Why to support gun control

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

We are at a jumping off point now in the ongoing effort to disarm the people. The liberal/socialist brain-washing has been so successful that, IMHO, it's too late to stop gun registration and selective confiscations (coming soon to a neighborhood near you!). That's why I support all forms of gun control, internet censorship, and mandatory national indentification systems. The only way to regain freedom is to rid ourselves of this illusion that we are free. Face it, you can't name a single item or activity in your life that is not regulated by government. It will probably take 3-5 years of a repressive totalitarian regime to wake the population up, now... The only freedom you have left is the choice of which of your lost rights you will go to jail for.

Ssooooo..... support your gun and people controllers! Let's get this show on the road before the last couple of generations that remember freedom are too old to do anything about it.

-- Tailgunner (tailgunner@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999

Answers

"We are Borg, your own individuality will be assimilated into our collective being, Resistance is Futile!"

-- (7@of 9.Borg), July 01, 1999.

tailgunner, quick cover my rear you bullet laded mad man, i'm goin' in.

a 50 cal salute smooch.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 01, 1999.


Corrine: Depending on whether your rear is really a female one, and no more than 36 maybe 38 inches around, I'll volunteer to cover it for you.

All: "There are none so enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 01, 1999.


Well gee, after a few years of THAT, what the h**l are we going to use to fight with? Molotov Frisbees?

You have to stop it now, before confiscation & registration.

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), July 01, 1999.


I'm with Jolly.... join the NRA and get vocal now. You don't have to own a gun personally (I don't) to appreciate what the right to own one means.

-- M.C. Hicks (mhicks@greenwich.com), July 01, 1999.


OK, Tailgunner, but first stash an arsenal out in the woods before gun ID/registration occurs. Sure, after 3-5 years of totalitarian rule the people will wake up, but if they ain't got guns, it won't do any good.

The Germans under Hitler and the Russians under Stalin KNEW they had no freedom -- it was not a secret -- but you can't start a revolution with just snow shovels and pitchforks.

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.


And the Russian Revolution (you remember, Communism?) "only lasted 3- 5 years" too, didn't it?

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 01, 1999.

Paul Harvey read this on his radio show: For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, Colo. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the guns. It couldn't have been because of half our children being raised in broken homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all, we give our children quality time. It couldn't have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children. It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is spilled. It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption. It couldn't have been because we allow our children to enter into virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible. It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love. It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time. It couldn't have been because our nation is the world leader in developing a culture of death in which 20 million to 30 million babies have been killed by abortion. It couldn't have been because we give two-year prison sentences to teen-agers who kill their newborns. It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud by teaching evolution as fact and by handing out condoms as if they were candy. It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions don't have consequences. What the heck, the president gets away with it. Nah, it must have been the guns.

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 01, 1999.

Tailgunner you are living proof the brain-washing is working...; )

I think I will go clean my pistol now...

dreamin' of chasin' a cat...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 01, 1999.


That's a little harsh, isn't it? I think Gunner's point is that we need to WAKE UP AND RE-TAKE THE COUNTRY, while there's still time...

(Hypothetically speaking, of course!)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 01, 1999.



Gayla- You and Paul Harvey hit the nail on the head. Now, how did this come about? And is it too late to reverse it? I think so.

Hey, I like the Borg thing! But we ain't got no lasers to slam 'em with.

Corrine, don't uncover your rear.

Gunner

-- Tailgunner (tailgunner@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.


Tailgunner

Not everyone has forgotten the price of freedom. In Australia they out lawed guns and there was no reaction (except that assault shot up 44%, murder about 2% and rape aboput 4%). Here Clinton passed the semi-auto rifle ban and we got militas. Actions speak louder than words. Don't get lulled in to thinking you are alone by watching the stupid ray. TV can give you an entirly false impression of whats going on.

Chin up, and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), July 01, 1999.


Gayla -- you were on a roll for about half your post. Then you got into abortion and other religious dogmatic issues. Bible-thumping isn't going to convince those with different "bibles" or no bibles.

All: All children are born apolitical and atheist. Then they are INDOCTRINATED ( while still intellectually helpless ) into the politics and religion of their family and institutions.

How else to explain that children brought up Christian so seldom change religion (or even denominations). Or children brought up Muslim so seldom change religion? Or children brough up collectivist (communist, socialist, fascist, Democrat, Republican...) so seldom change politics ? ...

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 01, 1999.


holly hanna i've hit the motherload. i give every crazy, mad man on this post permission to cover my rear. but you gotta line up behind "A". there's something special about "A", i can tell from a mile away.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 01, 1999.

That's good, A -- Gayla was on a roll talking about morality until she mentioned God.

Don't you get it, man? If there is no God, there ain't no morality either.

Without an unchanging, transcendent foundation above and beyond personal opinion, morality becomes nothing more than the views of whoever is in power at the moment.

