a diatribe on the decline of Western culture

[William Sommerwerck]

This is a sort of follow-up to my poorly received views on the relative
merits of various musical genres. (Actually, that's the way most people
misinterpreted my remarks. It wasn't _quite_ how I meant them.)

I was cleaning up magazines the other day and came across the 11/2008 issue
of "Vision & Sound" (nee, "Stereo Review"). 2008 was the 50th-anniversary
year of "Stereo Review" (nee, "Hi-Fi & Music Review"). * Though the
"celebration" extended throughout the year, this issue included "The 50
Greatest Albums of All Time".

Now, which genres were represented in this list? "Surprise, surprise,
surprise, Sergeant Carter!" It was strictly rock, with a bit of pop.

No jazz. No classical. No Sinatra or Fitzgerald or Holiday. Not even
bluegrass or folk. Just rock. (Genres other than rock were handled in
10-album sidebars.) "Vision & Sound" could have covered each genre in a
separate issue. But, no. Rock is the only genre worth covering in depth.

Why do you think this is? Could it be that baby boomers grew up thinking
that what /they/ liked was all that mattered? That anything of no interest
to /them/ was of no interest to anyone else? That Western musical culture
started with rhythm and blues, and there is nothing from the preceding 2500
years of any value?

(I have nothing against comic books, but TIME's selection of "Watchmen" as a
significant work suggests that TIME isn't very discriminating about whom it
hires. "Watchmen" an intellectually shallow work that has little new to say
about anything -- if you're 60 years old. Teenagers might find it novel. The
author -- who has a lot of respect in some circles (crop, I think) --
actually inserts quotes and comments to explain what the work means and is
"about". Duh. "Watchmen" a book about "ideas", which doesn't work well in a
comic-book format.)

The people who solicited this list are cultural ignoramuses. I would have
had at least four 50-best lists -- classical, jazz, rock, and popular --
with perhaps a fifth for blues/folk/bluegrass.

----------

This arrogantly parochial list is an outstanding example of one of America's
major problems -- the paedification of society. (Which is akin to
stupidification.) We have decided that /children/ should tell adults what is
of value and what is worth learning -- and what is not.

Children are not only ignorant, they're stupid. They're self-centered. Their
principal interests are food and material possessions. They have an
attention span of a few minutes, at best. They aren't interested in anything
unfamiliar or not immediately appealing. In short -- they have the
intellectual sophistication of manure.

Simply put... You don't let intellectually immature people rewrite Western
culture. No "primitive" society would permit such a thing.

----------

Another obvious problem is that parents don't know how to parent -- or are
too busy to do so. They're so worried about being their children's "friends"
that they let them do pretty much whatever they like. Parents neglect to get
together and set community standards for behavior. They neglect to supervise
their children's activities.

You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle- and upper-class
families)? The parents simply tell the kids that if they catch them using
alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded (except
under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high school. Then they
make it stick -- the kids don't get a second chance.

In case you're wondering... I had poor parents. They were politically
conservative, ** but pretty much let me make my own decisions -- a bad idea.
*** Worse, when I made mistakes, they pulled me out. In short, they did
things for me they shouldn't have done, and neglected to help with the
really important things.

----------

We have 2500 years of Western culture, both spiritual and secular, and it's
been largely tossed out over a period of a half century.

Two major cultural events in the past decade have been largely ignored. One
was TIME-LIFE's discontinuation of book publishing. (One of their reps
warned me about this, and even sent a few free titles to help complete my
sets.) The other was Britannica's termination of the Great Ideas Today
"annual" for the Great Books.

Whatever you think about the worth of TIME-LIFE's or Britannica's
publications, the fact is that two major publishers stopped publishing new
works. And more significantly, educational/intellectual works. ****

While we're on The Great Books... The ads for the set proclaimed "the wisdom
of the ages". But the introductory book that discusses how to approach TGB
says that there's little, of any, wisdom in them -- they're supposed to make
you think. (The criterion for inclusion was not whether a book was worth
reading, but worth re-reading, because it provoked deeper thought.) The
Great Books were sometimes pompously referred to as embodying "The Great
Conversation", recognizing that Western culture is not static, and that
there are few, if any, absolute answers to any question.

This is what has been thrown away over the last 50 years, not only by "the
young and the ignorant", but by the revival of fundamentalist religion.

----------

American culture has become almost completely child-centered. Ever noticed
that programming on The Disney Channel and Cartoon Network (to name two) is
not only aimed at children, but is _about_ children? Non-adults and their
interests/activities are the focus of the stories. Adults exist, but they
rarely are the principal characters. How can you expect children to grow up
properly when they're repeatedly told that they're the only beings whose
existence matters, and (if only by implication) that they already know
everything?

Ever seen "The Blackboard Jungle" (Glenn Furd, 1955)? There's a scene where
an older teacher brings in some of his jazz records, in hopes the kids will
enjoy them. They smash them, of course. This isn't just because the kids'
parents never taught them "common courtesy" (!!!), but because they have no
interest in anything they aren't familiar with. This interest is a
fundamentally /intellectual/ mode of thought, and most Americans are
virulently anti-intellectual. My mother -- a Jew -- was.

(Yes, I know that sounds stupid. It isn't. Children have to have it drilled
into their pointed little heads that the universe doesn't revolve around
them, and that there are sorts of things they might be interested in if they
gave them a chance. Of course, when they have parents who neither read nor
think, they grow up the same way and pass their mental vacuity along to
/their/ kids. I was an exception -- an "intellectual" born to dull parents.)

Ever notice that, starting with John Davison, he and subsequent actors
portraying The Doctor have been relatively young, most of them looking no
older than 30? Hey, young people like the show -- how can they possibly
"identify" with someone middle-aged? (The original Doctor, William Hartnell,
was in his 60s, I believe.)

The extreme liberal/conservative divide in this country is not so much
political as it is intellectual. This isn't to say that there aren't plenty
of stupid, misguided liberals, but (to me) conservatism is the fundamental
thinking mode of non-thinkers, which American produces in abundance. It's
frightening to see people at town hall meetings saying such things as "I
don't want the government involved in my Medicare".

When Barney Frank bluntly put down the woman who held up a picture of the
President with a Hitler mustache on it, I was proud to be queer. Barney can
be unduly abrupt, and overbearing to the point of rudeness, but he's more of
a man than most males in politics.

----------

With the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, there's been a lot of talk about
"the Woodstock generation". People say it changed America forever, but it
changed nothing at all, or the election of Ronald Reagan -- the most
politically appalling event of my lifetime -- would never have occurred.
(Though most of our current problems had their start at least as far back as
WWII, the proximate cause of our current state is the "insane Anglo warlord"
himself.)

The "love" generation was, oddly, a reaction against the materialism of
American culture, and an outgrowth of that materialistic culture. Without
the focus on self-indulgence made possible by a strong consumer-based
economy, young people would not have run around taking drugs and leading
idle lives (some of them, anyway).

Our lives revolve principally around the production and consumption of goods
and services. This is not the right way to live. As a first step in changing
things, we need a more humane form of capitalism, in which money is a means
to an end, not the end in itself. Had the Woodstock generation made an
effort to change peoples' economic values, it might have left behind
something worthwhile. But it was so self-absorbed, it couldn't see past its
collective navel.


Well, that's the end of my incoherent bilge (for the time being). Thanks for
listening.



* For what it's worth... HiFi & Music Review --> HiFi Review --> HiFi/Stereo
Review --> Stereo Review --> Vision & Sound
Note that "music" (referring to live music, I believe) got lost early on.
I don't think any other magazine has had five names.

** My father was very anti-gun. He repeatedly told me that if I was in any
group of people, and someone took out a firearm of any sort, I should leave.
(There is a certain common sense in this, of course.) And on one birthday,
when I received a pair of cap pistols as a present, my parents took them
from me. I wish I had told him that taking the guns so destroyed my sense of
manhood that I turned queer. (Not true, of course, but I would have liked to
have seen the look on his face. I think I could have conned him.)

*** The way you get kids to make good decisions is to encourage them to
discuss /everything/, then ask them questions, rather than telling what they
must or must not do. (That is, get them to talk themselves into making the
right decision.) It's important to remind kids that you cannot live for the
moment, and that actions have consequences.

**** Though TIME-LIFE published some garbage (such as series on "the mystic
world"), most of their books were either educational (history, science) or
practical (home repairs).

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle- and upper-class
> families)? The parents simply tell the kids that if they catch them using
> alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded (except
> under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high school. Then they
> make it stick -- the kids don't get a second chance.

William, with due respect, do you have children? It's quite common for
those who do not to offer simplistic "solutions" that are significantly
detached from reality.

I daresy that's the category into which your statements fall.

There is much within your with which to agree, but not that kind of
"it's so easy to do such and such" pablum.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

> You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle-
> and upper-class families)? The parents simply tell the
> kids that if they catch them using alcohol, tobacco, or
> illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded (except
> under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high
> school. Then they make it stick -- the kids don't get a
> second chance.

Did that with the "easy out" called convince us you're off 'em forever. It
worked.

[Arkansan Raider]

Good post in a number of areas.

I whole-heartedly disagree in several places, but I'm not sure I want to
go in-depth. This group loves its personal attacks, and we seem to
devolve too quickly.

Props to you for putting your opinion on the line, however. You
definitely have something to say.

JMHSO

---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

> Good post in a number of areas.

> I whole-heartedly disagree in several places, but I'm not sure I want to
> go in-depth. This group loves its personal attacks, and we seem to
> devolve too quickly.

> Props to you for putting your opinion on the line, however. You
> definitely have something to say.

Thank you for your kind remarks. The post was meant more to fill out what I
had previously been discussion, NOT to start arguments. Thoughtful comments
are always welcome, of course.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle- and upper-class
>> families)? The parents simply tell the kids that if they catch them using
>> alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded
(except
>> under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high school. Then
they
>> make it stick -- the kids don't get a second chance.

> William, with due respect, do you have children? It's quite common for
> those who do not to offer simplistic "solutions" that are significantly
> detached from reality. I daresy that's the category into which your
> statements fall.

I don't have children, and I do understand your point. I knew how what I
wrote would sound.

I thought parents were /supposed/ to supervise their children -- not leave
them to run around, doing whatever they like.

If there were a huge pit next to your house, with nothing to keep children
from falling into it -- wouldn't you do what was necessary to keep them away
from it? Is there any significant difference with all the temptations
children are subjected to?

How can a responsible parent say "We know drugs are a terrible problem, but
we feel that letting our children make their own decisions is more
important." Is it?

I never got involved with drugs (I was born long before they became a
problem among teenagers), but I know how irreponsible children can be,
'cause I did lots of stupid things. * Researchers have claimed that people's
brains don't "really" mature until they're around 21 or 22, and the maturity
consists of gaining (some) control over impulsive behavior.


> There is much within your piece with which to agree, but not
> that kind of "it's so easy to do such and such" pablum.

I didn't say it was easy to do ("simply" notwithstanding). It would require
a major change in the way families and communities view their
responsibilities to children.

Parents have to stop giving into their kids' demands. Acquiescing to
"Heather has this" or "Shawn's parents let him do that" has to come to an
end. And it's hard for one family -- parents to have agree, within a
community, on how they will discipline their children. (Discipline, by the
way, has the same root as disciple -- student.)


* I did something really stupid 17 years ago that ruined me financially. Had
my parents brought me up in an environment of "discussing" rather than
"lecturing", I might have brought the situation to them, and taken a
different course.

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>> You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle- and upper-class
>> families)? The parents simply tell the kids that if they catch them using
>> alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded (except
>> under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high school. Then they
>> make it stick -- the kids don't get a second chance.
>
>William, with due respect, do you have children? It's quite common for
>those who do not to offer simplistic "solutions" that are significantly
>detached from reality.

The problem with this solution is that sooner or later the kids graduate from
high school, and then they immediately go off and do everything their parents
forbade them from doing. And they do all it all once. The general effect
is very bad. Many recover, but plenty of them don't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> The problem with this solution is that sooner or later the kids
> graduate from high school, and then they immediately go off
> and do everything their parents forbade them from doing.
> And they do all it all once. The general effect is very bad.
> Many recover, but plenty of them don't.

I don't see how illicit behavior at a younger age is going to prepare
children for adulthood.

The only exception I know of is the way the French give children diluted
wine to drink with dinner. (There's a scene of this in the original "The
Fly".)

I just reread "A Clockwork Orange". (Last time was 1972.) This edition
included chapter 21 (yes, the number is meaningful) that the American
publisher yanked. In it, Alex gets bored with the old ultra-violence, and
even switches to Lieder (from orchestral music). The author (Anthony
Burgess) suggests that asocial behavior is something that people can grow
out of -- or simply tire of. This seems to be true in very few cases.

I don't know why libraries shelve this book under Young Adult (because it's
about teenagers?), but it's a great novel about free will and moral choices.
Don't be put off by Burgess's invented slang -- most of the words can be
figured out by their context.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

>(Children have to have it drilled
>into their pointed little heads that the universe doesn't revolve around
>them, and that there are sorts of things they might be interested in if they
>gave them a chance.


Fine....

>You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle- and upper-class
>families)? The parents simply tell the kids that if they catch them using
>alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded (except
>under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high school. Then they
>make it stick -- the kids don't get a second chance.

....but they can only be interested in pastimes sanctioned by you, one
strike and they're out? Or rather in, permanently, exposed to only
YOUR influence? Perhaps you should band together with other parents
and set up a community? I believe there's land available near Waco,
Texas.

>Ever notice that, starting with John Davison, he and subsequent actors
>portraying The Doctor have been relatively young, most of them looking no
>older than 30? Hey, young people like the show -- how can they possibly
>"identify" with someone middle-aged? (The original Doctor, William Hartnell,
>was in his 60s, I believe.)

You mean Peter Davison? Sylvester McCoy, no spring chicken, came
after him. Yes, the rest have been younger, but do you really think
youngsters IDENTIFY? With Harry Potter, perhaps. But not the Doctor.
Anything under 35 may look the same to you, but to a teen, 25 is OLD!

The Doctor travels with a companion. She's really got to be a
reasonably nubile young lady. Would we buy an uncle/daughter
relationship these days?

Sorry, William. Try again, get your facts right and think it all
through a lot more carefully.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:22:16 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>I don't see how illicit behavior at a younger age is going to prepare
>children for adulthood.

Children observe inconsistent and hypocritical behaviour by adults
regarding recreational drugs. They know that no magic event on the
eve of their 21st birthday (or 18th, or 14th depending on circumstance
and territory) changes alcohol from demon to acceptable. They see
some mood-altering drugs tolerated (and taxed), others recoiled from
in frightened horror.

They've GOT to try for themselves. Quite a good idea to keep them
away from guns though. One line or smoke doesn't make an addict. One
bullet is enough.

[Arkansan Raider]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:22:16 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
>> I don't see how illicit behavior at a younger age is going to prepare
>> children for adulthood.
>
> Children observe inconsistent and hypocritical behaviour by adults
> regarding recreational drugs. They know that no magic event on the
> eve of their 21st birthday (or 18th, or 14th depending on circumstance
> and territory) changes alcohol from demon to acceptable. They see
> some mood-altering drugs tolerated (and taxed), others recoiled from
> in frightened horror.
>
> They've GOT to try for themselves. Quite a good idea to keep them
> away from guns though. One line or smoke doesn't make an addict. One
> bullet is enough.

Depends on the target.

Who knows, you might get lucky and hit a lawyer...

<budump, chhhhhh>

(Li'l Cheney haha there)

Shut up, I'm a conservative. <serious look #47>


---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

> Who knows, you might get lucky and hit a lawyer...
> <budump, chhhhhh>
> (Li'l Cheney haha there)
> Shut up, I'm a conservative. <serious look #47>

One needn't be conservative to dislike lawyers. Merely being human should
suffice.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>>> You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle- and upper-class
>>> families)? The parents simply tell the kids that if they catch them
using
>>> alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded
>>> (except under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high
school.
>>> Then they make it stick -- the kids don't get a second chance.

>> William, with due respect, do you have children? It's quite common for
>> those who do not to offer simplistic "solutions" that are significantly
>> detached from reality.
>> I daresy that's the category into which your statements fall.
>> There is much within your with which to agree, but not that kind of
>> "it's so easy to do such and such" pablum.

> There is nothing easy about raising children. The idea of taking an almost
> blank mind, and protecting it, nurturing it, filling it with all that
> software, hopefully the best kind, that makes the best person, fills me
with
> apprehension. So much to go wrong, so hard to fix! I know Hank has at
least
> one progeny he has spoken of with implied pride, so he has the touch.

> Culture is NOT the most important thing in raising a kid. It is important,
> but something else trumps it completely : LOVE. Love manifests empathy,
> which prevents us from harming other beings. Love is the brake on all
things
> bad, because as empathy, it sensitizes us to the pain of others. A young
> adult, contemplating drug use, avoids it because he wants to be the kind
of
> person his parents would love. Later in life, the loved child takes that
> whole package, and reuses it with his own children.

> What happens when a child is loved, yet force-fed culture? Anyone who has
> read this board very long knows what a psychopath is. A psychopath has no
> empathy, and therefore, no love. A psychopath may know something about
> culture; he may be musical, but he feels nothing toward others; they are
> mere objects. Having never felt the love of his parents, he has only the
> other three emotions: pleasure, fear, and hate.

Fascinating. You have quite misread what I wrote.

I wasn't talking at all about what children _should_ do (of which "culcha"
is one possible thing), but what parents should be keeping children from
doing. (Read what I actually said. Please.) I said nor implied nothing
whatever about culture, force-fed or otherwise.

It does seem to be true, however, that children who are involved in sports,
the arts, etc, are less likely to go astray. A major reason, I think, is
that adult-led activities prevent children from forming their own
sub-culture. There are other obvious effects, which I won't go into.

As for love... I couldn't agree more. My parents showed no spontaneous
affection for me. Everything they did seemed conscious and contrived.

PS: Note that Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" loves classical music, hates
popular music, and yet is a thief, rapist, and murderer.

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:22:16 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
> >I don't see how illicit behavior at a younger age is going to prepare
> >children for adulthood.
>
> Children observe inconsistent and hypocritical behaviour by adults
> regarding recreational drugs. They know that no magic event on the
> eve of their 21st birthday (or 18th, or 14th depending on circumstance
> and territory) changes alcohol from demon to acceptable. They see
> some mood-altering drugs tolerated (and taxed), others recoiled from
> in frightened horror.

Our cultural dishonesty about drugs is part of the root of the US's
national drug problem. The majority of abuse here is with legally
prescribed substances, many of which are extremely dangerous compared to
something like cannabis.

> They've GOT to try for themselves. Quite a good idea to keep them
> away from guns though. One line or smoke doesn't make an addict. One
> bullet is enough.

We taught them how to use firearms properly. And in the case of our son,
that has turned out to mean duck, goose, and venison for dinner, so far.
<g>

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> < ......snip... >
>
> PS: Note that Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" loves classical music, hates
> popular music, and yet is a thief, rapist, and murderer.
>
>
Also note that Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" is a fictional character.

[Arkansan Raider]

hank alrich wrote:
> Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:22:16 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see how illicit behavior at a younger age is going to prepare
>>> children for adulthood.
>>
>> Children observe inconsistent and hypocritical behaviour by adults
>> regarding recreational drugs. They know that no magic event on the
>> eve of their 21st birthday (or 18th, or 14th depending on circumstance
>> and territory) changes alcohol from demon to acceptable. They see
>> some mood-altering drugs tolerated (and taxed), others recoiled from
>> in frightened horror.
>
> Our cultural dishonesty about drugs is part of the root of the US's
> national drug problem. The majority of abuse here is with legally
> prescribed substances, many of which are extremely dangerous compared to
> something like cannabis.
>
>> They've GOT to try for themselves. Quite a good idea to keep them
>> away from guns though. One line or smoke doesn't make an addict. One
>> bullet is enough.
>
> We taught them how to use firearms properly. And in the case of our son,
> that has turned out to mean duck, goose, and venison for dinner, so far.
> <g>
>

Schweet!

Eating from the wild is the best kind--healthiest, fo sho.


---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> As for love... I couldn't agree more. My parents showed no spontaneous
> affection for me. Everything they did seemed conscious and contrived.
>

And I grew up in group homes. Lots of foster love, but not really family.

Wait. Bad example. Don't watch the news tonight, you might see me in
orange jumpsuits...


---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

>> PS: Note that Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" loves classical music,
>> hates popular music, and yet is a thief, rapist, and murderer.

> Also note that Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" is a fictional character.

So are the characters in all fiction (other than romans a clef). The author
was trying To Make A Point.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> As for love... I couldn't agree more. My parents showed no spontaneous
>> affection for me. Everything they did seemed conscious and contrived.

> William, I am sorry to hear that, but you turned out well. Some people
have
> inherent strength. But for many/most, nuturing is critical.

I don't think I turned out well! (I'm really effed up.) But some of my
friends think I"m a very good friend, and they're probably right. <grin>

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> I don't see how illicit behavior at a younger age is going to prepare
>>> children for adulthood.

>> Children observe inconsistent and hypocritical behaviour by adults
>> regarding recreational drugs. They know that no magic event on the
>> eve of their 21st birthday (or 18th, or 14th depending on circumstance
>> and territory) changes alcohol from demon to acceptable. They see
>> some mood-altering drugs tolerated (and taxed), others recoiled from
>> in frightened horror.

> Our cultural dishonesty about drugs is part of the root of the US's
> national drug problem. The majority of abuse here is with legally
> prescribed substances, many of which are extremely dangerous
> compared to something like cannabis.

I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't hypocrites, there
would still be Bad People out there tyring to sell them drugs.


>> They've GOT to try for themselves. Quite a good idea to keep them
>> away from guns though. One line or smoke doesn't make an addict.
>> One bullet is enough.

> We taught them how to use firearms properly. And in the case of our
> son, that has turned out to mean duck, goose, and venison for dinner,
> so far. <g>

I've long felt that all children should be taught how to use firearms. (This
is part of my overall Master Educational Plan, which I've never written
down. Perhaps I should. Maybe this group can provide some intelligent
feedback. Don't expect it tomorrow.)

I can maybe see forcing children to take drugs (such as synthetic narcotics
that produce a very pleasant high), while trying to make them understand
that "this isn't real -- it's just a drug". Would it work? Would it
backfire?

This country has had a problem with drugs, even when they were legal. It
isn't clear why. Part of it seems to be our extreme materialism, but that
can't be all of it.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Eating from the wild is the best kind -- healthiest, fo sho.

Unless you bite into a piece of buckshot.

Who was the mean duck? Daffy?

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> PS: Note that Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" loves classical music,
>>> hates popular music, and yet is a thief, rapist, and murderer.
>
>> Also note that Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" is a fictional character.
>
> So are the characters in all fiction (other than romans a clef). The author
> was trying To Make A Point.
>
Sorry, I seem to have missed your point not the author's.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ron Capik" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>>> PS: Note that Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" loves classical music,
>>>> hates popular music, and yet is a thief, rapist, and murderer.

>>> Also note that Alex in "A Clockwork Orange" is a fictional character.

>> So are the characters in all fiction (other than romans a clef). The
author
>> was trying To Make A Point.

> Sorry, I seem to have missed your point not the author's.

The point I thought I was making is that exposure to culcha will not
necessarily improve people's morals. Interestingly, Alex had all sorts of
violent thoughts listening to Beethoven, Handel, etc. Talk about psycho...

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Eating from the wild is the best kind -- healthiest, fo sho.
>
> Unless you bite into a piece of buckshot.

<g> Done that. Glad I have all my teefs, that would've been murder on
the crowns and fillings.

>
> Who was the mean duck? Daffy?
>

I dunno. Donald has been known to be ill-tempered, though not quite as
bad as Uncle Scrooge McDuck.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> I don't see how illicit behavior at a younger age is going to prepare
>>>> children for adulthood.
>
>>> Children observe inconsistent and hypocritical behaviour by adults
>>> regarding recreational drugs. They know that no magic event on the
>>> eve of their 21st birthday (or 18th, or 14th depending on circumstance
>>> and territory) changes alcohol from demon to acceptable. They see
>>> some mood-altering drugs tolerated (and taxed), others recoiled from
>>> in frightened horror.
>
>> Our cultural dishonesty about drugs is part of the root of the US's
>> national drug problem. The majority of abuse here is with legally
>> prescribed substances, many of which are extremely dangerous
>> compared to something like cannabis.
>
> I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't hypocrites, there
> would still be Bad People out there tyring to sell them drugs.
>
>
>>> They've GOT to try for themselves. Quite a good idea to keep them
>>> away from guns though. One line or smoke doesn't make an addict.
>>> One bullet is enough.
>
>> We taught them how to use firearms properly. And in the case of our
>> son, that has turned out to mean duck, goose, and venison for dinner,
>> so far. <g>
>
> I've long felt that all children should be taught how to use firearms. (This
> is part of my overall Master Educational Plan, which I've never written
> down. Perhaps I should. Maybe this group can provide some intelligent
> feedback. Don't expect it tomorrow.)

We were much more civilized when it was known that guns were plentiful.

"An armed society is a polite society." Cliche'd but true.

>
> I can maybe see forcing children to take drugs (such as synthetic narcotics
> that produce a very pleasant high), while trying to make them understand
> that "this isn't real -- it's just a drug". Would it work? Would it
> backfire?

We (American society in general) force our kids to take drugs all the
time. Ritalin, Zoloft, and that sort of thing is prescribed for behavior
that was considered boys being boys back in the day. We seem to want our
chirruns to be zombies now.

Freeking ridiculous.

>
> This country has had a problem with drugs, even when they were legal. It
> isn't clear why. Part of it seems to be our extreme materialism, but that
> can't be all of it.
>

We want what we want when we want it. We're a microwave society as
opposed to a crockpot society. But that can't be all of it, either.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> culcha

As a side note, this term you're using is crackin' me up.

Carry on.

