Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:30:12 -0500, Declan wrote: Note by broad conservative community I do not include politically-active gun owners, who would like an actual principled stand on the 2A. Fat chance. People who look for principled stands by a government, any government, aren't paying attention. Other than surviving and maintaining control over the governed, governments have no principles. That kind of thing just gets in the way of survival and control and potentially limits a government's options. Example: From the Declaration of Independence to the Sedition Act took only 22 years, and that was when the founding fathers still actively dominated political life. Today, a USA Patriot Act takes only minutes to enact, with neither debate nor hearings, and members of Congress don't even complain of not being able to read it before the vote.
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, jet wrote: At 16:18 -0500 2003/02/12, cubic-dog wrote: The NRA is openly hostile towards the embarrasing 2nd Amendment. The NRA is mostly all about allowing the weathly wingshooters to be the last to fall. The rest of us, like the armed citizens, get bartered off everytime gun control bill comes to a vote. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be any RKBA organization without some sort of right-wing, religious, or loonie ties. How true. Aaron Zelmans JPFO is pretty loonie, but at least he is actually going after issues. It's pretty whacked out, but have a peek at http://www.jpfo.org
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
Example: From the Declaration of Independence to the Sedition Act took only 22 years, and that was when the founding fathers still actively dominated political life. Today, a USA Patriot Act takes only minutes to enact, with neither debate nor hearings, and members of Congress don't even complain of not being able to read it before the vote. This could explain the staunch anti-cloning stand of current administration. Maybe they are afraid someone would clone the Founding Fathers, who would then orchestrate a revolution?
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, jet wrote: If you've read it recently, I'll take your word for it. That's a very(!!!) dangerous approach. Odds are the person hasn't read it at all. Check the archive for a reference to a pre-print in arXiv (ie xyz.lanl.gov) about pre-prints and how 80% of them are bogus in reference to claims of having read references/cites. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Sarad AV wrote: A tape as an evidence?Is a tape still considered as a valid piece of evidence in a court of law? It's that oath thing, it's pretty much always required the person making the tape to swear it hasn't been tampered with and that they are the party who created it. Otherwise it would generaly fall into hearsay. Than of course it also depends on the particular states view of 1-party or 2-party permission issues. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
At 2:40 + 2003/02/12, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: This one just won't die. People keep repeating it. Not much different from Bush's Time is running out or They hate us because we love freedom. Would you like to show us the part of the twelve page German law of March, 1938 that limits gun permits to members of the Nazi party? Uh huh, I didn't think so. It's been several years since I read the translated copy I purchased from JPFO, so it's possible that I am mistaken. If you've read it recently, I'll take your word for it. -- J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
hi, I've not followed it closely, but Powell claims to have a tape of Bin Laden talking to Iraqi's. Al Jazerra denys it's real. This is all from NPR. The game is afoot, let's see who can deliver the bigger lie. A tape as an evidence?Is a tape still considered as a valid piece of evidence in a court of law?Is it not difficult to authenticate and even if authenticated-with what probability can we say that it is genuine? Regards Sarath. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Mike Rosing wrote: On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tim May wrote: And so on. He talks the talk, but he and his buddies in HomeSec are establishing a national police force, states rights be damned. He's proof that you can fool just about everyone simultaneously - the NRA supports him inspite of his lack of of commitment to the 2nd. The NRA is openly hostile towards the embarrasing 2nd Amendment. The NRA is mostly all about allowing the weathly wingshooters to be the last to fall. The rest of us, like the armed citizens, get bartered off everytime gun control bill comes to a vote.
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bill Frantz wrote: At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) I thought Ashcroft was on record as stating that the second amendment confered an individual right to own arms. Are his actions are not in accord with his words? His words are pretty much without meaning. All gun laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately, and all those who have fallen victim to the legal system as a result of the enforcement of these laws should be granted restitution. It is possible that there could be a gun law that would be constitutional, but no such laws currently exist.