That's why this relativistic age is so screwed up. Everyone's allowed to make up his/her own definition of right and wrong. It's fun at first (trust me, I know!) but it leads to individual misery and societal chaos.

Sorry your so honked off about religious views and (I'm guessing) self-righteous religious people. If you can get past the nonsense and find the real God, it's pretty cool.

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.



I understood what Gayla meant. It just goes to show where the colective priorities have focused on of late. The fact is, it is against our own law to even speak out against our government. You can't get up on a soapbox and say "down with Big Brother" without risking getting tossed in the cooler.

I think it was Seneca who said "A bad peace is even worse than war".

Hey I believe it, now try telling that to everyone who is dependent on the system. Most people say, "look it how bad the other countries have it!", never realizing that they got into that situation the same way we are getting into it ourselves. How do you go about the journey of a thousand miles? One step at a time.

How do you go about oppressing America? By destroying one liberty at a time. Today it's guns, tomorrow it will be the right to vote and who knows, maybe one day we won't even have the right to live anymore. But the point is you can't just enslave America outright. You first have to gain it's confidence, make it trust you, make it NEED you, make it LOVE you,... and then while it has it's guard down stab it in the back.

-- (Don't@tread.on me), July 01, 1999.


Unfortunately eyes_open, the majority of the country DO watch TV and DO listen to the spin from the major broadcast companies... Joe Sixpack is starting to believe what he is being told about evil guns, and the evil people that have them.

How long did they push the Littleton tragedy on us incessantly?? By my calculations, almost three months. By the time it was no longer a regular stop on the nightly news I was sick of the whole situation.

The propaganda is gaining steam in regards to gun confiscation, and the kind of spin shown with The Littleton debacle is the major push. How do you propose we try to battle this brewing storm??? The NRA seems to be hamstrung, so I doubt there will be any help there. Granted, the gun lobby is still a force to be reckoned with in D.C., but for how much longer?

Personally, I am purchasing weapons when I can with limited resources. (no, I am not a rabid survivalist) I think that in the future there may be some sort of ban on weapons, with handguns being the primary target, and I want to have my selections before it happens.

Tailgunner, if my little jibe before insulted you, I apologize, but this subject is very sore with me. I practice with my weapons weekly, and reload on a regular basis. All of my children and my wife have all had safety training with firearms and we take them seriously. I am in the process of trying to become a gunsmith, and it irks me that I have to have an FFL to practice my hobby.

I know there are posters here from Australia and England. Can you give some insight to the gun control in your homeland? I think you might be able to open some eyes on this forum....

chasin' the cat...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 01, 1999.


PS-

My parents are non-religious, big-govt Democrats, union members, gun- control advocates, and DGI about Y2K -- While I'm a born-again Evangelical, Libertarian, Pro-Life, NRA member. (Makes for interesting discussions at the family picnics!)

Not everyone falls into the mold you describe.

(However, I can't break free from the indoctrination they imposed on me, much more powerful than mere religion or politics: rabid Red Sox fan.)

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.


Gun control is a tight shot group at 100yards.

When they come for your guns, make sure to give them the ammo first.....

-- How Did (ItHappen@here.com), July 01, 1999.


A - I will include you in my prayers. You are entitled to your point of view and opinion and I will not try to argue it out with you. But - I will still include you in my prayers.

-- justme (finally@home.com), July 01, 1999.

Lots of replies, huh? Thought so.. For what it's worth, I am an athiest. politically, speaking, I'm somewhere between a libertarian and an anarchist. I'm like you, Dog, I practice every week. Ain't got no FFL, though.... I'm done gettin' permission. And I wasn't kidding about supporting controls. I send letters and email to those proposing this stuff and I tell them why. And I don't think the constitution is the answer; Judges appointed for life, congress has the power to borrow money, and too much ambiguous language. We need a NEW and BETTER plan. Remember, justice and individual freedom has never been won without bloodshed.

Gunner

-- Tailgunner (tailgunner@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.


Are you sure you guys can READ?

I didn't write it!

There! Now that I have your attention, that piece was from Paul Harvey. I just shared it with you. I happen to think he made some very good points.

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 01, 1999.


Me, I'm joining the police. Or possibly the IRS. I'm going to hide in plain sight. Why fight it? See you all in the basement... (whack! WHACK! Bzzzzttt! BAD patriot! BAD American! You Right-Wing EXTREMIST!)

-- hammerforge (hammerforge@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.

Well, I have to say I feel a hell of a lot safer knowing that if chaos were to break out, as a responsible gun owner, I could protect my family and possibly some neighbors.

Perhaps the most frightening thing about Y2K is the idea that the mobs of irresponsible gun owners will certainly be out taking human target practice if chaos comes.

If the damn liberals would stop trying to screw with the responsible gun owners and go after the irresponsible ones, we might have a more civilized society.