---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I've long felt that all children should be taught how to use firearms.
>> (This is part of my overall Master Educational Plan, which I've never
>> written down. Perhaps I should. Maybe this group can provide some
>> intelligent feedback. Don't expect it tomorrow.)

> We were much more civilized when it was known that guns were plentiful.

Uh-huh. And the American West was calm, not-very-violent place.

The ready availability of guns doesn't cause violence -- but it makes it a
lot easier for it to occur.


> "An armed society is a polite society." Cliche'd but true.

If you mean people would be afraid to say what they think -- yes, perhaps.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> culcha

> As a side note, this term you're using is crackin' me up.
> Carry on.

It's taken from "Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America". An
Indian wife (played by June Foray in a kind of Brooklynese voice) complains
to her buck that Manhattan is "no place for papoose to grow up. No chance
for culcha."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:11:29 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>This country has had a problem with drugs, even when they were legal. It
>isn't clear why. Part of it seems to be our extreme materialism, but that
>can't be all of it.

Don't forget the Internet is international. Which country? As you
like guns, do I assume the USA?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:12:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>> Sorry, I seem to have missed your point not the author's.
>
>The point I thought I was making is that exposure to culcha will not
>necessarily improve people's morals. Interestingly, Alex had all sorts of
>violent thoughts listening to Beethoven, Handel, etc. Talk about psycho...

Can you not spell "culture", or are you making some point about
Beethoven etc.?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:38:24 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>We (American society in general) force our kids to take drugs all the
>time. Ritalin, Zoloft, and that sort of thing is prescribed for behavior
>that was considered boys being boys back in the day. We seem to want our
>chirruns to be zombies now.

Yes. Now, that IS odd, in a culture otherwise scared stiff of
mind-altering drugs.

If all you're worried about is the culture of selling illegal drugs,
the solution is obvious. Surely it couldn't be that drugs
administered by adults to make minors behave the way THEY want = good,
drugs chosen by minors for their own pleasure = bad?

Any scare studies on the long term mind-rotting qualities of Ritalin
yet?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:54:22 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>The ready availability of guns doesn't cause violence -- but it makes it a
>lot easier for it to occur.

er... if more guns = more violence, how isn't that causation? Or
what DID you mean?

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:12:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Sorry, I seem to have missed your point not the author's.
>> The point I thought I was making is that exposure to culcha will not
>> necessarily improve people's morals. Interestingly, Alex had all sorts of
>> violent thoughts listening to Beethoven, Handel, etc. Talk about psycho...
>
> Can you not spell "culture", or are you making some point about
> Beethoven etc.?
One guess is that Mr. Sommerwerck is a bit like the race of
hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, in that we only
perceive a portion of his reality. Thus "culcha" was an inside
joke that he assumed [yes, as in ass-u-me] that we all recognized
as being from a (dare I say obscure[1]) Stan Freberg work.
[YMMV]


Later...

Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
--
[1] OK, yes, I do own a copy. No, that
word did not happen to stick in my mind.

[Arkansan Raider]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:38:24 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> We (American society in general) force our kids to take drugs all the
>> time. Ritalin, Zoloft, and that sort of thing is prescribed for behavior
>> that was considered boys being boys back in the day. We seem to want our
>> chirruns to be zombies now.
>
> Yes. Now, that IS odd, in a culture otherwise scared stiff of
> mind-altering drugs.
>
> If all you're worried about is the culture of selling illegal drugs,
> the solution is obvious. Surely it couldn't be that drugs
> administered by adults to make minors behave the way THEY want = good,
> drugs chosen by minors for their own pleasure = bad?
>
> Any scare studies on the long term mind-rotting qualities of Ritalin
> yet?

I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.

Now, I don't know how many were already messed up enough to crap the bed
like that before the prescription and how many the drugs messed up
enough to do it, but it seems to me to be a very fishy correlation.

I also know that Zoloft and some others like it act differently before
and after puberty and adolescence. IIRC this is what happened with the
kids who shot up Columbine. They had been on it for a while and when
they were going through hormonal changes, the Zoloft started affecting
their behavior differently, and they went off the deep end.

And Ritalin is absolutely the Devil IMHSO. It takes normal active boys
and makes them into zombies. Friggin' lazy parents and teachers and
school administrators.

/soapbox

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> culcha
>
>> As a side note, this term you're using is crackin' me up.
>> Carry on.
>
> It's taken from "Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America". An
> Indian wife (played by June Foray in a kind of Brooklynese voice) complains
> to her buck that Manhattan is "no place for papoose to grow up. No chance
> for culcha."
>
>

Thanks, I'll have to look that up.

---Jeff

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Ron Capik wrote:
>
> < ...snip...>
> One guess is that Mr. Sommerwerck is a bit like the race of
> hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, in that we only
> perceive a portion of his reality. Thus "culcha" was an inside
> joke that he assumed [yes, as in ass-u-me] that we all recognized
> as being from a (dare I say obscure[1]) Stan Freberg work.
> [YMMV]
>
>
> Later...
>
> Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
> --
> [1] OK, yes, I do own a copy. No, that
> word did not happen to stick in my mind.

"the race of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings"
Ref. Mice in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
==


Later...
Ron Capik <<< [etc.] >>>
--

[Arkansan Raider]

Ron Capik wrote:
> Ron Capik wrote:
>>
>> < ...snip...>
>> One guess is that Mr. Sommerwerck is a bit like the race of
>> hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, in that we only
>> perceive a portion of his reality. Thus "culcha" was an inside
>> joke that he assumed [yes, as in ass-u-me] that we all recognized
>> as being from a (dare I say obscure[1]) Stan Freberg work.
>> [YMMV]
>>
>>
>> Later...
>>
>> Ron Capik <<< cynic-in-training >>>
>> --
>> [1] OK, yes, I do own a copy. No, that
>> word did not happen to stick in my mind.
>
> "the race of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings"
> Ref. Mice in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
> ==
>
>
> Later...
> Ron Capik <<< [etc.] >>>
> --

....And the answer is 42.


---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

> "the race of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings"
> Ref. Mice in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

I like mice!

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arkansan Raider" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>>> culcha

>>> As a side note, this term you're using is crackin' me up.
>>> Carry on.

>> It's taken from "Stan Freberg Presents the United States of America".
>> An Indian wife (played by June Foray in a kind of Brooklynese voice)
>> complains to her buck that Manhattan is "no place for papoose to grow
>> up. No chance for culcha."

> Thanks, I'll have to look that up.

This is an incomplete version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_2biJELHhE

This album has been repeatedly voted by Dr. Demento's listeners as the
greatest comedy album of all time. (At least it used to be.) Get a copy.
Ignore the second volume, which is terrible. The best sketch has Freberg (as
the two adults in the "Spirit of 76" painting -- one ultra-hip, the other
insufferably square) arguing over how "Yankee Doodle" should be played.
Walter Tetley is the drummer boy, and the late, great Billy May contributes
a terrific flute riff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBN5NyFSGzo&feature=related

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron Capik wrote:
>
> < ...snip...>
> One guess is that Mr. Sommerwerck is a bit like the race of
> hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, in that we only
> perceive a portion of his reality. Thus "culcha" was an inside
> joke that he assumed [yes, as in ass-u-me] that we all recognized
> as being from a (dare I say obscure[1]) Stan Freberg work.
> [YMMV]

When you say Dylan to him, he thinks you mean Dylan Thomas. Whoever
he was. The kid ain't got no culcha.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Sylvan Morein, DDS wrote:
>
> < ...snip... >
>
> There is nothing easy about raising children. The idea of taking an almost
> blank mind, and protecting it, nurturing it, filling it with all that
> software, hopefully the best kind, that makes the best person, [ ... ]
> < ..snip.. >
> Sylvan Morein
> Dresher, Pa
>
Yet further proof of extra terrestrials experiments
here on earth. Please seek help from your nearest
local pan-dimensional mice.


Later... ?
-R-

[Arkansan Raider]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> And that, Ron, was the voice of our resident psychopath, Brian L. McCarty:
>
> Path:
> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx 01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post01.ia d!news.buzzardnews.com!not-for-mail
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605
> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:41:27 +1000
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
>
>

I feel your pain, Bob.

No one should have to put up with that crap.

---Jeff

[Bret L]

On Aug 31, 9:41*pm, "Sylvan Morein, DDS" > wrote:
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
> >> You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle- and upper-class
> >> families)? The parents simply tell the kids that if they catch them using
> >> alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded
> >> (except
> >> under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high school. Then
> >> they
> >> make it stick -- the kids don't get a second chance.
>
> > William, with due respect, do you have children? It's quite common for
> > those who do not to offer simplistic "solutions" that are significantly
> > detached from reality.
>
> > I daresy that's the category into which your statements fall.
>
> > There is much within your with which to agree, but not that kind of
> > "it's so easy to do such and such" pablum.
>
> There is nothing easy about raising children. The idea of taking an almost
> blank mind, and protecting it, nurturing it, filling it with all that
> software, hopefully the best kind, that makes the best person, fills me with
> apprehension. *Look how badly Jane and I ****ed up Robert - once a child
> prodigy, the next moment a mentally ill psychopath. So much to go wrong,
> impossible to fix! I know neighbours and friends who have done it
> successfully, but they didn't have a mental defective like we did.
>
> Culture is NOT the most important thing in raising a kid. It is important,
> but something else trumps it completely : LOVE. *We gave Robert plenty of
> love, but he still became a twisted sick ****. Love is the brake on all
> things bad, because as empathy, it sensitizes us to the pain of others.
> However Robert, as a young adult, couldn't "process" this loving home and
> instead let his psychosis take over. *Thank god we followed the prison
> doctor's recommendations and had him sterilised.
>
> What happens when a child is loved, yet force-fed culture? Anyone who has
> read this board very long knows what a psychopath is. A psychopath has no
> empathy, and therefore, no love. *A psychopath may know something about
> culture; he may be musical, but he feels nothing toward others; they are
> mere objects. Having never felt the love of his parents, he has only the
> other three emotions: pleasure, fear, and hate. *This describes my sick son
> Robert to a "T".

Well, Dr. M, you can't be too hard on yourself: you did the best you
could, and this sometimes happens despite all efforts. I feel bad for
you and Mrs. M, because the kid is going to be a sore spot forever.
Nobody is holding it against you. In every culture and society, you
get an occasional sociopath.

It's a random mutation.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:40:36 -0400, Ron Capik >
wrote:

>> Can you not spell "culture", or are you making some point about
>> Beethoven etc.?
>One guess is that Mr. Sommerwerck is a bit like the race of
>hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, in that we only
>perceive a portion of his reality. Thus "culcha" was an inside
>joke that he assumed [yes, as in ass-u-me] that we all recognized
>as being from a (dare I say obscure[1]) Stan Freberg work.
>[YMMV]

I'd not come across that performer. Found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf4zKt69LGQ

I guess you'd have to KNOW he was funny? He seems to be coasting on
the back of a reputation, but not actually doing much. What were his
defining works?

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>
>Now, I don't know how many were already messed up enough to crap the bed
>like that before the prescription and how many the drugs messed up
>enough to do it, but it seems to me to be a very fishy correlation.

Have they been drugging school lids for that long? 20 years?

Of course that COULD merely indicate good diagnosis. The system
discovered a troubled kid and he was treated. Unfortunately that
wasn't enough. Sorta like the best surgeons can have the highest
mortality rates because they're prepared to attempt the hardest cases.

Quite how you do a double-blind test on psychotic killers and Ritalin
I don't know though :-)

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.

There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
You need to do it sooner rather than later.

d

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:53:09 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>>I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>>if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>>years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>>shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>
>There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
>has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
>it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
>You need to do it sooner rather than later.

Yeah. After ONE school shooting here in the UK we reacted by
tightening our gun laws even further to the point where it's basically
"No, you CAN'T have one. Period."

The general gut reaction here is "Good thing too!" I guess we just
don't have that frontier mentality :-)

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Capik wrote:

>> < ...snip...>
>> One guess is that Mr. Sommerwerck is a bit like the race of
>> hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, in that we only
>> perceive a portion of his reality. Thus "culcha" was an inside
>> joke that he assumed [yes, as in ass-u-me] that we all
>> recognized as being from a (dare I say obscure) Stan
>> Freberg work. [YMMV]

> When you say Dylan to him, he thinks you mean Dylan Thomas.
> Whoever he was. The kid ain't got no culcha.

Doesn't matter which is which. Whose name do you think Mr. Zimmerman
adopted?

When I see Capik, I can't help but think "RUR".

Actually, my use of "culcha" was not so much a reference to Stan Freberg as
it was a poke at culture purveyors.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message

> I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't
> hypocrites, there would still be Bad People out there
> trying to sell them drugs.

Many if not most of drugs that are ruining the world today (cannabis,
alcohol, opiates and cocaine derivatives) in highly purified forms have been
around for 100 years or more. Alcohol has been around for 1,000s of years.
Their physical supplies can be virtually unlimited. The supply chain for
them is highly flexible - it basically meets whatever demand exists. In the
end, the only thing that has changed, is the nature and volume of the
demand. The current level of demand was stimulated by the media in the late
1950s and early 1960s through the 90s, and even now. The media is just an
expression of the culture.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:40:36 -0400, Ron Capik >
> wrote:
>
> >> Can you not spell "culture", or are you making some point about
> >> Beethoven etc.?
> >One guess is that Mr. Sommerwerck is a bit like the race of
> >hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, in that we only
> >perceive a portion of his reality. Thus "culcha" was an inside
> >joke that he assumed [yes, as in ass-u-me] that we all recognized
> >as being from a (dare I say obscure[1]) Stan Freberg work.
> >[YMMV]
>
> I'd not come across that performer. Found this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf4zKt69LGQ
>
> I guess you'd have to KNOW he was funny? He seems to be coasting on
> the back of a reputation, but not actually doing much. What were his
> defining works?

The United States of America is a Stan Freberg production.

Stephen

[William Sommerwerck]

> I'd not come across that performer. Found this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf4zKt69LGQ

> I guess you'd have to KNOW he was funny? He seems to be
> coasting on the back of a reputation, but not actually doing much.
> What were his defining works?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Freberg

Stan Freberg was one of the great satirists of the 20th century, especially
of pop culture -- uh, culcha. As many satirists, he could be (and too-often
was) smug and pompous, but like Jack Benny (his idol), he had the sense to
work with people at least as talented as he was (June Foray, Jesse White,
Daws Butler, * and others).

His "defining works" compose a long list of some of the best comedy of the
last century. They started with a series of parody singles for Capitol,
which skewered Eartha Kitt, Elvis Presley, Johnny Ray, doo-wop singers,
Mitch Miller, Les Paul, and many others. They were quite savage (for the
time); Ms. Kitt (only half-jokingly) threatened to scratch his eyes out.

One of his most-popular was a double spoof of Dragnet: "St. George and the
Dragonet" on side A, "Little Blue Riding Hood" on side B. He actually got
the group who performed Dragnet's theme music to do it for his parody.

Then there is "Green Chri$tma$", a nasty slap at the commercialization of a
religious holiday. (Freberg's father was a Baptist minister.) Some radio
stations would not play it, and advertisers were known to demand their money
back if it was played within a few minutes of their commercial.

He replaced Jack Benny on CBS radio for 15 weeks in the summer of 1957.
Freberg had no objection to advertising, but the companies who wanted to
sponsor his show made products (cigarettes, deodorant) that Freberg didn't
want paying for the program. So it went unsponsored. It produced some of the
greatest sketches (radio or TV) ever written, perhaps the greatest of which
is "Gray Flannel Hat Full of Teenage Werewolves", which skewers both the
advertising industry and cheap horror movies. (Note, especially, Bill May's
parodies of horror-movie music.)

Freberg was also one of the first to write intentionally funny advertising.
People would actually listen to the radio to hear his ads over and over
again, they were that good. And they hold up. They're still funny, 50 years
later.

His spot for Jeno's Pizza Rolls is among the best TV ads ever done. Its
specific target was an ad for Lark cigarettes with people holding up their
Lark packs to the camera, while the "William Tell Overture" played in the
background. Simply retrofitting lyrics to Rossini's twisting music was
clever enough, but... Well, you have to see it. Note Tonto stuffing pizza
rolls into his possibles bag. (I saw it when it premiered on "Tonight", and
the audience was still laughing after it was over. Johnny Carson later said
it was the first commercial that ever got spontaneous applause from the
audience.) Also note that the commercial isn't funny just for the sake of
being funny, but Freberg is actively trying to sell the product -- it tastes
good, your guests will like it, it's easy to fix, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE-NdrzfFOo

I've seen this ad dozens of times, and it always makes me laugh. To call it
"brilliant" would be to demean it. Note the YouTube comment "Looks like this
ad is? still working, after 40+ years! Would any of today's ads be that
effective 40 years from now?" Probably not. (I'd be dishonest not to admit
I've seen equally brilliant ads not created by Freberg -- Motorola's
original RAZR ad comes to mind.)

* Daws Butler did a huge amount of work for Hanna-Barbera, who rarely (if
ever) supplied him with material worthy of his talents. His best work was
almost certain with Freberg.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message

>> I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't
>> hypocrites, there would still be Bad People out there
>> trying to sell them drugs.

> Many if not most of drugs that are ruining the world today (cannabis,
> alcohol, opiates and cocaine derivatives) in highly purified forms have
been
> around for 100 years or more. Alcohol has been around for 1,000s of years.
> Their physical supplies can be virtually unlimited. The supply chain for
> them is highly flexible - it basically meets whatever demand exists. In
the
> end, the only thing that has changed, is the nature and volume of the
> demand. The current level of demand was stimulated by the media in the
late
> 1950s and early 1960s through the 90s, and even now. The media is just an
> expression of the culture.

You're looking at ti from the other point of view... If there were not
demand for drugs, people wouldn't be supplying them. Which is true.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote
>> in
>> message
>
>>> I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't
>>> hypocrites, there would still be Bad People out there
>>> trying to sell them drugs.
>
>> Many if not most of drugs that are ruining the world
>> today (cannabis, alcohol, opiates and cocaine
>> derivatives) in highly purified forms have been around
>> for 100 years or more. Alcohol has been around for
>> 1,000s of years. Their physical supplies can be
>> virtually unlimited. The supply chain for them is
>> highly flexible - it basically meets whatever demand
>> exists. In the end, the only thing that has changed, is
>> the nature and volume of the demand. The current level
>> of demand was stimulated by the media in the late 1950s
>> and early 1960s through the 90s, and even now. The media
>> is just an expression of the culture.
>
> You're looking at ti from the other point of view... If
> there were not demand for drugs, people wouldn't be
> supplying them. Which is true.

The same is true of guns and other weapons. The prevalence of guns and
murders is strongly a litmus paper test of the quality of police protection
and general respect for the rule of law. In the Detroit area we have suburbs
that have far less than 1 murder per 100,000 sitting check-to-jawl with the
city, which is far, far worse, maybe more like 1 per 4,000. Guns are
equally available in both places, obviously.

The quality and responsiveness and neighborhood attitude towards the police
seems to be the strongest variable. Poverty is a weak variable because we
have suburbs with lots of poverty, but lower crime rates. The actual
inflation-adjusted family income in the city may be the best it has ever
been. It's not about money, its about culture.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:33:10 -0500, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>> I guess you'd have to KNOW he was funny? He seems to be coasting on
>> the back of a reputation, but not actually doing much. What were his
>> defining works?
>
>The United States of America is a Stan Freberg production.

Oh, it's his fault, is it? :-)

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:36:46 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>His spot for Jeno's Pizza Rolls is among the best TV ads ever done. Its
>specific target was an ad for Lark cigarettes with people holding up their
>Lark packs to the camera, while the "William Tell Overture" played in the
>background. Simply retrofitting lyrics to Rossini's twisting music was
>clever enough, but... Well, you have to see it. Note Tonto stuffing pizza
>rolls into his possibles bag. (I saw it when it premiered on "Tonight", and
>the audience was still laughing after it was over. Johnny Carson later said
>it was the first commercial that ever got spontaneous applause from the
>audience.) Also note that the commercial isn't funny just for the sake of
>being funny, but Freberg is actively trying to sell the product -- it tastes
>good, your guests will like it, it's easy to fix, etc.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE-NdrzfFOo
>
>I've seen this ad dozens of times, and it always makes me laugh.

Yeah, maybe if you knew the Lark advert. And if you could make out
the lyrics (which I couldn't on the youtube clip.)

I guess some comedy travels, some doesn't. Did you guys get The Goons
and Monty Python? I watched some of a Jim Carrey movie on TV
yesterday. Found his face-pulling just as unfunny as that of his
presumed inspiration, Jerry Lewis.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:47:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>The same is true of guns and other weapons. The prevalence of guns and
>murders is strongly a litmus paper test of the quality of police protection
>and general respect for the rule of law.

Only in a culture that accepts guns as normal. We have plenty to
complain about regarding police efficiency here in the UK. A small
minority of criminals carry guns. But there is no public demand for
personal gun ownership. In a way I suppose we view them with the
same kind of repugnance as conservative America views drugs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:47:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> The same is true of guns and other weapons. The
>> prevalence of guns and murders is strongly a litmus
>> paper test of the quality of police protection and
>> general respect for the rule of law.

> Only in a culture that accepts guns as normal.

Might be true. Don't know for sure.

> We have
> plenty to complain about regarding police efficiency here
> in the UK.

Do they still avoid carrying guns?

> A small minority of criminals carry guns.

I'm under the impression that a small minority of Detroit residents don't
have guns in the house.

> But there is no public demand for personal gun ownership.

In the US, if we outlawed the formal sale of guns, they would be bouncing
out of every basement workshop. See my previous comments about demand
driving commerce.

> In a way I suppose we view them with the same kind of
> repugnance as conservative America views drugs.

I think that as long as you can pull it off, that is the way to go, on both
counts.

For the record I've hardly ever even touched a gun, except during my 3 years
of military service. Even in the military, guns and ammo are kept locked up
except in the presence of a clear and immediate danger.

[Arny Krueger]

"Arkansan Raider" > wrote in message

> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>> And that, Ron, was the voice of our resident psychopath,
>> Brian L. McCarty: Path:
>> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx 01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!post01.ia d!news.buzzardnews.com!not-for-mail
>> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605
>> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:41:27 +1000

>> Bob Morein
>> (310) 237-6511

> I feel your pain, Bob.

> No one should have to put up with that crap.


Right. Many of us saw this coming. For quite some time the buzzardnews
impostor has acted out the most insanely, but there were times of serious
mutual aggression.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:47:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The same is true of guns and other weapons. The
>>> prevalence of guns and murders is strongly a litmus
>>> paper test of the quality of police protection and
>>> general respect for the rule of law.
>
>> Only in a culture that accepts guns as normal.
>
>Might be true. Don't know for sure.
>
>> We have
>> plenty to complain about regarding police efficiency here
>> in the UK.
>
>Do they still avoid carrying guns?
>
>> A small minority of criminals carry guns.
>
>I'm under the impression that a small minority of Detroit residents don't
>have guns in the house.
>
>> But there is no public demand for personal gun ownership.
>
>In the US, if we outlawed the formal sale of guns, they would be bouncing
>out of every basement workshop. See my previous comments about demand
>driving commerce.
>
>> In a way I suppose we view them with the same kind of
>> repugnance as conservative America views drugs.
>
>I think that as long as you can pull it off, that is the way to go, on both
>counts.
>
>For the record I've hardly ever even touched a gun, except during my 3 years
>of military service. Even in the military, guns and ammo are kept locked up
>except in the presence of a clear and immediate danger.
>

Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
distributed in time of trouble.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> Ron Capik wrote:
>
>>> < ...snip...>
>>> One guess is that Mr. Sommerwerck is a bit like the race of
>>> hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings, in that we only
>>> perceive a portion of his reality. Thus "culcha" was an inside
>>> joke that he assumed [yes, as in ass-u-me] that we all
>>> recognized as being from a (dare I say obscure) Stan
>>> Freberg work. [YMMV]
>
>> When you say Dylan to him, he thinks you mean Dylan Thomas.
>> Whoever he was. The kid ain't got no culcha.
>
>Doesn't matter which is which. Whose name do you think Mr. Zimmerman
>adopted?

Oh, sorry, that was a Simon and Garfunkel reference.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <4a9e21f4.2447817562@localhost>, Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>distributed in time of trouble.

There's an inherent conflict here. See, the Constitution was written by
a bunch of revolutionaries who didn't trust the government, and wanted to
protect citizens from the possibility of a government gone wrong. The
people who legally interpret it are members of the government.

It's a nice system. A lot of thought was put into making it as fair
and even-handed as possible, and while it's not always perfect it seems
better than the alternatives.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 1 Sep 2009 09:41:03 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article <4a9e21f4.2447817562@localhost>, Don Pearce > wrote:
>>
>>Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>>permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>>case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>>All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>>distributed in time of trouble.
>
>There's an inherent conflict here. See, the Constitution was written by
>a bunch of revolutionaries who didn't trust the government, and wanted to
>protect citizens from the possibility of a government gone wrong. The
>people who legally interpret it are members of the government.
>

Your constitution was written by a bunch of exceedingly smart and
thoughtful men, who mistrusted not only the government, but Government
itself. I suppose in these latter days, it might suffice to permit
domestic gun ownership just in the DC area. That should serve to keep
those senators on their toes. Successive governments have ridden
roughshod over much of the constitution for far too long already,
particularly in the matter of the separation of church and state - one
of the most important parts of it.

>It's a nice system. A lot of thought was put into making it as fair
>and even-handed as possible, and while it's not always perfect it seems
>better than the alternatives.
>--scott

No, it appears to have resulted in the worst of all the alternatives.
Those all-too-frequent sad news stories are testament to that.

d

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
> >I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
> >if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
> >years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
> >shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
> >
> >Now, I don't know how many were already messed up enough to crap the bed
> >like that before the prescription and how many the drugs messed up
> >enough to do it, but it seems to me to be a very fishy correlation.
>
> Have they been drugging school lids for that long? 20 years?
>
> Of course that COULD merely indicate good diagnosis. The system
> discovered a troubled kid and he was treated. Unfortunately that
> wasn't enough. Sorta like the best surgeons can have the highest
> mortality rates because they're prepared to attempt the hardest cases.
>
> Quite how you do a double-blind test on psychotic killers and Ritalin
> I don't know though :-)

There are correlations between food and behavior that go unnoticed by
those who seek to purvey drugs. Various food dyes are known to be
powerful disrupters.

