H.C. Minh wrote:

Robert Heinlen has already addressed this issue.

....and while I'm thinking of it: It seems to me that Kim Jong Il, in
North Korea, is an almost perfect incarnation of Heinlein's proposal.
He's striving to be as dangerous as he can be, while practically begging
to negotiate with his adversaries at the same time.

If this is a good thing, then why don't folks in the US feel any
safer or more secure when they read about what Il is trying to do?
After all, the US remains a substantial nuclear power in its own right,
and could surely destroy North Korea if they ever dared to open fire
with their most dangerous weapons. So, even in a worst case scenario,
the Koreans are going to die, and most of us aren't. Why don't we
applaud the Korean effort, and welcome them gladly into the community of
"armed but reasonable" nations?

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

In article , Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:20:38 -0700, "Steve"
wrote:
Well, after the "schlack-schlack!" there's always Plan B......

NEVER chamber a shell you are not ready to fire. Plan B is to fire the
shell. SteveB

Absolutely correctomundo.

Never present a weapon, unless you are fully prepared to use it, and
....
If you hesitate, the threat may take it away from you, use it on you
and the rest of your family.

One of the major reasons CCW is so good, is the surprise factor. If
they see you as an unarmed victim, they are less likely to try
something devious to work around your being armed. Like a good
..... Gunner

Gunner fairly summerizes the thinking of generations of leo's and
Border Patrolmen, many of whom wear civi's instead of a uniform.

it coincidentally reflect _my_ personal experience on three
occaisions spread over 35-40yrs, _all_ of which were in rural
or desolate locals.

the scariest was when i had my hand on an empty revolver for over
5minutes during which i was sweating blood and my wife and daughter
were sitting near me in our camping van. from that day, i swore
the never carry an unloaded gun in the vehicle.

never did i actually draw or expose my weapon, but if you think
it is bad to be confronted w/o a defense, it is _worse_ when
you KNOW it is a bluff. instead of being attentive to the
situation, you are boiling with anxiety about the wisdon of
pulling it... in a similar incident, years later, i had a
loaded Colt Detective in my jacket. it was amazing how calmly
i handled the situation, again never exposing the weapon.

as always, ymmv. great thread, --Loren

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 11:50:28 +0200, Jan Nielsen
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 06:48:03 GMT, Gunner wrote:

Talking really worked very well for the students in your beloved
Tienemon Square.

Or the students at Kent State University...

Yup...all 4 of them.
I still know their names. Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller,
William Schroeder, Sandra Schauer.

They weren't even talking, two were just walking to class, 200 yards
away.

--
Regards, Terry King ...In The Woods In Vermont

The one who Dies With The Most Parts LOSES!! What do you need?

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:51:34 GMT, "Steve" wrote
something
.......and in reply I say!:

Steve. Thanks for that post from a gun suporting man, trying to stop
this insane bombardment of "armed in the face of 'armlessness" crap.

What in the world is all this?

Granted that there are times when there is no substitute for a gun. However,
who would fill their mind with "plans to kill everyone they meet" or even
with discussion same?

Observations:

I am fifty years old. In that interval, 1) 30 yrs. ago I saw one person who
had just been shot (they later died and it was murder over some gal), and 2)
20 yrs. ago I drove one druggie off with a gun from my place of business


Loved the rake story.
************************************************** ****************************************
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
The rest sit around and make snide comments.

Nick White --- HEAD:Hertz Music
Please remove ns from my header address to reply via email
!!
")
_/ )
( )
_//- \__/

"Kirk Gordon" wrote

Heinlein was good at asking provocative questions, and at providing
answers which, I believe, were intended to be extreme rather than
accurate. Rather than a true sage or philosopher, IMHO, he was more
like an extremely interesting mega-troll.


You do realize this is sacrilege?



You may recall that Heinlien had an answer to all these problems.
In "Stranger In A Strange Book", he invented a special class of "perfect
witnesses" - people with perfect memories, perfect integrity, and
perfect capacities for logic and judgement, who were called upon to be
the mediators or arbitrators in all forms of human negotiations and
disputes. These people were universally accepted, and were beyond
reproach or question. They could, therefore, become the trump card
played by justice and sanity, whenever those things were threatened.


Though it *was* a strange book, I think it was "Stranger in a Strange Land".


Not a good situation, when you consider how many kinds of
vital, productive work can only take place in an environment of relative
security and freedom, and which don't necessarily involve marital skills
of any kind.

