I would go further: if a couple are unwilling to have their commitment
publicly witnessed and recorded, that's prima facie evidence that the
commitment isn't really there.
--
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Immaterial afterlife (was Is Hell Real)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Lines: 21
In article <C4zAyM.M9u@spss.com> goer@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I thought everyone who died simply went to Sheol.  The notion of going to
>heaven is a Christianization based on those parts of the NT that speak of
>an immaterial afterlife.
>
>   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%midway@uchicago.bitnet
>   goer@midway.uchicago.edu          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer
>
Where in the Bible is there *any* teaching about an immaterial afterlife?
I was always taught that both the O.T. Jews and the N.T. Christians would
have found the notion incomprehensible--as do I.
Don't we christians believe in the resurrection of the body?
Or do you mean by material simply the stuff made of the 100+ elements
that we know and love too much?
--
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng
From: revc@garg.campbell.ca.us (Bob Van Cleef)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?
Organization: The Land of Garg
Lines: 48
>From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
>Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope.  There is some
>soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually
>some Pope *will* straighten all this out.  But, on the other hand,
>there is also unsoundness in this, in that, in the short term, the
>Popes may indeed be wrong, and such Catholics are doing nothing to
>help the situation by obeying them where they're wrong.  In fact, if
>the situation is grave enough, they sin in obeying him.  At the very
>least, they're wasting a great opportunity, because they are failing
>to love Christ in a heroic way at the very time that He needs this
>badly.
Joe;
Your logic excapes me.
If the Papacy is infallible, and this is a matter of faith, then the
Pope cannot "be wrong!"  If, on the other hand, this is not a matter
of faith, but a matter of Church law, then we should still obey as the
Pope is the legal head of the church.
In other words, given the doctrine of infallibility, we have no choice
but to obey.
Bob
--
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>     \|/     <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><
Bob Van Cleef              Peace -0- be      revc@garg.Campbell.CA.US
The Land of Garg BBS        unto /|\ you           BBS (408) 378-5108
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>      |      <><  <><  <><  <><  <><  <><
[You might want to look at the FAQ on infallibility.  The doctrine on
infallibility does not say that the pope is always right.  All
Catholic theologians acknowledge that there have been a number of
occasions when the pope was wrong.  There appear to be two aspects to
infallibility.  One is a general concept that in the long run the
Church is protected from serious error.  However this does not mean
that it's impossible for it to take wrong turns at one time or
another.  The more specific concept of papal infallibility is that in
very specific circumstances a papal statement can be known to be
infallible.  However a relatively small fraction of statements meet
those criteria.  This does not absolve Catholics from the duty to obey
even "ordinary" teachings of the pope.  However only a few teachings
are made in a way that is explicitly infallible.  --clh]
From: lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Subject: Christian's need for Christianity (was ...)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 26
In article <Apr.16.23.17.40.1993.1861@geneva.rutgers.edu<, mussack@austin.ibm.com writes...
<< < For example: why does the universe exist at all?
<Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager.
<If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely
<wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we
..
<Suppose the universe is 5 billion years old, and suppose it lasts another
<5 billion years. Suppose I live to be 100. That is nothing, that is so small
<that it is scary. So by searching for the "why" along with my friends here
<on earth if nothing else we aren't so scared.
I find this view of Christianity to be quite disheartening and sad.
The idea that life only has meaning or importance if there is a Creator
does not seem like much of a basis for belief.
And the logic is also appalling: "God must exist because I want Him to."
I have heard this line of "reasoning" before and wonder how prevalent
it is. Certainly in modern society many people are convinced life is
hopeless (or so the pollsters and newscasts state), but I don't see
where this is a good reason to become religious. If you want 'meaning'
why not just join a cult, such as in Waco? The leaders will give you
the security blanket you desire.
larry henling   lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
From: uad1126@tdc.dircon.co.uk (Robert Palmer)
Subject: Christian Parenting
Lines: 40
Hi I am a Sociology student and I am currently researching into
young offenders.  I am looking at the way various groups of
children are raised at home.  At the moment I am formlulating
information on discipline within the Christian home.
Please, if you are a parent in this catagory can you email me
your response to the following questionaire.  All responses
will be treated confidentially and will only be used to prepare
stats.
1.  Ages & sexes of children
2.  Do you spank your kids?
3.  If so how often?
4.  Do you use an implement to spank with?
5. If you do not spank, what method of discipline do you use?
6.  Your age?
7.  Your location
8.  While under the age of 16 did you ever commit a criminal
offence?
9.  How ere you disciplined as a kid
Thank you in advance for any reply you can make.  Please e-mail
your replies rather than post them on the newsgroup
[I hope it is obvious that responses to this question are likely to
have serious problems when used for research purposes.  Our readers
are not likely to be a random sample of Christians, and this form does
not contain enough information to act as a stratified sample.  Perhaps
someone who is familiar with research methods might want to correspond
with him.  --clh]
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: anger
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 34
In article <Apr.17.01.10.44.1993.2232@geneva.rutgers.edu> news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>>Paul Conditt writes:
[insert deletion of Paul's and Aaron's discourse on anger, ref Galatians
5:19-20]
>
>I don't know why it is so obvious.  We are not speaking of acts of the
>flesh.  We are just speaking of emotions.  Emotions are not of themselves
>moral or immoral, good or bad.  Emotions just are.  The first step is
>not to label his emotion as good or bad or to numb ourselves so that
>we hide our true feelings, it is to accept ourselves as we are, as God
>accepts us.
Oh, but they definitely can be.  Please look at Colossians 3:5-10 and
Ephesians 4:25-27.  Emotions can be controlled and God puts very strong
emphasis on self-control, otherwise, why would he have Paul write to
Timothy so much about making sure to teach self-control?
[insert deletion of remainder of paragraph]
>
>Re-think it, Aaron.  Don't be quick to judge.  He has forgiven those with
>AIDS, he has dealt with and taken responsibility for his feelings and made
>appropriate choices for action on such feelings.  He has not given in to
>his anger.
Please, re-think and re-read for yourself, Joe.  Again, the issue is
self-control especially over feelings and actions, for our actions stem
from our feelings in many instances.  As for God giving in to his anger,
that comes very soon.
>
>Joe Moore
Joe Fisher
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 59
In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu> mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
>bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>
>>	I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  It
>>is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.  Rather I think it
>>should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's
>>sake.  He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the
>
>	Typical statement from an irrational and brainwashed person.
>The bible was written by some male chavnist thousands of years ago
>(as were all of the "holy" books). Follow the parts that you think are
>suitable for modern life. Ignore the others. For heaven's (!) sake don't
>take it literally.
Please, leave heaven out of it.  For his own sake, I pray that Dan does
take it literally because that's how God intended it to be taken.  Dan,
your view of many groups appears correct from my point of view.
However, I have found a group which is truly meeting requirements laid
down by the Bible on what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.  I have no
clue where wwc is, but please mail me.  I'd really like to get you in
touch with them.
>
>>same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives
>>over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a
>				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But
>
[insert deletion of ranting about other religions which obviously has
gone off-center of Dan's original context]
Dan, I'm familiar with this one.  You've got a point, though.  There are
some who don't want to turn over everything and be a disciple, some have
no clue about it because they've not been taught, some have done exactly
that and turned over everything to follow Jesus, some are blocked by
difficult doctrine taught by uncaring Pharisees and teachers of the law.
However, Jesus pointed out what it takes to follow him and to be his
disciple in Luke 9:23-26 and Luke 14:25-33.  My question is:  why do
people ignore the command and treat it as optional?  I certainly don't
have an answer to this.
[insert deletion]
>	Parting Question:
>		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
>been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
>any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
>you are brain washed.
My parents had nothing to do with it.  God had and has everything to do
with it.  As for these attacking responses, I must say that I disagree
with your tone and what appears to be some very judgmental statements
(possibly to the point of slander) when talking about people, not what
they do.  Please, if you have a response, state it instead of flying off
the handle on some discourse which may have nothing truly to do with
what is being discussed.  I'm sure both Dan and I would have a much
happier time with your responses.
Joe
From: chips@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Charlie Mathew)
Subject: Interdisc. Bible Research Inst.
Organization: Temple University
Lines: 27
Hi!
Anyone know anything about the Interdisciplinary Bible Research
Institute, operating out of Hatfield, Pa?
I'm really interested in their theories on old-earth
(as opposed to young earth) and what they believe about evolution.
Thanks,
In the Master,
Charley.
--
Seek God and you will find, among other things,
piercing pleasure.
Seek pleasure and you will find boredom, disillusionment
and enslavement.
John White (Eros Defiled).
[Note that I do not accept discussions of evolution here, as there
is a dedicated group for that, talk.origins.  --clh]
From: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Subject: HELPHLPHELPHELP
Reply-To: cmgrawbu@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER M GRAWBURG)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Lines: 149
*******
*******  This is somewhat long, but pleas read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*******
Boy am i glad you decided to read this. I've got a problem that
I need as many people's help from as possible.
Before I go in to the details of this, let me go ahead and tell
you that (though it may sound it) this is not one of those boy
meets girl problem...at least not totally like that to me....Anyway...
OK, I am a 19 year old Sophmore at NCSU. About 10 years ago, my family
and I were vacationing at the coast in a cottage we rented. Across the
street, was ths girl who would whistle at me whenever she saw me...
her name in Erin. Well, we became friends that week at the beach and have
been writing each other for about 10 years....there was a period of about
2 years we lost contact..but that was a while ago.
By the way...Erin lives in Kansas and me in NC.
OK, last year in one of her letters, she says that she is coming
back to NC to see some of her family who are gonna be there. So I
drove about 4 hours to see her. This is where it begins....I spent
the whole day with Erin....one of the best days of my life. Even though
we had been writing each other, we still had to get used to being
in person....she has got to be the most incredible woman I ever met.
(She's one year older than me BTW). I mean, no person in the world could
ask for a better person. Not only was she incredibly beautiful (not to
mention WAY out of my league...although I'm  not unattractive mind you), but
she had a great personality and a great sence of humor. Her family
is one of those families who goes to church but that is about the
extent of their Christianity...you know the kind of people. But she
knows I am a Christian.
Well, you get the idea of what I think of her. If there is ever such
a thing as love at first sight....I found it. That was last year...I kid
you not when I say that I have thought about her EVERY day since then.
In out letters, Erin and I always kid each other about not finding
dates..(which is true for me, but I know it can't be for her).
She has had some problems at home, her folks split up and she ended
up leaving school....Now we are at the present...
Let me give you part of the letter I got from her last week....
"Okay, now I'm going to try to explain my life to you. I'm not
going to KU anymore because something just isn't right. College
just wasn't clicking with me here. Greek life is really big here and
that just isn't my way. I wasn't taking any classes that truly interested
me & i really have no idea of what i want to do with my life. I was
interested in something medical (Physical Therpy) & I love working with
kids, but 'it' just didn't work for me at this university. And my parents
could tell.
"So I'm working full time at the Bass Store [Bass shoes that is] and now
I have a part-time job at a local daycare. I work in the infant room
M-W-F. I've really enjoyed it so far. It spices up my week a little bit and
it's great experience.
"As of now, I'm not planning on going back to school in the very
near future. The main reason being my indecision on what I want to
study. But I definatley plan on going back within the next couple of
years. Where? I have no idea--except for one thing, it won't be
to Kansas.
"Right noew I'm discussing a promotion with my boss and district
manager. It looks like I'll train at the store I work at now for
about 4-6 months as Assistant Manager and when that's done, I'll
basically be given a list of stores (newly or soon to be built) to
chose where i would like to manage. I've pretty much decided on either
one of the Carolinas (hopeully close to the beach) Wouldn't it
be fun to actually see each other more than once every few years??
What do you think abou that? I would like to know your opinion.
"This job would pretty much be temporary. But it is VERY GOOD pay
and any thye of management experience would look good on an application
or resume. The company is solid and treats it employees very well. Good
benefits, bonuses & medical plans. Plus- after 1 year of full-time
service, they will reimburse tuition. I do have school money waitng
for me, but this will help, especially since I will probably end up
paying out of state tuition wherever I go.
"Chris, i really would like to know what you think of my decision. I
respect your opinion. I've been completely lost for what to do for
soooo long that when the opportunity came along it sounded really
good. I do like my job although I'm about 99.9% sure that i want
to do more with my life than reatil management..but it IS something.
I don't think earning about $20,000 a year for a 20 year old female
is too bad.
"Anyway, onto your career decisions. I'll solve your problem right now,
MARRY ME...
"You can do your pilot thing-- I like to be by myself sometimes! Seriously
(or not as seriously)- do what will make you the happiest, worry about the
home life later."
***********
OK, well I'm sure you see what has got me so uptight. What do you
think she meant about the marraige thing??
I dream at night about marrying her, and then she mentions it in her
letter!!! I don't know what to think??
Since she wants to move to the Carolina's should i search out a
Bass store near here and aske her to come to Carolina???
I always pick on those people who graduate from high school and
get married....but what does she mean???
I've had a lot of stress lately with exams and also the fact that
I don't date beacause 1) No time  2) Not that much $$ 3) that
most college women are wrapped up in the social scene with  the
Greeks whic as a Christian I can't support-----and here
she says she doesn't like the Greek thing either!!
Maybe I'm so stunned because there is actually a girl that I am
so attracted to paying some real attention to me.
I mean, what if she did move to NC...what would I do??? I'm
only 19 and she 20....I'm only a Sophmore struggling through
classes..
I have prayed about this over the past year from time to time..
saying, "God if she is the right one, let the situation open up.."
Could this be my sign???
I would do ANYTHING to get her to NC...here is some moree that makes
it worse..
Should I call her?? I'm terrible over the phone. I don't even like
to talk to my friends here for longer than 3 minutes.
I mean, what would a girl as perfect as her want with a very
average guy like me??
I'm really confused....I would really appreciate any help i can get.
Thanx
Chris
[I have a feeling that it might be more appropriate to talk with
Chris directly via email.  --clh]
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: sex education
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 45
In article <Apr.8.00.57.31.1993.28227@athos.rutgers.edu> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>It seems I spend a significant amount of my time correcting errors about
>the reliability tests for condoms and abstinence.  A few years ago I saw
>that famous study that showed a "10% failure rate" for condoms.  The
>same study showed a 20% failure rate for abstinence!!  That is, adult
>couples who relied on abstinence to prevent pregnancy got pregnant in
>alarming numbers--they didn't have the willpower to abstain.  And we're
>thinking that this will work with high school kids?!?
I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that
teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices",
actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while
back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested.  The
article included sources to contact for information on research verifying
these statements, and an outstanding source for info on acquiring
abstinence-related curricula even in single-copy quantities for home use.
The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula
were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens.  I assume that it is
reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy
rate.
The difference is not in "contraceptive technology" but in the values taught
to the children.  The PP/SIECUS curricula taught the kids that they have
legitimate choices, while the abstinence related curricula taught them that
they did _not_ have _legitimate_ choices other than abstinence.  It is the
values system that is the strongest determinent of the behavior behavior of
these kids.
Despite the better track record of abstinence-related curricula, they are
suppressed in favor of curricula that produce an effect contrary to that
desired.
Question for further discussion (as they say in the textbooks):  Why don't
we teach "safe drug use" to kids, instead of drug abstinence?  Isn't it
because we know that a class in "how to use drugs safely if you _choose_ to
use drugs" would increase drug use?  Why isn't "drug abstinence education"
barred from schools because it teaches "religion"?  Aren't we abandoning
those children who will use drugs anyway, and need instruction in their safe
use?
--
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 48
In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>
>> Drugs are a replacement for Christ.
>>Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must
>>do something to ease the pain.
>
>I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
>who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?
>
>>  This is why the most effective
>>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual
>>needs.
>
>You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim
>like this.
>
In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps
involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse-
recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.
Unfortunately, as evidence for God, this can be dismissed by stating
that the same defect of personality makes substance abusers as makes
people 'religious', and the debunker could perhaps acknowledge that
being religious is a better crutch than being a drug addict, but
still maintain that both are escapism.  (And I suspect that there
are some atheists who would find the substance abuse preferable to
Christianity.)
I think that an essential problem with communication between Christ-
ians and atheists is that as Christians we necessarily see ourselves
as incomplete, and needing God (the 'God-shaped hole'), while atheists
necessarily see themselves as self-sufficient.  If the atheists are
right, Christians are guilty of being morally weak, and too cowardly
to stand up for themselves; if the Christians are right, the atheists
are guilty of considerable arrogance.  (I use the term atheist to
refer to a person who has a definite conviction that there is no God,
as opposed to one who does not know and/or does not care about God.)
==
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research,       | Pray that at the end of living,
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada       | Of philosophies and creeds,
| God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions.  | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.          |
I knew I'd left them somewhere.               |  --Fred Kaan
(let's see...I spelled 'sowing' right; I got the author's name right--maybe
my 3rd iteration .sig will be a keeper.)
From: armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong)
Subject: Re: So far so good
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Lines: 22
In article <C4z5u3.Jxo@spss.com> luomat@alleg.edu writes:
>
>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways:
>	Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of
>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still
>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives
>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by
>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't
>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is
>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?
>
So long as we think that good things are what we *have* to do rather than
what we come to *want* to do, we miss the point. The more we love God; the
more we come to love what and whom He loves.
When I find that what I am doing is not good, it is not a sign to try
even harder (Romans 7:14-8:2); it is a sign to seek God. When I am aware
of Jesus' presence, I usually want what He wants. It is His strenth, His love
that empowers my weakness.
--
Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng
From: alastair@farli.otago.ac.nz (Alastair Thomson)
Subject: Does 'Just/justifiable War' exist?
Organization: University of Otago
Lines: 107
Hi there netters,
I have a question I would very much like to see some discussion on:
Is there such a thing as a 'justifible' war?
What I would love to see it some basis from scripture for either: "All war
is wrong", or "Some war is justifiable".
To get things started I would like to outline why I am asking the
question. In my high school days I had been quite involved in the the New
Zealand Cadet Forces (This is a bit like ROTC from what I understand of
it, but with a lot more emphasis on fun than military career training).
Through this I became extremely enamoured of flying, have become involved
in the sport of gliding, and have a great interest in military aviation
hardware as the very best a 'real' flyer could ask for. My favourite
computer games are the accurate simulations of military aircraft, both
past and present.
I became a Christian about 10 years ago, and at the time rejected all
military activity as immoral. For me, all war was in complete opposition
to God's commandments to love one another, especially one's enemies.
During the war in Iraq, I found myself with great excitement listening to
the reports of the effectiveness of the the attacks using the aviation
technology I so admire - The F117A 'Stealh' bomber, the F14, F15 and F16
strike aircraft, etc. After the war concluded I began to really enjoy
simulations based around this conflict - Great to go and bomb Saddam's
bio-weapons plants in an F117A on my computer, or shoot down some of his
Mig's in an F16. The simulation of the death of people was a wonderful
game. I imagine the real pilots view the real thing in much the same way.
One only has to look at the language used to see that the personal impact
of war is ignored: A building containing people, or an aircraft flown by a
pilot is simply a 'target'. Dead civilians are 'collateral damage'. These
euphanisms are a way of removing the reality of war from the people whose
support are necessary for the continued waging of war - One only has to
look at Vietnam to see how important public opinion is.
Now we see troops sponsored by the United Nations entering Somalia, and
the prospect of military intervention in the Muslim/Croat/Serb conflict in
the former Yugoslavia. My revulsion in particular to the siege of
Sarajevo, and in the last few days of (sorry 'bout spelling) Sebrenitsa,
has caused me to rethink where I stand on 'justifiable' war.
I will list several wars in the last 50 years I can look at each, and say
- Yes this may have been justifible, this may not. These are simply my gut
reactions to each - In many cases with the benefit of the impartiality
history brings. Let me go through a few and state some of my reasons for
my reaction - I am not a historian, so excuse any historical blunders, I
am working from popular history as it is known in New Zealand.
1. The Second World War
- Murder of Jews - Hitler had to be stopped.
- Massive civilian casualties on both sides
- Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki
- Probably justifiable.
2. Korean war
- Political expansionism by North Korea, basically
communism vs. capitalism.
- Probably not justifiable.
3. Vietnam
- As above, worsened by US involvement.
4. Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.
- Genocide by Khmer Rouge.
- Probably justifiable.
5. Iraq (Desert Storm)
- Political expansionism, threat to world oil supply
- Other factors such as genocide.
- Not sure, but probably justifiable
6. A future involvement in Bosnia
- Genocide - so called 'Ethnic Cleansing'
- Emotive - much TV coverage of atrocities and civilian casualties.
- Probably justifiable
7. Possible future use of nuclear weapons - tactical or strategic,
somewhere in the world by the US in response to someone else - e.g. Libya
or Israel.
- My feelings in this are simple
- Nuclear war/weapons are abhorrent
- I love the New Zealand government's stand on banning all nuclear
armed or powered warships from NZ port.
- Never justifiable.
These are my own views, I have looked at scripture, and I am confused. I
would appreciate others view, particularly those based on scripture. I
*don't* want a - Naaahh, yer wrong - I think answers 8-).
Thanks for your help.
==========================================================================
|
Alastair Thomson,                   | Phone +64-3-479-8347
Chief Programmer,                   | Fax   +64-3-479-8529
The Black Albatross Porject,        |
University of Otago,                |
Department of Computer Science,     | e-mail alastair@farli.otago.ac.nz
P.O. Box 56                         |        athomson@otago.ac.nz
Dunedin                             | NeXTmail Welcome
New Zealand                         |
"God loved the world so much, that he gave us His Son, to die in
our place, so that we may have eternal life" John 3:16, paraphrase
==========================================================================
From: asket@acad2.alaska.edu
Subject: When is a couple married...
Organization: University of Alaska
Lines: 31
I used to be a marriage commissioner for the Alaska Court
System (sort of a justice of the peace).  I had great difficulty
with that duty.  I used to pray earnestly in the courthouse
bathroom before the ceremonies, mostly asking that the couples
would come to appreciate and fulfill the true holiness and
divine purpose in marriage--couples who obviously didn't realize
that marriage is God's institution, not the state's.  Gradually,
however, I came to conclude that because I was acting in a
strictly secular, public capacity, established as such by both
the state and the expectations of the couples involved, I was
really conducting a purely secular, legal civil event, with no
greater moral or religious implications than if I had been
conducting a civil trial (the couple who told me, mid-ceremony,
to "please hurry it up" may have helped me to this conclusion).
I thought I had neatly rationalized a clear and sharp
distinction between marriage before God, and "marriage" before
the state, until I had to deal with my own divorce.  Keeping
Matthew 19:6 in mind, I felt that the state had no business
dissolving my marriage established before God, but of course it
assumed jurisdiction nonetheless.
I would ask those of you proposing answers to this
question to consider this issue's logical extension: If
intercourse, or the mental intent of the parties, or the
ceremony of the church, or any combination thereof, establishes
marriage, then at what moment is it dissolved?
Karl Thoennes III
University of Alaska
From: rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Divine providence vs. Murphy's Law
Lines: 12
Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those
who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.
We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that
matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?
--
--- Tim Rolfe
rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
rolfe@junior.dsu.edu
From: mwhaefne@infonode.ingr.com (Mark W. Haefner)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jesus in your heart..."
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Lines: 10
>
>> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
>> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject
>> themselves with jeezus and live with that high.
Why would you say "especially Christianity"?
Mark
From: jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas)
Subject: What's in a name?: the sequel
Organization: Kulikauskas home
Lines: 57
I've been thinking about the idea that was raised (by Michael Covington,
I think) that words mean what we think they mean, regardless of
etymology.  I've been reflecting on what certain words meant in my
childhood and tracing how this shaped some of my attitudes.
I grew up in a home where Christ was a bad word.  People who were very
angry said it.  The word Christian meant someone who was not a Jew.  It
carried connotations of otherness, of threat, of enemy.  It took some
time to figure out that there was a connection between `Christ' and
`Christian'.  When I accepted Jesus, I expected to be disowned.  To
become a Christian meant to join the enemy.  I knew others would
consider me a traitor.  At some level, I agreed, but was still prepared
to pay this price.  Like Esau, I sold my birthright.  However, I made a
better bargain.  He only got some stew, but I got the incomparable
riches of knowing Christ.
As it turned out, my parents did not disown me.  I found out later that
they were hoping it was a phase that I would grow out of.  By the time
they had decided it wasn't a phase, they were sort of used to it.  They
didn't disown me but they didn't completely accept the situation either.
For example, they didn't come to my wedding because it was in a church.
When I visited my grandmother in the hospital a few days before her
death, she said to me, "As far as I'm concerned, you still are a Jew."
What she meant was that she loved me and forgave me.  But I am not a
Jew.  I am a Christian.  (I'll concede, one that likes chicken soup with
matzoh balls.:-))
I do not keep kosher.  I do not celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday.  My
sons are not circumcised.  But these things are true of some people who
do consider themselves Jews.  It is not these rules that make people
Jews; it is the heritage from the past.  I gave up the past.
This is why I find it hard to relate to Messianic Jews.  Their
experience is unlike mine.  They still consider themselves Jews while
following Jesus.  Some would even say that I *must* do so, too.
I am at a stage of my life now where I would like to have a heritage.
It was not something I valued very much when I gave it.  But I did have
a sense that I was giving it for God.  It may have been a small
sacrifice.  It may have been an unnecessary sacrifice.  But I gave it
and do not want to ask for it back.
And while I don't have the heritage I was born with, I do have another.
I am an outcast from the house of Israel, but I am a member of the
Church.  One of the things I like about being a Catholic Christian is
that it is rich in tradition.  It gives me a feeling of, once again,
being rooted in the past.
This is probably one of the reasons why I don't like it when people mess
around with Christian traditions (for example, changing the name of
Easter).  These traditions fill an important emotional need of mine.
I suppose the point of all this is that people shouldn't assume that all
believers of Jewish background are the same.  For some `Jewish
Christian' is a good name, for others it is an oxymoron.
Jayne Kulikauskas/jayen@mmalt.guild.org
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?
Reply-To: noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 75
In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu> mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
>bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:
>>same.  Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives
>>over to him.  That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a
>				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at.  But
>
>	So you think it is easy to be a Muslim? Or be a Buddhist?
[good points on buddhism, etc. deleted]
just because one says christianity -- true christianity -- is hard to
follow faithfully does NOT mean that one discounts the validity and
difficulty of other religions.  i admire those of any religion who are
willing to make the kind of sacrifices and dedicate themselves
spiritually in the way you are talking about.
[more deleted]
>And perhaps some more. But leave the crap in it out ("woman was created
>after man, to be his helper" etc).
do you think this is what christianity is all about?  not all
christians believe in this particular story literally.  it sounds
above like you are supporting a policy of "to each his own" -- here is
another example of that.  if it helps someone's faith to take every
word of the bible literally, i support and respect that, too.
>>time.  We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.
>>It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in
>>a while.  We box everything into time units.  Such as work at this
>>time, sports, Tv, social life.  God is above these boxes and should be
>
>	When ever I turn on my TV there is this Pat Robertson and
>other brain washers (Oh boy, what an act they put on!) with an
>1-800 number to turn in your pledges.
>God it seems is alive and well inside these boxes.
please don't judge all of christianity by one man.  the only man one
can truly judge all of christianity by is jesus (makes sense, right?).
i think his point about how we put our lives into little boxes is very
true -- what does your comment about robertson have to do with that?
>>carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for
>>ourselves.
>	Parting Question:
>		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
>been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
>any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
>you are brain washed.
i was raised agnostic -- my father was never baptised and was raised
atheist.  he is not an atheist because he found a close-mindedness
present in the viewpoint of his parents equal to the close-mindedness
he found in the viewpoint of the christians he came in contact with.
thus i was _free_ to choose how to live my life, and he supported the
decision i made to join the episcopal church, although he emphasized
to me that his respect for my beliefs should result in my not
intruding on his beliefs, ie, i should not try to convert him, as that
is his decision.  (please, no flames or advice on how to convert him!)
one of my good friends is hindi and i greatly respect her
beliefs and the culture surrounding her religion.  my best friend is
jewish and i have always held a profound resepct for the jewish
religion (chaim potok and isaac bashevis singer are two of my favorite
authors).  i really do not think you can make that kind of
generalization about how christians choose -- and i do mean CHOOSE--
their faith.  if they have not consciously accepted the faith in their
adult lives (which is what confirmation represents), THEN you can talk
about their being brainwashed.
vera
"if you choose not to decide,
you still have made a choice!"
- rush, "freewill"
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: An agnostic's question
Reply-To: noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 23
perhaps you can tell your friend that you feel pressured by his
continual discussions of this topic -- surely he doesn't feel you
should be _pressured_ into something you feel uncomfortable about
(since christianity should be a choice one should make on one's own).
please also realize that he is doing this out of friendship -- he
probably feels you are missing out on something great, and wants to
tell you about it.  but since you know where you can learn about
christianity, you can tell him that it is now up to you to make that
choice, and if the choice is no, you should be respected for that.
personally i believe that a christian's mission is just to be
christ-like, showing his/her own faith and happiness in that faith,
and make sure people know they are welcome to talk to you about it.  i
do not believe in imposing your beliefs upon others -- but then again
everyone's definitions of "imposing" may differ.
i hope i have made myself clear....  if not, please correct me!
:) vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?
Organization: none
Lines: 182
Here is some material by Michael Davies on the subject of schism in
general and Archishop Lefebvre in particular.  He wrote it around
1990.  The first part of the two-part article was on the scandalous
activities of Archbishop Weakland (in this country), but I cut all
that.  And I pared down the rest to what was relevant.
Joe Buehler
...
Schism and Disobedience
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, schism consists primarily in a
refusal of submission to the Pope or communion with the members of the
Church united to him. On first sight it would appear that, whatever
the subjective motivation of the Archbishop, as discussed above, he
must be in a state of objective schism as he has refused to submit to
the Pope on a very grave matter involving his supreme power of
jurisdiction. However, standard Catholic textbooks of theology make it
clear that while all schisms involve disobedience not all acts of
disobedience are schismatic. If this were so, as was noted at the
beginning of this article, it would mean that the number of American
bishops who are not schismatic would not reach double figures.
The distinction between disobedience and schism is made very clear in
the article on schism in the very authoritative Dictionnaire de
Theologie Catholique. The article is by Father Yves Congar who is
certainly no friend of Archbishop Lefebvre.  He explains that schism
and disobedience are so similar that they are often confused. Father
Congar writes that schism involves a refusal to accept the existence
of legitimate authority in the Church, for example, Luther's rejection
of the papacy. Father Congar explains that the refusal to accept a
decision of legitimate authority in a particular instance does not
constitute schism but disobedience.  The Catholic Encyclopedia
explains that for a Catholic to be truly schismatic he would have to
intend "to sever himself from the Church as far as in him lies."  It
adds that "not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this
character it must include besides the transgression of the command of
the superiors, a denial of their divine right to command."Not only
does Mgr. Lefebvre not deny the divine right of the Pope to command,
but he affirms repeatedly his recognition of the Pope's authority and
his intention of never breaking away from Rome. The Archbishop made
his attitude clear in the July/August 1989 issue of 30 Days: "We pray
for the Pope every day. Nothing has changed with the consecrations
last June 30. We are not sedevacantists. We recognize in John Paul II
the legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church. We don't even say that he
is a heretical Pope. We only say that his Modernist actions favor
heresy."
...
Intrinsically Schismatic?
The principal argument used by those claiming that Mgr. Lefebvre is in
schism is that the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate is
an intrinsically schismatic act. A bishop who carries out such a
consecration, it is claimed, becomes ipso facto a schismatic. This is
not true. If such a consecration is an intrinsically schismatic act it
would always have involved the penalty of excommunication. In the 1917
Code of Canon Law the offence was punished only by suspension (see
Canon 2370 of the 1917 Code). Pope Pius XII had raised the penalty to
excommunication as a response to the establishment of a schismatic
church in China. The consecration of these illicit Chinese bishops
differed radically from the consecrations carried out by Mgr. Lefebvre
as the professed intention was to repudiate the authority of the Pope,
that is, to deny that he has the right to govern the Church, and the
illicitly consecrated Chinese bishops were given a mandate to exercise
an apostolic mission. Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor any of the
bishops he has consecrated claim that they have powers of
jurisdiction. They have been consecrated solely for the purpose of
ensuring the survival of the Society by carrying out ordinations and
also to perform confirmations. I do not wish to minimize in any way
the gravity of the step take by Mgr. Lefebvre. The consecration of
bishops without a papal mandate is far more serious matter than the
ordination of priests as it involves a refusal in practice of the
primacy or jurisdiction belonging by divine right to the Roman
Pontiff. But the Archbishop could argue that the crisis afflicting the
Church could not be more grave, and that grave measures were needed in
response.
It appears to be taken for granted by most of the Archbishop's critics
that he was excommunicated for the offense of schism, and the Vatican
has certainly been guilty of fostering this impression.  There is not
so much as a modicum of truth in this allegation. The New Code of
Canon Law includes a section beginning with Canon 1364 entitled
"Penalties for Specific Offenses" (De Poenis in Singula Dicta). The
first part deals with "Offenses against Religion and the Unity of the
Church" (De Delictis contra Religionem et Ecclesiae Unitatem). Canon
1364 deals with the offense of schism which is, evidently, together
with apostasy and heresy, one of the three fundamental offenses
against the unity of the Church.
But the Archbishop was not excommunicated under the terms of this
canon or, indeed, under any canon involving an offense against
religion or the unity of the church. The canon cited in his
excommunication comes from the third section of "Penalties for
Specific Offenses" which is entitled "Usurpation of Ecclesial
Functions and Offenses in their Exercise" (De Munerum Ecclesiasticorum
Usurpatione Degue Delictis iniis Exercendis). The canon in question is
Canon 1382, which reads: "A bishop who consecrates someone bishop and
the person who receives such a consecration from a bishop without a
pontifical mandate incur an automatic (latae sententiae)
excommunication reserved to the Holy See."
The scandalous attempts to smear Archbishop Lefebvre with the offense
of schism are, then, contrary to both truth and charity. A comparable
smear under civil as opposed to ecclesiastical law would certainly
justify legal action for libel involving massive damages. An accurate
parallel would be to state that a man convicted of manslaughter had
been convicted of first degree murder.
I must stress that what I have written here is not the dubious opinion
of laymen unversed in the intricacies of Canon Law. Canon lawyers
without the least shred of sympathy for Mgr. Lefebvre have repudiated
the charge of schism made against him as totally untenable. Father
Patrick Yaldrini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Institut
Catholique in Paris noted in the 4 July 1988 issue of Valeurs
actuelles that, as I have just explained, Mgr.  Lefebvre was not
excommunicated for schism but for the usurpation of an ecclesiastical
function. He added that it is not the consecration of a bishop which
constitutes schism but the conferral of an apostolic mission upon the
illicitly consecrated bishop. It is this usurpation of the powers of
the sovereign pontiff which proves the intention of establishing a
parallel Church.
Cardinal Rosalio Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the
Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, commented on the consecrations
in the 10 July 1988 issue of la Repubblica. It would be hard to
imagine a more authoritative opinion. The Cardinal wrote:
The act of consecrating a bishop (without a papal mandate) is not
in itself a schismatic act. In fact, the Code that deals with
offenses is divided into two sections. One deals with offenses
against religion and the unity of the Church, and these are
apostasy, schism, and heresy. Consecrating a bishop with a
pontifical mandate is, on the contrary, an offense against the
exercise of a specific ministry. For example, in the case of the
consecrations carried out by the Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh
Thuc in 1976 and 1983, although the Archbishop was excommunicated
he was not considered to have committed a schismatic act because
there was no intention of a breach with the Church.
....
It is not simply unjust but ludicrous to suggest that in consecrating
bishops without a papal mandate Archbishop Lefebvre had the least
intent of establishing a schismatic church. He is not a schismatic and
will never be a schismatic. The Archbishop considers correctly that
the the Church is undergoing its worst crisis since the Arian heresy,
and that for the good of the Church it was necessary for him to
consecrate the four bishops to ensure the future of his Society. Canon
Law provides for just such a situation, and even if one believes that
the future of the Society could have been guaranteed without these
consecrations, the fact that the Archbishop believed sincerely that it
could not means, as Canon Law states clearly, that he has not incurred
excommunication. Furthermore, while the Vatican allows such prelates
as Archbishop Weakland to undermine the Faith with impunity it cannot
expect Catholics to pay the least attention to its sanctions against a
great and orthodox Archbishop whose entire life has been devoted to
the service of the Church and the salvation of souls.
Dr. Eric M. de Saventhem, President of the International Una Voce
Association, is one of the best informed laymen in the Church, and he
knows the Archbishop intimately. Dr. de Saventhem, like myself, has no
greater desire than to see a reconciliation between Mgr. Lefebvre and
the Holy See during the Archbishop's lifetime. A quotation from a
statement by Dr. de Saventhem which was published in the 15 February
1989 Remnant merits careful study:
In retrospect, the road leading to the consecrations of 30 June
appears more paved with grave Roman (and, unfortunately, also
papal) omissions than with Lefebvrist "obstinancies." And from the
eyes of an informed public this cannot be hidden by attempting to
present the Archbishop's act of grave disobedience as an offense
against the Faith!  It is said--today--that Mgr. Lefebvre has "an
erroneous concept of Tradition." If this were so, Cardinal
Ratzinger could not, on behalf of the Pope, have addressed to the
Archbishop the following words in his letter of 28 July 1987:
"Your ardent desire to safeguard Tradition by procuring for it
'the means to live and prosper' testifies to your attachment to
the Faith of all time... the Holy Father understands your concern
and shares it."
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: University of Oulu, Finland
Lines: 135
Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:
: [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]
: One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate
: (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
: reasonable alternative exists.
I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime;
causes precede their effects. But if you claim that there must be
an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from
"nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.
I have always wondered why Christians use the "There are questions
science (or atheism) cannot answer" argument; I hope this is the
appropriate group to ask this question.
The most popular question is the question of origins. Why does the
universe exist, or anything, for that matter?
I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely
1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?
and
2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?
It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However,
is it a meaningful question, after all?
I would say it isn't. Consider the following:
A die-hard skeptic being (be it human or whatever) attempts to doubt
one's very existence. Since it is so easy to doubt everything else -
I cannot be _sure_ the world exists, it may be my mind fooling me -
can I ever be sure I exist?
However, it is only possible to exist or not to exist. (Someone
insert an appropriate Shakespeare quote here ;-) )
A being that does not exist cannot doubt one's existence.
A being that does exist can doubt one's existence, but this would be
pointless - the being would exist anyway.
Let us return to the original question: why? A being that does not
exist does not need any reasons for its non-existence. This being
is not _sure_ whether anything else exists but his mind, but let
us assume that the world exists independent of the mind (the objectivity
postulate). The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
or in non-existence". Actually, both questions turn out to be
devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
don't exist. Tautology at its best.
I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.
Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is
Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this
answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is
actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and
them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.
Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.
This argument sounds like God does not exist, but meta-exists,
and from His meta-existent perspective, He created existence.
I think this is actually a nonsolution, a mere twist of words.
The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.
The second question: How did the universe emerge from nothing?
belongs to the domain of science, and I, for one, do not doubt the
question can be answered by its methods. Many cosmologists have
suggested that it is entirely possible for universes to emerge
from vacuum (this possibility has been suggested in a recent
Hawking biography; see also Lizhi & Shuxian: Creation of the Universe,
World Scientific, 1989). However, I think the sci groups are more
appropriate for discussions like this.
: As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
: true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).
This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.
: I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
: but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining,
: reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
: can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any*
: technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
: having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.
This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are
somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians
in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce
they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?
There is a problem with your prophecy: artificial life has been created,
although not yet in a chemical form. Computer simulations of evolution
contain systems that are as much alive as any bacterium, although
their code is electronic, as well as their metabolism. See a recent book
Steven Levy: Artificial life - The Quest for a New Creation. Jonathan
Cape, London 1992.
Artificial chemical life is just around the corner - after all, no
spark of life has been found to be necessary; living systems do not
violate any physical laws as we know them.
: You don't mind if a few of us send up a prayer on your behalf during your
: research, do you?  After all, if we of Christ are deluding ourselves, you
: really have nothing to worry about, eh?
Exactly. This is why I think atheists should _not_ post any evangelical
atheist arguments to soc.religion groups, since people who seek to
find peace in religions must be allowed to gather together. I would
normally have asked these questions in alt.atheism or talk.religion.misc,
but it seems many Christians do not read these groups.