In other situations the problem is a hunter-gatherer in a farmer world.

Thom Hartmann's writings on ADD are pretty interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
> >I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
> >if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
> >years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
> >shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>
> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>
> d

Marijuana is illegal in the US. You can buy it anywhere.

Next solution?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message
>
> > I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't
> > hypocrites, there would still be Bad People out there
> > trying to sell them drugs.
>
> Many if not most of drugs that are ruining the world today (cannabis,
> alcohol, opiates and cocaine derivatives) in highly purified forms have been
> around for 100 years or more. Alcohol has been around for 1,000s of years.
> Their physical supplies can be virtually unlimited. The supply chain for
> them is highly flexible - it basically meets whatever demand exists. In the
> end, the only thing that has changed, is the nature and volume of the
> demand. The current level of demand was stimulated by the media in the late
> 1950s and early 1960s through the 90s, and even now. The media is just an
> expression of the culture.

Cannabis is ruining nothing but our prison and enforcement budgets.
Nixon's Blue Ribbon Committee, a bunch of extremely conservative cats,
came back with the recommendation to legalize it. The assistant attorney
general resigned when Nixon refused to do that.

Cannabis was made illegal in order to protect the Hearst's investment in
forest land to provide trees for making paper and the DuPont's
investment in chemicals to process pulp. The collusion of press and big
money to alarm a public and lobby "legislators" accomplished this.

Nixon's boys noted that there are 5000 years of written history of human
cannabis use and no record of a death caused by it.

Part of our problem with drugs is our fear of them and our intense
desire to control them by making them illegal. The black markets created
thereby have powerful incentive to exploit explosive profits, and the
allure of faux rebellion via usage bring us the just desserts of our own
stupidity.

Cannabis is a seriously effective pain reliever, and a wonderful
recreational drug. I speak from first hand experience in both regards.
It is dangerous because it is illegal.

Meanwhile, over in the liquor cabinet...

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>
> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:47:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> The same is true of guns and other weapons. The
> >>> prevalence of guns and murders is strongly a litmus
> >>> paper test of the quality of police protection and
> >>> general respect for the rule of law.
> >
> >> Only in a culture that accepts guns as normal.
> >
> >Might be true. Don't know for sure.
> >
> >> We have
> >> plenty to complain about regarding police efficiency here
> >> in the UK.
> >
> >Do they still avoid carrying guns?
> >
> >> A small minority of criminals carry guns.
> >
> >I'm under the impression that a small minority of Detroit residents don't
> >have guns in the house.
> >
> >> But there is no public demand for personal gun ownership.
> >
> >In the US, if we outlawed the formal sale of guns, they would be bouncing
> >out of every basement workshop. See my previous comments about demand
> >driving commerce.
> >
> >> In a way I suppose we view them with the same kind of
> >> repugnance as conservative America views drugs.
> >
> >I think that as long as you can pull it off, that is the way to go, on both
> >counts.
> >
> >For the record I've hardly ever even touched a gun, except during my 3 years
> >of military service. Even in the military, guns and ammo are kept locked up
> >except in the presence of a clear and immediate danger.
> >
>
> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
> distributed in time of trouble.
>
> d

Ever had a bear at your door or a mountain lion in your yard?

I have.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 05:36:46 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
> >His spot for Jeno's Pizza Rolls is among the best TV ads ever done. Its
> >specific target was an ad for Lark cigarettes with people holding up their
> >Lark packs to the camera, while the "William Tell Overture" played in the
> >background. Simply retrofitting lyrics to Rossini's twisting music was
> >clever enough, but... Well, you have to see it. Note Tonto stuffing pizza
> >rolls into his possibles bag. (I saw it when it premiered on "Tonight", and
> >the audience was still laughing after it was over. Johnny Carson later said
> >it was the first commercial that ever got spontaneous applause from the
> >audience.) Also note that the commercial isn't funny just for the sake of
> >being funny, but Freberg is actively trying to sell the product -- it tastes
> >good, your guests will like it, it's easy to fix, etc.
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE-NdrzfFOo
> >
> >I've seen this ad dozens of times, and it always makes me laugh.
>
> Yeah, maybe if you knew the Lark advert. And if you could make out
> the lyrics (which I couldn't on the youtube clip.)
>
> I guess some comedy travels, some doesn't. Did you guys get The Goons
> and Monty Python?

Yes, indeed. Didn't figure you for a lumberjack. Just goes to show.

> I watched some of a Jim Carrey movie on TV
> yesterday. Found his face-pulling just as unfunny as that of his
> presumed inspiration, Jerry Lewis.

I agree on both counts.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[William Sommerwerck]

> Yeah, maybe if you knew the Lark advert. And if you could
> make out the lyrics (which I couldn't on the youtube clip.)

I found them quite clear. But I've watched it many times.


> I guess some comedy travels, some doesn't. Did you guys
> get The Goons and Monty Python?

Monty Python mostly travelled. The Goon Show never grabbed me -- it was the
same gags week after week.


> I watched some of a Jim Carrey movie on TV yesterday.
> Found his face-pulling just as unfunny as that of his
> presumed inspiration, Jerry Lewis.

Carrey was brilliant on "In Living Color", in small doses. A whole movie of
him is a bit much. And he's not the good actor he's been proclaimed.

Nevertheless, I'd much rather watch Jim Carrey than Jerry Lewis. Lewis is
the most self-centered non-talent I've ever seen. Lewis's best film is not
one of his own -- it's "The King of Comedy", directed by Martin Scorsese,
where he more or less plays himself. Think of a blackly comic version of
"Taxi Driver". De Niro gives one of the best performances by any actor I've
seen.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms
> is permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.

That's so wrong, it couldn't be wronger. The right of individuals to keep
and bear arm -- a right which existed long before the Federal
constitution -- is protected by the Bill of Rights:

IX -- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people. Regardless of how
you interpret Article II, it does not "permit" the bearing of arms. Rather,
it restrains government.

Both "sides" in this issue are quite wrong -- people have the individual
right to keep and bear arms, and government has the right to make reasonable
restrictions on the ownership and use of weapons, as it has the right to
regulate any other right. For example, there are libel laws that limit free
speech.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:02:29 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>> >if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>> >years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>> >shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>>
>> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
>> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
>> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
>> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>>
>> d
>
>Marijuana is illegal in the US. You can buy it anywhere.
>
>Next solution?

No next solution needed. The one I propose has already been seen to
work perfectly here in the UK (where it is also easy to buy
Marijuana). Along with the legislation you need public education to
reverse the idea that having a gun is a normal thing. Over here
virtually nobody would even think about getting a gun, and that
includes most criminals. The idea simply isn't on our radar.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:02:31 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>>
>> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:47:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The same is true of guns and other weapons. The
>> >>> prevalence of guns and murders is strongly a litmus
>> >>> paper test of the quality of police protection and
>> >>> general respect for the rule of law.
>> >
>> >> Only in a culture that accepts guns as normal.
>> >
>> >Might be true. Don't know for sure.
>> >
>> >> We have
>> >> plenty to complain about regarding police efficiency here
>> >> in the UK.
>> >
>> >Do they still avoid carrying guns?
>> >
>> >> A small minority of criminals carry guns.
>> >
>> >I'm under the impression that a small minority of Detroit residents don't
>> >have guns in the house.
>> >
>> >> But there is no public demand for personal gun ownership.
>> >
>> >In the US, if we outlawed the formal sale of guns, they would be bouncing
>> >out of every basement workshop. See my previous comments about demand
>> >driving commerce.
>> >
>> >> In a way I suppose we view them with the same kind of
>> >> repugnance as conservative America views drugs.
>> >
>> >I think that as long as you can pull it off, that is the way to go, on both
>> >counts.
>> >
>> >For the record I've hardly ever even touched a gun, except during my 3 years
>> >of military service. Even in the military, guns and ammo are kept locked up
>> >except in the presence of a clear and immediate danger.
>> >
>>
>> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>> distributed in time of trouble.
>>
>> d
>
>Ever had a bear at your door or a mountain lion in your yard?
>
>I have.

Get one of those little spy-hole thingies. Don't open the door if it
is a bear or a mountain lion.

As to that, does your constitution say "It being necessary to kill
bears and mountain lions, no citizen shall be denied the right to bear
arms"? No, it doesn't, so you have no constitutional right to keep
them for such a purpose. Arming a militia is all your constitution is
interested in.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:19:06 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms
>> is permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>
>That's so wrong, it couldn't be wronger. The right of individuals to keep
>and bear arm -- a right which existed long before the Federal
>constitution -- is protected by the Bill of Rights:
>
>IX -- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>
>The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people. Regardless of how
>you interpret Article II, it does not "permit" the bearing of arms. Rather,
>it restrains government.
>
>Both "sides" in this issue are quite wrong -- people have the individual
>right to keep and bear arms, and government has the right to make reasonable
>restrictions on the ownership and use of weapons, as it has the right to
>regulate any other right. For example, there are libel laws that limit free
>speech.
>

You should be a lawyer... ;-)

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
news:4aa330d2.2451623062@localhost...
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:19:06 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:

> >> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms
> >> is permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
> >> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.

> >That's so wrong, it couldn't be wronger. The right of individuals to keep
> >and bear arm -- a right which existed long before the Federal
> >constitution -- is protected by the Bill of Rights:

> >IX -- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be
> >construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

>> The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people. Regardless of how
>> you interpret Article II, it does not "permit" the bearing of arms.
Rather,
>> it restrains government.

>> Both "sides" in this issue are quite wrong -- people have the individual
>> right to keep and bear arms, and government has the right to make
>> reasonable restrictions on the ownership and use of weapons, as it has
>> the right to regulate any other right. For example, there are libel laws
>> that limit free speech.

> You should be a lawyer... ;-)

My mother used to say that.

But what I said is correct. I've never seen a public issue so utter
misunderstood by both sides. The intent of the Bill of Rights is plain, but
nobody seems to "get it".

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:53:20 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>news:4aa330d2.2451623062@localhost...
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:19:06 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
>> > wrote:
>
>> >> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms
>> >> is permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>> >> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>
>> >That's so wrong, it couldn't be wronger. The right of individuals to keep
>> >and bear arm -- a right which existed long before the Federal
>> >constitution -- is protected by the Bill of Rights:
>
>> >IX -- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
>be
>> >construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>
>>> The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people. Regardless of how
>>> you interpret Article II, it does not "permit" the bearing of arms.
>Rather,
>>> it restrains government.
>
>>> Both "sides" in this issue are quite wrong -- people have the individual
>>> right to keep and bear arms, and government has the right to make
>>> reasonable restrictions on the ownership and use of weapons, as it has
>>> the right to regulate any other right. For example, there are libel laws
>>> that limit free speech.
>
>> You should be a lawyer... ;-)
>
>My mother used to say that.
>
>But what I said is correct. I've never seen a public issue so utter
>misunderstood by both sides. The intent of the Bill of Rights is plain, but
>nobody seems to "get it".
>
>

"Intents" are tricky *******s. Our government wrote a law (together
with the USA) to facilitate the extradition of terrorism suspects on
less than the usual amount of evidence. We have ratified, but you have
not yet.

Whatever the intent of the law, the first case it is being applied to
is a poor young Asperger's syndrome sufferer who cracked the CIA's
network in search of information on UFOs. Utterly shameful.

d

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> We have
>> plenty to complain about regarding police efficiency here
>> in the UK.
>
>Do they still avoid carrying guns?

Generally, guns are special-issue only. If one is fired, it makes the
newspapers. There have been at least two recent cock-ups where
innocent people were targeted, one fatally. (One who was only winged
was a Muslim immigrant and is therefore generally assumed to have
probably been up to SOMETHING. Do I put a smilie after that? :-)(

Armed police are becoming common at airports and other locations seen
as potential terrorist (whatever that means) targets. I'm not sure if
their weapons have ever been used. If so, it's rare.

A lot of people would rather see the Army doing this job, leaving
police to their traditional role.

The average policeman still doesn't carry a gun.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:34:14 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>distributed in time of trouble.

No, no, NO! It's the right to BEAR ARMS. You know, hunting trophies.
Don't you even WATCH "Family Guy"?
http://www.tooshocking.com/videos/2048/Family_Guy__Right_to_Bear_Arms

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:02:31 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Ever had a bear at your door or a mountain lion in your yard?
>
>I have.

So you KILLED it?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:36:53 +0100, Laurence Payne
> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:34:14 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>>Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>>permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>>case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>>All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>>distributed in time of trouble.
>
>No, no, NO! It's the right to BEAR ARMS. You know, hunting trophies.
>Don't you even WATCH "Family Guy"?

Ah, now I understand. So it is nothing to do with being allowed to
roll up your shirt sleeves, then?

d

[Arkansan Raider]

hank alrich wrote:

> Yes, indeed. Didn't figure you for a lumberjack. Just goes to show.
>

I sleep all night and I work all day. Must count for something...

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>> if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>> years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>> shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>
> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>
> d

You want a stronger correlation than that?

When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.

Now that there are restrictions, schools are getting shot up on a
regular basis.

Water seeks the path of least resistance. So do psychopaths. In these
cases, folks who want to do the most damage with a gun go where there
are no guns. Simple enough, actually.

JMHSO

---Jeff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:25:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>>> if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>>> years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>>> shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>>
>> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
>> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
>> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
>> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>>
>> d
>
>You want a stronger correlation than that?
>
>When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.
>
>Now that there are restrictions, schools are getting shot up on a
>regular basis.
>
>Water seeks the path of least resistance. So do psychopaths. In these
>cases, folks who want to do the most damage with a gun go where there
>are no guns. Simple enough, actually.
>

Anyone?

d

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:02:31 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:47:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The same is true of guns and other weapons. The
>>>>>> prevalence of guns and murders is strongly a litmus
>>>>>> paper test of the quality of police protection and
>>>>>> general respect for the rule of law.
>>>>> Only in a culture that accepts guns as normal.
>>>> Might be true. Don't know for sure.
>>>>
>>>>> We have
>>>>> plenty to complain about regarding police efficiency here
>>>>> in the UK.
>>>> Do they still avoid carrying guns?
>>>>
>>>>> A small minority of criminals carry guns.
>>>> I'm under the impression that a small minority of Detroit residents don't
>>>> have guns in the house.
>>>>
>>>>> But there is no public demand for personal gun ownership.
>>>> In the US, if we outlawed the formal sale of guns, they would be bouncing
>>>> out of every basement workshop. See my previous comments about demand
>>>> driving commerce.
>>>>
>>>>> In a way I suppose we view them with the same kind of
>>>>> repugnance as conservative America views drugs.
>>>> I think that as long as you can pull it off, that is the way to go, on both
>>>> counts.
>>>>
>>>> For the record I've hardly ever even touched a gun, except during my 3 years
>>>> of military service. Even in the military, guns and ammo are kept locked up
>>>> except in the presence of a clear and immediate danger.
>>>>
>>> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>>> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>>> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>>> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>>> distributed in time of trouble.
>>>
>>> d
>> Ever had a bear at your door or a mountain lion in your yard?
>>
>> I have.
>
> Get one of those little spy-hole thingies. Don't open the door if it
> is a bear or a mountain lion.
>
> As to that, does your constitution say "It being necessary to kill
> bears and mountain lions, no citizen shall be denied the right to bear
> arms"? No, it doesn't, so you have no constitutional right to keep
> them for such a purpose. Arming a militia is all your constitution is
> interested in.
>
> d

Private firearms ownership is part of why we've not suffered an invasion
in a few years. Anyone who wants to invade must not only deal with our
standing forces, but every farmer with a deer rifle on his back porch.

No, gun ownership is an individual right, and it shall not be infringed.

---Jeff

[Les Cargill]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>> if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>> years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>> shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>
> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>
> d


It's far too late for that. It simply cannot be done on about
three different levels:

- The total number of guns "in the wild" would take a really
long time to find and destroy.
- People *like* guns, so any such legislative effort is most
likely doomed.
- The vast majority - and I mean Vast - of guns molder peacefully
in closets or gun safes, and are almost never even fired.

I'm not convinced that this *should* be done - at least what
I've seen indicates there's a rough correlation between people
having a normal, working relationship with guns as tools and
not using them on each other.

I don't know what happened to it, but there was a big flap in
Britain about the terrors of "knife violence" over
the last few years. Whether that seems silly or not probably
depends on who you are....

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:47:47 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:02:31 -0700, (hank alrich)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:47:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The same is true of guns and other weapons. The
>>>>>>> prevalence of guns and murders is strongly a litmus
>>>>>>> paper test of the quality of police protection and
>>>>>>> general respect for the rule of law.
>>>>>> Only in a culture that accepts guns as normal.
>>>>> Might be true. Don't know for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have
>>>>>> plenty to complain about regarding police efficiency here
>>>>>> in the UK.
>>>>> Do they still avoid carrying guns?
>>>>>
>>>>>> A small minority of criminals carry guns.
>>>>> I'm under the impression that a small minority of Detroit residents don't
>>>>> have guns in the house.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But there is no public demand for personal gun ownership.
>>>>> In the US, if we outlawed the formal sale of guns, they would be bouncing
>>>>> out of every basement workshop. See my previous comments about demand
>>>>> driving commerce.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In a way I suppose we view them with the same kind of
>>>>>> repugnance as conservative America views drugs.
>>>>> I think that as long as you can pull it off, that is the way to go, on both
>>>>> counts.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the record I've hardly ever even touched a gun, except during my 3 years
>>>>> of military service. Even in the military, guns and ammo are kept locked up
>>>>> except in the presence of a clear and immediate danger.
>>>>>
>>>> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>>>> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>>>> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>>>> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>>>> distributed in time of trouble.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>> Ever had a bear at your door or a mountain lion in your yard?
>>>
>>> I have.
>>
>> Get one of those little spy-hole thingies. Don't open the door if it
>> is a bear or a mountain lion.
>>
>> As to that, does your constitution say "It being necessary to kill
>> bears and mountain lions, no citizen shall be denied the right to bear
>> arms"? No, it doesn't, so you have no constitutional right to keep
>> them for such a purpose. Arming a militia is all your constitution is
>> interested in.
>>
>> d
>
>Private firearms ownership is part of why we've not suffered an invasion
>in a few years. Anyone who wants to invade must not only deal with our
>standing forces, but every farmer with a deer rifle on his back porch.
>

I do believe you are being serious!

>No, gun ownership is an individual right, and it shall not be infringed.
>

"Shall not" is a big claim. Government free from the interference of
religion is also a constitutional right, and you have lost that one in
trumps. So don't bank on any of your constitutional rights being safe.

d

[Richard Crowley]

PLEASE DON"T FEED THE TROLL!

[Arkansan Raider]

hank alrich wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't
>>> hypocrites, there would still be Bad People out there
>>> trying to sell them drugs.
>> Many if not most of drugs that are ruining the world today (cannabis,
>> alcohol, opiates and cocaine derivatives) in highly purified forms have been
>> around for 100 years or more. Alcohol has been around for 1,000s of years.
>> Their physical supplies can be virtually unlimited. The supply chain for
>> them is highly flexible - it basically meets whatever demand exists. In the
>> end, the only thing that has changed, is the nature and volume of the
>> demand. The current level of demand was stimulated by the media in the late
>> 1950s and early 1960s through the 90s, and even now. The media is just an
>> expression of the culture.
>
> Cannabis is ruining nothing but our prison and enforcement budgets.
> Nixon's Blue Ribbon Committee, a bunch of extremely conservative cats,
> came back with the recommendation to legalize it. The assistant attorney
> general resigned when Nixon refused to do that.
>
> Cannabis was made illegal in order to protect the Hearst's investment in
> forest land to provide trees for making paper and the DuPont's
> investment in chemicals to process pulp. The collusion of press and big
> money to alarm a public and lobby "legislators" accomplished this.
>
> Nixon's boys noted that there are 5000 years of written history of human
> cannabis use and no record of a death caused by it.
>
> Part of our problem with drugs is our fear of them and our intense
> desire to control them by making them illegal. The black markets created
> thereby have powerful incentive to exploit explosive profits, and the
> allure of faux rebellion via usage bring us the just desserts of our own
> stupidity.
>
> Cannabis is a seriously effective pain reliever, and a wonderful
> recreational drug. I speak from first hand experience in both regards.
> It is dangerous because it is illegal.
>
> Meanwhile, over in the liquor cabinet...
>

I certainly would have fewer peeps to talk to if cannabis were legal.
Something like 90% of folks in jail are there because of drugs.

I'm very much opposed to drug use, but I think legalizing them would
take us back to the days when the druggies and the drunks weeded (ya'
like that?) themselves out of the gene pool. Unfortunately, we would
still lose our Edgar Allen Poes, but we had a stronger society back
then, too.

JMHSO

---Jeff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:51:34 -0400, Les Cargill >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>>> if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>>> years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>>> shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>>
>> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
>> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
>> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
>> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>>
>> d
>
>
>It's far too late for that. It simply cannot be done on about
>three different levels:
>

I'm sure you are right, unfortunately.

>- The total number of guns "in the wild" would take a really
>long time to find and destroy.
>- People *like* guns, so any such legislative effort is most
>likely doomed.

What's to like? It is a tool with a single purpose - making people
very miserable.

>- The vast majority - and I mean Vast - of guns molder peacefully
>in closets or gun safes, and are almost never even fired.
>

Of course. But did you know that of gun deaths that occur in the USA,
most years more than 80% of people are shot with their own weapon for
a variety of reasons, cleaning accidents, suicide and intruders
disarming and killing the householder being the commonest?

>I'm not convinced that this *should* be done - at least what
>I've seen indicates there's a rough correlation between people
>having a normal, working relationship with guns as tools and
>not using them on each other.
>
It isn't the normal people we are talking about here, you know...

>I don't know what happened to it, but there was a big flap in
>Britain about the terrors of "knife violence" over
>the last few years. Whether that seems silly or not probably
>depends on who you are....

The knife thing seems to have died down lately, but there is a big
difference. At least a knife is a strictly local weapon - you can only
hurt someone you can reach. A gun is indiscriminate and can harm a
great many more people during one attack.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:55:19 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>hank alrich wrote:
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>
>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't
>>>> hypocrites, there would still be Bad People out there
>>>> trying to sell them drugs.
>>> Many if not most of drugs that are ruining the world today (cannabis,
>>> alcohol, opiates and cocaine derivatives) in highly purified forms have been
>>> around for 100 years or more. Alcohol has been around for 1,000s of years.
>>> Their physical supplies can be virtually unlimited. The supply chain for
>>> them is highly flexible - it basically meets whatever demand exists. In the
>>> end, the only thing that has changed, is the nature and volume of the
>>> demand. The current level of demand was stimulated by the media in the late
>>> 1950s and early 1960s through the 90s, and even now. The media is just an
>>> expression of the culture.
>>
>> Cannabis is ruining nothing but our prison and enforcement budgets.
>> Nixon's Blue Ribbon Committee, a bunch of extremely conservative cats,
>> came back with the recommendation to legalize it. The assistant attorney
>> general resigned when Nixon refused to do that.
>>
>> Cannabis was made illegal in order to protect the Hearst's investment in
>> forest land to provide trees for making paper and the DuPont's
>> investment in chemicals to process pulp. The collusion of press and big
>> money to alarm a public and lobby "legislators" accomplished this.
>>
>> Nixon's boys noted that there are 5000 years of written history of human
>> cannabis use and no record of a death caused by it.
>>
>> Part of our problem with drugs is our fear of them and our intense
>> desire to control them by making them illegal. The black markets created
>> thereby have powerful incentive to exploit explosive profits, and the
>> allure of faux rebellion via usage bring us the just desserts of our own
>> stupidity.
>>
>> Cannabis is a seriously effective pain reliever, and a wonderful
>> recreational drug. I speak from first hand experience in both regards.
>> It is dangerous because it is illegal.
>>
>> Meanwhile, over in the liquor cabinet...
>>
>
>I certainly would have fewer peeps to talk to if cannabis were legal.
>Something like 90% of folks in jail are there because of drugs.
>
>I'm very much opposed to drug use, but I think legalizing them would
>take us back to the days when the druggies and the drunks weeded (ya'
>like that?) themselves out of the gene pool. Unfortunately, we would
>still lose our Edgar Allen Poes, but we had a stronger society back
>then, too.
>

I would like to see all (and I do mean all) drugs legalized. I don't
use any of them, even alcohol, personally but I think the law has
better things to do. Also Afghanistan would become governable
overnight. Farmers could grow their poppies and supply the legitimate
pharmaceutical drug trade. Their earnings would rise a hundredfold and
the Taleban would find themselves isolated. Nobody loses - except the
lowlife pushers, of course.

d

[Les Cargill]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> message
>
>> I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't
>> hypocrites, there would still be Bad People out there
>> trying to sell them drugs.
>
> Many if not most of drugs that are ruining the world today (cannabis,
> alcohol, opiates and cocaine derivatives) in highly purified forms have been
> around for 100 years or more. Alcohol has been around for 1,000s of years.
> Their physical supplies can be virtually unlimited. The supply chain for
> them is highly flexible - it basically meets whatever demand exists. In the
> end, the only thing that has changed, is the nature and volume of the
> demand. The current level of demand was stimulated by the media in the late
> 1950s and early 1960s through the 90s, and even now. The media is just an
> expression of the culture.
>
>


Ever hear of a Civil War song titled "Soldier's Joy"? The peak period
for addiction to opiates in the US was the span between the Civil War
and the first World War. Alcohol was much, much, *MUCH* more consumed as
recently as say, 1960. A beer at lunch was commonplace in the '80s;
all but unheard of now.