My marital skills are certainly ineffective around guns... I am quite
docile when the better half starts packing....



Heinlein was an optimist - even to the point of being irresponsibly
optimistic about human nature, and about the homogeneity of motivations
that drive six billion individual people.


Yes he was.... Arthur C. Clarke was another.


Excellent post, Kirk. You are one of the better thinkers in this group.

(Glen) wrote in message ...


Read the "Black Book" about the
great effects of Communism, try reading it with an open mind. The
authors were French academicians I believe, not from Bob Jones U
either.



Thanks for the "I believe" disclaimer. I intend to steer
clear of your beliefs. As for what I need to know about
Communism, I live smack dab in the middle of one and a
half billion, that's a one with nine zeros after it,
Communists. Thanks much for your concerns but it's quite
possible that I have a greater understanding of Communism
than nitwits such as yourself will ever have.

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
m...
(Glen) wrote in message
...


Read the "Black Book" about the
great effects of Communism, try reading it with an open mind. The
authors were French academicians I believe, not from Bob Jones U
either.



Thanks for the "I believe" disclaimer. I intend to steer
clear of your beliefs. As for what I need to know about
Communism, I live smack dab in the middle of one and a
half billion, that's a one with nine zeros after it,
Communists. Thanks much for your concerns but it's quite
possible that I have a greater understanding of Communism
than nitwits such as yourself will ever have.

And yet clueless........................... sigh ...............

SteveB

"Steve" wrote in message news:i7Zbb.6901$Ms2.5702@fed1read03...

I can see that your young virgin college whitebread liberal
little ass hasn't had enough life experiences to understand this. I can
tell it from your writing style.


sigh. I wish :-(

Kirk Gordon wrote in message ...
H.C. Minh wrote:

Robert Heinlen has already addressed this issue.

...and while I'm thinking of it: It seems to me that Kim Jong Il, in
North Korea, is an almost perfect incarnation of Heinlein's proposal.
He's striving to be as dangerous as he can be, while practically begging
to negotiate with his adversaries at the same time.

If this is a good thing, then why don't folks in the US feel any
safer or more secure when they read about what Il is trying to do?
After all, the US remains a substantial nuclear power in its own right,
and could surely destroy North Korea if they ever dared to open fire
with their most dangerous weapons. So, even in a worst case scenario,
the Koreans are going to die, and most of us aren't. Why don't we
applaud the Korean effort, and welcome them gladly into the community of
"armed but reasonable" nations?



It is a puzzle to the logical mind, but if you change
the word "bush" intro "Hitler" then it becomes quite
understandable. Fascists need dangers. They desperately
NEED enemies. Without an Axis of Evil, fascists have no
power whatsoever. North Korea's actual capability to
cause harm is very slight - witness Beijing's happiness
to deal with them as rational beings, while China is at
far greater risk from North Korea than the US. Unfortun-
ately that weakness makes them an even more enticing target -
a weak opponent whom you can paint as the Devil Incarnate,
what a treat for megalomaniac neocons. I wonder when we'll
face the need for the pre-emptive occupation of Poland ?

"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
m...
(Glen) wrote in message
...


Read the "Black Book" about the
great effects of Communism, try reading it with an open mind. The
authors were French academicians I believe, not from Bob Jones U
either.



Thanks for the "I believe" disclaimer. I intend to steer
clear of your beliefs. As for what I need to know about
Communism, I live smack dab in the middle of one and a
half billion, that's a one with nine zeros after it,
Communists.

Man that is just flat stupid, do you really believe that those one and a
half billion, thats a one with nine zeros after it, people are all voluntary
card carrying party members???


Thanks much for your concerns but it's quite
possible that I have a greater understanding of Communism

OK, so lets say you moved into the middle of a corn field, would you then,
by some miraculous osmosis like process become a worldwide authority on
corn? I don't think so. Now, if you fell into a septic tank........

JTMcC.


than nitwits such as yourself will ever have.

On 23 Sep 2003 16:51:49 -0700, (Excitable Boy)
wrote:

(Glen) wrote in message ...


Read the "Black Book" about the
great effects of Communism, try reading it with an open mind. The
authors were French academicians I believe, not from Bob Jones U
either.



Thanks for the "I believe" disclaimer. I intend to steer
clear of your beliefs. As for what I need to know about
Communism, I live smack dab in the middle of one and a
half billion, that's a one with nine zeros after it,
Communists. Thanks much for your concerns but it's quite
possible that I have a greater understanding of Communism
than nitwits such as yourself will ever have.