Petri
--
___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
*'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: A question that has bee bothering me.
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Lines: 29
wquinnan@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Malcusco) writes:
>	My problem with Science is that often it allows us to
>assume we know what is best for ourselves.  God endowed us
>with the ability to produce life through sexual relations,
>for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone.
>Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision
>through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power
>to decide who should and should not be able to have
>children?  Should men be allowed to have babies, if that
>is made possible.
In a word, yes.  I don't believe that physical knowledge has a great deal of
impact on the power of God.  In the past, God gave us the ability to create
life through sexual relations.  Now, he is giving us the ability to create life
through in vitro fertilization.  The difference between the two is merely
cosmetic, and even if we gain the ability to create universes we won't begin to
approach the glory of God.
The power we are being given is a test, and I am sure that in many cases we
will use our new abilities unwisely.  But, people have been using sexuality
unwisely for millenia and I haven't heard an outcry to abolish it yet!
No matter how far we extend our dominion over the physical world, we aren't
impinging on God's power.  It's only when we attempt to gain control of the
spiritual world, those things that can't be approached through science and
logic, that we begin to interfere with God.
Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Lines: 39
phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>In article <Apr.13.00.08.07.1993.28379@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:
>This is not true.  The athiest's position is that there is no PROOF of the
>existence of God.  As much as some people accept their Church, their priests
>or straight from their own scriptures as the "proof", this does not
>satisfy atheists.
You haven't fully explained the atheist position.  Many theists believe that
there is "no proof of the existence of God" but choose to believe in him
anyway.  I haven't yet found an argument for atheism that can't quickly be
broken down to unprovable assumptions.  This isn't a problem with me (everybody
needs to have a faith) but if you believe that you can provide a "purely
logical" argument for the nonexistence of God, I'd really like to see it.
>Are you asking us to believe blindly?  You are trying to deny that part of
>us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and
>reason.  If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant
>as the other animals on this earth.  Does God want us to be like that?
>You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything.  However, if
>we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone.  And since
>we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
>valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?
Ahh...but when you use science and reason, you have faith in certain beliefs
of the scientific method--for example:
The physical laws of the universe are stable.
Our observations of reality are a valid basis for a determination of truth.
Objective reality exists.
Logical argument is a valid way to answer all questions.
Can you prove any of these?
Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Lines: 18
Desiree_Bradley@mindlink.bc.ca (Desiree Bradley) writes:
>And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have
>been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting
>somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.
This is a good point.  Christ was hardly the only person who claimed to be
the Messiah--in fact, a number of "Messiahs" were active in the area from the
time of the Roman conquest to after the fall of Masada.
Many of the statements made by the apostles--especially their repeated
attempts to give Jesus a sword (give him military power) point to the fact that
they didn't realize the true nature of his reign until after the fact.  Many of
the statements in the Bible can be seen as being oriented toward explaining
this new definition of "Messiah" to the Jews who were being preached to.
Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu
From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez)
Subject: Atheists and Hell
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Lines: 26
Hello,
I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the
newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.
Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...
1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.
2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
is unfair.
I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition,
eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no
reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
enough.
Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these statements
as metaphorical.
Alan Terlep				    "...and the scorpion says, 'it's
Oakland University, Rochester, MI		in my nature.'"
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu
Rushing in where angels fear to tread.				--Jody
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?
Reply-To: norris@mit.edu
Organization: l'organisation, c'est moi
Lines: 15
In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
|>
|> 	Parting Question:
|> 		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
|> been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
|> any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
|> you are brain washed.
You write as if no-one ever became a Christian except people from
Christian families.  This is not true, as quite a few people on this
group can attest (including me).
--
Richard Aquinas Chonak, norris@mit.edu, Usenet addict, INTP
Seeking job change: sys-mgr: VAX, SIS, COBOL, DTR; progr: UNIX, C/++, X
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 36
[In response to some of the discussions on the Sabbath, Andrew Byler
commented that if we really followed sola scriptura we would worship
on Saturday -- the change to Sunday was a law made by the Church, and
we don't acknowledge its authority to make laws.  I noted that
Protestants do not consider Sunday worship a law.  --clh]
He was not referring to the FAQ but to the five Sabbath Admissions posted
on the bible study group.  This is what prompted someone to send the FAQ
to me.
>  The argument against the Sabbath is
> that it is part of the ceremonial law, and like the rest of the
n> ceremonial law is not binding on Christians.
You cannot show, from scripture, that the weekly Sabbath is part of the
ceremonial laws.   Before you post a text in reply investigate its context.
> If you accept that
> the Sabbath is not binding on Christians, then the day of worship
> falls into the category of items on which individual Christians or
> (since worship is by its nature a group activity) churches are free to
> decide.
>
Can the churches also decide what is and is not sin?  Interesting.  Where
there is no divine imperative of course we must establish rules of
operation.  But we cannot be as creative with what God has explicitly
spoken on.
Darius
[Again, in the normal Protestant interpretation, Sunday is not a law,
and worshipping on another day is not a sin.  Churches are free to
decide on the day they will meet, just as they are free to decide on
the hour.  It would not be a sin to worship on some other day, but if
you belong to a church that worships on Sunday and you show up on
Monday, you will probably worship alone...  --clh]
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Subject: Poem
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
Lines: 145
The Sophomore
(Romans 1:22)
The sophomore says, ``What is truth?''
and turns to bask in the admiration of his peers.
How modern how daring how liberating
How modern how daring how liberating
they chant
The sophomore, being American
Doesn't know
That his ``question''
modern
skeptical
cynical
Was asked before, by a
modern
skeptical
cynical
urbane cosmopolitan
Politician (appointed not elected)
Who happened to live two thousand years ago.
Like many politicians he cared
Less about ideals
than results
Less about ends
than means
Less about anything
than keeping his job
(and his head).
We might call him
A bit brutal
Though `firm' would be kinder
(And no doubt Stalin, who let nobody go, laughed at his laxness)
He didn't like his job; perhaps he no longer hoped for better
(Nor feared worse, except regarding his head).
And when these wily Jews
With their heads-I-win, tails-you-lose
conundrums
Brought forth their madman,
His first impulse was to play the Roman:
``I find nothing wrong with him,
See to it yourselves.''
But when they mentioned `King' and `Caesar'
His heart froze.
If he killed their madman
He'd start a riot
and lose his job
(and his head)
If he saved the King of the Jews
He'd piss off Caesar
and lose his job
(and his head)
And when his wife told him to have
Nothing to do with the righteous lout
She didn't tell him anything
He hadn't already figured out.
So he punted.
``Not my jurisdiction!  Take him to see Herod!''
(who just happened to be in town....)
Herod appreciated the courtesy
But wasn't worried
And sent the sharp-tongued fool
(Who suddenly didn't have much to say,
funny how people lose it under pressure....)
back
In the attire proper
to his Royal State.
His ass is covered---if Herod has no problem,
Caesar certainly won't.  The fool can be king
of whatever world he wants
as long as it's not Caesar's.
``I'm letting him go,'' he said with a shout.
(Looks like he'll last this one out....)
The crowd's reaction puzzled him.
They really wanted him dead.
They didn't want the King of the Jews,
They wanted Barabbas instead
(And, as Josephus records, they got him)
Oh well, he thought,
They all look the same to me.
And we'll get Barabbas next time.
And if I can get them to say
``We have no king but Caesar!''
By killing a madman,
Hell, I'll kill ten a day.
And then Pilate had his fun
A little joke
Short
To the point
Trilingual
And all this
Went as it always does
When someone gets caught
In the gears of government
And there's a scientific explanation
(no doubt)
For the superstitious rumors
(persisting to this day)
That it didn't all end
With a tomb
and a Roman squadron on guard.
Our sophomore doesn't know about this
He doesn't recognize his kindred spirit
(Or truth either, as he admits).
I guess we haven't learned much
in two thousand years.
--
-Fred Gilham    gilham@csl.sri.com
"Peace is only better than war when it's not hell too.  War being hell
makes sense."
-Walker Percy, THE SECOND COMING
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Assurance of Hell
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 139
I dreamed that the great judgment morning had dawned,
and the trumpet had blown.
I dreamed that the sinners had gathered for judgment
before the white throne.
Oh what weeping and wailing as the lost were told of their fate.
They cried for the rock and the mountains.
They prayed, but their prayers were too late.
The soul that had put off salvation,
"Not tonight I'll get saved by and by.
No time now to think of ....... religion,"
Alas, he had found time to die.
And I saw a Great White Throne.
Now, some have protest by saying that the fear of hell is not good for
motivation, yet Jesus thought it was.  Paul thought it was.  Paul said,
"Knowing therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."
Today, too much of our evangelism is nothing but soft soap and some of
it is nothing but evangelical salesmanship.  We don't tell people anymore, that
there's such a thing as sin or that there's such a place as hell.
As Jayne has said, this doesn't mean we have to come on so strong so as to hit
people over the head with a baseball bat.  Yet the fact remains, there is a
place called hell.  A place so fearful that God died to save us from having to
experience it.  Whatever you or I, as Christians, do, we should do whatever we
can to win people to the Lord, if for no other reason, to keep them from going
to "outer darkness.".
Jesus, in Mt. 25, tells us that He didn't prepare hell for people.  He prepared
it for the Devil and his angels.  No where in the Bible do I read -anywhere,
that God predestined anybody to go to hell.  D.L. Moody use to say that the
elect are the "whosoever will" and the nonelect are the "whosoever wont's."
Whether or not that's theologically sound, I couldn't defend, but its
practical.  Jesus said to the people of Israel, "Ye would not."
Now, some of you may not be students of the Bible, heck -some of you may not be
Christians.  Have you ever said to somebody, "I don't believe in hell.  I
believe in the religion of Jesus."  But did you know that Jesus talked more
about hell than He did about heaven!  "Oh I believe in the religion of the
sermon on the mount."  You find hell taught by Jesus in the sermon on the
mount.  You'll read that Jesus talked about the tree being cast into the fire.
Several times he talks about hell and about judgment.  In fact, over and over
in the synoptics, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus talks about hell.  Not Isaiah.
Not Moses.  Not John the Baptist, though he did, but Jesus, the Son of God.
The great Beloved One preached about hell because He loved people and didn't
want to see them go there.
Now, if there is no hell then Jesus preached in vain.  It was our Lord Jesus,
not some angry Baptist preacher, that said, "where the worm never dies, and
where the fire never goes out."  Jesus said that.  It was Jesus who called hell
a "furnace of fire."  It was Jesus that used the word, "condemnation."  "And
this is the condemnation, that men love darkness rather than light because
their deeds are evil.  Jesus said that.
How can we get it across to you that a loving, dying Jesus preached about hell?
Not only that, but He went through hell.  That's what Calgary was all about.
When my Lord was on the cross, darkness fell.  He called hell, "outer
darkness."
Do you have this idea that hell is a place where the gamblers are gambling over
here, the drunks are getting drunk over there, and the prostitutes are
prostituting their bodies over there?  That's not what hell is.  Hell's not a
party.  There's no fellowship there.  He called it "outer darkness."  "Outer"
-away from God.  "Darkness" -God is light.
No when He was on the cross, He was made sin for you and for me.  God treated
Jesus the way sinners have to be treated.  That's is a sobering thought.  As my
son would say, an "awesome" thought.
"My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken me?"  Hell is isolation.  There's no
fellowship in hell.  There's no friendship in hell.  There's no loving embrace
in hell.  There's no hand shake in hell.  There's no word of encouragement in
hell.
"I thirst."  It goes much deeper than physical thirst.  Hell is eternal craving
with no satisfaction.  The man whose life was lived for drugs, will crave it
eternally.  The man whose life was lived for the lust of a woman's body, will
crave it eternally -and not be satisfied.  One theologian has put it this way
and I think it deserves merit.  What is hell?  Hell is just the kind of
environment that matches the internal condition of the lost.
In a recent post, I was trying to remember the founder of The Word of Life
ministries.  I've remembered his name, Jack Wertzen, and found that the
illustration that I gave wasn't his.  His illustration was that he was talking
to his barber and his barber's wife and daughter had just recently been saved
and he was commenting about it to Jack.  "They sing these songs and read Bible
verses, and their praising this and that -I can't stand it!  Jack, do you think
God would send me to hell?"  Jack answered by saying, "Yes I think he would!"
Of course the barber said, "What do you mean by that."  "Well if you can't
stand living at home with your wife and daughter who sing hymns and praises to
God now, what would you do in heaven where they'll do it for eternity?  You'd
be miserable.  Because God loves you, He'd put you where it would match what
you really are."   It makes a man think.
The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a fact that necessitates the eternal
existence of hell because on the cross He performed an eternal act.  Don't ask
me how, I don't know.  But He is God and He is the infinite/eternal and when He
died, He died an infinite/eternal death.  It is by that eternal act that He
purchased eternal life for the "whosoever wills."  He suffered eternal
judgment.
A lot of people would like to detour around hell by saying "Everybody is going
to be saved eventually."  -universalism.  My Bible says no, He'll separate
them.  The sheep from the goats.  ".After you die there's a probationary period
in which God prepares you for heaven."  No, my Bible says that "It is appointed
unto men once to die and then comes judgment."  Some of the cultist believe in
annihilation.  After you die, sssswish.  Just like a mosquito you're squished
out.  No, in Rev we are told that their is eternal existence in hell just as
there is in heaven.
I don't enjoy making these kind of statements and maybe you don't enjoy
listening to them, but we have to preach the entire Word of God.  -There is a
place called hell.  If I could give one verse of Scripture that could give any
hope that people aren't going there, I'd give it to you, but I haven't found
it.  That fact that there is a place called hell, the fact that our God is a
God of holiness and must judge sin, the fact that He has made us the kind of
creatures we are and therefore we're responsible, the fact that He has placed
us in a "uni"verse that has purpose and design behind it, the fact that sin is
such an awful thing and the fact that God Himself went through hell to save us
from hell leads us to two applications.
1)  As I've already mentioned.  If you are a Christian, you must worn others.
Its not good enough to stop and fix their flat tire and not tell them that just
around the bend the bridge is out.  "Knowing therefore the terror of Lord, we
persuade men."
2)  If you haven't accepted Jesus are your Savior, you're taking an awful
chance.  As I say to the Jehovah Witnesses (who no longer frequent my door), if
you are right and I am wrong, then I will have lived a good life and will die
and cease to exist, but if I am right and you are wrong, then you will die and
suffer eternal damnation.  I don't mean to make fun at this point, but its like
Dirty Harry said, "You've got to ask yourself, 'Do I feel lucky?'  Well do
you?"  "A man's got to know his limitations."  Don't be one of the "whosoever
wont's."
"Because while I was yet a sinner, He died for me."
"There's no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for another."
--Rex
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 21
I find it interesting that cls never answered any of the questions posed.
Then he goes on the make statements which make me shudder.  He has
established a two-tiered God.  One set of rules for the Jews (his people)
and another set for the saved Gentiles (his people).  Why would God
discriminate?  Does the Jew who accepts Jesus now have to live under the
Gentile rules.
God has one set of rules for all his people.  Paul was never against the
law.  In fact he says repeatedly that faith establishes rather that annuls
the law.  Paul's point is germane to both Jews and Greeks.  The Law can
never be used as an instrument of salvation.  And please do not combine
the ceremonial and moral laws in one.
In Matt 5:14-19 Christ plainly says what He came to do and you say He was
only saying that for the Jews's benefit.  Your Christ must be a
politician, speaking from both sides of His mouth.  As Paul said, "I have
not so learned Christ."  Forget all the theology, just do what Jesus says.
Your excuses will not hold up in a court of law on earth, far less in
God's judgement hall.
Darius
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: Florida State University
Lines: 13
> [Again, in the normal Protestant interpretation, Sunday is not a law,
> and worshipping on another day is not a sin.  Churches are free to
> decide on the day they will meet, just as they are free to decide on
> the hour.  It would not be a sin to worship on some other day, but if
> you belong to a church that worships on Sunday and you show up on
> Monday, you will probably worship alone...  --clh]
I totally agree with that sentiment.  But why do you have to go further
and advocate violating what God has set up?  That is the question which
you have not answered from Scripture.  You can worship on every day, as
long as you work.  But God says the Sabbath is all mine.
Darius
From: jkellett@netcom.com (Joe Kellett)
Subject: Re: Hell
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 17
In article <Apr.10.05.33.44.1993.14422@athos.rutgers.edu> mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>
>In a short poem ("God in His mercy made / the fixed pains of Hell"),
>C. S. Lewis expresses an idea that I'm sure was current among others,
>but I haven't be able to find its source:
>
>that even Hell is an expression of mercy, because God limits the amount
>of separation from Him, and hence the amount of agony, that one can
>achieve.
>
I have also heard it called an expression of mercy, because Heaven would be
far more agonizing for those who had rejected God.
--
Joe Kellett
jkellett@netcom.com
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Lines: 52
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu  writes:
>   Hello,
>   I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on
> the newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.
> Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...
> 1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.
True to a point.  If you were to ask a Buddhist atheist...
> 2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>    is unfair.
>   I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition,
> eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no
> reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
> enough.
Actually, yes and no, Hell is eternal death.  Actually, the way
I've had it related to me, it's more of an eternal damnation,
where sinners will feel the licking flames of Hell.  If I
supposedly can feel these flames, I would assume I'm still
alive, but suffering and away from God.
>   Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
> the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
> that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
> with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these state-
> ments as metaphorical.
I believe Jehovah's Witnesses have a similar view, where the body
sleeps for ever...
I don't have a problem with being condemned to Hell either.  The
way I see it, if God wants to punish me for being honest in
my skepticism (that is, for saying he doesn't exist), He
certainly wouldn't be changing His nature.  Besides, I would
rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
scorched for his wrongdoings...
Stephen
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
_/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
_/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...
--
From: s0612596@let.rug.nl (M.M. Zwart)
Subject: catholic church poland
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL
Lines: 10
Hello,
I'm writing a paper on the role of the catholic church in Poland after 1989.
Can anyone tell me more about this, or fill me in on recent books/articles(
in english, german or french). Most important for me is the role of the
church concerning the abortion-law, religious education at schools,
birth-control and the relation church-state(government). Thanx,
Masja,
"M.M.Zwart"<s0612596@let.rug.nl>
From: jcj@tellabs.com (jcj)
Subject: Re: proof of resurection
Organization: Huh?  Whuzzat?
Lines: 14
In article <Apr.16.23.15.09.1993.1823@geneva.rutgers.edu> smayo@world.std.com (Scott A Mayo) writes:
>...
>I think Christianity goes down in flames if the resurrection is
>ever disproved. ...
Didn't Paul write that if the Resurrection is not true, we are the
biggest fools of all?  However, whether you believe in Christ or not,
His teachings (e.g. love your brotherman as yourself), even if only
followed at a secular level, could do a great deal to alleviate some of
the problems we see today in the world.  Even when I was a rabid atheist
I couldn't deny that.
Jeff Johnson
jcj@tellabs.com
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Subject: Daily Verse
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 4
Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap
a harvest if we do not give up.
Galatians 6:9
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: sex education
Organization: The University of Liverpool
Lines: 22
Joe Kellett (jkellett@netcom.com) wrote:
[bits deleted]
> I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that
> teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices",
> actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while
> back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested. [...]
> The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula
> were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens.  I assume that it is
> reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy
> rate.
I'd be fascinated to see such evidence, please send me your article!
On the negative side however, I suspect that any such simplistic link
abstinence-education => decreased pregnancy,
contraceptive-education => increased pregnancy
is false.  The US, which I'd guess has one of the largest proportion of
"non-liberal" sex education in the western world also has one of the highest
teenage pregnancy rates.  (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)
--
Bruce Stephens     bruce@liverpool.ac.uk
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Certainty and Arrogance
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 110
In article <Apr.17.01.11.29.1993.2278@geneva.rutgers.edu>
kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>Someone called `REXLEX' has claimed that there IS a way out of the loop, but
>he did not bother to explain what it was, preferring instead to paraphrase
>Sartre, ramble about Wittgenstein, and say that the conclusion of my argument
>leads to relativism.
I will answer this as I find time.
>
>`REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not Silent_, by
>Francis Schaeffer.  I didn't think very highly of it, but I think that
>Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many Evangelical Christians.  Somebody
>else might like it, though, so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.
>
>If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On Certainty_, by
>Ludwig Wittgenstein.
>
>
>Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
>"If any substantial number of  [ talk.religion.misc ]  readers read some
> Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear.  (If they *understood*
> some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon
>
Notice what I said about this book.  I called it "Easy reading."  The reason I
dropped philosphy as my major was because I ran into too many pharisaical
Simon's.  I don't know how many walking encyclopedia's I ran across in
philosphy classes.  The problem isn't in knowing sooooo much more than your
average lay person, the problem comes when you become puffed up about it.
Schaeffer is just fine for the average lay person.  That was who he was
writting to.  I suppose that you would have criticised John that his gospel was
to simple.  I've talked with Schaeffer one on one.  I've been in lectures with
the man when he was being drilled by philosphy students and prof's from secular
as well as Christian universities. (ND alone would fill both those catagories)
His answers were enough that the prof's themselves often were taken back and
caused to re-think what their question was.  I saw this time and time again at
different open forums.  So yes, Schaeffers books are by in large, well,
simplistic.  It certainly isn't grad level reading.  But we must get off our
high horses when it comes to recommended reading.  Do you seriously think most
people would get through the first chapter of Wittgenstein?  I may have more to
say about this secular scientist at another time.
Also, one must finally get beyond the doubt caused by *insistent*
inquisitiveness.  One cannot live his life constantly from a cartisian doubt
base.
Look, the Christian wholeheartedly supports genuine rationality.  But we must
add a qualification to give this balance.  Christianity is second to none in
keeping reason in its place.  We never know the value of a thing until we know
its limits.  Put unlimited value on something and in the end you will exhaust
it of all value!
THis is why Xianity is thoroughly rational but not the least bit rationalistic.
It also explains the curious fact that it is rationalism, and not Christian
faith, which leads to irrationality.  If we forget the limits of a thing, we
fly in the face of reality and condem ourselves to learn the simple ironic
lesson of life:
"More without limits is less;  less with limits is more."
Or as I have so often stated it, freedom without form soon becomes form w/o
freedom.
Let's put it another way.  The rationality of faith is implacably opposed to
absurdity but has no quarrel with mystery. Think about that.  It can tell the
difference between the two if you will let it.  Christianity's contention with
rationalism is not that it has too much reason in it, but that it has very
little else.  When a Christian comes to faith his understanding and his trust
go hand in hand, but as he continues in faith his trust may sometimes be called
to go on by itself without his understanding.
This is where the principle of suspended judgment applies.  At such time if the
Christian faith is to be itself and let God be God, it must suspend judgment
and say, "Father I do not understand you but I trust you."  Now don't read all
your objections of me into that statement.  I wasn't saying I do not understand
you at all, but I trust you anyway." It means that "I do not understand You *in
this situation* but I do understand *why I trust You* anyway"  Therefore I can
trust that you understand even though I do not. The former is a mystery
unrelieved by rationality and indistinguishable from absurdity.  The latter is
a statement of rationality of faith walking hand in hand with the mystery of
Faith.  So.... the principle of suspended judgment is not irrational.  It is
not a leap of faith but a walk of faith.  As believers we cannot always know
why, but we canalways know why we trust God who knows why and this makes all
the difference.
Now, there is one obvious snag to all this and this is where I have parted
company with philosophy- what is eminently reasonable in theory is a rather bit
more difficult in practice.  In practice the pressure of mystery acts on faith
like the insistent "whying" of a 3 year old.  It isn't just that we would like
to know what we do not know but that we feel we *must* know what we cannot
know.  The one produces frustration because curiosity is denied; the other
leads to genuine anguish.  More specifically the poorer our understanding is in
coming to faith the more necessary it will be to understand everything after
coming to faith.  If we do not know why we trust God, then we will always need
to know exactly what God is doing in order to trust him.  Failing to grasp
that, we may not be able to trust him, for anything we do not understand may
count decisevely against what we are able to trust.
If, on the other hand, we do know why we trust God, we will be able to trust
him in situations where we do not understand what He is doing. (Too many Xian
leaders teach as if the Christian had a window in the back of his head which
allows for understanding at every foot fall)  For what God is doing may be
ambiguous, but it will not be inherently contradictory!  It may be mystery to
us, but mystery is only inscrutable; what would be insufferable is absurdity.
And that my friend, was the conclusion of Nietzche both in theory and in
practice.
--Rex
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK
Lines: 37
>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
>and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
>1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
>U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
>repression."
>  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
>praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
>Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
>automatically above reproach.
>
>                                                                  mp
Good heavens, you mean my good friend Wes Collins, who took his wife and two
small children into the jungles of Guatemala, despite dangers from primitive
conditions and armed guerillas, so that the indigenous people groups their
could have the Bible in their native languages--the young man who led Bible
studies in our church, who daily demonstrated and declared his deep abiding
faith in the Lord of Love--you mean he really was a sneaky imperialistic *SPY*
whose _real_ reason for going was to exploit and oppress the ignorant and
unsuspecting masses?  Imagine my surprise!  I never would have thought it of
him.
How was this terrible deceit discovered?  What exactly was the "cultural
interference" they were caught committing?  Attempting to persuade the locals
that their ancestral gods were false gods, and their sacrifices (including
human sacrifices in some cases) were vain?  Destroying traditional lifestyles
by introducing steel tools, medical vaccines, and durable clothes?  Oh and by
the way, who did the denouncing?
I am terribly shocked to hear that my friend Wes, who seemed so nice, was
really such a deceitful tool of the devil.  Please provide me with specific
documentation on this charge.  There is some risk that I may not believe it
otherwise.
- Mark
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Hell_2:  Black Sabbath
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 70
[In looking through my files this weekend, I ran across some lyrics from
various rock groups that have content.  Here are two from Black Sabbath's
"Master of Reality".  I'll say this much for the music of the '60's and early
'70's, at least they asked questions of significance.  Jethro Tull is another
to asked and wrote about things that caused one to wonder. --Rex]
AFTER FOREVER
Have you ever thought about your soul--
can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you're dead
you just stay in you grave.
Is God just a thought within you read in a book
when you were at school?
When you think about death
Do you lose your breath
Or do you keep your cool?
Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope?
Do you think he's a fool?
Well I have seen the truth.  Yes I have seen the light
and I've changed my ways.
And I'll be prepared
When you're lonely and scared
at the end of your days.
Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believed in God above?
They should realize before they criticise
That God is the only way to love.
Is your mind so small that you have to fall
In with the pack wherever they run?
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?
I think it was true -it was people like you
that crucified Christ.
I think it is sad the opinion you had
was the only one voiced.
Will you be so sure when your day is near
to say you don't believe?
You had the chance but you turned it down
now you can't retrieve.
Perhaps you'll think before you say that God is dead & gone
Open your eyes, just realize that He is the one.
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate.
Or will you still jeer at all you hear?
Yes!  I think it's too late.
LORD OF THIS WORLD
You're searching for your mind don't know where to start.
Can't find the key to fit the lock on your heart.
You think you know but you are never quite sure
Your soul is ill but you will not find a cure.
Your world was made for you by someone above
But you choose evil ways instead of love.
You made me master of the world where you exist
The soul I took from you was not even missed.
Lord of the world,
Evil Possessor,
Lord of this world,
He's now your confessor!
You think you're innocent -you've nothing to fear
You don't know me, you say, but isn't it clear?
You turned to me in all your worldly
greed and pride.
But will you turn to me when it your turn to die?
From: Christopher.S.Weinberger@williams.edu (Gib)
Subject: Re: Divine providence vs. Murphy's Law
Organization: Williams College, Williamstown, MA
Lines: 21
In article <Apr.19.05.13.28.1993.29224@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those
>who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
>Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.
>We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
>Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that
>matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?
Both Christians and non-Christians laugh at this quote because
it exaggerates something we all feel, but know is not true.  Us
Christians just KNOW that a little better!    :)
In God we trust!
-Christopher
email @ 96csw@williams.edu
From: tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 31
In article <Apr.19.05.14.08.1993.29279@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:
>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition,
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.  There's no
>reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
>enough.
>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
>that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
>with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these statements
>as metaphorical.
Phew! That takes a load off. I don't want to live forever.  I wish
most Christians held this view.  You can't walk across campus in
spring without being assailed by fire-and-brimstone preachers.  I
really think the metaphor should be limited, at least with respect to
teaching our children.  It's criminal to put these ideas into a young
and trusting mind.  Besides, why not rely on the positive aspects of
your religion to win their faith?
-Tim
______________________________________________________________________________
|				|				       	       |
|       Timothy J. Brent        |   A man will come to know true happiness,    |
|   BRENT@bank.ecn.purdue.edu   |   only when he accepts that he is but a      |
|=========$$$$==================|   small part of an infinite universe.	       |
|       PURDUE UNIVERSITY       |			  	   -Spinoza    |
| MATERIALS SCIENCE ENGINEERING |			 	 [paraphrased] |
|_______________________________|______________________________________________|
________________________________________________________________________________
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: intolerance - eternal life - etc
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: not Sun Microsystems
Lines: 186
I apologize if this article is slightly confusing, and late. The origonal
draft didn't make it through the moderators quote-screens. So I did
violence to it, but if you remember the article I am responding
to it should still make sence.
In article 1850@geneva.rutgers.edu, jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd) writes:
>Hi Xian Netters,  God bless you
What, no hello for heathan netters?
I feel all left out now. :(
[deletia- table of content, intro, homosexuality]
>
>INCREDIBLY CHOPPED UP POST
[deletia- incorrect attributions]
Uh, you have your attributions wrong, you were responding
to my article, so Dan Johnson should be the 1st one.
>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org
>(Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
[deletia- no free gifts speil nuked by moderator fiat.]
>I find that I am dissatisfied with the little purposes that we can
>manufacture for ourselves.  Little in the cosmic sense.
Ah, in the _cosmic_ sence.. but who lives in the cosmic sence?
Not me! Cosmicly, we don't even exist for all practical purposes.
I can hardly use the Cosmic Sence Of Stuff as a guide to life.
It would just say: "don't bother."
Luckily for mortals, there are many sences of scale you can talk
about. In a human sence, you can have big purposes.
>  Even the
>greatest of the great pharos are long gone, the pyramids historical
>oddities being worn down by the wind, eventually to be turned into dust.
But the influence of Aristotle, Confucious, Alexander, Ceasar and
countless others is still with us, although their works have perished.
But they have changed to course of history, and while humanity exists,
their deeds cannot be said to have come to nothing, even if they
are utterly forgotten.
>Mankind itself will one day perish.
One day, surely. (well, unless you believe in the Second Coming, which
I do not)
But in that time we can make a difference.
> Without some interconnectedness
>that transcends the physical, without God, it is all pointless in the
>end.
In the end. But it must be the end; until then, there is all the
point you can muster. And when that end comes, there will be nobody
to ask, "Gee, I don't think James Sledd's deeds are gonna make
much of a difference, ulitmately, ya know?".
But they will have already have made a difference, great or small,
before the end.
Why must your ends be eternal to be worthwhile?
>  Most people are able to live with that, and for them little
>purposes (success, money, power, effecting change, helping others)
>suffice.
Little is in the eye of the beholder, of course.
>  I suppose they never  think about the cosmic scale, or are at
>least able to put it out of their minds.
I don't doubt it. But I have thought about the cosmic scale. And
it does not seem to mean much to us, here, today.
>To me, it is comforting to know that reality is an illusion.
I would not find this comforting. But perhaps it is merely my
definitions. Here's what I think the relevant terms are:
"Reality"	That which is real.
"Illusion"	That which is not real, but seems to be.
"Real"		Objectively Existing
For "reality" to be an "illusion" would mean, then:
That which is real is not real, but seems to be.
Or:
That which objectively exists, does not objectively exist, but
does seem to objectively exist.
From which we can conclude, that unless you want to get a
contradiction, that no things objectively exist.
But I have a problem with this because I would like to say
that *I* objectively exist, if nothing else. Cogito Ergo Sum
and all that.
Perhaps you do not mean all that, but rather mean:
"Objective Reality is Unreachable by humans."
Which is not so bad, and so far as I know is true.
>  That the
>true reality underneath the the physical is spirit.
Have on. If reality is an illusion, isn't True Reality an illusion
too? And if True Reality is spirit, doens't that make Spirit an Illusion
as well?
If I am not distinctly confused, this is getting positively Buddhist.
>  That this world is a school of sorts, where we learn
>and grow, and our souls mature.
That is one hell of a statement, although perhaps true.
Do you mean to imply that it was *intended* to be so? If so,
please show that this is true. If not, please explain how this
can give a purpose to anything.
> That gives a purpose to my little purposes,
How does it do that?
Wouldn't the world=school w/ intent idea make the world a preparation for
some *greater* purpose, rather than a purpose in itself.
> and takes some of the pressure off.
What pressure?
>  It's not so necessary to make this life a success in human terms
>if you're really just here to learn.
It is not necessary to be a success in human terms, unless your
goals either include doing so or require doing so before they
themselves can be achived.
Indeed, many people have set goals for themselves that
do not include success in human terms as _I_ understand it. Check
out yer Buddhist monk type guy. Out for nirvana, which is not
at all the same thing.
>  It's more important to progress,
>grow, persist, to learn to love yourself and others and to express your
>love, especially when it's dificult to do so.  Honest effort is rewarded
>by God, he knows our limitations.
Why is learning to love a goal? What happens if you fail in this
goal? To you? To God? To the mysterious Purpose?
[deletia- question about immortailty and my answer deleted because it was
mostly quote.]
>TWO SERIOUS QUESTIONS/INVITATIONS TO DISCUSSION
>1. What is the nature of eternal life?
>2. How can we as mortals locked into space time conceive of it?
>
>Possible answer for #2: The best we can do is Metaphor/Analogy
>Question 2A  What is the best metaphor?
I'll have a crack at that.
(1) The nature of eternal life is neatly described by its name: It is
the concept of life without death, life without end.
(2) No. We can put together word to describe it, but we cannot imagine it.
(2a) No metaphor is adequate next to eternity; if it were we could not
understand it either. (or so I suspect)
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
These opinions probably show what I know.
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Lines: 194
In article <Apr.19.05.12.10.1993.29131@athos.rutgers.edu>
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>priority than the direct word of Jesus in Matt5:14-19? Paul begins
>Romans 14 with "If someone is weak in the faith ..." Do you count
>yourself as one who is weak in the faith?
Do you count yourself as one who is weak in the faith?
>you read Jesus' word in Matt5:14-19? Is there any doubt in your mind
>about what is right and what is sin (Greek hamartia = missing the mark)?
Is there any doubt in your mind about what is right and what is missing
the mark?
>>However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
>>proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I
>>indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.
>Whereas, the Ten Commandments and Jesus' words in Matt5:14-19 are fairly
>clear, are they not?
Are they clear or do you have doubts?
>[No, I don't believe that Paul can overrule God.
An important first step; the realization that Paul was human.
>However Paul was writing for a largely Gentile audience.
Yes, and he was writing and speaking for an audience that was at best,
very weak in the faith; most could not read, most were unfamiliar with
the Hebrew Scriptures in even the Septuagint form. Paul adapted the
message of the Bible to a largely uneducated market. Granted, this
market still exists today, but do you count yourself as part of it? To
be "weak in the faith" is not missing the mark (hamartia) if you do the
best that your education allows. Are you doing the best?
>The Law was regarded by Jews
>at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but not on Gentiles.  There
>are rules that were binding on all human beings (the so-called Noachic
>laws), but they are quite minimal.
Let me make clear that the "Law" is none other than the Pentateuch of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. What did Jesus say
about the "Law" in Matt5:14-19? Where did Jesus say that the "Law" only
applies to Jews and that Gentiles are above the "Law"?
>The issue that the Church had to
>face after Jesus' death was what to do about Gentiles who wanted to
>follow Christ.  The decision not to impose the Law on them didn't say
>that the Law was abolished.  It simply acknowledged that fact that it
>didn't apply to Gentiles.
Who acknowledged this fact? On what basis? Are we extra-biblical at this
point? Why not also acknowledge that the Bhagavad-Gita is the only
relevant text for Gentiles, after all we see in the Bible that it was
Magus from the east who observed the star-signs of Jesus? Why bother
with any texts at all? Why not just follow whatever the Church has to
say?
>Thus there is no contradiction with Mat 5.
I don't see how you can say this with a straight face. Are you a
follower of Christ, or do you follow someone else? Are you saying that
the words of Jesus only apply to Jews?
>As far as I can tell, both Paul and other Jewish Christians did
>continue to participate in Jewish worship on the Sabbath.  Thus they
>continued to obey the Law.
How Jewish was Paul after he changed his name from Saul?
>The issue was (and is) with Gentile
>Christians, who are not covered by the Law (or at least not by the
>ceremonial aspects of it).
Who says Gentile Christians are not covered by the first five books? Who
says that Gentile Christians are above the Ten Commandments?
>Jesus dealt mostly with Jews.  I think we can reasonably assume that
>Mat 5 was directed to a Jewish audience.
You're implying that Jesus' words are valid only for Jews. Is this
really what you mean to say? You do realize that you are gutting rather
large portions of the Bible? When you read Jesus' words, did you ever
consider that maybe, just maybe Jesus is talking to you, no matter what
your race or sex? If the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospel accounts of
Jesus are only directed to Jews, why were they translated into English?
>He did interact with
>Gentiles a few times (e.g. the centurion whose slave was healed and a
>couple of others).  The terms used to describe the centurion (see Luke
>7) suggest that he was a "God-fearer", i.e. a Gentile who followed
>God, but had not adopted the whole Jewish Law.
As Paul would call him, one who was weak in the faith.
>He was commended by
>Jewish elders as a worthy person, and Jesus accepted him as such.
>This seems to me to indicate that Jesus accepted the prevailing view
>that Gentiles need not accept the Law.
Which is more important: 1) The recorded word of Jesus or 2) Indications
that you can deduce from the Bible? Was Jesus God only of the Jews, or
God of all humankind of all race and sex?
>However there's more involved if you want to compare Jesus and Paul on
>the Law.  In order to get a full picture of the role of the Law, we
>have to come to grips with Paul's apparent rejection of the Law, and
>how that relates to Jesus' commendation of the Law.  At least as I
>read Paul, he says that the Law serves a purpose that has been in a
>certain sense superceded.
This is your understanding of Paul. Compare this to the word of Jesus.
Are you Christian or Pauline?
>Again, this issue isn't one of the
>abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his discussion, Paul notes
>that he might be understood this way, and assures us that that's not
>what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees the Law as primarily being
>present to convict people of their sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an
>impossible standard, and one that has been superceded by Christ.
Again, this is your understanding of Paul. Did Jesus say that the Law
was an "impossible standard?" Did Jesus say that He superceded the Law?
Are you Christian or Pauline?
>Paul's comments are not the world's clearest here, and not everyone
>agrees with my reading.
You acknowledge that it is *your* reading of Paul. What did Jesus say?
Can you deny that Matt5:14-19 is quite clear in its meaning? Are you
Christian or Pauline?
>But the interesting thing to notice is that
>even this radical position does not entail an abolition of the Law.
>It still remains as an uncompromising standard, from which not an iota
>or dot may be removed.  For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's
>important that it not be relaxed.
When did Jesus say that the purpose of the Law was conviction of sin?
>However for Christians, it's not
>the end -- ultimately we live in faith, not Law.
Please reread Matt5:14-19. Are you Christian or Pauline?
>Jesus' interpretations
>emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
>details.
Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are ceremonial details?
>Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being
>superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
>"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite
>concerned about maintaining moral standards.
You call observance of the Sabbath, the day on which the Lord rested,
ceremonial? Has circumcision been superceded for Christians?
....
Are you Christian or Pauline?
[Both.  There is no doubt in my mind about what is sin and what is
not, at least not in this case.  Jesus did not deal explicitly with
the question of whether the Law was binding on Gentiles.  That's why I
have to cite evidence such as the way Jesus dealt with the Centurion.
As to general Jewish views on this, I am dependent largely on studies
of Pauline theology, one by H.J. Schoeps, and one whose author I can't
come up with at the moment.  Both authors are Jews.  Also, various
Christian and non-Christian Jews have discussed the issue here and in
other newsgroups.
Mat 5:19 is clear that the Law is still valid.  It does not say that
it applies to Gentiles.