Demand for such is arguably as low as it's ever been, and dropping. We
just have a different interpretation on the Prohibitionist's screed
from the 19th Century. Even core players in the engineering
of the 18th Amendment are on film record saying that didn't work.

And media is not necessarily an expression of culture - it's more of
an expression of the creation of demand for products.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>It's far too late for that. It simply cannot be done on about
>three different levels:
>
>- The total number of guns "in the wild" would take a really
>long time to find and destroy.
>- People *like* guns, so any such legislative effort is most
>likely doomed.
>- The vast majority - and I mean Vast - of guns molder peacefully
>in closets or gun safes, and are almost never even fired.

You forgot a fourth one:

- Guns are very easy to make. When I was in high school, kids were
making zip guns with 1/4" brake line and duct tape. Single shot,
not very safe or accurate but certainly very popular.

Making _good_ guns is a lot harder, mind you, especially if you want
to rifle the barrels yourself, but it's a whole lot easier than making
a camshaft. There are factories all over the mideast making cheap AK-47
copies with fairly rudimentary machinery.... your local auto engine rebuilder
can probably do much better.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:25:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
>> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
>> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
>> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>>
>> d
>
>You want a stronger correlation than that?
>
>When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.
>
>Now that there are restrictions, schools are getting shot up on a
>regular basis.
>
>Water seeks the path of least resistance. So do psychopaths. In these
>cases, folks who want to do the most damage with a gun go where there
>are no guns. Simple enough, actually.

Were there previously more guns in schools to dissuade psycos?

[Les Cargill]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
<snip>
>
> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia.

That interpretation has been deprecated by DC v Heller.

> That being the
> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.

Yes, but our system is such that we must show the need to
*prohibit* domestic ownership.

And Hank said it - dope is both illegal and universal. Bada
bing.

> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
> distributed in time of trouble.
>

Not feasibly, no. Best guess is around 350 million guns in
the US.

> d

--
Les Cargill

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:47:47 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Private firearms ownership is part of why we've not suffered an invasion
>in a few years. Anyone who wants to invade must not only deal with our
>standing forces, but every farmer with a deer rifle on his back porch.

When was the last one in the UK? 1066? WE invaded YOU a lot more
recently than that. Though you weren't there yet :-)

[Les Cargill]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:02:31 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
<snip>
>> Ever had a bear at your door or a mountain lion in your yard?
>>
>> I have.
>
> Get one of those little spy-hole thingies. Don't open the door if it
> is a bear or a mountain lion.
>

Don, we've just identified one of the great cognitive
disconnects in human existence :) Ask your next
homebuilder "Is this building bear-proof?"

Then ask for a demonstration....

> As to that, does your constitution say "It being necessary to kill
> bears and mountain lions, no citizen shall be denied the right to bear
> arms"?

What our *law* now says is what's in DC v. Heller. We're
Murkins. We don't need a reason :)

(comment rendered as celebration of the diversity between
our two great nations )

> No, it doesn't, so you have no constitutional right to keep
> them for such a purpose. Arming a militia is all your constitution is
> interested in.
>

Google "The Embarrassing Second" some time. Good story, there.

> d

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:22:23 -0400, Les Cargill >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:02:31 -0700, (hank alrich)
>> wrote:
><snip>
>>> Ever had a bear at your door or a mountain lion in your yard?
>>>
>>> I have.
>>
>> Get one of those little spy-hole thingies. Don't open the door if it
>> is a bear or a mountain lion.
>>
>
>Don, we've just identified one of the great cognitive
>disconnects in human existence :) Ask your next
>homebuilder "Is this building bear-proof?"
>
>Then ask for a demonstration....
>
>> As to that, does your constitution say "It being necessary to kill
>> bears and mountain lions, no citizen shall be denied the right to bear
>> arms"?
>
>What our *law* now says is what's in DC v. Heller. We're
>Murkins. We don't need a reason :)
>
>(comment rendered as celebration of the diversity between
>our two great nations )
>
>> No, it doesn't, so you have no constitutional right to keep
>> them for such a purpose. Arming a militia is all your constitution is
>> interested in.
>>
>
>Google "The Embarrassing Second" some time. Good story, there.
>

Got it, but it is a bit dense and not very well written. I'll try to
wade through it later.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:15:50 -0400, Les Cargill >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
><snip>
>>
>> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia.
>
>That interpretation has been deprecated by DC v Heller.
>
Yes, I see that. Clearly the original writers put that bit in just for
fun.

>> That being the
>> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>
>Yes, but our system is such that we must show the need to
>*prohibit* domestic ownership.
>

The need to do that is clear - the average person is unable to deal
safely with a weapon. And the psychopath should be separated from
weapons as far as possible

>And Hank said it - dope is both illegal and universal. Bada
>bing.
>
>> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>> distributed in time of trouble.
>>
>
>Not feasibly, no. Best guess is around 350 million guns in
>the US.
>

More than one per person. Good grief!

d

[Arkansan Raider]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:25:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>>> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
>>> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
>>> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
>>> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>>>
>>> d
>> You want a stronger correlation than that?
>>
>> When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.
>>
>> Now that there are restrictions, schools are getting shot up on a
>> regular basis.
>>
>> Water seeks the path of least resistance. So do psychopaths. In these
>> cases, folks who want to do the most damage with a gun go where there
>> are no guns. Simple enough, actually.
>
> Were there previously more guns in schools to dissuade psycos?

Heck, yeah.

I remember when I was in high school (San Lorenzo Valley H.S., 1985), we
had guys who kept shotguns in window racks in their pickup trucks
because they were going dove hunting after school. That's only 25 years ago.

Try that now, you'd have the entire neighborhood on police/SWAT lockdown.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:51:34 -0400, Les Cargill >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>>>> if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>>>> years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>>>> shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>>> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
>>> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
>>> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
>>> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> It's far too late for that. It simply cannot be done on about
>> three different levels:
>>
>
> I'm sure you are right, unfortunately.
>
>> - The total number of guns "in the wild" would take a really
>> long time to find and destroy.
>> - People *like* guns, so any such legislative effort is most
>> likely doomed.
>
> What's to like? It is a tool with a single purpose - making people
> very miserable.
>
>> - The vast majority - and I mean Vast - of guns molder peacefully
>> in closets or gun safes, and are almost never even fired.
>>
>
> Of course. But did you know that of gun deaths that occur in the USA,
> most years more than 80% of people are shot with their own weapon for
> a variety of reasons, cleaning accidents, suicide and intruders
> disarming and killing the householder being the commonest?
>
>> I'm not convinced that this *should* be done - at least what
>> I've seen indicates there's a rough correlation between people
>> having a normal, working relationship with guns as tools and
>> not using them on each other.
>>
> It isn't the normal people we are talking about here, you know...
>
>> I don't know what happened to it, but there was a big flap in
>> Britain about the terrors of "knife violence" over
>> the last few years. Whether that seems silly or not probably
>> depends on who you are....
>
> The knife thing seems to have died down lately, but there is a big
> difference. At least a knife is a strictly local weapon - you can only
> hurt someone you can reach. A gun is indiscriminate and can harm a
> great many more people during one attack.
>
> d

Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
is pulled.

People are the problem here, not the gun.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:55:19 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't
>>>>> hypocrites, there would still be Bad People out there
>>>>> trying to sell them drugs.
>>>> Many if not most of drugs that are ruining the world today (cannabis,
>>>> alcohol, opiates and cocaine derivatives) in highly purified forms have been
>>>> around for 100 years or more. Alcohol has been around for 1,000s of years.
>>>> Their physical supplies can be virtually unlimited. The supply chain for
>>>> them is highly flexible - it basically meets whatever demand exists. In the
>>>> end, the only thing that has changed, is the nature and volume of the
>>>> demand. The current level of demand was stimulated by the media in the late
>>>> 1950s and early 1960s through the 90s, and even now. The media is just an
>>>> expression of the culture.
>>> Cannabis is ruining nothing but our prison and enforcement budgets.
>>> Nixon's Blue Ribbon Committee, a bunch of extremely conservative cats,
>>> came back with the recommendation to legalize it. The assistant attorney
>>> general resigned when Nixon refused to do that.
>>>
>>> Cannabis was made illegal in order to protect the Hearst's investment in
>>> forest land to provide trees for making paper and the DuPont's
>>> investment in chemicals to process pulp. The collusion of press and big
>>> money to alarm a public and lobby "legislators" accomplished this.
>>>
>>> Nixon's boys noted that there are 5000 years of written history of human
>>> cannabis use and no record of a death caused by it.
>>>
>>> Part of our problem with drugs is our fear of them and our intense
>>> desire to control them by making them illegal. The black markets created
>>> thereby have powerful incentive to exploit explosive profits, and the
>>> allure of faux rebellion via usage bring us the just desserts of our own
>>> stupidity.
>>>
>>> Cannabis is a seriously effective pain reliever, and a wonderful
>>> recreational drug. I speak from first hand experience in both regards.
>>> It is dangerous because it is illegal.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, over in the liquor cabinet...
>>>
>> I certainly would have fewer peeps to talk to if cannabis were legal.
>> Something like 90% of folks in jail are there because of drugs.
>>
>> I'm very much opposed to drug use, but I think legalizing them would
>> take us back to the days when the druggies and the drunks weeded (ya'
>> like that?) themselves out of the gene pool. Unfortunately, we would
>> still lose our Edgar Allen Poes, but we had a stronger society back
>> then, too.
>>
>
> I would like to see all (and I do mean all) drugs legalized. I don't
> use any of them, even alcohol, personally but I think the law has
> better things to do. Also Afghanistan would become governable
> overnight. Farmers could grow their poppies and supply the legitimate
> pharmaceutical drug trade. Their earnings would rise a hundredfold and
> the Taleban would find themselves isolated. Nobody loses - except the
> lowlife pushers, of course.
>
> d

Outstanding point. And imagine the local revenues from existing sales
taxes, once applied to legalized drugs.

Again, I'm rather conflicted about it, given my distaste for those
drugs, but I'm afraid that our current cure is worse than the disease.

---Jeff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
>only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
>is pulled.
>
>People are the problem here, not the gun.

Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
We aren't talking about snipers, you know.

d

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:15:50 -0400, Les Cargill >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> <snip>
>>> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>>> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia.
>> That interpretation has been deprecated by DC v Heller.
>>
> Yes, I see that. Clearly the original writers put that bit in just for
> fun.
>
>>> That being the
>>> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>> Yes, but our system is such that we must show the need to
>> *prohibit* domestic ownership.
>>
>
> The need to do that is clear - the average person is unable to deal
> safely with a weapon.

Seriously? Wow. I know many *children* who handle firearms safely
because their parents taught 'em right.

> And the psychopath should be separated from
> weapons as far as possible

And when they are *proven* to be psychopaths during due process, they
*are* separated from their weaponry.

You just can't take things away from folks without due process in this
country.

>
>> And Hank said it - dope is both illegal and universal. Bada
>> bing.
>>
>>> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>>> distributed in time of trouble.
>>>
>> Not feasibly, no. Best guess is around 350 million guns in
>> the US.
>>
>
> More than one per person. Good grief!
>
> d

Yeah, baby! I have three. Heh.

But don't dare consider me a 'normal' person... ;^)

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
>> only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
>> is pulled.
>>
>> People are the problem here, not the gun.
>
> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
>
> d

We ban people all the time.

It's called "incarceration."

I know a whole bunch of 'em.

Funny how we didn't use to have that problem much when guns were plentiful.

No offense Don, I know you have fixing the problem at heart, but I think
you're heading at this from the wrong perspective. Things aren't at
fault. People are.

---Jeff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:51:59 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:15:50 -0400, Les Cargill >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> <snip>
>>>> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>>>> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia.
>>> That interpretation has been deprecated by DC v Heller.
>>>
>> Yes, I see that. Clearly the original writers put that bit in just for
>> fun.
>>
>>>> That being the
>>>> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>>> Yes, but our system is such that we must show the need to
>>> *prohibit* domestic ownership.
>>>
>>
>> The need to do that is clear - the average person is unable to deal
>> safely with a weapon.
>
>Seriously? Wow. I know many *children* who handle firearms safely
>because their parents taught 'em right.
>

Their stories appear weekly "LIttle Abner knew how to handle a gun
safely, I have no idea how this could have happened".

>> And the psychopath should be separated from
>> weapons as far as possible
>
>And when they are *proven* to be psychopaths during due process, they
>*are* separated from their weaponry.
>

Their weaponry is not the problem. When there are so many guns all
over the place, you can't keep the two apart forever.

>You just can't take things away from folks without due process in this
>country.
>
>>
>>> And Hank said it - dope is both illegal and universal. Bada
>>> bing.
>>>
>>>> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>>>> distributed in time of trouble.
>>>>
>>> Not feasibly, no. Best guess is around 350 million guns in
>>> the US.
>>>
>>
>> More than one per person. Good grief!
>>
>> d
>
>Yeah, baby! I have three. Heh.
>
>But don't dare consider me a 'normal' person... ;^)
>

Wouldn't dream of it ;-)

OK confession time. I used to own shotguns (before they were regulated
as tightly as hand guns) on a farm. I shot vermin, and also all the
clay disciplines in competition. But here's the thing. I had to be
licensed by the police, and part of the process was a thorough
questioning. If I had even hinted at a word like "protection" or
anything similar, my license would have been gone in an instant, and I
would be on a national ****-list of potential murderers.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
>>> only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
>>> is pulled.
>>>
>>> People are the problem here, not the gun.
>>
>> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
>> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
>> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
>> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
>>
>> d
>
>We ban people all the time.
>
>It's called "incarceration."
>
>I know a whole bunch of 'em.
>
>Funny how we didn't use to have that problem much when guns were plentiful.
>
>No offense Don, I know you have fixing the problem at heart, but I think
>you're heading at this from the wrong perspective. Things aren't at
>fault. People are.
>

I'm not talking about what is at fault.

Psycho + gun = mass murder. Psycho + no gun = everyone gets to go
home.

It genuinely is as simple as that.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

> When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.
> Now that there are restrictions, schools are getting shot up on a
> regular basis.

> Water seeks the path of least resistance. So do psychopaths. In these
> cases, folks who want to do the most damage with a gun go where there
> are no guns. Simple enough, actually.

Yes, but... When guns were plentiful, were they plentiful in the schools?

[William Sommerwerck]

> I'm not convinced that this *should* be done - at least what
> I've seen indicates there's a rough correlation between people
> having a normal, working relationship with guns as tools and
> not using them on each other.

This is one of the reasons I feel gun operation should be taught in schools.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I would like to see all (and I do mean all) drugs legalized. I don't
>> use any of them, even alcohol, personally but I think the law has
>> better things to do. Also Afghanistan would become governable
>> overnight. Farmers could grow their poppies and supply the legitimate
>> pharmaceutical drug trade. Their earnings would rise a hundredfold and
>> the Taleban would find themselves isolated. Nobody loses - except the
>> lowlife pushers, of course.

> Outstanding point. And imagine the local revenues from existing sales
> taxes, once applied to legalized drugs.
> Again, I'm rather conflicted about it, given my distaste for those
> drugs, but I'm afraid that our current cure is worse than the disease.

If you legalized drugs -- to get rid of the criminal element -- you'd have
to start selling them at retail! Think about the consequences of that.

I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug dealers robbing drug
stores to remove the now-licit drugs, or even bombing them or burning them
down.

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:51:59 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:15:50 -0400, Les Cargill >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>>>>> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia.
>>>> That interpretation has been deprecated by DC v Heller.
>>>>
>>> Yes, I see that. Clearly the original writers put that bit in just for
>>> fun.
>>>
>>>>> That being the
>>>>> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>>>> Yes, but our system is such that we must show the need to
>>>> *prohibit* domestic ownership.
>>>>
>>> The need to do that is clear - the average person is unable to deal
>>> safely with a weapon.
>> Seriously? Wow. I know many *children* who handle firearms safely
>> because their parents taught 'em right.
>>
>
> Their stories appear weekly "LIttle Abner knew how to handle a gun
> safely, I have no idea how this could have happened".
>

Really? I hear many more about how violence was averted because the
homeowner had a gun. Most of the time, said homeowner didn't even have
to actually fire it...


>>> And the psychopath should be separated from
>>> weapons as far as possible
>> And when they are *proven* to be psychopaths during due process, they
>> *are* separated from their weaponry.
>>
>
> Their weaponry is not the problem. When there are so many guns all
> over the place, you can't keep the two apart forever.

Sure you can. Again, it's called "incarceration."

>
>> You just can't take things away from folks without due process in this
>> country.
>>
>>>> And Hank said it - dope is both illegal and universal. Bada
>>>> bing.
>>>>
>>>>> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>>>>> distributed in time of trouble.
>>>>>
>>>> Not feasibly, no. Best guess is around 350 million guns in
>>>> the US.
>>>>
>>> More than one per person. Good grief!
>>>
>>> d
>> Yeah, baby! I have three. Heh.
>>
>> But don't dare consider me a 'normal' person... ;^)
>>
>
> Wouldn't dream of it ;-)

<g>

>
> OK confession time. I used to own shotguns (before they were regulated
> as tightly as hand guns) on a farm. I shot vermin, and also all the
> clay disciplines in competition. But here's the thing. I had to be
> licensed by the police, and part of the process was a thorough
> questioning. If I had even hinted at a word like "protection" or
> anything similar, my license would have been gone in an instant, and I
> would be on a national ****-list of potential murderers.
>
> d

That's a problem. Here in the U.S., we've been historically taught
self-reliance--police typically show up *after* the fact, and the crime
has already been committed. You *cannot* depend on the police to prevent
a crime. This isn't anything against LEOs, this is just how the system
is set up.

---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

> "gun control = criminals and the police vs. the unarmed."

What do you mean by gun control? Keeping guns away from convicted criminals,
psychos, etc, is a form of gun control.

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings. Now
>> that there are restrictions, schools are getting shot up on a
>> regular basis.
>
>> Water seeks the path of least resistance. So do psychopaths. In
>> these cases, folks who want to do the most damage with a gun go
>> where there are no guns. Simple enough, actually.
>
> Yes, but... When guns were plentiful, were they plentiful in the
> schools?
>
>

See my post just above this one in this thread.

Crap. Let me repost it for you--no need to redirect you...


> Were there previously more guns in schools to dissuade psycos?

Heck, yeah.

I remember when I was in high school (San Lorenzo Valley H.S., 1985), we
had guys who kept shotguns in window racks in their pickup trucks
because they were going dove hunting after school. That's only 25 years ago.

Try that now, you'd have the entire neighborhood on police/SWAT lockdown.



---Jeff

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:44:46 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> I would like to see all (and I do mean all) drugs legalized. I don't
>>> use any of them, even alcohol, personally but I think the law has
>>> better things to do. Also Afghanistan would become governable
>>> overnight. Farmers could grow their poppies and supply the legitimate
>>> pharmaceutical drug trade. Their earnings would rise a hundredfold and
>>> the Taleban would find themselves isolated. Nobody loses - except the
>>> lowlife pushers, of course.
>
>> Outstanding point. And imagine the local revenues from existing sales
>> taxes, once applied to legalized drugs.
>> Again, I'm rather conflicted about it, given my distaste for those
>> drugs, but I'm afraid that our current cure is worse than the disease.
>
>If you legalized drugs -- to get rid of the criminal element -- you'd have
>to start selling them at retail! Think about the consequences of that.
>

We already do with two of the most powerful, unpleasant drugs in
existence - nicotine and alcohol. The rest are minor problems by
comparison, the currently associated problems being mostly linked to
their production at a standard below pharmacopoeia purity.

>I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug dealers robbing drug
>stores to remove the now-licit drugs, or even bombing them or burning them
>down.
>

Wouldn't happen. They would have to go and do something else. Any
problems would be transient.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
>>>> only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
>>>> is pulled.
>>>>
>>>> People are the problem here, not the gun.
>>> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
>>> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
>>> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
>>> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
>>>
>>> d
>> We ban people all the time.
>>
>> It's called "incarceration."
>>
>> I know a whole bunch of 'em.
>>
>> Funny how we didn't use to have that problem much when guns were plentiful.
>>
>> No offense Don, I know you have fixing the problem at heart, but I think
>> you're heading at this from the wrong perspective. Things aren't at
>> fault. People are.
>>
>
> I'm not talking about what is at fault.
>
> Psycho + gun = mass murder. Psycho + no gun = everyone gets to go
> home.
>
> It genuinely is as simple as that.
>
> d

Not really.

I can make some fairly powerful explosives with household ingredients
and plans available on the internet and public libraries. And peeps who
can cook meth know how to make explosives without access to those
aforementioned plans.

Also, it's not all that hard to craft a firearm, as previously noted by
another poster.

Psychopaths are not incapable of craftiness. Only incapable of feeling
remorse.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that this *should* be done - at least what
>> I've seen indicates there's a rough correlation between people
>> having a normal, working relationship with guns as tools and
>> not using them on each other.
>
> This is one of the reasons I feel gun operation should be taught in schools.
>
>

Preach.

I wholly concur, as would Thomas Jefferson.

---Jeff

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:52:55 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
>>>>> only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
>>>>> is pulled.
>>>>>
>>>>> People are the problem here, not the gun.
>>>> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
>>>> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
>>>> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
>>>> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>> We ban people all the time.
>>>
>>> It's called "incarceration."
>>>
>>> I know a whole bunch of 'em.
>>>
>>> Funny how we didn't use to have that problem much when guns were plentiful.
>>>
>>> No offense Don, I know you have fixing the problem at heart, but I think
>>> you're heading at this from the wrong perspective. Things aren't at
>>> fault. People are.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not talking about what is at fault.
>>
>> Psycho + gun = mass murder. Psycho + no gun = everyone gets to go
>> home.
>>
>> It genuinely is as simple as that.
>>
>> d
>
>Not really.
>
>I can make some fairly powerful explosives with household ingredients
>and plans available on the internet and public libraries. And peeps who
>can cook meth know how to make explosives without access to those
>aforementioned plans.
>
>Also, it's not all that hard to craft a firearm, as previously noted by
>another poster.
>
>Psychopaths are not incapable of craftiness. Only incapable of feeling
>remorse.
>

All that is true more or less only at the hypothetical level. In
practice it doesn't happen - it certainly never has here, despite the
difficulty your average psycho has in getting hold of a gun. In
general, if it isn't quick and simple, they don't bother.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:52:55 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
>>>>>> only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
>>>>>> is pulled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People are the problem here, not the gun.
>>>>> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
>>>>> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
>>>>> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
>>>>> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>> We ban people all the time.
>>>>
>>>> It's called "incarceration."
>>>>
>>>> I know a whole bunch of 'em.
>>>>
>>>> Funny how we didn't use to have that problem much when guns were plentiful.
>>>>
>>>> No offense Don, I know you have fixing the problem at heart, but I think
>>>> you're heading at this from the wrong perspective. Things aren't at
>>>> fault. People are.
>>>>
>>> I'm not talking about what is at fault.
>>>
>>> Psycho + gun = mass murder. Psycho + no gun = everyone gets to go
>>> home.
>>>
>>> It genuinely is as simple as that.
>>>
>>> d
>> Not really.
>>
>> I can make some fairly powerful explosives with household ingredients
>> and plans available on the internet and public libraries. And peeps who
>> can cook meth know how to make explosives without access to those
>> aforementioned plans.
>>
>> Also, it's not all that hard to craft a firearm, as previously noted by
>> another poster.
>>
>> Psychopaths are not incapable of craftiness. Only incapable of feeling
>> remorse.
>>
>
> All that is true more or less only at the hypothetical level. In
> practice it doesn't happen - it certainly never has here, despite the
> difficulty your average psycho has in getting hold of a gun. In
> general, if it isn't quick and simple, they don't bother.
>
> d

Coke bottle bomb = quick + simple.

That's just for starters.

And as I recall, the IRA bothered quite a bit.

---Jeff

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:14:39 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>> All that is true more or less only at the hypothetical level. In
>> practice it doesn't happen - it certainly never has here, despite the
>> difficulty your average psycho has in getting hold of a gun. In
>> general, if it isn't quick and simple, they don't bother.
>>
>> d
>
>Coke bottle bomb = quick + simple.
>
>That's just for starters.
>
>And as I recall, the IRA bothered quite a bit.
>
>---Jeff

Are you really going to compare the IRA with a disgruntled schoolboy?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Tue 2037-Sep-01 09:41, Scott Dorsey writes:

>>Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>>permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
>>case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>>All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>>distributed in time of trouble.

> There's an inherent conflict here. See, the Constitution was
> written by a bunch of revolutionaries who didn't trust the
> government, and wanted to protect citizens from the possibility of a
> government gone wrong. The people who legally interpret it are
> members of the government.

INdeed, but those folks put some thought into it, some real
serious thought, i.e. checks and balances, etc.

> It's a nice system. A lot of thought was put into making it as fair
> and even-handed as possible, and while it's not always perfect it
> seems better than the alternatives.

INdeed it does, and this libertarian leaning old geezer
would like to keep it that way.

"gun control = criminals and the police vs. the unarmed."


Regards,
Richard
.... A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:51:59 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>You just can't take things away from folks without due process in this
>country.

Sure you can. Just whisper "terrorism" and you can do whatever you
like. It's even more powerful than "think of the children!". In
the UK we've even got a special law allowing the forces of law & order
to do just about anything they want. Isn't there something about
"homeland security" over there too?

[Les Cargill]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> I would like to see all (and I do mean all) drugs legalized. I don't
>>> use any of them, even alcohol, personally but I think the law has
>>> better things to do. Also Afghanistan would become governable
>>> overnight. Farmers could grow their poppies and supply the legitimate
>>> pharmaceutical drug trade. Their earnings would rise a hundredfold and
>>> the Taleban would find themselves isolated. Nobody loses - except the
>>> lowlife pushers, of course.
>
>> Outstanding point. And imagine the local revenues from existing sales
>> taxes, once applied to legalized drugs.
>> Again, I'm rather conflicted about it, given my distaste for those
>> drugs, but I'm afraid that our current cure is worse than the disease.
>
> If you legalized drugs -- to get rid of the criminal element -- you'd have
> to start selling them at retail! Think about the consequences of that.
>

Yes. It would make every tinpot Al Capone clone presently in
the drug business go out of business immediately.

