve manpower all you want in
the country side. It's fool proof.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 70
From: Darrell L. Bowman darrell@******.dhr.state.nc.us
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:47:31 -0400
On 15 Jul 99, at 23:02, Michael & Linda Frankl wrote:

> Saven poetically stated:
>> This is a basic principle of
>> Shadowrun, and in that world the Shadowrunners pity the fools
>> who sold out the ability to make a choice. In Fact those who
>> give up freedom for security are the poor slobs known as wage
>> slaves. If this is such a great option why isn't there a RGP
>> gave out there where you can be a wage slave and you get
>> Karma for how brown your nose gets.
>
>
> I'm damn glad you play in my game.

Ain't it a wonderful thing,... :-)

---
Duct tape is like the force:
It has a light side and a dark side,
and it holds the universe together.
-- source unknown


Nightshade, Human Racoon Shaman
or
Raven, Elven Irish Rigger with an attitude.

Darrell Bowman
darrell@******.dhr.state.nc.us
Message no. 71
From: Darrell L. Bowman darrell@******.dhr.state.nc.us
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:47:32 -0400
On 16 Jul 99, at 12:46, Dennis Steinmeijer wrote:

> The point of the statement robert made, is that when it is difficult to
> get weapons in general, due to the fact that trigger-happy,
> I-read-guns-and-ammo-magazine, card-carrying-member-of-the-NRA weirdos
> stop making it so damn easy to get hold of guns, then your average burglar
> won't be carrying weapons at all.

But some people still don't get the point. "If you outlaw guns,
then only outlaws will have guns." If I'm a crook, I ain't gonna'
go out and legally buy the weapon. I buy a stolen weapon off
the street, or steal it myself.

---
I trusted [him] like a brother. That is to say, not at all.
--Corwin, Prince of Amber,
The Guns of Avalon, by Roger Zelazny


Nightshade, Human Racoon Shaman
or
Raven, Elven Irish Rigger with an attitude.

Darrell Bowman
darrell@******.dhr.state.nc.us
Message no. 72
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:05:24 -0400
At 20.08 07-16-99 +0100, you wrote:
>Uh... not quite. We elect our government. They work for us, but take
>authority from the Crown. If the Crown gets uppity, well, ask Charles I

OK, I'm going back to the IRA and Sein Fein. (I don't like thier
politics, but they are a successful modern insergency.)
My understanding is that if the current talks turn into a total balls up,
then the Crown may elect to bar Sein Fein from being considered a legal
party. I know that they weren't for years.
In country with citizens, anyone can form a party and run on it, even if
you are the only member of the Fuzzy Purple Lima Bean party and your
platform is the liberation of your enslaved produce bretheren the nation
over (I never said you had to be sain to run for office.) without being
recognized by the government.

To me, that is one of the biggest differences.

>how well he imposed his will on his subjects :)

I'd rather talk to King Henry. But I'm just a nasty Yank.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 73
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:05:28 -0400
At 16.51 07-16-99 +0200, you wrote:
>> For our non-US members, most of you are not citizens, you are subjects.
>
>Bullshit. I am a staatsburger -- literally translated, a "state's

Please note that I said "most".
So were is the legal origion of your legislature's power? Is it entrusted
to them by the king, a noble caste, by the people, or is just given to
them? I'm not looking for the street level answer, I'm looking for the
wording the document that set up your legislature and courts.

>citizen." And I am to be treated exactly the same as anyone else in this
>country, whether citizen or not, with the exception of members of the
>royal family.

OK, this is a totally American question, but why are they treated any
differently than anyone else? I'm being totally serious. In a democracy
or a republic, a majority of the people have to be convinced (although in
the US, that can be done pretty cheaply). How does one determine if a
soverign is worthy of the title, and how do you take it back if they show
themselves to be unworthy?

>??? Please elaborate, I don't understand what you mean at all.

Look above. In the legal documents, who does the power of the courts and
legislature derive thier power from?

>Because of an obsession with virtually non-existant tradition?

Like a monarchy? Or is becuase arms, quartering of troops and taxation
were the biggest agreivements that the British crown had inflicted upon
it's Colonies?


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 74
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:05:35 -0400
At 17.41 07-16-99 +0200, you wrote:
>You tell me, why does it work in Switzerland, and not in the USA?

The pattern of Switzerland does work in America in the rural areas, which
surprise, surprise, have the least regualtions on firearms. Look at the
most rural counties in America and the most urban ones.
Doesn't even need to be counties that are all the different. In my
county, we average a murder every 3 years, while just across the border in
New Hampshire's Coos county, they have about three a year. The economics
are pretty much the same. The tax rates are similiar. So are population
density, cultural demographics, unemployment, alcohal sales, drug arrests,
(actually, they are higher on my side of the river), etc, etc, etc. It is
even the same water table. Vemont has two gun laws (sound suppressor,
although that is Fish and Game not Criminal law, and a restriction on carry
in state buildings, hospitals and schools). New Hampshire has about ten
times more.
I'm not saying that there is a causal relationship, simply becuase there
has been no scientific study funded to do so. Statisticians are paid to
prove a theory, not to do empirical research, so those that can afford to
spend moeny on research get thier choice over what research gets done.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 75
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:08:11 -0400
At 17.49 07-16-99 +0200, you wrote:
>you are getting stuck up on somantics dating back several hundred of years.

Legal issues ARE semantics. "The letter of the law" is not just an
expression, but the foundation of most legal systems. Dismissing a
question of law as "semantics" is to ignore the question, and whatever
brought it, entirely.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 76
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:13:10 -0400
At 16.01 07-16-99 EDT, you wrote:
>absorbed by it. For so long, "America" was about "We, the
People". Perhaps
>the writing should now be "I the Person"?

Question: Does Constitution discuss communal rights or individual rights,
using the letter of law based on the definition of the wording at the time
it was authored? That is the whole crux of this debate and those
concerning everything from freedom of religion to the right to a jury trial
to the prohibiting of descrimination based on race, creed, et al.
It has to be all or nothing. They are ALL either individual rights or
they are ALL collective rights.



CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"Briar Rabbit to Briar Fox; I was BORN in that briar patch!"
Message no. 77
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:41:29 -0400
Dennis quoted:
>"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
>
>Who says the burglar won't be strapped?