Especially with Y2K comming. Here in Arizona, we believe in responsible gun ownership. The other day a citizen observed the ambush and subsequent murder of an officer. Three gang bangers caught a cop unawares in an alley. They shot him to death in his cruiser. He never had a chance. The citizen who observed this encounter drew his weapon and shot one of the assailants straight away, and held one of the others captive. The two men will be brought to justice due to the actions of a citizen who cared enough to shoot some scumbag.

Instead of rounding up guns in California, they should be handing them out to all the responsible citizens.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), July 01, 1999.


Just once I wish I could read something that doesn't blame dead babies, indifferent parents, and sex and violence on TV for a tragedy. Paul Harvey is a senile judgmental idiot. You will notice in his diatribe, that he never brings up the class system in schools, the holier-than-thou prayer group crowd, the super jocks/cheerleaders and the popularity paraders, who tend to make students, not part of the in-crowd feel like jerks. Does being ridiculed and excluded give a person the right to shoot others? Of course not, but it might be the catalyst that ignites the rage.

And by the way, stereotyping doesn't always fit. I'm a Libertarian, (former Democrat) nonChristian, Pro-Choice, moral, gun owner. I do not need either the threat, nor the promise of God to make me behave like a decent human being and not kill, cheat and steal. Television shows are just that, shows; sex is not dirty, and owning a gun doesn't make anyone a potential killer.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 01, 1999.


You know folks, Y2K might just be the catalyst we're looking for. I'm NOT talking about armed insurrection here, but rather the fact the those with arms will in all likelyhood be providing PROTECTION for those who don't have arms. If things get bad I expect that myself and other gun owners in my town will be asked to help local law enforcement with community protection. While our federal govt. might be turning anti-gun, the few cops that I know most definitely are not.

Koskinen(sp?) has already said in plain english that local authorities had better NOT count on federal assistance if there are 'local' problems on a nationwide scale. They (the feds) just don't have the manpower to do it. There are just too few military personel/reservists to put armed guards on every corner (unless you live in a major city that is).

Those living in the 'burbs will be on their own. The fact that YOU were able to use your gun for it's original intent (ie. protect hearth and home) might just make people realize that, hey, maybe there is a place for guns in our society after all...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), July 01, 1999.


Thanks Gayla, I agreed with the majority of Paul Harvey's post. I interpreted it as being a discription of this country's 'attitude' more than anything else. He's correct. I'm a Christian who doesn't buy into the social club mentality of it, don't attend church and sometimes feel some have never been in a position of needing God or perhaps have felt abandoned by him at some point. Too lonely without him, wouldn't do for me. There is a huge difference between making love and screwing. If witnessed by my children, I far prefer the first, they can look into the barnyard if curious about the second. We have become a sad, sick, pitiful, selfish society VOID of any form of personal code of ethics, morals, pride and heroes. Small, weak people fear strength and conviction. All followers, no leaders. The country as it was intended to be, has been erroding slowly since it began. Lessons learned? I think so and I anticipate having a second chance to see it rebuilt. In all honesty, it was a *deciding* factor to our decision to prepare. We weren't simply trying to save our own skins....we wanted to be assured the honor of participating in this process at any level, to allow our children to have some say in it as well. Clinton has alot of nerve attempting to pass us off as cowards. Americans shall soon find out who will be 'cowering'. Any attempt to relinquish our right to bear arms, seems a rather unlikely proposal in *JULY 1999*. Once the show begins, anything goes....perhaps including our President. I do not believe for one instant, that I am alone in these thoughts. Given the opportunity, I strongly believe others will step forward quickly and begin the process of healing this country's wounds. We DO have leaders and Patriots. They HAVE been forced into silence and hiding and they WILL emerge. I've had the privilege of being related to some, and still am to others.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.

Gayla: Right, you did attribute it to Paul Harvey. Sometimes my fingers get ahead of my brain, or is it vice versa (corrine -- make of that what you will). Gayla -- continued: I assume you agreed wholeheartedly with it, though.

Rick: Morality has no necessary connection with religion. A concept that people locked in the religious box have a difficult time grasping.

You're right that if no transcendent Big Brother in the sky, people might come up with their own codes. That isn't enough reason for YOU or anyone else to believe in such a farfetched fairy tale.

Are you one of those who would say something like "If God didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent one."? They believe that it's necessary to create a giant fraud in order to get people to behave.

I gave up believing in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, the great pumpkin, and "god". All fairy tales. Grow up and give up the latter, also.

The reason people believe both in "god" and secular gods (rulers and celebrities) such as Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, Reagan, Klinton, Hillary Evita, Princess Diane, etc., is that they (people in general) are all MENTALLY CHILDREN. GROW UP! PUT AWAY CHILDISH THINGS!

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 02, 1999.


