On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:37:32 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:


And further, the sadder part is that the wingers on both ends of the
spectrum preach violence. I see less of it coming from the left, but
I'm sure it's there. As long as we have Sarah Palin publishing maps
with crosshairs (of course now she's running away from that) and
Sharon Angle talking about "Second Amendment options," and Gunner's
leaders with their "great cull," we are in serious trouble.

And then there's the uber-violent bangers who have no particular
political or religious zeolotry beyond their gang affiliation.

Those who abhor violence might do well to focus on dealing with
violence rather than try to form associations between nutcases and
whatever political persuasions they dislike.

And even though we're all "pretty sure" that Gunner's talk of a "great
cull" is all just fantasy, it raises a couple of questions:

1) How do we _KNOW_ it's just fantasy? How do we know that his talk
should not be taken seriously and that we shouldn't drop a dime to the
FBI on him?

2) Is a person who obviously derives great pleasure from such
fantasies mentally stable? Should a person who talks incessantly about
violent acts, be they real or fantastic, be allowed to own firearms?
Where do you draw the line?

Just to be perfectly clear, this isn't aimed at Gunner alone. He is,
however a convenient example for discussion's sake.

1) We? If you think someone should call the FBI and report Gunner's
great cull posts, please lead from in front and do so forthwith. I
hope it makes you feel better, and I'll about guarantee that you'll
find it educational. Please keep us posted on your progress,
experiences and frustrations.

2) The line is quite clear: freedom of speech that you might find
offensive is protected by the 1st amendment. Fantasy violence is not
illegal nor is it prima facie evidence of mental defect. There are
video games available to teenagers that portray (and perhaps
encourage) violence far more vividly and graphically than anything
Gunner has ever posted on usenet in his best efforts to shock readers.

With very limited exceptions, law of the land does not permit legal
action against another based on what he says or what others think he
might do.

If you abhor violence then focus on miscreants that do violence rather
than those whom you think might based upon how you react to what they
post on usenet.

Yer note about "not aimed at Gunner alone" duly noted. Target moi?

I am not zeolously either liberal or conservative and my religious
beliefs (or absence thereof) are none of yer beeswax. I am a gentle
and nurturing man, but also a vet and a realist. I carry a gun some
days. He who would mug or rape this senior gentleman will experience
explosively violent lethal response beyond anything he ever imagined.
I may look like easy prey, low hanging fruit for predators... but I'm
not and they sense that. Predators are street smart, focus on easy
prey. I am not a vigilante. Could be, might become so if Mary dies
before I do.

**** happens, life is fair now and then, here and there ... not fair
if Mar dies before me but life is hardly ever fair.