On Sun, 16 May 2004 06:37:35 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:01:03 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Ah the independent frontiersman! Nobody's gonna tell him what to do!
Not even his own elected government!


Correct. We tell THEM what to do. Every 4 years we refresh their
memory. Sometimes they listen, sometimes not. However when the
government becomes oppressive odd things happen as demonstrated by a
certain document released in 4 July, 1776

My country was ruled by the same monarchy, and still is. But we didn't
have to get into a shooting war to gain our freedom. You seem to feel
that a magnum load is the solution to every problem.


Of course its not. High explosives are. You on the other hand are so
biased and fearful of an ordinary tool you shudder in horror at the
mear thought of them. Its evident you have some emotional issues on
the subject. Id sure like to hear the story behind your problem.

Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:57:51 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:01:03 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths:

Correct. We tell THEM what to do. Every 4 years we refresh their
memory. Sometimes they listen, sometimes not. However when the

Sometimes they listen?!? I'm from Missouri. Show me.


We in California dumped a long time Democrat (Davis) and put the man
we wanted in power, even against the will of the establishment. And he
appears to be doing a marvelous job.


17. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 22. Despite ignoring accidents, I cannot
help relating that, in 1892, accidental deaths due to misuse of
pistols were just three more than those due to misuse of perambulators
(ibid).

Heh heh heh. "BAN BABY CARRIAGES NOW!"

Let's just hope not too many people here are in the carriage
wheel (or frame) business.

Chuckle...

Gunner



-----------------------------------------------------------------
When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:43:33 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

Given the rising crime rates in the UK..

The crime rates aren't rising in the UK, they are falling.

Cattle! Welcome back to ass kicking central. You and I have bumped
horns enough by now that Id thought you would shy away from the fray,
given the sheer numbers of times you have had your ass handed to you.

So Cattle..what bit of propaganda are you proposing today?


Standby folks..you are in for a rare treat.. He can almost find his
ass with either hand. I rather think he is part of the SM/BD
community as a sub, as he seems to enjoy being publicly humiliated.


Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:23:15 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against
the tyranny of our own government. [2]

My country doesn't have a tyrannous government. Neither does yours,

Perhaps not, but y'all do have some government employees who would
like to be tyrannical.

So you plan to shoot those you encounter?

On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:30:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

We in California dumped a long time Democrat (Davis) and put the man
we wanted in power, even against the will of the establishment. And he
appears to be doing a marvelous job.

The Terminator! Yeah, that figures.

Well I guess I've provoked you folks into showing your true colors
well enough. For a metalwork forum at least.

Have fun in Dodge City!

On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:30:52 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:57:51 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 08:01:03 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths:

Correct. We tell THEM what to do. Every 4 years we refresh their
memory. Sometimes they listen, sometimes not. However when the

Sometimes they listen?!? I'm from Missouri. Show me.


We in California dumped a long time Democrat (Davis) and put the man
we wanted in power, even against the will of the establishment. And he
appears to be doing a marvelous job.

He was next in line to my first choice, Carey (porno starlet),
and I'm glad he got the nod. I just wish he wasn't a Shrubbery
piece. BUT, since I don't live there any more, c'est la vie.



17. Greenwood, op. cit., p. 22. Despite ignoring accidents, I cannot
help relating that, in 1892, accidental deaths due to misuse of
pistols were just three more than those due to misuse of perambulators
(ibid).

Heh heh heh. "BAN BABY CARRIAGES NOW!"

Let's just hope not too many people here are in the carriage
wheel (or frame) business.

Chuckle...

I'm glad I don't live in the UK or Oz, where people are but
sheep for the armed wolves.


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

On Mon, 17 May 2004 06:47:41 GMT, Gunner
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:39:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

You're way behind the times. Other researchers have analyzed
more data than Lott's and they found that Lott's research
fails to hold up.

The rest, including Rubin and Dezhbaksh were blown out of the water by
Polsby & Kates, Mustard and Kleck and the US Department of Justice
studies.

I read the 2nd edition, where Lott refutes his disbelievers in
the media and edu clans.

Carl and John are caught believing the same lies I believed until
I started doing more (open-minded) research on it.

Thanks again, Gunner.


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

I'm glad I don't live in the UK or Oz, where people are but
sheep for the armed wolves.


Well, we certainly agree on that.

--
Jeff
(Sydney, Australia)

Carl Nisarel wrote:

The 2nd Amendment is only a bar against Federal restrictions
by Congress. It does not apply to any other jurisdiction.

So my state can restrict my right to free speech? They can search my home
at any time they want? Are all the amendments Federal only or is the 2nd
different?

Brad

--

************************************************** *********************
Brad Millard On-line ballistics for small arms...
www.eskimo.com/~jbm
************************************************** *********************

As a sort of background for this and similar discussions, I am about
80% through Churchill's 4000 pages of WWII history. Also there
are several other related books on my shelf. It probably does not
matter, but I was a history minor as an undergrad.

In the context of WWII England and its struggle, Orwell's meaning
is pretty clear, and agrees with Gunner's reading.

In the 4000 pages from Churchill, there are probably 500 pages on
just the topic of the freedom of people and the relationship to being
armed. Please read it for yourself. After a few years background reading,
the Churchill stuff by itself still will take a few months.

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
John Ings wrote:
On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:12:30 -0400, Jeff Wisnia
wrote:

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

I see the meaning of those two sentences as saying that if the
government continued to act in a democratic fashion and did not become
repressive, there would be no need for the citizenry to rise up and use
those arms "on the wall" to overthrow it.

But that's not how Orwell meant it! The intended purpose of that
GOVERNMENT ISSUE gun was for a Home Guard member to use on German
invaders, not his own government.

As I see his meaning too.
It's clearly not referring to the govermnment issuing guns to be used
if the citezenry need to overthrow it.

John Ings wrote:


No, because automobiles have another use besides "self protection".



Surely you folk can come up with better than that old "utility" argument?

Guns have other uses than self-protection too.