A.... Hmmm.... I guess that Dr. Arthur Robinson, Blaise Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Malcolm Muggeridge, Dag Hammerskjold, Evelyn Waugh, Clair Boothe Luce, Charles Colson, Albert Schweitzer, Leo Tolstoy, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., Leo Tolstoy, Leonardo da Vinci, Francis Bacon, Johann Kepler, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linneaus, Samuel Morse, Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Joseph Lister, and many others were all just "MENTALLY CHILDREN", and deluded believers in Santa, the tooth fairy, the Bible and God? It appears that you think so. (They all profess/professed to believe in God and the Bible. Sure A, whatever you say. Too bad you couldn't have personally clued the poor saps in. But hey, they're not all dead, go for it! To say that morality has no connection with religion is illogical. Do you believe in right and wrong? How do you determine right and wrong? On the basis of your feelings? If I were a cannibal, would it then be "right" for me to eat you? Beyond social customs, traditions, cultural attitudes etc. there is still a universal sense of right and wrong. You cannot explain this "culturally". "A universal sense of moral right and wrong can only come from a source outside of ourselves: a transcendent source, a moral Lawgiver. So the recognition of moral law is by default the recognition of a moral Lawgiver." ~ David Eastman M.D. Look for Michael Denton's book (secular) on Molecular Biology. Even prominent "evolutionists" are reluctantly admitting that the case for Darwinian evolution is crumbling under scientific advances. To replace it, they have now proposed that Earth was seeded by aliens. On the other hand, many brilliant scientists, whatever their specific religious beliefs, are Creationists.

Gilda... "Paul Harvey is a senile, judgemental idiot. You will notice in his diatribe..." (Judgemental... diatribe... those words could apply to what you posted.) "...it might be the catalyst that ignites the rage." Do you support this rage? I don't believe it was the popular "in crowd" that was singled out at Columbine. They could have easily gone after the jocks. They chose the library when a student Bible study was meeting. They specifically asked people, "Do you believe in God?" , and then killed them. If the civil/criminal Law system were removed, do you think there would be more problems with cheating, stealing and killing? Absolutely. Do human beings have and need a sense of morality engraved in their hearts? Absolutely. What makes a human being "decent"? After defining decency, justify the standard for it, and your right to define the standard. Gets sticky without a Lawgiver. The only religious people I know of who think sex is "dirty" were in movies. (Hollywood loves to stereotype.) There is a world of difference between thinking something is dirty, and adhering to boundaries and parameters that create a safe and healthy environment for intimacy, monogamy, and raising children. The lack of these boundaries has appeared historically in great civilizations to excessive proportions before they disintegrated. Please remember, the Nazis felt that they were very moral and religious beings also. Morality without acknowledging God is a slippery slope.

-- Mumsie (Lotsakids@home.com), July 02, 1999.


Panic not! WE WIN!

Can you imagine a bunch of fat assed bureacrates living in Siberia.

We have weapons powerful enough to take care of all those fat butts. Don't worry.

Intangible!

-- freeman aka Mark Hillyard (freeman@cali.com), July 02, 1999.


first I'm a buddhist,that implies athiest.Considering that buddhism has existed longer than christianity without ever killing people to force converts(ala the crusades and the inquisition) we could conclude that theur CAN be morality without godhead.You CAN be responsible for your own ethical development without a puppet god/superparent telling you what to do.that's where religious intolerance comes from;unthinking sycofants killing others because they think THEIR god has a corner on the truth market. The world could be so much nicer with out the religious condesention.But no,small people will always think that if they find something that is True to them,then everyone else's beliefs must be wrong.And as a bonus the One True God says to kill anyone who disagrees!!Isn't that a handy belief strucure. Would christ consider those who pray in his his name "christians"? Is it any wonder so many non-christians pray:Jesus,protect me from your followers! check out a wonderful,spiritual book of tolerance by nobel lauriate Thich Nhat Hahn,"living Buddha,living Christ". It could be quite a world we live in,if we could only get over ourselves.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 02, 1999.

Ghandi Speaks I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally as- saulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner be- come or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. But I believe non-violence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. ...But... forgiveness only when there is the power to punish... A mouse hardly forgives a cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her. I therefore appreciate the sentiment of those who cry out for the condign punishment of General Dyer (responsible for massacre at Jallianwala Bagh April 13,1919) and his ilk. They would tear him to pieces if they could. But I do not believe India to be a helpless creature. Only, I want to use India's and my strength for a better purpose.

...Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.... We in India may in a moment realize that one hundred thousand Englishmen need not frighten three hundred million human beings. A definite forgiveness would, therefore, mean a definite recognition of our strength.... It matters little to me that for the moment I do no drive my point home. We feel too downtrodden not to be angry and revengeful. But I must not refrain from saying that India can gain more by waiving the right of punishment. We have better work to do, a better mission to deliver to the world.

Mohandas K. Gandhi,Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962. pp. 156-57.

just a few words from a moral Hindu.........

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 02, 1999.