Hey buddy, "He who doesn't live by the sword, still dies by the sword."

;)

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 78
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:46:38 -0400
Dennis analyzed incorrectly:

>The point of the statement robert made, is that when it is difficult to get
>weapons in general, due to the fact that trigger-happy,
>I-read-guns-and-ammo-magazine, card-carrying-member-of-the-NRA weirdos stop
>making it so damn easy to get hold of guns, then your average burglar won't
>be carrying weapons at all.


In case you haven't noticed guns aren't that easy to get and most of the
criminals who get them, get them by illegal means. Further restrictions
won't do dick to stop people who don't live by the restrictions in the first
place.

Think about it, does your average SR player go to "Guns-R-us" to pick up
heat? No, they get them by illegal means.

And watch the comments about subscribers to Guns & Ammo and I resent the
term weirdo. Let's not make this nasty.

:(

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 79
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:09:42 -0400
Dennis
>I say mandatory psychological tests are in order

You scare me.

>parents should beheld accountable for the morals and values of their
children, I >consider it negligence.


Tempered by reason yes.



Smilin' Jack
Message no. 80
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:16:54 -0400
VrGr David said:
>And if they do, in most cases they will only use it to _threaten_ you. Thye
>are out to get your stuff, not to kill you, and they will use the gun to
>persuade you to let them walk away with all your goodies. Most people still
>won't kill you unless they have to. And if you're pointing a gun back at
>them, that counts for "they have to".


That assumes that you are incompetent with the firearm you own. If you buy
one you should learn how to use it.

I really hope no "baddies" learn what easy targets you guys are describing
yourselves as being.

Anyway I've had enough of this debate. You do what you have to and I'll do
what I have to and I hope that you and I will be able to still converse on
this list many years from now.

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 81
From: Michael & Linda Frankl mlfrankl@*****.msn.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:31:14 -0400
Nightshade said:
>This reminds me of a Smilin' Jack quote!!!
>
>"Guns don't kill people -- geez, do you know how many
> times you have to hit someone with a gun to kill them?!?
> -- Smilin' Jack.
>
>I collect 'em. :-)


<<<<GRIN>>>> (EGO, EGO, EGO <chant with me>)

;)

Smilin' Jack
Message no. 82
From: Strago strago@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:39:24 -0400
Michael & Linda Frankl wrote:

> Dennis
> >I say mandatory psychological tests are in order
>
> You scare me.
>

Why? I think that is perfectly reasonable. I think that if the person has
"violent tendencies" then they should not be allowed to have any sort of
thing which would be used to kill someone from far away. Like guns.

> >parents should beheld accountable for the morals and values of their
> children, I >consider it negligence.
>
> Tempered by reason yes.
>
> Smilin' Jack

NO! NOT "TEMPERED BY REASON"!!!!!!!!!!! The PARENTS of those kids who
shot up their schools were responsible for their children's actions. They
raised them, they allowed the kids' minds to be warped, THEY ARE TO
BLAME!!!!!!!! If a stupid kid watching Superman on a Saturday morning sees
Superman fly, then climbs on the roof and tries to fly, is it the fault of
the creator of Superman or the network who ran it, or the parent who
shirked the responsibility of saying that things on the box aren't real?!?
Same thing! Lock up the negligent parents and throw away the key. Or at
least neuter and spay them so they won't reproduce more demon spawn ;^).

--
--Strago

The gene pool in the 21st century needs a deep cleaning. I am the
chlorine.

SRGC v0.2 !SR1 SR2++ !SR3 h b++ B- UB- IE+ RN++ sa++ ma++ ad+ m+ (o++ d+)
gm+ M-
Message no. 83
From: Stephen Spence ss3961@***.edu
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:57:22 -0400
> > "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."



> "He who lives by a bleeding heart dies by one, they are easy targets"



> > Who says the burglar won't be strapped?

DUHHHHHHHHHH! that's my point!!!
The fact I assume they will be strapping is why I will have a gun in my hand.
If I could sniff on a can of paint enough to assume that anyone brilliant
enough to get in that career with such a bright future -crime- would be a
nonviolent pacifist and abhor guns, I could confront the situation with my
baseball bat or a good steak knife.

to relate with SR3 I do the modern day version of EX ammo, 125gr. hollowpoint
.357 backed up by 15gr. of bullseye spherical powder. High as hell knockdown
power and Low as hell penetration so you don't hit a neighbor's car behind the
future corpse. Perftect Urban load. If I ever play a Street Sam or Tech in the
game I will have to play with Firearms B/R :)
(Don't do to piss off your rigger by shooting through your target and
scratching his van. You might have to walk home.)
Saven

"Save Role Playing Games, Kill a Magic The Gathering Player."
Message no. 84
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 08:28:36 EDT
In a message dated 7/17/99 3:52:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ss3961@***.edu
writes:

> "Save Role Playing Games, Kill a Magic The Gathering Player."
>


I second that statement. But they seem to be eating themselves nicely from
the tail. Now we just have to concentrate on AD&D. :-) (Or is that White
Wolf? Lesser evils? Can we get a tac nuke wholesale? Are there decent RPG
system discounts on mil spec hardware?)



-Twist
Message no. 85
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:44:06 -0400
At 23.39 07-16-99 -0400, you wrote:
>Why? I think that is perfectly reasonable. I think that if the person has
>"violent tendencies" then they should not be allowed to have any sort of
>thing which would be used to kill someone from far away. Like guns.

I agree with you on this point, as does any (semi-)sane and resonable
person. However, you are talking about manditory psych testing. That was
tried in the early seventies ar some small college someplace. The Supremem
Court didn't like it very much. They classified it as "prior restraint",
which is a violation of the 4th, 5th, and maybe the 6th Ammend's (don't
rememeber if it is a 6th violation, been a while). They decided that it
sorta flew in the face of "guilty until proven innocent".
Now, if someone shows violently anti-social behavior in school (and not
just ebing a loner) or commits a crime, you may be able to wrangle it. But
manditory mental health testing for everyone, even if they did not display
any behaviors that could be considered symptomatic of violent or dangerous
disorders, could be fought on so many different levels. The first one is
"manditory treatment", which is considered a violation of the 1st
Ammendment and the unwriten right to privacy.