And yes, I say that the specific requirement for worship on the
Sabbath in the Ten Commandments is a ceremonial detail, when you're
looking at the obligations of Gentiles.  Similarly circumcision.
I'm not sure quite what else I can say on this subject.  Again, it's
unfortunate the Jesus didn't answer the question directly.  However we
do know (1) what the 1st Cent. Jewish approach was, (2) how Jesus
dealt with at least one Gentile, and (3) how Jesus' disciples dealt
with the issue when it became more acute (I'm referring to Acts 15
more than Paul).  Given that these are all in agreement, I don't see
that there's a big problem.
--clh]
From: mtf@vipunen.hut.fi (Antti Lahelma)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 40
In <Apr.19.05.14.08.1993.29279@athos.rutgers.edu> atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:
>  Hello,
>  I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the
>newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.
>Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...
>1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.
More correctly: when people die, they cease to exist.
>2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>   is unfair.
>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition,
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.
The idea I've gotten is that to christians, Hell is -- like Heaven --
afterlife; i.e, you don't cease to exist, but are subjected to eternal
torture (well, that's the orthodox idea anyway; "eternal death" if you
prefer that). Atheists don't believe in any sort of afterlife.
>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.  Personally, I don't think
>that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
>with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these state-
>ments as metaphorical.
I think it's safe to say that Hell was never intended metaphorical. Certainly
not the equivalent of ceasing to exist. Some christian concepts are indeed
metaphors, but your idea of Hell is a 20th century interpretation. It is, of
course, nice to see that even christianity might evolve to fit the worldview
of modern age, but I fear the church will not accept it. Understandably, per-
haps, because if you accept that Hell is a metaphor, then you're one step
closer to turning God into a metaphor as well.
--
Antti Lahelma   |	      mtf@saha.hut.fi 	           |   GNOTHI SEAUTON
Lehtotie 3     -O-	      stel@purkki.apu.fi          -*-  ====== =======
00630 HELSINKI  | <<Jumalat ovat pakanoille suosiollisia>> |    TUNNE ITSESI
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: [soc.religion.christian] Re: The arrogance of Christians
Lines: 50
In a previous message  aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:
>If I don't think my belief is right and everyone else's belief is wrong,
>then I don't have a belief. This is simply what belief means.
[More stuff deleted]
This seems to be a pretty arogant definition of belief.  My beliefs
are those things which I find to be true based on my experience of the
world.  This experience includes study of things that I may not have
experienced directly.  But even then, I can only understand the
studies to the extent to which I can relate what I study back to what
I have experienced.
Which means that by beliefs about God are directly related to my
experience of God.  Having experienced God, I try to make sense of
that experience.  I study religion and read the Bible.  I find things
that echo what I have already experienced.  Out of this I build my
beliefs.  I also find things that don't match my experience.  That
doesn't make them false.  They just don't match my experience.  Maybe
I will understand that stuff later.  I don't know.  Maybe all of my
beliefs are wrong.  I can change my beliefs.
If someone else has beliefs that are different from mine, so what.
Neither of us are necessarily wrong.  Someone else is making sense out
of a different set of experiences.  Even though we have different
explanations and beliefs, if we talk we might even discover that the
underlying experiences are similar.
Some people approach religion as a truth that can only exist in one
form, and usually has a single revelation.  The more dogmatic and
inflexible the belief system, the more arrogant it will appear to an
outsider.  There is another approach possible, however.  God is a
mystery.  I am trying to solve the mystery, so I look at the evidence
available to me.  I try to arrive at the best understanding that I can
based on the evidence.  New evidence may cause me to change my
understanding.  When I encounter someone with a different belief than
my own, it isn't a threat, it is an opportunity to perhaps discover
something new about this mystery I can never fully comprehend.
Peace
Will Taber
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: schnitzi@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 33
atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:
>1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.
>2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>   is unfair.
>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition,
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.
Well, I think that most Christians believe that your conciousness will
somehow continue on after your 'physical' death, which contradicts what
most atheists (myself included) believe, namely that your conciousness,
being contained in your brain, dies when your brain dies.
>There's no
>reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
>enough.
I fear the pain that often comes with the process of dying, but since I
won't be around to worry about it, I don't fear eternal death.
>  Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
>the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such.
This is something I've always found confusing.  If all your nerve endings
die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you?  How can one "wail
and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?
Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
University of Central Florida
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Latest on Branch Davidians
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 28
Most of you will have probably seen the news by the time you read this,
but the Branch Davidian compound is no more.  This morning about 6:00,
the feds punched holes in the compound walls by using a tank.  They
then started using non-lethal tear gas.  Shortly after noon, 2 cult
members were seen setting fire to the compound.  So far, about 20-30
people have been seen outside the compound.  The fate of the other 60 or
70 people is unknown, neither is the fate of the 17 children that were
inside.  The compound did burn to the ground.
Koresh, who at times has claimed to be the Messiah, but then backed off
and only claimed to be a prophet, had promised several times to come
out peacefully if his demands were met.  First, he demanded that his
message be broadcast on the radio, which it was, but he didn't come out.
He claimed to be waiting for a message from God.  Finally, he said that
God told him that he needed to decipher the mystery of the 7 seals in
Revelation, and when he was finished, he'd come out.  He finished the
first one, but didn't do any more work that anyone knows of since then.
The federal agents did warn him that if they didn't come out, they
would be subjected to tear gas.
I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet.  I
think it underscores the importance of putting you faith only in
things that are eternal and knowing for yourself what the Scriptures
say and what they mean, instead of relying on others to do it for you,
even if those others are learned and mean well.
Paul Conditt
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: not Sun Microsystems
Lines: 38
In article 29279@athos.rutgers.edu, atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Cardinal Ximenez) writes:
>  I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the
>newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.
>Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...
>1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.
>2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
>   is unfair.
>  I don't see what the problem is!  To Christians, Hell is, by definition,
>eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die.
This is the problem. This is not hell, this is permanent death. It is
indeed what atheists (generally) expect and it is neither fair nor
unfair, it just is. You might as well argue about whether being made
mostly of carbon and water is "fair".
However, the atheists who claim that Hell is unfair are talking about
the fire and brimstone place of endless suffering, which necessarily
includes eternal existance (life, I dunno, but some sort of continuation);
not at all the same thing.
Granted, you clearly feel that hell=death, but this is not a univeral
sentiment as near as I can tell.
If *your* idea of God "condemns" heathens to ordinary death, I have no
problem with that. I do have a problem with the gods that hide from humans
and torture the unbelievers eternally for not guessing right.
[deletia- Hell, and Literalness.]
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
These opinions probably show what I know.
From: johnsd2@rpi.edu (Dan Johnson)
Subject: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart..."
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: not Sun Microsystems
Lines: 45
In article 29201@athos.rutgers.edu, seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>In article <Apr.14.03.07.38.1993.5420@athos.rutgers.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>>In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:
>>
>>>  This is why the most effective
>>>substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual
>>>needs.
>>
>>You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim
>>like this.
>>
>In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps
>involves acknowleding a "higher power".  AA and other 12-step abuse-
>recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.
[deletia- and so on]
I seem to have been rather unclear.
What I was asking is this:
Please show me that the most effective substance-absure recovery
programs involve meetinsg peoples' spiritual needs, rather than
merely attempting to fill peoples' spiritual needs as percieved
by the people, A.A, S.R.C. regulars, or snoopy. This will probably
involve defining "spritual needs" (is it not that clear) and
showing that such things exist and how they can be filled.
Annother tack you might take is to say that "fulfilling spiritual
needs" means "acknowledging a "higher power" of some sort, then
show that systems that do require this, work better than otherwise
identical systems that do not. A correlation here would help you,
but as you point out this might just be demonstrating swapping
one crutch for annother. (however, I do feel that religion is
usually a better crutch than alchohol, as it is not usually
poisonous! :) )
I hope with that clarification, my question will be answerable. I actually
did know about the 12 step program, its the question of what it does,
rather than what it tries to do, that makes a difference to me.
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0
These opinions probably show what I know.
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Refusing Divine Peace and Alive Prayer? (was Re: Question about Mary)
Organization: trunking_fixed
Lines: 147
It's like refusing 'God's kingdom come'.
In one of Jesus' revelation in this century, "...same thing as in
the old days.  People refuse to believe my messengers.  Even when
I was alive here on earth, they refuse Me.  What more when I am just
talking through somebody else?" (paraphrased).
With all the knowledge believers accumulated, He would think that
we would be 'enlightened' enough to detect which ones are
'authentic and divine' as opposed to 'evil or man-made'.
These signs, these miracles, are you afraid that they are not from God?
That these are the signs we should not open our hearts and mind to for thinking
they are evil?
Well, is faith in God evil?
Is true peace evil?  Is true love that is divine and pure evil?
Why can't someone accept that God can do what He wants in fulfillment of His
generous love and Jesus' never ending forgiveness to those who turn back to
Him for salvation?
Why are we refusing God's messenger of this truth?  The mother to all who are
in Christ?
What brings us these:
fears of being shamed by what others will think or say about us?
which, in contrary, could be pleasing to God?
fears of being humbled?
fears of being judged as wrong (wrt mainstream standard of what is right)?
Why can't we tolerate non-believers' mockery or ridicule of us for the
sake of peace, love and obedience to God?  The humbling lessons left to us
by martyrs and saints?
We'd rather engage in never-ending bickering and disproof of each other's
opinion - looking at each other's mistakes - for the sake of arguments,
instead of having communion in one body with Christ.
What makes us go blind to the truth that God is All Powerful and that He can
not be binded by what people wrote and have written about Him in all ages?
Why is our faith in God limited?  By all the words and literature we muster?
What prevents us from going *beyond* being saved and extend God's rich love
to others who are not?
Why are our eyes not wide open to see that He continuously sees our faith, hope
and love which glorify Him and so He gives us indications of His
acknowledgements with signs/miracles (ordinary/common or divinely inspired)
everywhere?  Isn't that like an atheist/agnostic's view that all these
are just ordinary here on earth and not caused by anything supernatural?
Why then does the Holy Mother comes back to remind us:
"We must really __accept that prayer__ changes the course of things and that
with prayers __even wars can be prevented__."
but then she continues:
"You often have an egotistic attitude.  Dear children, in these days you
have prayed very much, __but your hands have remained empty__."
Why hesitate in proclaiming what needs to be done:
"prayer, conversion, peace, penance, fasting, the Holy Mass, living life
as what the Gospel brings."?
Why not do so?  How?  To the world?
To this, the Mother says:
"Start in your family.  Be a good example.  Live the Word."
Why worry if it is going to be of good use to many?
Our Holy Mother says:
"The fruits, __leave them to the Lord__, do not worry about anything or
anyone but entrust yourself to the Lord."
Although the Holy Mother does not insist because:
"You are free; I bow before the freedom which God gives you."
but she follows this with:
"You are surprised because I say to you: Decide for God and yet, see how
you have lived this day."
Why does she constantly conveys:
"Take this life toward God in the way as to __experience__ the Lord Himself
in your __behavior__ and __not only__ when you pray" or one time when we
decide that we are saved, or talk/write about God, etc.
The Holy Mother warns:
"Satan (the serpent) is always trying to dissuade you to turn you away from
my peace plan and prayer."  (Rev 12:17, the dragon became angry with the woman
and went off to wage war against the rest of her offsprings, those who keep
God's commandments, and bear witness to Jesus.)
Do you have fear or hate for God's current messenger of true peace, love and
our motherly protector from the anti-Christ?
The one who is being apprehensive of communism, wars, famine and other evils
that the serpent brings upon us?
This obedient and blessed new Eve?
The mother who warns us so we can be prepared and be strong against Satan?
Haven't there been renewed faith, hope, love, peace and obedience wherever
this messenger has shared her blessings and graces that God has given her
in good purpose?
Why do we choose to be blind?
Why fear the truth that God has been giving us a chance and sharing Christ's
ever-forgetting forgiveness to us through the obedient mother?
The mother who has been consecrated the task __to reverse__ the disobedient
harm and example done by the ancient Eve.
She has been preparing the new Eden with her Immaculate Heart.
The new Eden as sanctuary (the womb) for the next coming and judgement of the
righteous by our Lord, Jesus Christ; when The Lamb marries His bride.
Shouldn't we give her a hand in her exhaustive job of preparing us for the
second coming of her Son as she has been conceived without sin to bear
the Son of God in her womb?
Why fear true peace, love and renewed faith and obedience to God that Mary
faithfully brings to God's children?  She has been protecting the flock
(the rest of the offsprings) from the greedy dragon so as to present more
righteous members for her Son's coming.
Not all apparitions and miracles that resulted from them are worthy
of belief.  With prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit and, of course,
approval of our Church authorities, we should be aware of the true and
divinely inspired ones; specifically, the ones which aligns with the
Scripture.
Also, our Lady reminds us of recommendation of __silence__ in our prayers:
"If you speak unceasingly in your prayers, how will you be able to hear
God?  Allow Him room to answer you, to speak to you."
She encourages us (with motherly nurturing) to continue in exuberant
faith, hope and love to Jesus, constantly.  NOT with mere emotions,
but with deep, constant obedience to Jesus, her Beloved Son and
acknowledgement of our need to have Him as part of our lives.
Let's not wait to the last minute to renew our faith and the life
that God wants us to live; when there won't be enough time or when
it will be late.
Nowadays, Mary says,
"Pray, pray, pray for peace...reconciliation, my children."
Have peace within yourself first before you can promote peace to
others.  For without peace, you can not fully accept my Son."
And you think she's just an ordinary lady.  Not to me.  She's
our good Mother/messenger from God and she is so nice enough to
share God's kingdom to us through her Son and experience it.
With Mary, we are assured that The Lamb always succeeds.
-----
Note:  All enclosed in quotes are from "Latest News of Medjugorje"
Number 10, June, 1991 by Fr. Rene' Laurentin.
-----
O, new Mother of Eden, Most Pure
Preparing the sanctuary for true christians
Cleansing us with peace for God's kingdom come
Bring us to your loving, protective and obedient Church
That we may belong in one Body to your Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord
And not go astray from His perfect completeness
Pray that we ourselves pray with the Holy Spirit guiding us
So that we may help you in strength to conquer the enemies of your Son
while you prepare us for Him with your Immaculate Heart.
From: mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server)
Subject: Re: So far so good
Lines: 16
>>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways:
>>       Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of
>>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still
>>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives
>>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by
>>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't
>>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is
>>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?
Short reply:  We can never achieve perfect health, yet we always strive for it.
We don't seek to do God's will because we're forced to, we follow His way
because His way is best.  The reason it's hard is because we are flawed, not
because He's unreasonable.  But we seek to follow His way because we want to
improve ourselves and our lives.
- Mark
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: tuff to be a Christian?
Organization: IBM Austin
Lines: 66
Please realize that I am frequently getting in trouble for
straying from orthodoxy, but here is my opinion:
In article <Apr.17.01.10.58.1993.2246@geneva.rutgers.edu>, mdbs@ms.uky.edu (no name) writes:
> ... Moreover the Buddha says that we are
> intrinsically good (as against Christ's "we are all sinners").
I never thought of these two ideas being "against" each other.
People might quibble about what "intrinsically" means but the
reason we are sinners is because we do not behave as good as we
are. The message of Christ is that each of us are not only good,
but great, that we can approach perfection, albeit perhaps through a
different technique than you claim Buddhism teaches. Because we do
not realize our greatness, we sin. Peter had no problem walking
on water until a little doubt crept in.
Doesn't David ask in the 8th Psalm "what is man that you [God]
should care for him, but you have made him just a little lower
than the angels"?
I probably exagerate in my mind what a scrawny little kid David
was, just as I probably exagerate what a gigantic monster Goliath
was, but David's power easily defeated Goliath's.
Remember the rich young man who comes up to Jesus and asks what
he can do to enter the Kingdom, Jesus says follow the commandments.
I always picture the smug look on his face as he says he's done that
his whole life, probably anticipating an "attaboy" from the
Messiah. Instead Jesus gives him a harder task, sell everything
and follow Him. Jesus is raising the bar. The desciples say
how can anyone do this if it's so hard even for rich people.
Jesus says anyone can do it, with God's help.
Jesus says not only can we avoid killing people, we can avoid
getting angry at people. Not only can we avoid committing
adultery, we can control our own desires.
I realize this was not your main point, but I wonder how other
people see this.
> ...
> 	Parting Question:
> 		Would you have become a Christian if you had not
> been indoctrinated by your parents? You probably never learned about
> any other religion to make a comparative study. And therefore I claim
> you are brain washed.
(Please forgive any generalizations I am about to make.)
Your point about how "hard" other religions are is a good one, just
as your "Parting Question" is a tough question. I think that Muslims
worship the same God as I do, we can learn from their name "submission".
Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists, etc. claim that "God" is impersonal.
Is God personal or impersonal? I say yes, but if I think a little
more my answer is whichever is greater. I think it is greater
to be a personal entity, with an individual consciousness, but
you're right that that might be a cultural bias. If I think more
I must admit that God's personal nature is as far beyond my
conception as His impersonal nature is beyond the Hindu's
conception. If somehow Jesus could fit into Hindu cosmology
then maybe I wouldn't have a problem, though that is hard to imagine.
Are there any former (or present) "Eastern Religion" members here
who could comment?
Chris Mussack
From: mussack@austin.ibm.com (Christopher Mussack)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: IBM Austin
Lines: 12
General question: Since the world was discovered to be
round, the definition of Saturday is, if not ambiguous,
at least arbitrary. How would someone answer this?
Also, when the calendar was changed (Gregorian to Julian?)
was the day of the week changed or just the date? Once again
this points to the arbitrariness of the days.
Chris Mussack
[When calendars change, there is no change in the 7-day weekly cycle,
just months and dates.  --clh]
From: shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker)
Subject: Re: SSPX schism ?
Organization: Shell Oil
Lines: 99
In article <Apr.17.01.11.35.1993.2284@geneva.rutgers.edu> jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
>
>[Descriptions of true and false obedience]
>
>Obedience is not solely a matter of compliance/refusal.  The nature of
>the commands must also be taken into account; it is not enough to
>consider someone's compliance or refusal and then say whether they are
>"obedient" or "disobedient".  You also have to take into consideration
>whether the commands are good or bad.
You ask where we are.  I would echo that question.  I'm not trying to be
contentious.  But assuming that the Pope has universal jurisdiction
and authority, what authority do you rely upon for your decisions?
What prevents me from choosing ANY doctrine I like and saying that
Papal disagreement is an error that will be resolved in time?
This is especially true, since Councils of Bishops have basically
stood by the Pope.
It appears that much of what lies at the heart of this matter is
disagreements over what is tradition and Tradition, and also over
authority and discipline.
My question to the supporters of SSPX is this:
Is there ANY way that your positions with respect to church reforms
could change and be conformed to those of the Pope? (assuming that
the Pope's position does not change and that the leaders of SSPX
don't jointly make such  choice.)
If not, this appears to be claiming infallible teaching authority.
If I adopt the view that "I'm NOT wrong, I CAN'T be wrong, and
there's NO WAY I'll change my mind, YOU must change yours", that
I've either left the Catholic Church or it has left me.
The Orthodox Church does not recognize papal authority/jurisdiction
viewing authority as present in each bishop, and in Ecumenical
Councils.  We regard the subsequent development of the doctrines
regarding papal authority and jurisdiction to be a separation of
the Bishop of Rome from the Orthodox church.  Without going into
the merits of the Great Schism, at least the Orthodox agree that
a split occurred, and don't paly what appear to be semantic games
like "He's the Pope, but we don't recognize that what he does
is effective...".  Words aside, it appears to be a de facto split.
>So where are we?  Are we in another Arian heresy, complete with weak
>Popes?  Or are the SSPX priests modern Martin Luthers?  Well, the only
>way to answer that is to examine who is saying what, and what the
>traditional teaching of the Church is.
We sould argue from now until the Second Coming about what the "real"
traditional teaching of the Church is.  If this were a simple matter
East and West would not have been separated for over 900 years.
>Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope.  There is some
>soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually
>some Pope *will* straighten all this out.
I thought that the teaching magisterieum of the church did not allow
error in teachings regarding faith and morals even in the short term.`
I may be wrong here, I'm not Roman Catholic. :-)
What would be the effect of a Pope making an ex cathedra statement
regarding the SSPX situation?  Would it be honored?  If not, how
do you get around the formal doctrine of infallibility?
Again, I'm not trying to be contentions, I'm trying to understand.
Since I'm Orthodox, I've got no real vested interest in the outcome,
one way or the other.
>Schism is a superset of disobedience (refusal to obey a legitimate
>command).  All schismatics are disobedient.  But it's a superset, so
>it doesn't work the other way around: not all disobeyers are
>schismatics.  The mere fact that the SSPX priests don't comply with
>the Holy Father's desires doesn't make them schismatics.
It does if the command was legitimate.  SSPX does not view the
Pope's commands as legitimate.  Why?  This is a VERY slippery slope.
>                                      But my problem with this is
>this: according to the traditional theology of Holy Orders, episcopal
>consecration does not confer jurisdiction.  It only confers the power
>of Order: the ability to confect the Sacraments.
True enough.
>                                                  Jurisdiction must be
>conferred by someone else with the power to confer it (such as the
>Pope).  The Society bishops, knowing the traditional theology quite
>well, take great pains to avoid any pretence of jurisdiction over
>anyone.  They simply confer those Sacraments that require a bishop.
One could argue that they are establishing a non-geographic jurisdiction.
I don't know if that's even a concept or problem in Catholic circles.
Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
--
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center    Houston, TX            (713) 245-2965
llo@shell.com
From: JJMARVIN@pucc.princeton.edu
Subject: Re: Losing your temper is not a Christian trait
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 25
In article <Apr.15.00.58.22.1993.28891@athos.rutgers.edu>
ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci) writes:
> One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is
>when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.
>
>We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again
>christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to
>christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were
>"spiritually hungry."  Instead of answering questions with sweetness and
>sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries.
Although I certainly agree with the basic sentiment that snideness is
unloving and ineffective, I'm a little disturbed by the formulation that
ill temper is not a Christian trait. It seems like a false argument to
say that anyone who displays trait X must not be a Christian. Could
well be a sinning Christian, but a Christian nonetheless.
Anger is human, and Christians are
human: Christians get angry and defensive and react badly just like
everyone else. It's not perfect righteousness but the effort of seeking
righteousness that marks a dedicated Christian. And one of the greatest
gifts of faith to me is that of seeking and accepting forgiveness for
my failures. Expecting flawless behavior from self or others isn't
Christianity: it's perfectionism.
From: weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Dave Weaver)
Subject: Some questions from a new Christian
Lines: 18
In a previous article, 18669@bach.udel.edu (Steven R Hoskins) writes:
>
>  One of my questions I would
> like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
> works intended for a lay person?
>
I would recommend "Essential Truthes of the Christian Faith" by RC Sproul.
It is copywrited 1992 from Tyndale House Publishers. Sproul offers concise
explanations, in simple language, of around 100 different Christian
doctrines, grouped by subject. I think it would be particularly good for
newer Christians (and older Christians suffering spiritual malnutrition),
as it gives a Biblically sound basic treatment of the issues, avoiding
long in-depth analysis that can wait until after you know the basics.
---
Dave Weaver               | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
weaver@chdasic.sps.mot.com|  gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)
From: fraseraj@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Andrew J Fraser)
Subject: Re: God-shaped hole (was Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.
Lines: 14
[Several people were involved in trying to figure out who first used
the phrase "God-shaped hole".  --clh]
"There is a God shaped vacuum in all of us" (or something to that effect) is
generally attributed to Blaise Pascal.
What I want to know is how can you have a God shaped vacuum inside of you if
God is in fact infinite (or omnipresent)?
=========================================================================
||     Name: Andrew James Fraser  E-mail: fraseraj@dcs.gla.ac.uk       ||
||     ESE-3H student, University of Glasgow.			       ||
||     Standard disclaimers...                                         ||
[Don't you think you're being a tad too literal with this metaphor?  --clh]
From: wdburns@mtu.edu (BURNS)
Subject: Interfaith weddings
Organization: CCLI Macintosh Lab, Michigan Tech University
Lines: 39
Hello everyone.
Last week I posted a similar question to alt.wedding.  Now I come in
search of a deeper-level answer.
My fiance is Lutheran and I am Catholic.  We plan on getting married in
her church because she is living there now and I plan on moving there
in a month or so.  I called my Catholic priest to find out what I needed
to do in order for the marriage to be recognized by my church.
Needless to say that I have found that there is no "hard and fast" rule
when it comes to how the Catholic law for interfaith weddings is interpreted.
But I'm pretty sure that we CAN get married without too much problem; the
trick lies in the letter of dispensation.
But that is not why I am here....
What I'd like to know is:
What are the main differences between the Lutheran and Catholic religions?
My priest mumbled something about how the Eucharist was understood...
I have heard that if two religions combine soon, it would be these two.
Any help would be appreciated...
Thanks so much!
Bill
--
Bill Burns  [ Internet: wdburns@mtu.edu ]  Mac Network System Administrator
[ AppleLink: SHADOW         ]  Apple Student Rep, MTU
First we must band together as friends,
then mearcilessly crush our enemies into paste.
[We've had enough Catholic/Protestant arguments recently that I'm not
going to accept any renewals.  I suggest responses via email, unless
they are clearly non-controversial.  I would be happy to see positive
summaries of both important Catholic and Lutheran beliefs.  Among
other things, they'd be useful for the FAQ collection.  But I'm not up
for yet another battle.  --clh]
From: fernandeza@merrimack.edu
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA
Lines: 12
In article <Apr.19.05.11.41.1993.29112@athos.rutgers.edu>, aa888@freenet.carleton.ca (Mark Baker) writes:
> I am asking you to believe in things not visible. I don't know if this is
> believeing blindly or not. .... If you decide in advance that your reason
> will act only on the evidence of the five physical senses, then you cut
> reason off from any possibility of reaching a conclusion outside the
> physical sphere
Someone said:
"Thinking if I could see, I would believe. Then someone said
BELIEVE		AND 	YOU	WILL	SEE!!"
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Re: So far so good
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 58
In article <Apr.19.05.13.16.1993.29204@athos.rutgers.edu> armstrng@cs.dal.ca (Stan Armstrong) writes:
>In article <C4z5u3.Jxo@spss.com> luomat@alleg.edu writes:
>>
>>This may be a really dumb one, but I'll ask it anyways:
>>	Christians know that they can never live up to the requirements of
>>God, right? (I may be wrong, but that is my understanding)  But they still
>>try to do it.  Doesn't it seem like we are spending all of our lives
>>trying to reach a goal we can never achieve?  I know that we are saved by
>>faith and not by works, but does that mean that once we are saved we don't
>>have to do anything?  I think James tells us that Faith without works is
>>dead (paraphrase).  How does this work?
>>
>So long as we think that good things are what we *have* to do rather than
>what we come to *want* to do, we miss the point. The more we love God; the
>more we come to love what and whom He loves.
>
>When I find that what I am doing is not good, it is not a sign to try
>even harder (Romans 7:14-8:2); it is a sign to seek God. When I am aware
>of Jesus' presence, I usually want what He wants. It is His strenth, His love
>that empowers my weakness.
>--
>Stan Armstrong. Religious Studies Dept, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S.
>Armstrong@husky1.stmarys.ca | att!clyde!watmath!water!dalcs!armstrng
I apologize to the moderator, but the first quote was deleted and I
would like to respond to both.
As for the "goal we can never achieve", the reward comes from the
trying.  Paul makes a clear claim that we are to continue straining for
the prize over in Philippians 3:10-16.  Only by not living out the
commands do we stagnate and become lukewarm, to be spit out by Jesus.
As it says in 1 John 5:3:  "This is love for God:  to obey his comands."
That obedience is our straining to achieve for God.  Of course, this
requires work on our part.
As for the quote in James, Satan doesn't care what we believe.  What
matters is the results of our belief (works).  If one truly has faith in
what one believes, one will either act on that faith or be lying to
oneself about believing in the first place.
Stan, as for your first line, you have a very good point.  Obedience by
obligation (grudgery) is not what God desires.  Instead, look at how
many times the Bible talks about being joyous in all situations and when
doing God's work.  Being begrudged by the work has no value.  Also, we
should do the work necessary whenever we can, not just when we feel
Jesus' presence.  Feelings can deceive us.  However, as Paul states to
Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2:  "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and
out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and
careful instruction."  Also, remember that Paul tells Timothy in 1
Timothy 4:16:  "Watch your life and doctrine closely.  Persevere in
them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."
So, in order to do the work necessary, we need to be sure that we are
correct first.  Remember Jesus' warning in Matthew 7:3-5 not to be
hypocritical about what we do.  The best way to accomplish this is to be
a disciple completely in both thought and deed.
Joe Fisher
From: nigel.allen@canrem.com (Nigel Allen)
Subject: library of congress to host dead sea scroll symposium april 21-22
Lines: 96
Library of Congress to Host Dead Sea Scroll Symposium April 21-22
To: National and Assignment desks, Daybook Editor
Contact: John Sullivan, 202-707-9216, or Lucy Suddreth, 202-707-9191
both of the Library of Congress
WASHINGTON, April 19  -- A symposium on the Dead Sea
Scrolls will be held at the Library of Congress on Wednesday,
April 21, and Thursday, April 22.  The two-day program, cosponsored
by the library and Baltimore Hebrew University, with additional
support from the Project Judaica Foundation, will be held in the
library's Mumford Room, sixth floor, Madison Building.
Seating is limited, and admission to any session of the symposium
must be requested in writing (see Note A).
The symposium will be held one week before the public opening of a
major exhibition, "Scrolls from the Dead Sea: The Ancient Library of
Qumran and Modern Scholarship," that opens at the Library of Congress
on April 29.  On view will be fragmentary scrolls and archaeological
artifacts excavated at Qumran, on loan from the Israel Antiquities
Authority.  Approximately 50 items from Library of Congress special
collections will augment these materials.  The exhibition, on view in
the Madison Gallery, through Aug. 1, is made possible by a generous
gift from the Project Judaica Foundation of Washington, D.C.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been the focus of public and scholarly
interest since 1947, when they were discovered in the desert 13 miles
east of Jerusalem.  The symposium will explore the origin and meaning
of the scrolls and current scholarship.  Scholars from diverse
academic backgrounds and religious affiliations, will offer their
disparate views, ensuring a lively discussion.
The symposium schedule includes opening remarks on April 21, at
2 p.m., by Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, and by
Dr. Norma Furst, president, Baltimore Hebrew University.  Co-chairing
the symposium are Joseph Baumgarten, professor of Rabbinic Literature
and Institutions, Baltimore Hebrew University and Michael Grunberger,
head, Hebraic Section, Library of Congress.
Geza Vermes, professor emeritus of Jewish studies, Oxford
University, will give the keynote address on the current state of
scroll research, focusing on where we stand today. On the second
day, the closing address will be given by Shmaryahu Talmon, who will
propose a research agenda, picking up the theme of how the Qumran
studies might proceed.
On Wednesday, April 21, other speakers will include:
-- Eugene Ulrich, professor of Hebrew Scriptures, University of
Notre Dame and chief editor, Biblical Scrolls from Qumran, on "The
Bible at Qumran;"
-- Michael Stone, National Endowment for the Humanities
distinguished visiting professor of religious studies, University of
Richmond, on "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha."
-- From 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. a special preview of the exhibition
will be given to symposium participants and guests.
On Thursday, April 22, beginning at 9 a.m., speakers will include:
-- Magen Broshi, curator, shrine of the Book, Israel Museum,
Jerusalem, on "Qumran: The Archaeological Evidence;"
-- P. Kyle McCarter, Albright professor of Biblical and ancient
near Eastern studies, The Johns Hopkins University, on "The Copper
Scroll;"
-- Lawrence H. Schiffman, professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies,
New York University, on "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of
Judaism;" and
-- James VanderKam, professor of theology, University of Notre
Dame, on "Messianism in the Scrolls and in Early Christianity."
The Thursday afternoon sessions, at 1:30 p.m., include:
-- Devorah Dimant, associate professor of Bible and Ancient Jewish
Thought, University of Haifa, on "Qumran Manuscripts: Library of a
Jewish Community;"
-- Norman Golb, Rosenberger professor of Jewish history and
civilization, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, on "The
Current Status of the Jerusalem Origin of the Scrolls;"
-- Shmaryahu Talmon, J.L. Magnas professor emeritus of Biblical
studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, on "The Essential 'Commune of
the Renewed Covenant': How Should Qumran Studies Proceed?" will close
the symposium.
There will be ample time for question and answer periods at the
end of each session.
Also on Wednesday, April 21, at 11 a.m.:
The Library of Congress and The Israel Antiquities Authority
will hold a lecture by Esther Boyd-Alkalay, consulting conservator,
Israel Antiquities Authority, on "Preserving the Dead Sea Scrolls"
in the Mumford Room, LM-649, James Madison Memorial Building, The
Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., S.E., Washington, D.C.
------
NOTE A: For more information about admission to the symposium,
please contact, in writing, Dr. Michael Grunberger, head, Hebraic
Section, African and Middle Eastern Division, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C. 20540.
-30-
--
Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
416-629-7000/629-7044
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 36
In article <Apr.19.05.14.21.1993.29291@athos.rutgers.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>You cannot show, from scripture, that the weekly Sabbath is part of the
>ceremonial laws.   Before you post a text in reply investigate its context.
First of all, "ceremonial law" is an extraScriptural term.  It is sometimes
used as a framework to view Scripture.  But if you look at Collosions,
without going into it with the assumption that the Sabbath cannot be
a ceremonial law, you will see that it does refer to the sabbath.
Paul writes in Collosions 2:14-17 how that Christ nailed the laws that were
against us to His cross, and therefore we should not be judged in what
what food we eat, what we drink, the keeping of new moons and holy days,
or the keeping of the sabbath.
The word for sabbath in this verse is "sabbaton" and is used throughout the
New Testament to refer to the 7th day.  If there is any Scripture from
which we get the idea of the ceremonial law, this is one of them, and the
sabbath is listed among the ceremonial laws.
If one goes into this with the fundamental assumption "the sabbath cannot
be a ceremonial law" then he will have to find some way around it, like
saying that this can only refer to the other sabbath holy days besides the
7tH day, Because "the sabbath cannot be a ceremonial law."  But
Paul is very careful in his letters to add some kind of parenthetcal
statement if there is anything that can be seen as a liscence to sin
in his writings.
Also, why is the sabbath absent from the epistles (except for Hebrews 4, which
talks about the rest that comes through faith?)  Surely it would have
been a big problem for first century Christians living in a society
that did not rest on the 7th day.  Especially slaves. Many new converst were
slaves.  It would have been difficult for slaves to rest on the sabbath
if it had been mandatory.  Why is there no mention of this in the epistles?
Link Hudson.
From: jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith)
Subject: Re: Atheist's views on Christianity (was: Re: "Accepting Jeesus in your heart...")
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Lines: 169
In article <Apr.19.05.13.48.1993.29266@athos.rutgers.edu> kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes:
= Jason Smith (jasons@atlastele.com) wrote:
=
= : [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]
=
= : One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate
= : (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
= : reasonable alternative exists.
=
= I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime;
= causes precede their effects.
And I must concede here.  Cause *before* effect, implies time, time is part
of spacetime.  Hense, the argument would be valid.  I could return and say
that this does not infer the cause and effect relationship being *unique*
to *this* spacetime, but I won't 8^), because the point is moot.  Doesn't
address why (which Petri Pikho addresses below).
I also concede that I was doubly remiss, as I asserted "No reasonable
alternative exists", an entirely subjective statement on my part (and one
that could  be invalidated, given time and further discovery by the
scientist).  I also understand that a proving a theory does not necessarily
specify that "this is how it happened", but proposes a likely description of
the phenomena in question.  Am I mistaken with this understanding?
= But if you claim that there must be
= an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from
= "nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.
All of which require something we Christians readily admit to: ``Faith''.
The fact that there are several candidates belies that *none* are conclusive.
With out conclusive evidence, we are left with faith.
It could even be argued that one of these hypotheses may one day be proven (as
best as a non-repeatable event can be "proven").  But I ask, what holds
someone *today* to the belief that any or all of them are correct, except by
faith?
[ a couple of paragraphs deleted.  Summary: we ask "Why does the
universe exist" ]
= I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely
=
= 1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?
=
= and
=
= 2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?
=
= It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However,
= is it a meaningful question, after all?
=
= I would say it isn't. Consider the following:
Apparently it *is* for many persons.  Hence, we *have* religions.
= The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
= demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
= or in non-existence".  Actually, both questions turn out to be
= devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
= don't exist. Tautology at its best.
Carefully examine the original question, and then the "counter-question".
The first asks "Why", while the second is a request for definition.  It
doesn't address why something does or does not exist, but asks to define
the lack of existence.  The second question is unanswerable indeed, for
how do we identify something as "nothing" (aren't they mutually exclusive
terms)?.  How do we identify a state of non-existence (again, this is
nearing the limits of this simple layman's ability to comprehend, and I
would appreciate an explanation).
I might add, the worldview of "Things that exist do, and things that
don't...don't" is as grounded in the realm of the non-falsifiable,
as does the theist's belief in God.  It is based on the assumption
that there is *not* a reason for being, something as ultimately
(un)supportable as the position of there being a reason.  Its very
foundation exists in the same soil as that of one who claims there *is* a
reason.
We come to this. Either "I am, therefore I am.", or "I am for a reason."
If the former is a satisfactory answer, then you are done, for you are
satisfied, and need not a doctor.  If the latter, your search is just
beginning.
= I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.
Time will tell. 8^)
=
= Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is
= Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this
= answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is
= actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and
= them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.
Agreed.  It would lead me to question their definition of Christianity as
well.
= Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
= This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
= Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
= it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
= existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.
This does not preclude His existence.  It only seeks to identify His
*qualities* (implying He exists to *have* qualities, BTW).
= The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
= of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
= accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.
Like the theist, we come to a statement of faith, for this position assumes
that the evidence at hand is conclusive.  Note, I am not arguing against
scientific endeavor, for science is useful for understanding the universe in
which we exist. But I differ from the atheist in a matter of perspective.  I
seek to understand what exists to understand and appreciate the art of the
Creator.
I also have discovered science is an inadequate tool to answer "why".   It
appears that M. Pihko agrees (as we shall see).  But because a tool is
inadequate to answer a question does not preclude the question.  Asserting
that 'why' is an invalid question does not provide an answer.
= : As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
= : true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).
=
= This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
= not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
= questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
= supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
= as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.
My apologies.  I was using why as "why did this come to be".  Why did
pre-existence become existence.  Why did pre-spacetime become spacetime.
But we come to the admission that science fails to answer "Why?".  Because
it can't be answered in the realm of modern science, does that make the
question invalid?
= : I don't believe *any*
= : technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
= : having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.
=
= This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are
= somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians
= in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce
= they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?
I suppose we would do the same thing as when Galileo or Capernicus was
*vindicated*  (before someone starts jumping up and down screaming
"Inquisition!", note I said *vindicated*.  I certainly hope we've gotten
beyond the "shooting the messenger" stage).
M. Pihko does present a good point though.  We may need to ask "What do I
as an individual Christian base my faith on?"  Will it be shaken by the
production of evidence that shatters our "sacred cows" or will we seek to
understand if a new discovery truly disagrees with what God *said* (and
continues to say) in his Word?
"Why do I ask why?" (apologies to Budweiser and company 8^]).
Jason.
--
Jason D. Smith  	|
jasons@atlastele.com	|    I'm not young enough to know everything.
1x1        	|
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Does 'Just/justifiable War' exist?
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 32
Some thoughts:
[A. On the non-pacifist side:]
(1) Killing to defend the innocent may be, if anything, _more_ justifiable
than killing in self-defense.  I can turn my _own_ other cheek, but I have
no right to turn someone else's.
(2) It seems to me that if Jesus had meant to teach pacifism, He would have
made His position more explicit.  He didn't tell the centurion to leave the
army, for instance; and the NT is full of military metaphors.
[B. On the pacifist side:]
(1) Apparently many early Christians refused to fight in the Roman army,
or stated that one should refuse if given a choice.  But it's not clear
whether they were objecting to war _per se_, or objecting to Roman policies.
(2) In modern warfare, it seems to be impossible to direct attacks only at
combatants.  Bombing, both conventional and nuclear, kills lots of civilians.