> I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug dealers robbing drug
> stores to remove the now-licit drugs, or even bombing them or burning them
> down.
>
>

Nope. Would be much like liquor stores are now.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.
>> Now that there are restrictions, schools are getting shot up on a
>> regular basis.
>
>> Water seeks the path of least resistance. So do psychopaths. In these
>> cases, folks who want to do the most damage with a gun go where there
>> are no guns. Simple enough, actually.
>
> Yes, but... When guns were plentiful, were they plentiful in the schools?
>
>

In the parking lot at least. Some might have used 'em for show and
tell.

This a mere thirty or so years ago, too.

--
Les Cargill

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:14:39 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>>> All that is true more or less only at the hypothetical level. In
>>> practice it doesn't happen - it certainly never has here, despite the
>>> difficulty your average psycho has in getting hold of a gun. In
>>> general, if it isn't quick and simple, they don't bother.
>>>
>>> d
>> Coke bottle bomb = quick + simple.
>>
>> That's just for starters.
>>
>> And as I recall, the IRA bothered quite a bit.
>>
>> ---Jeff
>
> Are you really going to compare the IRA with a disgruntled schoolboy?
>
> d

Hell, yes.

IIRC, they were rather disgruntled.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:51:59 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> You just can't take things away from folks without due process in this
>> country.
>
> Sure you can. Just whisper "terrorism" and you can do whatever you
> like. It's even more powerful than "think of the children!". In
> the UK we've even got a special law allowing the forces of law & order
> to do just about anything they want. Isn't there something about
> "homeland security" over there too?

Shhhhh... They're listening.

I should have said, "that's how it's *supposed* to work, anyway."

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Les Cargill wrote:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> If you legalized drugs -- to get rid of the criminal element -- you'd
>> have
>> to start selling them at retail! Think about the consequences of that.
>>
>
> Yes. It would make every tinpot Al Capone clone presently in
> the drug business go out of business immediately.

Nice.

---Jeff

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.
>> Now that there are restrictions, schools are getting shot up on a
>> regular basis.
>
>> Water seeks the path of least resistance. So do psychopaths. In these
>> cases, folks who want to do the most damage with a gun go where there
>> are no guns. Simple enough, actually.
>
> Yes, but... When guns were plentiful, were they plentiful in the schools?
>
>
Come to think of it, I brought a rifle to school
as part of a Halloween costume. Nobody said a word.


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[Les Cargill]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:51:34 -0400, Les Cargill >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:37 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not up for googlin' it just yet, but I can definitely tell you that
>>>> if you go look at each school shooting over the past ten or twenty
>>>> years, you'll see a strong correlation--pretty dang much every school
>>>> shooter was a prescription psychotropic drug user.
>>> There is a much stronger correlation available. Every school shooter
>>> has had ready access to a gun. You can't legislate against craziness -
>>> it happens. You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
>>> You need to do it sooner rather than later.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> It's far too late for that. It simply cannot be done on about
>> three different levels:
>>
>
> I'm sure you are right, unfortunately.
>

Meh. We get to be adults about it after all.

>> - The total number of guns "in the wild" would take a really
>> long time to find and destroy.
>> - People *like* guns, so any such legislative effort is most
>> likely doomed.
>
> What's to like? It is a tool with a single purpose - making people
> very miserable.
>

Not... so much, no. Pointing them at people is Bad. When you do
that, *YOU* are bad*. This means other people can point them
at you without being bad.

http://www.steveearle.net/articles/articles.php?action=view_record&article_id=18

*unless you are under direct, legally binding orders to.

>> - The vast majority - and I mean Vast - of guns molder peacefully
>> in closets or gun safes, and are almost never even fired.
>>
>
> Of course. But did you know that of gun deaths that occur in the USA,
> most years more than 80% of people are shot with their own weapon for
> a variety of reasons, cleaning accidents, suicide and intruders
> disarming and killing the householder being the commonest?
>

Oh, absolutely. This is so far beyond arguable... the level of
training is abysmal. In a smirky, Darwin-award way, though....

>> I'm not convinced that this *should* be done - at least what
>> I've seen indicates there's a rough correlation between people
>> having a normal, working relationship with guns as tools and
>> not using them on each other.
>>
> It isn't the normal people we are talking about here, you know...
>

Sure. But we can't really make the guns go away....

One difference between where you live and where I live is that
being English/British is kinda like being part of an extended
family. Murkins ride alone ( cue twangy guitars and bullwhip
samples ).

I am sure either way has a different set of tradeoffs. But it's
our mythos. I really enjoy the Guy Ritchie movie "Snatch" partly
because a fictional English gun ... thing figures in the whole
movie at a fantastic level.

>> I don't know what happened to it, but there was a big flap in
>> Britain about the terrors of "knife violence" over
>> the last few years. Whether that seems silly or not probably
>> depends on who you are....
>
> The knife thing seems to have died down lately, but there is a big
> difference. At least a knife is a strictly local weapon - you can only
> hurt someone you can reach. A gun is indiscriminate and can harm a
> great many more people during one attack.
>

Sure. But *in actual, factual truth*, an untrained person can
*probably* do more damage at the right range with an edged weapon
than a firearm. Most people are utterly useless with guns.

When they do "realistic" gunfights in novels and movies,
not x in a thosand rounds expended hit anybody. Larry McMurtry
had one such scene in "Ned and Zeke" where nobody actually hit
anything ( or clsoe to that). SFAIK, that's very much closer to the
facts...

I have never been so humiliated as when I tried a model 1911 Colt
at 10 yards. And I'm a decent rifle shot, and pretty fair with a
magnum handgun.

But I'd rather have a baseball bat than a 1911.


> d

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
>>>> only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
>>>> is pulled.
>>>>
>>>> People are the problem here, not the gun.
>>> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
>>> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
>>> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
>>> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
>>>
>>> d
>> We ban people all the time.
>>
>> It's called "incarceration."
>>
>> I know a whole bunch of 'em.
>>
>> Funny how we didn't use to have that problem much when guns were plentiful.
>>
>> No offense Don, I know you have fixing the problem at heart, but I think
>> you're heading at this from the wrong perspective. Things aren't at
>> fault. People are.
>>
>
> I'm not talking about what is at fault.
>
> Psycho + gun = mass murder. Psycho + no gun = everyone gets to go
> home.
>
> It genuinely is as simple as that.
>
> d

(Psycho + gun) + (Bruce Willis + gun) = Die Hard movie.

:)

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:14:39 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>>> All that is true more or less only at the hypothetical level. In
>>> practice it doesn't happen - it certainly never has here, despite the
>>> difficulty your average psycho has in getting hold of a gun. In
>>> general, if it isn't quick and simple, they don't bother.
>>>
>>> d
>> Coke bottle bomb = quick + simple.
>>
>> That's just for starters.
>>
>> And as I recall, the IRA bothered quite a bit.
>>
>> ---Jeff
>
> Are you really going to compare the IRA with a disgruntled schoolboy?
>
> d


I would be most happy to do so.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:15:50 -0400, Les Cargill >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> <snip>
>>> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
>>> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia.
>> That interpretation has been deprecated by DC v Heller.
>>
> Yes, I see that. Clearly the original writers put that bit in just for
> fun.
>
>>> That being the
>>> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
>> Yes, but our system is such that we must show the need to
>> *prohibit* domestic ownership.
>>
>
> The need to do that is clear - the average person is unable to deal
> safely with a weapon. And the psychopath should be separated from
> weapons as far as possible
>

Unfortunately, the actual probability that any random person
will end up on CNN crawling away from a gunman is so
slim as to be infinitesimal. It becomes like being
struck by a meteor.



>> And Hank said it - dope is both illegal and universal. Bada
>> bing.
>>
>>> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
>>> distributed in time of trouble.
>>>
>> Not feasibly, no. Best guess is around 350 million guns in
>> the US.
>>
>
> More than one per person. Good grief!
>

Yup. To get rid of them all in 1000 years, you'd need a process
that destroyed them at a rate of 40 per hour, running 24/7.

> d

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

> Sure. But *in actual, factual truth*, an untrained person can
> *probably* do more damage at the right range with an edged
> weapon than a firearm. Most people are utterly useless with guns.

Hand guns -- as opposed to rifles -- exist for one reason -- to kill people
at a distance.

Anybody can pull a trigger.

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

Bill, I agree with much of what you say. I'm only a casual classical buff,
and listen mainly to classic rock a lot of the time, but I recognize the
importance of having a diversity of musical choices, and I enjoy listening to
a little jazz, a little classical, all kinds of stuff, just to try to keep my
mind open to different things.

The bottom line is that S&V caters to what their surveys and advertisers
think they want. Classical coverage has been absent in the magazine for
almost ten years. Hell, their coverage of audio-only components has been
dismal for the last decade. They're 90% a home theater magazine more than
they are an audio magazine, which is sad and pathetic.

My second point is: 90% of the people who edit and write for the magazine
are under 40 (maybe even under 30), and so they're bound to choose articles
about the things they like. I don't think the classical music business is
growing and expanding, nor does it attract a youthful audience. Judging by
the recent shutdown and cutbacks of several LA jazz & classical stations, I
think this trend isn't looking positive.

Finally, a very important clarification: the actual name of the magazine is
SOUND & VISION (as opposed to "Vision & Sound"). You can check their website
at:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/

Longtime HIGH FIDELITY editor Michael Riggs is still involved with the
website, and I think he's one of the last older hangers-on from the original
magazine, at least from the 1980s.

--MFW

[Arkansan Raider]

Les Cargill wrote:
> Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very*
>>>>> discriminate. It only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and
>>>>> only when the trigger is pulled.
>>>>>
>>>>> People are the problem here, not the gun.
>>>> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
>>>> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
>>>> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
>>>> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>> We ban people all the time.
>>>
>>> It's called "incarceration."
>>>
>>> I know a whole bunch of 'em.
>>>
>>> Funny how we didn't use to have that problem much when guns were
>>> plentiful.
>>>
>>> No offense Don, I know you have fixing the problem at heart, but I
>>> think you're heading at this from the wrong perspective. Things
>>> aren't at fault. People are.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not talking about what is at fault.
>>
>> Psycho + gun = mass murder. Psycho + no gun = everyone gets to go
>> home.
>>
>> It genuinely is as simple as that.
>>
>> d
>
> (Psycho + gun) + (Bruce Willis + gun) = Die Hard movie.
>
> :)
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Now that was funny, I don't care WHO you are. (=^D

---Jeff

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> But did you know that of gun deaths that occur in the USA,
> most years more than 80% of people are shot with their own weapon for
> a variety of reasons, cleaning accidents, suicide and intruders
> disarming and killing the householder being the commonest?

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm


FACT: In 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides
(41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642
unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal
intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent
(.8% of total deaths).

(Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics
mortality report online, 2009.)



--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
> >Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
> >only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
> >is pulled.
> >
> >People are the problem here, not the gun.
>
> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
>
> d


http://www.allbusiness.com/information/publishing-industries/784879-1.ht
ml

Is the public's heightened fear based in reality? Or is it exaggerated,
fed by saturation media coverage that is painting a distorted picture?

Despite the frightening shootings, from Paducah, Kentucky, to Littleton,
Colorado, the numbers support the latter view. From 1992, when the
National School Safety Center began keeping records, to 2001, the number
of people shot and killed annually in elementary or secondary schools
declined from forty-three to fourteen. The drop is not a straight line.
During the tragic 1998-99 school year, for example, twenty-four were
killed -- more than half at Columbine. But the trend clearly shows that
death by gunfire in schools is on the decline.

The downward trend also holds true for other school violence statistics
kept by the center. When the numbers for total school deaths since 1992
are broken down, the categories for deaths by suicide and deaths for
"reasons unknown" hold fairly steady. But "gang-related" and
"interpersonal disputes" -- the largest categories of causes of death
outside "unknown" -- show striking declines. Gang-related deaths drop
from thirteen to one over the measured years, while deaths from
"disputes" drop from eighteen to one. Bullying, an apparent factor in
some of the recent shootings, was a factor in only twelve of the total
295 violent deaths recorded by the center since 1992.

It should be noted, meanwhile, that these 295 deaths occurred in a
national school population of 52.7 million. Each American child, then,
has only one chance in two million of getting killed on school grounds.
With those odds, a student has a greater chance of being exterminated by
a stray comet that wipes out the earth.

Other research groups support the argument that schools are safe and
getting safer. The federal National Center for Education Statistics
found that 25 percent fewer children brought weapons to school in 1997
compared to four years earlier. The study reported that "serious crimes"
such as rape and sexual and aggravated assault declined 34 percent
during the same period. Federal agencies from the Secret Service to the
U.S. Department of Justice have released reports saying schools are one
of the safest places for children to be.

"Stories about school shootings should mention these trends," argues
Vincent Schiraldi, president of the Justice Policy Institute, a research
and public policy group based in Washington, D.C. "You wouldn't write a
story about Mark McGwire's home run streak without mentioning Roger
Maris."

This is a simple matter of context. In its absence, "journalists are
scaring the life out of parents and school officials about their violent
kids," Schiraldi says. "The truth is, kids are no more violent today
than they were twenty years ago. And schools are not the locus of
homicide that the media portrays."

Certainly, media coverage of school shootings has significantly
increased in column inches and broadcast minutes over the years.

* In 1974, a seventeen-year-old Regents scholar carted guns and homemade
bombs to his upstate New York school, then killed three adults and
wounded eleven others from his sniper post on the top floor. Newsweek
carried only a 700-word story about the mayhem, well inside the
magazine.

* In 1978, a smart, tormented fifteen-year-old in Lansing, Michigan,
killed one bully and wounded a second. The story was front-page news in
the local State Journal. But ninety miles away, the Detroit Free Press
ran a much smaller story inside its pages.

* In 1988, a Virginia Beach sixteen-year-old armed himself with a
semiautomatic weapon, 200 rounds of ammunition, and three firebombs
before entering his Baptist school. He killed one teacher and wounded a
second. The Associated Press sent a brief story about the murders over
the wire that was picked up without much fanfare by a handful of papers
around the nation. The San Diego Union-Tribune, for instance, ran a
360-word story on page three.

Neither MSNBC nor CNN existed when those teens opened fire. The national
and international media did not descend on victimized towns and schools.
Words like "rash of killings" and "epidemic" were not mentioned in the
stories." `Epidemic' is exactly the wrong word to use when it comes to
school crime in the nineties," says Lori Dorfman, director of Berkeley
Media Studies Group, which urges reporters to add context and
perspective to every violent-crime story.

Experts like Dorfman argue that real epidemics, which pose far more
serious dangers to children than school shootings, go under-covered.
Consider child abuse, for example. An average of five U.S. children are
killed by their caregivers every day, according to the National
Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect. Life is clearly more dangerous
for children outside school walls than within. National education
statistics show that, at most, thirty-five children were murdered in
school during the 1997-98 academic year, while 2,752 were killed beyond
the campus.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:14:39 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
> >> All that is true more or less only at the hypothetical level. In
> >> practice it doesn't happen - it certainly never has here, despite the
> >> difficulty your average psycho has in getting hold of a gun. In
> >> general, if it isn't quick and simple, they don't bother.
> >>
> >> d
> >
> >Coke bottle bomb = quick + simple.
> >
> >That's just for starters.
> >
> >And as I recall, the IRA bothered quite a bit.
> >
> >---Jeff
>
> Are you really going to compare the IRA with a disgruntled schoolboy?
>
> d

Why not? Are we not dealing here with the acts of whackos?

I posted some stats about US school killings elsewhere in this thread.
Note the date on this next one, and the numbers, and that this excerpt
is from article from fifteen years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/22/world/protestants-now-killing-more-tha
n-ira.html

Protestants Now Killing More Than I.R.A.
By JAMES F. CLARITY,
Published: Wednesday, June 22, 1994

Protestant paramilitary groups have gradually replaced the Irish
Republican Army as the prime killers in the 25-year-old campaign of
sectarian violence in this Protestant-dominated British province.

British statistics, which are not challenged by Protestant loyalist
forces or the Roman Catholic republican paramilitary organizations, show
that since late 1991, the Protestants of the Ulster Freedom Fighters and
the Ulster Volunteer Force have been killing more people in the
conflict, which has left 3,155 dead since 1969.


--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Don Pearce wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Don Pearce wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
> >>>> only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
> >>>> is pulled.
> >>>>
> >>>> People are the problem here, not the gun.
> >>> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
> >>> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
> >>> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
> >>> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
> >>>
> >>> d
> >> We ban people all the time.
> >>
> >> It's called "incarceration."
> >>
> >> I know a whole bunch of 'em.
> >>
> >> Funny how we didn't use to have that problem much when guns were plentiful.
> >>
> >> No offense Don, I know you have fixing the problem at heart, but I think
> >> you're heading at this from the wrong perspective. Things aren't at
> >> fault. People are.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not talking about what is at fault.
> >
> > Psycho + gun = mass murder. Psycho + no gun = everyone gets to go
> > home.
> >
> > It genuinely is as simple as that.
> >
> > d
>
> (Psycho + gun) + (Bruce Willis + gun) = Die Hard movie.
>
> :)
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Neverminding yo' smiley, you are at at significant branch of the root of
the problem. The US "entertainment" industry glorifies violence in every
aspect, while the nation itself sees violence as a first resort to solve
problems with other nations, like when our oil is under their sand.

We have much to answer for yet we refuse to ask the questions. (That's
the colelctive "we", Les. Ain't fingerin' you as causal here. OTOH, I
have never seen that movie, and won't.)

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Geoff]

hank alrich wrote:
> Neverminding yo' smiley, you are at at significant branch of the root
> of the problem. The US "entertainment" industry glorifies violence in
> every aspect, while the nation itself sees violence as a first resort
> to solve problems with other nations, like when our oil is under
> their sand.

Yeah, quite acceptable to see victims brains blown out all over a wall.

But a happy nipple - hell no - national scandal !

geoff

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> > Sure. But *in actual, factual truth*, an untrained person can
> > *probably* do more damage at the right range with an edged
> > weapon than a firearm. Most people are utterly useless with guns.
>
> Hand guns -- as opposed to rifles -- exist for one reason -- to kill people
> at a distance.
>
> Anybody can pull a trigger.

I live in the woods, in a rural county of northern California.
Population under 22K. A handgun can be a useful companion when hiking
hereabouts at certain times of year and day, having nothing at all to do
with humans, and everything to do with other predators. A handgun is a
portable firearm, able to be deployed for many reasons.

And while anybody can pull a trigger, it is not particularly easy to hit
a target at any distance with a handgun. Thuggery kills with handguns at
knife fight distances.

One thing people often overlook: there are very stout laws and
procedures surrounding the legal acquistion of weapons in the US.
Apparently it is no more possible to completely and effectively enforce
those than it is to keep people from using illicit substances.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On 1 Sep 2009 09:41:03 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >In article <4a9e21f4.2447817562@localhost>, Don Pearce > wrote:
> >>
> >>Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
> >>permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
> >>case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
> >>All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
> >>distributed in time of trouble.
> >
> >There's an inherent conflict here. See, the Constitution was written by
> >a bunch of revolutionaries who didn't trust the government, and wanted to
> >protect citizens from the possibility of a government gone wrong. The
> >people who legally interpret it are members of the government.
> >
>
> Your constitution was written by a bunch of exceedingly smart and
> thoughtful men, who mistrusted not only the government, but Government
> itself. I suppose in these latter days, it might suffice to permit
> domestic gun ownership just in the DC area. That should serve to keep
> those senators on their toes. Successive governments have ridden
> roughshod over much of the constitution for far too long already,
> particularly in the matter of the separation of church and state - one
> of the most important parts of it.
>
> >It's a nice system. A lot of thought was put into making it as fair
> >and even-handed as possible, and while it's not always perfect it seems
> >better than the alternatives.
> >--scott
>
> No, it appears to have resulted in the worst of all the alternatives.
> Those all-too-frequent sad news stories are testament to that.
>
> d

You are falling prey to a sensationalist press. The point is made in
another post of mine in this thread where the numbers are shown.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> > "gun control = criminals and the police vs. the unarmed."
>
> What do you mean by gun control? Keeping guns away from convicted criminals,
> psychos, etc, is a form of gun control.

We already have in place laws capable of doing that, if it were
_possible_ to enforce those laws. It is not, and additional such laws
will not improve enforcement.

I speak as one who has legally purchased firearms within the last
decade. It ain't simple to do it legally. However, it can be simple to
do it criminally, if one is of that mind.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:02:31 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:27:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:47:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> The same is true of guns and other weapons. The
> >> >>> prevalence of guns and murders is strongly a litmus
> >> >>> paper test of the quality of police protection and
> >> >>> general respect for the rule of law.
> >> >
> >> >> Only in a culture that accepts guns as normal.
> >> >
> >> >Might be true. Don't know for sure.
> >> >
> >> >> We have
> >> >> plenty to complain about regarding police efficiency here
> >> >> in the UK.
> >> >
> >> >Do they still avoid carrying guns?
> >> >
> >> >> A small minority of criminals carry guns.
> >> >
> >> >I'm under the impression that a small minority of Detroit residents don't
> >> >have guns in the house.
> >> >
> >> >> But there is no public demand for personal gun ownership.
> >> >
> >> >In the US, if we outlawed the formal sale of guns, they would be bouncing
> >> >out of every basement workshop. See my previous comments about demand
> >> >driving commerce.
> >> >
> >> >> In a way I suppose we view them with the same kind of
> >> >> repugnance as conservative America views drugs.
> >> >
> >> >I think that as long as you can pull it off, that is the way to go, on
> >> >both counts.
> >> >
> >> >For the record I've hardly ever even touched a gun, except during my 3
> >> >years of military service. Even in the military, guns and ammo are
> >> >kept locked up except in the presence of a clear and immediate danger.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Under the terms of the US constitution, civilian bearing of arms is
> >> permitted for the purpose of maintaining a militia. That being the
> >> case, there is no constitutional need to permit domestic ownership.
> >> All guns could be safely locked up at the local militia HQ, and
> >> distributed in time of trouble.
> >>
> >> d
> >
> >Ever had a bear at your door or a mountain lion in your yard?
> >
> >I have.
>
> Get one of those little spy-hole thingies. Don't open the door if it
> is a bear or a mountain lion.

Our doors are not your city dweller solid things. We live in the country
so that we can view the surroundings. Mama bear is rather obvious,
standing at a window door with her snout sniffing the 6' 8" upper edge
of the jam. She knows we took in the dog food, and she isn't happy about
it.

We don't hide out in our homes. We live _in_ the country. We're not
looking up from the telly wondering if there's a lion in the yard.

Ever been charged by a rabid skunk? Probably sounds funny to you.
Speaking from experience, it is not amusing.

> As to that, does your constitution say "It being necessary to kill
> bears and mountain lions, no citizen shall be denied the right to bear
> arms"? No, it doesn't, so you have no constitutional right to keep
> them for such a purpose. Arming a militia is all your constitution is
> interested in.
>
> d

That's your interpretation and a significant number of US citizens
disagree with that. Please don't go talking like that in Montana. I am
not kidding. You will get your ass handed to you.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:47:47 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
> >Private firearms ownership is part of why we've not suffered an invasion
> >in a few years. Anyone who wants to invade must not only deal with our
> >standing forces, but every farmer with a deer rifle on his back porch.
>
> When was the last one in the UK? 1066? WE invaded YOU a lot more
> recently than that. Though you weren't there yet :-)

Yeah, you did. How'd that work out? Did our farmers kick your ass?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 07:02:31 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >Ever had a bear at your door or a mountain lion in your yard?
> >
> >I have.
>
> So you KILLED it?

Nope, but I stood ready and equipped to do so had events turned
differently. I am not trigger happy. I'm also not going to let a bear
break into my occuppied house if I can prevent it.

The most recent large animal I shot was a dying horse. There was no
available veterinarian within a two hour drive, and there was no point
in allowing the animal to continue suffering.

Country life is like that. In every aspect of things most urbanized
folks take for granted, like running water, sewage treatment, fire
prevention or defense, road maintenance and snow removal, safety in
relation to critters including other humans, we are our own first
responders. It is in our interest to respond effectively.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Arkansan Raider > wrote:

> Don Pearce wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:55:19 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> hank alrich wrote:
> >>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure I see a connection. Even if adults weren't
> >>>>> hypocrites, there would still be Bad People out there
> >>>>> trying to sell them drugs.
> >>>> Many if not most of drugs that are ruining the world today (cannabis,
> >>>> alcohol, opiates and cocaine derivatives) in highly purified forms
> >>>> have been around for 100 years or more. Alcohol has been around for
> >>>> 1,000s of years. Their physical supplies can be virtually unlimited.
> >>>> The supply chain for them is highly flexible - it basically meets
> >>>> whatever demand exists. In the end, the only thing that has changed,
> >>>> is the nature and volume of the demand. The current level of demand
> >>>> was stimulated by the media in the late 1950s and early 1960s through
> >>>> the 90s, and even now. The media is just an expression of the
> >>>> culture.
> >>> Cannabis is ruining nothing but our prison and enforcement budgets.
> >>> Nixon's Blue Ribbon Committee, a bunch of extremely conservative cats,
> >>> came back with the recommendation to legalize it. The assistant attorney
> >>> general resigned when Nixon refused to do that.
> >>>
> >>> Cannabis was made illegal in order to protect the Hearst's investment in
> >>> forest land to provide trees for making paper and the DuPont's
> >>> investment in chemicals to process pulp. The collusion of press and big
> >>> money to alarm a public and lobby "legislators" accomplished this.
> >>>
> >>> Nixon's boys noted that there are 5000 years of written history of human
> >>> cannabis use and no record of a death caused by it.
> >>>
> >>> Part of our problem with drugs is our fear of them and our intense
> >>> desire to control them by making them illegal. The black markets created
> >>> thereby have powerful incentive to exploit explosive profits, and the
> >>> allure of faux rebellion via usage bring us the just desserts of our own
> >>> stupidity.
> >>>
> >>> Cannabis is a seriously effective pain reliever, and a wonderful
> >>> recreational drug. I speak from first hand experience in both regards.
> >>> It is dangerous because it is illegal.
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile, over in the liquor cabinet...
> >>>
> >> I certainly would have fewer peeps to talk to if cannabis were legal.
> >> Something like 90% of folks in jail are there because of drugs.
> >>
> >> I'm very much opposed to drug use, but I think legalizing them would
> >> take us back to the days when the druggies and the drunks weeded (ya'
> >> like that?) themselves out of the gene pool. Unfortunately, we would
> >> still lose our Edgar Allen Poes, but we had a stronger society back
> >> then, too.
> >>
> >
> > I would like to see all (and I do mean all) drugs legalized. I don't
> > use any of them, even alcohol, personally but I think the law has
> > better things to do. Also Afghanistan would become governable
> > overnight. Farmers could grow their poppies and supply the legitimate
> > pharmaceutical drug trade. Their earnings would rise a hundredfold and
> > the Taleban would find themselves isolated. Nobody loses - except the
> > lowlife pushers, of course.
> >
> > d
>
> Outstanding point. And imagine the local revenues from existing sales
> taxes, once applied to legalized drugs.
>
> Again, I'm rather conflicted about it, given my distaste for those
> drugs, but I'm afraid that our current cure is worse than the disease.
>
> ---Jeff

You're both talking too much sense. Legalization would mean the cartels
trying to destroy Mexico would have to find other hobbies. Legalization
would mean a drastic reduction in prison populations, freeing money for
silly things like education. Legalization would allow law enforcement to
stand a better chance of reducing illegal trade in firearms, a trade
whose tap root sucks on the drug trade money.