Thank you zoobie. You have made this point beautifully. I grew up surrounded by Buddhists and my dearest childhood friend grew up with a Catholic Mother and Jewish Father. When I say I believe in God, I do not presume it is the same God as someone elses, or different for that matter. Zoobie has also described my reason for ignoring the 'social club mentality' that surrounds various 'beliefs'. I think we all agree there is a problem with the 'attitude' of America, described by Paul Harvey. Period. Mummsie's comments were also appreciated.Those of us attempting to raise children in this 'bottom of the well society' and have them become worthy human beings, tend to view things with a bit more scrutiny and passion. I'm not so sure about freeman. I'm hoping for a little higher level of contemplation and philosophy.. (lol)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.

A VISITOR FROM THE PAST >> by Thelen Paulk >> >>I had a dream the other night, I didn't understand. >>A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand. >>His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by the bed, >>He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low, he said: >> >> >>"We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty. >>We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny, >>For future generations, this legacy we gave, >>In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave." >> >> >>"The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you'd always keep. >>But tyrants labored endlessly, while your parents were asleep. >>Your freedom gone, your courage lost, you're no more than a slave, >>In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave." >> >> >>"You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun, >>Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one. >>On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent, >>Although you have no voice in choosing how the money's spent." >> >> >>"Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate. >>Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state. >>You read about the current news, in a regulated press. >>You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the I.R.S." >> >> >>"Your money is no longer made of silver or of gold. >>You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled >>You pay for crimes that make our nation turn from God in shame, >>You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name." >> >> >>"You've given government control to those who do you harm, >>So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm, >>And keep the country deep in debt, put men of God in jail, >>Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail." >> >> >>"Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oath they've sworn. >>Your daughters visit doctors so their children won't be born. >>Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores, >>And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars." >> >> >>"Can you regain freedom for which we fought and died? >>Or don't you have the courage or the faith to stand with pride. >>Are there no more values for which you'll fight to save? >>Or do you wish your children to live in fear and be a slave?" >> >> >>"Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand! >>Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land! >>Preserve our great republic and each God-given right, >>And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!" >> >> >>As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from which he came. >>His words were true, we are not free. We have ourselves to blame. >>For even now as tyrants trample each God-given right, >>We only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight. >> >> >>If he stood by your bedside, in a dream while you're asleep, >>And wondered what remains of our rights he fought to keep, >>What would be your answer, if he called out from the grave? >>Is this still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?

-- George in Ne.Pa. (grc0702@aol.com), July 02, 1999.

Is Australian Gun Control a Warning for U.S? Australia: After Gun Confiscation

Read the following synopsis of an interview conducted by Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association then post your views in the firearms politics newsgroup.

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in...

A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer...you'll see...".

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:

* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%

* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%

* Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)

* In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%

* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)

* Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)

* There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly

* At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"

* From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

* The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions

* The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.

* Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

"...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size. We didn't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..."

Keith Tidswell Sporting Shooter's Association Australia

-- George in Ne.Pa. (grc0702@aol.com), July 02, 1999.


ya know,we make our founding fathers out to be saints.they were white,rich,landed slave owners who probably never would have revolted if they'd had representation in parliment.they certianly wouldn't have written a constitution if the people weren't willing to put them against the wall like the british,whatever it takes to quiet the masses.

for more info on how we've been made into a nation of duped slaves,check out:http://www.vida.com/parenti/ or http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm for chomsy's site chomsky's argueably the most important intelectual alive (so says the new york times)

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 02, 1999.


Mumsie: All that throwing out those "big names" who are believers is merely "argument from authority". PROVES NOTHING!!

The fact that people of (otherwise) intelligence and accomplishment merely indicates that they are just as able to psychologically "compartmentalize" as is the typical bozo.

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 02, 1999.


I left a couple of words out of last sentence above -- should be:

The fact that people of (otherwise) intelligence and accomplishment are believers merely indicates that they are just as able to psychologically "compartmentalize" as is the typical bozo.

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 02, 1999.


Zoobie's contribution to American History class...."ZZZZzzzzzz....mumble..zzzz.. white rich slave owners...zzzzzz"

"Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they? 24 were lawyers and jurists. 11 were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family constantly. He served in Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward. Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Rutledge and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "FOR THE SUPPORT OF THIS DECLARATION WITH A FIRM RELIANCE ON THE PROTECTION OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENCE, WE MUTUALLY PLEDGE TO EACH OTHER, OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, AND OUR SACRED HONOR." They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot of what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn't just fight the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government! Some of us take these liberties so much for granted. We shouldn't. Take a couple of minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank God for these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid."

-- Mumsie (Lotsakids@home.com), July 02, 1999.


You notice that I did not criticize Buddhists or Hindus? I think if you try to make an historical case to prove that Buddhists and Hindus do not commit crimes against other human beings, that you should think about hiring Johnny Cochran. Also, you did not answer my questions. Do you believe in right and wrong? What are your standards for this? On what do you base those standards? What if someone has different standards than you? What makes yours superior and/or "right"? You can continue to take pot shots at Judeo/Christian ethics or debate logically.