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
At 16:18 -0500 2003/02/12, cubic-dog wrote: The NRA is openly hostile towards the embarrasing 2nd Amendment. The NRA is mostly all about allowing the weathly wingshooters to be the last to fall. The rest of us, like the armed citizens, get bartered off everytime gun control bill comes to a vote. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be any RKBA organization without some sort of right-wing, religious, or loonie ties. The Gunowners of America (GOA) back right-wing Christian loonie causes -- the long-distance-for-RKBA company GOA promotes (Promise Vision) doesn't mention one word about RKBA on their web site (http://www.pvpromisevision.com). Instead, they position themselves as the anti-pornography long-distance company. -- J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html
Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
Here in war-preparing America, reports are running on CNN, CNBC, CBS, and presumably other networks about the importance of some basic emergency supplies for all good citizen-units. This is mostly good advice, of course. Being a paranoid and a kind of survivalist, I already have first aid kits, spare water, batteries, flashlights, warm clothing, duct tape and plastic sheets, spare eyeglasses, and the other items being recommended by the experts. In fact, I have a _lot_ more than this. The idea is that the some attack by the Evil Doers in the Axis of Evil may come after the U.S. begins carpet-bombing Baghdad or Tehran or Pyongyang. Unspoken is the possibility that one of the various powderkegs may lead to a larger war. Disruption of supply lines, even civil disorder, could occur. The news channels are right in spending a couple of minutes a day talking about basic preparedness for a several day disruption. However, there's one basic item they conspicuously neglect to mention. That Item Whose Name May Not Be Spoken on Television: a gun. If there's disruption, looting, a breakdown in what now passes for civil order, a gun is just about the most important thing to have. Probably not necessary to use it, for 99.5% of everyone, but then most of the emergency things like plastic sheets and medical supplies probably won't be needed, either. But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) --Tim May The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun. --Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) I thought Ashcroft was on record as stating that the second amendment confered an individual right to own arms. Are his actions are not in accord with his words? Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the Ameican | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
My point was that a gun is an item for an emergency, not that everyone who does not now have one should buy one. Nor was my point addressing the issue of what would happen if everyone tried to buy one suddenly!? On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 12:43 PM, Trei, Peter wrote: Three points: 1. About half of US households have guns already. It's safe to assume that they will defend themselves if TSHTF. And my point is that mention of a gun in a set of emergency supplies is expected, except where the press is gun-phobic. 2. For the half which don't, a very large number of them consist of people with no firearms experience (especially since the draft ended 30 years ago), no knowledge of gun maintenance and safety, or training in how, when, and when not to use them. This overstates the dangers and care required for a gun by a wide margin. Guns are very simple, require almost no maintenance (I know friends/family who have never cleaned or oiled their guns, and yet they work fine when the trigger is pulled). 3. The supply isn't there. Guns last a very long time, and rarely need to be replaced. As a result, the stockpile of available unsold guns is much smaller than the size of the unarmed populace. Beware the but what if _everyone_ thought that way? logical fallacy. And apply your reasoning to some of those other emergency kit items being recommended, e.g., a spare pair of glasses: But if everybody tried to get eyeglass prescriptions filled, think of the chaos at Lenscrafters and Pearlevision? It would be diastrous. Just the traffic jams alone would cripple the economy. By the way, having looked at the inventory of several of the local gun shops, each has several hundred guns on display. More are in warehouses. A surge in gun buying, should it happen, would likely result in millions of handguns and rifles being shipped out of warehouses and depots to gun stores. Furthermore, many gun owners have dozens of handguns and rifles. (One friend of mine has a dozen handguns and 40 rifles. I myself have...well, a lot.) A modest increase in prices, such as would be expected if the supply isn't there market situation were true, would likely result in a lot of people deciding they'd be happy to sell that old .38 Special they've moved beyond for a modest $300. Or that old .30-30 lever action for $250. A hundred million handguns and rifles could come out of closets--without depleting the owners of more serious and modern firepower--in weeks. Not that this will happen. Most people won't get the first aid kit or water purification systems the emergency kit reports are recommended, so they wouldn't get a gun either. My point was that not mentioning guns is the dog that didn't bark. Advising on emergency kits to deal with disruptions of food, water, and power but mentioning _nothing_ about defense, is telling. Even if they live in a state where it's legal to do so without getting a license from the state first, telling the sheeple to rush out and buy shotguns would probably lose more lives to accidents than it would save, if Walmart etal didn't run out of stock first. Doubtful, but I dealt with these issues above. --Tim May That government is best which governs not at all. --Henry David Thoreau