However, legalization would also reduce the flow of lobbyist
remuneration and deprive many selfrighteous zealots of a national media
soapbox. This sits poorly with some folks.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> >> I would like to see all (and I do mean all) drugs legalized. I don't
> >> use any of them, even alcohol, personally but I think the law has
> >> better things to do. Also Afghanistan would become governable
> >> overnight. Farmers could grow their poppies and supply the legitimate
> >> pharmaceutical drug trade. Their earnings would rise a hundredfold and
> >> the Taleban would find themselves isolated. Nobody loses - except the
> >> lowlife pushers, of course.
>
> > Outstanding point. And imagine the local revenues from existing sales
> > taxes, once applied to legalized drugs.
> > Again, I'm rather conflicted about it, given my distaste for those
> > drugs, but I'm afraid that our current cure is worse than the disease.
>
> If you legalized drugs -- to get rid of the criminal element -- you'd have
> to start selling them at retail! Think about the consequences of that.

Okay, let's do that.

Starting with pot, the market value would plummet. It's easily grown,
extremely pest resistant, and a well known effective companion plant in
a garden. When people start talking about all the tax money to be had,
they base their figures on black market valuation. That's bull****. It's
little trouble for someone to grow enough for personal consumption,
assuming they needn't worry about getting arrested and having their
property confiscated.

> I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug dealers robbing drug
> stores to remove the now-licit drugs, or even bombing them or burning them
> down.

Without a black market there aren't any pushers.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:01:54 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>> >> I would like to see all (and I do mean all) drugs legalized. I don't
>> >> use any of them, even alcohol, personally but I think the law has
>> >> better things to do. Also Afghanistan would become governable
>> >> overnight. Farmers could grow their poppies and supply the legitimate
>> >> pharmaceutical drug trade. Their earnings would rise a hundredfold and
>> >> the Taleban would find themselves isolated. Nobody loses - except the
>> >> lowlife pushers, of course.
>>
>> > Outstanding point. And imagine the local revenues from existing sales
>> > taxes, once applied to legalized drugs.
>> > Again, I'm rather conflicted about it, given my distaste for those
>> > drugs, but I'm afraid that our current cure is worse than the disease.
>>
>> If you legalized drugs -- to get rid of the criminal element -- you'd have
>> to start selling them at retail! Think about the consequences of that.
>
>Okay, let's do that.
>
>Starting with pot, the market value would plummet. It's easily grown,
>extremely pest resistant, and a well known effective companion plant in
>a garden. When people start talking about all the tax money to be had,
>they base their figures on black market valuation. That's bull****. It's
>little trouble for someone to grow enough for personal consumption,
>assuming they needn't worry about getting arrested and having their
>property confiscated.
>
>> I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug dealers robbing drug
>> stores to remove the now-licit drugs, or even bombing them or burning them
>> down.
>
>Without a black market there aren't any pushers.

Wanna hear something funny? The UK is currently a net exporter of
cannabis.

d

[Arkansan Raider]

hank alrich wrote:
> Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:47:47 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Private firearms ownership is part of why we've not suffered an invasion
>>> in a few years. Anyone who wants to invade must not only deal with our
>>> standing forces, but every farmer with a deer rifle on his back porch.
>> When was the last one in the UK? 1066? WE invaded YOU a lot more
>> recently than that. Though you weren't there yet :-)
>
> Yeah, you did. How'd that work out? Did our farmers kick your ass?
>

Dude. You owe me a friggin' keyboard.

---Jeff

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Neverminding yo' smiley, you are at at significant branch of the root
> > of the problem. The US "entertainment" industry glorifies violence in
> > every aspect, while the nation itself sees violence as a first resort
> > to solve problems with other nations, like when our oil is under
> > their sand.
>
> Yeah, quite acceptable to see victims brains blown out all over a wall.
>
> But a happy nipple - hell no - national scandal !
>
> geoff

Oooh, happy nipple! Yum.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Les Cargill]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:57:00 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:38:12 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to put too fine a point on it, but a gun is *very* discriminate. It
>>>>>> only shoots in the direction it's pointed in, and only when the trigger
>>>>>> is pulled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People are the problem here, not the gun.
>>>>> Tired argument. People+gun is the problem every time. You can't ban
>>>>> people, so you have to ban the gun. And when it is a psycho in a
>>>>> school doing the shooting, indiscriminate is very much the situation.
>>>>> We aren't talking about snipers, you know.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>> We ban people all the time.
>>>>
>>>> It's called "incarceration."
>>>>
>>>> I know a whole bunch of 'em.
>>>>
>>>> Funny how we didn't use to have that problem much when guns were plentiful.
>>>>
>>>> No offense Don, I know you have fixing the problem at heart, but I think
>>>> you're heading at this from the wrong perspective. Things aren't at
>>>> fault. People are.
>>>>
>>> I'm not talking about what is at fault.
>>>
>>> Psycho + gun = mass murder. Psycho + no gun = everyone gets to go
>>> home.
>>>
>>> It genuinely is as simple as that.
>>>
>>> d
>> (Psycho + gun) + (Bruce Willis + gun) = Die Hard movie.
>>
>> :)
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Neverminding yo' smiley, you are at at significant branch of the root of
> the problem.

I am very close to without doubt that this is true. I think
Micheal Moore made his case for this in "Bowling" . When you
have a feature like the US/Canadian border, and on one side is
violence, and on the other is much less, the number of candidate
factors in difference becomes rather small.

Canadian media in general treads much more lightly on the
parts of peoples brains that make them crazy. What do we do
with that hypothhesis? I have no idea.

> The US "entertainment" industry glorifies violence in every
> aspect,

I don't think *this* is the problem; I think the general
tweaking of people's lizard brain in general without the
engagement of the higher functions is the problem.

> while the nation itself sees violence as a first resort to solve
> problems with other nations, like when our oil is under their sand.
>

If you can stomach the layout, the book "A Peace to End All Peace"
by David Fromkin brings detail in ad infinitum that this did not
begin with the United States. The use of force is the principal
reason we have had government in the first place, in the past. But
we're getting much more peacable as a species, thread content
to the contrary.

> We have much to answer for yet we refuse to ask the questions. (That's
> the colelctive "we", Les. Ain't fingerin' you as causal here. OTOH, I
> have never seen that movie, and won't.)
>

I have. For what it was, it was fun. I'd rather see violence in movies
than on the streets, if that's possible. Some say it is. The movie is
a rollicking bag of caca de vaca, of fantasy.

And on an interesting note - I will be moving to within 15 miles of
Blacksburg, Va, Saturday to start a new job. I will not be investing in
body armor.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> Sure. But *in actual, factual truth*, an untrained person can
>> *probably* do more damage at the right range with an edged
>> weapon than a firearm. Most people are utterly useless with guns.
>
> Hand guns -- as opposed to rifles -- exist for one reason -- to kill people
> at a distance.
>

Not much of a distance, for a slow handgun like the 1911 Colt. Try
one - you'll probably be humbled rather quickly. A magnum will be
*more* like a rifle, but not that much.

> Anybody can pull a trigger.
>
>

And miss.

--
Les Cargill

[muzician21]

On Aug 31, 8:01*am, "William Sommerwerck" >
wrote:

> I was cleaning up magazines the other day and came across the 11/2008 issue
> of "Vision & Sound"


If someone hasn't mentioned this already, it appears it's "Sound &
Vision".


> Now, which genres were represented in this list? "Surprise, surprise,
> surprise, Sergeant Carter!" It was strictly rock, with a bit of pop.
>
> No jazz. No classical. No Sinatra or Fitzgerald or Holiday. Not even
> bluegrass or folk. Just rock. (Genres other than rock were handled in
> 10-album sidebars.) "Vision & Sound" could have covered each genre in a
> separate issue. But, no. Rock is the only genre worth covering in depth.


It appears they did go back and do 50 others from different genres.
Whether there was an equal representation I don't know. Of course,
that small number is ludicrous no matter what.

I'm not an aficionado of music industry related mags, do a lot of
people really care what Sound & Vision says? I've never heard of it,
so it doesn't influence me at all. As far as I'm concerned, these
"Best Of" lists are bull**** from the outset. Someone declaring
themselves as cognoscenti.


> Why do you think this is? Could it be that baby boomers grew up thinking
> that what /they/ liked was all that mattered? That anything of no interest
> to /them/ was of no interest to anyone else? That Western musical culture
> started with rhythm and blues, and there is nothing from the preceding 2500
> years of any value?


Maybe, can't say for sure, no doubt they thought it would sell some
magazines. Think they'd have moved a lot of product if they'd devoted
an issue to recordings of the pre-electronic era?



> The people who solicited this list are cultural ignoramuses. I would have
> had at least four 50-best lists -- classical, jazz, rock, and popular --
> with perhaps a fifth for blues/folk/bluegrass.


You could be right about the ignoramus part. But then how likely is it
you're going to get consensus over what albums and artists should be
included in a "best of" category? Or if it's even a valid question? As
mentioned above, I don't. You mention Billie Holiday, personally I
find her to be someone who's exalted as a matter of orthodoxy, I don't
care for her work at all. She had a back-story that made for good
marketing - poor, mixed race, alleged sexual abuse, alleged
prostitution, etc. Okay. Still sounds like a dying alley cat to me. I
find her to be utterly unmusical. I'd wager that you like her largely
because you've been told you should, much the way you refer to the
youth market.


> This arrogantly parochial list is an outstanding example of one of America's
> major problems -- the paedification of society. (Which is akin to
> stupidification.) We have decided that /children/ should tell adults what is
> of value and what is worth learning -- and what is not.


Since at least the 30's/40's the youth market has been influential -
it wasn't generally grandma and grandpa in the jitterbug contests.
Though my understanding is there was more overlap back then. Both you
and your parents might have liked Benny Goodman and Harry James. But
then as now there have been other wares for sale. Ever been to the
music dept at a Best Buy? Huge variety of every kind of music. I
imagine if it wasn't selling, it wouldn't be on the shelves.



> Children are not only ignorant, they're stupid. They're self-centered. Their
> principal interests are food and material possessions. They have an
> attention span of a few minutes, at best. They aren't interested in anything
> unfamiliar or not immediately appealing. In short -- they have the
> intellectual sophistication of manure.


As a general trend perhaps, but there are still kids involved in
classical music, dance, etc. My cousin runs a thriving public school
high school orchestral program. There are still prodigies in "niche"
genres like bluegrass. Check out a young lady named Sierra Hull. Plays
mandolin and guitar like nobody's business, even has a popular
festival named after her though she's still a teenager.



> Simply put... You don't let intellectually immature people rewrite Western
> culture.



Dunno, there's long been horsecrap aplenty in school textbooks. Again,
how much say so do you choose to let one magazine have? Are jazz
groups, bluegrass, latin, bands henceforth declining bookings because
of Sound & Vision? Are all the season ticket holders for the various
orchestras demanding refunds en masse?


> No "primitive" society would permit such a thing.


Permit? When shall we begin sanctioning what a publication may say
comrade? If you think they're dumbasses, write and tell them. Write to
their advertisers and tell them.


> You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle- and upper-class
> families)? The parents simply tell the kids that if they catch them using
> alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded (except
> under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high school. Then they
> make it stick -- the kids don't get a second chance.



Offhand I'd say it's draconian and not realistic. I think the result
would likely be other than what you intend. And a helluva burden on
you to enforce.



> Another obvious problem is that parents don't know how to parent -- or are
> too busy to do so. They're so worried about being their children's "friends"
> that they let them do pretty much whatever they like. Parents neglect to get
> together and set community standards for behavior. They neglect to supervise
> their children's activities.


Okay so reading below...


> American culture has become almost completely child-centered. Ever noticed
> that programming on The Disney Channel and Cartoon Network (to name two) is
> not only aimed at children, but is _about_ children? Non-adults and their
> interests/activities are the focus of the stories. Adults exist, but they
> rarely are the principal characters.


The Disney Channel and Cartoon Network are focused on *kids*?? Who
woulda thunk it.

It's certainly nothing new that stories about kids are of interest to
kids. The adult world is alien to them. But of course, being the
superior parent that you are - not one of those who doesn't know how
to parent - as you've assured us in the preceding paragraph, you'd
ensure their time absorbing idiot-box material includes a balance of
others things as well.

As a side note, I think every "Guitar Hero" game should be thrown in
the fire - give 'em a real guitar and have them spend the time
learning to actually play.


> The "love" generation was, oddly, a reaction against the materialism of
> American culture, and an outgrowth of that materialistic culture.



The fact that there was yet another criminal and pointless debacle of
a war being waged by their government that young men were being
conscripted to go die in might have played a role.


> Without
> the focus on self-indulgence made possible by a strong consumer-based
> economy, young people would not have run around taking drugs and leading
> idle lives (some of them, anyway).


You should look into what was going on in the 20's. What was it you
were saying about re-writing history?


> Our lives revolve principally around the production and consumption of goods
> and services. This is not the right way to live.


You would prefer to live in the stone-age, where every waking second
was consumed with trying to stay alive? Didn't have to worry about
deodorant or paste wax back then.


> *** The way you get kids to make good decisions is to encourage them to
> discuss /everything/, then ask them questions, rather than telling what they
> must or must not do. (That is, get them to talk themselves into making the
> right decision.) It's important to remind kids that you cannot live for the
> moment, and that actions have consequences.



Dunno. You can tell kids a lot of things. You can show them dead
mangled bodies in car wreck movies as they used to do in the schools,
many of them will still speed and drink. You can tell them smoking is
bad for them, show them people with tracheotomy's and wasted bodies
dying of lung cancer, show them the blackened lung of a dead cancer
victim. They'll still smoke.

You say you're gay, does every gay person you know, fully aware of the
AIDS threat act responsibly?

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" > wrote in message
...
> hank alrich wrote:

>> Neverminding yo' smiley, you are at at significant branch of the root
>> of the problem. The US "entertainment" industry glorifies violence in
>> every aspect, while the nation itself sees violence as a first resort
>> to solve problems with other nations, like when our oil is under
>> their sand.

> Yeah, quite acceptable to see victims brains blown out all over a wall.
> But a happy nipple -- hell no -- national scandal!

It's okay to show a knife being shoved into someone's gut (or a person
cutting off one of their own limbs), but you can't directly show Ennis &
Jack shoving their wangs into each other.

There is no question that outlawing all handguns and aggressively destroying
them * would make this country safer. (We tolerate 30,000 traffic deaths a
year, ** because cars are useful.) But the problem with firearms is not the
weapons themselves, but how they're used. I'm a great believer in government
regulation -- where appropriate -- but I'd prefer to err on the side of
freedom.

* I'm ignoring the likelihood that criminals would obtain them from other
countries.

** To the conservatives who are always whining about the nanny state... Much
of this decline (from 50,000 deaths 40 years ago) -- despite the increase in
passenger miles -- is due to the Federal government forcing the car
companies to build safer vehicles (ie, vehicles in which people are less
likely to die in an accident, decapitated babies notwithstanding), and
states forcing drivers to buckle up or pay a fine.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> The US "entertainment" industry glorifies violence in every
>> aspect,

> I don't think *this* is the problem; I think the general
> tweaking of people's lizard brain in general without the
> engagement of the higher functions is the problem.

Can you really draw a distinction? (See my Amazon review of "Dirty Harry",
and the comments following. You'll have to scroll down.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/ARFCORBCTKX1J?ie=UTF8&display=public&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview&page=9


> If you can stomach the layout, the book "A Peace to End All Peace"
> by David Fromkin brings detail in ad infinitum that this did not
> begin with the United States. The use of force is the principal
> reason we have had government in the first place, in the past. But
> we're getting much more peacable as a species, thread content
> to the contrary.

There's a poem by the great cowboy poet Charles Badger Clark, "What the
Campfire Says", that suggests (among other things) that the reason you can
sleep safely at night is that you or someone else holds a rifle. Clark is
not advocating universal gun ownership, but rather pointing out an
uncomfortable truth, that we are not as civilized as we think we are. (This
poem is not on line. I'll transcribe it, if enough people are interested.
Clark's stuff is worth looking up.)

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> As to that, does your constitution say "It being necessary to kill
>>> bears and mountain lions, no citizen shall be denied the right to bear
>>> arms"? No, it doesn't, so you have no constitutional right to keep
>>> them for such a purpose. Arming a militia is all your constitution is
>>> interested in.

>>> d

>> That's your interpretation and a significant number of US citizens
>> disagree with that. Please don't go talking like that in Montana. I am
>> not kidding. You will get your ass handed to you.

> Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you should not have a legal right
> to do so -- just that you don't have a constitutional right, which is a
> very different thing.

> d

I wish you had read what I posted -- and the Bill of Rights. The latter
EXPLICITLY states that the enumeration of specific rights in the Bill DOES
NOT disparage others. People had the right to keep and bear arms before the
Revolution; they therefore had this right after it.

There's no such thing as "Constitutional rights", only "Constitutionally
protected rights". (There is a huge difference!) The Bill of Rights does not
grant rights, it acknowledges them. This is not a debatable point!

Just in case anyone is wondering... I am NOT a conservative. I believe in
aggressive, intrusive government that tries to keep people from doing stupid
things. But I believe even more in personal freedom. I draw the line at
"fundamental" points. Forcing people to wear seat belts does not infringe
any meaningful freedom. Telling people whom they may associate with, what
they may write in a book or newspaper, whether they may own weapons, etc,
are fundamental freedoms.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug dealers
>> robbing drug stores to remove the now-licit drugs, or even
>> bombing them or burning them down.

> Without a black market there aren't any pushers.

But they wouldn't magically disappear overnight. If you were one of them --
someone with no respect for law or humanity -- what would you do? Silently
disappear into the woods? Or rob/burn out the licit dealers?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 05:22:28 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug dealers
>>> robbing drug stores to remove the now-licit drugs, or even
>>> bombing them or burning them down.
>
>> Without a black market there aren't any pushers.
>
>But they wouldn't magically disappear overnight. If you were one of them --
>someone with no respect for law or humanity -- what would you do? Silently
>disappear into the woods? Or rob/burn out the licit dealers?
>

Go and find a new scam, I guess.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in
message
>>> I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug
>>> dealers robbing drug stores to remove the now-licit
>>> drugs, or even bombing them or burning them down.
>
>> Without a black market there aren't any pushers.
>
> But they wouldn't magically disappear overnight. If you
> were one of them -- someone with no respect for law or
> humanity -- what would you do? Silently disappear into
> the woods? Or rob/burn out the licit dealers?

Lets take the current vast incidence of overweight U.S. citizens as a
counter-example.

There is no black market for too much food, or food with empty calories,
fast food, snack food and the like. In fact, all of those things are
arguably being sold way too cheap, given how frequently they are abused.

There are pushers, though. Fast food stores take the brunt of this
accusation, but they are not alone. If your mom served up big plates of meat
and potatoes, and encouraged you to clean your plate, then she was pushing
food. The pushers don't eliminate the moral obligation to behave reasonably,
but they sure can make it attractive to misbehave with a knife and fork.

Most people who are overweight myself included, got there by eating more
than they need to, plain and simple. In essence one becomes addicted to
eating too much.

So we have an very large and visible addiction with lots of pushers and no
black market to speak of.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> >> The US "entertainment" industry glorifies violence in every
> >> aspect,
>
> > I don't think *this* is the problem; I think the general
> > tweaking of people's lizard brain in general without the
> > engagement of the higher functions is the problem.
>
> Can you really draw a distinction? (See my Amazon review of "Dirty Harry",
> and the comments following. You'll have to scroll down.)
>
<http://tinyurl.com/ms84tw>
>
>
> > If you can stomach the layout, the book "A Peace to End All Peace"
> > by David Fromkin brings detail in ad infinitum that this did not
> > begin with the United States. The use of force is the principal
> > reason we have had government in the first place, in the past. But
> > we're getting much more peacable as a species, thread content
> > to the contrary.
>
> There's a poem by the great cowboy poet Charles Badger Clark, "What the
> Campfire Says", that suggests (among other things) that the reason you can
> sleep safely at night is that you or someone else holds a rifle. Clark is
> not advocating universal gun ownership, but rather pointing out an
> uncomfortable truth, that we are not as civilized as we think we are. (This
> poem is not on line. I'll transcribe it, if enough people are interested.
> Clark's stuff is worth looking up.)

I am in the process of recording a CD's worth of his poetry set to
music. I have my father's book of Sun & Saddle Leather, first printing.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> >> I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug dealers
> >> robbing drug stores to remove the now-licit drugs, or even
> >> bombing them or burning them down.
>
> > Without a black market there aren't any pushers.
>
> But they wouldn't magically disappear overnight. If you were one of them --
> someone with no respect for law or humanity -- what would you do? Silently
> disappear into the woods? Or rob/burn out the licit dealers?

There is no comparable economic leverage in either of those approaches.
Burning up the local pharmacy will not restore a black market. Robbery
will get you caught much faster than peddling **** in the shadows.

I'm not saying there might not be some rough spots on the short road to
vast alteration of activities. I am saying that those temporary glitches
will be dwarfed by a significant improvement in quality of life in the
US, with an attendant reduction in violent crime.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>>>> I find it easy to imagine (among other things) the drug dealers
>>>> robbing drug stores to remove the now-licit drugs, or even
>>>> bombing them or burning them down.

>> > Without a black market there aren't any pushers.

>> But they wouldn't magically disappear overnight. If you were one of
them --
>> someone with no respect for law or humanity -- what would you do?
Silently
>> disappear into the woods? Or rob/burn out the licit dealers?

> There is no comparable economic leverage in either of those approaches.
> Burning up the local pharmacy will not restore a black market. Robbery
> will get you caught much faster than peddling **** in the shadows.

> I'm not saying there might not be some rough spots on the short road to
> vast alteration of activities. I am saying that those temporary glitches
> will be dwarfed by a significant improvement in quality of life in the
> US, with an attendant reduction in violent crime.

I would like to think that were true. But the idea of people being able to
walk into a drugstore and freely purchase not only marijuana, but narcotics,
powerful mind-altering drugs, (etc) really bothers me.

Notice what a nice discussion we're having, without personal attacks?

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Notice what a nice discussion we're having, without personal attacks?
>
>

YOU! ARE! A! NASTY! REISTY! SO-AND-SO!

PERSONAL ATTACK #59!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There. I think that fulfills the quota.

Carry on.

---Jeff

[Les Cargill]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> The US "entertainment" industry glorifies violence in every
>>> aspect,
>
>> I don't think *this* is the problem; I think the general
>> tweaking of people's lizard brain in general without the
>> engagement of the higher functions is the problem.
>
> Can you really draw a distinction? (See my Amazon review of "Dirty Harry",
> and the comments following. You'll have to scroll down.)
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/ARFCORBCTKX1J?ie=UTF8&display=public&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview&page=9
>
>

Yes, you can draw a distinction. Entertainment is about willing
suspension of disbelief. All entertainment that does not somehow
nourish the mind abuses this reflex, making people a little
more disassociated from reality. The effect is cumulative.

If anything, "Dirty Harry" is
a thought-provoking movie. Perhaps you mistake its use of an
antihero for advocacy - it's not. It's a semi-serious
piece about a difficult problem - what are the priorities
in cases like this? Who watches the watchers?

People online have a clanky metaphor rolling around - people
are sheep, sheepdogs or wolves. "Dirty Harry" is the origin of
this. It's not a horrible metaphor, just limited.

>> If you can stomach the layout, the book "A Peace to End All Peace"
>> by David Fromkin brings detail in ad infinitum that this did not
>> begin with the United States. The use of force is the principal
>> reason we have had government in the first place, in the past. But
>> we're getting much more peacable as a species, thread content
>> to the contrary.
>
> There's a poem by the great cowboy poet Charles Badger Clark, "What the
> Campfire Says", that suggests (among other things) that the reason you can
> sleep safely at night is that you or someone else holds a rifle.

I'm familiar with the sentiment if not the poem itself.