Same old same old; blood in the streets, shootouts over traffic
accidents or over parking slots, families devastated by firearms
accidents, guns aren't useful in _every_ case so they're useless in
_all_ cases and so on and on and on. Maybe _you_ haven't said that
(yet), but this surely looks as though it's starting along the old,
familiar path.

And never a cite to be seen that shows any of those being statistically
significant occurrences.

Don't want a gun? Don't own one.

If my (for example) owning a gun would frighten you, I really can't help
that. Who's to know _what_ might frighten you?

Don't expect anybody to respect calls for legislation or whatever based
only on your feeling or anyone else's. Feelings are not in the control
of anyone but whomever has them.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:42:09 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:39:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Larry Jaques
wrote --

I finished Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" a couple
weeks ago and found it interesting. He compiled and
crossreferenced a helluva lot more data than any previous
study.

You're way behind the times. Other researchers have
analyzed more data than Lott's and they found that Lott's
research fails to hold up.

Cites Cattle, Cites.


WTF do you think the items below are?

Names and discredited opinion pieces for the most part.



Be advised I will respond with other cites,

No, you won't. You'll go off on moronic genetic fallacies.

LOL..your memory is short again. Is it that pesky head injury you
suffered at the Saturday Night Baccanilla at the bathhouse? You were
warned not to try that stunt.



that blow yours
(again) out of the water. Shall we discuss the
Kleck/Mustard findings?

There are no "Kleck/Mustard" findings.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/ccjfaculty/kleck.htm

http://www.consumeralert.org/fumento/gun.htm



Hummmm???? Chortle...

There is better evidence that More guns does not equal Less
Crime. [Cook, 1991; Cook & Leitzel, 1996; Cook & Ludwig,
1996; Hemenway, 1997; Kellermann, Westohal, Fischer, &
Harvard, 1995; Ludwig, 1998; McDowall, Loftin, & Wiersema,
1995; Ayes & Donohue 1999; Ayers & Donohue 2003; Donohue
2003;Rubin & Dezhbakhsh 1998; Rubin & Dezhbakhsh 2003]

Kellermann? You still attempting to push Kellermann? Even
HE said his findings were bogus and withdrew them.

No, he didn't.

Like I said, you'd go for the idiotic genetic fallacy.

http://www.haciendapub.com/iol1.html
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Suter/med-lit.txt

The rest, including Rubin and Dezhbaksh were blown out of
the water by Polsby & Kates,

Considering that the R & D paper was published long after the
P & K paper, you're deluded.

And it used flawed methodology that was well coverd in the P & K
paper. Seems R & D used the conclusion they wanted to find, then
researched for it. Not particularly ethical or even scientific, no?
Typical of your ilk however.

Mustard and Kleck

Doesn't exist.

See above.


and the US Department of Justice studies.

You don't know what a cite is.

Lott destroyed his own reputation by creating the Mary Rosh
sockpuppet, drawing conclusions from data that did not
exist, and modifying and back-dating models in an attempt
to cover up coding errors in his data.

Sure Cattle..sure....run it up the flag pole one more
time..maybe someone will somday believe you.

The people who can think do believe me.

Sure they do..ahuh. Sarah Brady and the VPC bunch are real deep
thinkers.

Keep citing Lott, it demonstrates that you're a blinkered
ideologue.

I cited many others as well. Seems your reading comprehension issues
have grown.

Lott *is* the gunner's Bellesiles.

Bellesiles..now there is a winner in the anti-gun extremist
camp.

Just like Lott is the 'winner' in your camp.

Cites? I should mention his data and conclusions have been long peer
reviewed as have his later works and findings and still not found
wanting. Lotts Mary Rouse issue is not in question, nor is it
germane.

A cult figurehead of yours as I recall.

Nope. I've never cited Bellesiles.

Really? Ill have to do a bit of usenet searching...chuckle...


Until he got
caught not only making up his research, but lying about it.

Lott has been caught making up research and lying about it.

Cites?


Lost his Peabody Award, lost his tenure at Emory.

Lott failed to retain his Olin Fellowship, failed to obtain
tenure at UPenn.

Yes, and?

Keep citing him, it's an easy target.

Chuckle..I see you conviently forgot to mention all the others you
have no handle on...snicker

Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:38:17 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked for the 532nd time, Gunner wrote --

Shall we discuss the Kleck/Mustard findings?

Here's Gary Kleck's CV:
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/ccjfaculty/kleckvita.htm

Point out any paper he's done with David Mustard.

Here's David Mustard's CV:
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dmustard/dbmcv.htm

Point out any paper he's done with Gary Kleck.

When you fail to do that, explain why you're 'citing'
research that does not exist?

I predict you'll spew and bail.

Point out where I indicated that they did research together. I
pointed out that finders from BOTH of them backed each other up. As
well as many others.

Now about all the others...
Snicker

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 05:24:26 -0700, John Ings
wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:30:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

We in California dumped a long time Democrat (Davis) and put the man
we wanted in power, even against the will of the establishment. And he
appears to be doing a marvelous job.

The Terminator! Yeah, that figures.

Yup..and he seems to be ****ing off/pleasing both the left and the
right equally. Works for me and most of the rest of the state. We
dont hear much complaints about him. Thats a good thing, no?

Well I guess I've provoked you folks into showing your true colors
well enough. For a metalwork forum at least.

Have fun in Dodge City!



Ah..John..even during its most wild and wooley days..Dodge City had a
crime rate below that of most modern cities. Something about
committing a crime when your victims are are armed tends to either
make Darwin Events out of those that arnt really bright, or moderates
the behaviors of those with enough brain cells to understand the deck
is stacked against them.

"(Actually, Dodge City, Kan., wasn't the Dodge City of myth. It was
much safer than today's Washington, D.C., with homicides running to
one or two per cattle-trading season and marshals mostly concerned,
writes the historian Roger Lane, "with arresting drunks and other
misdemeanants.") "

But dont let your Hollywood bred issues get in the way of your own
view of reality.

Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the
term "true colors". Please amplify.

Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:45:18 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:43:33 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

Given the rising crime rates in the UK..

The crime rates aren't rising in the UK, they are falling.

Cattle! Welcome back to ass kicking central.

I know, I kick your ass every time.

Snicker...right. Shall we ask the question on other newsgroups you
tend to troll?

I provided the latest information on crime in the UK. You're
wrong.

I also provided the cites to show that those figures are bogus bogus
bogus. But hey dont let that stop you from using them.

....

Standby folks..you are in for a rare treat.

Watching you get smacked around isn't rare. You'll bail very
soon.

Bring your lunch? Its gonna be a long day for you.

Gunner



....

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:36:15 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:40:51 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gordon Couger
wrote --

Every state that has passed concealed carry laws has had
a decreases in mugging, rape, murder and car jacking.

Not Minnesota.

Cites? When did Minnesota get a shall issue CCW law? 1 year
ago. Now where is your data? Cites Cattle, Cites.

You're a laugh a minute, gungoon. You spout stats constantly
but never produce cites.

The data for the Minnesota crime rate for last year was
recently release. Violent crime is going up, not down.

Cites, as you so inelequently mentioned above.

Chuckle

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:43:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:46:42 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Paul Farber
wrote --

Good thing about the USA is that each state has the right
to its own gun laws.

No, they don't.

Given that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right to
keep and bear arms of a military nature.

The 2nd Amendment is only a bar against Federal restrictions
by Congress. It does not apply to any other jurisdiction.


Really?

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/2aupheld.html
http://www.hoboes.com/html/Politics/...ms/miller.html
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

Shall we discuss the Standard Model? Chuckle...or shall we simply go
directly to the Federalist and Anti Federalist Papers?

Or are you saying that if California decides that Slavery is legal,
the Feds cannot stop it except on Federal property?

Snicker...

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:37:23 GMT, "James B. Millard"
wrote:

Carl Nisarel wrote:

The 2nd Amendment is only a bar against Federal restrictions
by Congress. It does not apply to any other jurisdiction.

So my state can restrict my right to free speech? They can search my home
at any time they want? Are all the amendments Federal only or is the 2nd
different?

Brad

Welcome to Cattle Logic 101.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:12:07 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, James B. Millard
wrote --

Carl Nisarel wrote:

The 2nd Amendment is only a bar against Federal
restrictions by Congress. It does not apply to any other
jurisdiction.

So my state can restrict my right to free speech?

No, the 1st Amendment does apply to other jurisdictions.

The 14th Amendment has been unequally applied to the various
rights.


They can
search my home at any time they want? Are all the
amendments Federal only or is the 2nd different?

The 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments have been ruled as
applying to other jurisdictions (via the 14th Amendment). The
rest have not.

Nobody said that SCOTUS is consistent

The 14th is inclusive.

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon.htm
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

Also see:
U.S. Supreme Court cases that refer to the right to keep and bear
arms and also quote the militia clause:

1. Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820).
2. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
3. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149-51 (1972)
(Justice Douglas's dissent).
4. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980).
5. Printz v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 2385-86
(1997) (Justice Thomas's concurrence).


U.S. Supreme Court cases that refer to the right to keep
and bear arms without even mentioning the militia clause:

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51
(1857).
2. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876).
3. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886).
4. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 286-87 (1892).
5. Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894).
6. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 635 (1896) (Justice
Field's dissent).
7. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897).
8. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900).
9. Kepner v. United States, 195 U.S. 100, 123-24 (1904).
10. Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 528 (1905).
11. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98 (1908).
12. Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 78 (1947)
(Justice Black's dissent).
13. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950).
14. Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 378 n.5 (1958).
15. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 49 & n.10
(1961).
16. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961) (Justice
Harlan's dissent).
17. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 169 (1973) (Justice
Stewart's concurrence) (quoting Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v.
Ullman).
18. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 502
(1977) (plurality opinion) (quoting Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v.
Ullman).
19. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265
(1990).
20. Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848
(1992) (quoting Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v. Ullman).
21. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 306-07 (1994)
(Justice Stevens's dissent) (quoting Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe
v. Ullman).
22. Muscarello v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1911, 1921
(1998) (Justice Ginsburg's dissent).

If you are trying to make the case for Current SCOTUS...try again.

And then of course we have Emerson

Received August 11, 1999
Federal Judge Sam Cummings of the Northern District of Texas recently
dismissed an indictment against Timothy Joe Emerson for possession of
a firearm while having a temporary restraining order against him. The
judge cited violations of Emerson's Second and Fifth Amendment rights,
and rejected the Government lawyer's claim that it was "well-settled"
that the Second Amendment was only a collective right. This marks the
first time in over 60 years that a federal judge has correctly
interpreted the Second Amendment as a crucial individual right.

"This is one of the strongest rulings I have read regarding any of the
Bill of Rights," proclaimed SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "The
overwhelming evidence proving the founding father's intent is very
meticulously researched and coherently laid out for all to see." The
case arises from a divorce proceeding began by Emerson's wife. The
presiding judge issued a temporary restraining order against Mr.
Emerson prohibiting him from engaging in various financial
transactions (such as emptying the joint accounts), or threatening
harm to his wife or her live-in boyfriend. Mrs. Emerson claimed that
Mr. Emerson had made a telephone death threat against her lover. The
judge did not issue a finding that Mr. Emerson was a possible danger,
nor did he warn Mr. Emerson that he faced possible federal felony
prosecution if caught with a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)) after the
restraining order was activated.

Unaware of his prohibited status, Mr. Emerson was later found in
possession of a firearm and indicted for this offense. Which brings us
to his attempted prosecution in Judge Sam Cummings courtroom. Mr.
Emerson moved to dismiss the charge as an unconstitutional exercise of
congressional power under the Commerce Clause and the Second, Fifth,
and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Judge Cummings
agreed to dismiss on violations on Second and Fifth Amendment grounds.