But sir! You don't even recognise the driving motivation of the
industrial powerhouse you dwell within! Hint hint, it aint communism!
(chuckle)

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:58:36 -0400, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

Glen wrote:

I'm less afraid of a good man well armed than of a few million people
who are afraid of guns.

Me too. But where do you live that you have that kind of choice?
As far as I can tell, the real world contains millions of good folks,
millions of cowards, fools, and genuinely evil people, and also millions
of guns, which are distributed pretty much randomly among all the
different kinds of people (except Canadians, of course).

And, in my humble opinion, adding more guns won't change the rules,
or give any of us less to worry about.

KG

I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but I worry less about being
in a rough neighborhood, armed and confident, than I would if I were
unarmed. And I have to be in those rough neighborhoods after dark in
many cases. And in fact..in about 30 yrs..being armed DID save my bacon
(5) times, and in no case was I forced to fire. The Bad Guys decided
that descretion was the better part of valor, and ended their
aggression.

Kirk, you do what your consiense dictates, and I shall do as my life
experiences and consience dictates. I will never force you to go armed.
Just do not force me to go unarmed. For there are those for whom
negotiation without strength, is viewed as submission and helplessness,
those whom try to negotiate, do so as prey. and for those, I will
continue to go armed.

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001

Excitable Boy wrote:


I wonder when we'll
face the need for the pre-emptive occupation of Poland ?



Or California.

ff

In article ,
says...

Heinlein was an optimist - even to the point of being irresponsibly
optimistic about human nature, and about the homogeneity of motivations
that drive six billion individual people.

In my view, the more we encourage everybody to be dangerous, the
more total danger there will be. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned
about the dangers that already exist. I just don't think that adding
more fuel to the fire will cause it to burn itself out without also
destroying the whole house. I'm still hoping that parts of the house
might be saved by the skillful use of some water or a fire extinguisher.

KG


If you're going to critique an author you should become more familiar
with the nature as well as the content of his work.

Heinlein was never reluctant to state loudly and often that the primary
reason he wrote was to make money. While an author can, (and most do),
have a personal philosophy to push, those who don't want to get a second
job to put groceries on the table subordinate that urge and write what
the market will buy. Try to get a copy of "Grumbles from the Grave", a
collection of his correspondence published after his death.

His notion that "An armed society is a polite society" dates back to a
time when America was a predominately agrarian society and the practice
of being publicly armed was much more common. Despite all the tales of
the "wild west" the average person was much safer then. If you weren't
in a saloon arguing with some drunk cowpoke over a doxy, your chances of
getting shot were practically nil. A criminal who *survived* three bank
holdups was still the stuff of legends a hundred years later. People for
the most part were honest and non-violent because those around them were
armed and not going to tolerate criminal acts. The fastest, most
ruthless gun slinger, still had to make some concessions in his behavior.
No matter how smugly certain he was in his skills, he had to face the
fact that while he might be able to take *anybody*, not even the fastest
could take *everybody*.

Later,
Joe

ff wrote:

Excitable Boy wrote:


I wonder when we'll
face the need for the pre-emptive occupation of Poland ?



Or California.

ff

Good one, Fred. chuckling.....

michael


--
release the fish from the net to reply

Steve wrote:
"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
m...
Kirk Gordon wrote in message
...

Gunner wrote:
Rules of Gunfighting

I'm surely wasting my time here; but...

Yes. If these people had a functioning brain they
wouldn't feel the need to rely on firepower. Hence
talk is not something a peson whose talents are
limited to violence will understand. Amazing what
active imaginations they have, but limited to such
narrow channels. I wonder if there's a medical term
for this ?

I believe it is called post traumatic stress disorder. It is the
remnant of them being violated: robbed, mugged, burglarized, beaten,
shot, stabbed, raped, forced to perform sexual acts at
gun/knifepoint, or various other violations. I can see that your
young virgin college whitebread liberal little ass hasn't had enough
life experiences to understand this. I can tell it from your writing
style.

And just because we haven't seen something, we can't immediately
dismiss it. I have not lived the inner city life of many people and
have not witnessed the hardscrabble existence they lead. I have not
seen the Statue of Liberty. I have not set foot on Pluto. But I do
believe such things exist because I am a reasonable enough man to
believe other's who know about such things.