> Clark is
> not advocating universal gun ownership, but rather pointing out an
> uncomfortable truth, that we are not as civilized as we think we are. (This
> poem is not on line. I'll transcribe it, if enough people are interested.
> Clark's stuff is worth looking up.)
>
>

We are more civilized than ever. *What has changed fastest is not man,
but the tools - the mirror - man has to see himself in.*

--
Les Cargill

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
>
> < ...snip... >
>
> "Shall not" is a big claim. Government free from the interference of
> religion is also a constitutional right, and you have lost that one in
> trumps. So don't bank on any of your constitutional rights being safe.
>
> d

No, that's religion free from government interference.

However the effect has been to [attempt to] suppress
public exposure to religion. Thus freedom of religion
has become more like freedom from religion.
[YMMV]


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

>> "Shall not" is a big claim. Government free from the interference of
>> religion is also a constitutional right, and you have lost that one in
>> trumps. So don't bank on any of your constitutional rights being safe.

> No, that's religion free from government interference.
> However the effect has been to [attempt to] suppress
> public exposure to religion. Thus freedom of religion
> has become more like freedom from religion.
> [YMMV]

The prohlem is that a prohibition on establishment of religion is
necessarily a prohibition on religious influence in government. And like
Thomas Jefferson, I happen to think that's a great idea.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:45:16 -0400, Ron Capik >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>> < ...snip... >
>>
>> "Shall not" is a big claim. Government free from the interference of
>> religion is also a constitutional right, and you have lost that one in
>> trumps. So don't bank on any of your constitutional rights being safe.
>>
>> d
>
>No, that's religion free from government interference.
>
>However the effect has been to [attempt to] suppress
>public exposure to religion. Thus freedom of religion
>has become more like freedom from religion.
>[YMMV]
>

Nonsense. Obama is a far finer man than Bush in this respect as he is
close to an Atheist. But when Bush was inviting the clergy into his
cabinet and holding prayers at the start of the meeting, you were
living, very literally, under a theocracy.

And of course freedom from religion is a vital component of freedom of
religion.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:45:16 -0400, Ron Capik >
> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> < ...snip... >
>>>
>>> "Shall not" is a big claim. Government free from the interference of
>>> religion is also a constitutional right, and you have lost that one in
>>> trumps. So don't bank on any of your constitutional rights being safe.
>>>
>>> d
>> No, that's religion free from government interference.
>>
>> However the effect has been to [attempt to] suppress
>> public exposure to religion. Thus freedom of religion
>> has become more like freedom from religion.
>> [YMMV]
>>
>
> Nonsense. Obama is a far finer man than Bush in this respect as he is
> close to an Atheist. But when Bush was inviting the clergy into his
> cabinet and holding prayers at the start of the meeting, you were
> living, very literally, under a theocracy.
>
> And of course freedom from religion is a vital component of freedom of
> religion.
>
> d
As far as I know we all have the right to practice what
ever religion we choose, and that includes the POTUS
and the congress critters.

There is nothing that prohibits the POTUS from inviting
religious leaders to the White House or seeking their
council.

Heck, on Monday Obama hosted a dinner for Muslim clerics,
should I be concerned?

Are you suggesting that any and all religious leaders
should be bared from any public office as well as giving
council to any public official?

As for prayers at the start of meetings, Congress has been
doing that from the beginning.

Anyway, being across the pond, what dog do you have in
the fight?


Enough for now,
Later...

Ron Capik
--

[hank alrich]

Ron Capik > wrote:

> Don Pearce wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:45:16 -0400, Ron Capik >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Don Pearce wrote:
> >>> < ...snip... >
> >>>
> >>> "Shall not" is a big claim. Government free from the interference of
> >>> religion is also a constitutional right, and you have lost that one in
> >>> trumps. So don't bank on any of your constitutional rights being safe.
> >>>
> >>> d
> >> No, that's religion free from government interference.
> >>
> >> However the effect has been to [attempt to] suppress
> >> public exposure to religion. Thus freedom of religion
> >> has become more like freedom from religion.
> >> [YMMV]
> >>
> >
> > Nonsense. Obama is a far finer man than Bush in this respect as he is
> > close to an Atheist. But when Bush was inviting the clergy into his
> > cabinet and holding prayers at the start of the meeting, you were
> > living, very literally, under a theocracy.
> >
> > And of course freedom from religion is a vital component of freedom of
> > religion.
> >
> > d
> As far as I know we all have the right to practice what
> ever religion we choose, and that includes the POTUS
> and the congress critters.
>
> There is nothing that prohibits the POTUS from inviting
> religious leaders to the White House or seeking their
> council.
>
> Heck, on Monday Obama hosted a dinner for Muslim clerics,
> should I be concerned?
>
> Are you suggesting that any and all religious leaders
> should be bared from any public office as well as giving
> council to any public official?
>
> As for prayers at the start of meetings, Congress has been
> doing that from the beginning.
>
> Anyway, being across the pond, what dog do you have in
> the fight?
>
>
> Enough for now,
> Later...
>
> Ron Capik
> --

What is your country's dog in Afghanistan?

The pervious POTUS would have instituted a functioning theocracy much
like that favored by the Taliban, but under the name of a different
religion with a costume of business suits and evening gowns. I'd think
that certainly should be alarming to the rest of the world's citizens,
Muslim or otherwise.

Bush was hell-bent on doing his part for Armageddon. Doesn't sound like
fun to me.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Ron Capik > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:45:16 -0400, Ron Capik >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>> < ...snip... >
>>>>>
>>>>> "Shall not" is a big claim. Government free from the interference of
>>>>> religion is also a constitutional right, and you have lost that one in
>>>>> trumps. So don't bank on any of your constitutional rights being safe.
>>>>>
>>>>> d
>>>> No, that's religion free from government interference.
>>>>
>>>> However the effect has been to [attempt to] suppress
>>>> public exposure to religion. Thus freedom of religion
>>>> has become more like freedom from religion.
>>>> [YMMV]
>>>>
>>> Nonsense. Obama is a far finer man than Bush in this respect as he is
>>> close to an Atheist. But when Bush was inviting the clergy into his
>>> cabinet and holding prayers at the start of the meeting, you were
>>> living, very literally, under a theocracy.
>>>
>>> And of course freedom from religion is a vital component of freedom of
>>> religion.
>>>
>>> d
>> As far as I know we all have the right to practice what
>> ever religion we choose, and that includes the POTUS
>> and the congress critters.
>>
>> There is nothing that prohibits the POTUS from inviting
>> religious leaders to the White House or seeking their
>> council.
>>
>> Heck, on Monday Obama hosted a dinner for Muslim clerics,
>> should I be concerned?
>>
>> Are you suggesting that any and all religious leaders
>> should be bared from any public office as well as giving
>> council to any public official?
>>
>> As for prayers at the start of meetings, Congress has been
>> doing that from the beginning.
>>
>> Anyway, being across the pond, what dog do you have in
>> the fight?
>>
>>
>> Enough for now,
>> Later...
>>
>> Ron Capik
>> --
>
> What is your country's dog in Afghanistan?
>
> The pervious POTUS would have instituted a functioning theocracy much
> like that favored by the Taliban, but under the name of a different
> religion with a costume of business suits and evening gowns. I'd think
> that certainly should be alarming to the rest of the world's citizens,
> Muslim or otherwise.
>
> Bush was hell-bent on doing his part for Armageddon. Doesn't sound like
> fun to me.
>
Actually I was interested in why Mr. Pearce seems to care
so much about the religion clause of the US constitution.

As for national policy, being from the very liberal
state of New Jersey, I can say with some confidence
that none of my representatives supported Bush.

Bush is now out of office and none of your "would have"(s)
took place, so the system seems to be working. Time will
tell.


Later... [or maybe not.]

Ron Capik
--

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:16:27 -0400, Ron Capik >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:45:16 -0400, Ron Capik >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> < ...snip... >
>>>>
>>>> "Shall not" is a big claim. Government free from the interference of
>>>> religion is also a constitutional right, and you have lost that one in
>>>> trumps. So don't bank on any of your constitutional rights being safe.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>> No, that's religion free from government interference.
>>>
>>> However the effect has been to [attempt to] suppress
>>> public exposure to religion. Thus freedom of religion
>>> has become more like freedom from religion.
>>> [YMMV]
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense. Obama is a far finer man than Bush in this respect as he is
>> close to an Atheist. But when Bush was inviting the clergy into his
>> cabinet and holding prayers at the start of the meeting, you were
>> living, very literally, under a theocracy.
>>
>> And of course freedom from religion is a vital component of freedom of
>> religion.
>>
>> d
>As far as I know we all have the right to practice what
>ever religion we choose, and that includes the POTUS
>and the congress critters.
>

Precisely - and that includes no religion. So those states currently
barring atheists from public office are committing an offence.

>There is nothing that prohibits the POTUS from inviting
>religious leaders to the White House or seeking their
>council.
>
>Heck, on Monday Obama hosted a dinner for Muslim clerics,
>should I be concerned?
>
>Are you suggesting that any and all religious leaders
>should be bared from any public office as well as giving
>council to any public official?
>

No, simply that they should be barred from expressing any view based
on their religion in office. They can practice whatever perversion
they like at home.

>As for prayers at the start of meetings, Congress has been
>doing that from the beginning.
>
>Anyway, being across the pond, what dog do you have in
>the fight?
>
The fight against the barbarism of theocracy is a global one, and I
will fight it wherever I see it. Kabul, Baghdad, Washington - it is
all the same to me.

>
>Enough for now,
>Later...
>

No, simply enough.

d

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:16:27 -0400, Ron Capik >
> wrote:
> < ...snip... >
>> Later...
>>
>
> No, simply enough.
>
> d
I totally agree with you here.

Thanks for your perspective.
==

Later...

Ron Capik
--

[sslusser]

On Sep 1, 12:25*pm, Arkansan Raider > wrote:

>
> When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.
>


If more guns were the answer to the question of peaceful existence
then the US should be the safest most peaceful place on earth, right?

[sslusser]

> As a side note, I think every "Guitar Hero" game should be thrown in
> the fire - give 'em a real guitar and have them spend the time
> learning to actually play.

From my microcosm of the world this is indicative of our cultural
decline. Kids who want the coolness of being the "Guitar Hero" without
putting in the work needed to get there legitimately. On the other
side of that coin are the people who don't get it that there is a
difference between someone playing guitar and someone playing a game.

A case in point: My son enters the 5th grade talent contest. He has
been learning to play guitar for the last 6-8 months and has written
his own song to play. He practices and practices for weeks. On the day
of the show he plays his song. He had hiccups along the way but he put
in the work and followed through. I was very proud.

The last "act" (an appropriate term in this situation) were 4 boys who
had brought in their game console and large screen TV and "played" Eye
of the Tiger on "Rock Band."

They received a standing ovation and actually won the talent contest.

My son did not expect to win the show. His goal was accomplished by
playing in front of all the people that were there and I must say he
took it better than I did. I didn't expect him to win either but I did
not expect him to lose to kids pretending to play instruments.

[Scott Dorsey]

sslusser > wrote:
>
>From my microcosm of the world this is indicative of our cultural
>decline. Kids who want the coolness of being the "Guitar Hero" without
>putting in the work needed to get there legitimately. On the other
>side of that coin are the people who don't get it that there is a
>difference between someone playing guitar and someone playing a game.

Kids have _always_ wanted that. There is no social decline, it has always
been this bad.

The only thing that is different is that now we have technology that allows
people to do this kind of thing, whereas before it was only a fantasy.

>A case in point: My son enters the 5th grade talent contest. He has
>been learning to play guitar for the last 6-8 months and has written
>his own song to play. He practices and practices for weeks. On the day
>of the show he plays his song. He had hiccups along the way but he put
>in the work and followed through. I was very proud.
>
>The last "act" (an appropriate term in this situation) were 4 boys who
>had brought in their game console and large screen TV and "played" Eye
>of the Tiger on "Rock Band."
>
>They received a standing ovation and actually won the talent contest.

And THIS is because the people in the audience had never played any
instrument and therefore did not realize that was involved with doing
so. That's something that _has_ changed in the past couple decades, and
part of it is a result of changes in technology and part of it is a
result of schools having dropped funding for music programs.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arkansan Raider]

sslusser wrote:
> On Sep 1, 12:25 pm, Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>
>> When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.
>>
>
>
> If more guns were the answer to the question of peaceful existence
> then the US should be the safest most peaceful place on earth, right?

Too many other variables.

---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arkansan Raider" > wrote in message
...
> sslusser wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 12:25 pm, Arkansan Raider > wrote:


>>> When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.

>> If more guns were the answer to the question of peaceful existence
>> then the US should be the safest most peaceful place on earth, right?

> Too many other variables.

So... aren't those variables applicable to your original opinion (above)?

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Arkansan Raider" > wrote in message
> ...
>> sslusser wrote:
>>> On Sep 1, 12:25 pm, Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>
>
>>>> When guns were plentiful, there weren't many school shootings.
>
>>> If more guns were the answer to the question of peaceful existence
>>> then the US should be the safest most peaceful place on earth, right?
>
>> Too many other variables.
>
> So... aren't those variables applicable to your original opinion (above)?
>

Nice.

They would be, except some things have changed for the worse aside from
gun ownership.

Gun freedom is kind of a litmus test of a free society. IOW, if I as a
government trust you with firearms, I'm probably going to trust you with
many other things.

But since we've ratcheted down the gun ownership, we've also done some
deleterious things to our legal system, school system, political
landscape and so forth. We've also had an increase in drug use, which
prohibition seems to have worsened rather than improved.

All things being equal, legal gun ownership by itself leads to lower
crime rates. Just take a look at areas with draconian gun laws (think
Washington D.C.) versus areas with few limits (think Montana), and I
think you'll have your answer.

JMHSO

---Jeff

[sslusser]

> All things being equal, legal gun ownership by itself leads to lower
> crime rates. Just take a look at areas with draconian gun laws (think
> Washington D.C.) versus areas with few limits (think Montana), and I
> think you'll have your answer.


Which came first? Problems with guns or the laws pertaining to them?

[sslusser]

> And THIS is because the people in the audience had never played any
> instrument and therefore did not realize that was involved with doing
> so. *That's something that _has_ changed in the past couple decades, and
> part of it is a result of changes in technology and part of it is a
> result of schools having dropped funding for music programs.


Indeed. My grandparents played instruments or sang and it seemed as
though so did most of their generation (80+.) Music then was more
common on the front porch or after a Sunday afternoon meal.

[Arkansan Raider]

sslusser wrote:
>> All things being equal, legal gun ownership by itself leads to lower
>> crime rates. Just take a look at areas with draconian gun laws (think
>> Washington D.C.) versus areas with few limits (think Montana), and I
>> think you'll have your answer.
>
>
> Which came first? Problems with guns or the laws pertaining to them?

Probably the laws pertaining to them.

Every totalitarian government needs to limit the citizens' ability to
fight their tyranny. They started before gun control with sword control.

Did you know that the first gun laws were in New York? They were a
response to political pressure put out by the Mob. It seems that the Mob
was running protection rackets on the Longshoremen out on the docks, and
the longshoremen were fighting back, carrying firearms to do so. The Mob
didn't like that too much, so they pressured the local gov't with whom
they had an "in," and the laws were put on the books that limited
handgun ownership.

Then the crime rates went up, just like you expect them to when citizens
aren't allowed to protect themselves.

* I should say, "the first *American* gun laws." Sorry about that.
Didn't want to re-write that entire paragraph after I saw that I'd
missed it.


---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

sslusser wrote:
>> And THIS is because the people in the audience had never played any
>> instrument and therefore did not realize that was involved with doing
>> so. That's something that _has_ changed in the past couple decades, and
>> part of it is a result of changes in technology and part of it is a
>> result of schools having dropped funding for music programs.
>
>
> Indeed. My grandparents played instruments or sang and it seemed as
> though so did most of their generation (80+.) Music then was more
> common on the front porch or after a Sunday afternoon meal.
>

Not only do *you* remember that, but it seems corroborated by what I
learned in our Contemporary Western Music class in college. Pretty
commonplace stuff--unfortunately, we're leaving a lot of the best parts
of our culture behind. That's one of 'em.

JMHSO


---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

> I don't advocate taking all guns away from everyone. I own a rifle
> that I use around the farm. But I really have no need for a AK-47
> or a .357 Mag.

Are you aware that the Tommy gun was originally promoted to farmers &
ranchers?

[Sean Conolly]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> hank alrich > wrote:
>>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>
>>> You want to solve the drug problem (at least in middle- and upper-class
>>> families)? The parents simply tell the kids that if they catch them
>>> using
>>> alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs, they are /permanently/ grounded
>>> (except
>>> under direct adult supervision), until they graduate high school. Then
>>> they
>>> make it stick -- the kids don't get a second chance.
>>
>>William, with due respect, do you have children? It's quite common for
>>those who do not to offer simplistic "solutions" that are significantly
>>detached from reality.
>
> The problem with this solution is that sooner or later the kids graduate
> from
> high school, and then they immediately go off and do everything their
> parents
> forbade them from doing. And they do all it all once. The general effect
> is very bad. Many recover, but plenty of them don't.

Humans learn from trial and error. I think the vast majority of people in
life didn't pop from the womb as responsible people, they had to learn how
to be responsible, and as they got older they had to learn how to do this
despite temptations of "how fun it will be" or "Mom & Dad are gone, no one
will know".

For my kids I've chosen to be very forceful about the consequences of
irresponsible behaviour, followed later by redemption and yet another chance
to practice making responsible choices. And frankly I'd much rather have
them make their mistakes while they are still living at home, and young
enough to still have real concerns about possible punishment from Mom & Dad.

My two boys are grown now, and have turned into good men despite the
mistakes of youth. Not much different than I did. My teenager daughter on
the other hand ... I think I'm either going to end up in the grave or a
mental institute :-)

Sean

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:16:29 -0700 (PDT), sslusser
> wrote:



> But I really have no need for a AK-47 or
>a .357 Mag.

And, since _you_ have no need for them,then _no one_ on the face of
the Earth should have either... right?

Yes, that seems to be the prevailing attitude of the whining masses
these days.

Personally, I have no need for footballs, so I guess the NFL should be
outlawed. What else do you have no need for? Let's all get together
and have those things banned as well!

Based upon the youthful innocence of your post, I'm going to guess
that by .357 Mag you're referring to a revolver... but I could be
wrong. You _do_ realize that ".357 Mag" is a cartridge, and not a gun,
eh? And that there are single shot and lever-action rifles that are
also chambered in .357 Mag? Yes, of course you do... You have a rifle
that you use "on the farm", and rifles chambered in .357 Mag are
pretty much designed for just that usage.

I don't have any need/want for an AK-47 either. But I'm not about to
insist that someone else does not have a need/want for one... that's
not my choice to make; it's theirs... especially if 'they' are a
woman... remember, women are entitled to a 'right to choose'.

And, for all of you 'hate America' and 'blame America first'
aficionados; it is estimated that there are over 500 million AK-47s
worldwide. Your homework assignment: research their origins.

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:53:09 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:


> You can get guns out of their reach through legislation.
>You need to do it sooner rather than later.


That's way cool, Don.
You want to impose your values upon a sovereign nation;
you must have been a BIG fan of G.W. Bush's policies!

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:05:06 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>Their stories appear weekly "LIttle Abner knew how to handle a gun
>safely, I have no idea how this could have happened".

OK, I was going to ask for a year, but let's just go back six months;
please provide 26 links to these weekly stories.
Your above statement _is_ credible and can be substantiated, right?

[William Sommerwerck]

>> But I really have no need for an AK-47 or a .357 Magnum.

> And, since _you_ have no need for them, then _no one_
> on the face of the Earth should have either... right?

Right. But that doesn't mean automatic weapons shouldn't be regulated, or
even outlawed.

Legislators pass laws in terms of "right" or "wrong", without ever thinking
of the consequences.

The issue therefore is... What would happen if people could buy automatic
weapons as easily as regular weapons? Would there be an increase in murders,
or even accidental weapon deaths? Would criminals have easier access to
automatic weapons? Would nothing important happen?

The most-likely consequence is the second... criminals would pay people
without a police record to purchase them. (This occurs with regular
weapons.)

Opinion... If you're going to let the average citizen purchase automatic
weapons, the process needs to be highly regulated, with severe penalities
for purchase for criminal use.

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> But I really have no need for an AK-47 or a .357 Magnum.
>
>> And, since _you_ have no need for them, then _no one_
>> on the face of the Earth should have either... right?
>
> Right. But that doesn't mean automatic weapons shouldn't be regulated, or
> even outlawed.
>
> Legislators pass laws in terms of "right" or "wrong", without ever thinking
> of the consequences.
>
> The issue therefore is... What would happen if people could buy automatic
> weapons as easily as regular weapons? Would there be an increase in murders,
> or even accidental weapon deaths? Would criminals have easier access to
> automatic weapons? Would nothing important happen?
>
> The most-likely consequence is the second... criminals would pay people
> without a police record to purchase them. (This occurs with regular
> weapons.)
>
> Opinion... If you're going to let the average citizen purchase automatic
> weapons, the process needs to be highly regulated, with severe penalities
> for purchase for criminal use.
>

OTOH, the original intent of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment was to
protect against governmental tyranny via a universal militia similar to
that of Switzerland without the compulsory component.

Given that li'l tidbit of info, wouldn't you think that if automatic
weapons had been invented at that point, that the authors and signers
would have desired for them to be available for individual ownership?

Gotta' remember that 2nd Amendment's original intent.

---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Opinion... If you're going to let the average citizen purchase
>> automatic weapons, the process needs to be highly regulated,
>> with severe penalities for purchase for criminal use.

> OTOH, the original intent of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment was
> to protect against governmental tyranny via a universal militia similar
> to that of Switzerland without the compulsory component.

No, it's not. You're confusing protection of rights with the granting of
creation of rights. The Bill of Rights does neither of the latter two. It is
neither prescriptive nor proscriptive.


> Given that li'l tidbit of info, wouldn't you think that if automatic
> weapons had been invented at that point, that the authors and signers
> would have desired for them to be available for individual ownership?

> Gotta remember that 2nd Amendment's original intent.

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment is meaningless, because the Bill of
Rights (as I pointed out) protects the individual's right to own weapons,
regardless of how one interprets the 2nd Amendment. (I'm thinking of the
"doesn't disparage" amendment.)

The real issue is whether the government (local or federal) has the right to
regulate gun ownership and use. The answer an absolute Yes, just as it has
the right to regulate other rights (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,
etc).

For the regulation to be valid, there has to be a "good" reason to do so. In
mind "goodness" is closely related to how much society as a whole benefits
with respect to restrictions on individual rights.

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> Opinion... If you're going to let the average citizen purchase
>>> automatic weapons, the process needs to be highly regulated,
>>> with severe penalities for purchase for criminal use.
>
>> OTOH, the original intent of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment was
>> to protect against governmental tyranny via a universal militia similar
>> to that of Switzerland without the compulsory component.
>
> No, it's not. You're confusing protection of rights with the granting of
> creation of rights. The Bill of Rights does neither of the latter two. It is
> neither prescriptive nor proscriptive.

No, that's not the case. We have a right to protect ourselves from
tyrannical government that is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It's not
*created* by the 2nd Amendment--I never said that. It is merely
recognized by the 2nd.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "

"Free state." Free from what? In the context of the times--keep in mind
they just got done fighting against the tyranny of England--it means
freedom from tyrannical government.


>
>
>> Given that li'l tidbit of info, wouldn't you think that if automatic
>> weapons had been invented at that point, that the authors and signers
>> would have desired for them to be available for individual ownership?
>
>> Gotta remember that 2nd Amendment's original intent.
>
> The original intent of the 2nd Amendment is meaningless, because the Bill of
> Rights (as I pointed out) protects the individual's right to own weapons,
> regardless of how one interprets the 2nd Amendment. (I'm thinking of the
> "doesn't disparage" amendment.)

Right, Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
the people."

But I disagree that the original intent is meaningless. We need to abide
by the spirit of the law, not just the letter thereof.


>
> The real issue is whether the government (local or federal) has the right to
> regulate gun ownership and use. The answer an absolute Yes, just as it has
> the right to regulate other rights (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly,
> etc).
>
> For the regulation to be valid, there has to be a "good" reason to do so. In
> mind "goodness" is closely related to how much society as a whole benefits
> with respect to restrictions on individual rights.
>

We can't be a nanny state and be free at the same time. The two are
mutually exclusive. I think if we look at the crime rates among legal
gun owners, they're pretty stinkin' low. Someone who owns a firearm is
*much* less likely to use it in a crime of *any* kind. The only danger
to America from automatic weapons is if someone who's already a criminal
gets one. However, that danger is balanced out by the volume of legal
owners if we allow it--and right now there's very few of 'em.

JMHSO

---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

>> The original intent of the 2nd Amendment is meaningless, because the Bill
>> of Rights (as I pointed out) protects the individual's right to own
weapons,
>> regardless of how one interprets the 2nd Amendment. (I'm thinking of the
>> "doesn't disparage" amendment.)

> Right, Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
> rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by
> the people."

> But I disagree that the original intent is meaningless. We need to abide
> by the spirit of the law, not just the letter thereof.

The spirit doesn't matter. If people have weapons, they can use them in
their local militia.


>> The real issue is whether the government (local or federal) has the right
to
>> regulate gun ownership and use. The answer an absolute Yes, just as it
has
>> the right to regulate other rights (freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly,
>> etc).
>> For the regulation to be valid, there has to be a "good" reason to do so.
In my
>> mind "goodness" is closely related to how much society as a whole
benefits
>> with respect to restrictions on individual rights.

> We can't be a nanny state and be free at the same time.

Baloney. You're just throwing words around and parroting popular sentiment.
There has never been a state in which people were "free". Such a state would
be anarchic. (Anarchy litterally means "no old people" -- ie, no
leaders/rulers.) In "The Shield of Achilles", the author makes the point
that for a state to be "legitimate", it must have control over all forms of
violence. (In other words, it's okay -- for example -- for the state to kill
people who commit crimes, but individuals aren't allowed to do that.)

Do the laws against theft and murder mean that we live in a nanny state? How
about the many laws that infringe free speech or freedom of association?