The vast majority of the decision is a discussion of the real meaning
of the Second Amendment. Judge Cummings begins by going through the
two schools of thought, the "states rights" or "collective rights"
theory versus the "individual rights" theory. He then enumerates in
great detail why in individual right, now known as the "Standard
Model" in academic literature, is the proper interpretation. Judge
Cummings cites as his many reasons for supporting an individual right
include:

1. Textual Analysis. The subordinate "Militia" clause, does not negate
or limit the independent "the right of the people" clause.
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that "the people"
should be interpreted similarly in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth,
and Ninth Amendments.

2. Historical Analysis. Judge Cummings found that an examination of
(a) English History, (b) Colonial Right to Bear Arms, (c) The
Ratification Debates, and (d) Drafting of the Second Amendment all
show clearly that the right was meant as an individual protection. The
Judge repeatedly cited relevant English and Colonial laws, quoted from
numerous founding fathers, and provided a crucial history lesson on
how, "Without that individual right [to bear arms], the colonists
never could have won the Revolutionary War."

3. Structural Analysis. The structure of the Second Amendment within
the Bill of Rights proves that the right to bear arms is an individual
right, rather than a collective one. Of the first ten amendments to
the Constitution, only the Tenth concerns itself with the rights of
the states, and refers to such rights in addition to, not instead of,
individual rights.

4. Judicial Interpretations. Judge Cummings notes that the courts have
been divided on this issue, and but that the U.S. Supreme Court has
not had a true Second Amendment case since 1939.

5. Prudential Concerns. Judge Cummings also admonished people who are
trying to eliminate the right to keep and bear arms just because that
right is outdated, unpopular, or costly. Such "cost-benefit" analysis
merely proves that the founding fathers were right in including it in
the Bill of Rights.

Judge Cummings then utilized his skilled reasoning to conclude that
the federal unlawful possession law (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8)), "is
unconstitutional because it allows a state court divorce proceeding,
without particularized findings of the threat of future violence, to
automatically deprive a citizen of his Second Amendment rights. The
statute allows, but does not require, that the restraining order
include a finding that the person under the order represents a
credible threat to the physical safety of the intimate partner or
child...Therefore, by criminalizing protected Second Amendment
activity based upon a civil state court order with no particularized
findings, the statute is over-broad and in direct violation of an
individual's Second Amendment rights."


Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 05:14:14 -0700, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:23:15 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

for mutual defense, and perhaps most significantly, to protect against
the tyranny of our own government. [2]

My country doesn't have a tyrannous government. Neither does yours,

Perhaps not, but y'all do have some government employees who would
like to be tyrannical.

So you plan to shoot those you encounter?

Do you really think that every single gun ever produced is going
to be used -only- for -offensive- purposes? If so, you've been
trained poorly (wrongly?) by your Queen's military and WE are
not the paranoid folks, YOU are, John.

The phrase "Chance favors the prepared mind." doesn't imply offense,
but neither does it leave it out of possibility. People are basically
good, but other phrases (like "Trust everybody, but cut the cards.")
are warranted.

Louis Pasteur coined the "chance" phrase, but it was more recently
used by Anthony Hopkins (one of your better exports, thanks) in the
movie "The Edge". It's an excellent movie in case you haven't seen it.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0119051/


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

Don Foreman wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

http://members.misty.com/don/lede.html
Why LEDs can be 10 times as efficient as incandescents in some
applications but not in general home lighting!

There's a follow on article to that that in turn links to
http://www.cree.com/Products/led_index.asp
These folk claim to be just staring into volume production on an LED
that puts out 60 to 75 lumens/watt. This is getting up near the best
flourescents, IIRC. Maybe I'll live long enough to be able to afford
some. :-)

They do work well in flashlights, though. Flashlight bulbs fail,
usually on turn-on and often after only a few hours or use. LED's
typically last for 20,000 hours or more and they don't fail abruptly.

Present offerings still may not meet your "everyman's price" target,
but you can machine aluminum and a 1-watt Luxeon Star can be had for
about $12 in onesies.

Last I looked, well made incandescent flashlights were in that price
range. I'll stick with LED's.

Ted

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:30:30 GMT, Carl Nisarel
brought forth from the murky depths:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Larry Jaques
wrote --

I read the 2nd edition, where Lott refutes his disbelievers
in the media and edu clans.

Since Lott's 2nd edition was published before the research
produced by Ayers and Donohue and the research by Rubin &
Dezhbakhsh, your claim is rather bizarre.

Had you read the book, you'd realize that there is a chapter
in there which does precisely that: refutes their claims
that his data is in error. (However you wish to state it.)


Point to the page number in Lott's 2nd edition where he
refutes the research done by those researchers.

Are you just here for the sake of argument? Reread my post.

Feel free to look it up yourself--unless books on "offensive"
weapons like guns are also illegal over there. The copy I had
was on loan to me from another branch of my county library
system and isn't handy.


While you're at it, in his 2nd edition, Lott makes a
statement about a survey he claims to have conducted in 1997.
Why don't you point out where Lott has that data?

My bet is that neither you nor Gunner will be able to do it.

Why don't you do something useful, Carl? Read some other books
and papers with an open mind. You'll soon realize that the
stance you have is totally emotional and without validity.

Hollywood (or, perhaps, Pinewood?) strikes again!


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

Skipping school, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Mon, 17 May 2004 20:04:35 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:

Ah..John..even during its most wild and wooley days..Dodge City had a
crime rate below that of most modern cities. Something about
committing a crime when your victims are are armed tends to either
make Darwin Events out of those that arnt really bright, or moderates
the behaviors of those with enough brain cells to understand the deck
is stacked against them.

"(Actually, Dodge City, Kan., wasn't the Dodge City of myth. It was
much safer than today's Washington, D.C.,

Heck, it was safer than Washington D.C. in those days too.

with homicides running to
one or two per cattle-trading season and marshals mostly concerned,
writes the historian Roger Lane, "with arresting drunks and other
misdemeanants.") "

Most o the trouble was the usual, young single transient males. Many who
had just gotten paid and wanted "to get drunk, get laid or get in a fight. Any
one or all three, don't matter."
Same demographic that is the cause of much trouble in these "modern" times.
(See Sig)

But dont let your Hollywood bred issues get in the way of your own
view of reality.