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 11:20 AM, Bill Frantz wrote: At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) I thought Ashcroft was on record as stating that the second amendment confered an individual right to own arms. Are his actions are not in accord with his words? He talks the talk, but his Justice Department continues to enforce assault weapon laws (which are ipso fact unconstitutional, as the language of the Second makes it clear that military-type rifles for the citizen militia were the intent, not just target pistols and .22 plinkers). His DOJ continues to raid houses where gun stockpilers are believed to be. His DOJ has not charged Ruby Ridge sniper Lon Horiuchi with capital murder. And so on. He talks the talk, but he and his buddies in HomeSec are establishing a national police force, states rights be damned. If Ashcroft and Company really believed the line they publically speak, they would, for example, initiate a court challenge in California to strike down California's restrictions on evil black rifles as being unconstitutional. The impending clusterfuck (I hope) should be interesting to watch. The good news is that France and Germany are saying no to the use of NATO for Bush's war. This may break apart NATO, especially as the NATO wannabees like Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, etc. are all kowtowing to the U.S. demands. (Saddam is not an ally of liberty, and Iraq looks to be a repressive place. But I take no entangling alliances quite seriously. And unless there is a clear and present danger of an attack by or from a foreign nation, I say stay at home and avoid foreign entanglements. I have seen no evidence that Iraq launched the 9/11 attacks, so carpet-bombing Baghdad seems unjustified. Powell's smoking gun was a fizzle.) --Tim May Dogs can't conceive of a group of cats without an alpha cat. --David Honig, on the Cypherpunks list, 2001-11
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) Firearms permits were instituted in the late 1920s and were required for ownership of firearms, ammunition, or the legal ability to manufacture either. When Hitler came to power, he had the laws changed so that only members of the Nazi party could obtain a firearms permit. -- J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html
RE: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] That Item Whose Name May Not Be Spoken on Television: a gun. If there's disruption, looting, a breakdown in what now passes for civil order, a gun is just about the most important thing to have. Probably not necessary to use it, for 99.5% of everyone, but then most of the emergency things like plastic sheets and medical supplies probably won't be needed, either. [...] Your point is well taken, but: Three points: 1. About half of US households have guns already. It's safe to assume that they will defend themselves if TSHTF. 2. For the half which don't, a very large number of them consist of people with no firearms experience (especially since the draft ended 30 years ago), no knowledge of gun maintenance and safety, or training in how, when, and when not to use them. 3. The supply isn't there. Guns last a very long time, and rarely need to be replaced. As a result, the stockpile of available unsold guns is much smaller than the size of the unarmed populace. Even if they live in a state where it's legal to do so without getting a license from the state first, telling the sheeple to rush out and buy shotguns would probably lose more lives to accidents than it would save, if Walmart etal didn't run out of stock first. I'm not saying they shouldn't have the freedom to do so - far from it. But I don't think it's practical advice. Peter Trei