These are not "nanny" laws, because we have standards of behavior that
transcend "freedom". We don't kill or steal. We don't allow people to say
anything they like, if it causes harm to others. We don't allow free
association, if its purpose is to commit a crime. And so on, and so on, and
so on.

Though there is a natural right to keep and bear arms, it is, despite what
gun-rights advocates would like to believe, no different from any other
right -- it requires responsible observation. And governments have a right
to enact and enforce laws that punish people if they don't behave
responsibly. This is no more "nanny state" than setting auto speed limits.


> The two are mutually exclusive. I think if we look at the crime rates
> among legal gun owners, they're pretty stinkin' low. Someone who
> owns a firearm is *much* less likely to use it in a crime of *any* kind.

Less likely than who? Someone who doesn't own a gun? (Look at what you
wrote.)

It's supposedly true that people are most often killed or murdered by
someone they know. This is a good argument for tightly regulating hand guns
(I didn't say outlawing), as handgun owners seem to be less responsible
than, say, rifle or shotgun owners.

It's probably true that the overwhelming majority of weapons owners are
responsible. So what? What does that have to do with the point I made? Did
you read what I wrote, or did you just knee-jerk react?


> The only danger to America from automatic weapons is if someone
> who's already a criminal gets one.

This is probably true, and it's what I suggested.


> However, that danger is balanced out by the volume of legal owners
> if we allow it -- and right now there's very few of 'em.

So, if I'm accosted by a criminal toting an automatic weapon -- or any
weapon -- some law-abiding citizen is going to suddenly appear -- Wonder
Warthog, perhaps -- and save me with his AK-47? Are you serious?

There is evidence that when people are allowed to freely carry concealed
weapons, crime goes down. If lots of people started carrying them, would
there be an increase in gun-related deaths? Possibly, but who knows for
sure?

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 03:27:56 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> But I really have no need for an AK-47 or a .357 Magnum.
>
>> And, since _you_ have no need for them, then _no one_
>> on the face of the Earth should have either... right?
>
>Right.

That's a confusing response. By 'right', are you acknowleding my
sarcasm? Or, do you actually think that anything you personally have
no use for should be outlawed? If the latter, you have placed yourself
upon a seriously distorted pedestal.


But that doesn't mean automatic weapons shouldn't be regulated, or
>even outlawed.

They are, for the most part, both. Please research the _actual laws_
pertaining to automatic weapons, rather than sucking on the over-hyped
and intentionally misleading teats of the hysterically biased print
and television media.
Also, enlighten me; what is the make and model of any automatic weapon
chambered in .357 Mag? (Although it is likely that neither you nor I
could obtain one, if the product really existed, due to regulations...
Oh, I'm sorry, you haven't yet had a chance to research the _actual
laws_ already on the books. )

As an aside, I find that virtually everyone who utlizes the term
"AK-47" in a debate/argument/"news" report, is making an attempt at
sensationalism, in my opinion. It's like utilizing the term "satan" in
a church.


>Legislators pass laws in terms of "right" or "wrong", without ever thinking
>of the consequences.

Yes, we saw that in 2000-2008. Now, in 2009 we're seeing that very
same thing quadrupled in only a few months, rather than eight years...
but that completely leans towards an entirely different topic... and
most people in 'these parts' probably think that it's all OK to do
that exact same sort of thing now anyway.


>The issue therefore is... What would happen if people could buy automatic
>weapons as easily as regular weapons?

They can't, and I'm good with the existing laws... so, no debate.


>Opinion... If you're going to let the average citizen purchase automatic
>weapons, the process needs to be highly regulated, with severe penalities
>for purchase for criminal use.

Your opinion reflects the laws already on the books. In fact, your
opinion is not quite as stringent as said laws... happy now?

[Neil Gould]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Arkansan raider wrote:
>> The only danger to America from automatic weapons is if someone
>> who's already a criminal gets one.
>
> This is probably true, and it's what I suggested.
>
Oh, please. If this was even remotely true, how do you account for those who
committed the various campus murders in recent years, or the murder of the
guard at the Holocaust Museum earlier this year (to take the issue away from
weapons being "automatic")? The reality is that anyone who wants any kind of
a weopon can get one in this country without much difficulty, regardless of
regulation. That our murder rate is the highest of any industrialized
society may not be tied to that reality, considering that the per capita
ownership of guns is lower than that of some other industrialized countries.

Neil

[William Sommerwerck]

>> The issue therefore is... What would happen if people could
>> buy automatic weapons as easily as regular weapons?

> They can't, and I'm good with the existing laws... so, no debate.

So... Since you're happy with the laws, no one should debate the issue.

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 06:11:55 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> The issue therefore is... What would happen if people could
>>> buy automatic weapons as easily as regular weapons?
>
>> They can't, and I'm good with the existing laws... so, no debate.
>
>So... Since you're happy with the laws, no one should debate the issue.

I can see my statement may have not been clear... so, I will add a few
more words to it, to try to clarify what I intended to say:

They can't, and I'm good with the existing laws... so, no debate will
be forthcoming from _me_, as I really have no desire to debate a 'what
if' situation in this case. I have seen nothing 'on the horizon' that
would indicate a loosening of automatic weapon regulations; rather,
there has been an increased effort to eventually confiscate ALL
legally purchased guns from ALL law-abiding US citizens. I have heard
NOTHING concerning the reduction and/or confiscation of illegal
firearms.
Should _you_ wish to debate a 'what if' scenario, have at it... I, in
no way, intended to stifle any discussion that you would like to
have... because, that's your choice to make... and THAT's where I
jumped into this whole thing; you have no right to make choices for me
(or anyone else) if my choices are legal, and I have no right to make
choices for you (or anyone else) if your choices are legal. Agreed? Or
not?

The issue therefore is... What would happen if pigs gained the ability
to fly on the exact same day that little green Martians landed on the
east coast? ... I don't desire to debate that, either...
but by all means, as I said, if you wish to; have at it!

[William Sommerwerck]

> They can't, and I'm good with the existing laws... so, no debate will
> be forthcoming from _me_, as I really have no desire to debate a 'what
> if' situation in this case. I have seen nothing 'on the horizon' that
> would indicate a loosening of automatic weapon regulations; rather,
> there has been an increased effort to eventually confiscate ALL
> legally purchased guns from ALL law-abiding US citizens. I have heard
> NOTHING concerning the reduction and/or confiscation of illegal
> firearms.

I'm not aware of this commie-pinko liberal "plot".


> Should _you_ wish to debate a 'what if' scenario, have at it... I, in
> no way, intended to stifle any discussion that you would like to
> have... because, that's your choice to make... and THAT's where I
> jumped into this whole thing; you have no right to make choices for me
> (or anyone else) if my choices are legal, and I have no right to make
> choices for you (or anyone else) if your choices are legal. Agreed? Or
> not?

You're not making any sense. The issue was whether restrictions on the
ownership of automatic weapons should be relaxed. My opinion was that you
have to consider the possible consequences.

[sslusser]

On Sep 7, 2:16*am, Tracy Wintermute > wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:16:29 -0700 (PDT), sslusser
>
> > wrote:
> > But I really have no need for a AK-47 or
> >a .357 Mag.
>
> And, since _you_ have no need for them,then *_no one_ on the face of
> the Earth should have either... right?
>

I have never advocated that. I think it is a good idea to not give
them to certain people though. Children, the criminally insane, people
with terror on their mind and especially the blind. I don't think we
should outlaw tools but I do think we should regulate certain tools
that are designed to kill people.

If there is no need to regulate these things then why stop there? Why
should we regulate uranium or a flesh eating virus? If gun ownership
brings down violent crime then imagine what a dirty bomb could do.
Hell, we should all have the freedom ... no, GOD GIVEN RIGHT to own
nuclear weapons in the name of peace! (Please note that the preceding
was written with a touch of sarcasm. I do not advocate the use of
nuclear weapons to solve world problems.)


> Yes, that seems to be the prevailing attitude of the whining masses
> these days.
>
> Personally, I have no need for footballs, so I guess the NFL should be
> outlawed. What else do you have no need for? Let's all get together
> and have those things banned as well!
>
> Based upon the youthful innocence of your post, I'm going to guess
> that *by .357 Mag you're referring to a revolver... but I could be
> wrong. You _do_ realize that ".357 Mag" is a cartridge, and not a gun,
> eh? And that there are single shot and lever-action rifles that are
> also chambered in .357 Mag? Yes, of course you do... You have a rifle
> that you use "on the farm", and rifles chambered in .357 Mag are
> pretty much designed for just that usage.

I have no need for football either, but football is very seldom lethal
for the spectator.

As for my "youthful innocence," I'll take that as a compliment. Thank
you for trying correcting me oh wise learned one, but I do realize
what .357 magnum cartridge is. My example was written to show "2"
variables; one of size and one of automation. I have not yet seen
anything "on the farm" that required more than the .22 that I own and
I certainly have never seen anything in enough quantity to require
automatic fire.


> I don't have any need/want for an AK-47 either. But I'm not about to
> insist that someone else does not have a need/want for one... that's
> not my choice to make; it's theirs... especially if 'they' are a
> woman... remember, women are entitled to a 'right to choose'.
>
> And, for all of you 'hate America' and 'blame America first'
> aficionados; it is estimated that there are over 500 million AK-47s
> worldwide. Your homework assignment: research their origins.

"The AK-47 is a selective fire, gas operated 7.62mm assault rifle
developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov."

They don't call it an "assault rifle" by accident you know. It was
designed with a purpose.

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:07:52 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>I'm not aware of this commie-pinko liberal "plot".

Are you aware of some non-commie non-pinko non-liberal "plot" to grant
increased access to firearms that would be illegal at this time?
Just because you haven't read statements made by the new crop of
cronies doesn't mean those statements don't exist. You seemed to have
been well informed about the previous crop of cronies and their ideas
and propositions. I'm reasonably certain that you are aware of "plots"
regarding rights (or a lack thereof) of which you have concerns, that
I am not aware of. I am not about to imply the non-existence of those
"plots", just because I am unaware.

And why do you automatically think "retain existing rights" = NOT
liberal? Since when did 'increased governmental interference and
restrictions upon me' become desirable to liberals?
Understandably, you don't know me very well, and though I used to post
somewhat regularly, at this point I only 'stop by' once in a while to
see what's up with the group. I am a JFK liberal (and I know you're
old enough to remember him), and the fact that you would paint me, or
anyone else, with a 'broad brush' is telling. There are folks these
days who call themselves 'liberal', who have absolutely no idea what
that used to mean... are you among them?


>> Should _you_ wish to debate a 'what if' scenario, have at it... I, in
>> no way, intended to stifle any discussion that you would like to
>> have... because, that's your choice to make... and THAT's where I
>> jumped into this whole thing; you have no right to make choices for me
>> (or anyone else) if my choices are legal, and I have no right to make
>> choices for you (or anyone else) if your choices are legal. Agreed? Or
>> not?
>
>You're not making any sense.

That's an odd statement, coming from someone who has yet to answer
even ONE question that I have posed to you... rather, you have picked
phrases, sentences, or paragraphs, and made side-tracked comments.

The issue was whether restrictions on the
>ownership of automatic weapons should be relaxed.

That might have been the issue you raised, but my original post was in
reply to someone who, in my interpretation, seemed to be implying that
anything he didn't want or need, was something that NO ONE should be
allowed to have. He has since posted a clarification (you may have
seen it) stating that was not his intent. You wanted a debate
concerning a 'what if' scenario... I stated as clearly as I could that
I have no desire to debate a 'what if'. You did not post "should the
regulations on ownership of automatic weapons be relaxed?". If you
did, my response would have been a resounding NO. But, you posted a
'what if'... go ahead, Google yourself if you don't believe me. At
this point, I can only conclude that you have a problem with
context/comprehension, or are just a knee-jerk reactionist to those
whom you have pigeon holed as being 'conservative'. If you recall, I
said that I was OK with the existing laws... of course you recall, you
commented on it. Did that sound like I was in favor of 'relaxed' laws?
Or that I was arguing for relaxed laws?

My opinion was that you
>have to consider the possible consequences.

And I agree... on EVERY issue, not just existing laws/rights. If you
have the time, write your senators and congressmen, and the
president, imploring them to PLEASE consider the possible consequences
of that which they are now proposing.

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:46:24 -0700 (PDT), sslusser
> wrote:

>On Sep 7, 2:16*am, Tracy Wintermute > wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:16:29 -0700 (PDT), sslusser
>>
>> > wrote:
>> > But I really have no need for a AK-47 or
>> >a .357 Mag.
>>
>> And, since _you_ have no need for them,then *_no one_ on the face of
>> the Earth should have either... right?
>>
>
>I have never advocated that. I think it is a good idea to not give
>them to certain people though.

Thank you for the clarification. Although, I don't think anyone is
being 'given' a gun... but that's just being 'picky' on my part. I'm
going to guess that you meant something like "not be allowed to be
purchased by" rather than "not give them to"...or some such. OK?

>I have no need for football either, but football is very seldom lethal
>for the spectator.

And trap, sporting clays and/or target shooting is/are very seldom
lethal for the spectator. You _do_ understand that there are uses for
guns that don't include killing people/animals... or do you not? I
think _you_ know that, but there are lemmings in this group who
absolutely do NOT. Watch for them; they frequently describe themselves
as "open-minded" or "independent thinking" or "clear-headed", or many
other variations therof.

>As for my "youthful innocence," I'll take that as a compliment.

Good, that was my intent.
I thought that 'exuberance' might have sounded a bit condescending.

Thank
>you for trying correcting me oh wise learned one,

And thank you for that compliment. However, I am not so wise and
learned, as I am just an old fart.


My example was written to show "2"
>variables; one of size and one of automation.

OK, thanks again for clarification. However, an AK-47 is chambered for
the cartridge 7.62x39... a _slightly_ smaller diameter projectile, but
a decidedly larger charge behind it, than a .357 Mag.... but now I see
your point. Also, legal AK-47s in the US are not automatic, with only
a few exceptions. If you thought I was referring to illegal guns,
sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.


I have not yet seen
>anything "on the farm" that required more than the .22 that I own and
>I certainly have never seen anything in enough quantity to require
>automatic fire.

And that's great! Would you submit, however, that not every farm is
the same as yours, nor is it in the same location as yours, nor has
the same requirements as yours? If I felt that a Ruger 10/22, for
instance, was adequate here, well, I would be overjoyed; if for
nothing else, the price of the ammo......but sorry, that would not be
adequate here. Insofar as automatics, I don't have one... I'm not even
sure whether or not I could legally obtain one. But if someone could
legally obtain one, and felt they had the need for one, I don't think
it's my place to say "I don't have or need one, so you shouldn't be
allowed to have one"... do you understand my point?

>"The AK-47 is a selective fire, gas operated 7.62mm assault rifle
>developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov."

Thank you for explaining that to these people. There are far too many
folks around here who like to proclaim that the US makes every 'evil'
weapon on earth, and supplies those weapons to drug lords, the poor,
the disadvantaged, and those who are shooting at US troops.
And I figured that, at this point, they certainly wouldn't accept the
truth from me.

>They don't call it an "assault rifle" by accident you know. It was
>designed with a purpose.

Yes, the AK, and others, were _designed_ as assault rifles. I never
disputed that. It doesn't mean there are not other usages for them.

The "green bullet" was designed as a military broadcast microphone,
but has gained favor as a harmonica mic by many. I haven't heard of
any effort to ban them because they were an instrument of the
'military-industrial complex'... but now that I have mentioned it,
watch the worms start crawling out of the woodwork...

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 03:11:59 -0400, Tracy Wintermute
> wrote:

>And trap, sporting clays and/or target shooting is/are very seldom
>lethal for the spectator. You _do_ understand that there are uses for
>guns that don't include killing people/animals... or do you not?

Those aren't really uses. They're methods of practicing for the real
thing - shooting someone or something to do damage.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Tracy Wintermute" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 21:07:52 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:


>> I'm not aware of this commie-pinko liberal "plot".

> Are you aware of some non-commie non-pinko non-liberal "plot" to
> grant increased access to firearms that would be illegal at this time?
> Just because you haven't read statements made by the new crop of
> cronies doesn't mean those statements don't exist. You seemed to
> have been well informed about the previous crop of cronies and their
> ideas and propositions. I'm reasonably certain that you are aware of
> "plots" regarding rights (or a lack thereof) of which you have concerns,
> that I am not aware of. I am not about to imply the non-existence of
> those "plots", just because I am unaware.

> And why do you automatically think "retain existing rights" = NOT
> liberal? Since when did 'increased governmental interference and
> restrictions upon me' become desirable to liberals?
> Understandably, you don't know me very well, and though I used to post
> somewhat regularly, at this point I only 'stop by' once in a while to
> see what's up with the group. I am a JFK liberal (and I know you're
> old enough to remember him), and the fact that you would paint me, or
> anyone else, with a 'broad brush' is telling. There are folks these
> days who call themselves 'liberal', who have absolutely no idea what
> that used to mean... are you among them?

Despite the fact that your writing sometimes verges on the incomprehensible,
I will respond.

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have reversed over the centuries. The
term "conservative" used to refer to those who believed in government
intervention and control (including the control of a person's private
life -- which still lingers), while a "liberal" was someone who believed
that government should more or less leave people and businesses alone, to go
about their affairs as they see fit. This why most Western governments are
referred to as "liberal" democracies/republics.

I am a capital-L Liberal who believes in personal freedom and individual
rights -- as is clear from the founding documents, government exists
primarily to protect these things. I therefore don't believe in regulating
or restricting what doesn't need regulation or restriction. But lots of
things do need regulation and restriction, and if government can provide
that r and r (that's a joke) effectively, it should. Indeed, it has a moral
obligation to do so. A just society cannot be based on "organized anarchy"
(if that makes any sense).

I should add that the Supreme Court, led by the bald-faced liar John
Roberts, seems to be on the verge of overturning a century of controls on
campaign financing. Should he -- after his extreme defense of precedence --
I will call for his impeachment. (The court's overturning of the established
meaning of "eminent domain" was insane. Not enough has been said about it.)

The Declaration of Independence speaks of "inalienable rights", including
life, liberty, and making money (the purfuit of happineff). Yet the
Constituion acknowledges capital punishment, which is the taking away of
someone's right to live. Clearly there is no such thing as a right that
cannot be restricted for a "good" reason, despite what a clerk in a gun shop
told me. * We see this argument in the attempts to overturn restrictions on
how money is used to support political candidates, on the basis of "freedom
of speech". Amazingly, the ACLU is on the wrong side in this issue.

Do I need to explain that organizations and businesses are not "individuals"
and do not have the same rights individuals do; that "freedom of speech"
refers to what you say, not to how much you say it? Elections are about
individuals making decisions about who will lead them. The NRA and the ACLU,
corporations and unions, should have little or no influence on how these
decsions are made. The need to keep the agendas of organizations that cannot
vote out of the election process must take precedence over a non-existant
"right".

To put it another way... If organizations (of all sorts) are severely
restricted in their ability to donate to candidates, or to run political
advertising, how does that infringe my freedoms as an idividual? It doesn't.

I am in favor of /considering/ the relaxation of restrictions on the
ownership of automatic weapons, /after/ a careful study of the likely
side-effects of such relaxation. I do not believe that letting students
carry guns to class would necessarily have prevented the Columbine and other
massacres, but I have no objection to a thoughtful study of the consequences
of permitting guns on campus.

There... Does that clarify my views?

* I am amazed at how restrictive the right to carry hidden weapons is,
despite the explicit protection of the right to bear arms. (I have a
wonderful belt buckle of a huge bear carrying an automatic weapon, ammo belt
slung over his shoulder, that reads "I support the right to keep and arm
bears.")

[William Sommerwerck]

>> And trap, sporting clays and/or target shooting is/are very seldom
>> lethal for the spectator. You _do_ understand that there are uses
>> for guns that don't include killing people/animals... or do you not?

> Those aren't really uses. They're methods of practicing for the real
> thing -- shooting someone or something to do damage.

Trap shooting is a sport in and of itself. Those wanting to learn how to
shoot animals or people usually fire at animal- or people-shaped targets --
not clay pigeons.

[sslusser]

On Sep 10, 3:11 am, Tracy Wintermute > wrote:

> And trap, sporting clays and/or target shooting is/are very seldom
> lethal for the spectator. You _do_ understand that there are uses for
> guns that don't include killing people/animals... or do you not? I
> think _you_ know that, but there are lemmings in this group who
> absolutely do NOT. Watch for them; they frequently describe themselves
> as "open-minded" or "independent thinking" or "clear-headed", or many
> other variations therof.

Yes, I do understand.


> OK, thanks again for clarification. However, an AK-47 is chambered for
> the cartridge 7.62x39... a _slightly_ smaller diameter projectile, but
> a decidedly larger charge behind it, than a .357 Mag.... but now I see
> your point. Also, legal AK-47s in the US are not automatic, with only
> a few exceptions. If you thought I was referring to illegal guns,
> sorry for the lack of clarity on my part.
>

I did not know that about the AK-47. I guess if I had thought that
through it would make sense that they are not automatic. You do bring
up a good point though. Legality of firearms in use. I wonder if there
are stats on firearm violence with legally obtained guns versus
illegally obtained guns.

I think everyone can agree that we should make it harder for "bad
guys" to get legal guns. But what to do about "bad guys" and illegal
guns or illegal guns in general? The ATF research says that weaker gun
laws have direct correlation to more illegal firearms.


> > I have not yet seen
> >anything "on the farm" that required more than the .22 that I own and
> >I certainly have never seen anything in enough quantity to require
> >automatic fire.
>
> And that's great! Would you submit, however, that not every farm is
> the same as yours, nor is it in the same location as yours, nor has
> the same requirements as yours? If I felt that a Ruger 10/22, for
> instance, was adequate here, well, I would be overjoyed; if for
> nothing else, the price of the ammo......but sorry, that would not be
> adequate here. Insofar as automatics, I don't have one... I'm not even
> sure whether or not I could legally obtain one. But if someone could
> legally obtain one, and felt they had the need for one, I don't think
> it's my place to say "I don't have or need one, so you shouldn't be
> allowed to have one"... do you understand my point?
>

I would submit to that point. If I lived in Tanzania for example, I
would surely need/want something that would take care of the problems
I may face there. I wonder though why one would need an Uzi or a M10
in any environment outside of the military.

I think the biggest part of this argument is our diversity. Nothing is
ever going to be black and white. In order to insure safety for all is
it right to take away certain freedoms from some? It seems that some
countries fall under the umbrella of greater good for all and others,
like ours, value the individual freedoms. Is one right and the other
wrong?

[William Sommerwerck]

> I think the biggest part of this argument is our diversity. Nothing is
> ever going to be black and white. In order to insure safety for all is
> it right to take away certain freedoms from some? It seems that some
> countries fall under the umbrella of greater good for all and others,
> like ours, value the individual freedoms. Is one right and the other
> wrong?

If there were a simple answer to that, we wouldn't be having a discussion.

For me, the fundamental question is one of responsibility.

[Arkansan Raider]

sslusser wrote:

> I would submit to that point. If I lived in Tanzania for example, I
> would surely need/want something that would take care of the problems
> I may face there. I wonder though why one would need an Uzi or a M10
> in any environment outside of the military.

Does anyone need a Corvette or a Cobra?

Full-automatic fire is a lot of *fun* and is not harmful in the least
when fired at the range. (Or the fridge or the tv... Just kidding.)

We could outlaw a lot of things based on not *needing* them. Do we need
tvs? Do we need recording equipment? Ewwwwww, stepped on some toes,
there, dint ah?


---Jeff

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:18:27 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:


>Despite the fact that your writing sometimes verges on the incomprehensible,

Sorry, I'll try to dumb it down, just for you:
The new assholes in D.C. are no better than the previous assholes in
D.C......
Different? Yes. Better? No. That's my opinion, and I don't expect
anyone around here to be open-minded enough to agree with it.
And, just because YOU haven't heard or read any of the total-gun-ban
rhetoric of the newbies, does not mean their rhetoric is nonexistent.
If you still don't comprehend my point, sue the public school system.


A just society cannot be based on "organized anarchy"
>(if that makes any sense).

It makes sense, and I agree.


> (The court's overturning of the established
>meaning of "eminent domain" was insane. Not enough has been said about it.)

Agreed.

> Amazingly, the ACLU is on the wrong side in this issue.

Not so amazing. They are of course completely agenda driven, but their
primary agenda doesn't have much to do with preserving true civil
liberties these days, it seems.


>To put it another way... If organizations (of all sorts) are severely
>restricted in their ability to donate to candidates, or to run political
>advertising, how does that infringe my freedoms as an idividual? It doesn't.

That's right, it doesn't. The problem with the most recent
'McCain-Feingold' thing, is that it still allowed far too many
special-interest entities a free pass... while restricting a select
few. If I were among the select few, I would also be ****ed that other
special-interests were still allowed to continue their shenanigans
unrestrained.

>I am in favor of /considering/ the relaxation of restrictions on the
>ownership of automatic weapons, /after/ a careful study of the likely
>side-effects of such relaxation.

Well, I'll agree to disagree on that point. As I said before, I'm OK
with the existing laws pertaining to automatics. I don't think they
need to be loosened _or_ tightened... my opinion. And, I'm certain a
whole lot of thought was already put into implementing said existing
laws.


>There... Does that clarify my views?

Yep, thanks!

>* I am amazed at how restrictive the right to carry hidden weapons is,
>despite the explicit protection of the right to bear arms.

Yes, that seems to be an odd situation. Especially considering that
many of the places that will issue a permit for concealed-carry (after
some serious qualifications are met) have no restrictions at all on
open-carry. The required training for CCW, however, really is (in my
opinion) a good thing that even non-gun-owners could well find
valuable. There is a _major_ emphasis on diffusing conflicts,
recognizing and steering clear of threats, and avoidance of the use of
weapons altogether.

(I have a
>wonderful belt buckle of a huge bear carrying an automatic weapon, ammo belt
>slung over his shoulder, that reads "I support the right to keep and arm
>bears.")

Cool! I like it!