Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: :If they truly believe in getting rid of guns, why don't they start with the :guns of their body guards? They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in getting rid of OUR guns. I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is tightly watched. The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their toes. Somewhat like the situation with drugs - no problem if 10% of the Except reality doesn't show that. In the real world, those who are normally law abiding tend not to use it when "somebody steps on their toes". In fact, they tend to mis-identify targets less often than police officers. Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun] confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary / revolutionary backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and Clinton. On the other hand, everyday drive-by shootings and such aren't exactly pointed towards the powers that be. No, drive-by shootings *tend* to be targeted at other combatants--usually rival gang members or rival drug dealers. They also tend to occur (at least in the US) in the cities with the strictest gun control. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: *** Today good taste is often erroneously rejected as old-fashioned because ordinary man, seeking approval of his so-called personality, prefers to follow the dictates of his own peculiar style rather than submit to any objective criterion of taste.--Jan Tschichold
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
At 9:42 PM -0700 on 8/17/00, Tim May trolled: Bob Hettinga, who used to practice this same kind of "why can't you write the kind of articles I _like_!" pressuring Oh. Pressuring. *That's* what it was... I stand corrected. ;-). Cheers, RAH Who agrees with Tim more often than he'd like to admit, frankly... -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
I wrote a few minutes ago: fascist-units. About the only judge I know the name of, aside from the Supremes, is Judge Bader, because of Napster, the crypto speech case, and because I attended one of her sessions a few years ago. No, I have no plans to kill her. --end excerpt-- A brain fart. I meant to write "Judge Patel." Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Bader-Ginsburg, or whatever, is one of the Supremes. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
At 12:39 PM -0400 8/18/00, R. A. Hettinga wrote: At 9:42 PM -0700 on 8/17/00, Tim May trolled: Bob Hettinga, who used to practice this same kind of "why can't you write the kind of articles I _like_!" pressuring Oh. Pressuring. *That's* what it was... I stand corrected. ;-). To elaborate a bit on my point, I often get comments in personal e-mail and sometimes here on the list along these lines: (this is from memory, though I could spend a few hours digging up several actual examples if I cared to) "Tim, I like a lot of your stuff, but I really wish you'd write more about cryptography and less about politics." ""Hey, guns kill people! Why can't you advocate using crypto for helping people?" "In recent months your words have become racist and hateful." "I wish you would write more of the stuff I like." It's natural that people will take issue with one or more points of view from anyone who has strong opinions and the willingness (and economic freedom) to express them. I cherish the First Amendment. This means the government may not act in any way to restrict my words, whether they are sexist, racist, speciesist, ageist, or revelatory of supposed government secrets. In very limited cases they may act to suppress speech--so the theory goes--involving very direct threats against certain specific persons. Supporting McVeigh's actions, or Oswald's removal of a simp-wimp, does not fall into this category. Calling for the death of burrowcrats in general does not either. "First, kill all the lawyers" and "Hang them all" is quite clearly political speech. And much more common in America in the past that the PC Police would like to believe. What _might_ fall into this category? Besides words spoken about the sitting President and specific other senior officials, naming the specific names of judges, FBI officials, etc., and calling for action against them _might_ trigger legal action. Under the umbrella of "threatening" and "inciting" and suchlike general terms. This is, as I've said before, one reason I make it a point not to even know the names of judges and their kind; the U.S. Marshals Service and the DOJ released a report that I was planning to kill a federal judge somewhere up in Washington state. A ludicrous attempt to trigger me into some action, I believe. I had never heard of this judge, and make it a point not to track individual fascist-units. About the only judge I know the name of, aside from the Supremes, is Judge Bader, because of Napster, the crypto speech case, and because I attended one of her sessions a few years ago. No, I have no plans to kill her. It's gotten bizarre in the last few years as more and more political groups and liberals (and conservatives, too) have called for limitations on speech. And as people have increasingly claimed that _words_ constitute violations of someone's freedom. And then there's the paranoid atmosphere. (A lawyer who reads this list has offered to serve in some capacity as my defense lawyer during the "show trial" which he says he thinks is coming.) OK, what about action by my employer against my speech? What about action by my ISP? What about action by the list owner? First, no employer. I can say what I wish without getting a call from the Director of Human Relations inviting me to attend a voluntary mandatory Sensitivity Training Workship. Second, my ISP doesn't care what I say. Unlike AOL, they understand that screening words for "hate speech" is a losing proposition, and one counter to the _spirit_ of free and open debate which once made this nation great. Third, the Cypherpunks list cannot do anything about my speech because of its present organization. Speech controls were tried a few years back, as most of you know. In summary, I write what moves me. I don't write to recruit nattering nabobs who need a sugar-coated version of libertarianism and crypto anarchy because they are in favor of gun control, or laws against hate speech, or even because they think the focus of the list should be on geodesic global fractional clearing or whatever the buzzword du jour is. I write to express what I think, as an outlet. Don't like my words? Don't read them. To paraphrase Scoop Nisker, "If you don't like the words, go out and write some of your own." (This is a general comment, not directed at Bob Hettinga, who certainly writes enough of his own words.) --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
[on the subject of celebrity liberals]
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in
getting rid of OUR guns.