Im interested though..in what you were implying by your choice of the
term "true colors". Please amplify.

Gunner

--
pyotr filipivich
Most of the intelligentsia haven't studied history, so much
as they've absorbed the Correct Position on "History".

On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:43:58 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:43:50 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote
--

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:46:42 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Paul Farber
wrote --

Good thing about the USA is that each state has the
right to its own gun laws.

No, they don't.

Given that the Second Amendment guarantees the Right to
keep and bear arms of a military nature.

The 2nd Amendment is only a bar against Federal
restrictions by Congress. It does not apply to any other
jurisdiction.


Really?

Yes, really.

Here's what Findlaw says about the 2nd Amendment: "Whatever
the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action,
not extending to state or private restraints."

Here's court case quote for you:

"we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the
states" Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th
Cir. 1982)

Yup..from one of the most notorious antigun areas in the us.


http://www.nrawinningteam.com/2aupheld.html

You're citing the NRA???????

No..it was the link on the NRA website to this: (which of course you
knew)

FEDERAL COURT UPHOLDS
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS



In what could prove to be an extremely important precedent-
setting decision, a United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas recently dismissed an indictment against a defendant
based on the opinion that the federal law he was accused of violating
represented an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power that
violated rights protected under the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

The law, which was buried within the massive 1994 Clinton Crime
Bill, prohibits the possession of a firearm by anyone with a court
restraining order. The defendant's wife had petitioned for a temporary
restraining order against the defendant prohibiting him from making
threatening communications or actual attacks on his wife during the
divorce proceedings. Even though no evidence was presented that the
defendant posed any threat to his wife or other members of his family,
the restraining order was granted, and under the obscure federal law,
he could no longer lawfully own firearms. Unfortunately, no one ever
told him about this law, and when federal authorities found he
possessed firearms, he was indicted.


The ruling by U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the
law violated both the Second and Fifth Amendments. But the most
important aspect of this ruling centers around the Second Amendment.
Citing a veritable who's-who list of constitutional scholars and
attorneys, Cummings explored the historical context of the Amendment,
its grammatical structure, judicial interpretations, and how it
relates to society today, finding in all cases that it clearly
protects an individual right to arms.

The ruling even discussed the 1939 United States v. Miller case,
which is often misinterpreted by anti-gun proponents like Sarah Brady
and HCI. In discussing the Miller case, the judge stated that,
contrary to the claims of Brady and others, the court did not rule
that the Second Amendment protected a collective right, rather than an
individual right. He even went so far as to suggest that the Miller
case could be used to support the position that the ban on assault
weapons is unconstitutional.

Judge Cummings' decision (excerpts below) will undoubtedly be
appealed by the federal government, and, as courts often move
cautiously in cases of great importance, it may be some time before
the effects of this decision are made clear. Rest assured that NRA
will be following it closely, and we will report any further
developments.

Excerpts from Judge Cummings' Decision

"A historical examination of the right to bear arms...bears
proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should
still be, construed as an individual right."

"The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously
guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in theBill of
Rights."

"It is absurd that a boilerplate state court divorce order can
collaterally and automatically extinguish a law-abiding citizen's
Second Amendment rights...."


The Emerson Decision in full:

http://www.saf.org/1999Emersoncase2amend.html


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a ****in' moron.

Learn how to cite something other than a biased political
opinion piece.
....
Not even a good attempt at spin Cattle. Do try again, ok?

Snicker


Gunner


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:43:58 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:


Yes, really.

Here's what Findlaw says about the 2nd Amendment: "Whatever
the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action,
not extending to state or private restraints."


Ill bet this one frosts your ass....chuckle....

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90B5FFB18A092A6F88256DDD000000FE/$file/0210318.pdf?openelement

"In a surprise decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that
Congress does not have the right to regulate homemade machine guns and
their parts because they were never in the stream of commerce. This is
big news, because any restriction on the Commerce Clause (which is
used as the basis for most regulation) may affect many other
regulations as well," Thalia writes. "The facts in this case are
simple: Robert W. Stewart sold parts kits for the manufacture and
assembly of Maadi-Griffin .50 caliber rifles; he advertised the kits
on the Internet and in Shotgun News, a national firearms magazine. An
agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
discovered that Stewart had a prior conviction for possession and
transfer of a machine gun and decided to investigate Stewart's
business. A search warrant turned up thirty-one firearms, including
five machine guns. The machine guns had been machined and assembled by
Stewart.

"The question of law, as framed by the 9th Circuit was: Section 922(o)
makes it unlawful to 'transfer or possess a machine gun.' Notably
absent from this provision is any jurisdictional requirement that the
machine gun has traveled in or substantially affected interstate
commerce. We decide whether this statute, as applied to Stewart,
offends the Commerce Clause. The 9th Circuit used the Morrison Test,
which has the following elements: 1) whether the regulated activity is
commercial or economic in nature; (2) whether an express
jurisdictional element is provided in the statute to limit its reach;
(3) whether Congress made express findings about the effects of the
proscribed activity on interstate commerce; and (4) whether the link
between the prohibited activity and the effect on interstate commerce
is attenuated. The 9th Circuit held that Section 922(o) failed prongs
1, 2, and 3 of the Morrison test, and therefore, was unconstitutional
as being an overreaching of the Commerce clause.

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 01:10:17 GMT, Carl Nisarel
brought forth from the murky depths:

-unless books on
"offensive" weapons like guns are also illegal over there.
The copy I had was on loan to me from another branch of my
county library system and isn't handy.

I see. You're relying on your faulty memory.

I have the book on my shelf. Your assertion is false.

I (rationally) meant that the book I read disputed his
previous critics' findings, kid. (If you're going to act
childish, you're going to get called on it.)