-- Mumsie (Lotsakids@home.com), July 02, 1999.

georgie, rumor has it the aussies being a crafty lot, have merely hidden their weapons in the pouches of numerous marasupials. keeps the guns warm and the officials guessing.

boing, boing, boing

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 02, 1999.


corrine you are truly an idiot

'nuff said, now gimme a kiss honeypants

-- (go to hell@c.1), July 02, 1999.


A... By your reasoning, anyone who does not agree with your (presumably deeply and meticulously researched) conclusions is deluded and mentally ill. I hope you won't be applying for any positions of power any time soon. I believe that I was demonstrating (not proving) that there is precedent to support the fact that great minds and contributors to humanity have chosen to believe in God. That should not offend you A, ....it should arouse your curiosity, not your contempt. I have noticed something very interesting. I have read many posters who seem to spitefully enjoy virulently accusing those who believe in God of violent, hypocritical, and cruel behavior. Could it be possible that it is human beings in general who are capable of reprehensible behavior? I see the most hostility and ridicule coming from non-believers. It's convenient to throw up the Crusades and leave out untold centuries of man's inhumanity to man that had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. This kind of bashing and prejudice makes me wonder just who will be the next targeted victims for another Holocaust.

-- Mumsie (Lotsakids@home.com), July 02, 1999.

Zoob....your slave owner example is mute. We have had slaves since the beginning of time and STILL do. The founding fathers wore wigs also, does that make them 'cross dressers' by today's standards? nope. I WANT EVERYONE TO CLAM UP ABOUT THE RELIGIOUS ASPECT. Thank you. EVERY religion has the same common message. Figure it out. For those of you who have figured it out WITHOUT religious guidance WHOOPTIE-DO FOR YOU. I *just* couldn't be happier for us all (can you see my friggin' grin?)

This brings me to George's post. Quit you're f*****g 'quibbling' and READ IT! IT ADDRESS THE *TOPIC* AT HAND FOR CHRISSAKES. This thread is a fine example of how this country finds itself so HUMPED REPEATEDLY UP THE RUMP. Please read it carefully, because it is THE TRUTH. I'll check in on you later, and I don't want to see anymore "God is...God isn't...yessir.....no way. OK? Are we ALL Americans or NOT? Very good, thanks.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.


"A VISITOR FROM THE PAST"..........sheeeeeese (avoid the religious nit-picing)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.

will continue said "We have had slaves since the beginning of time and STILL do." I agree,I'm afraid we're a nation of slaves. that's why I posted the links to parenti and chomsky,if you can't see your chains,how will you throw them off?check out their sites:http://www.vida.com/parenti/ or http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm they'll change the way you see the world,if you can bear to read what they have to say.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 02, 1999.

I don't need a definition of right and wrong. I didn't need a moral lawgiver to guide me in the right direction. I don't need the Bible, Koran, etc., to keep me in line. I was taught the little simple phrase, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Very simple, no hellfire, begging and praying. I don't always follow it, but I try.

I also don't feel the need to trot out impressive names to back up my arguments. If it gets to that, I can name several just as many illustrious atheists. I am not one, but I respect their right to be whatever they choose without nagging from Christians.

And Mumsie I've had more hateful, mean things said to me by the so-called Christians on this website than by all the pollys, trolls, and conspiracy crowd rolled in to one. And by the way I raised one son, who is a rip roaring, happy, well adjusted, good person without ever exposing him to chruch. I wanted him to have the chance to decide for himself what he chose to think and feel spiritually, without a minister brain washing him with religious dogma. I didn't have that chance, and have had to face the wrath of good Christians all my life for rejecting the *One True Religion.*

And yes we were British subjects and fought our own government, so that once we became free, we could worship as we pleased, and anyone who didin't believe as we did could face flogging, dunking, ostracism, or maybe being burned as a witch.

Did anyone see the Discovery program the other night about the faithful digging up the dead and crossing their bones, believing they were vampires because they died of an unseen disease, TB.

The greatest evil always represents itself as the greatest good.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 02, 1999.


I don't need the Bible, Koran, etc., to keep me in line. I was taught the little simple phrase, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." -Gilda

Gilda, where did that simple little phrase come from? (Hint: Matthew 7:12)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 02, 1999.


Gayla, that phrase predates the Christian religion. It's a universal code of ethics, or sentiment that has been stated in various forms since time began. Even primitive people (B.C.) realized if they didn't cooperate, work together and treat each other as they wanted to be treated, they might not survive. I once read of a primitive people, predating the supposed land bridge and (B.C.) that tried to outdo one another in doing helpful things.

Wording the phrase, as it is worded in the Bible, is not surprising as I heard it often when growing up. But that does not mean the logic of it had never occurred to one person Matthew, or the Bible. Isn't it amazing that before Christ, people lived and worked together without the benefit of Christianity. In fact some anthropologist have surmised that people weren't as primitive as we might have thought.