Sampo Syreeni writes:
I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of
a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is
tightly watched.
And who will "select" the few to be permitted to have guns? (And what
"real use" do they have for them that others do not?)
The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to
grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their
toes.
No one's advocating giving guns to toddlers, but why should ordinary
grannies not be permitted to protect themselves as the Rosie
O'Donnells can?
Somewhat like the situation with drugs - no problem if 10% of the
population does something sometime, a big problem if 90% does everything
all
the time.
What "problem" do we have with drugs (apart from the fact that using
them makes one highly susceptible to persecution by various law
enforcement agencies)?
"police" who care not if they have the right house, or even the "right"
to
"search" in this way; "forfeiture laws" which allow the state to take
whatever they want, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF DUE PROCESS; etc..)
Are you talking about the same liberals as the original poster?
Of course. The liberals who surround themselves with armed bodyguards
are the same ones giving money and public support to the liberal
gun-control politicians. And these politicans, while trying to take
away guns from the rest of us, are giving more and better weapons to
the jack-booted federal "law enforcement" agencies. They are also
increasingly attempting to bypass those inconvenient trials, search
warrants and other protections we have developed ("no need for a
trial, they're obviously guilty or we wouldn't have accused them").
Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun]
confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary /
revolutionary
backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and
Clinton.
On the other hand, everyday drive-by shootings and such aren't exactly
pointed towards the powers that be.
Perhaps, but the potential for mass murder is much lower with
everyday drive-by shootings than it is with gun-grabbing government
despots. All the drive-by shootings in history together barely add
up to an average day under Hitler or Stalin.
- GH
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: :If they truly believe in getting rid of guns, why don't they start with the :guns of their body guards? They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in getting rid of OUR guns. I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is tightly watched. The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their toes. Somewhat like the situation with drugs - no problem if 10% of the population does something sometime, a big problem if 90% does everything all the time. "police" who care not if they have the right house, or even the "right" to "search" in this way; "forfeiture laws" which allow the state to take whatever they want, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF DUE PROCESS; etc..) Are you talking about the same liberals as the original poster? Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun] confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary / revolutionary backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and Clinton. On the other hand, everyday drive-by shootings and such aren't exactly pointed towards the powers that be. Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED], aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
Toddlers/Guns (was: Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd))
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Gil Hamilton wrote: No one's advocating giving guns to toddlers, but why should ordinary I wouldn't say "no one." Depending on how one chooses to define toddler, I'd heartily support seeing more kids receive firearms instruction... I fired my first rifle at age 6. The accompanying lessons in responsibility, independence, proper care of equipment, critical thinking skills, and so on, were invaluable. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -- Richard Henry Lee, 1788.