And with that I'm done conversing with you on this subject.
Keep your semantics, your rhetoric, and your paranoid, gun-
controlling games for all I care.

Now I see why Gunner has no patience with you.

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Ted Edwards wrote:
Don Foreman wrote:

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:47:00 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

http://members.misty.com/don/lede.html
Why LEDs can be 10 times as efficient as incandescents in some
applications but not in general home lighting!

There's a follow on article to that that in turn links to
http://www.cree.com/Products/led_index.asp
These folk claim to be just staring into volume production on an LED
that puts out 60 to 75 lumens/watt. This is getting up near the best
flourescents, IIRC. Maybe I'll live long enough to be able to afford
some. :-)

Product name?
60 to 75 lumens/watt is a modest improvement over some existing LEDs,
but coloured ones.
White are all around 25lm/W.
Are you sure that they are in fact talking about white?
(colour mixing can get higher than single LEDs)

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:06:22 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Perhaps not, but y'all do have some government employees who would
like to be tyrannical.

So you plan to shoot those you encounter?

Do you really think that every single gun ever produced is going
to be used -only- for -offensive- purposes?

Stick to the subject. You mentioned tyrannical government employees.
So you're planning on a Ruby Ridge style shootout? The courts aren't
an option?

On Mon, 17 May 2004 08:07:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

6 million firearms in your country John....Ill bet the dead bodies are
laying every where.

Never mind the gross total Gunner. Quote me the firearms per capita,
broken down into sporting rifles, shotguns and pistols. Then show the
numbers for the US in comparison. In fact just handgund per capita
would be interesting. Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure and
I suspect the NRA of creative bookeeping.

Stick to the subject. You mentioned tyrannical government employees.

Looks like the subject is LEDs to me!

Ian Stirling wrote:

There's a follow on article to that that in turn links to
http://www.cree.com/Products/led_index.asp
These folk claim to be just staring into volume production on an LED
that puts out 60 to 75 lumens/watt. This is getting up near the best
flourescents, IIRC. Maybe I'll live long enough to be able to afford
some. :-)

Product name?
60 to 75 lumens/watt is a modest improvement over some existing LEDs,
but coloured ones.
White are all around 25lm/W.

Indeed. Check out the links in
http://members.misty.com/don/led.html
Note the "e" that isn't there.
"
White LEDs - 15-20 or mid-20's lumens/watt by Nichia, 15-25-plus by
Lumileds, 10-plus by Toyoda
Gosei and Agilent, soon around 25-30 MAYBE 60 for ones with new Cree
chips.
"

Ted

On Tue, 18 May 2004 14:32:09 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again, Gunner wrote --

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:38:17 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked for the 12532nd time, Gunner wrote --

Shall we discuss the Kleck/Mustard findings?
....

Point out where I indicated that they did research
together.

Gunner's reading comprehension is so poor, he doesn't even
understand his own writing.

...
Carl is so desperate to be the Gun Control Poster Child that he uses
Mixmaster logic to push his agenda. Shrug

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:50:52 GMT, John Ings
wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:06:22 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Perhaps not, but y'all do have some government employees who would
like to be tyrannical.

So you plan to shoot those you encounter?

Do you really think that every single gun ever produced is going
to be used -only- for -offensive- purposes?

Stick to the subject. You mentioned tyrannical government employees.
So you're planning on a Ruby Ridge style shootout? The courts aren't
an option?

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96...rien/blood.htm

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The
people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong
will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they
misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a
lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had
13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That
comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What
country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? &
what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure"
*************************

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee
As Recently As 1946, American Citizens Were
Forced To Take Up Arms As A Last Resort
Against Corrupt Government Officials.

Published in Guns & Ammo October 1995, pp. 50-51

On August 1-2, 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county
government, used armed force as a last resort to overturn it. These
Americans wanted honest open elections. For years they had asked for
state or federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud (forged
ballots, secret ballot counts and intimidation by armed sheriff's
deputies) by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle under had been hardened
by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from
murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county
government.

These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution -- Article 1,
Section 26 -- recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the
common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

These Americans were residents of McMinn County, which is located
between Chattanooga and Knoxville in Eastern Tennessee. The two main
towns were Athens and Etowah. McMinn County residents had long been
independent political thinkers. For a long time they also had:
accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the sheriff to overlook
illicit whiskey-making and gambling; financed the sheriff's department
from fines-usually for speeding or public drunkenness which promoted
false arrests; and put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and
Republicans.

The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano
Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive
the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the
county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936,1938 and 1940 elections,
but by slim margins. The sheriff was the key county official. Cantrell
was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy,
Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946 Paul Cantrell again sought
the sheriff's office.

At the end of 1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to
McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for
Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly returned ex-GIs decided
to challenge Cantrell politically by offering an all-ex-GI,
non-partisan ticket. They promised a fraud-free election, stating in
ads and speeches that there would be an honest ballot count and reform
of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, "The principles that we fought for in
this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy
because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this
county" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p.1 ). At the end of July
1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election
monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not
responded to McMinn County residents' complaints of election fraud in
1940, 1942 and 1944.

FROM BALLOTS TO BULLETS

The primary election was held on August 1. To intimidate voters,
Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies." GI poll-watchers were
beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African-
American voter was told by a sheriff's deputy that he could not vote.
Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted. The enraged deputy shot
him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been
shot in the back; he later recovered (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of
Athens, Paidia Productions, Chattanooga, TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as
that made the ballot counting "Public" A crowd gathered. Sheriff
Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs
smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. The
deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front
of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high...shouted: 'If
you sons of bitches cross this street I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p.165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies
seemed to fear immediate attack by the "people who had just liberated
Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war
machines in human history" (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find
them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard
armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols
and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after
the war's end. By 8 p.m. a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for
the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders
an easy way out.

Three GIs alerting passersby to danger were fired on from the jail.
Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire.

Firing subsided after 30 minutes; ammunition ran low and night had
fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent
radios, the GIs' rifle fire was uncoordinated. "From the hillside fire
rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else,
people were simply shooting at the jail" (Byrum, p.189).