>shot up their schools were responsible for their children's actions. They
>raised them, they allowed the kids' minds to be warped, THEY ARE TO

OK, by that argueement, parents are eternally considered to be accessories
to the crimes of thier off-spring? Even though they (the parents) didn't
do anything illegal?
At a certain age, I can see. However, at some point, you have to figure
that children know the difference between right and wrong, and can think
for themselves. I'm sure that we can all think of a firend that is a
productive, positive memeber of society, but thier parents also produced a
total waste of space. Who is to blame?
Nature is not totally responsable, nor is Nurture. It sounds like you
dumping it all at Nurture.

>Same thing! Lock up the negligent parents and throw away the key. Or at
>least neuter and spay them so they won't reproduce more demon spawn ;^).

So what do you recommend for parents that are responsible yet thier kid
still ends up a worthless lump of chemicals and water? It happens.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those little imagination or intelligence to
describe that which they can not understand."
Message no. 86
From: Quindrael D.N.M.vanNederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 16:37:31 +0200
>The pattern of Switzerland does work in America in the rural areas, which
>surprise, surprise, have the least regualtions on firearms. Look at the
>most rural counties in America and the most urban ones.

OK, but is it the regulations that make them "better". If you'd put the
same regulations in the urban areas, do you think these would change for
the better?

I admit there was a time where people needed a gun themselves, and maybe in
the rural areas of America the situation that gave rise to this need still
exists. Biut in the cities? Put a lot of the same species together (let's
just call it "too much") and the species will start infighting. Give them
better weapons, and the fighting will be harder. OK, it's a good thing from
Nature's view, Man is regulating himself better in overpopulated areas. But
do you want victims? Even if they are "the other guy"? Yes, yes, I know,
"if he threatens me, that's his fault". But you know what I mean.

Someone else remarked in a post that these days people _will_ kill you more
easily, if even you give them the stuff they want. But isn't that just a
result from "killing someone" becoming more common, exactly because it
happens so often? And because they are afraid that if they go away, you
_still_ might try to grab a gun and go after them?

VrGr David

"Shapes of angels the night casts lie dead but dreaming in my past and
they're here, they want to meet you, they want to play with you, so take
the dream."
(Fields of the Nephilim - "Sumerland (what dreams may come)")

mailto:alamais@***.nl for regular mail
mailto:D.N.M.vanNederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl if your mail has any large
attachments
Message no. 87
From: Quindrael D.N.M.vanNederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 16:41:44 +0200
>That assumes that you are incompetent with the firearm you own. If you buy
>one you should learn how to use it.

No, it doesn't. _They_ can be trained too, and more prepared than you are
(they are expecting a possible confrontation, you just wake up because you
heard a strange noise downstairs).

>I really hope no "baddies" learn what easy targets you guys are describing
>yourselves as being.

I am not. I am as easy a target as all the other non-armed Dutch people.
You are as easy a target as all the other armed American people. My
"baddie" isn't expecting really to have to use his gun (if he actually has
one, most burglars here don't - it's the big baddies that have them, not
the kids and losers that break in for just some extra money (or for fun)),
yours is.

VrGr David

"Shapes of angels the night casts lie dead but dreaming in my past and
they're here, they want to meet you, they want to play with you, so take
the dream."
(Fields of the Nephilim - "Sumerland (what dreams may come)")

mailto:alamais@***.nl for regular mail
mailto:D.N.M.vanNederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl if your mail has any large
attachments
Message no. 88
From: Quindrael D.N.M.vanNederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 16:48:19 +0200
>> > Who says the burglar won't be strapped?
>
>DUHHHHHHHHHH! that's my point!!!
>The fact I assume they will be strapping is why I will have a gun in my hand.

And that's the main difference with us. Here, most burglars _don't_ have a
gun. It's the (semi-)professionals who have one, but most people who break
in are small losers or kids, doing it for some extra money or just for fun.
Why don't they have guns? Because they're so difficult to get. In America,
I think everyone who is going to break in is prepared to facing someone
with a gun, so will strap one himself. Even kids, who can get the gun from
their father's drawer.

And let's not talk about the single most cause of death by a gun:
accidents. More people (and children!) are killed by their own (or
father's, etc.) gun than by a crook's.

VrGr David

"Shapes of angels the night casts lie dead but dreaming in my past and
they're here, they want to meet you, they want to play with you, so take
the dream."
(Fields of the Nephilim - "Sumerland (what dreams may come)")

mailto:alamais@***.nl for regular mail
mailto:D.N.M.vanNederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl if your mail has any large
attachments
Message no. 89
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:01:21 -0400
At 16.37 07-17-99 +0200, you wrote:
>OK, but is it the regulations that make them "better". If you'd put the
>same regulations in the urban areas, do you think these would change for

Don't know. I do know that in America, if you make a map of showing the
per capita violent crime rates and a second map copairing gun regulations
on a 0 to 100 basis (Vermont with our 2 laws being 0, DC with a full ban on
handguns, many forms of repeating rifles and shotguns, various kinds of
ammuniton, full registration, permits, and everything else being 99, and
the few Federal Housing Projects were there is a total ban on firearms
being 100), you would find that the maps have peak rates in smae areas.
Also, there have been a number of states that have loosened thier concealed
carry regs in the past ten years. Most of them have seen reductions in
most catagories of crime that exceed the national drops.
Looking at it from that point of view, the theory seems viable. Looked at
from another point of view, it is a fluke. Researchers usually find the
answers thier want inn the social siences. Only thing to do is to actually
do it.

>I admit there was a time where people needed a gun themselves, and maybe in
>the rural areas of America the situation that gave rise to this need still

Uhh, you are aware that cops can't be everywhere all the time.

>exists. Biut in the cities? Put a lot of the same species together (let's
>just call it "too much") and the species will start infighting. Give them

Crowding psychosis! Finally, someone else who is willing to mention it.
I think that is probably a large part of the crime rates.