BTW. Violence is not a talent. It is a survival strategy. Had your
ancestors not had enough of it to survive in tough situations, your
wimpy butt would still be cosmic dust. Why do you disrespect your
lineage so much? Is it because you ARE the universe and everything
revolves around your know-it-all persona? Violence is also defined
by society. I have killed fewer people with my guns than Ted Kennedy
has killed with his car. Go figger.

Write back after you meet Ben Dover and his buddies.

Now, this is something new. The Second Amendment was written so psychotic,
paranoid stress-cases can run around armed to the teeth. Gee, I would have
guessed the opposite. Any cites?
--
Frank

"Frank Carbone" wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:
"Excitable Boy" wrote in message
m...
Kirk Gordon wrote in message
...

Gunner wrote:
Rules of Gunfighting

I'm surely wasting my time here; but...

Yes. If these people had a functioning brain they
wouldn't feel the need to rely on firepower. Hence
talk is not something a peson whose talents are
limited to violence will understand. Amazing what
active imaginations they have, but limited to such
narrow channels. I wonder if there's a medical term
for this ?

I believe it is called post traumatic stress disorder. It is the
remnant of them being violated: robbed, mugged, burglarized, beaten,
shot, stabbed, raped, forced to perform sexual acts at
gun/knifepoint, or various other violations. I can see that your
young virgin college whitebread liberal little ass hasn't had enough
life experiences to understand this. I can tell it from your writing
style.

And just because we haven't seen something, we can't immediately
dismiss it. I have not lived the inner city life of many people and
have not witnessed the hardscrabble existence they lead. I have not
seen the Statue of Liberty. I have not set foot on Pluto. But I do
believe such things exist because I am a reasonable enough man to
believe other's who know about such things.

BTW. Violence is not a talent. It is a survival strategy. Had your
ancestors not had enough of it to survive in tough situations, your
wimpy butt would still be cosmic dust. Why do you disrespect your
lineage so much? Is it because you ARE the universe and everything
revolves around your know-it-all persona? Violence is also defined
by society. I have killed fewer people with my guns than Ted Kennedy
has killed with his car. Go figger.

Write back after you meet Ben Dover and his buddies.

Now, this is something new. The Second Amendment was written so
psychotic,
paranoid stress-cases can run around armed to the teeth. Gee, I would
have
guessed the opposite. Any cites?
--
Frank



Well, we always have seen Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett in pictures running
around the woods, rifle in hand, knife in teeth. The writers of the second
amendment were people who were armed most of the time and prepared to deal
with the situations of the time.

OTOH, I believe that the Second Amendment was not written to let people run
around armed. I believe if you read it, the intent was to keep arms in the
posession of the common man so that if the government became so tyrannical
that there would be some armed force to confront them. Kind of like Ruby
Ridge and Waco situations, yet people sleep on through the violation of all,
and don't care until it gets into their back yard.

Huh?

Steve

Mark Winlund wrote:
"Kirk Gordon" wrote

Heinlein was good at asking provocative questions, and at providing
answers which, I believe, were intended to be extreme rather than
accurate. Rather than a true sage or philosopher, IMHO, he was
more like an extremely interesting mega-troll.

You do realize this is sacrilege?

Certainly! And I'm thinking Heinlein would approve of sacrilege, if
it's for a good and noble purpose.

You may recall that Heinlien had an answer to all these problems.
In "Stranger In A Strange Book"

Though it *was* a strange book, I think it was "Stranger in a Strange
Land".

Strange book... Strange land... Strange ideas... It all runs
together in my mind.

My marital skills are certainly ineffective around guns... I am
quite docile when the better half starts packing....

If she needs to pack heat, then you're not nearly docile enough.
Mine just gives me a look, and I don't need any more persuasion than
that to act nice.

Heinlein was an optimist - even to the point of being irresponsibly
optimistic about human nature, and about the homogeneity of
motivations that drive six billion individual people.

Yes he was.... Arthur C. Clarke was another.

Excellent post, Kirk. You are one of the better thinkers in this
group.

laughing NOW who's the optimist? Thank you very much for such a
compliment; but I suspect that my own thoughts, like Heinlein's and
Clark's, will be easier to evaluate (if anyone cares to) in retrospect.
Fortunately for all concerned, I'll be dead and gone by then, and
won't be able to argue anymore.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

In article , Kirk Gordon wrote:
Mark Winlund wrote:
"Kirk Gordon" wrote
Heinlein was good at asking provocative questions, and at providing
answers which, I believe, were intended to be extreme rather than
accurate. Rather than a true sage or philosopher, IMHO, he was
more like an extremely interesting mega-troll.
You do realize this is sacrilege?