(3) It's hard to tell whether any _particular_ war is justified at the time.
Often it takes decades for the requisite information to become available
to the general public.
Please, NO EMAIL REPLIES -- this is meant as a contribution to a public
discussion, and anyone wanting to reply should also reply publicly.
--
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Divine providence vs. Murphy's Law
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 19
In article <Apr.19.05.13.28.1993.29224@athos.rutgers.edu> rolfe@junior.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe) writes:
>Romans 8:28 (RSV)   We know that in everything God works for good with those
>who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
>
>Murphy's Law:  If anything can go wrong, it will.
>
>We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
>Murphy's Law.  But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28?  For that
>matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've always taken Murphy's Law to be an exhortation to prudence, and
an observation about the behavior of complex systems, rather than a
denial of divine benevolence.
--
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><
From: conditt@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Paul Conditt)
Subject: Re: Being right about messiahs
Organization: Applied Research Laboratories, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 11
[The following is my comment on an article by Desiree Bradley.  --clh]
>By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me
>that he is claiming to be Christ.
Koresh did originally claim to be the Christ, but then backed off and
said he was a prophet.  The latest news at 8:00 CDT from Waco is that
the feds broke through a wall of the compound with a tank.  No news
besides that at this time.
Paul
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Questioning Authority
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Lines: 36
Chris Mussack writes:
> For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?
How about:
The Holocaust
The Spanish Inquisition
Jonestown
(just to name a few) ?
Authorities sometimes tell people to do evil things.  People who "just
follow orders" have tortured and killed others in very large numbers,
and protest their innocence afterwards.
When your authority starts telling you to do things, you should ask
questions.  Except for situations of pressing need ("I said shut the
hatch because the submarine is filling with water!"), any reasonable
authority should be able to give at least some justification that you
can understand.
Just be sure to listen when authority answers.
(If anybody is interested in questions of psychological pressure and
following orders, you might want to read about a study done by Solomon Ashe
in 1951 on conformity, and another done by Stanley Milgram in 1963 on
obedience.  Both should be in any good book on psychology/sociology.  The
results are both fascinating and terrifying.)
Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"we do what we're told
we do what we're told
we do what we're told
told to do" -- Peter Gabriel
From: dxf12@po.cwru.edu (Douglas Fowler)
Subject: Re: Christian Parenting
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 83
Sorry for posting this, but my e-mail keeps bouncing.  Maybe it will
help others here, anyway, and therefore I pray others will read this.  It is
actually a response from my Aunt, who has 5 kids, since I have none yet.
>Hi I am a Sociology student and I am currently researching into
>young offenders.  I am looking at the way various groups of
>children are raised at home.  At the moment I am formlulating
>information on discipline within the Christian home.
>
>Please, if you are a parent in this catagory can you email me
>your response to the following questionaire.  All responses
>will be treated confidentially and will only be used to prepare
>stats.
I'm posting this for a good Christian relative who does not have e-mail
access.  Since this aunt and uncle have 5 kids I felt they would be more
relevant than I, who have none (yet).
>1.  Ages & sexes of children
13-year-old (13YO) twins, 10YO boy, 6.5YO boy, 2YO girl
>2.  Do you spank your kids?
I don't call it spanking, but they do, so yes, very rarely.
>3.  If so how often?
I don't call it spanking because it's more of a reaction to something
very dangerous, such as trying to stick their finger in a fan or running
into the road.  Maybe 3-4 times for each except for the 2YO girl, who has
not been spanked yet.
They call it that because it *does* hurt their feelings, and of course
I give all the hugs and stuff to ensure they know they're still loved.
>4.  Do you use an implement to spank with?
No, that would be too painful.  If it's too traumatic they never recall
why they were punished.  Besides, it must be immediate, and taking the time
to go get a toolmeans you're not doing it right away, and that lessens the
impact.  It's very emotional for a child as it is - which is evidenced by the
fact that a little slap on the rear - which hurts for perhaps 5 seconds -
is called a spanking.
>
>5. If you do not spank, what method of discipline do you use?
Lots of logical consequences - for instance, when 4YO Matthew dared
a good friend to jump out of his treehouse or he would push him out, I made
sure they didn't play together for 5 days so he'd know that would make him
lose friends very quickly.  He's never done anything like that since.
We also use time-out in their rooms - I use a timer so they don't keep
arguing with me over leaving, since it's hard to argue with a macine.
I will go to the closed door and tell them timeout won't be over until they
calm down if they're too tantrumy.  I use the top of the stairs when they're
really young.
>6.  Your age?
40
>7.  Your location
Bath, Ohio.  It's right outside of Akron, in the northeast part of Ohio.
>8.  While under the age of 16 did you ever commit a criminal
>offence?
No, and none of my kids would dream of it.  I hope you can use this to
teach all parents that physical punishment isn't always required - parents use
that as an excuse to hit too hard.
>9.  How ere you disciplined as a kid
Lots of timeouts, same as I use.  Our family and my husband's have never
used spankings.  In fact, my grandmother in law was one of 11 kids, and they
were almost never spanked.  This was around the turn of the century.  And,
none of us has ever been afoul of the law - man-made or God's law.
Jesus says, referring to a small child whom he is holding, that "what
ye do to the least of these, ye do also to me."  The Bible also says in all
things to be kind, and merciful, and especially loving. (Colossians 3:12-15.)
There is no room for selfish anger, which I'll admit I've been tempted with
at times.  When I've felt like spanking hard in anger, maybe the kid deserved
a little slap on the rear, but what I would have given would have been the
devil's work.  I could feel the temptation, and just angrily ordered the kid
to his/her room and went to my room myself.  After praying and asking God's
forgiveness, I was much calmer, and did not feel like spanking, but felt that
what I had done was enough punishment.
--
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  : Me, age 4 & now: "Mommys and Daddys & other
Ever wonder if, after Casey : relatives have to give lots of hugs & love
missed the 3rd strike in the poem: & support, 'cause Heaven is just a great
he ran to first and made it?     : big hug that lasts forever and ever!!!"
From: thssccb@iitmax.iit.edu (catherine c bareiss)
Subject: Re: phone number of wycliffe translators UK
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology
Lines: 36
In article <Apr.17.01.11.19.1993.2268@geneva.rutgers.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>
>  I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL.  I thought they'd
>pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
>ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
>and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
>1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
>U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
>repression."
I have personally know quite of few of the Wycliffe Bible Translators.
As an organization their fundamental purpose is to translate the scriptures
into the native languages which in terms usual means learning it and
developing a written language (along with teaching the natives to read).
It is not associated with the U.S. govt. at all.  Many governments
want the help of the translators.  To the best of my knowledge the
Mexican government now encourages them to come.  Their idea is not
cultural interference but the presentation of the Good News.
To understand more about what they do, I suggest you read some of the books
(autobiographical and biographical) about some of the translators.  One
that stands out in my mind as an excellent is called "Peace Child."
This would give a true picture of what their mission is.
>  My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
>praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
>Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
>automatically above reproach.
>
>                                                                  mp
I agree with this statement, but we cannot also accept what others
say without looking into the issues.  That would be the same as taking
Suddan's discussion about the CIA, etc. as being true.  We must look
at both sides.
Cathy Bareiss
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 58
a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz Faris) writes:
>Helllo Netters:
>I was told the Bible says that God took the body of the Virgin Mary as
>she was being carried for burial. Is this true, if so were in the Bible
>does it say that.
>Regards,
>A.Faris
>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a
>Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical
>support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura".
>That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of
>Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little
>Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe
>that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also
>that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet
>another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us
>the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]
Again I find myself wanting to respond to a posting and having neither
the time nor the proper materials with me (you would think I would learn my
lesson by now--but I'm trying to finish writing my Thesis and don't have tons
of time.  Anyway...)
The basis for our (the catholic church's) belief in the assumption of
Mary, body and soul, into heaven is that, to put it simply, the apostles
and all the early generation Christians believed it.  In fact, throughout their
ministry the apostles kept in close contact with Mary, and 11 of the 12 were
present when she died.  Only Thomas was missing--when he arrived several days
later, he asked to be shown her body, and moved with pity, Peter and several of
the other apostles brought him to her tomb.  When they arrived the seal was
still unbroken.  They broke the seal, entered, and the body was missing.  There
was no sign that anyone had entered, forcibly or otherwise, and everything else
was laid out exactly as it had been left.  The apostles present all believed
that Mary was assumed into heaven--and the apostles TAUGHT this in their
preaching (of course, this does not appear in any of the texts currently
considered part of the bible, but it does appear in other writings left behind
by several of them.)  Basicaly, as an apostolic church (ie. founded by the
apostles), we believe that the teachings of the apostles, whether written down
in the bible or written down in other sources, is true, providing that the
authenticity of those other sources can be confirmed.  At least in the case of
the assumption of Mary, the authenticity is quite clear.
Hope this helps--I would welcome anyone who has more information to
add to what I've said.
- Mike Walker
mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(Univ. of Illinois)
]
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 18
In article <May.3.05.01.53.1993.9964@athos.rutgers.edu> a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz Faris) writes:
>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  --clh]
So true.  I'm not sure of the basis of the belief, but it was a widely
held belief among the laity of the RC church and their support of it
lead to it being declared to be true.  Basically the teaching on infallibility
holds that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, the
college of bishops is likewise infallible, and the laity is as well.
The pope gets most of the attention/criticism but the consensus of the
other bodies is equally infallible (according to RC teaching).
Joe Moore
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 48
Biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception:
1) "I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and
between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall crush
your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel."
-Genesis 3.15
2) "He who commits sin is of the devil ..."
-1 John 3.8
3) "Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee ..."
-Luke 1.28
From the above, we prove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
First, God has given the proto-evangel in Genesis 3.15, which is the
first promise of a savior, who will redeem mankind from the wiles of
Satan. "[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in
the truth because there is no truth in him." John 8.44.  Now the
proto-evangel promises several things, enmity between Satan and "the
woman", and enmity between Satan and "her seed."  Now the woman is both
Eve (who is the immediate point of reference) and Mary, the second Eve.
"Her seed" is Jesus Christ, and He is also at enmity with Satan in the
same way as Mary is said to be at enmity with Satan.  Thus, knowing as
we do that Jesus Christ is sinless (Hebrews 7.26), we can conclude that
Mary is also sinless because if she wasn't she would 1) not be at enmity
with the devil, as 1 John 3.8 tells us, and 2) the relation of her
sinlessness to Christ's sinlessness would be called into question, as
would God's veracity.  For God promised an enmity between Mary and the
serpent, and it is not possible for God to lie or be decieved.
Second, we have the Angelic Greeting where Mary is called by the
Archangle Gabriel "full of grace."  As I pointed out above this is from
the Greek word "Kecharitomene" which means not just full of grace, but a
plenitude or perfection of grace.  The sense of it is best grasped by
the footnote to the Jerusalem Bible, "Hail you who have been and reamin
filled with grace."  But that is a little to long to say, so it is
reduced to full of grace.  And as it says, "you who have been" Mary had
always been filled with grace, from the moment of her conception, which
was also the moment of her salvation, until her death some years later.
It must be admitted that it is possible that God could have done
what the doctrine of the Immaclute Conception says He did do.  And if
God could keep himself free from any contact with sin, through his
Mother, He would have, and the Bible records this fact, to which the
Fathers of the Church such as St. John Damascus, St. Augustine of Hippo
, St. Ambrose and others are in complete agreement with, as is all of
Christian tradition, and as is the infallible declaration of the Pope on
the matter in "Ineffibilus Deus."
Andy Byler
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES
Organization: Harris CSD, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 23
In article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>I have seen the claims, but I don't know if there are any
>authenticated cases of people making prolonged speeches in
>real languages they don't know. From my observations, "speaking
>in tongues" in practice has nothing at all do with this.
I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
only hear himself speaking in his own language.
Works everytime. 8-)
Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were
glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd
witness a real miracle.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Babylon Book Offer
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 20
From time to time I have made reference to a book called "The Two Babylons"
which is a book written by Alexander Hislop (mid 1800's) about the Babylonian
mystery religion and its flight through history.  I was unable to put it down
the first time I read it, but others have found it dry.  It has numberable
references and illustrations.  If you are interested in purchasing your own
copy, you can call Moody Book Store @ (312)329-4352 and order it for $16.99 and
they will ship it to you.
It is a good book just to get the reference titles for your own digs into the
mystery religions.  I have found it invaluable for that purpose alone.  But for
those who only want to skim the subject, it comes highly recommended.
Just a note to my RC brothers and sisters.  You may find this to be a
diatribe or you may find it to be a test to the origin and true nature of the
origin of RCism.  If you are offended by anything that asks hard questions
about your denomination (as to whether or not it is "Christian") then perhaps
you should just passover this offer.  To those who are a little more
adventurous, go for it and later, please contact me with you reasons pro or con
on the scholorship of this book.  I really would be interested.
adelphoi ev Christos,
Rex
From: storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS)
Subject: Re: March for Jesus
Reply-To: storrs@eos.ncsu.edu (JERRY STORRS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Lines: 16
The only info I have is my area is not having a large march.  They are leaving
it up to each congragation.  IMO this means organizers found it too difficult
to manage or no one feels the need to be involved.
I'm not casting stones, my involvement with the Lord does not include the March
this year.  Maybe He is giving a message by the lack of one??  JLS
=============================================================================
Jerry L Storrs, Systems Manager   ||| U Got 2 B Tru,
Dept of Chemical Engineering	  |||   U Got 2 B Livin' What U Say U Believe
North Carolina State University   ||| U Got 2 B Tru,
Raleigh, NC 27695		  |||   Even when nobody but Jesus is watchin U
919-515-6393  (-3465 FAX)	  |||
storrs@che.ncsu.edu (preferred)   |||			(Steven Curtis Chapman)
<><       |||
=============================================================================
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Record burning...
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Lines: 23
rgolder@hoh.mbl.edu (Robert Golder) writes:
>The movie version
>of "The Last Temptation of Christ" was so awful that practically no one
>would have seen it, or been influenced by its message, had not
>conservatives loudly protested its distribution.  They unwittingly
>created a larger market for the movie.
In many places, Christians were sucessful in their attempts
to get the films banned, or at least given a very restrictive
showing.
I have no problem with Christians burning their own pieces of
art (though I find it a tragic waste). I do however have a
problem with their attempts to censor what I may or may not
view.
P.
--
moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Monophysites and Mike Walker
Lines: 45
>		- Mike Walker
>
>[If you are using the standard formula of fully God and fully human,
>that I'm not sure why you object to saying that Jesus was human.  I
>think the usual analysis would be that sin is not part of the basic
>definition of humanity.  It's a consequence of the fall.  Jesus is
>human, but not a fallen human.  --clh]
The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a
heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It
grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus
are two different people who happened to be united in the same body
temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia
and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox.  It believes
that Jesus Christ was God (which is correct), that he was man (which is
correct), that he was one person (which is correct), but that he had
only one nature and one will and oen energy (which is heretical, the
orthodox position is that he had two natures and two wills and two
energies, both divine and human, though the wills were in perfect
harmony).  That is what Mike is trying to get across, that while Jesus
came in human form, Mike says He did not have a human nature or a human
will.  In reality, he had both, though neither made him subject to
original sin.
It is interesting to note that the Monothelites were a reaction to this
conflict and attempted to solve the problem by admitting two natures but
not two wills or two energies.  It also was condemned, at a late council
in Constantinople I believe.
Andy Byler
[These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
orthodoxy as many had thought.  Nestorius was an extreme
representative of one of the two major schools of thought.  More
moderate representatives were regarded as orthodox, e.g. Theodore of
Mopsuestia.  My impression is that the modern monophysite groups
inherit the entire tradition, not just Nestorius' version, and that
some of them may have a sufficient balanced position to be regarded as
orthodox.  --clh]
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse
Lines: 4
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
Romans 16:20
From: brownli@ohsu.edu@ohsu.edu (Liane Brown)
Subject: CHRIST, MY ADVOCATE - A Poem
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
Lines: 44
_MY ADVOCATE_
I sinned. And straightway, posthaste, Satan flew
Before the presence of the Most High God
And made a railing accusation there.
He said, "This soul, this thing of clay and sod,
Has sinned. 'Tis true that he has named Thy name;
But I demand his death, for Thou hast said,
'The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' Shall not
Thy sentence be fulfilled? Is justice dead?
Send now this wretched sinner to his doom!
What other thing can righteous ruler do?"
Thus Satan did accuse me day and night;
And every word he spoke, O  God, was true!
Then quickly One rose up from God's right hand,
Before whose glory angels veiled their eyes;
He spoke, "Each jot and tittle of the law
Must be fulfilled; the guilty sinner dies!
But wait -- suppose his guilt were all transferred
To Me and that I paid his penalty!
Behold My hands, My side, My feet! One day
I was made sin for him and died that he
Might be presented, faultless, at Thy throne!"
And Satan flew away.  Full well he knew
That he could not prevail against such love,
for every word my dear Lord spoke was true!
by Martha Snell Nicholson
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I heard this poem read last night and wanted to share it with other
subscribers of this newsgroup.  It's such a wonderful blessing to see how
secure our salvation is because the Lord Jesus paid for what He did not owe
because we had a debt which we were not capable to pay.
Thanks and praise be to the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is seated at
the right hand of the Majesty on High, making intercession for us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Liane Brown
(Internet) brownli@ohsu.edu
From: loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Lines: 37
In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu wrote:
> This subject was beaten to death on bit.listserv.christia recently,
> until Madge stepped in and closed the topic.  It has been discussed
> since privately in e-mail amongst their participants, and I've
> received some of it.  A fairly large file (approx. 18 KB) of comments
> made on the March On Washington was among these.  If it hasn't been
> posted here already (I don't know;  I just scan through this
> newsgroup, as at 1200 bps, I couldn't possibly read it all), I would
> be glad to send it along.  I believe that it would be of interest to
> people here.
>
>
> I hope that anyone who remembers seeing Rev. Troy Perry's
> "performance" at the 1987 March On Washington will see for themselves
> just how inconceivable it is to mix Christianity with homosexuality.
>
> Sean Patrick Ryan****fsspr@aurora.alaska.edu or sean@freds.cojones.com
You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
together with Troy Perry.
The Lord IS working in our community (the homosexual community, that is).  He's
not asking us to change our sexual nature, but He is calling us to practice
the morality that He established from the beginning.
Isn't Satan having a hayday pitting Christian against Christian over any issue
he can, especially homosexuality.  Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ.
Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ.  If He
doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that.  If they are living a moral
life, committed to someone of the same sex, and God is moving in their lives,
who are we to tell them they have to change?
That's my two cent.
God Bless You All
Loisc
From: sdixon@andy.bgsu.edu (Sherlette Dixon)
Subject: Re:  My original post (Was Jesus Black?)
Organization: Bowling Green State University Student
Lines: 11
My, my, my.  I knew that I would receive a response to my post, but not
THIS extensive.  Thank you to all who responded; it at least showed that
people were willing to think about it, even though the general response was
a return to the same old "Why should it matter?" question.  To those of you
who were a part of this response, I suggest that you read the articles
covering this same question in soc.culture.african.american, for you are in
DIRE need of some cultural enlightenment.
Hasta luego
Sherlette
From: jodfishe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (joseph dale fisher)
Subject: Going permanent no-mail
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 8
Well, it's that time of year again here at IU:  graduation.
Unfortunately, this means that I am out of here, more than likely for
good.  I cannot say if I'll be in here under another username or not, or
even if I'll ever get back in here at all.  I am leaving this part of my
ministry to another brother, John Right.  So, have fun and remember that
flaming can be considered slander.
Joe Fisher
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Organization: City University of New York
Lines: 45
In article <May.3.05.01.53.1993.9964@athos.rutgers.edu>, a.faris@trl.oz.au (Aziz
Faris) says:
>A.Faris
<<Posting deleted.  The moderator replies:
>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a
>Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical
>support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura".
>That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of
>Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little
>Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe
>that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also
>that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet
>another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us
>the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]
That is generally accuate, but contains one serious error.  We Catholics
do believe that God's revealed truth that is not explicitly recorded in
the Bible can be and is passed on through the Tradition of the Church.
It should be noted that the Tradition of the Church, otherwise known as
Sacred Tradition, is not the same as ordinary human traditions.
However, we do not believe that additional truth will be revealed to
the Church.  Public revelation, which is the basis of Catholic doctrine,
ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  Nothing new can
be added.  Theologians study this revelation and can draw out implications
that were not recognized previously, so that the Council of Nicea could
define statements about the theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation
that were not explicitly stated in the Bible and had been disputed
before the council, but there was no new revelation at Nicea or at
any subsequent council.
Cardinal Newman's _An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine_,
written while he was still an Anglican, is an excellent discussion of
of this point.  It was recently reprinted as a Doubleday Image Books
paperback with some related shorter works under the title _Conscience,
Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine_.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"What if there were no such thing as a hypothetical situation?"
From: Steve.Hayes@f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
Subject: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY
Lines: 22
04 May 93, D. Andrew Byler writes to All:
DAB> I think I need to again post the Athanasian Creed, whicc pretty well
DAB> delinieates orthodox Christian belief on the Trinity, and on the
DAB> Incarnation.
DAB> It's a pretty good statement of the beliefs eventually accpeted, and the
DAB> Creed is in use by the Catholic Church, as well as the Lutheran,
DAB> Anglican, and Orthodox churches (the last minus the filioque, which they
DAB> delete from the original form of the creed).
Do you have any evidence that it is used by the Orthodox Churches?
As far as I know it is purely Western, like the "Apostles' Creed". The
Orthodox Churches use the "Symbol of Faith", commonly called "The
Nicene Creed".
Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa
--- GoldED 2.40
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell
Lines: 110
In article <Apr.30.03.10.22.1993.10056@geneva.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov writes:
>In article <Apr.29.04.19.17.1993.9069@geneva.rutgers.edu>
>sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo) writes:
>
>>Note that in this, perhaps the oldest of the creeds, there is no mention
>>of the danger of hell for non-believers.  Likewise there is no mention
>>of the salvation of the believers' soul and its destiny in heaven after
>>death. There is only the resurrection of the body (and it does not say
>>when or how).
>
>You don't go far enough back.  If we believe in God and that He did create the
>heavens and the earth and He did create Adam and Eve and that they walked in
>the garden and history flowed from there, if we can agree with that, then would
>you agree that the further back you go the closer you get to people who had a
>stronger memory of who God was and what He said and commanded?
Between Adam and Eve and Golgotha the whole process of the fall of man
occurred.  This involved a gradual dimming of consciousness of the spiritual
world.  This is discernable in the world outlooks of different peoples through
history.  The Greek, for example, could say, "better a beggar in the land
of the living than a king in the land of the dead." (Iliad, I think).
The question of what happens to human beings who died before Christ is
an ever present one with Christians.  I am not ready to conscign Adam
or Abraham, or even Cain to eternal damnation.  Yet they all died in their
sins, in the Christian sense.  The same can be said of the whole of  Gentile
humanity, and also of the unrepentant malefactor on the cross next to
him.  I do not limit the power of Christ to save even him, through whom
Satan would mock his deed of salvation at the very moment of its fulfillment.
>In my studies
>of the ancient mystery reliegions, I have run across many poems or rituals or
>what nots with the interpretation that those who are of God will be with Him
>via the promised seed but those who rebel will suffer *eternal* life in dieing.
> It was a standard belief back then.
It is possible to experience eternity in a passing moment.  The
relationship of eternity to duration is not simply one of indefinitely
extended conditions of Greenwich mean time. It is possible to imagine
an eternity of agony or bliss - or even many of them - in the
spiritual world during the time between earthly death and a new birth.
It was also a standard belief among many peoples that even the righteous
were lost. This again is the result of the loss of the paradisal consciousness
that fled from us after the fall, with our ever increasing involvement with
the sense world.
It would be interesting to share in the results of your studies of ancient
people's ideas of life after death.
>                                    Today we think we know so much and that
>if we could go back in time we could sure teach those people a thing or two.
>But I think that as this age has grown older that it is we who opperate from a
>mist, not those of the older ages.
>
Mankind fell into mist and darkness, and at "the turning point of
time" a new light entered into the world.  The light still grows, and
we are developing the eyes with which to see by it.  Much new
revelation and growth in under- standing lies before us.  Our new
vision and understanding is still very feeble, but it contains
something new that will grow in time to embrace that which is old and
much more as well.
(At this point I should acknowledge openly my debt to the work of Rudolf
Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, for  many insights that have led me to my
views on this subject).
>I have said it before, I'd love to post on this but the vulcan hammer would
>fall.  The history to purgatory can be shown from the druids in England to the
>Greeks who pilaged it from the Egyptians who ultimately got it from the
>Babylonian mysteries. And yes, the eastern religions also show many
>similarities.  I mean, its black and white.  THe writings and the archeological
>finds plainly show its origin and the whys and wherefores of this doctine.
The way you refer to it as "doctrine" puts a modern intellectual coloring
on it. I think it was much less abstract and much more real and spiritually
concrete, a teaching that struck much closer to home than our doctrines or
teachings today can be received.
I am not so ready to attribute widespread notions in antiquity to
simple dispersion from an original source.  Even if they were passed
on, the question is, to what extent did they reflect real perception
and experience?  The similarity in the midst of great variety of
expression of the different people's ideas of the time immediately
after death testifies to the presence of an underlying reality.  In
any case, we study geometry not by reading old manuscripts of Euclid,
but by contemplating the principles themselves.
On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in Christianity
that originated most definitely in a pagan source.  The idea that the
human being consists essentially of soul only, and that the soul is
created at birth, was consciously adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas
dominated Christian thought for fifteen hundred years and still does
today. He was at once the father of modern thought and at the same
time lived during that darkened time when the perception of our
eternal spiritual being had grown dim.
>maybe at sometime in the future-
Indeed. I should also clarify that I do not deny that eternal
irrevocable damnation is a real possibility.  But the narrow range in
which we conceive of the decisive moment, i.e. after the end of a
single earthly life, is not in my mind sufficient to embrace the
reality, and I think that is why the early creeds were couched in
terms that did not try to spell it out.
>Rex
Gerry (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: sml@rpsyc.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Nottingham University
Lines: 60
In article <May.2.09.51.49.1993.11841@geneva.rutgers.edu>, you wrote:
> The genius of science is that it discovered that enormous progress
> in knowledge could be made by isolating the study of physical
> interactions for the more general areas of study and proceeding
> not by logical argument but by experiment. The scientific method
> is hypothesize, attempt to disprove the hypothesis, if you fail,
> publish, if others fail to disprove your hypothesis, accept it
> as a working theory and move on. This method is suitable only
> for the study of objects without will, objects which do not
> take an interest in the experiment.
Science does not progress via experimentation but by philosophising.  One
aim of experiments is to investigate the validity of the hyptheses
resulting from the models produced by this thinking process.
> The arrogance of science is the assumption many advocates of
> science make that the scientific method is the only method of
> serious study, the only one leading to knowledge rather than
> belief.
Science has one advantage of all other approaches to explaining the world.
It is objective.
> Its further arrogance, is the assumption which arises
> that, since science is the only valid method of thought, everything
> which exists must be the sort of thing which the scientific
> method can study, and that if the scientific method cannot
> study it it either does not exist or cannot in any way be known.
Anything which affects the physical world can be studied.  For example,
since we are part of the physical world, anything (including spirits) which
affects our behaviour can be observed.  Science does not make any claims
about the existence or non-existence of objects which do not affect the
physical world.
> Since these asumptions about the nature of the world cannot
> themselves be made the subject of experiment, it is bad science
> to believe them, as well as arrogance, illogic, and just plain
> sloppy thinking.
The purpose of science is to produce a model of the *physical* world.  The
model must be able to explain all past observations and predict the outcome
of future observations.  One of the aims of experiments is to carry out
well defined observations which are objective.
Ideally scientist will except the model which best describes the world, and
the model which realises on the minimal number of assumptions.  At the
moment models which do not rely on the assumption of some *spiritual* world
existing are equally powerful to ones which assume the assumption of a
*spiritual* world.  As the non-spiritual models has fewer assumptions it
should be the currently accepted models.
The scientific process never assumes that its present models are the
correct ones, whereas many religions claim to represent the truth.  The
arrogance of many theists is that they claim to represent the truth, this
cannot be said of scientists.
Steve Lang
SLANG->SLING->SLINK->SLICK->SLACK->SHACK->SHANK->THANK->THINK->THICK
From: marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Organization: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Lines: 74
>[I think you're talking about the "assumption of the Blessed Virgin
>Mary".  It says that "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin
>Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed
>body and soul into heavenly glory."  This was defined by a Papal
>statement in 1950, though it had certainly been believed by some
>before that.  Like the Immaculate Conception, this is primarily a
>Roman Catholic doctrine, and like it, it has no direct Biblical
>support.  Note that Catholics do not believe in "sola scriptura".
>That is, they do not believe that the Bible is the only source of
>Christian knowledge.  Thus the fact that a doctrine has little
>Biblical support is not necessarily significant to them.  They believe
>that truth can be passed on through traditions of the Church, and also
>that it can be revealed to the Church.  I'm not interested in yet
>another Catholic/Protestant argument, but if any Catholics can tell us
>the basis for these beliefs, I think it would be appropriate.  --clh]
In the Bible, there are a lot of instances where God speaks
to people, where a person just "came to know" some piece
of information, where a person walks off into the desert
for "40 days", etc. With all of God's power He certainly can
do whatever He wants when He wants it. The Bible "ends"
with the book of Revelations. But does God's reign end there ? No.
So who can say for sure that God's messages are either no longer
happening or still happening ?
I can now hear the clamor for proof. 8-)
With the cold response I've gotten from the past from this
group, it's very hard to get the point across. I'll only
go over the physical stuff so that skeptics can look
at documents stored somewhere. I've cited the uncorrupted
bodies of saints before. They're still there. 8-)
The apparitions at Fatima, Portugal culminated in a miracle
specifically granted to show God's existence. That was
the spinning/descending of the sun. It was seen in several
countries. That event is "approved" by the Pope. Currently,
images of Mary in Japan, Korea, Yugoslavia, Philippines, Africa
are showing tears (natural or blood). These are still under
investigation by the Church. But realize that investigations
take decades to finish. And if the message is Christ will come
in ten days, that's a bit too late, isn't it 8-).
Other events under investigation are inner locutions ("coming
to know"), stigmata (the person exhibits Christ's wounds. And
they don't heal. And doctor's don't know why).
Non-believers are welcome to pore through documents, I'm sure.
This stuff is not like Koresh. Or Oral Roberts (give me $5M
or God will call me home). It's free. Find out why they're
happening (as we ourselves are studying why). If anybody
can figure this out, tell us ! You can be of any religion.
If you have the resources, go to one of the countries I mentioned.
These are not "members only" events. God and Mary invites
everybody.
So in conclusion (finally) ...
We RC's believe in the modern day manifestations of God and Mary.
We are scared to death sometimes although we're told not to.
There are more proofs and events. And that is why "not everything
is in the Bible". Although in a lot of the apparitions, we are told
to read the Bible.
As far as the Protestant vs. Catholics issue is concerned...
In the end, God's churches will unite. I'm not sure how.
I have some idea. But the point is we shouldn't worry
about the "versus" part. Just do God's work. That's all
that matters. Unity will come.
BTW, I'm just a plain person. I'm not the Pope's spokesperson.
But I am RC.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ashley                        |DISCLAIMER: My opinions. Not Harris'
marka@gcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com      |
The Lost Los Angelino              |
From: news@cbnewsk.att.com
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 30
In article <May.3.05.01.26.1993.9898@athos.rutgers.edu> todd@nickel.laurentian.ca writes:
>{:>         Your roommate is correct.  The Immaculate Conception refers to
>{:> the conception of Mary in Her mother's womb.
>
>Okay, now that we've defined the Immaculate Conception Doctrine would it
>be possible for those more knowledgeable in the area to give the biblically
>or other support for it. I've attempted to come to terms with it previously
>(in an attempt to understand it for learning purposes) and haven't been able
>to grasp the reasoning.
>
It was a gift from God.  I think basically the reasoning was that the
tradition in the Church held that Mary was also without sin as was Jesus.
As the tenets of faith developed, particularly with Augustine, sin was
more and more equated with sex, and thus Mary was assumed to be a virgin
for life (since she never sinned, and since she was the spouse of God, etc.)
Since we also had this notion of original sin, ie. that man is born with
a predisposition to sin, and since Mary did not have this predisposition
because she did not ever sin, she didn't have original sin.  When science
discovered the process of conception, the next step was to assume that
Mary was conceived without original sin, the Immaculate Conception.
Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at Lourdes.  She
refered to herself as the Immaculate Conception.  Since a nine year old
would have no way of knowing about the doctrine, the apparition was deemed
to be true and it sealed the case for the doctrine.
RCs hold that all revelation comes from two equally important sources, that
being Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition.  In this case, mostly tradition.
Joe Moore
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Legal definition of religion
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln
Lines: 8
.
It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never
given a legal definition of religion.  This despite the many
cases involving religion that have come before the Court.
Can anyone verify or falsify this?
Has any state or other government tried to give a legal
definition of religion?
From: maridai@comm.mot.com (Marida Ignacio)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception?
Organization: trunking_fixed
Lines: 111
Note: I am cross-posting (actually, emailing) this to
bit.listserv.catholic while main posting goes to
soc.religion.christian.
[Quotations omitted.  This is in response to a question about
the Immaculate Conception.  I explained it, but left justification
up to our Catholic readers.  --clh]
There is no direct reference in the Holy Scripture except for the
mention of Mary's _blessedness_/full of grace in the "Annunciation" by
Angel Gabriel in Luke 1:26-28
And in the 6th month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto
a city of Galilee, named Nazareth.  To a virgin espoused to a
man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's
name was Mary.  And the angel came unto her and said, _"Hail,
thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed
art thou among women."_
Now, now, hold that line of thought - "the Lord is with Mary &
blessed art thou among women" - while you read on....
In the book, "First Lady of the World, A Popular History of
Devotion to Mary" by Peter Lappin:
The _Immaculate Conception_ matter is really far more complicated
than the _Assumption_.  This arose in 430 AD.  It is quite possible
that the feast of _Mary's Conception_ under the title "The Conception
of Saint Anne", originally commemorated the _physical miracle_ of
a woman _beyond the age_ of child bearing, conceiving a daughter,
just as Elizabeth had conceived John the Baptist.  A transfer in
emphasis from the physical miracle wrought in Anne to the miracle
of grace wrought by God in the soul of Mary was _logical_.  Mary
is the incorruptible timber "out of which was hewn the _tabernacle_
of Christ's sinless body"; she is "God's Eden, in whom there is
no tree of knowledge, and no serpent that harms."  Her perfect
beauty and spotlessness find their exemplar in Christ, her
purity in that of the Father.  At the time of the Council of Ephesus,
she was hailed as "innocent, without blemish, immaculate, inviolate,
spotless, holy in soul and body, who was blessed as a lily from
among thorns, unlearned in the evil ways of Eve".
...
At the end of the thirteenth century, an Irish Franciscan,
John Duns Scotus (1266-1308),...God maintained that it was a
greater thing for Him to preserve His (the Son) mother from all
sin _than to use His power to clease her from it later_.
...
Now let's go to the discussion of baptism and original sin.
From "Pocket Catholic Cathechism" by John A. Hardon:
Baptism -
Concupiscence Remains after Baptism.
Concupiscence or the tendency to sin remains in the baptized
but since it is left to provide trial, it has no power to
injure those who do not consent and who by the grace of
Christ Jesus, manfully resist (Canon 5).
Original gifts of Adam and Eve before their fall:
In the light of the foregoing, we see that our first
parents were originally gifted three times over:
-They had the natural gifts of human beings especially the
power to think and to choose freely.
-The had the _preternatural_ gifts of bodily immortality
and of integrity, or the internal power to control desires.
-They had the _supernatural_ gifts of sanctifying grace,
the virtues of faith, hope, and charity and the corresponding
title to enter heaven.
By their disobedience, they lost the _supernatural and
preternatural_ gifts entirely, and were weakened (without
losing) their natural capacity to reason and to choose
freely.
Baptism restores the _supernatural_ life lost by Adam's
sin.  It _does not_ restore the _preternatural_ gifts
but gifts as a title to a glorified restoration of our
bodies on the last day...
Going back to _Immaculate Conception_
(I am not sure if this interpretation is in any other
books but it may be another contribution to the 'puzzle'):
Given the miracle of St. Anne bearing a child at a
non-childbearing age, AND Christ was not yet born
AND _there was no baptism yet_ on Mary's birth but
STILL, the Angel Gabriel's greetings was:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed art thou amongst women".
Even Mary was confused about this greeting.
Mary could very well have possessed all of the
_treefold original gifts above_ given to our first
parents (Adam and Eve before their sin):
Hail Mary (Example of praise given by the Angel Gabriel)
Full of grace (natural, preternatural, supernatural)
The Lord is with you (At those times, God would
definitely want to be with those He
has made _blessed_)
Blessed art thou amongst women (that says it all)
At the conception, God made Mary _full of grace
and blessed_ as the 'tabernacle' for the coming body
of Christ and so,
Immaculate Conception of Mary is true and Mary still
has maintained her Immaculate Heart.
-Marida
(P.S.  I do hope that others will continue more
light and facts on this matter.  Thanks.)
From: David.Bernard@central.sun.com (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Reply-To: David.Bernard@central.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 9
In article 28782@athos.rutgers.edu, revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in
>the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important pronouncements
>of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the
>feminine into the Godhead.
What did Jung mean by a "Godhead?"
From: u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk (M.R. Mellodew)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell
Organization: Computer Science, Liverpool University
Lines: 31
In article <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu>, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) writes:
> Here's a question that some friends and I were debating last night.
>
> Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?
>
> My contention is that if you answer this question with "No. I would
> not then remain a Christian" then you really are not one now.
> Following Jesus Christ has everything to do with sharing in
> his work and spreading the news that the Kingdom of Heaven is already
> among us.  Fear-based religion is not a faith-relationship with the
> One Who made us all.
So does that mean that anyone who is a Christian to avoid Hell isn't really
a Christian at all? It sounds like it to me.
Mit Liebe in Christus,
Martyn R. Mellodew. (u0mrm@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martyn R. Mellodew,                |     E-mail: u0mrm@compsci.liverpool.ac.uk
Department of Applied Mathematics  |     ARPA/Internet: u0mrm@csc.liv.ac.uk
and Theoretical Physics,         |     JANET:         u0mrm@uk.ac.liv.csc
The University of Liverpool,       |
P.O. Box 147,                      |
Liverpool,                         |
England,                           |
L69 9BX.                           |     `Dubito ergo Deus est.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: If There Were No Hell
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 26
In <May.5.02.51.25.1993.28737@athos.rutgers.edu> shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com writes:
> Here's a question that some friends and I were debating last night.
> Q: If you knew beyond all doubt that hell did not exist and that
>    unbelievers simply remained dead, would you remain a Christian?
(Reasoning pertinent to believing Xians deleted for space)
It strikes me, for no apparent reason, that this is reversible.
I.e., if I had proof that there existed a hell, in which I would be
eternally punished for not believing in life, would that make me a Xian?
(pardon my language) _Bloody_hell_no_!
...Of course, being merely a reversal of your thinking, this
doesn't add anything _new_ to the debate, but...
> Several friends disagreed, arguing the fear of hell was necessary
> to motivate people to Christianity. To me that fatally undercuts the
> message that God is love.
A point very well taken, IMNSHO.
--
"Successful terrorism is called revolution, and is admired by history.
Unsuccessful terrorism is just lowly, cowardly terrorism."
- Phil Trodwell on alt.atheism
From: Bjorn.B.Larsen@delab.sintef.no (Bjorn B. Larsen)
Subject: Re: The Bible available in every language (was Re: SATANIC TOUNGES)
Reply-To: bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
Organization: delab
Lines: 31
In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu>
koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
> [ ... about tongues ... ]
> The concept of tongues as used at Pentecost seems an outdated concept
> now.  With the Bible available in nearly every language, and missionaries
> who are out there in ALL languages, why does the church need tongues?
I guess there are at least some people who are not able to support
this claim. There are still a lot of languages without the Bible, or a
part of the Bible. There are still many languages which we are not
able to write, simply because the written version of the language has
not yet been defined!
