-Caveat Lector-
Jim Norman wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> "Howard R. Davis III" wrote:
>
> > -Caveat Lector-
> >
> > nurev wrote:
> > >
> > > -Caveat Lector-
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > > Whether they be pro-gun or anti-gun, most people would
> > > > acknowledge that mankind has certain, Inalienable Rights.
> > >
> > > Not at all. Rights are a conceptual legal concept. If everybody
> > > plays along, you have rights. If most, or even many people don't
> > > play along, you have bupkes. There is nothing inalienable about
> > > legalisms in the real world.
> > >
> > The above is a most revealing statement. It shows that Nurev has the
> > same understanding of rights as did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all the
> > other mass murders of the past (and of the future).
And not just mass murderers Howard. Everyone who understands the
business of
power. It's the real bottom line. I never said I condone it. I always
point
it out for the fools and ideologues who invent unreality.
They have no concept
> > of the agreement among mature people to recognize the humanity of others
> > and not treat them as resources to be exploited and killed if they get
> > in the way.
Sounds like anarcho-capitalists to me. Sounds like tobacco and gun
CEO's.
Sounds like Pentagon and Weapons CEO's. Sounds like Elite Politicians.
Surely you're not describing me!
The very basis of the concept of "rights" comes from our
> > innate understanding that others value their lives and we cannot take
> > that life without doing harm to our very soul. (There has been some
> > postings on this list by a retired military officer about the
> > difficulties in training young men to kill which go into this more
> > deeply). We look at ourselves and others and realize that others have a
> > life which they value as much as we value our own. While Nurev may claim
> > to wish to ban guns for the good of humanity, it is obvious from his
> > replies that this is only a cover. His replies often show a deep hatred
> > for any who disagree with him and often are made up of threats of harm
> > (of course from others, not himself) to that person and an unseemly
> > desire to see that threat of violence come to fruition.
Man are you dense or what? I am not threatening you with violence. I
am
telling you that your philosophy will end in violence. I paint those
scenarios
dramatically so they penetrate that dense fog of ideological unreality
you
live in. I wish to avert that violence because I live in this society,
and I
don't want to go down with it.
> >
> > In an earlier post to this list, I suggested to those who wish to end
> > the "culture of violence" that instead of repealing the 2nd amendment,
> > that the first amendment might be modified to prohibit the showing of
> > violence in the media. Did anyone one of those supposedly so concerned
> > about the "culture of violence" respond? Of course not. They are not
> > interested in this because they, in fact, are happy to see this violence
> > in the media and in our society. They want to see this, because they
> > know that it is necessary for their campaign to disarm the American
> > people.
You are a paranoid monomaniac. You invent these looney scenarios to
justify
your paranoia. When the American people decide to remove guns from
their midst,
that's when the government will feel empowered to do so.
Theoretically, that's
their job.
By the way, I don't allow my children to play violent videos or go to
violent
movies because it damages them. It damages many youngsters. But it
makes allot
of money. So, like cigarettes and guns, that makes it OK. No one has
the right
to interfere with Free Speech, or Free Enterprise, or your personal
freedom to
fuck up anything or anyone.
What are you going to do? Restrict " free speech " for Hollywood, or
restrict
2nd Amendment right to bear arms? Or just let them both be because
some 200
year old dead lawyers and landlords and merchants
didn't have the ability to see how overgrown and sick their nation
would
become just 2 centurys hence.
How many more people will kill each other with guns just so you can
feel
ideologically correct? 1000? 10,000? How many?
Does anyone doubt that they are happy to hear of the killings?
> > Look what Nurev writes later about the increasing number of people who
> > might join his cause: "Oh yeah??? Wanna bet? This country has one, maybe
> > two more massacres left before it becomes a groundswell". Does that not
> > sound like someone who is looking forward to more such murders?
That's a warning of inevitability. Not a desire for carnage. That was
a
pathetic attempt. You are so self centered that you ( pl ) think
we are after you. The intent here is to stop the killing and you and
the NRA
and some bought politicians are in the way. But every massacre is a
nail
in the NRA's coffin. Every shot to death citizen, every accidentally
killed
child brings your time to an end. It's called change. It's called
democracy.
Live with it. Or not.
> >
> > On several occasions Nurev has threatened his critics with a future
> > revolution of the people. He seems to enjoy fantasizing about a future
> > revolution against the "capitalists" who he seems to fear will take over
> > the government.
I'm not threatening revolution. I am saying that the natural outcome
of
Capitalism is concentration of wealth. The natural outcome of the
concen-
tration of wealth is poverty for most people. The natural outcome of
poverty
is social disintegration. The natural outcome of social disintegration
is
dictatorship. And the natural outcome of dictatorship is revolution.
I don't want ANY of these things to come about. But any fool can see
that
those situations would be infinitely more deadly if they occurred in a
country with free access to millions of guns.
(They haven't already?) Yet here he wants to take away
> > their guns. What kind of sense does that make?
Right! Like you gun loonies are really going to stop tanks with your
9mms
and your shotguns. Who the hell do you think you are impressing? No
one
takes you clowns seriously except your own delusional selves. Waco was
very
well armed remember? The only thing that could have saved them was an
outcry
from all of us. Do you guys think there will be an outcry from the
rest of
your fellow citizens when we all decide through the political process
that
we no longer want guns in the general population AND YOU WON'T COMPLY?
Get real. This society is too sick to have easy access to guns.
Period.
Of course, Nurev probably
> > has a nice useless government job and really doesn't care a bit about
> > the "people".
> >
> > Howard Davis
Not even close Howard. No cigar.
>
> Clap, Clap, clap, clap, clap,...Howard, this is a most thoughtful and accurate
> analysis. I only wish I had said it.
> Jim Norman
You're easily impressed Jim.
Joshua2
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