>better weapons, and the fighting will be harder. OK, it's a good thing from

Not backed up by empirical data. Look up the crime rates in Florida and
Texas since they liberalised thier carry laws. I know about Florida, but I
haven't been able to get a county-by-county breakdown for Texas, but I'm
willing to bet that thier rates have dropped at a greater than average rate
than surrounding states (ie, Oklahoma).

>happens so often? And because they are afraid that if they go away, you
>_still_ might try to grab a gun and go after them?

I've got a book for you to read. I can't remember the name off the top of
my head, but it was a study done by Proffesor Gary Kleck. He has a
doctorate in criminology, with a heavy background in psychology and
sociology. He found that most criminals admitited that would not target
someone who they thought was armed. The ones who weren't of the opinion
were in for having killed thier marks out of hand.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those little imagination or intelligence to
describe that which they can not understand."
Message no. 90
From: Quindrael D.N.M.vanNederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:17:55 +0200
>Don't know. I do know that in America,

OK, I'll stop here. That's I think the whole problem. People (and also
small criminals) in America are som much different than here in Europe. Of
course, if you change regulations in a small part of it, not much will
change. Guns are still easy to get by in comparison to Holland, even in DC,
because they still are easy to get in the rest of America and easily
transported. And the mentality of both "good" citizens and the crooks won't
change when you make the laws stricter (however, if we would change them
here, i.e. make them less strict, I think mentality will unfortunately
change much easier).

OK, we won't change America short-term if we would ban all weapons
throughout the country, _because hardly anyone would follow it_. Most
people would keep their guns, and think they were in their right if they
used them. Hey, I never said you don't have a right to defend yourself
against a criminal, I really think you do; problem is, I think that it only
makes it (them) worse. It's still a fact, that in Holland we have
statistically less deaths of people defending their home than in America
(even if people defend themselves and get hit, most times it's not by a gun
but by a hand, sap, in extreme cases a knife or metal pipe, whatever, and
they survive). And also statistically less deaths under the people who do
_not_ defend their home but just let the crooks go their way. OK, maybe
(MAYBE - maybe not, as they cannot defend _themselves_ better because they
have no gun either) the crooks get away a few more times, but in my view,
for a lower cost.

VrGr David

"Shapes of angels the night casts lie dead but dreaming in my past and
they're here, they want to meet you, they want to play with you, so take
the dream."
(Fields of the Nephilim - "Sumerland (what dreams may come)")

mailto:alamais@***.nl for regular mail
mailto:D.N.M.vanNederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl if your mail has any large
attachments
Message no. 91
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 15:27:39 -0400
At 18.17 07-17-99 +0200, you wrote:
>OK, I'll stop here. That's I think the whole problem. People (and also
>small criminals) in America are som much different than here in Europe. Of

Your culture is noticably different that America's, just like the American
culture is very different than those in the rest of the world. I've never
denied that. I'm not, not have I ever, encouraging other countries to be
more like America. (I gripe about things that other countries do, but if I
lived overseas, I'd propably gripe about blue jeans, McDonalds and rock and
roll.) But I'm also not encouraging America to be like other countries.
What I am willing to do on occation is debatr a point from an American
cultural perspective verses another cultural perspective.

>throughout the country, _because hardly anyone would follow it_. Most

No, many would follow it. The law abidding. However, few societies have
voluntarily (and I would not count legal restrictions by the governments to
be "voluntary") disarmed, simply because they know that it isn't a valid
survival mechanism.
Part of the cultural context that I've observed working with and studying
with people from overseas and on the internet is that countries that were
formed by popular uprising are (in general) more based on the individual
freedoms, rather than those countries where a monarch deigned to give some
degree of legislative control to the polis are where the whole is the
focus. Neither one is perfect, but but for the most part, so long as you
aren't harming anyone else (you want to beat the crap out of yourself, go
for it), by which I would include enviromental damage, I say, do it.
Another part of it is the homogenousness of cultures. For the most part,
people from the far eastern portion of a country are more like thier
country men from the far western protion ofthier country, than say someone
from Boston and someone from LA, correct? As a result, a blanket solution
from the national government has been able to work more effectively,
because there are fewer difference.

>(even if people defend themselves and get hit, most times it's not by a gun
>but by a hand, sap, in extreme cases a knife or metal pipe, whatever, and

Sounds like the States, 30 years ago. However, bloodthirstyness is an
image propigated by the media of what a criminal should be. In that
society, reguardless of culture, status is in large part based off of image
and one-upmanship. (Perhaps is something in the brain stem, who knows.
This is also my theory, but it not a full one.)
Again, there is the cultural context. Who has been responsable for your
own security? I'm willing to bet that it has always been the government,
usually in the form of a noble until about a hundred years ago. Here in
America, it has largely been what you can provide for yourself, backed up
by the LOCAL government.

>they survive).

Sounds like you've never had a serious and immediate threat possed to the
lives of the people you care about. It doesn't really matter if you
survive. Trudging through the country side eating whatever you can just so
that your heart keeps beating is survival. That isn't quite living. (And
if people what to say that I'm splitting hairs, fine. But most languages
have several words that mean the same thing for reasons that have nothing
to do with linguistic polution. Each one of them means a specific thing.
That's why lawyers can run rings around most people. It is interesting to
note that as societies become more caste based, the average persons
vocabulary seems to drop in size and complexity.)

> And also statistically less deaths under the people who do
>_not_ defend their home but just let the crooks go their way. OK, maybe

Well, there is something to be said for this. Up until a few decades ago,
this is the way it was in the States, although few criminals were brazen
enough to break into a house that was currently occupied. However, for
reasons that no one has ever been able to fully and satisfactorally
explain, American criminals became more violent.
The concept of criminals who kill for fun or as standard operating
procedure is very hard to understand, and even harder to explain to people
who have never really had such behavior in thier countries within thier own
memory (That situation does however raise some potentially interesting
argueements both for and against the death penalty.) I've talked to people
who think that we are exaggerating when Americans say that are those that
will knife thier own mothers for ten bucks, but we aren't. (A lot of this
is drug-related, and even though I'd rather get kicked in the jimmies by a
mule than admit this, maybe it time for us to look at legalization.) There
are people like that in America. Guns have nothing to do with that, nor do
poverty (I have a number of friends who've known 18 welfare christmases who
are upstanding citizens), education levels, or any of that. Abuse and
neglect pay a large part, but some people are just born screwed up.
Beacuse of the way our courts are set up, they might think you are going
to do something, the cops still can't bring you in until you have actually
done it or they have sufficent evidence that you actually were planning or
had tried to do it. "Innocent until proven guilty" and a jury of 12 seems
to be alien concepts to much of the world. Maybe it works for others, but
it isn't an idea that would work in America without a major revision of our
system of government. I'd love to get the folks who are just sick in the
head and heart off the streets. But it can't be done here, not without
difficulty.
Maybe your systems work better, but I doubt it. Particularly when it
comes to protect the innocent. Our system was designed with the premise
that it is better to let ten murderers go free than it is to have one
innocent man in prison.