In fact, there are about ten dozen different ways to say that phrase. "You scratch my back, I scratch yours." "You take a care of me, I look afta you." "Maybe we could help each other out." "Perhaps we could agree that it would be to our mutual advantage to be kind to each other." The list goes on.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 02, 1999.


oh mr. sacreligious willie,

when i suggested some very discrete activities that you, your parakeet, my pet poney finckle, your auntie sarah, and the l.a. phone book could all participate in, you moaned something about sweet jesus. don't pretend you don't have very deep spiritual leanings mr. "can my mommy say a short prayer before we start".

-- corrine (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 02, 1999.


I SUPPORT GUN CONTROL 100%!

I define gun control, however, as "hitting what you aim at."

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), July 03, 1999.


Gilda, I gave a sampling of people who professed to believe in God and the Bible because another poster said that anyone who did so was on a delusional par with Santa worshippers, mentally ill, etc. Also, I have read many horrific things about civilizations that practiced barbarous things, including human sacrifice, particularly that of babies and children. It hasn't really been a "look out for each other" kind of world so far (on the whole... examining the Big Picture historically). I believe that people are capable of acting morally and of displaying goodness, but I do not believe that people are basically good, in and of themselves. (It's one thing for Rodney King to say, "Can't we all get along?" and another for the entire world over the centuries to put that into practice.) If you even believe in "Do unto others... ", then you are ascribing to a moral code. By saying that most peoples throughout history are aware of that basic truth, is affirming that there is a universal moral code, a sense of fair play, an awareness of "right and wrong" inherently within human beings. I , too, was very much hurt by people professing to be Christians. The wounds inflicted, felt at the time, to be life threatening. I wished and attempted to end my life. It kept me out of any organized church for many years, because I did not trust them, and did not want to be part of a social philosophizing hypocritcal club. I found many "church" people to seem smug and clueless. As an adult, even my own father hurt me deeply, and yet would sit and listen to his gospel station. Amazing. Another choice... Do I reject truth out of hand, throw the baby out with the bath water, or reject the bad and hurtful attitudes and behavior of those who dishonor and betray what they espouse to believe? I retained my basic faith in God, and in Christ, but it was long a solitary faith journey. The older I get, the more I feel I cannot (in any way) boast of my own morality and goodness. I feel that if my inner thoughts and motives were to be laid bare every moment of my life, that I would certainly have to agree that "the heart is deceiful and desperately wicked, who can know it?" I have outwardly no great discernable wickedness, and am even praised by many people who love me. Yet, I know the weakness and pettyness that I can be capable of (perhaps not always acting on it, but aware of it just the same). Paul said, "Be careful, O man, whosoever you judge, for you do the same." Sobering. This has brought me to the place where I am more ready to share and interact relationally with other professing Christians, albeit still cautiously with residual cynicism and a healthy dose of skeptical discernment applied. I now view Christianity simply as God's desire to restore relationship with us. To me, it is a relational faith, not an organized religious habit and label. I can, on some level, absorb the concept that God is sovereign, that He wanted children who chose Him, not automated robots, and yet still wonder that He can tolerate the price that must come with that plan. (the evil and pain that must also then be allowed). "It's a universal code of ethics, or sentiment that has been stated in various forms since time began. "

I don't believe (logically, mathematically, or scientifically) in organic soup. I believe in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I do believe the universal code you referred to was created into human beings.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), July 03, 1999.


Gilda's a little stuck in "Idetestright-wingChristainfundamentalists" mode, at the moment. I'm sure once she rediscovers her self-taught morals she'll be back.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 03, 1999.

George in Ne.Pa. : I'd just like to thank you for your contribution to this thread. I have printed and placed it above my desk. I found it to be incredibly moving, and agreed with each and every word of it. Please feel free to comment more often. Some of us are having a difficult time pressing the importance of "FREEDOM" and what this means to each and every "AMERICAN". (including the ungrateful ones, I might add)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 03, 1999.

Will continue is a little stuck in "Idetestleft-wingNonChristian libertarians" mode, at the moment. I'm sure once she rediscovers her self-taught brain and chewing gum, she'll be back to amaze and delight us with more pseudo-psychic insight into other people's modes.

Mumsie, I believe in a higher power, or a spiritual other, but I don't believe in joining one particular religion, especially the Christian in which I was raised, which seems hell bent on making converts even to the point of in-your-face rudeness.

One doesn't have to be a Christian to have faith or be a spiritual person. When I go into my garden, or hear birds singing and chattering, or watch a huge thunder storm, I don't doubt there is more to this life than we can see. But our lovely small planet may not be the only form or life in the universe.

And as far as evolution goes, it's logical, and as far as I'm concerned has no conflict with religion. Even the Catholic Church takes this stand. And no, I'm not a lapsed Catholic, but at least they see that evolution and religion have no conflict. For which is the greater miracle; that God just "created men and women," or that he created every cell, every miniscule particle, every component to make the building blocks of life, every microscopic bit of matter and energy in the universe, in the primordial soup that would continue to create all kinds of wonderful life forms.