I guess this is one of the main goals for Wycliffe Bible Translators:
To define rules and a grammar for writing the 'rest' of the languages
of this world. I do not see that any of them will have any reason to
become unemployed during the foreseeable future. (Provided they get
their neccessary support!) And still they are one of the 3 largest
missionary organizations of the world.
Bjorn
--
______________________________________________________________________
s-mail:                 e-mail:
|   |   |      Bjorn B. Larsen         bjorn.b.larsen@delab.sintef.no
|__ |__ |      SINTEF DELAB
|  \|  \|      N-7034 TRONDHEIM        tel: +47-7-592682 / 592600
|__/|__/|_     NORWAY                  fax: +47-7-591039 / 594302
______________________________________________________________________
From: wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach
Organization: UH Dept of Math
Lines: 53
ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
writes:
II. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because
they are not quoted by the NT authors.
That is not quite accurate.  Otherwise we would have the book
of Enoch in the canon (as Dave noted).  One can say that the
apocrypha are not quoted by Christ.
Dave also writes:
III. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because
they teach doctrines contrary to the (uncontroverted)
parts of the canon.
then I answer:
These is a logically invalid *a priori*.
Besides, we are talking about OT texts-
which in many parts are superceded by the NT
(in the Xtian view). Would not this same
principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?
This principle cannot be consistently applied.
I have to reject your argument here.  The Spirit speaks with one
voice, and he does not contradict himself.
The ultimate test of canonicity is whether the words are inspired
by the Spirit, i.e., God-breathed.  It is a test which is more
guided by faith than by reason or logic.  The early church decided
that the Apocrypha did not meet this test--even though some books
such as The Wisdom of Ben Sirach have their uses.  For example,
the Lutheran hymn "Now Thank We All Our God" quotes a passage
from this book.
The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these
books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where
this sort of discussion ultimately ends.
David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran		"Now thank we all our God
With heart and hands and voices,
Who wondrous things hath done,
In whom His world rejoices;
Who from our mother's arms
Hath blessed us on our way
With countless gifts of love,
And still is our today."
--"Nun danket alle Gott", v. 1
--Martin Rinckart, 1636
(compare Ben Sirach 50: 22-24)
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 22
D. Andrew Kille writes:
>Just an observation- although the bodily assumption has no basis in
>the Bible, Carl Jung declared it to be one of the most important
>pronouncements
>of the church in recent years, in that it implied the inclusion of the
>feminine into the Godhead.
Which means he has absolutely no idea about what the Assumption is.
However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no
way God or even part of God or equal to God.  The Assumption of our
Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the
redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not
ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along
with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in
Heaven.  Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to
any of the previously mentioned personages.
Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology.
Andy Byler
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives
Lines: 84
In article <May.5.02.52.15.1993.28800@athos.rutgers.edu> JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>Gerry Palo writes:
>
> > ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
> > repeated lives on earth.
>
>The Apostle Paul (Romans 9:11) points out that God chose Jacob
>rather than Esau to be the ancestor of the Covenant People and
>ultimately of the Messiah, and that He made this choice while the
>two boys were still in their mother's womb, and therefore could not
>possibly have done anything good or evil to deserve their appointed
>destinies. If we admit the possibility that they had lived previous
>lives, and that (in accordance with the Asiatic idea of "karma")
>their present lives are a reward or punishment for past behaviour,
>this makes nonsense of Paul's whole point.
>
The existence of repeated earth lives and destiny (karma) does not
mean that everything that happens is predetermined by past deeds.
There is an oriental view of it that tends in that direction, but I
did not subscribe to that view.  God may choose one individual over
another as the fit instrument for his plans, but that does not
preclude that the development of that individual into what he is in
this earthly life is not the result of a longer course of development.
I do not, and Rudolf Steiner did not, subscribe to the oriental view
of an inexorable, mechanistic karma determining everything that
befalls one.  This is a kind of shriveled caricature of a much greater
law in the context of which the deed of Christ on Golgotha and the
ultimate salvation and freedom of the human being as a working of
Christ can be seen as the master theme and, indeed, a new impulse that
was completely free of karma.  Christ incarnated only once in the
flesh, and in that he had no debt of karma or sin.  The oriental
concepts of reincarnation and karma, which are even more trivialized
and mechanized in some new age teachings, incorrectly assume Jesus
Christ to have been the reincarnation of a master.  avatar, etc.
Their teaching of reincarnation and karma also has no concept the
continuing individuality from one life to the next (e.g. Buddhism).
More important, they have no concept of the resurrection of the body,
the ultimate continuity of the whole human being -- to ultimate
resurrection and judgement on the Last Day.
There is another biblical passage that also has a bearing. It is the
tenth chapter of John, devoted almost entirely to the man born blind.
Clearly here, Jesus tells the disciples that it was not his past karma
or that of his parents that led to his blindness, but rather that a
new impulse is to be revealed through him.  But note that he does not
refute the disciples' question.  In fact, they ask it as a matter of
course, the question being stated as if it were self evident that only
one of two possibilities existed - it was either the sins of the man
himself, obviously not in this incarnation, or the sins of his
parents.  The fact that they even asked about the first possibility at
all indicates an awareness of the idea on their part and the form of
Christ's answer indicates that he did not disagree with it.
There is also Matthew 11:14, where Jesus says straight out about John
the Baptist,
"If you care to accept it, he himself is Elias, who was to come."
This also emphasizes that the Gospels do not have a positive teaching
either way about reincarnation -- or, in fact, about what happens to
the human being at all between death and the Last Day.  Even Jesus did
not push this teaching on people who were not ready to embrace it ("If
you care to accept it").  So I took care to point out, not that the
Bible teaches reincarnation but that it does not deny it either, and
that much in both scripture and fundamental Christian doctrine becomes
understandable if reincarnation is understood in the right way.  I
pointedly used "repeated earth lives" to distinguish a little from the
oriental doctrines usually associated with the word "reincarnation".
The phrase is Rudolf Steiner's (wiederholte Erdenleben).  He noted too
that the idea needed to arise as a new insight in the west, completely
free from eastern tradition.  It did in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, the most important expression of it being Lessing's "The
Education of the Human Race".
To return to your original point, Paul's statement about Jacob and
Esau does not contradict the idea of repeated earth lives and karma.
And both of these principles receive their fulfillment in the
incarnation, death, and resurrection, ascension and return of Jesus
Christ, in my view.
Regards,
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: danc@procom.com (Daniel Cossack)
Subject: Re: The truth of the Bible
Organization: Procom Technology, Inc.
Lines: 44
sodium.asc.slb.com@asc.slb.com (Michael A. Montgomery) writes:
>I believe that the God has preserved the Bible perfectly in that it
>perfectly conveys all of the truth that He intended. This He has done
Oh yea?  Which version of the Bible is the perfectly preserved one?  And
why are there so many translations that are not perfectly preserved?  Is
God trying to confuse us?
>Minor changes in wording or even accidental omission of passages in some
>manuscripts does not change the truth being conveyed, nor would it lead a
>serious student into doctrinal error. (Note also that God provided many
But that is exactly what happend.  There are so many branches of
denominations of Christianity and deviations of doctrine portruding
from varying translations of biblical texts by "serious students" that
are much too numerous to begin to count.  If there is a Perfect Bible,
then there would be no possible misinterpretation and there would be
no need for anyone here to be debating it.  On the other hand, maybe
the Bible is perfect, but no one on this planet is perfect enough to
read it correctly, but then there would be no point in God giving us
something we cannot use correctly.
>In short, if you attack the credibility and reliability of the Bible, you
>are on weak ground. Furthermore, the only reason that I can see for wanting
>to do so is to remove the Bible as the final authority, and instead put
>that responsibility on men to sift the Bible to strain out the nuggets of
>truth that it contains (in other words, what they want to believe), and
>ignore the rest. The Bible IS Truth; it does not just contain truth.
IMHO, if you trust your salvation on the reliability of a single book,
you are on weak ground.  Remember, In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  This Word existed BEFORE
the Bible was written.  (Note: Word <==> God).  This Word that John is
trying to describe cannot be fully described in any written language,
all languages being IMPERFECT.  Realization comes only from contemplation
of the Word, and is outside the boundaries of language.  I use the Bible
as a guide, a stepping stone, but in no way is it my final authority.
God alone is the final authority.
--
===========================================================================
Daniel Cossack                |  danc@procom.com, 71333.2102@compuserve.com
Senior Software Engineer      |  2181 Dupont Drive, Irvine, CA 92715
Procom Technology, Inc.       |  +1 714 852 1000
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool
Lines: 49
>>>>> On 5 May 93 06:51:23 GMT, shellgate!llo@uu4.psi.com (Larry L. Overacker) said:
> In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu (Hardcore Alaskan) writes:
>>
>>I hope that anyone who remembers seeing Rev. Troy Perry's
>>"performance" at the 1987 March On Washington will see for themselves
>>just how inconceivable it is to mix Christianity with homosexuality.
> Whether or not Christianity and homosexuality are compatible is clearly
> debatable, since it IS being debated.  In my opnion, it is genuinely
> destuctive to the cause of Christianity to use this sort of ad hominem
> argument to oppose one's adversaries.  It only serves to further drive
> people away from Christianity because it projects and confirms the
> frequently held opinion that Christians are unable to think critically
> and intelligently.
I agree entirely.  Speaking as an atheist (heterosexual, for what it's
worth), this is one of the least attractive parts of some varieties of
Christianity.  Although I'm sure it's possible to argue theologically
that we shouldn't make analogies between discrimination on the basis
of sex and race and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
morally the case looks unanswerable (for those outside religion): the
three forms _are_ analogous; we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of
sex, race or sexual orientation.
I found the moderator's FAQs on the subject instructive, and recommend
everyone to read them.
There seem to be three different levels of acceptance:
1) Regard homosexual orientation as a sin (or evil, whatever)
2) Regard homosexual behaviour as a sin, but accept orientation
(though presumably orientation is unfortunate) and dislike people who
indulge
3) As 2, but "love the sinner"
4) Accept homosexuality altogether.
My experience is that 3 is the most common attitude (I imagine 1 and 2
are limited to a few fundamentalist sects).
I suppose I can go along with 3, except that I have this feeling that
a 14--15 year old living in a community with this attitude, on
discovering that they were more attracted to members of the same sex,
would not feel the love of the community, but would rather feel the
pressure not to exhibit their feelings.  I'm not saying that the
community (in particular the parents) would not love the child, but I
suspect the child would not feel loved.
--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 34
In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu> marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
>only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
>Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
>The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
>in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
>only hear himself speaking in his own language.
That would be neat, but nowhere in the Bible does it say
that one who has the gift of tounges can do this.  If the gift
of tounges were the ability to be understood by everyone,
no matter what languages they know, there would be no need for the
gift of interpretation, and I Corinthians 14 would not have had to
have been written.
>Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were
>glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd
>witness a real miracle.
That's a pretty harsh assumption to make about a several million
Christians world wide.  Sure, there are some who want glory
for themselves who speak in tounges, just as there are among those
who do not have this gift.  There were people like this in the Corinthian
church also.  that does not mean that there is no true gift or that all
who speak in tounges do it for their own glory in the sight of men.
I would venture to say that a large percentage of those who do speak in tounges
do so more often in private prayer than in public.
Link Hudson
[There were apparently those in the early church who claimed that
at Pentecost the miracle was that the crowd were all given the
ability to understand the Apostles speaking in Greek.  --clh]
From: wjhovi01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?
Organization: University of Louisville
Lines: 13
Undoubtedly people adopt atheism for many reasons, but I suspect that a biggie
is that the God they've believed in is (in J.B. Phillips's words) "too small".
If a person's understanding of God is not allowed to grow and develop, it will
eventually become inadequate.  The grey-haired gentleman on a throne who was a
comforting image in childhood becomes a joke.
A therapist friend of mine sometimes suggests to her clients that they "fire
God".  What she means by that is letting go of an inadequate understanding of
God to make room for a fuller one.  But she follows up by encouraging them to
"hire a new one".  My guess is that a lot of folks go through the firing
process, but are not adequately supported in the subsequent re-hire.
billh
From: PETCH@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck)
Subject: Daily Verse
Lines: 5
When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives,
the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for
all the miracles they had seen:
Luke 19:37
From: REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov
Subject: Re: Athiests and Hell
Organization: FNAL/AD/Net
Lines: 157
In article <May.6.00.35.31.1993.15453@geneva.rutgers.edu>
sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo) writes:>Between Adam and Eve and
Golgotha the whole process of the fall of man
>occurred.  This involved a gradual dimming of consciousness of the spiritual
>world.
This was precisely my point.  From a theological bent, those who lived
immediately after the flood, such as Noah, Ham, his son Cush, and his son
Nimrod had a much stronger appreciation of Divine wrath.  They also had a
stronger understanding of the True God.  In fact, this immediacy was a cause of
hardship for some, so much so that Atlas, who is seen with heavens resting on
his shoulders.  But this is not merely the physical heavens that he is lifting.
It is to put God and the strict spirituality of His law at a distance, and
thus he became the "Elevator of the heavens."  This "god" made men able to
"feel" as if heaven were afar off and "as if either the God of Heaven could not
see through the dark cloud, or did not regard with displeasure the breakers of
His laws."  It is interesting to see that it was that was titled "Emancipator"
or "Deliverer"  or Phoroneus. It was Nimrod who invaded the patriarchal system
and abridged the liberties of mankind, yet was worship for having given many
benefits.  He was a deliverer all right but not as we think of Christ as a
Deliverer.  One delivered from a conscious feeling of God's wrath, the other
actually performed a delivery from Gods wrath and it is up to us to accept it
as true.
>The question of what happens to human beings who died before Christ is
>an ever present one with Christians.  I am not ready to consign Adam
>or Abraham, or even Cain to eternal damnation.
I don't see the problem.  From the time of Adam, those who looked forward to
the coming "Anointed One" and put their faith in the fact that it was God who
was to do the provision, were accounted as righteous.  But up to the
Crucifixion, their sins were only covered, not taken away.  Therefore, the
dispensation of the Church views the accountability of sin the same, but see it
as a completed action.  Rom's makes it clear that it has always been salvation
via faith and nothing else.
>It is possible to experience eternity in a passing moment.  The
>relationship of eternity to duration is not simply one of indefinitely
>extended conditions of Greenwich mean time.
I understand what you're trying to convey, but I don't think I'd lay hold of it
because the scriptures do equate the eternality of the second death with the
eternality of, say the Church ruling with Christ.  Jn 17 tells us what eternal
life is exactly, as you are correct that it is much more than non-cessation of
consciousness.
>It was also a standard belief among many peoples that even the righteous
>were lost.
It depends upon your def of "lost."  The elect were lost only in time as
outside of time they had been chosen from the foundation of the world.
Existentially we were all born "lost", but the "righteous" were "in Christ" and
therefore never *assuredly* lost.
>
>It would be interesting to share in the results of your studies of ancient
>people's ideas of life after death.
Maybe this summer I could find time to put together a paper on it.  I simply
have to buy more books for myself, and these older books are very expensive.
Either that or countless trips to the oriental museum.
>
>Mankind fell into mist and darkness, and at "the turning point of
>time" a new light entered into the world.  The light still grows, and
>we are developing the eyes with which to see by it.  Much new
>revelation and growth in under- standing lies before us.  Our new
>vision and understanding is still very feeble, but it contains
>something new that will grow in time to embrace that which is old and
>much more as well.
Couldn't agree with you more.  Our understanding, of say eschatology, is
clearly clearer than that of, say Isaiah.  But that is not what I was referring
to.
>(At this point I should acknowledge openly my debt to the work of Rudolf
>Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, for  many insights that have led me to my
>views on this subject).
>The way you refer to it as "doctrine" puts a modern intellectual coloring
>on it. I think it was much less abstract and much more real and spiritually
>concrete, a teaching that struck much closer to home than our doctrines or
>teachings today can be received.
No, I understand it as you have said. This was my point.
>
>I am not so ready to attribute widespread notions in antiquity to
>simple dispersion from an original source.  Even if they were passed
>on, the question is, to what extent did they reflect real perception
>and experience?
Ah!  This is it.  This is the big question.  However, I would say, again I
think, that the best lie is one that has an appreciable amount of truth to it.
Look at Satan's twist of God's Word when he coerced Eve.  That is a very
interesting study.
>The similarity in the midst of great variety of
>expression of the different people's ideas of the time immediately
>after death testifies to the presence of an underlying reality.
Yes, that is my point.  But it is a two edged sword. For some do not want the
underlying reality to be revealed.  They were not known as "mystery" religions
for no reason.  There was the public side of them and there was the private
side, that was so protected that the initiates to an oath of death if they
revealed that private side.  That is why it is so hard to bring their teachings
to light. The "Mystery of Iniquity" that we find in the Bible, correlates to
this I think.  The primary object of the mysteries was to introduce privately,
little by little, under the seal of secrecy and sanction of oath, what it would
not have been safe to openly profess was the true religion.  Case in point
today might be the Masons.  (Just a note, that they too worshipped Osiris in
Egypt, who can be traced to Nimrod, the "husband son.")
>On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in Christianity
>that originated most definitely in a pagan source.  The idea that the
>human being consists essentially of soul only, and that the soul is
>created at birth, was consciously adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas
>dominated Christian thought for fifteen hundred years and still does
>today.
No, I disagree with you here Gerry.  I know what you're alluding to in that the
church, primarily the RCC, did endorse Aristotelian philosophy into their
worldview, but I would disagree with you that it originated in Greece.  If you
are a student of history, you will come to see that much of what Greece came to
expound to the world as their original, was just an adulteration of that which
they had taken from conquered countries.  The soul is clearly mentioned and
discussed at length in the Egyptian religions. As was the unity of God and also
the trinity of God.  See if you can find Wilkinson's "Egyptians."  He really
does a number on what the Greeks did to what they "pilfered" from the
Egyptians.
> He was at once the father of modern thought and at the same
>time lived during that darkened time when the perception of our
>eternal spiritual being had grown dim.
I'm not knocking Aristotle or Plato or any other Greek thinker.  Its just that
"there is nothing new under the sun."
>Indeed. I should also clarify that I do not deny that eternal
>irrevocable damnation is a real possibility.  But the narrow range in
>which we conceive of the decisive moment, i.e. after the end of a
>single earthly life, is not in my mind sufficient to embrace the
>reality, and I think that is why the early creeds were couched in
>terms that did not try to spell it out.
Each age has its own focus of theology.  The early church struggled with the
Trinitarian formulation.  The reformation dealt with authority.  Today,
eschatology has had much study.  The early creeds do not spell these things out
in detail because, 1) they weren't the topic of concern, 2) there was
insufficient wisdom accumulated, 3) they didn't have the exegetical tools that
we have today.  Also, each age seems to have an air of revelation to it.  One
age has a well tended and cultivated garden in which a particular doctrine is
given growth.  It would be natural for the end of times to have the garden
appropriate for the growth of eschatology, wouldn't it?
>
tangents, never ending tangents,
Rex
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Lines: 127
Hello src readers,
Again the misconception that Copts among other Oriental Orthodox
Churches believe in Monophysitism pops up again. We had a discussion
about it a while ago.
In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>
>The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism.  This was a
>heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.  It
>grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus
>are two different people who happened to be united in the same body
>temporarily.  Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia
>and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox.
Then OFM comments :
>
>
>[These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
>things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
>different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
>don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
>Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
>without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
>a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
>suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
>orthodoxy as many had thought.
With my appreciation to the moderator, I believe that further elaboration
is needed. This is an excerpt from an article featured in the first issue
of the Copt-Net Newsletter :
Under the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire of Constantinople (as opposed
to the western empire of Rome), the Patriarchs and Popes of Alexandria played
leading roles in  Christian theology.  They were  invited everywhere to speak
about the Christian faith. St. Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, was the head of the
Ecumenical Council which was held in Ephesus in the year 430 A.D. It was said
that the bishops of the Church of Alexandria did nothing but spend  all their
time in meetings. This leading role, however, did not fare well when politics
started to intermingle with  Church affairs.  It all started when the Emperor
Marcianus interfered with matters of faith in the Church. The response of St.
Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria who was later  exiled, to this interference
was clear: "You have nothing to do with the Church."  These political motives
became even more  apparent in Chalcedon  in 451, when the Coptic  Church  was
unfairly  accused of following  the  teachings of  Eutyches, who believed  in
monophysitism. This  doctrine maintains that the  Lord Jesus Christ  has only
one nature, the divine, not two natures, the human as well as the divine.
The Coptic  Church   has never  believed  in  monophysitism  the way   it was
portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon!  In  that Council, monophysitism meant
believing in one  nature.  Copts   believe that the Lord   is perfect in  His
divinity,  and He   is perfect in  His humanity,  but  His  divinity  and His
humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word",
which was reiterated by St. Cyril of Alexandria.  Copts, thus, believe in two
natures "human" and   "divine"  that are   united in   one "without mingling,
without confusion, and without alteration" (from the  declaration of faith at
the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).  These  two  natures "did not separate
for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from  the declaration of faith
at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).
The  Coptic Church was  misunderstood in the 5th century  at the  Council  of
Chalcedon.  Perhaps the Council  understood   the Church correctly, but  they
wanted to exile the  Church,   to  isolate it  and to  abolish the  Egyptian,
independent Pope. Despite  all of this,  the Coptic Church  has remained very
strict  and steadfast in its faith.   Whether it was   a  conspiracy from the
Western Churches to exile the Coptic Church  as a  punishment for its refusal
to be politically influenced, or whether Pope Dioscurus  didn't  quite go the
extra  mile to  make the  point that  Copts  are not  monophysite, the Coptic
Church has always felt a mandate  to reconcile "semantic" differences between
all  Christian  Churches.   This is   aptly  expressed by the  current  117th
successor  of  St. Mark, Pope Shenouda III:  "To the  Coptic Church, faith is
more  important  than  anything, and   others  must know that  semantics  and
terminology are of  little importance to us."  Throughout this  century,  the
Coptic Church has played  an important role  in the ecumenical  movement. The
Coptic Church is one of the founders of the World Council of Churches. It has
remained a member of that  council  since 1948 A.D.   The Coptic Church is  a
member  of the all  African Council of Churches  (AACC)  and the  Middle East
Council of  Churches (MECC).  The Church    plays an  important role   in the
Christian   movement   by   conducting dialogues   aiming  at  resolving  the
theological differences with the  Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, and
Evangelical Churches.
[...]
As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign
a common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of Monophysitism
was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not believe in
Monophysitism.
Peace,
Nabil
.-------------------------------------------------------------.
/  Nabil Ayoub                        ____/   __  /    ____/  /
/  Engine Research Center             /       /   /    /      /
/  Dept. of Mechanical Engineering    ___/    __  /    /      /
/  University of Wisconsin-Madison    /       /   |    /      /
/  Email:ayoub@erctitan.me.wisc.edu  _____/ __/   _|  _____/  /
'-------------------------------------------------------------'
[As I mentioned in a brief apology, the comment quoted above from me
is confused.  I appear to say that Nestorius was monophysite.  As
Andrew Byler correctly stated it, the Nestorians and monophysites were
actually opposite parties.  The point I was making, which Nabil
explains in some detail, is that some groups that have been considered
heretical probably aren't.
Chalcedon was a compromise between two groups, the Alexandrians and
Antiochenes.  It adopted language that was intended to be acceptable
to moderates in both camps, while ruling out the extremes.  I agree
that there were extremes that were heretical.  However in the course
of the complex politics of the time, it appears that some people got
rejected who didn't intend heresy, but simply used language that was
not understood or even was mispresented.  And some seem not to have
jointed in the compromise for reasons other than doctrine.  There are
groups descended from both of the supposedly heretical camps.  This
posting discussed the descendants of the Alexandrians.  There are also
a remaining Nestorians.  Like some of the current so-called
monophysites, there is reason to believe that the current so-called
Nestorians are not heretical either.  They sheltered Nestorius from
what they saw as unfair treatment, but claim they did not adopt his
heresies, and in fact seem to follow more moderate representatives of
the Antiochene tradition.
--clh]
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Lines: 31
ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:
[ Much deletion.  He is trying to explain the Immaculate Conception
and the Assumption of Mary.]
>	'Original sin' is the only reason (fallen) humanity
>	dies. Adam and Eve would not have died had they
>	not fallen.
If this is true than why in the Genesis story is God concerned that
Adam and Eve might also eat from the Tree of Life and live forever and
be like gods?  Eating of the tree of life would not take away the
effects of eating of the Tree of Knowledge.  Is there any reason to
assume that they had already eaten of the Tree of Life and so had
already attained to eternal life?  If so, what basis is there for
saying that this was taken away from them?  To me the wages of sin are
a spiritual death, not necessarily a physical death.  I
can attest to the truth of this interpretation from my own experience.
I suspect that many others could attest to this as well.
Peace
Will
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (Marty Helgesen)
Subject: Public/Private Revelation (formerly Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Organization: City University of New York
Lines: 35
Mark Ashley's account of private revelation does not, as some might
think, contradict my posting in which I said that the Catholic Church
believes that public revelation, on which Catholic doctrine is based,
ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle.  In that posting
I made sure I used the word "public".  Public revelation contains
God's truth intended for everyone to believe.  The revelation contained
in the Bible is a significant subset of public revelation.  Private
revelation is revelation that God gives to an individual.  He may speak
directly to the individual, He may send an angel, or He may send the
Virgin Mary or some lesser saint.  The only person who is required to
believe a private revelation is the person to whom it is revealed.
Devotional practices may be based on reported private revelations,
but doctrines can not.
When an alleged private revelation attracts sufficient attention, the
Church may investigate it.  If the investigation indicates a likelihood
that the alleged private revelation is in fact from God, it will be
approved.  That means that it can be preached in the Church.  However,
it is still true that no one is required to believe that it came from
God.  A Catholic is free to deny the authenticity of even the most
well attested and strongly approved private revelations, such as those
at Fatima and Lourdes.  (I suspect that few if any Catholics do reject
Fatima and Lourdes, but if any do their rejection of them does not
mean they are not orthodox Catholics in good standing.)
I do not have at hand a list of the criteria the Church uses in
evaluating an alleged private revelation--it's not something I need
every day--but I know that one of the primary requirements is that
nothing in the alleged private revelation can contradict anything
known through public revelation
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"What if there were no such thing as a hypothetical situation?"
From: bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Subject: Re: Question from an agnostic
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool
Lines: 16
>>>>> On 2 May 93 13:53:23 GMT, damon@math.okstate.edu (HASTINGS DAMON TOD) said:
> A Christian friend of mine once reasoned that if we were never created, then
> we could not exist.  Therefore we were created, and therefore there exists a
> Creator.
> Is this statement considered to be a valid proof by many Christians (and
> followers of other religions, I suppose)?  [rest deleted]
Some variant is quite popular.  This, and other arguments, are
discussed in John Leslie Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism: arguments
for and against the existence of God".  Although Mackie ultimately
sides with "against", his arguments are, I think, quite fair to both
sides.  Brief discussions can be found in the alt.atheism FAQs.
--
Bruce              CMSR, University of Liverpool
From: will@futon.webo.dg.com (Will Taber)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES
Lines: 38
pwhite@empros.com (Peter White) relates a story about a person who
gives a message in tongues which consists entirely of the words pu'
ka.  He was asked to refrain from doing that.
>Well, Brother Puka controlled himself for a while, but a few weeks
>later, the church had invited a missionary in to speak. At the time of
>the meeting where tongues and interpretation were appropriate, who
>should arise to speak but Brother Puka. And off he went as before,
>all the words were Puka. The pastor was about to apologize for this
>embarrassment when the missionary arose to speak saying that he
>was sorry that he did not have the interpretation but that he could
>give the translation. In a tribe where he had worked, they only had
>one word in the language, puka. Meaning was derived from the inflection
>and other voice qualities. Brother Puka had given a perfectly inflected
>and reasonable message.
Nice story but it sets off my urban legend (or is it charismatic
legend?) alarms.  Can the linguists on the net identify the language
from the description?  Or can they even attest that such a language
exists.  It seems to be odd enough (at least by the standards of
European languages) that if it exists, it should be reasonably well
known to linguists as an extreme case of something or other.
Or have I just overreacted to your basic shaggy dog story?
Will
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| William Taber         | Will_Taber@dg.com 	  | Any opinions expressed |
| Data General Corp.    | will@futon.webo.dg.com  | are mine alone and may |
| Westboro, Mass. 01580 |                         | change without notice. |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| When all your dreams are laid to rest, you can get what's second best,   |
|	But it's hard to get enough.		David Wilcox               |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 28
>As the moderator noted, I think you mean the Assumption.  Catholics
>believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary went to Heaven body *and* soul at
>the end of her life.  This is unusual because the normal course of
>events is for your body to decay in the grave and stay that way until
>the Resurrection of the Dead.
Well, it wasn't that way for Enoch and Elijah, both of whom were
translated directly into heaven.  It's beyond my grasp why some object
that Mary, who was far greater than either Enoch or Elijah, should not
benefit from the same privelege they recieved.  She was after all,
Mother of God, full of grace, and immaculate.
>Historically, belief in the Assumption can be found in the writings of
>St. Gregory of Tours (late 6th century).
And in St. Germain of Constantinople and St. John of Damascus, and in
St. Andrew of Crete, among others.
And it should be noted that the Monophysite Chruches of Egypt and Syria
also hold to this belief as part of divine revelation, even though they
broke away from the unity of the Chruch in 451 AD by rejecting the
Council of Chalcedon.  It might be argued by some Protestants that the
Catholics and Orthodox made this belief up, but the Monophysites, put a
big hole in that notion, as they also hold the belief, and they split
from the Chruch before the belief was first annunciated in writing (as
far as is known, much has been lost from the time of the Fathers).
Andy Byler
From: rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu (Timothy Richardson)
Subject: Re: Seeking Christian opinion, all sorts.
Organization: Pygmalion Productions
Lines: 22
Subject: Re: Seeking Christian opinion, all sorts.
From: Rob Steele, rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu
Date: 5 May 93 06:52:54 GMT
>Do you mean that your fellow Christians tend to find you wacky?  Maybe
>they're right.  You might be interested in Franky Schaeffer's books
>about what philistines American Christians are: _Addicted to
>Mediocrity_ and more recently _Sham Pearls for Real Swine_.
One day a few years ago Franky Schaeffer walked into a Greek Orthodox
Church.  He is now an Orthodox Christian.  So is his mother and if his
father, Fransis Schaeffer, had not passed away he too would have come
into the church.
Franky, like many Americans who have recently found the Orthodox church,
described the experience as finally coming home after a long jouney
through a desert.  You should also read the book "Becoming Orthodox" by
Peter Gillquist.  It describes the long journey of some 2000 weary
Evangelical Protestants to the Orthodox church.   Come taste and see how
good the Lord is.
Timothy Richardson
rich0043@student.tc.umn.edu
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: The Nicene Creed (was Re: MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY)
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 152
Michael Bushnell writes;
>The so-called Creed of Athanasius, however, has always been a Western
>creed, and has always had the filioque.  The Orthodox have said that
>they accept all that it says, with the exception of the filioque, but
>it is not "in use."
Which is exactly what I pointed out.  (Though I was wrong about your use
of the Creed, the 1913 Catholic Encylcopedia in which I read about it
said the Orthodox do use the Creed minus the filioque.  Apparently that
has changed.)  The Athanasian Creed has always had the Filioque, the
Nicene - Constantinopolitan did not.
Of course the Orthodox did not delete the Filioque from the Nicene
Creed (it wasn't there to begin with), but they certainly did from the
Athanasian Creed, which did have it from the beginning.
I might point out that the whole problem started over the difference in
ways of explaining the generation of the Blessed Trinity, the East
emphasizing the idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father
through the Son, and the West using proceeding from the Father and the
Son.  In fact, some, such as Tertullian, used both formulations (see
below)
"Following, therefore, the form of these examples, I profess that I do
call God and His Word, - the Father and and His Son, - two.  For the
root and the stem are two things, but conjoined; the fountain and the
river are two kinds, but indivisible; the sun and the ray are two forms,
but coherent ones.  Anything which proceeds from another must
necessarily be a second to that from which it proceeds; but it is not on
that account separated from it.  Where there is second, however, there
are two; and where ther is third, there are three.  The Spirit, then, is
third from God and the Son, just as the third from the root is the fruit
of the stem, and third from the fountain is the stream from the river,
and thrid from the sun is the apex of the ray."
-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 8, 5 (about 213 AD)
and
"I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father
through the Son"
-Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 4, 1 (about 213 AD)
And as St. Thomas showed in his Summa Theologica Part 1, Question 36,
Articles 2 and 3, there is no contradiction between the two methods of
generation, and in fact, the two methods of reckoning the procession
emphasize what St. Augustine, among others taught, that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son, but He proceeds from the Father in
a more preeminent way.
"For whatever the Son has, He has from the Father, certainly He has it
from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him ... For the
Father alone is not from another, for which reason He alone is called
unbegotten, not, indeed, in the Scriptures, but in the practice of
theologians, and of those who employ such terms as they are able in a
matter so great.  The Son, however, is born of the Father; and the Holy
Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, and since the Father gives
to the Son all that He has without any interval of time, the Holy Spirit
proceeds jointly from both Father and Son.  He would be called Son of
the Father and of the Son if, which is abhorent to everyone of sound
mind, they had both begotten Him.  The Spirit was not begotten by each,
however, but proceeds from each and both."
-St. Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, 15, 26, 47 (400 to 416 AD)
So, in a sense, all of the formulations are correct (to the West at
least), because the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, but
in proceeding from the Son, the orgin of that procession is the
procession from the Father, so the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the
Father through the Son, but as all that the Son has is from the Father,
the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father, without any
mention of the Son being necessary.
In any case, I am happy to know that I follow in the beliefs of Pope
St. Leo I, St. Fulgence of Ruspe, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Pope St.
Damsus I, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, St. Ambrose
of Milan, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Tertullian, and others among the
Fathers, who all have very quotable quotes supporting the Catholic
position, which I enunciated above.
As for the issue of the adoption of another Creed being forbidden, I
will point out that the Holy Fathers of Ephesus and Chalcedon both spoke
of the Creed of Nicea in their statement forbidding anyone "to produce,
write, or compose a confession of faith other than the one defined by
the Fathers of Nicea."  That Creed is a different Creed than that of
Constantinople, which is commonly called the Nicene Creed.  Not of
course in that they were condemning the adoption of the
Constantinopolitan Creed, which is but an enlargement upon the Creed of
Nicea, but that they were condemning the impious opinions of Nestorious,
who had adopted a radically different Creed from the one used by the
Church, which among other things denied the procession of the Holy
Spirit form the Son.  Thus, the additions of the Constantinopolitan
Creed were not thought to be in violation of this, and as the Council
Chalcedon also affirmed the doctrine of the procession of the Holy
Spirit from the Son, which Nestorius denied, they could hardly have been
against explaining in a fuller way the Creed, for they themselves
approved of previous additions to it.  And if the further explanations
of the Creed made in Constantinople were not denigrating of the work
done by the Holy Fathers of Nicea or in any way heretical, it follows
that the Council of Toledo was fully able to add what was not disputed
by the faithful to the Creed so as to combat the impieties of the Arians
in Spain, because the filioque was not in dispute in the Church until
many years later under Photius and others.  And that the filioque was
not disputed, I provide more quotes below.
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to
God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly
clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding
from it."
-St. Cyril of Alexandria, The Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial
Trinity, Thesis 34, (423-425 AD)
"The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or of the Son only, but he
is the Spirit of the Father and the Son.  For it is written: `If anyone
loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him'; and again it
is written: `If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he
is none of His.'  When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the
Holy Spirit is understood, of whom the Son himself says in the Gospel,
that the Holy Spirit `proceeds from the Father,' and that `He shall
receive of mine and shall announce it to you.'"
-Pope St. Damasus I, The Decree of Damasus, 1 (382 AD)
"The only-begotten Holy Spirit has neither the name of the Son nor the
appelation of Father, but is called Holy Spirit, and is not foreign to
the Father.  For the Only-begotten Himself calls Him: `the Spirit of the
Father,' and says of Him the `He proceeds from the Father,' and `will
receive of mine,' so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the
Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit
divine, ... of God, and He is God.  For he is Spirit of God, Spirit of
the Father, and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like
soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son of the Father
and of the Son, a third by appelation....
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit
breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor
is the Spirit created."
-St. Epiphanius of Salamis (which is on Cyprus), The Man Well-Anchored,
8 and 75 (374 AD)
"Concerning the Holy Spirit, I ought not to remain silent, nor yet is
it necessary to speak.  Still, on account of those who do not know Him,
it is not possible for me to be silent.  However it is necessary to
speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the
Son, His Sources."
-St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trintiy, 2, 29 (356 to 359 AD)
Thus, as I have pointed out before, Gaul, Spain, Italy, Africa, Egypt,
Palastine, and the lands of the Greeks, all of Christnedom at that time,
all have Fathers who can be cited to show that they confess the doctrine
expressed by the filioque.  I suggest to those of the Orthodox Church
that they come up with some of the Fathers, besides St. John of Damascus
who all will admit denied the filioque, to support their views.  It is
not enough to bring up the "proceeds from the Father" line of the Creed
or the Gospel of John, for that says what we believe also.  But it does
not say the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, only that He does
proceed from the Father.
Andy Byler
From: b8!anthony@panzer.b17b.ingr.com (new user)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin
Organization: Intergraph
Lines: 24
In article <May.2.09.48.32.1993.11721@geneva.rutgers.edu>, db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
|> Beyt (BCG@thor.cf.ac.uk) writes:
|>
|>
|> 4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
|> babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
|> from God and put in hell,
Oh, that must explain Matthew 18:
1) In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in
the kingdom of heaven?"
2) And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them,
3) and said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little
children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.
14) Even so it is not the will of your father who is in heaven, that one of these
little ones should perish.
Nice thing about the Bible, you don't have to invent a bunch of convoluted
rationalizations to understand it, unlike your arguments for original sin. Face
it, original sin was thought up long after the Bible had been written and has no
basis from the scriptures.
Anthony
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 17
In article <Apr.24.01.09.19.1993.4263@geneva.rutgers.edu> revdak@netcom.com (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>James Sledd (jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
>: Are the Serbs doing the work of God?  Hmm...
>:
>
>Are you suggesting that God supports genocide?
>Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf?
>
>Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of
>my worship or faith.
You might want to re-think your attitude about the Holocaust after
reading Deuteronomy chapter 28.
Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will?
*****************************************************************************
plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology
From: kene@acs.bu.edu (Kenneth Engel)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Lines: 32
Let me tell you my story.
I grew up catholic. Up until I was 14, it wasn't an issue for me. Then I met
a born-again christian, a very sweet person, not proseletyzing(sp?), not
imposing. I tried to get into being as christian as I could, as I felt I
'should'.
But the more I tried, the more depressed I got. I felt guilty for some of my
own personal, honest feelings. I tried so hard to reconcile this conflict.
until I was 23.
Then I taught myself to think rationally. I read a lot of books, pro and con
religion in general and, specifically, catholicism. I came to a crisis point,
then it finally clicked and now I am a staunch atheist.
This is a very loose explanation, but it's the gist of it.
Now, (at 26) I feel better about myself, better self-esteem, a generally
stronger person. I have well-defined goals. I have a strong and stable sense
of morals and values. I am not a neo-nazi or a corrupt politicain, etc. I
believe in human rights and 'live and let live' among other things. I am very
anti-violent and anti-hatred. (This is to debunk the myth that atheists are
depraved.)
Religion has no place in my system.
Tough.
Bertrand Russell said that we cannot *know* god doesn't exist, we can't prove
it. So, in that sense, we can only truly be agnostic. But, for all practical
purposes there is no god.
Thanqs
ken engel
kene@acs.bu.edu
From: ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com
Subject: Christians in the Martial Arts
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 39
Greetings and Salutations!
I would like to get in touch with people who
(a) consider themselves Christians (you define it), and
(b) are in the Martial Arts
Some topics for discussion:
- your particular martial art
- your view of the relationship between
Christianity and your art
- your view of the relationship between
*your* Christianity and your art
- why should a Christian participate in MA
- why shouldn't a Christian participate in MA
- Biblical views of MA; pro or con.
For example, I heard from one fellow:
"...I tried the Karate for Christ thing and it wasn't for me..."
- why or why not?
As an aside, I am involved (in *NO* official way) with an
organization called the Christian Black Belt Association and
I would also like to distribute info regarding upcoming events
to *those who are interested*.  No, you won't be put on any
"mailing list" nor will your name be "sold".