>(MAYBE - maybe not, as they cannot defend _themselves_ better because they
>have no gun either) the crooks get away a few more times, but in my view,

Let me first point something out- the courts take a very dim view of
shooting, or even striking with your hand, someone unless you had a clear
concern for your safety or the safety of your family. That usually has to
be proven to a dozen morons that can pour sand out of a boot if the
instructions were printed on the heal. Shooting someone becuase he was
stealing your TV usually results in 2-5 years in meidum or maximum security.
I would stand a chance (although my money is not going to be on me if he
looks like has any idea of what he is doing or is seriously intoxicated)
unarmed verses an individual armed with a working-sized knife (bigger than
a steak knife), but I've also studied and practiced unarmed self defense
most of my life and am not a small person. That right there is actually
decent protection. However, expecting the same from some one is a wheel
chair, or the protypical 98 pound weakling to go a round with someone who
has thighs the size of small trees and is on angel dust, is more than just
a little unfair. Even against more than four guys, most anyone who isn't
the equivelent of a black belt (and I am not including sports and exercise
forms in here) is going to be toast, and quit possibly will have some long
term injuries. Maybe these aren't realities in your country, but they are
in mine.



CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those little imagination or intelligence to
describe that which they can not understand."
Message no. 92
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:07:27 EDT
In a message dated 7/16/99 7:25:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
d.n.m.vannederveen@****.warande.ruu.nl writes:

> > Let me ask this; How many citizens rights must be infringed, because of
> > the actions of a few?
>
> You mean the right to get shot? Because why in heaven should there be a
> right to have a weapon so you can kill someone else? What else are guns
for?

Well, I like shooting at the range, myself. Ever gone?
(nl is Netherlands, right? have no idea what gun laws are like there)
main uses I see for a gun; defense (I carry for this reason)
target/competition (I don't go as much as I would like, it is costly which is
why it is also a hobby of doctors and lawyers and such) hunting (not me, I am
quite comfortable with the mass produced foodstuffs available at my local
grocery store)
I would say I have a decidely American view where some things are
concerned. In our urban areas, we have high crime rates, a lot of gun related
crimes.
From the news I see, and the people I have talked to from other places.
Other countries tend to more extreme things, no guns, or outright full-auto
military rifles. (Note: most world wide military rifles are not American, Le
Enfields, Steyr, FN-FAL, H&K G3, even our M-16 was produced in more numbers
by FN than Colt) In France, it is not uncommon to see police with SMGs tied
to them (lanyards :-) and this ignores Northern Ireland and such "hot spots"
of course, it also seems foreigners think of America as a "gun culture"
perhaps rightly so to an extent. Don't know how many tourists come into a gun
shop to look around.
(BTW, not picking onQuindraels post specifically, just wanted to cram as
much in this, since it marks the last of my input into the gun-debate :-)
Message no. 93
From: Graht Graht@**********.worldnet.att.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 19:40:07 -0500
Paul J. Adam wrote:
/In article <4.2.0.58.19990716082051.0098d810@*****.engin.umich.edu>,
/Sommers <sommers@*****.edu> writes
/>But how often does that work? The US had all of the high-end military gear
/>in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese didn't have a lot of gear at all.
/
/I am acquainted with a number of pilots who would strongly disagree with
/that statement.

Wasn't a pilot, but I'm fairly familiar with the history of the war in Vietnam.

The NV had plenty of gear. The soviet union was more than happy to provide
them with weapons to "field test". Also, the high-end gear the US had
wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

At the beginning of the Vietnam war the majority of US Jet pilots were
flying planes that had no machine gun(s) and very unreliable AA missiles.
The vietnamese were flying jets that had machine guns and didn't have
missiles. Guess what happened... the US pilots were shot down on a
regular basis.

The pilots started screaming and Phantoms were provided with a *strap-on*
machine gun. However, it was rushed to the field so quickly that the
designers missed the fact that it would chuck spent shells into the jet
intakes. AA missiles continued to be unreliable.

It wasn't until the end of the Vietnam war that Phantoms and other jets had
built in guns and pilots had missiles that had a better than 50% success
rating.

Technology isn't worth jack if it fails or is used without foresight.

It was a harsh lesson that the US armed forces learned from. A: simple is
better. B: don't put all your eggs in one basket.

-Graht
--
ShadowRN GridSec
The ShadowRN FAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/hlair/faqindex.php3
Geek Code: GCS d-( ) s++:->+ a@ C++>$ US P L >++ E? W++>+++ !N o-- K-
w+ o? M- VMS? PS+(++) PE+(++) Y+ !PGP t+(++) 5+(++) X++(+++) R+>$ tv+b++ DI++++
D+(++) G e+>+++ h--->---- r+++ y+++
http://home.att.net/~Graht
"My assistant, Bob the dinasaur, will now demonstrate
how to give a cat a 'fur wedgie.'"
Message no. 94
From: Walter Scheper Ratlaw@*******.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 21:34:22 +0000 (GMT)
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:01:21 -0400, IronRaven
<cyberraven@********.net> wrote:

> Don't know. I do know that in America, if you make a map of showing the
>per capita violent crime rates and a second map copairing gun regulations
>on a 0 to 100 basis (Vermont with our 2 laws being 0, DC with a full ban on
>handguns, many forms of repeating rifles and shotguns, various kinds of
>ammuniton, full registration, permits, and everything else being 99, and
>the few Federal Housing Projects were there is a total ban on firearms
>being 100), you would find that the maps have peak rates in smae areas.
>Also, there have been a number of states that have loosened thier concealed
>carry regs in the past ten years. Most of them have seen reductions in
>most catagories of crime that exceed the national drops.