Certainly! And I'm thinking Heinlein would approve of sacrilege, if
it's for a good and noble purpose.

You may recall that Heinlien had an answer to all these problems.
In "Stranger In A Strange Book"
Though it *was* a strange book, I think it was "Stranger in a Strange
Land".

Strange book... Strange land... Strange ideas... It all runs
together in my mind.
....
Heinlein was an optimist - even to the point of being irresponsibly
optimistic about human nature, and about the homogeneity of
motivations that drive six billion individual people.
Yes he was.... Arthur C. Clarke was another.
Excellent post, Kirk. You are one of the better thinkers in this
group.
laughing NOW who's the optimist? Thank you very much for such a
compliment; but I suspect that my own thoughts, like Heinlein's and
Clark's, will be easier to evaluate (if anyone cares to) in retrospect.
Fortunately for all concerned, I'll be dead and gone by then, and
won't be able to argue anymore. KG

hmmm, did KG, in the last century _really_ mean "book", or did he
mis-speak? if yes, _what_ did he mean...., and.... my great grand-
kids can't wait. --Loren

And lo, it came about, that on Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:33:54 -0700 in
rec.crafts.metalworking , "Mark Winlund" was inspired to
utter:


You may recall that Heinlien had an answer to all these problems.
In "Stranger In A Strange Book", he invented a special class of "perfect
witnesses" - people with perfect memories, perfect integrity, and
perfect capacities for logic and judgement, who were called upon to be
the mediators or arbitrators in all forms of human negotiations and
disputes. These people were universally accepted, and were beyond
reproach or question. They could, therefore, become the trump card
played by justice and sanity, whenever those things were threatened.


Though it *was* a strange book, I think it was "Stranger in a Strange Land".

Those were "Fair witnesses", who trained hard to report only what they
personally had seen or heard, regardless of what their personal opinion was.

They didn't offer advice, even to their clients. Sort of a human
"tricorder."


--
pyotr filipivich
The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
the first time!?"

And lo, it came about, that on Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:10:21 -0400 in
rec.crafts.metalworking , Kirk Gordon was inspired to
utter:


If this is a good thing, then why don't folks in the US feel any
safer or more secure when they read about what Il is trying to do?
After all, the US remains a substantial nuclear power in its own right,
and could surely destroy North Korea if they ever dared to open fire
with their most dangerous weapons. So, even in a worst case scenario,
the Koreans are going to die, and most of us aren't. Why don't we
applaud the Korean effort, and welcome them gladly into the community of
"armed but reasonable" nations?

It might have something to do with the second half of that formulation.
I.e. there is some doubt as to whether Kim is "reasonable" as most people
understand the term.

I seriously doubt the "reasonableness" of a national leader who is
systematically starving the civilian population in order to build his army.
--
pyotr filipivich
The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
the first time!?"

pyotr filipivich wrote:

It might have something to do with the second half of that formulation.
I.e. there is some doubt as to whether Kim is "reasonable" as most people
understand the term.

I seriously doubt the "reasonableness" of a national leader who is
systematically starving the civilian population in order to build his army.


Ah! Good points!

So, the idea of being as dangerous as possible, in order to assure
the capacity to negotiate with your peers, isn't really the panacea that
others have suggested. We also need to consider other things about the
character and "reasonableness" of people who are arming themselves.
What do we know about their willingness to use force for unacceptible
purposes? What kind of track record do they have when it comes to using
resources they alredy have; and what does that tell us about the most
likely results of their acquiring new weapons and technologies? What
are the chances that they'll turn their guns (or nukes) on us the first
chance they get? What is the probability that negotiations will be used
to develop opportunities for attack, rather than the potential for
attack being used to promote negotiations?

What these questions amount to, of course, is almost EXACTLY the
kind of "background check" that is the subject of so much debate among
gun ownership advocates and their opponents. And what the questions
inevitably point to is the fact that we DON'T want everybody to be armed
to the teeth. There are some people who clearly shouldn't be - whether
we're talking about nations or individuals.