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Tim May wrote: And so on. He talks the talk, but he and his buddies in HomeSec are establishing a national police force, states rights be damned. He's proof that you can fool just about everyone simultaneously - the NRA supports him inspite of his lack of of commitment to the 2nd. The impending clusterfuck (I hope) should be interesting to watch. I'm betting 3 days start to finish of the war portion. After that it should be interesting. The good news is that France and Germany are saying no to the use of NATO for Bush's war. This may break apart NATO, especially as the NATO wannabees like Romania, Bulgaria, Latvia, etc. are all kowtowing to the U.S. demands. (Saddam is not an ally of liberty, and Iraq looks to be a repressive place. But I take no entangling alliances quite seriously. And unless there is a clear and present danger of an attack by or from a foreign nation, I say stay at home and avoid foreign entanglements. I have seen no evidence that Iraq launched the 9/11 attacks, so carpet-bombing Baghdad seems unjustified. Powell's smoking gun was a fizzle.) I've not followed it closely, but Powell claims to have a tape of Bin Laden talking to Iraqi's. Al Jazerra denys it's real. This is all from NPR. The game is afoot, let's see who can deliver the bigger lie. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:44:13 -0800, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) You are correct about the conspicuous absence of the mention of guns. Just not politically correct. Too much connection to individual action and power, which whether good, bad or indifferent is the enemy of passive submission to the state. But you damage your accurate point by accompanying it with the erroneous, but often repeated claim about Hitler confiscating guns. The Waffengesetz of March 18, 1938 did not confiscate guns from German citizens. (Of course, Jewish people were not considered German citizens under the law at that time.) There was no need to confiscate guns from the population in general. Hitler was immensely popular with Germans, and the Weimar Republic had enacted some gun control in 1928, before Hitler gained power in 1933. The Hitler Confiscation of Guns is pure urban legend, that attempts to link gun registration and confiscation with evil's 20th Centure poster boy. It's bogus. The German law certainly was not an ideal one from the viewpoint of today's beleaguered American patriot, because it did have certain licensing requirements. A permit (Waffenerwerbschein) was required to buy a handgun (but not a long gun), and a separate license (Waffenschein), good for three years, was required to carry any firearm in public. Actually, the German law was less restrictive than most state and local laws in the United States were before the current campaign to nullify the Second Amendment shifted into high gear in 1993. More significantly, it ameliorated a law which had been enacted ten years earlier by a Left-Center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government headed by Wilhelm Marx and consisting of a coalition of Socialists and Catholic Centrists). The 1938 law irritated the Jews by pointedly excluding them from the firearms business, but it clearly was not a law aimed at preventing the ownership or use of firearms, including handguns, for either sporting or self-defense purposes by German citizens. As noted above, it actually relaxed or eliminated the provisions of a pre-existing law. The facts, in brief, are these: The National Socialist government of Germany did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self-reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was alien to National Socialism. Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany five years before the National Socialists gained power. Five years after they gained power they got around to rewriting the gun law enacted by their predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; and the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years). They may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but they had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. The highlights of the 1938 German Weapons Law (which in its entirety fills 12 pages of the Reichsgesetzblatt with legalese), especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow: Handguns may be sold or purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle-loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun. A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns. Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range. A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
Re: Something conspicuously missing from the media survival lists
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:00:38 -0800, you wrote: At 10:44 AM -0800 2/11/03, Tim May wrote: But in postmodern America mentioning guns is simply NOT DONE. Not even on the Fox Network, a more rightward network than the others. (Being right no longer means mentioning guns, as Ashcroft and Cheney and the like would prefer that guns be in the hands of der polizei. There's a reason Hitler confiscated guns held privately by Germans.) Firearms permits were instituted in the late 1920s and were required for ownership of firearms, ammunition, or the legal ability to manufacture either. When Hitler came to power, he had the laws changed so that only members of the Nazi party could obtain a firearms permit. -- J. Eric Townsend -- jet spies com buy stuff, damnit: http://www.spies.com/jet/store.html This one just won't die. People keep repeating it. Not much different from Bush's Time is running out or They hate us because we love freedom. Would you like to show us the part of the twelve page German law of March, 1938 that limits gun permits to members of the Nazi party? Uh huh, I didn't think so.