Personally I feel that this is merely a case of mis-judged cause and
effect. How does it compare over time? I'd put down money that
you'll see stricter gun laws lagging behind crime rates, basically as
crime goes up cities try to control it by making it harder to acquire
guns. This really doesn't have any affect on the amount of gun
involved crimes because criminals tend to purchase illegal guns
anyway, but I doubt that stricter gun laws will lead to higher crime.
If you can provide some reasonable statistics that show the opposite
to be true (and if you can find "reasonable statistics" i'll be
impressed no matter what they say) I'll happily change my stance on
gun laws.

Ratlaw
Walter Scheper
-----------------------------------------------------
How should I look today, in the presence of Americans,
dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men
have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively
and positively, negatively and affirmatively?
Frederick Douglass
Message no. 95
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:58:33 -0400
At 19.40 07-17-99 -0500, you wrote:
>It was a harsh lesson that the US armed forces learned from. A: simple is
>better. B: don't put all your eggs in one basket.

C: Don't let the policians tell you how to win the war. They go you into
it- that enough damage, thank you.

In SR terms:Johnsons give you the money and basic rules of engagement. If
they want anything more than that, the job ain't worth it.


CyberRaven
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat int he face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"'Impossible' is a term used by those of little imagination or intelligence
to describe that which they can not understand."
Message no. 96
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:38:10 +0100
In article <4.1.19990717193028.00950e20@**********.worldnet.att.net>,
Graht <Graht@**********.worldnet.att.net> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>/I am acquainted with a number of pilots who would strongly disagree with
>/that statement.

>At the beginning of the Vietnam war the majority of US Jet pilots were
>flying planes that had no machine gun(s) and very unreliable AA missiles.
>The vietnamese were flying jets that had machine guns and didn't have
>missiles. Guess what happened... the US pilots were shot down on a
>regular basis.

Much more a tactics issue than a weapons one. The weapons had much
more complex firing envelopes than was generally realised, and there was
a official policy of "nobody goes twice" that led to tanker and transport
pilots strapping on F-4s and flying missions - even regular fighter pilots
had trouble calculating AIM-7 firing parameters, let alone hasty
conversions like that.

Secondly, the F-4 was not designed to turn: it was an energy fighter, but
the pilots weren't trained to dogfight except against other F-4s so they
tended to use angles tactics. Against the tight-turning MiG-17, those were
suicide: the MiG could easily turn inside the Phantom, and its guns were
much better suited for close-range snapshots than the Phantom's missiles.

Even missile-only Phantoms became lethally effective against the MiGs...
once aircrew knew how to use their weapons, to avoid turning fights and
to exploit their far better thrust-to-weight ratio.


The best analogy would be the early days of the Pacific war, where the
A6M Zero appeared invincible as long as its enemies fought on its terms -
as soon as the US pilots learned "Never turn with a Zero!" and used 'boom-
and-zoom' energy tactics, it was toast.

>The pilots started screaming and Phantoms were provided with a *strap-on*
>machine gun. However, it was rushed to the field so quickly that the
>designers missed the fact that it would chuck spent shells into the jet
>intakes. AA missiles continued to be unreliable.

The SUU-23 was never actually credited with any air-to-air kills, and was
entirely an air-to-ground weapon: the weapon sight was never set up for
air-to-air work (no gyro input or ranging until the F-4E). Spent case
ingestion wasn't a Phantom problem - the gun was on the centreline,
below and behind the intakes.

>It wasn't until the end of the Vietnam war that Phantoms and other jets had
>built in guns and pilots had missiles that had a better than 50% success
>rating.

Sparrow never got above 10% success, Sidewinder never managed more
than 20%. Those are still better than gun figures, though...

Note that the (gun-armed) F-8 Crusaders never actually scored a cannon
kill: their successes were all with Sidewinders, but that was because the
Crusader community were more skilled at ACM and more familiar with
their weapons. The F-4 was the only "gunless fighter" of the period: the F-
104 served briefly, the F-105 did sterling service as a strike aircraft and
scored several kills (mix of M61 cannon and Sidewinders).

>Technology isn't worth jack if it fails or is used without foresight.
>
>It was a harsh lesson that the US armed forces learned from. A: simple is
>better. B: don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Regularly learned and regularly forgotten. Look at the F-22 for an
example of those lessons being forgotten _again_...

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 97
From: chimerae@***.ie chimerae@***.ie
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 22:09:47 +0100
And thus did Ereskanti@***.com on 16 Jul 99, at 16:01 speak:

[snip interesting bits]
> -K (Gosh, I wish Erik Jameson were still here to get into this one)

I doubt if Erik would get involved in this debate, apart perhaps from
donning on his alt.listmember.grumpy alias for a moment to inform
everyone that this discussion never gets anywhere. He would more
likely jump into the history/spirit of the land threads.

I must say that your post is the first one that actually says
something new about this subject. It's thought provoking, plus I
think it's good to see that people still dare to be highly critical
about their county.




Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 98
From: Robert Watkins robert.watkins@******.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:20:25 +1000
IronRaven writes:

[First, in accordance with GridSec, this is my last post on the subject]
> Don't know. I do know that in America, if you make a map
> of showing the
> per capita violent crime rates and a second map copairing gun regulations
> on a 0 to 100 basis (Vermont with our 2 laws being 0, DC with a
> full ban on
> handguns, many forms of repeating rifles and shotguns, various kinds of
> ammuniton, full registration, permits, and everything else being 99, and
> the few Federal Housing Projects were there is a total ban on firearms
> being 100), you would find that the maps have peak rates in smae areas.
> Also, there have been a number of states that have loosened thier
> concealed
> carry regs in the past ten years. Most of them have seen reductions in
> most catagories of crime that exceed the national drops.

You're using a spurious argument. In many cases, the REASON the tighter
gun-control laws were introduced was that crime, especially armed-crime, was
spiralling out of control. Harsher laws came in, in a futile attempt to
control the situation.