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
At 10:59 AM +0300 8/17/00, Sampo A Syreeni wrote: On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in getting rid of OUR guns. I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is tightly watched. The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their toes. If you're arguing for gun control, at least try to be more clever than using some absurdity about "everybody from toddlers to grannies packing heat." Of course, if you want to debate gun control on the Cypherpunks list, be prepared for some heat of a different kind. Oh, and try posting to one of the _real_ lists, not the obsolete and spam-filled toad.com list. Gun grabbers need to be killed. Agencies which enforce gun control need to have their headquarters and regional admin buildings blown up with ANFO. Fuck the gun grabbers. Feed them to the crematoria. I think you have no business being on the Cypherpunks list, you fucking turd. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Tim May wrote: lots of stuff I won't bother repeating Ya know, Tim, I remember reading you years ago when I was on cypherpunks the first time. I used to think you were an anarchist, individualist, libertarian -- and that's still the most consistent thread in your posts. But over the few weeks I've been back it's become clear to me that the most important thing to you now is giving offense. Why? What changed? Why does it matter if some chowderhead believes in gun control? Why was it worth your effort to flame this guy? Bear Got my first gun when I was 12, and my granny did, in fact, "pack heat" but it wasn't worth *my* time to write a flame.
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
At 9:34 PM -0700 8/17/00, Ray Dillinger wrote: On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Tim May wrote: lots of stuff I won't bother repeating Ya know, Tim, I remember reading you years ago when I was on cypherpunks the first time. I used to think you were an anarchist, individualist, libertarian -- and that's still the most consistent thread in your posts. But over the few weeks I've been back it's become clear to me that the most important thing to you now is giving offense. Why? What changed? Why does it matter if some chowderhead believes in gun control? Why was it worth your effort to flame this guy? If you don't like my stuff, don't read it. And, by the way, read the archives from 1992-6 or so and you will find very similar stuff. Ask Bob Hettinga, who used to practice this same kind of "why can't you write the kind of articles I _like_!" pressuring, if I am writing much more differently. And ask Lawrence Dettweiler and simlar nitwits of the mid-90s if I have gotten more abrasive. If you are basing judgements on the "over the few weeks I've been back," you're obviously just another fool. --Tim May -- -:-:-:-:-:-:-: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat (fwd)
To: "Sterling D. Allan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Greater Things Newsletter [EMAIL PROTECTED], Greater Things Christian Newsletter [EMAIL PROTECTED], SDA Biggies newsletter [EMAIL PROTECTED], SDA Friends list [EMAIL PROTECTED], David's Outcasts e-group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Editorial: Liberals Packing Heat On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Sterling D. Allan wrote: :SUBJECT: Liberals' Bodyguards Packing Heat :http://www.greaterthings.com/Editorial/liberals_guns.htm : :Editor, : :It just occurred to me that some of the top dog liberals who are for gun :control cart around with them a bodyguard contingent packing more heat than :the police force of a small town. : :If they truly believe in getting rid of guns, why don't they start with the :guns of their body guards? They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in getting rid of OUR guns. :You may say, "But they are important figures whose lives are endangered by :crazy people who might try to kill them!" No, actually. I'd be more inclined to say something like "they are highly visible hypocrites and thieves whose lives are endangered by the rage of those they have screwed (and who rightfully seek revenge)". :Are we not all important in the eyes of God. Why can't the common citizen :also have the right to protect his person? Because then the common person would have the means to protect his *property* as well, and it would be that much harder for "authorities" to act with impunity (illegal taxation; random police stops for "DWB [driving while black]"; heavily armed forcible searches with small armies of hooded "police" who care not if they have the right house, or even the "right" to "search" in this way; "forfeiture laws" which allow the state to take whatever they want, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF DUE PROCESS; etc..) :Isn't this a double standard? You bet your ass it is. :I vote we keep the second amendment in tact. What second amendment? Wake up buddy: it's gone. Along with the rest of them - you want them back? Better get ready to fight for them... H, how are you going to do that *without guns*??? See: this is the most important reason for them to push "gun control" -- so that those few who have woken from the sheeple dream and seen the truth have no physical way to attempt to regain their rights through the only avenue with any real chance of success [armed revolution]. Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun] confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary / revolutionary backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and Clinton. :Sincerely, : :Sterling D. Allan : Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place...