You can't have things both ways. You either promote unfettered
freedom to be armed and dangerous, and call that an inalienable and
universal right. Or you accept the fact that universal armament is NOT
a good thing; and then you have to do the hard work of figuring out how,
when, and under what circumstances, limits should be applied.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

on the topic of searches and such:

first, better to stay put, preferably behind cover and account for all
friendlies. have a phone and a flashlight available with your chosen arms.

second, use the flashlight to positively ID the bad guy, make sure it isn't a
drunk neighbor running around lost.

third, walking around with a long arm without practicing is inviting someone to
take it from you in close quarters, like a hallway. manueverability is key.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Those were "Fair witnesses", who trained hard to report only what they
personally had seen or heard, regardless of what their personal opinion was.

They didn't offer advice, even to their clients. Sort of a human
"tricorder."


It's been a long, LONG time since I read the book; but I think
you're right on all counts. Still, the idea of having human tricorders
assumes (as Heinlein's fictitious world clearly did) that there is some
authority, some universally accepted source of judgement, which actually
cares about the truth, and is able to use it for good purpose.

My memory has combined and over-simplified the specifics; but I
think the meaning and theme of what I remember is essentially correct.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.

In article ,
says...
pyotr filipivich wrote:

Those were "Fair witnesses", who trained hard to report only what they
personally had seen or heard, regardless of what their personal opinion was.

They didn't offer advice, even to their clients. Sort of a human
"tricorder."


It's been a long, LONG time since I read the book; but I think
you're right on all counts. Still, the idea of having human tricorders
assumes (as Heinlein's fictitious world clearly did) that there is some
authority, some universally accepted source of judgement, which actually
cares about the truth, and is able to use it for good purpose.

My memory has combined and over-simplified the specifics; but I
think the meaning and theme of what I remember is essentially correct.

KG


What caught my interest about the "Fair Witness" thing was that they were
needed not in spite of advanced technology, but because of it. While all
sorts of snooping and recording technology was available to the
characters of the novel, the art of special effects had also been raised
to a level where any sort of recording could be seamlessly edited. The
word of a trained impartial observer carried more weight in court.

Later,
Joe

The worst thing about really good science fiction is that it refuses to
remain fiction.

In article , Joe Kultgen
says...

What caught my interest about the "Fair Witness" thing was that they were
needed not in spite of advanced technology, but because of it. While all
sorts of snooping and recording technology was available to the
characters of the novel, the art of special effects had also been raised
to a level where any sort of recording could be seamlessly edited. The
word of a trained impartial observer carried more weight in court.

Of course it did not hurt that RAH made them all be
the cannonical 'scantily-clad attractive ladies.'
He never seemed to have any realistic looking women
in his novels. They were all supermodels for their
day.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:42:52 GMT, Joe Kultgen
wrote:

His notion that "An armed society is a polite society" dates back to a
time when America was a predominately agrarian society and the practice
of being publicly armed was much more common. Despite all the tales of
the "wild west" the average person was much safer then. If you weren't
in a saloon arguing with some drunk cowpoke over a doxy, your chances of
getting shot were practically nil. A criminal who *survived* three bank
holdups was still the stuff of legends a hundred years later. People for
the most part were honest and non-violent because those around them were
armed and not going to tolerate criminal acts. The fastest, most
ruthless gun slinger, still had to make some concessions in his behavior.
No matter how smugly certain he was in his skills, he had to face the
fact that while he might be able to take *anybody*, not even the fastest
could take *everybody*.

Later,
Joe

And many a Fast Gun, met his end, by a bullet in the back, delivered
by a slow citizen.

If one looks at the death stats from even the wild and wooly cattle
towns of the 1880-90 period..per capita there were far less homicides
than todays cities with strong gun control laws. Both inside and
outside of the city limits, folks tended to be far politer and less
likely to shoot each other.

For those anti gun extremists reading this..Ill ask you a few
questions....

Japan has a very low homicide rate by any means, not just firearms.
How come Japanese Americans have a very very low homicide rate, even
when surrounded by all the firearms in
America?.....00000000000000000000

Why is it that the US homicide figures, when minority members killing
each other in the inner city are factored out..does the US with all of
its millions of privately owned firearms, have a homicide rate,
within a point or two of the homicide rate (per capita) of the UK,
with their gun ban?

A rate, using ANY weapon in either country.


Why does Japan, have a hugely higher suicide rate than the US, and no
guns to commit sideways with?

Something thats not politically correct..is the answer.

Culture and cultural values.

Its not the guns, its the Culture, Stupid!




Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 09:37:16 GMT, Gunner wrote:

snip

Why is it that the US homicide figures, when minority members killing
each other in the inner city are factored out..does the US with all of
its millions of privately owned firearms, have a homicide rate,
within a point or two of the homicide rate (per capita) of the UK,
with their gun ban?

A rate, using ANY weapon in either country.

snip

if I may rephrase your question...

Why is it that the US homicide figures, when minority members killing
each other in the inner city are factored out..does the US with all of
its millions of privately owned defensive firearms, not have a homicide rate,
significantly lower than the homicide rate (per capita) of the UK _including_
minority members killing each other in the inner city?


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Gunner" wrote in message
news

And many a Fast Gun, met his end, by a bullet in the back, delivered
by a slow citizen.

If one looks at the death stats from even the wild and wooly cattle
towns of the 1880-90 period..per capita there were far less homicides
than todays cities with strong gun control laws. Both inside and
outside of the city limits, folks tended to be far politer and less
likely to shoot each other.


We have an interesting town about 175 miles north of Las Vegas called
Pioche. It was a mining town started in the 1880s. At its inception, it
was known for its lawlessness and violence. Seventy-two souls were interred
in the local cemetery before the first person died from natural causes.

And yet still they had law and order, even though those statistics would
imply otherwise. There seemed to be two factions in town. There were the
decent citizens and then there was the rabble. No one cared when the rabble
killed each other. No one cared when the decent citizens killed one of the
rabble. A compilation of the early police blotter action and the grand jury
indictments is available at the museum. Local bad guys were often found
dead in alleyways either killed by another bad guy, vigilance committee
members or by persons unknown. It was a regular thing for the bad guys to
assault citizens, or to say vulgar things and to be shot to death for their
actions. In each case, the grand jury deemed it an appropriate defense and
no action was taken. Bad guys were dealt with harshly once law enforcement
was present and the bad guys did things against the citizenry.

Point is that back in those times, people WERE politer and less likely to
shoot each other. But when confronted by the criminal element, they dealt
with slime without a second thought, and without bleeding heart defense
lawyers. Many of the men had come from the Civil War, and knew how to use
guns. The Hollywood impression of a cowering grovelling citizenry is way
off the mark historically. And when a society is allowed this
self-correcting policy, problems are usually solved early with less wear and
tear for all.

Just a thought.

STeve

In article , Gunner says...

Its not the guns, its the Culture, Stupid!

And that my friend is the message in Moore's
_bowling_for_columbine_. Granted his delivery
had fatal flaws, but really this is what the
film was trying to say.

He should have left the Heston segment go,
and emphasized the 'TV says black folks are
scarey, go and shoot black folks' part.

Canada has more guns per capita than the
US, but the culture is different. So the
firearm death rate is miniscule by comparison.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , says...
In article , Gunner says...

Its not the guns, its the Culture, Stupid!

And that my friend is the message in Moore's
_bowling_for_columbine_. Granted his delivery
had fatal flaws, but really this is what the
film was trying to say.

He should have left the Heston segment go,
and emphasized the 'TV says black folks are
scarey, go and shoot black folks' part.

Canada has more guns per capita than the
US, but the culture is different. So the
firearm death rate is miniscule by comparison.

Jim


I've seen "Bowling" and didn't care for Moore or the opinions he
expressed through his movie. That's not a problem. Nobody was forcing
me to watch and it will save me from wasting time on any of his future
work.

However, the media referring to that deceptive and dishonest propaganda
piece as a "documentary" is a brutal slap in the face to anyone who ever
worked to produced a genuine documentary.

The guy flat out *lied* not once but repeatedly, in a manner that
required conscious effort on his part. It wasn't inadvertent or the
accidental result of personal bias. That's propaganda not documentary.

Later,
Joe

What a surprising statement. I'd love to see a cite for this...??

mcn

gunless in Vancouver


"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

....
Canada has more guns per capita than the
US, but the culture is different. So the
firearm death rate is miniscule by comparison.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 27 Sep 2003 06:57:55 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Its not the guns, its the Culture, Stupid!

And that my friend is the message in Moore's
_bowling_for_columbine_. Granted his delivery
had fatal flaws, but really this is what the
film was trying to say.

He should have left the Heston segment go,
and emphasized the 'TV says black folks are
scarey, go and shoot black folks' part.

Canada has more guns per capita than the
US, but the culture is different. So the
firearm death rate is miniscule by comparison.