However, if you ARE intested in an email list, let me know.
I am interested in email replies ONLY as this is cross-posted
to groups I don't normally read.  If anyone wants a summary
or, of course, on-going discussion, then let me know.
Shalom,
Robert Switzer
ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com
--
Bell Labs, 200 Laurel Ave., 2b-334, Middletown, NJ 07748-4801 USA (908)957-2923
...-.-    Amateur Radio Operator           KA2CZU   Robert Switzer
From: sun075!Gerry.Palo@uunet.uu.net (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Good Jewish Arguments
Lines: 90
kwfinken@pooh.harpo.uccs.edu (Kevin W. Finkenbinder)  wrote:
>scott@born.phys.virginia.edu wrote:
>:
>:[intro deleted...]
>:
>:       1) Jesus wasn't really descended from David as the Messiah was supposed
>: to have been. Joseph was, but Christians say that Joseph wasn't related to
>: Jesus truthfully.
>
>        If you look at the geneology of Christ in Luke 3 and the one in
>Matthew 1 you will notice that they trace different lines back to David.
>I have been told that one traces Mary's line back to David and the other
>traces Joseph's line back to David.  (Both of them go beyond David in
>history)  Acording to some of my Jewish friends, "Jewishness" is passed
>to a child by the mother and the legal rights of "Jewishness" are passed
>through the father.  If it is true that one of these geneologies is
>Mary's, then Christ's bloodline is from David through His mother.  This
>also means that Christ had all of the legal rights of a decendant of
>David as according to at least Roman law (and possibly Mosaic law as
>well, but I am not sure) Joseph was Christ's LEGAL FATHER.
The argument for Luke's genealogy being that of Mary is very weak. According
to Luke 3:23
And when he began his ministry, Jesus himself was about
thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph,
the son of Eli,
Aside from the fact that Mary is not mentioned, there are two possible
interpretations: either Joseph was her father or he was her brother.
Clearly this is not acceptable.  A third would be that Joseph, the son
of Eli, was her Father and just happened to have the name as the man
to whom she was betrothed. But that would seem to be grasping at
straws. The most straightforward interpretation is that Luke had no
intention of tracing Mary's genealogy (in which case he would have
named her) but that he traces her husband's, from David's son Nathan.
The Matthew descendant list most definitely traces down from David's
son, Solomon, to Joseph.  Matthew 1:16 reads:
And to Jacob was born Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom was born
Jesus, who is called Christ.
There are two apparent problems.  The first is, how to reconcile the
two paternal genealogies - which diverge with the sons of David,
Solomon and Nathan.  The second is, why is any genealogy of Joseph
relavent at all, if Joseph had nothing to do with it.  If Joseph was
not Jesus's physical father, then the original poster is quite
correct, that claims for Jesus's messianic heritage are not based on
truth but only on appearances, whatever Jesus's divine nature was.
The second problem is easy, in my mind.  We assume that Joseph was not
involved in the conception of Jesus in any way.  However, a Holy
Spirit capable of working a physical conception in Mary is also
capable of employing the physical agency of Joseph's seed in this
work.  In our materialistic times we interpret viginity and its loss
solely in terms of a physical act, whereas it is really a matter of
purity on a much higher level as well.  The important thing is that
neither Mary nor Joseph was conscious of any union between them (they
had not "known"each other).  Thus the first gospel's dedication of
half its opening chapter to the genealogy of Joseph is quite relevant
to Jesus, the Virgin birth not- withstanding.
To the first question there is an answer that creates, to begin with, more
problems than it resolves.  It is that the two evangelists are relating
the births of two entirely different children of two entirely different
sets of parents.  Except for the names of the parents and the child, and
the birthplace in Bethlehem there is no point in common between the two
stories.  Matthew and Luke converge in their accounts only thirty years
later with the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan.  Rudolf Steiner offered his
explanation of how these accounts begin with two children and then converge
with their accounts of the one Jesus of Nazareth.  He did not derive his
resolution from biblical study or speculation, or from other external
documents, and the discussion of "how this could be" might bring us beyond
the limits of appropriateness for this newsgroup.  In any case, the
details are described in Steiner's "The Spiritual Guidance of the Human
Being and of Humanity", "The Gospel of St. Luke", and "The Gospel of St.
Matthew".
Whether or not Rudolf Steiner's methods and explanation are accepted
as valid, at least this interpretation resolves the apparent
contradictions of the two genealogies while leaving the text intact.
As for the passing of one's Jewishness through the mother, this was
never an issue with Jesus. No one ever questioned his or Mary's
Jewishness.  The issue of the genealogies has to do with his paternal
line of descent from David, the king.
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
From: kene@acs.bu.edu (Kenneth Engel)
Subject: Re: Atheists and Hell
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Lines: 18
|> Imagine the worst depth of despair you've
|> ever encountered, or the worst physical pain you've ever experienced.
|> Some people suffer such emotional, physical, and mental anguish
|> in their lives that their deaths seem to be merciful. But at least
|> the pain does end in death. What if you lived a hundred such lives,
|> at the conclusion of one you were instantly reborn into another?
|> What if you lived a million, a billion years in this state?
|> What if this kept going forever?
Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard. He lived
ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is the above paragraph, then
JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?
I'd be surprised to see the moderator let this one through, but I seriously
want a reasonable explanation for this.
ken
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 35
In article <May.6.00.35.17.1993.15441@geneva.rutgers.edu> loisc@microsoft.com (Lois Christiansen) writes:
>In article <Apr.30.03.11.27.1993.10101@geneva.rutgers.edu> FSSPR@acad3.alaska.edu wrote:
>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
>that are spirit-filled believers,
Gifts of the Spirit should not be seen as an endorsement of ones behavior.
A lot of people have suffered because of similar beliefs.  Jesus said
that people would come to Him saying "Lord, Lord," and proclaiming
the miraculous works they had done in His name.  Jesus would tell
them that they were workers of iniquity that do not know Him, and to
depart from Him.
That is not to say that this will happen to everyone who commits a homosexual
sin.  If the Holy Spirit were only given to the morally perfect, He would
not be given to me, or any of us.  God can forgive any sin, if we repent.
But people should be careful not to think, "God has given me a gift of
the Spirit, it must be okay to be gay."  That is dangerous (see also hebrews
6 about those who have partaken of the Holy Spirit and of the powers of
the world to come.)
>The Lord IS working in our community (the homosexual community, that is).  He's
>not asking us to change our sexual nature,
Jesus doesn't ask us to change our own nature.  We cannot lift ourselves
out of our own sin- but we must submit to His hand as He changes our
nature.  Practicing homosexual acts and homosexual lusts violates the
morality that God has set forth.
If you don't believe that, and think those of us who do are just ignorant,
then at least consider us weak in the faith and be celebate for our sake's.
Is practicing homosexuality worth the cost of a soul, whether it be the
homosexual's or the one considered "ignorant?"
Link Hudson.
From: saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steve A. Ward)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples
Organization: Boeing Computer Services
Lines: 25
mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
>One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the
>temple rituals secret.
On of the attributes of being sacred in this case is that they
should not be spoken of in a "common manner" or "trampled under
feet" such as the Lords name is today.  The ceremonies are
performed in the temple because the temple has been set aside
as being as sacred/holy/uncommon place.  We believe that the
ceremonies can only be interpreted correctly when they
are viewed with the right spirit- which in this case is in the
temple.  So from our point of view, when they are brought
out into the public, they are being trampled under feet,
because of misinterpretations and mocking, and it is therefore
offensive to us.
Please do not assume that because of my use of the words
'we' and 'our' that I'm an official spokesman for the LDS
church.  I am merely stating what I believe is the general
feeling among us.  Others feel free to disagree.
--
Steve Ward
saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: What WAS the immaculate conception
Organization: none
Lines: 21
maxwell c muir writes:
Just a quick question. If Mary was Immaculately concieved, so she
could be a pure vessel, does this mean that she was without sin
and, therefore, the perfect (meaning sinless) female human being?
Is this why she is held so highly in the Catholic Church despite
it's basically patriarchical structure?
She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life.  This was
possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.
She is regarded so highly because of her special relationship to God,
and everything that flows from that relationship.
The Catholic Church sees her as the new Eve.  (The Fathers in the
early Church use this particular figure a lot.)
Eve is the mother of all the living in a genetic sense.  Mary is the
mother of all the living in the order of grace.  As sin came through
Eve, so Grace -- Jesus Christ -- came through Mary.
From: jblanken@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (James R. Blankenship)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e
Organization: School of Arts and Sciences, UPENN
Lines: 13
The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to
try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge
that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping
"the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty
reallly doesn't help much.
Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of
crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who
have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for
the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?
Jim
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?
Lines: 89
note: i am not the original poster, i am just answering because i
think this is important.
In article <May.5.02.50.17.1993.28624@athos.rutgers.edu> db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>revdak@netcom.com writes:
[evil result of human sinfulness, rather than the will of God]
>In a certain sense yes.  But in the sense that God allows evil to
>happen, when obviously (He being God) He could have not had it happen,
>does in a certain sense mean that He wills it to happen.  God does not
>condone evil, but instead uses it for good, as you say, however, what
>God desires, must be seperated from what actually happens.  For example,
>"God desires that all should be saved" (1 Timothy 2.4), however, it is
>quite obvious that nowhere near all are saved.  Was God's will thwarted?
> No, because His will cannot be escaped, for even when it appears that
>it is your will doing something, it is actually the will of God which by
>His grace has disposed us to do as He wishes.  So we come to the age old
>question, why does evil occur?  To which we must answer that God allows
>evil to occur, though He does not condone it, so that His ultimate plan
>may be brought to sucess.  Personally, I suggest reading the parts of
>the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas that deal with the knowledge of God
>to get a good grasp on this whole idea.
whoo.  i'm going to have to be very careful with my language here.  i
think God is voluntarily giving up his omniscience in this world so
that we can decide on our own where we go -- free will.  in this sense
God allows evil to occur, and in this sense can be "held responsible"
as my chaplain says.  however, his will is, of course, that all be
saved.  he's not going to save us "by himself" -- we have to take a
step in his direction before he will save us.  read that last sentence
carefully -- i'm not saying we save ourselves.  i'm saying we have to
ACCEPT our salvation.  i do not believe in predestination -- it would
appear from what you say further down that you do.
[stuff deleted]
>I am not saying that anyone deserves punishment more than someone else.
>I am simply pointing out that God could be using the Serbians and
>Croatians as instruments of His punishment, as he did with the
>Israelites against the Cannanites.
ok -- i have trouble with that, but i guess that's one of those things
that can't be resolved by argument.  i accept your interpretation.
[more deleted]
>>The issue is not questioning why God has made the world in the way God
>>so chooses, it is whether _I_ am discerning the world in the way God
>>intends it.  The debate is about whether we should not oppose the Serbians
>>in their "ethnic cleansing" because they might be "doing the will of God."
>
>And I said Christians should not be participants in such wars and
>slaughters. That does not mitigate the fact that God allows this evil to
>continue, for He is patient and willing that none should perish, so He
>waits for those whom He has foreknown to turn to Him from their evil.
^^^^^^^^^
this is what indicates to me that you may believe in predestination.
am i correct?  i do not believe in predestination -- i believe we all
choose whether or not we will accept God's gift of salvation to us.
again, fundamental difference which can't really be resolved.
[yet more deleted]
>I am not saying that the evil befalling the Bosnians is justified by
>their guilt.  I am saying that it is possible that God is punishing them
>in this way. In no way is this evil justified, bu that does not mean
>that God cannot use evil to further His purposes.  I am not accusing the
>Bosnians, though they may very well be guilty of great sins, but that is
>up to God to judge.  We are all defendants when the time comes for our
>judgement by God.  Let us all sincerely hope and pray that we will have
>Jesus Christ as our advocate at that judgement.
yes, it is up to God to judge.  but he will only mete out that
punishment at the last judgement.  as for now, evil can be done by
human beings that is NOT God's will -- and the best we can do is see
taht some good comes out of it somehow.  the thing that most worries
me about the "it is the will of God" argument is that this will
convince people that we should not STOP the rape and killing when i
think that it is most christ-like to do just that.  if jesus stopped
the stoning of an adulterous woman (perhaps this is not a good
parallel, but i'm going to go with it anyway), why should we not stop
the murder and violation of people who may (or may not) be more
innocent?
>Andy Byler
vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************
From: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM (Gary Chin)
Subject: Re: When are two people married in God's e
Reply-To: gchin@ssf.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 32
In article 28727@athos.rutgers.edu, 62johnson@cua.edu (Yusef Al-Tariq) writes:
>Who's law is it that a wedding has to happen in a church?  the only reqirement
>is that you and the bride agreee to marry each other.  How also can you say "
>"christian wedding" when the proces of marriage is nt really discussed in the
>bible.  why mus t a person get a civil marriage also?  The only standards i
>look to are those imposed upon me by god... not of society.
If you want to live with someone, you can.
If you don't want to have a civil marriage, don't.
If you don't want to have a wedding in a church, don't.
If you want to call that a marriage, go right ahead.
I hope that the young people that are around you, don't follow your example.
|-------------------|
| Gary Chin         |
| Staff Engineer    |
| Sun Microsystems  |
| Mt. View, CA      |
| gchin@Eng.Sun.Com |
|-------------------|
[If the original message claims that marriage is not discussed in the
Bible, I have to disagree.  Various aspects of marriage are discussed
in some of Paul's letters, Ephesians 5 sees marriage as a symbol of
God's relationship with the church.  If it means specifically that the
marriage ceremony isn't described, then that seems to be true.  But I
think what most people mean by Christian marriage is not so much that
it takes place in a church as that the parties undertake the various
commitments to each other that are associated with marriage in the
Bible.  --clh]
From: jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Mormon temples
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 113
mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
| One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the
| temple rituals secret.
The "so sacred it's secret" explanation is a bit misleading.  While
there is a profound reverence for the temple endowment, there is no
injunction against discussing the ceremony itself in public.  But
since public discussion is often irreverent, most Mormons would rather
keep silent than have a cherished practice maligned.
But there are certain elements of the ceremony which participants
explicitly covenant not to reveal except in conjunction with the
ceremony itself.
| Granted, the Gnostic "Christians"
| had their secret rituals, but these seem to have been taken entirely
| from pagan pre-Christian mystery religions.
There are other interpretations to Christian history in this matter.
One must recall that most of what we know about the Gnostics was
written by their enemies.  Eusebius claims that Jesus imparted secret
information to Peter, James, and John after His resurrection, and that
those apostles transmitted that information to the rest of the Twelve
(Eusebius, _Historia Ecclesiastica_ II 1:3-4).
Irenaeus claims this information was passed on to the priests and
bishops (_Against Heresies_ IV 33:8), but Eusebius disagrees.  He
claims the secret ceremonies of the Christian church perished with the
apostles.  Interestingly enough, Eusebius refers to the groups which
we today call Gnostics as promulgators of a false gnosis (Eusebius,
op. cit., III, 32:7-8).  His gripe was not that thay professed *a*
gnosis, but that they had the *wrong* one.
Writings dealing with Jesus' post-resurrection teachings emphasize
secrecy -- not so much a concealment as a policy of not teaching
certain things indiscriminately.  In one story, Simon Magus opens a
dialog with Peter on the nature of God.  Peter's response is "You seem
to me not to know what a father and a God is: But I could tell you
both whence souls are, and when and how they were made; but it is not
permitted to me now to disclose these things to you" (_Clementine
Recognitions_ II, 60).  If any one theme underlies the _Recognitions_
it is the idea that certain doctrines are not to be idly taught, but
can be had after a certain level of spiritual maturity is reached.
Now one can approach this and other such evidence in many ways.  I
don't intend that everyone interpret Christian history as I do, but I
believe that evidence exists (favorably interpreted, of course) of
early Christian rites analogous to those practiced by Mormons today.
| Neither New Testament
| Christianity nor Biblical Judaism made a secret of their practices.
But if Judaism and Christianity had such ceremonies, would you expect
to read about them in public documents?  One can search the Book of
Mormon and other Mormon scripture and find almost no information on
temple worship.  Yes, you could establish that Mormons worship in
temples, but you would probably be hard pressed to characterize that
worship.  On that basis, can we conclude that the Bible explains *all*
practices which might have taken place, and that absence of such
descriptions proves they did not exist?
Mormon scholar Dr. Hugh Nibley offers us a list of scriptures from
which I have taken a few:
1. "It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matt. 13:11).
2. "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given"
(Matt. 19:11).
3. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now" (John 16:12).
4. "The time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs,
but I shall shew you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25).
5. "... unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter"
(1 Cor. 3:1-2).
6. "Many things ... I would not write with paper and ink; but I ...
come unto you and speak face to face" (2 Jn. 1:12).
(Nibley, _Since Cumorah_, pp. 92-94)
Again, these can also be interpreted many different ways.  I believe
they serve to show that not all doctrines which could have been taught
were actually taught openly.
| I have heard that Joseph Smith took the entire
| practice (i.e. both the ritual and the secrecy surrounding the ritual)
| from the Freemasons.  Anybody in the know have any authoritative
| information on whether or not this claim is true?
Historically, Joseph Smith had been adiministering the temple
endowment ceremony for nearly a year before joining the Freemasons.
There is diary evidence which supports a claim that the rite did not
change after Smith became a Mason.  It can be argued that Smith had
ample exposure to Masonic proceedings through the burlesque of his
time and through his brother Hyrum (a Mason), though no specific
connection has yet been established.
My conversations with Masons (with respect to temple rite
transcriptions which have appeared on the net) have led me to believe
that the connection from Masonry to Mormonism is fairly tenuous.  As
our moderator notes, most of what was similar was removed in the
recent revisions to the temple ceremony.  I believe that critics who
charge that Mormon rites were lifted from Freemasonry do not have
adequate knowledge of the rites in question.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Windley  *  University of Utah  *  Salt Lake City
jwindley@asylum.cs.utah.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: aidler@sol.uvic.ca (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Mormon Temples
Organization: University of Victoria
Lines: 80
mserv@mozart.cc.iup.edu (Mail Server) writes:
>saw8712@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Steve A. Ward) writes:
>>dan@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>[Dan's question about Mormon Temple rituals deleted for brevity]
>>
>>Just thought I would interject this, and I believe you Dan when you say
>>that you don't mean to offend:  For us LDS temple goers, the temple
>>ceremonies are very sacred.  So much so that anyone who goes there
>>promises never to divulge them.  So how much can you trust someone
>>who is telling you about the cerermony?
>One thing I don't understand is why being sacred should make the
>temple rituals secret.  There are lots of sacred things in
>Christianity, including the Sacred Scriptures themselves, but there is
>nothing secret about these things.
Is it appropriate for the Lord not to reveal certain
things before the world (i.e., publish them widely)?
These things sacred to Himself.  He may place any
pre- or post-conditions He feels are necessary.
Moreover, there are precedents in scripture where
knowledge of sacred things is withheld:
1. After the Transfiguration Jesus instructed
Peter, James, and John to "tell the vision to no
man, until the Son of man be risen again from
the dead" (Matt. 17:9).
If we were living at the time of Savior, there
would be no (public) record of this event.
2. A faithful friend of Paul experiences a vision
of "paradise" when he "heard unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter"
(2 Cor. 12:4).
This person heard something which Paul can not
write to the Corinthians (and us).
3. There is an incident recorded in the Book of
Mormon where words uttered by "babes" were
"forbidden that there should not any man write
them (3 Nephi 26:16, the entire text follows
for those of you without access to the BOM).
3 Nephi 26:16
Behold, it came to pass on the morrow that the
multitude gathered themselves together, and they
both saw and heard these children; yea, even
babes did open their mouths and utter marvelous
things; and the things which they did utter were
forbidden that there should not any man write them.
Some LDS scholars speculate that these words
which could not be written are the sacred
portions from temple we are to withhold from
the world (but it could be something else).
>I
>can understand why Mormons would limit temple access to only faithful
>Mormons, but I have never understood the emphasis on shrouding temple
>ritual in mystery.
There is much we can discuss about the temple
ordinances.  We can discuss regarding baptisms
and other vicarious ordinances for the dead.
We can discuss certain concepts regarding the
endowment ("the ritual").
However, there are certain elements I can not
discuss with anyone (including other saints)
outside of the temple.
As a portion of the endowment, we receive the
tokens and signs that will permit us access
to Heaven.  I must keep this knowledge sacred
and respect the conditions under which it is
revealed to me.
A IDLER
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin
Reply-To: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 14
[4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine
and St. Thomas.  Of coures, having only original sins on thier souls,
they suffer the lightest punishment, the loss of the vision oand
presence of God, but that does not change the undeniable fact that they
cannot possibly come to a forgivenss of original sin, nor can they
inherit eternal life.  "That," as St. Augustine said, "Is what the
Pelagian heretics taught."  Which is why he said later, "If you want to
be a Christian, do not teach that unbaptized infants can come to a
forgivenss of original sin."]
Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god?  If this is true, how can this
possibly be fair to the infants?
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Question about Virgin Mary
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 19
Two follow up's to Mark's last posting:
1.  As far as current investigations, the Church recently declared the
crying statue and corresponding messages from Mary at Akita,
Japan as approved (I found this out about a month ago.)
2.  Again in the proof department, start with the appearances of Mary
at Fatima.  Among other things, there were pictures taken of the
"miracle of the sun" that appeared in some major American newspaper
(The New York Times, I believe) as well as most of the major
European newspapers.
I could talk (or post) for hours on this topic, but...
(I have a thesis to write).
God Bless,
- Mike Walker
P.S.  Anyone want info, I have more.  mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Portland earthquake
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 67
archau@saturn.wwc.edu (Austin C Archer) writes:
>I am interested in views about the non-event of May 3. Seriously, how can a
>Christian discriminate between "messages from God" which are to be taken
>seriously, and those which are spurious?  Is there a useful heuristic which
>would help us avoid embracing messages which, by their non-fulfillment are
>proven to be false, thus causing the name of Christ to be placed in
>disrepute? Is this a problem at all?
>I believe that a careful understanding of scripture can help us here. It
>seems to me that anytime we are proven by events to be mistaken, it points
>to a serious failure in understanding God's will. It should result in a
>reevaluation of what we accept as truth.
>I must hasten to add that I was always skeptical, even cynical, about
>these "prophesies" as I tend to be concerning all such. But clearly, many
>Christians put much stock in them. If the Church represents Christ in the
>world, then Christians must avoid being made the laughing-stock of the
>world, lest we dishonor Him. Further, the more often we cry "wolf", the
>less seriously we tend to be taken.
>Any comments?
Good point -- it is very true that these "false" predictions are
dangerous--we are warned (more than once) in scripture about false prophtets.
However, as is often the case with other issues, one cannot let those
who falsly report such "visions" as a reason against believing in any of them
(I did not get the impression you were asserting this, by the way...I consider
my response not so much a response to your posting but a response to the topic
as a whole).
Example:  The Appearances of Mary at Fatima, Portugal in 1917.
Among other things, she predicted the conversion of Russia to Atheism
(something that happened less than a year later w/ the Bolshevik
revolution).  She also predicted the second world war (that is, predicte	predicted that it would occur during the papacy of a certain pope, who
was not the current one.  It happened just like she said.)
She warned there would be "fire in the sky" as a warning that the
second world war was about to start.  About a week before Germany
invaded, weathermen (and women, I suppose) all over Europe, from
England to Spain to Eastern Europe, reported the most spectacular
reddish color in the sky ever recorded.  To this day some try to
explain it off as the northern lights, and the relation to Mary's
prediction simply coincidence.  You all can decide for yourselves.
Mary predicted that the Atheistic Russia would spread her evils all
over the world and persecute religion.
She said many other things as well, too numerous to list here.  Every
single one has been realized.  	One can only use the term "coincidence"
so many times in the same explanation before its use becomes
ridiculous.
SO...yes, there are many false prophets and many false reports. There
are true ones, too.  We must always remain open to that.  Fatima was
one example.  There is another one, currently occuring--the
apparitions that have been taking place at Medjurgorje, Yugoslavia
(or whatever its called now).  Mary has been appearing every day for
eleven years now.  It's time the world started listening.
More info available to any who want it.
Peace in Christ Our Lord,
- Mike Walker
mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: aaronc@athena.mit.edu (Aaron Bryce Cardenas)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 45
news@cbnewsk.att.com writes:
>Arrogance is arrogance.  It is not the result of religion, it is the result
>of people knowing or firmly believing in an idea and one's desire to show
>others of one's rightness.  I assume that God decided to be judge for our
>sake as much as his own, if we allow him who is kind and merciful be the
>judge, we'll probably be better off than if others judged us or we judged
>ourselves.               ^^^^^^ ^^^      ^^                     ^^ ^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
1 Cor 11:31-32 "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.
When we are judged by the ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Lord, we are being discipled so
that we will not be condemned with the world."
1 Cor 5:3 "Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit.
And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were
present."          ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
1 Cor 2:15-16 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he
himself is not     ^^^^^^^^^ subject to any man's      ^^^ judgement:  'For
who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?'  But we have the
mind of Christ."
Jude :14-15 "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men:  'See,
the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge
everyone, and to   ^^^^ convict all the ungodly of  ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ all
the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words
ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'"
Arrogance is a sin.  Although a desire to show others of one's rightness may
be a sign of arrogance in some cases,  it may be only a sign that they are
following the Bible in others:
Jude :22-23 "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and
save them; to others show mercy, mixed with  ^^^^^^ fear -- hating  ^^^^ even
^^^^ the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."
>If I find someone arrogant, I typically don't have anything to do with them.
I hope you don't find me arrogant, then.  This sounds like a bad practice --
ignoring what certain people say because you perceive them as arrogant.
James 1:19 "My dear brothers, take note of this:  Everyone should be quick to
listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,"
- Aaron
From: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com (Geno )
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives
Reply-To: Eugene.Bigelow@ebay.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 13
> ...there is nothing in Christianity that precludes the idea of
> repeated lives on earth.
There is a paragraph in the New Testament which in my opinion, clearly makes
a positive inference to reincarnation. I don't remember which one it is off of
the top of my head, but it basically goes like this: Jesus is talking with the
apostles and they ask him why the pharisees say that before the messiah can come,
Elijah must first come. Jesus replies that Elijah has come, but they did not
recognize him. It then says that the apostles perceived that he was refering to
John the Baptist. This seems to me to clearly imply reincarnation. Can anyone
offer a reasonable alternative interpretation? I would be very interested to
hear it.
From: koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 49
In article <May.6.00.34.49.1993.15418@geneva.rutgers.edu> marka@hcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com (Mark Ashley) writes:
>In article <May.2.09.50.21.1993.11782@geneva.rutgers.edu> mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) writes:
>>I have seen the claims, but I don't know if there are any
>>authenticated cases of people making prolonged speeches in
>>real languages they don't know. From my observations, "speaking
>>in tongues" in practice has nothing at all do with this.
>
>I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
>only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
>Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
>The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
>in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
>only hear himself speaking in his own language.
>
There seem to be many points to the speaking in tongues thing which
are problematic.  It's use as prayer language seems especially troubling
to me.  I understand that when you pray in tongues, the spirit is doing
the talking.  And when you pray, you pray to God.  And the Spirit is
God.  So, the Spirit is talking to Himself.  Which is why I only go
by the Pentecost use where it's an actual language.
Moreover, the phrase "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels"
used by Paul in I Cor. is misleading out of context.   Some would then
assume that there is some angelic tongue, and if when they speak, it
is no KNOWN language, then it is an angelic tongue.
Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
God PUNISHED by giving us different language.  Can we assume then that
if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
amongst other angels?  After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.
So why do these supposed angelic tongues all sound different FROM ONE
ANOTHER?  It's disturbing to think that some people find ways to
justify jabbering.
But I'll buy the idea that someone could talk in a language never learned.
Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at
verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that
the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright
fabrication was involved.  The Brother Puka story in a previous post
seems like a "friend of a friend" thing.  And linguistically, a two
syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no.
Much as many faith healers have trouble proving their "victories" (since
most ailments "cured" are just plain unprovable) and modern day
ressurrections have never been validated, so is it true that no
modern day xenoglossolalia has been proved by clergy OR lay.
From: dxf12@po.cwru.edu (Douglas Fowler)
Subject: Giving "spiritual gifts"
Reply-To: dxf12@po.cwru.edu (Douglas Fowler)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 20
I just thought I'd share a nice experience before my exam today.
I was walking down the streets on our campus, and a beggar came up and asked
me for any spare change I might have.  I had a dollar or so that I gave her,
and - not wanting to give away all my money to strangers (I generally give
a dollar as that will buy a little food at McDonalds or something) - I offered
her some "spiritual gifts," as I called them, rather than gifts of money.
I talked of how great I felt that God had made such a pretty day, and how
nice it was to give to people - she then said she was getting married soon.
She talked about how she and her husband had very little (they may not have
even had a house, for all I know), but that they felt a very special love in
the Lord, an unselfish kind of caring.  It warmed my heart to know that 2
people can have so little monetarily, and realize that spiritually they are
indeed very rich.  A good lesson for all of us who say we want more, more,
more; what we really need cannot be counted, or sold, or bought.
--
Doug Fowler: dxf12@po.CWRU.edu  Heaven is a great big hug that lasts forever
"And when that One Great Scorer comes to mark against your name;
He writes, not whether you've won or lost, but how you played the game"
--Grantland Rice
From: daniels@math.ufl.edu (TV's Big Dealer)
Subject: Re: Variants in the NT Text (cont.)
Organization: Whatever
Lines: 6
I wish to echo what D. Andrew Kille wrote.  I know of no published form
in English of the D-type recension of "Acts".  Of course, Bezae is quite bizarre
in the gospels as well.  Only D-type texts share Bezae's strange readings.
[By the way, "D" stands for Codex Claromontanus elsewhere.]
Frank D
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 23
In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu>, easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
> Hello all,
>      I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
> that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
> because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
> find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
> originate?
>
Satan was one of God's highest ranking angels, like Uriel, Raphael,
Michael, and Gabriel.  In fact, his name was Satanel.  He did challenge
God's authority and got kicked out of heaven.  A lot of the mythology
of Satan (he lost the -el suffix when he fell) comes from the
Book of Enoch and is not found in the bible.
Read the Book of Enoch, available thru bookstores, or get the book
called "Angels: an endangered species" (I think).
--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
Geoff Tate -- Queensryche
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?
Reply-To: noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 92
In article <May.7.01.09.59.1993.14571@athos.rutgers.edu> mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu writes:
>In article <May.5.02.50.42.1993.28665@athos.rutgers.edu> Fil.Sapienza@med.umich.edu (Fil Sapienza) writes:
[why are atheists atheists/ believes it could be the result of
"brokenness"]
>This is condescending at best and a slightly disquised ad hominem
>attack. This attitude on the part of many theists, especially the
>vocal ones, is one reason for the hostility you sense. How do you
>like it when atheists say that people turn to religion out of
>immature emotionalism?
i agree -- if you are going to find out anything from people who don't
share your beliefs, do not attack them or condescend to them and hope
to get a neutral picture of them.  come to them with an open mind.
>I don't believe that atheists are generally any more "broken"
>than anybody else. Any cause and effect is likely to be the
>other way. There is an emotional price to pay for being different,
>hearing one's beliefs (or lack thereof) condemned, and one's
>motives and character attacked.
well, you do believe in something, as i see it, even if it is a sort
of "anti-belief" (no negative connotation meant; i mean simply that
you believe that God _does not_ exist).  christians can also feel that
sense of "difference", however, when they are associated with "those
weird televangelists who always talk about satan".  if you'll excuse
the cliched sound of this, everyone has to deal with his/ her
differences from other people.  i can understand how being an atheist
could be hard for you; being a christian is sometimes hard for me.
>I became an atheist when I got old enough to reason because there
>was just no good reason to believe the religion I had been taught.
>This was very painful because of the pressure I was placed under by
>my family and friends. I wanted to fit in, believe, and be accepted.
>I tried, but finally the cognitive dissonance was just too great.
you should not have to repress how you feel -- you should be able to
discuss it without fear.  i think there are admirable things to learn
from any belief, which can enrich your own -- by asking myself the
questions that atheists may ask me, i can learn the answers and become
stronger in my faith.  if my faith can't support knowing the answers
to those questions, it is weak and untrue.
>I have sympathy for gays growing up in repressive environments and
>having to hide and sometimes at first try to deny a part of themselves
>because I've been there. Only in my case it was my rationality instead
>of sexuality which I was forced to try to repress.
in some way the pressures were different, of course, because you
"chose" your beliefs -- or are you saying that they were not your
choice, but born of necessity?  [please, no flames about whether or
not gay people "choose" their lifestyle -- that's elsewhere in this
newsgroup]
> I must say that I
>wasn't hurt by my experiences in church any more than some of my friends
>who didn't become atheists. I was just hurt differently.
i'm not sure i understand this sentence -- could you explain?
[moderator points out that many/ most atheists aren't "hostile", they
just cease believiing in xiantiy/ religion]
>True. Consider also that people like Pat Robertson and many of the
>Christian extremists in soc.religion.christianity naturally evoke
>hostility by their attacks on anyone who disagrees and their attempts
>to force their views on others. You are known by the company you keep.
>Christians trying to preach in alt.atheism should not be surprised by
>hostility.
ouch, yes.  part of being a christian is accepting _everyone_ with an
open heart -- including people of "our own camp" with whom we
completely disagree.  by the same token, i believe that accusation and
suspicion are not the best way to reach out to those not of our faith,
nor is it effective to try to browbeat people into accepting our
religion.  i have a different idea of mission: be what i am, a
christian who is happy in her faith, and if others see that and want
to know about either the happiness or the religion, i'll share what i
know without pressure and let them make their own decisions.  at some
point you just have to agree to disagree -- acceptance of diversity,
not uniformity, is the way to sow peace....
>Bill Mayne
vera noyes
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK!     |  I bind unto myself today    | Vera Noyes
I am your religion!  |  the strong name of the	    | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you!	     |  Trinity....		    | no disclaimer -- what
- Lard	     |	- St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
*******************************************************************************
From: noye@midway.uchicago.edu (vera shanti noyes)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?
Reply-To: noye@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 42
In article <May.7.01.09.04.1993.14501@athos.rutgers.edu> easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>Hello all,
>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>originate?
i did a workshop on this for an episcopalian student gathering a
couple months ago because i wanted to know the answer too.  as far as
i could tell, although that story was never specifically _told_ in the
bible, many references are made to it, primarily in the new testament.
in the old testament there is actually an entirely different view of
satan as a (excuse the pun) "devil's advocate" for yahweh.  see the
book of job.  getting back to the fallen angel story, there are _no_
references to "lucifer" in the bible except for a mistranslation of
"the morning star" in the king james version (isaiah 14:12), which
probably referred to a babylonian monarch much in the same was as "the
sun king" referred to louis xiv.
all in all, i don't know where the story _came from_; it may have been
rolling around for a long time, or milton (_paradise lost_) may have
invented it.  sorry for the sketchiness of the rest of this, but i am
in a hurry and need to eat lunch!  feel free to email me about the
other stuff i found out....  (although a lot of it is just the result
of a bible concordance program called "quickverse" -- it's really
lousy, by the way -- don't buy it.)
>Wondering,
>Eddie
>______ __   ___  ___           o  __   ___  |    Western  Kentucky    |
>  /   /__) /__  /__  /     )  /  /__) /__   |       University        |
> /   /  \ (___ (___ (__/__/  /  /  \ (___   |  EASTEEE@WKUVX1.BITNET  |
hope this helped!
vera
______
je cherche une ame, qui			of course i don't agree with
pourra m'aider				mylene farmer's religious views;
je suis					i just think they're interesting.
d'une generation desenchantee		(vera noyes)
- mylene farmer			noye@midway.uchicago.edu
From: ejalbert@husc3.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker
Organization: Harvard University Science Center
Lines: 113
In article <May.6.00.34.58.1993.15426@geneva.rutgers.edu>, db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes:
>>		- Mike Walker
>>
>>[If you are using the standard formula of fully God and fully human,
>>that I'm not sure why you object to saying that Jesus was human.  I
>>think the usual analysis would be that sin is not part of the basic
>>definition of humanity.  It's a consequence of the fall.  Jesus is
>>human, but not a fallen human.  --clh]
>
I differ with our moderator on this.  I thought the whole idea of God coming
down to earth to live as one of us "subject to sin and death" (as one of
the consecration prayers in the Book of Common Prayer (1979) puts it) was
that Jesus was tempted, but did not succumb.  If sin is not part of the
basic definition of humanity, then Jesus "fully human" (Nicea) would not
be "subject to sin", but then the Resurrection loses some of its meaning,
because we encounter our humanity most powerfully when we sin.  To distinguish
between "human" and "fallen human" makes Jesus less like one of us at the
time we need him most.
> [These issues get mighty subtle.  When you see people saying different
> things it's often hard to tell whether they really mean seriously
> different things, or whether they are using different terminology.  I
> don't think there's any question that there is a problem with
> Nestorius, and I would agree that the saying Christ had a human form
> without a real human nature or will is heretical.  But I'd like to be
> a bit wary about the Copts, Armenians, etc.  Recent discussions
> suggest that their monophysite position may not be as far from
> orthodoxy as many had thought.  Nestorius was an extreme
> representative of one of the two major schools of thought.  More
> moderate representatives were regarded as orthodox, e.g. Theodore of
> Mopsuestia.  My impression is that the modern monophysite groups
> inherit the entire tradition, not just Nestorius' version, and that
> some of them may have a sufficient balanced position to be regarded as
> orthodox.  --clh]
First, the Monophysites inherited none of Nestorius's version -- they
were on the opposite end of the spectrum from him.  Second, the historical
record suggests that the positions attributed to Nestorius were not as
extreme as his (successful) opponents (who wrote the conventional history)
claimed.  Mainly Nestorius opposed the term Theotokos for Mary, arguing
(I think correctly) that a human could not be called Mother of God.  I mean,
in the Athanasian Creed we talk about the Son "uncreate" -- surely even
Arians would concede that Jesus existed long before Mary.  Anyway, Nestorius's
opponents claimed that by saying Mary was not Theotokos, that he claimed
that she only gave birth to the human nature of Jesus, which would require
two seperate and distinct natures.  The argument fails though, because
Mary simply gave birth to Jesus, who preexisted her either divinely,
if you accept "Nestorianism" as commonly defined, or both natures intertwined,
a la Chalcedon.
Second, I am not sure that "Nestorianism" is not a better alternative than
the orthodox view.  After all, I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation
that Jesus's human nature was in heaven; likewise post-Ascension.  I think
rather that God came to earth and took our nature upon him.  It was a seperate
nature, capable of being tempted as in Gethsemane (since I believe the divine
nature could never be tempted) but in its moments of weakness the divine nature
prevailed.
Comments on the above warmly appreciated.
Jason Albert
[There may be differences in what we mean by "subject to sin".  The
original complaint was from someone who didn't see how we could call
Jesus fully human, because he didn't sin.  I completely agree that
Jesus was subject to temptation.  I simply object to the idea that by
not succumbing, he is thereby not fully human.  I believe that you do
not have to sin in order to be human.
I again apologize for confusing Nestorianism and monophysitism.  I
agree with you, and have said elsewhere, that there's reason to think
that not everyone who is associated with heretical positions was in
fact heretical.  There are scholars who maintain that Nestorius was
not Nestorian.  I have to confess that the first time I read some of
the correspondence between Nestorius and his opponents, I thought he
got the better of them.
However, most scholars do believe that the work that eventually led to
Chalcedon was an advance, and that Nestorius was at the very least
"rash and dogmatic" (as the editor of "The Christological Controversy"
refers to him) in rejecting all approaches other than his own.  As
regular Usenet readers know, narrowness can be just as much an
impediment as being wrong.  Furthermore, he did say some things that I
think are problematical.  He responds to a rather mild letter from
Cyril with a flame worthy of Usenet.  In it he says "To attribute also
to [the Logos], in the name of [the incarnation] the characteristics
of the flesh that has been conjoined with him ... is, my brother,
either the work of a mind which truly errs in the fashion of the
Greeks or that of a mind diseased with the insane heresy of Arius and
Apollinaris and the others.  Those who are thus carried away with the
idea of this association are bound, because of it, to make the divine
Logos have a part in being fed with milk and participate to some
degree in growh and stand in need of angelic assistance because of his
fearfulness ...  These things are taken falsely when they are put off
on the deity and they become the occasion of just condemnation for us
who perpetrate the falsehood."