Several who ventured into the street in front of the jail were
wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most
sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor
McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into
withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have
feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other
ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on August 2, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs
County threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The
panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul
Cantrell faded into the night, having almost been shot by a GI who
knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were
kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned. The
GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned
and returned before sunup.

THE AFTERMATH: RESTORING DEMOCRACY

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for sheriff,
Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won
by similar margins.

The GI's did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On
August 2, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The
regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Etowah. In
addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or
guard groups, often led by a GI... To their credit, however, there is
not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf" (Byrum, p.
220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned up
county government, the jail was fixed, newly elected officials
accepted a $5,000 pay limit and Mansfield supporters who resigned were
replaced.

The general election on November 5 passed quietly. McMinn County
residents, having restored the rule of law, returned to their daily
lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an
auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the
years after the Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had
happened" (Byrum pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946,
p. 8).

The 79th Congress adjourned on August 2, 1946, when the Battle of
Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings Jr. from Tennessee
decried McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield
and the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn
County residents. Jennings was delighted that "...at long last,
decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county
of McMinn.. " (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p.
A4870).

THE LESSONS OF ATHENS

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee, wanted honest elections,
a cornerstone of our constitutional order. They had repeatedly tried
to get federal or state election monitors and had used armed force so
as to minimize harm to the law-breakers, showing little malice to the
defeated law-breakers. They restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows how Americans can and should
lawfully use armed force and also shows why the rule of law requires
unrestricted access to firearms and how civilians with military-type
firearms can beat the forces of government gone bad.

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the rule of
law. However, Americans reject this idea. Brutal political repression
is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of
people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Law-abiding McMinn County residents won the Battle of Athens because
they were not hamstrung by "gun control " They showed us when citizens
can and should use armed force to support the rule of law.


That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:56:14 GMT, John Ings
wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 08:07:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

6 million firearms in your country John....Ill bet the dead bodies are
laying every where.

Never mind the gross total Gunner. Quote me the firearms per capita,
broken down into sporting rifles, shotguns and pistols. Then show the
numbers for the US in comparison. In fact just handgund per capita
would be interesting. Figures don't lie but liars sure can figure and
I suspect the NRA of creative bookeeping.

Chuckle..Id think you had better suspect Ottawa of creative
bookkeeping. Though for the life of me cannot understand why the
various types of firearms makes any difference to you.. shrug.

Shall we look at some figures from your own people?

http://drgimbarzevsky.com/Guns/GunNumbers1.html


Seems like your Registration plan is falling to pieces as well...

Wed, June 4, 2003




Gun registry setback

By ALEXANDER PANETTA



OTTAWA (CP) - Recent computer crashes may have deleted some gun
owners' names from the already troubled firearms registry, Solicitor
General Wayne Easter admitted Wednesday.

In yet another blow to the controversial gun-control initiative,
Easter said a system overload might have wiped out online
registrations in late December. Federal officials are still trying to
determine how many Internet applications were lost in a series of
crashes on a government Web site, he said. "It's well known that the
system could not handle the intake on Dec. 28, 29 and 30 and 31,"
Easter said after a caucus meeting.

"The system went down because it was overloaded."

He said government officials are getting phone calls from people who
believed they registered their guns in late December, but have yet to
receive confirmation.

"There are some problems with some of the people whose names may have
disappeared as a result of the crash Dec. 30 of the system," Easter
said.

"We're checking that out."

An employee at the Canadian Firearms Centre said the number of lost
online applications is likely negligible.

The centre's Web site (cfc.gc.ca/) offers forms for gun owners to
register their firearms and a small number of transactions might have
been interrupted at the end of last year, said spokesman David Austin.

There was a flood of applications just before Jan. 1, the original
deadline for registration, which was pushed back to the end of this
month.

Austin said applicants should contact the centre if they haven't
received confirmation their application was accepted.

"We know by phone calls we received and we know by e-mail we got that
people were concerned and they contacted us to see whether or not the
information actually had been transmitted," he said.

"If anyone did not receive a confirmation message or did not get their
certificate, what they should probably do is pick up the phone and
give us a call."

People can also use the Web site to check the status of their
application, he said.

Easter said the computer system is working fine now, but his
unprompted admission Wednesday adds to a series of setbacks plaguing
the registry.

First came resistance from critics and gun owners, then came drastic
cost overruns, and now provincial governments are fighting the
project.

Earlier this week, Ontario and Nova Scotia joined Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba in refusing to prosecute gun owners who
break the law by failing to register their weapons.

One Opposition critic demanded a halt to the entire project Wednesday.

"They have lost an unknown number of records," Canadian Alliance MP
Garry Breitkreuz said during question period.

"Is the minister willing to criminalize more law-abiding gun owners,
or will he just scrap the program?"

Easter said the law will be applied despite provincial resistance -
but didn't explain how.

"I believe there is a responsibility to uphold the law," he said.

"And we're going to move forward with that campaign and we will find
ways of getting around to prosecution at the provincial level."

The project came under intense fire last year when the auditor general
reported that costs had spiralled out of control, ballooning from an
initial projection of just $2 million net to a current bill
approaching $1 billion.

And with the July 1 registration deadline fast approaching, the
firearms centre says about one-quarter of an estimated 1.9 million gun
owners have yet to register their firearms.

Easter said the law will come into effect next month even if thousands
have yet to register.

"I have made it very clear that we will not be extending the
deadline," he said. "


Notice this part tucked away in the above.....

"Earlier this week, Ontario and Nova Scotia joined Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba in refusing to prosecute gun owners who
break the law by failing to register their weapons. "

It also appears your gun control proponents cannot be trusted....

http://www.gunowners.org/a042704.htm

Or are honest
http://www.triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/2871.jsp
"The Canadian Firearms Centre spent $13 million on travel over six
years and nearly $500,000 on hospitality during the same period, a
government financial statement shows. The statement was compiled when
KPMG accountants conducted an audit of the controversial gun program
earlier this year, but it was not released publicly when the firm
submitted its final report to Justice Minister Martin Cauchon. "

Or have any brains....
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breit...ncontrol18.htm

Or..had a leg to stand on.
http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/s=123/bcw1065594776744/

Shrug..hey..its your country. Enjoy.
Then there is the National Health Service.....chortle....


Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:30:58 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Tripe

Carl..is private firearms ownership an individual right, or not, in
the US.

Yes or no.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:37:10 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Gunner wrote --

Shall we look at some figures from your own people?

http://drgimbarzevsky.com/Guns/GunNumbers1.html

Yet another biased opinion piece.

Prove the methodology is flawed, as are the conclusions.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:00:35 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Getting his ass kicked yet again., Gunner wrote --

Tripe

At least you're succinct in describing what you write.

You stated that you wanted to discuss Kleck's research &
Mustard's research.

Deal with it, Gunner. Quit running like a scared little boy.

Let's discuss Kleck's "findings" regarding the Lott/Mustard
research.

Here's what Gary Kleck thinks of the Lott/Mustard article:
"One can always speculate that criminals' perceptions of risk
outran reality, but that is all this is--a speculation. More
likely, the declines in crime coinciding with relaxation of
carry laws were largely attributable to other factors not
controlled in the Lott and Mustard analysis." Gary Kleck,
"Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control", Aldine de
Gruyter, New York, 1997, p. 372

None of Kleck's work supports the Lott/Mustard research.


Klecks findings
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per
year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a
national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University
criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other
surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's
annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted
Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate
the number of DGU's annually.

Lotts findings
Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime.
The reduction corresponds very closely to the number of
concealed-handgun permits issued. On average, murder rates in states
banning concealed-carry are 127% higher than in states having the most
liberal carry laws. A 1% increase in firearm ownership reduces violent
crime by 4.1%.
Passage of the Brady Law in 1994 has not been accompanied by a
statistically significant decline in murder or robbery. It has,
however, been associated with significant increases in rape and
aggravated assaults, presumably from the increased difficulty
encountered by law-abiding citizens in obtaining firearms for
self-defense.
Of particular interest, in the wake of Jonesboro, is Lott’s research
on mass public shootings. Lott found that deaths and injuries from
mass public shootings - incidents in which at least 2 people were
killed or injured in a public place - fall dramatically after
right-to-carry concealed-handgun laws are passed. In states where data
was available both before and after passage of such laws, the average
death rate from mass public shootings plummeted 69%!


Lott explained: "People who engage in mass public shootings are
deterred by the possibility that law-abiding citizens may be carrying
guns. Such people may be deranged, but they still appear to care
whether they will themselves be shot as they attempt to kill others."
Lott pointed out that efforts to ban all guns from schools, like
"gun-free school zones", make schools safe - not for our children, but
for those intent on harming them!

In fact, the one factor common to all three states which had such
shootings since early last year, is that each had provisions for the
concealed-carry of handguns - except in and around public schools!
Allowing responsible adults and teachers access to guns would serve to
make schools less vulnerable to mass shootings. That’s exactly what
stopped a 1997 shooting spree in Pearl, Mississippi, when an assistant
principal retrieved a gun from his car, and immobilized the gunman
until police arrived. Large, urban, densely populated areas benefit
the most from concealed-carry laws. Ironically, these are the areas
where opposition to such laws by politicians is greatest. When allowed
the means to defend themselves, law-abiding minorities in the most
crime-prone areas produced the greatest reductions in crime. Lott
noted that laws which seek to ban low-cost firearms - i.e. so-called
"Saturday-Night-Specials" - only serve to disarm those very people.
Women who carry concealed handguns provide a greater margin of safety
for other women. While murder rates decline when either more men or
more women carry concealed handguns, the drop is even greater among
women than among men. Rapists are particularly susceptible to the
deterrence of a potentially armed woman.
Firearm-prohibitionists often argue that, as more people carry
handguns, accidents are bound to increase. However, Lott found that
accident and suicide rates are unaltered by the presence of concealed
handguns.




For those that would like to read the abstract itself
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=372361


Other cites on the subject
http://www.kyfirearms.org/news/no_smoking_gun.htm
http://hematite.com/dragon/lott_ord_fn.html
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:JObABGUR9WkJ:www.luc.edu/depts/crim_jus/documents/gunpaper%255B1%255D.web.pdf+kleck+on+concealed+wea pons&hl=en
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 19:04:36 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:30:58 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Tripe

Carl..is private firearms ownership an individual right, or not, in
the US.

Yes or no.

Still waiting for your answer.

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's
cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays
there.
- George Orwell

On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:08:23 GMT, Carl Nisarel
brought forth from the murky depths:

Attempting Eddaic Poetry for the first time, Larry Jaques
wrote --

I (rationally) meant that the book I read disputed his
previous critics' findings,

IOW, you lied when you said that his book contained a chapter
which "precisely" refutes the work by Ayers and Donohue and
the research by Rubin & Dezhbakhsh.

You utter ass! May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your
armpits. You can't just mix words from several of my posts,
confuse them in your mind (without a leg to stand on), and
call me a liar without drawing my ire. I'm sure that everyone
else who read my posts understood what I said. And you should
have after I further cleared it up for you after your last rant.

You don't deserve another nanosecond of my time.

Plonk! (The sound of yet another twit filter wiping you out.)


--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Tue, 18 May 2004 15:50:52 GMT, John Ings
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:06:22 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Perhaps not, but y'all do have some government employees who would
like to be tyrannical.

So you plan to shoot those you encounter?

Do you really think that every single gun ever produced is going
to be used -only- for -offensive- purposes?

Stick to the subject. You mentioned tyrannical government employees.
So you're planning on a Ruby Ridge style shootout? The courts aren't
an option?

Crikey, you're as bad as Nisarel. I didn't write that sentence and
you ignored the direct question I did ask. Never mind. There's no
arguing with an...

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development