Jim


Bowling for Columbine was a lying slimey bit of propaganda that was
better then anything Leni Riefenstahl could have produced.

http://gunowners.org/opmoore01.htm
http://gunowners.org/opmooretb.htm


http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder011603.asp
http://www.moorelies.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34367


Other articles of interest:

http://gunowners.org/optb.htm

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

On 27 Sep 2003 06:57:55 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

And that my friend is the message in Moore's
_bowling_for_columbine_. Granted his delivery
had fatal flaws, but really this is what the
film was trying to say.

No..Moore was not trying to say jack ****, except spew propaganda for
his own benefit.

More on the despicable Mr. Moo

http://www.larryelder.com/michael.html



Gunner, pondering the use of " Fatal Flaws...But...."


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

On 27 Sep 2003 11:45:18 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Gunner, pondering the use of " Fatal Flaws...But...."

I never said the film was good. But he made a good point.
The media stir up a potload of horse**** about how
dangerous life is, and at the end of the tale there is
the inevitable mysterious black man.

Moore's real story is that TV, press, radio wants the
US public to see the dangerous side of life because
that's what gets ratings.

Jim

Moores real story is Moore wants the public to see him as some
crusader defending the Little Guy. Look at the rest of his flicks.

The man is pond scum.

Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

On 27 Sep 2003 15:13:21 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...


Moores real story is Moore wants the public to see him as some
crusader defending the Little Guy. Look at the rest of his flicks.

He's in the business of making and marketing films. That's
what he does.

So is the Disney Corp. Lets see an equivalent example of odious
propaganda on their part.


The man is pond scum.

I've seen scummier. Not exactly the world's
greatest recommendation but there it is.

Jim

Larry Flint? At least he is honest.


Gunner


"Anyone who cannot cope with firearms is not fully human. At best he
is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not
make messes in the house."
With appologies to RAH..

In article , Gunner says...

So is the Disney Corp. Lets see an equivalent example of odious
propaganda on their part.

M-I-C K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E

I think all of disney's stuff is aimed in the
same direction that MM's is. They want to
market films and sell advertising. It's
a *business*.

Larry Flint? At least he is honest.

I don't equate the two. Flynt's comment
in the film about him is 100% on point:
"If the first amendment will protect a
scumbag like me, it will sure protect *you*."

Here he was talking to a newspaper reporter
IIRC.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Of course they were. Why bother to discuss, much less seriously talk about
ugly "broads?"

Mike Eberlein (read his first Heinlein book at age 10, now working on year 57.
Damn, am getting old here)

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Joe Kultgen
says...

What caught my interest about the "Fair Witness" thing was that they were
needed not in spite of advanced technology, but because of it. While all
sorts of snooping and recording technology was available to the
characters of the novel, the art of special effects had also been raised
to a level where any sort of recording could be seamlessly edited. The
word of a trained impartial observer carried more weight in court.

Of course it did not hurt that RAH made them all be
the cannonical 'scantily-clad attractive ladies.'
He never seemed to have any realistic looking women
in his novels. They were all supermodels for their
day.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 23 Sep 2003 16:51:49 -0700, (Excitable Boy)
wrote:

(Glen) wrote in message ...


Read the "Black Book" about the
great effects of Communism, try reading it with an open mind. The
authors were French academicians I believe, not from Bob Jones U
either.



Thanks for the "I believe" disclaimer. I intend to steer
clear of your beliefs. As for what I need to know about
Communism, I live smack dab in the middle of one and a
half billion, that's a one with nine zeros after it,
Communists. Thanks much for your concerns but it's quite
possible that I have a greater understanding of Communism
than nitwits such as yourself will ever have.

Ah, isn't that one and a half billion, not communists, but people
living under communist rule, with no peaceful means to change the
government if they wanted to?

Kind of reminds me of the news reporters interviewing Iraqis before
the war. "Yes, we support Saddam!" Well, they better have, or else!

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

Thanks for the "I believe" disclaimer. I intend to steer
clear of your beliefs. As for what I need to know about
Communism, I live smack dab in the middle of one and a
half billion, that's a one with nine zeros after it,
Communists. Thanks much for your concerns but it's quite
possible that I have a greater understanding of Communism
than nitwits such as yourself will ever have.

Ah, isn't that one and a half billion, not communists, but people
living under communist rule, with no peaceful means to change the
government if they wanted to?


Actualy, that is a one followed by a five and eight zeroes.

John Martin