Firearms legislation is not a way of treating crime rates. Done early
enough, it helps prevent violent crime, but it won't stop CRIME. Firearms
legislation is about preserving _life_, not reducing the number of
break-ins. Applying it like a bandage is like using a bandaid to patch a
ruptured artery.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 99
From: Tarek Okail Tarek_Okail@**********.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 20:53:40 -0400
Ratlaw--

>If you can provide some reasonable statistics that show the
>opposite to be true (and if you can find "reasonable statistics"
>i'll be impressed no matter what they say) I'll happily change my
>stance on gun laws.

I swore to myself that I'd not post on this topic, but this
is just a little too egregious an error...

First, the statistical map that someone was talking about is
not a fluke or a falsehood. It has been consistent over time since
the FBI started compiling data on the crime rate.
Second, and this is the thing I'm really po'ed about, the
stat map shows a CORRELATION, not a CAUSATION. Low numbers of gun
control laws do not CAUSE low crime, and high gun control does not
CAUSE high crime. More to the point, high gun control does not
*control* high crime either. I understand that you know this, given
your statements about gun control laws being a reaction to high crime,
but I've seen this error far too many times to count.
On the other hand, the facts of the crime rate and the facts
of the varied gun control laws have shown that gun control laws have
very little to no effect on the crime rate, unless the laws put
large numbers of criminals behind bars for a good period of time.
(then there's the crime spike when the criminals get back out and
commit another crime, but that's another story.) The other major
exception with gun control laws and crime effect is the effect of
easy-to-get CCW licenses; the criminals tend to avoid people who live
in the state where CCW licenses are easy to get, and hit out-of-towners
or move to less confrontational crimes instead. That's been Florida's
experience.
Finally, even though a strict gun control law is not likely
to produce more crime, the additional burden on law-abiding citizens
is sufficient reason to reject that gun control law, especially since
we have *also* shown that there is no causation between strict gun
control and crime rates.
Of course, I'm of the "minimalist" school of law and
regulation; There is no point in passing a law that doesn't
accomplish its philosophical goal and there is no point in enacting
a law that further restricts law-abiding citizens in the name of
controlling criminals who are by definition law-breakers. Neither a
national poll nor a media blitz are good reasons to pass a law of
*any* kind. I would love to see a law that required Congress to wait
six months after proposing legislation before a vote could be taken
on that legislation and any amendments would enact a further two week
delay; that all legislation be enacted a full year after passage, and
that any congressman who is voted into office during this time may
change his predecessor's vote. Gridlock in Congress is a *good* thing.
Sure, they couldn't pass good laws, but they also couldn't pass *bad*
laws either. Considering that most of the laws Congress passes are
*bad* laws or *pointless* laws...

Well, that's it. I've finished venting on this topic. I'm
certainly glad the thread's going to die today.

Shadowmage
Message no. 100
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:37:32 EDT
In a message dated 7/18/1999 4:11:19 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
chimerae@***.ie writes:

>
> I must say that your post is the first one that actually says
> something new about this subject. It's thought provoking, plus I
> think it's good to see that people still dare to be highly critical
> about their county.

Its' what Freedom is really all about IMO...

-K (critical, but not terrorizing)
Message no. 101
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*********.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 17:27:30 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: <Twist0059@***.com>
> > "Save Role Playing Games, Kill a Magic The Gathering Player."

> I second that statement. But they seem to be eating themselves
nicely from
> the tail. Now we just have to concentrate on AD&D. :-) (Or is
that White
> Wolf? Lesser evils? Can we get a tac nuke wholesale? Are there
decent RPG
> system discounts on mil spec hardware?)

Well, I really just feel like saying <BLEEP> you but, on a more
civilized note, I take offense at this. I'm a M:tG player and an
RPGer. I got started on AD&D and have quite a few friends who still
play. I read though the M:tA 2nd ed. (WW) and I thought that it would
be an interesting gaming system to try.

I've introduced RPGers to M:tG and vice versa. Sure, TCGs will take a
few ppl away from the RPG market, but most of those people will be
munchkins you can't help that have way to much money.

In short, leave M:tG, AD&D, and WW bashing off the list. It's not on
topic and it is rarly constructive.

[Yes, I saw the smiley... but it didn't look sincere.]

Da Twink Daddy
bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ# 514984
Message no. 102
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 23:05:58 EDT
guys, this thread was pronounced dead days ago.

while I would not mind a nice argument for/against guns (myself, I see it as
a "innocent until proven guilty" theme) it is still a dead thread.
Message no. 103
From: Dennis Steinmeijer dv8@********.nl
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:11:15 +0200
Jyster Cap wrote:
> > Until there is a sure way of finding those bad
> > seeds, it should be more
> > difficult to get ahold of guns. I am not for
> > punishing the ones who *can*
> > handle weapons because there are a few who can't,
> > however the effects of a
> > gunshot are often so irreversible that you have to
> > stop and wonder if it
> > isn't getting out of hand a little.
> > I say mandatory psychological tests are in order,
> > and a parents should be
> > held accountable for the morals and values of their
> > children, I consider it
> > negligence.
> >
> > Dennis
>
> How many people die from car accidents or hit
> and runs? Should we outlaw the use of vehicles?

If you read the above post you'll see that I say that you shouldn't punish
everyone because a few people can't handle guns. Therefor we shouldn't
outlaw the use of vehicles because some people don't know how to drive. I
say; periodic checkups on your driving skills,...you suck at it, go back to
learn. Periodic psych-evaluation for everyone who wants to be armed...you
don't pass,...you don't get the gun.

Dennis


"Abashed the Devil stood,...and felt how awful Goodness is..."
Message no. 104
From: Twist0059@***.com Twist0059@***.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 07:27:06 EDT
In a message dated 7/25/99 6:52:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kawaii@********.org writes:

> Exactly. The crooks will ALWAYS have guns, if they are legal or illegal.
> Why take another form of self defense away from the common people? Sure we
> may not have as badasss weaponry, but I'd rather fight an uzi with a
> pistol than fight a pistol with my bare hands.
>
>
> Ever lovable and always scrappy,
> kawaii


Thing is, you have classes of criminals. The criminals who break into joe
blows house are low-level street punks, and don't have access to these
majestic notions of black markets. I can't think of a single of the big
media-squeezed-for-every-commercial-dollar ratingsfest tragedies of late the
occurred with people buying from the black market. The people who do the
most damage are stupid kids and stupid adults who have no control over their
emotions and feel they can bully others into submission. They use legal
weaponary to do so, whether from Walmart or daddy's dresser.