It's all well and good to maintain a proper distinction between
humanity and divinity.  But the whole concept of incarnation is based
on exactly the idea that the divine Logos does in fact have "to some
degree" a part in being born, growing up, and dying.  Of course it
must be understood that there's a certain indirectness in the Logos'
participation in these things.  But there must be some sort of
identification between the divine and human, or we don't have an
incarnation at all.  Nestorius seemed to think in black and white
terms, and missed the sorts of nuances one needs to deal with this
area.
You say "I find it hard to believe that pre-Incarnation that Jesus's
human nature was in heaven."  I don't think that's required by
orthodox doctrine.  It's the divine Logos that is eternal.
--clh]
From: ab4z@virginia.edu (Andi Beyer)
Subject: Translations
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 2
Which Version of the Bible do you consider to be the most
accurate translation?
From: salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits)
Subject: Satan and MTV
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 25
Somewhere, someone told me that Satan was the angel in charge of
music in heaven, and on top of that, he was the most beautiful
of the angels.  Isn't it funny that these days how MTV has become
the "bible" of music and beauty these days.  MTV controls what bands
are popular, no matter how bad they are.  In fact, it is better to
be politically correct - like U2, Madonna - than to have any
musical talent.  Then of course, you have this television station
that tells us all how to dress.  Think about it, who started the
retro-fashion craze??  MTV and Madonna.  Gag.
Anyway, just food for thought.  It is really my own wierd theory.
If Revelation was to come true today, I think MTV would the "ever
changing waters" (music and fashion world) that the beast would
arise from, and Madonna will be the whore of Babylon, riding the
beast and drinking the blood of the martyrs.
Hmmmm....great idea for a book/movie.....
--
Steven C. Salaris                We're...a lot more dangerous than 2 Live Crew
salaris@carcs1.wustl.edu         and their stupid use of foul language because
we have ideas.  We have a philosophy.
Geoff Tate -- Queensryche
From: kbanner@philae.sas.upenn.edu (Ken Banner)
Subject: Re: SATANIC TOUNGES
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 51
In article <May.5.02.53.10.1993.28880@athos.rutgers.edu> koberg@spot.Colorado.EDU (Allen Koberg) writes:
>.....................................................There is dis-
>crepancy even among charismatic organizations as to the proper use
>of tongues.  Be it revelatory with interpretation, for prayer use,
>or for signifying believers (which I doubt since any one can do it).
>Pentecostals (Assembly of God, Church of Christ), seem to espouse all
>three.  Neo-pentecostals tend to view prayer use and as a sign as the
>uses.  Speaking in tongues during a service is not usually done by
>neo-pentecostals because for the most part, they still attend Protestant
>churches.  Non-denominational churches seem to view the use as a sign
>as merely optional, but recommended.
Koberg,
Just a couple of minor corrections here...
1)  The Churches of Christ do not usually believe in speaking in
tongues, in fact many of them are known for being strongly opposed to
Pentecostal teaching.  You are probably thinking of Church of God in
Christ, the largest African-American Pentecostal denomination.
2)  I'm not sure what you mean by "signifying believers"  but it
should be pointed out that the Assemblies of God does not now, nor has it
ever, held that speaking in tongues is the sign that one is a Christian.
The doctrine that traditional Pentecostals (including the A/G) maintain is
that speaking in tongues is the sign of a second experience after becoming
a Christian in which one is "Baptized in the Holy Spirit"  That may be
what you were referring to, but I point this out because Pentecostals are
frequently labeled as believing that you have to speak in tongues in order
to be a Christian.  Such a position is only held by some groups and not the
majority of Pentecostals.   Many Pentecostals will quote the passage in
Mark 16 about "these signs following them that believe" but they generally
do not interpret this as meaning if you don't pactice the signs you aren't
"saved".
3)  I know it's hard to summarize the beliefs of a movement that
has such diversity, but I think you've made some pretty big
generalizations here.  Do "Neo-Pentecostals" only believe in tongues as a
sign and tongues as prayer but NOT tongues as revelatory with a message?
I've never heard of that before.  In fact I would have characterized them
as believing the same as Pentecostals except less likely to see tongues as
a sign of Spirit Baptism.  Also, while neo-Pentecostals may not be
inclined to speak in tongues in the non-Pentecostal churches they attend,
they do have their own meetings and, in many cases, a whole church will be
charismatic.
Ken Banner
Dept. of Religious Studies
University of Pennsylvania
kbanner@philae.sas.upenn.edu
From: BOCHERC@hartwick.edu (Carol A. Bocher)
Subject: Re:Major Views of the Trinity
Lines: 28
Ann Jackson (ajackson@cs.ubc.ca) wrote on 5 May:
>In article <May 2.09.50.06.1993.11776@geneva.rutgers.edu>
>Jim Green writes:
>>Can't someone describe someone's Trinity in simple declarative
>>sentences with words that have common meaning?
>The answer to this question appears to be "no".
I would like to submit the following which helped me enormously.
If it has already been posted, I apologize.
It seems that during the Middle Ages, it was customary for pastors to
explain the Trinity to their parishoners by analogy to water.
Water is water, but can exist in three forms--liquid, ice and vapor.
Thus it is possible for one essence to exist in three forms.
And recently, the pastor of my church drew an analogy, which I
also found useful--A woman is often percieved by others in three
ways, depending on their relationship to her--a mother, a wife and
an employee in a business.
Thus, it seems clear to me that the essence of God can subsist in
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or, depending on one's particular
need for Him.
Carol Bocher
From: todd@nickel.laurentian.ca
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christiani
Organization: Laurentian University
Lines: 27
> Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should
>
> ck
> out:
>         Romans 1:27
>         I Corinthians 6:9
>         I Timothy 1:10
>         Jude 1:7
>         II Peter 2:6-9
>         Gen. 19
>         Lev  18:22
> (to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
> In Christ's Love,
> Bryan Whitsell
I was waiting for this. I think your question should be rephrased. The many
verses of the Bible which condem homosexuality (by our beliefs) have been
shoved down the throats of homosexuals for a long time by (well-meaning?)
Christians. The question is how do they interpret these verses. Any discussion
of any issue (this or any other issue) requires a proof of your case as well
as a disproof of the opposing view. We are already familiar with those verses
and many have proven to themselves that these condem homosexual behaviour. We
must now establish reasons for not believing this to be true based on the
interpretation of these scriptures given by someone who has come to grips with
them.
Todd...
From: moy@acf2.nyu.edu (moy)
Subject: Apology
Organization: New York University
Lines: 3
I responded to a post last week and it carried somewhat of a hostile
tone for which I am apologizing for. It is not my intent to  create
contriversy or to piss people  off. To those who I offend, I'm sorry
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: "National repentance"
Reply-To: jwaugh@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 29
Concerning Christians praying for coporate forgiveness of national sins,
Michael Covington claims the following of C.S. Lewis:
> C. S. Lewis made the same point in an essay after World War II,
> when some Christian leaders in Britain were urging "national repentance"
> for the horrors (sins???) of World War II.
> --
> :-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
> :-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
> :-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
> :-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **
<><
I was surprised when I heard this same kind of remark from a fellow grad.
student I know, especially since he had seminary training.  I have read the
same essay and do not find Lewis making any such claim.  Rather, Lewis is
condemning the use of such coporate prayer efforts as platforms to make
political jabs at opponents, feigned as confessions of guilt (ie., Lord please
forgive us for allowing "insert political issue/idea/platform" to exist in our
country, it is wrong and we ask your forgiveness.).  I would be interested in
knowing what part of the essay you feel condemns national repentance (please
quote).
Jonathan Waugh
Graduate Research Associate, Pulmonary Medicine Div.
The Ohio State University
SAMP, Rm 431, 1583 Perry St.
Columbus, OH 43210
jwaugh@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: bfinnert@chaph.usc.edu (Brian Finnerty)
Subject: Mary's assumption
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 34
A few points about Mary's being taken into heaven at the end of her life on
earth:
One piece of evidence for Mary's assumption into heaven is the fact
that no Christian church ever claimed to be the sight where she was
buried. Some Christian churches claimed to be located at the final
resting places of Peter, Mark, and other saints, but no one ever
claimed to possess the body of Mary, the greatest of the saints. Why?
Because everyone knew that she had been taken up into heaven.
Although there is no definitive scriptural proof for the assumption of
Mary, some passages seem suggestive, like the passage in Revelation
that describes a woman giving birth to a Son and later being crowned
in the heavens. Of course, the woman in this passage has other
interpretations; she can also be taken a symbol for the Church.
The assumption of Mary makes sense because of her relationship to
Christ.  Jesus, perfect God and perfect man, fulfilled the
requirements of the law perfectly.  Under the law God gave to us, we
are to honor our mother and father, and Christ's act of taking his
mother into heaven is part of his fulfillment of that law. Also, he
took his flesh from her, so it seems appropriate that he decide not to
allow her flesh to rot in the grave.
One last point: an ex-Catholic attempted to explain Catholic doctrine
on the assumption by asserting it is connected to a belief that Mary
did not die. This is not a correct summary of what Catholics believe.
The dogma of the assumption was carefully phrased to avoid saying
whether Mary did or did not die. In fact, the consensus among Catholic
theologians seems to be that Mary in fact did die. This would make
sense: Christ died, and his Mother, who waited at the foot of the
cross, would want to share in his death.
Brian Finnerty
From: gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King)
Subject: Should Christians fight? / Justifiable war
Organization: University of Otago
Lines: 144
I posted this a couple of weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to have appeared
on the newsgroup, and I haven't had a reply from the moderator. We were
having intermittent problems with our mail at the time. Please excuse me
if you have seen this before...
Should Christians fight?
Last week Alastair posted some questions about fighting, and whether there
are such things as "justifiable wars". I have started looking into these
things and have jotted down my findings as I go. I haven't answered all
his questions yet, and I know what I have here is on a slightly different
tack, but possibly I'll be able to get into it more deeply later, and post
some more info soon.
Our duty to our neighbour:
Do good to all men (Gal 6:10)
Love our neighbour as ourselves (Matt 22:39)
Act the part of the good Samaritan (Luke 10) toward any who may be in
trouble. We will therefore render every possible assistance to an injured
man, and therefore should not be part of any organisation which causes
people harm (even medical corps of the army etc).
Christians are by faith "citizens of the commonwealth of Israel"
(Ephesians 2:11-12), and also recognise that "God rules in the kingdoms of
men", and therefore we should not be taking part in any of the struggles
of those nations which we are not part of due to our faith.
We are to be "strangers and pilgrims" amongst the nations, so we are just
passing through, and not part of any nation or any national aspirations
(this can also be applied to politics etc, but that's another story). We
are not supposed to "strive" or "resist evil" (even "suffer yourselves to
be defrauded") it is therefore incosistent for us to strive to assist in
preserving a state which Christ will destroy when he returns to set up
God's kingdom.
Our duty to the state.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's and unto God
the things which be God's" (Luke 20:25).
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power
but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God" (Rom 13:1-2).
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether
it be to king as supreme... for so is the will of God that with well doing
ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men" (1 Pet 2:13-15)
These scriptures make it clear that submission to the powers that be is a
divine command, but it is equally clear from Acts 5:19-29 that when any
ordinance of man runs counter to God's law, we must refuse submission to
it. The reason for this is that we are God's "bond servants" and His
service is our life's task. An example of the type of thing is in Col
3:22-23 where bondservants were to "work heartily as unto the Lord" - so
also we should work as if our boss was God - i.e. "Pressed down, shaken
together, and running over"... oops - a bit of a side track there...
In the contests between the nations, we are on God's side - a side that is
not fighting in the battle, but is "testifying" to the truth.
When we believe in God and embrace His promises, we become "fellow
citizens with the Saints and of the Household of God", and are no longer
interested in associations of the world. Think of this in relation to
unions etc as well. Paul tells us to "lay aside every weight" that we may
run "the race that is set before us", and if we are wise, we will discard
any association which would retard our progress - "Thou therefore endure
hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth
himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who hath
chosen him to be a soldier" (2 Tim 2:3-4).
One of these entanglements he warns about is "be ye not unequally yoked
together with unbelievers". One of the obvious applications of this is
marriage with unbelievers, but it also covers things like business
partnerships and any other position where we may form a close association
with any person or persons not believing the truth about God (in this case
the army). The principle comes from Deut 22:10 - remember that as well as
them being different animals of different strengths, one was clean and one
unclean under the law. These ideas are strongly stressed in 2 Cor 6:13-18
- I suggest you read this. The yoking also has another aspect - that of
servitude, and Jesus says "take my yoke upon you", so we are then yoked
with Christ and cannot be yoked with unbelievers. We have already seen
that we are bondservants of Christ, and Paul says "become not ye the
bondservants of men (1 Cor 7:23 RV).
An example from the Old Testament: the question is asked in 2 Chr 19:2
"Shouldest thou help the ungodly...?". The situation here is a good
example of what happens when you are yoked together with unbelievers.
Jehoshaphat was lucky to escape with his life. Here are the facts:
1. He had made an affinity with Ahab, who had "sold himself to work
wickedness before the Lord" (1 Kings 21:25).
2. When asked by Ahab to form a military alliance, he had agreed and said
"I am as thou art, my people as thy people" (1 Kings 22:4) - an unequal
yoking.
3. He sttod firm in refusing the advice of the false prophets and insisted
on hearing the prophet of the Lord (trying to do the right thing), he
found that he was yoked and therefore couldn't break away from the evil
association he had made.
God says to us "Come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not
the unclean thing, and I will receive you and ye shall be my sons and
daughters" (2 Cor 6:17).
This is more or less what I have found out so far - I'm still looking into
it, as I don't think I've answered all the questions raised by Alastair
yet. Heres a summary and a few things to think about:
The Christian in under command. Obedience to this command is an essential
factor in his relationship with Christ (John 15:10,14).
Total dedication to this course of action is required (Romans 12:1-2).
Disobedience compromises the close relationship between Christ and his
followers (1 Pet 2:7-8).
We are to be separated to God (Rom 6:4). This involves a master-servant
relationship (Rom 6:12,16).
No man can serve two masters (Matt 6:24,13,14).
All that is in the 'Kosmos' is lust and pride - quite opposed to Gos (1
John 2:16). Christs kingdom is not of this world (i.e. not worldly in
nature) - if it was, his servants would fight to deliver him. If Christ is
our master and he was not delivered by his servants because his kingdom
was not of this world, then his servants cannot possibly fight for another
master.
Strangers and pilgrims have no rights, and we cannot swear allegiance to
anyone but God.
The servant of the Lord must not war but be gentle to all (2 Tim 2:24) -
this does not just apply to war, but also to avoiding strife throughout
our lives. There is a war to be waged, not with man's weapons (2 Cor
10:3-4), but with God's armour (Eph6:13-20).
I'll probably post some more when I've had time to look into things a bit
further.
--
Gideon King                         | Phone +64-3-479 8347
University of Otago                 | Fax   +64-3-479 8529
Department of Computer Science      | e-mail gideon@farli.otago.ac.nz
P.O. Box 56                         |
Dunedin                             | NeXT mail preferred!
New Zealand                         |
From: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: St. Maria Goretti
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Lines: 125
Heres the life of St. MAria Goretti, posted with kind permission of
the editor of the Australian Catholic Magazine "Morning Star".
Hope you like it.
Put up with anything to prevent sin St. Maria Goretti
Maria was born on October 16th 1890 to Luigi and Assunta Goretti,
the  eldest  daughter  in the family of seven. She was a cheerful
girl, always imitating her parents.  She had but one disire,  but
one wish: to receive our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
The date was finally set for little Maria to receive our Lord  on
the feast of Corpus Christi. For Maria, time seemed like an eter-
nity as she  slowly  neared  the  great  day.   When  it  finally
arrived, Fr. Jerome( the priest who was to celebrate the Mass and
give the children their First Holy Communion) delivered a  sermon
on	the  immense love of Jesus Christ for them and the great love
we should have in return for Him. He then warmly  urged  them  to
die rather than commit a mortal sin.
Maria humbly approached the Altar of God and  received  the  Holy
Eucharist.	Her  only  sadness  was  the  thought of her father's
absence, who died some time beforehand. As for the	rest  of  the
day,  Maria remained under the spell of the divine visit; that is
until
-4-
her thoughts changed to when she could go next to Holy Communion.
Thus ended the happiest day of Maria's life.
Over the next twelve months, Maria had changed  from  a  giggling
little girl into a quiet young lady with responsibilities. As her
mother went out into the fields in place of  her  husband,	Maria
took  on the ironing, cooking, washing and other motherly duties.
She was doing this not only for her own family, but also for  the
Serenellis, a father and son who lived with the Goretti's, owning
a share in the farm. Although Maria was poorer than all the other
children, she by far surpassed them in virtue. In all thi ngs she
did the Holy Will of God.
During the month of June,  Alessandro  Serenelli(the  son)	twice
made advances upon Maria when he chanced to be alone with her. On
both occasions Maria managed to  struggle  free  of  Alessandro's
strong  grip, but on the second, he threatened to kill her if she
even uttered a word to her mother. From this day on, Maria	lived
in terror, fearing lest Alessandro attack again.
On July 5th 1902, Alessandro left work in the fields  to  "get  a
handkerchief,"  as	he  claimed. He went to the storeroom beneath
the house where Maria, who was outside on the  landing  with  the
baby,  could  hear him fumbling about in with tools. She wondered
what he was doing. It was later learned that he was sharpening  a
91/2"  blade. He went to the house and called for Maria. She told
him she wouldn't go to him unless she knew why she was needed. He
stormed out to the landing and dragged her up to her room. Mar ia
instantly realized what he was up to. "No, No, No! Do  not	touch
me!  It  is a sin, you will go to Hell!" At this point Alessandro
held the knife over Maria's chest, who was now on the floor.
"Will you or will you not?" Maria gathered all her energy.	"No I
will  not,	Alessandro,  no!"   She had chosen her martyrdom over
sin, God over Satan.  Overcome with rage, Alessandro plunged  the
knife  into   Maria's  breast fourteen times.  Finally he came to
his senses and thought Maria was dead.  Frantically he threw  the
knife behind a closet and locked himself in his room.  The crying
of the baby Teresa	on  the  landing  brought  the	attention  to
Assunta  and the father of Alessandro. As the baby was unattended
and was in danger of falling off, they ran to the house  to  find
Maria,  who,  covered in blood, was dragging herself to the door.
When asked what happened she said Alessandro  stabbed  her.   "He
wanted to make me do wrong and I would not."
The ambulance arrived, then the police who took Alessandro	away.
As	the  ambulance	carried  Maria to the hospital, a large crowd
followed on foot.  The doctors at the  hospital held no hope  for
poor  little Maria.  The same Fr. Jerome who gave Maria her First
Communion
-5-
came to administer the last rites and to give her Holy  Viaticum.
He asked Maria if she would forgive her murderer.  "Yes.  For the
love of Jesus I forgive him.  I wish for him to one day  join  me
in	Paradise.   May  God forgive him, for I alread y have." Maria
died at about three o'clock.
Alessandro was tried  and  found  guilty  of  Maria's  death  but
because  of  his  age  he  was  sentenced to only thirty years in
prison.  After eight  years of being a violent prisoner and show-
ing  no regret for his crime, he saw in a dream, in the  midst of
a field of flowers, Maria holding out a bunch of white lilies  to
him.  Soon later he wrote to the local bishop, begging God's par-
don for the grave sin he had committed.  He later gave  testimony
in	Maria's  beatification in 1947.  Less than three years later,
on Ju ne 24th 1950, Maria was canonised.  Assunta Goretti was the
first mother ever to be present at her daughter's canonisation.
May St. Maria Goretti help	us  to	be  pure  and  grant  us  the
strength to die rather than commit a mortal sin.
Saint Maria Goretti, pray for us.
by Brendan Arthur
--
Internet: simon@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au
Viva Cristo Rey !! Long Live Christ the King.
From: erh0362@tesla.njit.edu
Subject: Mormon beliefs about bastards
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology
Lines: 14
Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views
children born out of wedlock?  In particular I'm interested to know if any
stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents.  I'm especially
keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on
bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big genealogical
book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City.  If this is an issue on which the
"official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both old
and new beliefs.  E-mail or posting is fine.  All information or pointers are
appreciated.
Elliotte Rusty Harold		Department of Mathematics
elharo@shiva.njit.edu		New Jersey Institute of Technology
erh0362@tesla.njit.edu		Newark, NJ 07102
From: mpaul@unl.edu (marxhausen paul)
Subject: Re: "National repentance"
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln
Lines: 37
mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>I heard on the radio today about a Christian student conference where
>Christians were called to "repent" of America's "national" sins, such
>as sexual promiscuity.
>How can I repent of _someone else's_ sin?   I can't.
>And when I claim to "repent" of someone else's sin, am I not in fact
>_judging_ him?  Jesus equipped us to judge activities but warned us
>not to judge people. "Judge not that ye be not judged."
Strictly speaking, you're right - we can't repent _for_ somebody else,
for what they've done.  I guess I don't think it's out of line to talk
about a generalized repentence for our contribution to or participation
in "The sins of society" , or for our tacit approval (by our silence) of
sinful attitudes or practices....it may be that we're also just plain
begging for mercy, hoping God will withhold his hand of judgement on
our whole country for the sake of a few, much as Abraham sought to do
for the sake of Lot.  (Hmmm, the results there were pretty cautionary...)
A few times lately when I've observed some either out-and-out sinful
activity, or just some self-destructive activity, I've gotten a strong
impression that many folks really don't know any better.  Christ's pity
on the crowds as being "like sheep without a shepherd" rings true to me.
If these folks don't have a clue, do I bear _any_ responsibility for my
not having communicated a better way?  Worse still; have I expressed
judgement and disgust at their doings, and thus alienated them from any
positive relationship whereby I might pass along anything positive?
I _know_ I've got something to repent about on that score.
Anyway, it's a real interesting question.
--
paul marxhausen .... ....... ............. ............ ............ ..........
.. . .  . . . university of nebraska - lincoln .  . . .. . .  .. . . . . . . .
.     .    .  .   .     .   .  .    .   .  .   .    .   .  grace .   .    .  .
.         .       .      .        .        .      .        .   happens .
From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock)
Subject: Re: Why do people become atheists?
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 33
In article <May.7.01.09.44.1993.14556@athos.rutgers.edu> muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir) writes:
>In all candor, I would be happy to be proven wrong [about believing
>in atheism].  Problem is, I will have to be _proven_ wrong.
In mentioning some nonsense about psychology :) and atheism, Bob Muir asks
the following question.
>	Do I sound "broken" to you?
I answer in the affirmative.  Now this answer might sound a little
intellectually dishonest to Bob, but I think I have been accused before
of that heinous crime and am man enough to take it.  !-)  What thinking
person has not at one time or other been accused of it?   Is it
politically correct for Christians to be the only besieged group
permitted the luxury of arrogance?
Now I have a question for Bob.  Why in the world would any self-respecting
atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group?  I have a
difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something
about the subject.
Bob reminds me of my roommate.  In order to disbelieve atheism, he says
he will need to be proven wrong about it.  Well, I don't even waste
my time trying.  I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it.
In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me.
Good luck, Bob.  And, best regards.
--
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Satan kicked out of heaven: Biblical?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 27
easteee@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>Hello all,
>     I have a question about Satan.  I was taught a long time ago
>that Satan was really an angel of God and was kicked out of heaven
>because he challenged God's authority.  The problem is, I cannot
>find this in the Bible.  Is it in the Bible?  If not, where did it
>originate?
>Wondering,
>Eddie
The quick answer:  Revelation 12:7-9
"And there was war in heaven.  Michael and his angels fought against
the dragon and his angels who fought back.  But he [the dragon] was
not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.  The great
dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent, called the devil and
Satan, who leads the whole world astray.  He was hurled down to the
earth, and his angels with him."
The earlier part of chapter 12 deals (very symbolically) with why
Satan rose up in battle against Michael and the good angels in the
first place.
Hope this clears it up.
- Mike Walker
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 24
Just a quick reminder:
The way you are interpreting those passages is your opinion.  You make
it sound as if your opinion is somehow an undisputable fact.
Many would interpret the passages you cite very differently.
(Many have--several of the great theologians you mentioned do that
very thing.  These were people who had much more expertise in the
interpretation of scripture than you or me or probably anyone reading
this newsgroup.  To say that all of them are wrong and you are right
is, in my opinion, (notice those last three words) coming pretty darn
close to the sin of pride.
In the future I would suggest you not be so absolutist in your
interpretations, especially when contradicting highly respected
doctors of Christianity.
- Mike Walker
mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(Univ. of Illinois)
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Lines: 25
In <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu> whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes:
>Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check
>out:
>	Romans 1:27
>	I Corinthians 6:9
>	I Timothy 1:10
>	Jude 1:7
>	II Peter 2:6-9
>	Gen. 19
>	Lev  18:22
>(to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)
Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses.  Some of
them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
Others simply do not address the issues.
You would seem to be more in need of a careful and Spirit-led course
in exegesis than most of the gay Christians I know.  I suggest that
you stop "proof-texting" about things you know nothing about.
--
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
- or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Divorce
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 72
I deleted much of the following article in order to discuss the
specific issue of whether it is acceptable to divorce.
In article <May.7.01.10.03.1993.14583@athos.rutgers.edu> crs@carson.u.washington.edu (Cliff Slaughterbeck) writes:
>
>Along the way, she was married, happily, to a wonderful and
>supportive husband and gave birth to two sons.  Still, everything was not
>perfect for Jane, since she could never open up the deepest part of her
>soul to her husband.  She always found that she could be much closer to
>her women friends than to her husband, as good and loing as a husband as
>he might be.  She struggled very much with this until at the age of 38, she
>decided that she was a lesbian.  When she came home to announce this
>understanding of herself, her husband told her that he had come to the same
>understanding several years before and was waiting for her to come to that
>realization in her own time.  Her children ages 9 and 11 at the time were
>also extremely supportive of her.  As the youngest put it, "that just
>means that you love people very much."  Jane and her husband agreed to
>divorce but remain friends and still consider each other as part of the
>extended family to this day.
>One of the interesting things that Jane said in this whole discussion was
>"Homosexuality is not about what goes on in the bedroom."  She found that
>she was much more able to have a deep, committed relationship with a woman
>than a man.  Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole relationship.
>The key thing is how one interconnects with other people.  She made a
>specific point to say that it was not that she had never met a good man,
>since she was married to a wonderful man for a dozen years.  (Take a few
>seconds and honestly ponder that thought and it's implications!!!)
I have thought about the implications, and it is scary.
We have a whole generation of families broken up because some men have
decided that is is okay to leave their wives and children for the
thrill of a younger, more attractive woman.  If we accept that it is
legitimate for Jane to have divorced, how can we not accept anyone's
decision to divorce because he has found someone with whom he can
have a more "deep, committed relationship."
Marriage is not a state of being, it is a mutual journey in life.
Love is not a passive feeling, it must be actively willed.
Is it acceptable for an older executive to dump his wife of many
years who stayed home to care for the children because he
can't be happy sexually unless he is with a beautiful
young blonde?  The real solution for both in the couple to
make a renewed effort.
Hold fast to the faith.  Has not the Lord repeatedly compared His
relation to His people as a faithful and enduring husband?  We
learn something very deep and very mystical when we marry and
remain faithful through times of trial.
My spouse has a brain tumor that has left her partially paralyzed.
If it were to resume growing (it is in remission, thanks be to God!)
then perhaps the time would come when we could not have sexual
relations.  That's life...the Lord would certainly not give me
permission to seek someone else to satisfy my "needs."
The idea that it is alright to divorce if a couple "grows apart"
seems to me to lead to such a monstrous destruction of the meaning
of marriage that I feel we must make every effort to avoid any hint
of compromise.  We have become so petty and small-minded that
some husbands are threatening to divorce their wives unless the
wives lose weight!
I praise the Lord for guiding me to marry my wife.  She married me
anyway despite the possibility that I could have a terrible illness.
And it turned out that she was the one with the brain tumor, but
had I known I wouldn't have cared either.  And maybe I'll be in
a car accident tomorrow and become paralyzed from the neck down.
A married couple should deal with these situations with the help
of the Lord, not divorce and run away from them.
From: llcoolj@athena.mit.edu (Alfred Eaton)
Subject: Re: Mormon temples
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 16
I was wondering if anyone knew any changes to the temple
ceremony within the last fifty years....
Also, why do you think they were made (revelation,
assimilation to mainstream Christianity, etc.)?
I know that the God Makers was published quite a while
ago.  Could rituals have been changed since then?
I am also very interested in the influence of Freemasonry
on early Mormonism, especially in the Smith family and
in the Nauvoo settlement.  Info on any new studies would
be appreciated.
Thanks,
Freddie Eaton
llcoolj@athena.mit.edu
From: muirm@argon.gas.organpipe.uug.arizona.edu (maxwell c muir)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality issues in Christianity
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson
Lines: 75
Can someone cite Biblical references to homosexuality being immoral, other
than Leviticus? So far, when I ask, around here, I get the verses from
Leviticus spouted at me, but the whole rest of that book tends to be
ignored by Christians (haven't seen any stonings in a _long_ time :-).
Later,
Max (Bob) Muir
[The list was posted not long ago, as I recall, aside from Lev, commonly
cited passages are:
the story of Sodom.  Note however that this was a homosexual rape, and
there's no disagreement that that is wrong.  I take an intermediate
position on this: note that Sodom is referred to elsewhere in the
Bible for its sinfulness.  It doesn't seem to have been known
specifically for homosexuality.  Rather, I think it was considered a
cesspool of all sins. However from what we know of Jewish attitudes,
homosexuality would have contributed to the horror of the action
described.  (It almost seems to have been contrived to combine about
as many forms of evil in one act as possible: homosexual rape of
guests, who were actually angels.)  But this story is not specifically
about homosexuality.
In the NT, the clear references are all from Paul's letters.  In Rom
1, there is a passage that presupposes that homosexuality is an evil.
Note that the passage isn't about homosexuality -- it's about
idolatry.  Homosexuality is visited on people as a punishment, or at
least result, of idolatry.  There are a number of arguments over this
passage.  It does not use the word "homosexuality", and it is referring
to people who are by nature heterosexual practicing homosexuality.
So it's not what I'd call an explicit teaching against all homosexuality.
But it does seem to support what would be a natural assumption anyway,
that Paul shares the general negative Jewish attitude towards
homosexuality.
The other passages occur in lists of sins, in I Cor 6:9, and I Tim
1:10.  Unfortunately it's not entirely clear what the words used here
mean.  There have been suggestions that one has a broader meaning,
such as "wanton", and that another may be specifically "male
prostitute".  Again, we don't have here a precise teaching about
homosexuality, but it is at least weak supportive evidence that Paul
shared the OT's negative judgement on homosexuality.
Jude 1:7 is sometimes cited, however it's probably not relevant.  The
context in Jude involves angels.  Since those who were almost raped in
Sodom were angels, it seems likely that "strange flesh" refers to
intercourse with angels.
As you can see, the NT evidence is such that people's conclusion is
determined by their approach to the Bible.  Conservatives note that
the passages from Paul's letters imply that he accepted the OT
prohibition.  This is enough for them to regard it as having NT
endorsement.  Liberals note that there's no specific teaching, and no
clear definition of what is being prohibited or why (is the concern in
Rom 1 the connection of homosexuality to pagan worship?  what exactly
do the words in the lists of sins mean?).  Thus some believe it is
legitimate to regard this as a attitude Paul took with him from his
background and not a specific teaching of the Gospel.
This is an explosive topic, which tends to result in long
dissertations on the exact meaning of various Greek words.  But it's
clear to me that that's mostly irrelevant.  What it really comes down
to is whether people are looking to the Bible for law or whether they
believe that such as approach is inconsistent with the Gospel.  This
appears to depend upon one's reaction to the message of the Bible as a
whole, as well as one's perception of the needs of the church today.
This is a difference of approach at least as serious as the difference
between Protestant and Catholic in the 16th Cent, and one where both
sides believe that the Bible is so obviously on their side that they
keep thinking all they have to do is quote a few more passages and the
other side will finally come to their senses.  That makes things
very frustrating for a moderator, who realizes that such an optimistic
outcome is not very likely...
--clh]
From: JEK@cu.nih.gov
Subject: God, morality, and massacres
Lines: 258
A listmember (D Andrew Killie, I think) wrote, in response to the
suggestion that genocide may sometimes be the will of God:
> Any God who works that way is indescribably evil,
> and unworthy of my worship or faith.
Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama replied (as, in substance, did others):
> Where is your source of moral standards by which you judge God's
> behavior?
It is often argued that we have no standing by which to judge God's
actions.  Who is the clay to talk back to the potter? But we find a
contrary view in Scripture. When God proposes to destroy the city of
Sodom (Genesis 18), Abraham says:
+ Suppose that there are some good men in the city.
+ Will you destroy the righteous along with the wicked?
+ Far be it from you, Lord, to do such a thing!
+ Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
I am told that the Hebrew is actually a bit stronger than this, and
can perhaps be better rendered (dynamic equivalence) as
+ Shame on you, Lord, if you do such a thing!
There are those who say that the definition of "good" is "whatever
God happens to want." But if that is so, then the statement that God
is good has no meaning.  It simply says that God does what He wants.
That being the case, no one can either love or obey God because He
is good. The only motive left for obeying Him is that He is
powerful. Just as it makes sense to obey a dictator, even when he
tells you to round up all Jews and exterminate them, because if you
defy him you might end up in the gas chamber yourself, so it makes
sense to obey God, because He has the power to punish you if you
don't. This ethical theory I take to be in radical contradiction to
Genesis 18 and to Christianity in general.
Any theory that makes our moral judgements worthless makes any
further discussion of morality (or of the goodness of God)
meaningless. However, it does not follow that our moral judgements
are always infallible in particular cases, still less our judgements
in particular cases about the course of action most likely to
achieve a good result.
When I read the Scriptural accounts of the actions of God in
history, those actions often seem to me very different from what I
might expect of a God who loves us and desires what is best for us.
Moreover, leaving the Scriptures aside, and considering the natural
world, I find that Nature is often very different from what I might
expect if it were the work of a benevolent deity.  (Origen said:
"Those who believe that the Author of Nature is also the Author of
the Scriptures must expect to find in the Scriptures the same sort
of difficulties that they find in Nature.")
Now, that some such difficulties should exist is not in itself an
argument against the existence, power, wisdom, and goodness of God.
On the contrary, their ABSENCE would be such an argument. Suppose
that I am watching Bobby Fisher play chess, and suppose that every
time he makes a move, I find myself nodding and saying: "Good move!
Just what I was expecting him to do.  Same move I would have made if
I were playing." That would be a sign that Fisher is no better a
chess player than myself. Given that he is better, I expect that at
least some of his moves will have me thinking, "Now, what do suppose
induced him to do that?" or even, "Boy, that was a real slip -- he's
just thrown the game away!" Similarly, if God understands the
workings of the universe better than I do, it is to be expected that
sometimes it will look to me as if He has made a mistake.
One difference between Fisher at the chessboard and God at the
controls of the universe is that I can see the end of the chess
game. If Fisher wins, I revise my earlier inference that it was
carelessness that made him lose his queen 23 moves earlier.
However, if he loses, and particularly if I can see that there was a
time when he had an opportunity for a checkmate in two moves and did
not take it, then I know that he is not as good a player as I had
thought.
With God, on the other hand, I shall not in this life see the total
result of some of His actions. Therefore, my grounds for judging
that I have seen a bad move on His part must always be far shakier
than my grounds for making a similar judgement about Fisher.
*****     *****     *****     *****     *****
In the book of Genesis, we read that Joseph's ten older brothers,
who (with good reason) found  him insufferable, conspired to sell
him into slavery in Egypt. There he eventually became Viceroy, and
when there was a famine in Canaan, he was able to provide for his
family. When his brothers nervously apologized, he told them: "Do
not worry. You meant to do me evil, but God turned it into good."
I once heard a rabbi speak on this text. He said:
The history of the Jews is largely a history of events
that look like catastrophes that threaten the continued
survival of the religion, or the people, or both. But,
amazingly, those events turn out to be the saving of the Jews
and of Judaism.
The sale of Joseph by his brothers looked like the breakup
of the family.  But in fact, it ended with a reconciliation of
the quarrel between them. The famine that drove the family out
of Canaan looked like a misfortune for them.  But in fact, if
they had stayed in Canaan, they would almost certainly have
intermarried with the Canaanites and been assimilated into
their culture.  Their oppression by the Egyptians a few
generations after their arrival in Egypt again looked like a
disaster. But God used it to bring them out of Egypt, and into
the Promised Land.
Here the people built a Temple, and regularly offered
sacrifices. But the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and Judea,
destroyed Temple and city and countryside, and deported most of
the people to Babylon. You might have thought that that would
be the end of the people and the religion. But it was not.
Living in Canaan, the people had been under constant danger of
assimilation.  Again and again, they had turned from the
worship of the LORD to the worship of the Canaanite fertility
cults, with their ritual prostitution and ritual human
sacrifice. The Babylonian captivity put a stop to that. Never
again did the Jews show any interest in polytheism or idolatry.
Neither the worship of the Canaanites mor that of the
Babylonians ever again had a foothold among them.
Nor is that all. Judaism had been in danger of becoming
simply a system of sacrifices and Temple observances. The only
prescribed acts of worship consisted of coming to Jerusalem
every so often and offering a sacrifice. During the Captivity,
with the Temple gone, the Jews invented the synagogue, a place
of meeting for reading and study and discussion of the
Scriptures. They came to realize clearly, what they were in
danger of forgetting while they continued to live in Judea,
that God is not simply a local or tribal deity, not just the
controller of the land of Canaan, or the patron of the Jewish
people, but the Creator of the world, and the Ruler and Judge
of all humans everywhere.
Time passed, and the Babylonian Empire was replaced by
that of the Persians, and then that of the Greeks, or rather
the Macedonians. The ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes, was determined
to stamp out Judaism, and to this end he made the reading and
the study of the Torah punishable by death. Again, one might
think that this would be the end of Judaism. But it was not.
The people met for worship, and instead of reading the Torah
portion appointed for the day, they would read some passage
from the prophets that had a similar theme, and then discuss
that.  Before this time, the Torah, the so-called Five Books of
Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)
were the only books read and studied in the synagogue.  If it
had not been for Antiochus, the books of the prophets would
probably have been forgotten altogether. His hatred for Judaism
saved them.
[Other examples here omitted for brevity's sake.]
Some of you may remember that Julie Andrews first became
famous as Eliza Doolittle in the stage production of MY FAIR
LADY. When Warner Brothers undertook to make a movie of it,
everyone expected that Julie, who had been so magnificent on
stage, would play the same role in the movie. Instead, the
studio decided to go with an established screen star, and cast
Audrey Hepburn.  Julie Andrews was naturally crushed. But she
later realized that if she had played the screen role, she
would have been type-cast for life as an Elize Doolittle type.
It would have been a disaster for her. As it was, Walt Disney
offered her the role of Mary Poppins, and she won an Oscar for
it.  At the presentation, she stood there, smiling, and looking
at Walt Disney, she said, "And now, my special thanks to the
man who made all this possible -- JACK WARNER!" It was the most
memorable line of the evening.
In a similar spirit, we Jews might thank the men who in
the providence of God have preserved Judaism, and kept it alive
to this day, beginning with Joseph's brothers, and continuing
with two Pharaohs, with Nebuchadnezzar, with Antiochus
Epiphanes....
After the formal meeting had broken up, one woman came up to him
privately and said, "You were talking about the Holocaust, weren't
you?" He answered, "If that is an example that came to your mind,
then you are right, I was talking about it to you. But I would not
talk about it to everyone, for not everyone can bear it." I assume
that he meant that, without the Holocaust, there would have been no
state of Israel.
Someone hearing the rabbi's lecture might leap to the conclusion
that God is dependent on the wickedness of men to accomplish His
purposes -- or at least that the rabbi thought so. He might then  go
on to suppose that the wickedness is in fact God's doing -- that He
stirred up Joseph's brothers to a murderous hate against him, and
that when the Israelites were in Egypt, God hardened Pharaoh's
heart, so that he oppressed the people, and would not let them go.
And this raises questions about how an action can be considered
wicked and at the same time be considered something that God has
brought about.