But this thread is about freedom of speech, and it should be guarded actively and carefully.

I respect everyone's religious beliefs, but I never bring up the subject until someone else does. I have never opened a thread, or began a subject about religion. I feel that is everyone's personal business, and I sure wish everyone would keep it to themselves, and I get tired of having to defend slurs from Will continue, among others.

-- Jean Scott (dezane@hotmail.com), July 03, 1999.


Actually gilda, Jean Scott, whatever, you've been full of slurs and anger for a couple of days now. I've said several times on this thread alone, freedom to choose ones religion is just that. I *agreed* with your one-sided view of conservatives on Mike's thread, pointing out some liberal guises and then AGAIN suggested that the left-wing, right-wing bull crap be dropped as we are in need of considering ourselves Americans, both in this thread and AGAIN in zoobie's. YOU are the one who refuses to abandon your way flippin'- left field, christain bashing position, and recognize the country's needs on a whole. Please get a grip, not that it matters now. I've attempted to remain in the middle, however, you are a tad extreme for my tastes. We do both agree on gun control and I can only hope we never cross paths at any point next year, if the country finds itself devided any more than it is today. You tend to get my glengarry in a serious twist. Is it possible we could both come from a 'middle of the road' approach, or am I being too unrealistic? Do you live in America or are you killing some time here while dreaming of other powerful nations?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 03, 1999.

Gilda, I believe in evolution, too. It's a fact. I do NOT, however, believe in Evolutionary Origin. There's a difference.

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 03, 1999.

Re: Evolution,...repeat...Second Law of Thermodynamics. Fossil record (lack of it). From a secular point, read Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" (excerpt from above book) "The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the 'Origin of the Species'; and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of the first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims... Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell...To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... ...Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" ~ from Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ask a mathemetician to run the odds of random development that goes against this law. It would be like saying that a printing factory exploded and out of the explosion came Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (at the least). Awesome. Choose your belief for the Designer/Creator, but this was no random evolution. As I said, even evolutionists are abandoning the concept of random development. The fact that they would choose to believe in our being seeded by aliens is another subject, but in that case, who "made" the aliens they say seeded our planet?

The problem I see with random evolution as it relates to social issues (Y2K) and human interaction, is that when there is no Designer/Creator, it is most convenient to "create" our own rules of morality...thus, you have "moral" Nazis and their ilk. If Y2K results in TSHTF and/or TEOTWAWKI, then these "morals" may make wide and sudden shifts as people scramble to survive. Situation ethics. Throw Granny out of the lifeboat, she's a useless eater. We want Freedom in America (at least some of us do), but there are those who wish only to enjoy the fruits of Freedom, and would chop the foundation of it out from underneath themselves. I agree with Will, I hope we can find a mutual basis to band together and fight to regain true freedom in America. I don't think that mocking and disparaging "rich white slave owners" is the answer. If you read above in the thread, what the Signers of the Declaration went through, ...well, it is easy to criticize from our vantage point, but will the same supercilious critics be willing to put their money, their property, their family, and their own butts on the line for Freedom? Easy to talk. We'll see when the dust has settled. I pray that I will act with courage and integrity.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), July 03, 1999.


Will continue, you silver-tongued devil you, I doubt we'll ever meet, but I'm a non-violent person, so any act of agression would have to come from you. This is one of those things I disagree with Democrats and Republicans on, if we aren't threatened, we shouldn't go to war. What exactly was my one-sided view of conservatives on Midwest Mikes post? Anyway thanks for joining in my one-sided view.

Hey old girl, you were the one who brought up that liberals could take comfort in their pride in Clinton. Tacky! Tacky! I think Nixon was a paranoid nut, but that doesn't mean that he didn't do anything good. Both he and Clinton have done some very good things.

Gayla, I think I agree with you.

Mumsie, that was a sermon, and I'm so tired of sermons, or maybe it was a biology lesson and I had all that in college.. Believe whatever makes you happy, but don't harangue about your beliefs.

Will, I'll tell Jean at our next book meeting that you asked about her. She's a New Age believer, if that's what you call them. She has posted on this forum, on my computer. I have posted on her computer on this forum and the Freedom Forum. Is that ok with you?

-- Jean Scott (jess@listbot.com), July 03, 1999.


Just funnin' wit ya Will. The devil made me post Jean's name. hee hee

Hey, how about we pretend we're signing the Declaration of Independence and sign a truce. No more slurs about liberals, conservatives, libertarians or generic crazies. OK??? Well, maybe we better keep the generic crazies so we have something to throw slurs at, right?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 03, 1999.


AGREED!!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 04, 1999.

Will, we may just change the world with our united front. Did you ever read Stephen King's book "Needful Thing?" It was about a man opening an antiques shop in a small town and then proceeding to turn all the town's people against one another. It worked too! A very good book about human nature.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 04, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