Those guys you mentioned, the goons with guns they can get through illegal
sources are likely to be members of some form of organized crime. You kill
the couple that break into your house, the next night the thirty who arrive
turn you into a substance similar to goo. If the big bad boys come
aknockin', we're all screwed if they want us to be. It's just a matter of
when you're screwed, that being tonight or tomorrow.

So, calculating the odds, I'd say you're more likely to get wacked by joe
blow's criminal than a Triad or Mafia foot soldier or Yak hitman. And if
you're unfortunate enough to draw the latter, forget about holding at bay the
hordes of evil criminals with your 9mm and pump-action shotguns. It only
works for fictional characters, and even they occassionally die.

That said, I'd normally say, frag it, you want to go out fighting, that is
better than on your knees, I guess. But then you have people (read:
lifeforms not even as honorable as your basic animal) who turn around and use
them not for defense but revenge. Stupid kids and drunk/abusive adults. Add
up all the people killed by their average citizens in this country per year,
and I'll bet you have a higher death rate than those killed by organized
crime.

All of which puts us into an incredibly difficult situation:

1) Disarm Americans to keep them from killing each other, and thus subjugate
them to the organized crime circles.

2) Let Americans keep their guns, continue to kill each other, and at least
be able to shoot back when the mafia goons knock on your door

Pain in the fraggin' hoop. Y2K doesn't make things easier, either.
Everyone's buying guns, expecting looting and power outages, figuring they
need to protect what they have. So, worst case scenario, everything does go
to hell come Y2K. Neighbor A and Neighbor B are living off their food
supplies. Both have guns. Neighbor B runs out of food before Neighbor A.
Arguments turn to fights turn to gun muzzles. One or both have just killed
the other/each other. Good if you're the one with the food and alive, I
suppose. Bad if you're the other guy. Bad if you're both and both bullets
hit. Guns are the ultimate form of arguing. They don't continue the
argument, they don't resolve the argument, they end the argument by ending
the other guy. If neither neighbor had had guns above, they would have maybe
killed each other eventually, still. But why hand out a machine that has no
other purpose than to kill if you still hold the notion of peace and human
compassion? Both neighbors had a right to eat. This isn't organized crime,
this isn't Hitler, this isn't a government revolution that Joe Blow will stop
with his Mossberg. This isn't an America of scattered colonies and
omnipresent British invasion. I know guys in the military, and I trust them
to keep my borders safe. I have friends who are cops, and I trust them to
keep me safe.

And the greatest irony of all. Yes, I have guns, and so does everyone I
know. Those of us who will never commit a crime, kill for passion, or kill
for hate have to have them because everyone else has them. It's too bad we
never truly learned the meaning of mutually assured destruction.




-Twist
"Soylent Green is people."
Message no. 105
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 13:59:13 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990716170524.0092c100@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 20.08 07-16-99 +0100, you wrote:
>>Uh... not quite. We elect our government. They work for us, but take
>>authority from the Crown. If the Crown gets uppity, well, ask Charles I
>
> OK, I'm going back to the IRA and Sein Fein. (I don't like thier
>politics, but they are a successful modern insergency.)

Successful how? Their goal was and is the total expulsion of all British
influence from the Six Counties. See any sign of that happening?

The political progress that's been made over the last few years has been
made _despite_ PIRA, and their ceasefire wasn't a "part of the struggle",
it was a desperation measure.


> My understanding is that if the current talks turn into a total balls up,
>then the Crown may elect to bar Sein Fein from being considered a legal
>party. I know that they weren't for years.

Wrong. Sinn Fein have, as far as I can tell, never been prevented from
taking their seat in Westminster: Gerry Adams refuses to do so, but he
may do so at any time.


Sinn Fein may be excluded from the Northern Ireland Assembly if PIRA
don't disarm on schedule, but that's a different matter altogether.

> In country with citizens, anyone can form a party and run on it, even if
>you are the only member of the Fuzzy Purple Lima Bean party and your
>platform is the liberation of your enslaved produce bretheren the nation
>over (I never said you had to be sain to run for office.) without being
>recognized by the government.

Same here, I'm afraid. Never heard of the Gremloid Party? The Natural
Law party (who believe that yogic flying is the answer to all ills?) The 6.57
Party, whose manifesto was to award Portsmouth Football Club the FA
Cup?

As long as you pony up the deposit, you can get your name on the ballot
paper. If you poll above 1%, you get the deposit back, too.

No recognition required. No official permission needed. Anyone and his
dog can create a political party, and many do :)

> To me, that is one of the biggest differences.


(Old post, but I thought the misconceptions needed clearing up)


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 106
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 15:58:59 -0700
IronRaven wrote on July 16:

> There have been some "interesting" (lets be honest- they scare the
crap
> out of people) exercises done at the Pentagon. They figure that seize
> effective control of the country, so long as the grunts don't rebel,
> withing ten days, but it would take years to get resistors out of the
> pictures, if ever.

To take a page from my old history teacher: Quote thy (unclassified) sources, and
tell us em, plus where WE can get em, so we can check on your research. I find THAT
a bit of a stretch.

John
Message no. 107
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Value and so on....
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 21:41:48 -0700
Penta wrote:

> IronRaven wrote on July 16:
>
> > There have been some "interesting" (lets be honest- they scare
the crap
> > out of people) exercises done at the Pentagon. They figure that seize
> > effective control of the country, so long as the grunts don't rebel,
> > withing ten days, but it would take years to get resistors out of the
> > pictures, if ever.
>
> To take a page from my old history teacher: Quote thy (unclassified) sources, and
> tell us em, plus where WE can get em, so we can check on your research. I find THAT
> a bit of a stretch.
>
> John

Just to back up myself....an interesting thing those interested in this debate might
want to read: The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012, written in 1992,
courtesy of the Joint Electronic Library's Research Papers section. At:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/research_pubs/p087.pdf . Veeeeerrrrrrrrrrry
interesting.

John

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Value and so on...., 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.

Thwap!