I suggest another way of looking at it. Consider a sculptor who has
a log of wood from which he proposes to carve a statue. But the log,
instead of having a smooth even grain throughout, has a large knot
that spoils the appearance of the surface. The sculptor considers
the wood for a while, and then carves a statue that features the
knot, that makes that particular interruption in the grain and color
of the wood correspond to some feature of the statue, so that
observers will say: "How fortunate the sculptor was in finding a
piece of wood with a knot like that in just the right place. Its
presence is the crowning touch, the thing that makes the statue a
great work of art." In reality, the knot, far from being what the sculptor was
looking for, was a challenge to his skill. If the wood had not
contained that flaw, he would still have made a great work of art,
but a different one. So, if Joseph's brothers had not sold him, God
would still have brought about His purposes for the Jewish people,
but He would have done so in another manner. If Judas had not
betrayed Jesus, if Caiaphas and his fellow leaders had not rejected
Jesus, but had rather acknowledged Him as the Annointed of God, if
Pilate had followed his conscience rather than his fears and had set
Jesus free, it might appear that there would have been no
Crucifixion, and therefore no Redemption, and therefore no
Salvation. Not so. God did not need Judas' sin to redeem us. If
Judas had done right, then God in Christ would still have reconciled
the world to Himself.  We do not know how, just as we do not know
how Michelangelo would have painted the Sistine Chapel if its
interior had instead been shaped like Grand Central Station, and
just as we do not know how Bobby Fisher would have won his fourth
game agianst Spassky if Spassky had refused the exchange of bishops
and had attacked Fisher's knight instead (don't bother to look up
the game in question--I am making up this example, but the point is
none the less valid).
Thus, we may say both (1) that God used, say, the cowardice of
Pilate to accomplish His purposes, and (2) that the said cowardice
was not God's doing, and that Pilate would not have thwarted God's
plans by behaving justly and courageously.
What, then, are we to make of the place where God says to Moses, "I
will harden Pharaoh's heart, so that he will not let the people go"?
Some Christians have taken this to mean that Pharaoh was a puppet
with God pulling the strings, and that his stubbornness and cruelty
were not his own work, but the work of God in him. I suppose rather
that what God was telling Moses was something like this: "If you see
that Pharaoh is not willing to let the people go, do not be
discouraged, or suppose that the situation is out of my control. My
purposes will not be thwarted. If Pharaoh chooses to hear you and
let the people go, well and good. If he does not, I will fit his
resistance into my plans, and fit it so perfectly that future
historians and theologians will suppose that I would have been
thrown for a loss if Pharaoh had obeyed me."
To return to the question that started this all off. Is it possible
that the Serbs, in slaughtering the Moslems of Bosnia, are
instruments of God's will?
First point. What they are doing is wrong, just as what
Joseph's brothers did was wrong, just as what Judas did was wrong.
They intend it for evil. If God somehow brings good out of it, that
does not make them any less subject to just condemnation and
punishment.
Second point. Of course, God will bring good out of it. But not
the same good that He would have brought if the Serbians had
refrained from the sins of robbery and rape and murder. Nor does the
good He purposes excuse us from the duty of doing what is right.
Yours,
James Kiefer
From: tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard)
Subject: Re: Question from an agnostic
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu
Lines: 18
Hi Damon,  No matter what system or explanation of creation you wish
to accept, you always have to start with one of two premises, creation
from nothing, or creation from something.  There are no other
alternatives.  And if we accept one or the other of those two
premises, then again there are two alternatives, either creation was
random, or was according to some plan.
If it was random, I am unable to accept that the complex nature of
our world with interrelated interdependent organisms and creatures
could exist as they do.  Therefore I am left with creation under the
control of an intelligence capable of devising such a scheme.  I call
that intelligence God.
I also prefer the "Creatio ex nihilo" rather than from chaos, as it
is cleaner.
There is obviously no way to prove either or neither.  We are and
we must have come from somewhere.  Choose whatever explanation you
feel most comfortable with, Damon.  You are the one who has to live
with your choice.
Shalom,                                  Len Howard
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Subject: Re: Christianity and repeated lives
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 20
In article <May.7.01.09.36.1993.14545@athos.rutgers.edu> danc@procom.com (Daniel Cossack) writes:
>JEK@cu.nih.gov writes:
>>The Apostle Paul (Romans 9:11) points out that God chose Jacob
>>rather than Esau... If we admit the possibility that they had lived previous
>>lives, and that (in accordance with the Asiatic idea of "karma")
>
>And following Romans to 9:13, "As it is written, Jacob have I loved,
>but Esau have I hated."  How could God have loved and hated (in the
>past tense) those that are not yet born, neither having done good
>or evil?
Woah...The context is about God's calling out a special people (the Jews) to
carry the "promise."  To read the meaning as literal people is to miss Paul's
entire point.  I'd be glad to send anyone more detailed explanations of this
passage if interested.
====================================
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
Institute of Higher Ed.
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 132
Dave Davis writes:
> Let my state my point as provocatively as possible. :-)
> After going through several study Bibles, I'm leaning heavily towards >the
> assertion that _Sirach_ ('The Wisdom of Ben Sira' or 'Ecclesiasticus')
> is directly referenced by _James_ - in fact, I think
> Sirach is more directly referenced by James than _Job_ or _Ruth_ is
> referenced in any NT verse I've seen.
Good point.  The New Testament does not quote Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
Ruth, Job, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs, just as it does not quote
from the Deuterocanon.  But if the non-quotation of the former does not
disqualify them, neither does the non-quotation of the later.  And the
Wisodm of Solomon was quite clearly an influence on St. Paul, especially
in the letter to the Romans (cf especially Romans 1.18-32 and Wisdom
13-14).
[stuff deleted]
>I think everyone would agree that principles that cannot be
>consistently applied are not very useful as principles.
>So, if we are to exclude them (not accord them the authority of
> Scripture) we would appear to require other reasons. What might these
> reasons be? Tradition (always a fav. with Episcop.) ? Tradition is >equivocal
> on this subject. Sirach, I believe, is in Vaticanus & Sinaiticus
> I don't know if it is listed in the Muratorian canon
> (the oldest list I know of).  Sirach (and the others) are discussed
> by the Fathers, as Scripture, but not unanimously.
True.  Not all accepted them as Scripture, though niether were all the
books of the New Testament so accepted, which puts to the lie the whole
argument of the books being excluded because they were debated and not
universally accepted.  Hebrews, the Apocalypse, 2 Peter, Esther, and
others were debated at various times, but eventually retained.  As for
the Codexes you mention, both Vaticanus and Sinaitcus include the
Deuterocanon, bothe of the New and Old Testaments, and Vaticanus (I
think) inlcudes 1 Clement, the Shepard of Hermas, and the Epistle of
Baranabas.  As for the Muratorian Canon, it deals with the New Testament
only, though it is very valuable in its witness to those books.
> My interim conclusion is that Protestant exclusion of
> (at least one of) these writings is one of those 'traditions
> of men' one hears of so often. They were excluded during the
> Reformation, and that appears to be the reason many people
> continue to exclude them.
>Any takers?  I can be reasonable. (If all else fails :-)
>Show me where I'm wrong.
You're not wrong!  It is a `tradition of men' to exlcude them, as I
will explain below.
"That nothing be read in the Church under the nmae of Divine Scripture,
except the canonical Scriptures, and the canoncial Scriptures are -
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
Four books of Kingdoms [being 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings], Two books of
Paralpomenon [being 1&2 Chronicles], Job, the Psalter of David, the Five
books of Solomon [being Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of
Solomon, and [misatributed to him] the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach],
The books of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah [being
Jeremiah, the Lamentations, Baruch, and the Letter, all of which were
formerly counted as one], Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Two
books of Ezra [being Ezra and Nehemiah], Two books of Maccabees.  And of
the New Testament: Four books of the Gospel, One book of the Acts of the
Apostles, Thirteen letters of Paul the Apostle, One Letter of the same
to the Hebrews, two of Peter the Apostle, Three of John, One of the
Apostle Jude, One of the Apostle James, One book of the Apocalypse of
John."
-Council of Hippo, Statute 36, (393 AD)
This same list was promulgated again at the Third Council of Carthage
(397 AD), and at the Sixth Council of Carthage (419 AD) - at which
council the same list was enumerated with the words "Because we have
recieved from the Fathers that these are the books to be read in the
Church."  Which ought to quiet those who assert "in the name of Holy
Scripture we do understand those books of whose authority there was
never any doubt in the Church," as the Episcopal Church does in removing
the Deuterocanon from the realm of Scripture.  (Though the Episcopalians
hold them in high regard and read them in the Church, they are not
counted as Scripture by them, and may not be used to prove dogma.  The
Lutherans hold out similarly.)
Earlier mention of the so-called Apocrypha as divine scripture can also
be found, and below I inlcude only a portion of the quotes calling it
divine scripture that could be found among the writings of the Fathers.
"And this is the reason why the Law of the old Testament is reckoned as
consisting of twenty-two books: so that they may correspond to the
number of letters [in the Hebrew alphabet].... It is to be noted also
that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books,
corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks."
-St. Hillary of Poitiers, "Commentaries on the Psalms," prologue, 15 (365 AD)
"The twenty-two books according to the Hebrews are .... Jeremiah, with
Lamentations and the Letter, reckoned as one .... and [also] there is
Maccabees."
-Origen, "Commentaries on the Psalms," Psalm 1 (245 AD)
"Divine Scripture, addressing itself to those who love themselves and to
the boastful .... says most excellently [Baruch 3.16-19 follows]."
-St. Clement of Alexandria, "The Instuctor of Children," 2, 3, 36, 3, (203 AD)
"....I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament ... Proverbs of
Solomon, and also Wisdom ..."
-St. Melito of Sardes, fragment found in Eusebius' "History of the
Church," and dating from crica 177 AD, Book 4, 26, 14
"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine
Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must
shun.  The list of the Old Testament .... Wisdom, one book;
Ecclesiasticus, one book .... Tobit, one book .... Judith, one book; of
Maccabees, two books."
-St. Damasus I, Pope, "The Decree of Damsus," section 2 (382 AD)
I would think this enough, though more can be shown, that the Church
has always accepted the deutero-canon, though parts have been disputed
by various persons.  For if disputes involving the New Testament
deutero-canon does not disqulaify those books (i.e. Hebrews, James, 2
Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, Revelation) in Protestant eyes, than neither
should it disqulaify the Old Testament books.  And I must point out that
the Jews only drew up their canon in 90 AD, 60 years after the founding
of the Christian Religion upon the Cross.  Why should we adhere to a
canon that was drawn up by the faithless, in reaction to the Chrsitian
use of the Greek Septuagint, which includes the deutero-canon?  As early
as 150 AD, St. Justin had already accused the Jews of mutilating the
Canon of Scripture by their removal of certain books.  Protestants
apparently prefer to think that God's revelation was limited by a decree
of the Jews in the ordering of their (the Jews') faithless canon, and
that he could not use other people, like the Apostles, in drawing up the
canon.  The Apostles were most certain users of the Septuagint, as some
80% of the Old Testament quotes use the wording of the Septuagint, and
not the Hebrew.  And the Septuagint includes the Deuterocanon.
From: mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael D. Walker)
Subject: Re: Deuterocanonicals, esp. Sirach
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 26
wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes:
>The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
>history.  They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
>rest of Scripture.  I do not believe the church that added these
>books was guided by the Spirit in so doing.  And that is where
>this sort of discussion ultimately ends.
>David H. Wagner
>a confessional Lutheran		"Now thank we all our God
Whoah  whoah  whoah  WHOAH!!!   What?!?
That last paragraph just about killed me.  The Deuterocanonicals have
ALWAYS been accepted as inspired scripture by the Catholic Church,
which has existed much longer than any Protestant Church out there.
It was Martin Luther who began hacking up the bible and deciding to
REMOVE certain books--not the fact that the Catholic Church decided
to add some much later--that is the reason for the difference between
"Catholic" and "Protestant" bibles.
Sorry for the tone--but that comment really irked me.
- Mike Walker
mdw33310@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
(Univ. of Illinois)
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Should Christians fight? / Justifiable war
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 35
In article gideon@otago.ac.nz (Gideon King) writes:
>I posted this a couple of weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to have appeared
>on the newsgroup, and I haven't had a reply from the moderator. We were
>having intermittent problems with our mail at the time. Please excuse me
>if you have seen this before...
>
>Should Christians fight?
>
>Last week Alastair posted some questions about fighting, and whether there
>are such things as "justifiable wars". I have started looking into these
>things and have jotted down my findings as I go. I haven't answered all
>his questions yet, and I know what I have here is on a slightly different
>tack, but possibly I'll be able to get into it more deeply later, and post
>some more info soon.
May I suggest the book: "Ethics" by Dr. Norm Geisler, of Dallas Theological
Seminary.  In it, he goes over all the arguments pro and con and in-between,
and comes up with a very reasonable answer.  If I have time, and there is
enough interest, I may post his position.
Jon Noring
--
Charter Member --->>>  INFJ Club.
If you're dying to know what INFJ means, be brave, e-mail me, I'll send info.
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        |                          |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | FRED'S GOURMET CHOCOLATE |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | CHIPS - World's Best!    |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |                          |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Is OT Valid????
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 31
Peir-Yuan Yeh asks:
>I wonder if the OT is not exactly like Jewish history.  Are they the
same >or part of them are the same?  How about Torah? Are the first five
books >of OT as the same as Torah?????
Yes, yes, and yes.  Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament and
as shown by archaeology are the same.  Kings, revivals, Temples, and all.
The Torah, as far as I know, is the five books of Moses.  Then come the
Prophets (all the Prophets, plus Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings)
and the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Ecclesiates, Song of Songs, 1&2 Chronicles, Job).
And the veracity of Isaiah, which you quoted to your Moslem friend is
quite well known.  A complete manuscript exists that dates back to past
200 BC, and is kept in a Museum in Israel.  It was found among the Dead
Sea Scrolls, which greatly enhanced our knowledge of the veracity of the
Old Testament, as they date back to around the time of Christ, whereas
before, the oldest complete manuscript in Hebrew was from around 900 AD.
Your Moslem friend is sorely mistaken, but understandably so.  If Jesus
was crucified, and atoned for our sins, he must have been God, for only
the death of God could atone for the sins of all humanity.  And as
Isaiah predicts, the messiah will be called "the mighty God."  And if he
was God, then he must have rose, for as St. Paul wrote, it was not
possible that death could hold him.  And if Jesus rose from the dead,
your Moslem friend would have little reason to be a Moslem.  Which is
why he denies the authenticity of the Old Testament.
Andy Byler
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 38
Rex (REXLEX@fnal.fnal.gov) writes:
>It is also of interest to note that in 1825, on the occasion of a
jubilee, Pope >Leo the 12th had a medallion cast with his own image on
one side and on >the other side, the Church of Rome symbolized as a
"Woman, holding in >her left hand a cross, and in her right a cup with
legend around her, >'Sedet super universum',  'The whole world is her
seat."
You read more into the medal than it is worth.  The Woman is the
Church.  Catholics have always called our Church "Holy Mother Church"
and our "Mother."  An example would be from St. Cyprian of Carthage, who
wrote in 251 AD, "Can anyone have God for his Father, who does not have
the Church for his mother?"
Hence the image of the Church as a woman, holding a Cross and a Cup,
which tell of the Crucifxition of Our Lord, and of the power of His
Blood (the grail legend, but also, more significantly, it shows that
"This is the Cup of the New Covenant in my blood, which shall be shed
for you and for many." (Luke 22.20), the Cup represents the New Covenant
and holds the blood of redemption).  The fact that the woman is holding
both and is said to have the whole world for her seat, is that the
Catholic Church is catholic, that is universal, and is found throughout
the world, and the Church shows the Crucifixtion and applies the blood
of redemption to all mankind by this spread of hers, thorugh which the
Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, can be said and celebrated in all the
nations as Malachi predicted in Malachi 1.11, "From the rising of the
sun to its setting, my name is great among the gentiles, and everywhere
there is sacrafice, and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation,
for my Name is great among the gentiles, says the Lord of hosts."  And
so we acknowledge what St. Paul wrote "For as often as you eat this
bread and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death until he comes." (1
Corinthians 11.26)
You are quite right about the identification of "Babylon the Great,
Mother of all Harlots" with Rome.  I think we simply disagree as to what
time period of Rome the Apostle John is talking about.
Andy Byler
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Revelations - BABYLON?
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 27
Hal Heydt writes:
>That was only the fall of the *Western* Empire.  The *Eastern* Empire
>continued for another 1000 years--and a key element in it's fall was
>the *Christian* sack of Constantinople.
Note that I said the fall of Rome, not of the Empire.  The Roman Empire
lasted until 1453, with its transfered capital in Constantinople.  The
main reason for it's fall was not so much the sack of Constantinople by
the men of the 4th Crusade (who were not Christians - they had been
excommunicated down to the last man after attacking the Christian city
of Zara in Croatia), but rather the disastorous defeat in the battle of
Mazinkert.  After the Turks breached the frontier, it was only a matter
of time before the Empire fell, the inability of the Empire to hold onto
the rim of Anatolia, with the Ottomans and Rum Seljuks in the middle
should be quite obvious to any student of history.  The sack of
Constantinople only hastened the inevitable along.  For if the Greeks
had wanted to save their empire, why would they not cooperate with the
Crusaders when they came to do battle with the Saracens in the 1st-3rd
Crusades?  Because of their obstinacy over cooperating with people they
considered heretics, even though those "heretics" were fighting for the
cause of the Empire and Christendom in doing battle with the Turkish
hordes in Anatolia, Edessa, Lebanon, Palastine, and Syria, the some
hordes who were to later sack Constantinople, and overrun a third of
Europe (the Balkans, Hungary, the Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc.)
Andy Byler
From: mcovingt@aisun3.ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington)
Subject: Re: Translations
Organization: AI Programs, University of Georgia, Athens
Lines: 25
In article <May.9.05.41.02.1993.27540@athos.rutgers.edu> ab4z@virginia.edu (Andi Beyer) writes:
>Which Version of the Bible do you consider to be the most
>accurate translation?
Well, knowing Greek and Hebrew, I'm probably not as picky about translations
as I would be if English translations were my only source of information.
BUT...
(1) Any verse that comes out substantially different in different trans-
lations is almost certainly unclear in the original.
(2) It is very bad practice to "shop" for a translation that fits your own
doctrinal positions.
Personally, I still like the RSV.  NRSV and NASV are also very good.
I have a strong preference for editions that do _not_ indent the beginning
of each verse as if verses were paragraphs.  The verse numbering is a
relatively modern addition and should not be given undue prominence.
--
:-  Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist        :    *****
:-  Artificial Intelligence Programs      mcovingt@ai.uga.edu :  *********
:-  The University of Georgia              phone 706 542-0358 :   *  *  *
:-  Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A.     amateur radio N4TMI :  ** *** **  <><
From: muddmj@wkuvx1.bitnet
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY
Lines: 27
> But, haven't "all sinned, and come short of the glory
> of God" (Romans 3:23)?
> Those that cite this scripture to claim that even
> babes require baptism neglect that "sin is not imputed
> when there is no law" (Romans 5:13).
>
> Therefore, until someone is capable of comprehending
> God's laws they are not accountable for living them.
> They are in the book of life and are not removed until
> they can make a conscious decision to disobey God.
>
> A IDLER
If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
ever say so.  It never comes right and says "Only people that know
right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."
What Christ did say was :
"I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without
being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I
tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."
Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?
Mike
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Monophysites and Mike Walker
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 20
Nabil Ayoub writes:
>As a final note, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastren Orthodox did sign a
>common statement of Christology, in which the heresey of >Monophysitism
was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not >believe in
Monophysitism.
Sorry!
What does the Coptic Church believe about the will and energy of Christ?
Were there one or were there two (i.e. Human and Divine) wills and
energies in Him.
Also, what is the objection ot the Copts with the Pope of Rome (i.e. why
is there a Coptic Catholic Church)?  Do you reject the supreme
jurisdiction of the 263rd sucessor of St. Peter (who blessed St. John
Mark, Bishop of Alexandria was translator for) and his predecessors?  Or
his infallibility?  Or what other things perhaps?
Andy Byler
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: Serbian genocide Work of God?
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 61
Vera Shanti Noyes writes;
>this is what indicates to me that you may believe in predestination.
>am i correct?  i do not believe in predestination -- i believe we all
>choose whether or not we will accept God's gift of salvation to us.
>again, fundamental difference which can't really be resolved.
Of course I believe in Predestination.  It's a very biblical doctrine as
Romans 8.28-30 shows (among other passages).  Furthermore, the Church
has always taught predestination, from the very beginning.  But to say
that I believe in Predestination does not mean I do not believe in free
will.  Men freely choose the course of their life, which is also
affected by the grace of God.  However, unlike the Calvinists and
Jansenists, I hold that grace is resistable, otherwise you end up with
the idiocy of denying the universal saving will of God (1 Timothy 2.4).
For God must give enough grace to all to be saved.  But only the elect,
who he foreknew, are predestined and receive the grace of final
perserverance, which guarantees heaven.  This does not mean that those
without that grace can't be saved, it just means that god foreknew their
obstinacy and chose not to give it to them, knowing they would not need
it, as they had freely chosen hell.
^^^^^^^^^^^
People who are saved are saved by the grace of God, and not by their own
effort, for it was God who disposed them to Himself, and predestined
them to become saints.  But those who perish in everlasting fire perish
because they hardened their heart and chose to perish.  Thus, they were
deserving of God;s punishment, as they had rejected their Creator, and
sinned against the working of the Holy Spirit.
>yes, it is up to God to judge.  but he will only mete out that
>punishment at the last judgement.
Well, I would hold that as God most certainly gives everybody some
blessing for what good they have done (even if it was only a little),
for those He can't bless in the next life, He blesses in this one.  And
those He will not punish in the next life, will be chastised in this one
or in Purgatory for their sins.  Every sin incurs some temporal
punishment, thus, God will punish it unless satisfaction is made for it
(cf. 2 Samuel 12.13-14, David's sin of Adultery and Murder were
forgiven, but he was still punished with the death of his child.)  And I
need not point out the idea of punishment because of God's judgement is
quite prevelant in the Bible.  Sodom and Gommorrah, Moses barred from
the Holy Land, the slaughter of the Cannanites, Annias and Saphira,
Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc.
> if jesus stopped the stoning of an adulterous woman (perhaps this is
not a >good parallel, but i'm going to go with it anyway), why should we
not >stop the murder and violation of people who may (or may not) be more
>innocent?
We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but
does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the
U.S. or even the U.N. involved?  I do not think so, but I am an
isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general.  But in
the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily
involved, it would not be a "just war."  "Blessed" after all, "are the
peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists.  Our
actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is
unrelated to anything to justify it for us.
Andy Byler
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
Subject: Re: The doctrine of Original Sin
Organization: Freshman, Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 22
Eugene Bigelow writes:
>Doesn't the Bible say that God is a fair god [sic]?  If this is true,
how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?
What do you mean fair?  God is just, giving to everyone what they
deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf
Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as
purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it
is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven.  Hence, the unbaptized
infants are cut off from the God against whom they, with the whole of
the human race except Mary, have sinned.  Which is why Jesus said,
"Truly, truly I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless
he is born of water and Spirit" which is the true meaning of born again
(John 3.5).  Thus, as infants are in sin, it is very fair for them to be
cut off from God and exlcuded from heaven.
As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the
Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a
doubt are a follower of a new heresy."  (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)
Andy Byler
From: lieuwen@allegra.att.com (Dan Lieuwen)
Subject: Re: The obvious isn't politically correct.
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
Lines: 5
The last state church was in Massachusetts.  Sam Adams, the patriot-brewmaster,
during his tenure as governor after the Revolutionary War got it passed.
I believe it was eliminated around 1820.
dan
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Organization: Manes and Associates, NYC
Distribution: na
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 38
hambidge@bms.com wrote:
: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
:
: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.
: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
: latter.  Simple enuff?
For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:
handgun homicides/population
----------------------------
Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
UK :    8 / 55,670,000
... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
Your choice.
--
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Organization: Manes and Associates, NYC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 168
Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental
: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK
: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population
: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted
: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the
: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as
: > many people with baseball bats.
: You just can't compare this way!  All homicides must be shown, per capita, not
: just handguns.  The availability of them in the USA makes them the preferred
: murder weapon, but ban them, and some other weapon will step in as the
: favorite.
As a "favorite", sure.  As lethal, not likely.  A study of violence in
Chicago produced this table:
Percentage of Reported Gun and Knife Attacks
Resulting in Death
Weapon				Deaths As Percentage of Attacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Knives (16,518 total attacks)		 2.4
Guns (6,350 total attacks)		12.2
Source: Firearms and Violence in American Life
It might be contended that if gun murderers were deprived of guns
that they would find a way to kill as often with knives.  If this were
so, knife attacks in cities where guns were widely used in homicide
would be expected to show a low fatality rate, and knife attacks in
cities where guns were not so widely used (like Vancouver) would show
a higher fatality rate.  But the Nat'l Commission on the Causes and
Prevention of Violence Task Force analyzed the data and found this
not to be the case.  It appeared to them that as the number of knife
attacks increased in relation to the number of firearms attacks
(which presumably happened where guns were less available to assailants),
the proportion of FATAL knife attacks did NOT increase relative to the
proportion of gun attacks.  In fact, the reverse was true.
What was found was that most homicides did not show a determination on
the part of the assailant to kill.  Fatalities caused by knife tended
to show a single-mindedness on the part of the assailant to do grave
physical injury: multiple stabs wounds, wounds concentrated about the
head neck and chest, etc.  Most gun homicides did not show this
pattern.  Rather, more fatal attacks were committed during a moment of
rage and not the focused intent to kill the victim.
Source: Report on Firearms and Violence
: Then, since England != USA (my ancestors left because of the oppression) you
: must compare England before strict gun laws to England after strict gun laws to
: be able to draw any meaning at all.  England has essentially legalized drugs,
: so there are no drug gangs battling for turf, etc., there.  If you drop out the
: drug related killings here, the USA would look a whole lot more peaceful.
There are a lot of factors which make a difference.  Actually, I'm not
fond of making ANY kind of social parallels between Europeans and
Americans. There are more cultural, beahvioral and economic
differences between us than similarities.  I just sort of found
myself backed into that corner over the last couple of weeks.  I
don't think we could ever attain the low levels of European violent
crime here in the US, whether we banned guns or required every
law-abiding citizen to carry a loaded Uzi.
On the other hand, we can draw lessons from neighbors who are more
culturally similar, namely the Canadians.  In fact, an exhaustive,
seven-year study has already been done of the respective crime rates
of Vancouver, British Columbia and Seattle, Washington... cities
with roughly the same population, urban economy, geography
and crime but with decidedly different approaches to gun control.
In Seattle, handguns may be purchased legally for self-defense.  After
a 30-day waiting period, a permit can be obtained to carry a concealed
weapon.  The recreational use of handguns is minimally restricted.
In Vancouver, self-defense is not considered a valid or legal reason
to purchase a handgun.  Concealed weapons are not permitted.
Recreational uses of handguns (target shooting, collecting) are
regulated by the province.  Purchase of a handgun requires a
restricted-weapons permit.  A permit to carry may be obtained in
order to transport the weapon to licensed shooting clubs.  Handguns
transported by vehicle must be stored in the trunk in a locked box.
In short, gun control but not unreasonably so.
Both cities aggressively enforce their gun laws.  Convictions for
gun-related offenses carry similar penalties.  The researchers
studied all cases of robbery, assault (simple and aggravated),
burglary and homicides occurring in Seattle and Vancouver from
1/1/80 to 12/31/86. In defining the cases, they used the same
standard: the FBI's Unified Crime Report.
Results: during the seven-year study the annual rate of robbery in
Seattle was found to be only slightly higher than that in Vancouver
(1.09 / 1.11).  Burglaries occurred at nearly identical rates (.99).
18,925 assaults were recorded in Seattle versus 12,034 in
Vancouver.  The risk of being a victim of a simple assault in
Seattle was found to be only slightly higher than Vancouver (1.18 /
1.15) and the risk of aggravated assault was also slightly higher
(1.16 / 1.12).  However, when aggravated assaults were subdivided by
weapon and the mechanism of assault, a clear pattern emerged.
Although both cities reported nearly identical rates of aggravated
assault involving knives and other dangerous weapons, firearms were
far more likely to be used in Seattle.  In fact, 7.7 times as often.
Over the seven-year study, 388 homicides occurred in Seattle
(11.3 per 100,000) vs. 204 homicides in Vancouver (6.9 per 100,000).
After adjustment for differences in age and sex among the populations,
the relative risk of being a victim of homicide in Seattle, as
compared to Vancouver, was found to be 1.63.
When homicides were subdivided by the mechanism of death, the rate
of homicide by knives and other weapons (excluding firearms) in
Seattle was found to be almost identical to that in Vancouver.
Virtually ALL of the increased risk of death in Seattle was due to
a more than fivefold higher rate of homicide by firearms.  Handguns
accounted for roughly 85% of homicides involving firearms.  Handguns
were 4.8 times more likely to be used in homicides in Seattle than
in Vancouver.
The authors of the report also investigated "legally justifiable"
homicides (self-defense).  Only 32 such homicides occurred during
the seven-year study, 11 of which were committed by police.  Only
21 cases of civilians acting in self-defense occurrred: 17 in
Seattle and 4 in Vancouver.  Only 13 involved firearms.  After
excluding these cases, there was virtually no impact on these
earlier findings.
-------
This is, I feel, a very fair report.  One might even make the
argument that it is biased against Canada as a whole because
Vancouver reports annual rates of homicide two to three times
that of Ottawa, Calgary and Toronto while Seattle reports
annual homicide rates only half to two-thirds that of NYC,
Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston.
Critics of handgun control always argue that limited legal access
to handguns will have little effect on the rates of homicide because
persons intent on killing others will only try harder to acquire a
gun or will kill by other means.  This report shows differently.
If the rate of homicide in a community were influenced more by
the strength of intent than by the availability of weapons, we
could expect the rate of homicides by weapons other than guns to
be higher in Vancouver than in Seattle.  However, during the study
interval, Vancouver's rate of homicide by weapons other than guns
was not significantly higher than that in Seattle, suggesting that
few would-be assailants switched to homicide by other methods.
As well, ready access to handguns for self-defense by law-abiding
citizens was not endorsed in this report.  Although Seattle did
experience a higher rate of firearm death for self-defense, these
cases accounted for less than 4% of the homicides in both cities
during the course of the study period.  And, as was reported,
Seattle apparently didn't enjoy relief from any crime category
over Vancouver because citizens may legally arm themselves for
self-defense.
Heavily quoted source: Handgun Regulation, Crime,
Assaults, and Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities.
John H. Sloan, Arthur L. Kellerman, Donald T. Reay,
James A. Ferris, Thomas Koepsall, Frederick P. Rivara,
Charles Rice, Laurel Gray and James LoGerfo
--
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Organization: Manes and Associates, NYC
Distribution: na
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 39
Steve Kao (k@hprnd.rose.hp.com) wrote:
: Frank Crary posted:
: : Sure, but the difference in per-capita crime rates predates the
: : gun control laws: The homicide rate in England was a tenth that
: : of America, back when anyone in England could buy a gun without
: : any paperwork at all.
: Steve Manes asks:
: > Got a citation for this?
: Colin Greenwood from Scotland Yard did a study that showed that gun
: control has had no effect on crime or murder rates in the UK.  His book,
: _Firearms_Controls_, has been published in London by Keegan Paul (name
: may be misspelled).
Others dispute that, like Richard Hofstadter, <America As A Gun Culture>,
and Newton and Zimring's <Firearms and Violence in American Life>.  But,
again, statistics between too dissimilar cultures are difficult to
quantify.
I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More
American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National
Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).
If Mr. Greenwood believes that Brits are much too sober and
coordinated to make such mistakes I'd like to introduce him to my
friend, Amanda from Brighton.  I used to have some pretty nice
crystal in my place until she moved in.  I've gotten used to the
snide comments from guests about the clown motif on my rubber
wine glasses.
--
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Vancouver/Seattle Study Critiques
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Lines: 360
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Open letter by Dr. Paul H. Blackman, Research Coordinator for
NRA-ILA. NRA Official Journal 1/89.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear sir:
By now, we are used to the New England Journal of Medicine's publication
of small-scale studies related to firearms from which conclusions are
drawn which are quantum leaps from the data, followed by announcements of
momentus "scientific" findings. These are regularly released to the press
without the caveats which riddle the conclusory paragraphs, and
often accompanied by an editorial calling attention to the findings.
Generally, while they at least present a few interesting data, however
meaningless, the studies misinterpret statistics, and ignore or belittle
serious studies by criminologists.
The latest effort -- "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide:
A Tale of Two Cities," by J.H. Sloan, et al., with the accompanying
editorial, "Firearms Injuries: A Call for Science," by two employees
of the Centers for Disease Control (November 10), however, is an insult
to the intelligence of any serious scholar in any field and have so few
data and so many flaws that I feel compelled to write at some length
to call attention to various major and minor failings, in no particular
order.
1. The authors misleadingly cite Wright, et al. (Ref. 1) to
support the statement that "some have argued that restricting
access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate
of homicide." Wright, et al., in fact studied and rejected that
contention.
2. The authors pretended that Vancouver and Seattle are very
similar cities with similar economic circumstances, histories,
demographic characteristics, and the like. In fact, the cities
are very different with very different demographic characteristics
which appear to explain completely the higher homicide rate in
Seattle. Both cities are over three-forths non-Hispanic white
and *the non-Hispanic white homicide rates are reported to be
the same in Seattle and Vancouver*. It is the different back-
grounds, problems, circumstances, and behaviors of the various
ethnic minorities which explain the difference in homicide.
3. The authors pretend they are evaluating Canada's gun law,
compared to Washington State's. But they do not examine at all
the situation in Vancouver prior to the gun law taking effect
in 1978. As it happens, in the three years prior to that (1975-
1977), Vancouver averaged 23 homicides per year, one-eighth
involving handguns, (Ref. 2) and in the seven years of the NEJM
article there were 29 homicides per year, one-eigth involving
handguns. Surely even the medical profession recognizes that
one must look to see the prior situation was before concluding
that a change made a difference? Would a physician conclude that
a patient was benefiting from eating oat bran muffin each day
for seven years because his cholesterol level was 200 without
at least seeing if it was 180 before he started the regimen?
4. The authors pick two medium-sized cities to evaluate a national
gun law. Nothing can be learned from such a tiny and arbitrarily
selected sample. Seattle appears to have been selected because
it was convienient for the authors rather than for any scientific
reason. Would physicians call something a scientific study which
involved one experimental subject and one dissimilar "control"?
Had different arbitrarily selected cities been chosen, opposite
"scientific" conclusions would follow: Vancouver's homicide
rate *exceeds* that of such "wild west" cities in Texas as
El Paso, Corpus Christi, Austen, and, in Colorado, Colorado
Springs. (Ref. 3)
5. The authors fail to clearly demonstrate that firearms or
handguns "are far more commonly owned in Seattle than in
Vancouver." They use two surrogate approaches in pretending
to study the availability of firearms/handguns. The first is
an apples-and-oranges effort to compare the number of carry
permits in Seattle to the number of registered handguns in
Vancouver. But the number clearly understates the number of
handguns in Seattle, and counts primarily *protective* handgun
owners. The second, however, tells nothing about the number
of handguns in Vancouver, and counts *non-protective* handguns
for the most part. Where is it difficult to obtain handguns
legally for protection, registration figures are
meaningless. There are 66,000 registered handguns in New York
City (New York Daily News, Sept. 27, 1987). Comparing the two,
that method suggests about 930 handguns per 100,000 population
in New York City compared to 960 in Vancouver, meaning Vancouver
has a greater "prevalence of weapons" than New York City.
The second method of measuring gun density is "Cook's gun
prevalence index, a previously validated measure of intercity
differences." But the validation was by Cook of his own
theory. (Ref. 4) Normally, second opinions are sought from a
different doctor. More significantly, the Cook index is
based on the average of the percentage of firearms involvement
in suicide and homicide. So the authors are basically taking
a measure of misuse. Unsurprisingly, gun misuse in homicide
(42% in Seattle, 14% in Vancouver) is related to gun misuse in
homicide plus suicide, divided by two (41% in Seattle, 12% in
Vancouver). The authors are not measuring the relative avail-
ability of firearms, or of handguns, in Seattle and
Vancouver.
6. The authors misstate the laws of both Washington and
Canada. They neglect to mention the significant fact that
Washington has a waiting period and background check prior to
the purchase of a handgun, and that provisions exist in Canadian
law for owning and carrying handguns for personal
protection. The authors also make it appear that it is more
difficult to get a handgun legally in Canada than is actually
the case.
7. The authors ignore all other factors which might explain
the differences in crime rate, beyond some vague mention of the
penalities provided by law and the roughest of estimates of
clearence for one particular offense -- homicide involving a
firearm. There is no measure of: the differences in the number
of law enforcement officers; their aggressiveness in making
arrests for gun law violations in the two jurisdictions; arrest
rates for other offenses; conviction rates; actual sentences
imposed for gun-related crimes, violent crimes without guns,
or gun law violations; or incarceration rates. Whereas social
scientists would attempt to measure and hold for such differences,
the authors of the NEJM "tale of two cities" fail even to mention
most factors related to crime control.
8. The authors dismiss claims that handguns are an effective
means for protection unless the criminal is killed. Such is not
the case. Criminologists (Ref. 5-8) have found that almost
650,000 Americans annually use handguns for protection from
criminals, and that using a gun for protection reduces the
liklihood that a crime -- rape, robbery, assault -- will be
completed by the criminal and reduces the likelihood of injury
to the victim. It is interesting, nonetheless, that the authors
reported the same number (four) of civilian justifiable homicides
without firearms in each city but that less restrictive Seattle
accounted for 100% of the reported civilian justifiable homicides
involving firearms.
9. The Centers for Disease Control, which funded the "study,"
editorially praised the paper, (Ref. 9) saying it "applied
scientific methods to examine a focus of contention betweeb
advocates of stricter regulation of firearms, particularly
handguns." There is nothing in the paper which could possibly
be mistaken for "scientific methods" by a sociologists or
criminologists. The Vancouver-Seattle "study" is the equivolent
of testing an experimental drug to control hypertension by finding
two ordinary-looking middle-class white males, one aged 25
and the other 40, and without first taking their vital signs,
administering the experimental drug to the 25-year-old while
giving the 40-year-old a placebo, then taking their blood pressure
and, on finding the younger man had a lower blood pressure,
announcing in a "special article" a new medical breakthrough.
It would be nice to think that such a "study" would neither be
funded by the CDC or printed by the NEJM.
Since the longstanding anti-gun biases of the NEJM and the CDC
make them willing to present shoddy research as "scientific
breakthroughs" in "special articles" and editorials relating
to firearms, we are obligated to correct the record by notifying
the news media and those with congressional and executive oversight
over the activities of the Centers for Disease Control about
the distortions contained in "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults,
and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities" and "Firearm Injuries: A Call
for Science." Clearly, all scientific standards go by the wayside
whenever the CDC and the New England Journal of Medicine seize
an opportunity to attack firearms ownership in America.
REFERENCES
1. Wright JD, et al, *Weapons, crime and violence in America*: a literature
review and research agenda, Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice,
1981.
2. Scarff E. *Evaluation of the Canadian gun control legislation*: final
report. Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada, 1983,
p. 87.
3. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, *Crime in
the United States*, 1987 (Uniform Crime Reports). Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1988
4. Cook PJ. *The role of firearms in violent crime*. In: Wolfgang M.
Weiner NA, eds. *Criminal violence*, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982:
236-90, pp. 270-271.
5. Kleck G. *Crime control through the private use of armed force*.
Social Problems 1988: 35:1-21.
6. Ziegenhagen EA, Brosnan D. *Victim responses to robbery and crime
control policy*. Criminology. 1985: 23:675-695.
7. Lizotte AJ. *Determinants of completeing rape and assault*. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology. 1986: 2:203-217.
8. Sayles SL, Kleck G. *Rape and resistance*. Paper at the American Society
of Criminology convention, Chicago, 1988.
9. Mercy JA, Houk VN. *Firearm injuries: a call for science*.
NEJM: 319:1283-1285.
==========================================================================
GUNS AND SPUTTER
by James D. Wright
(from July 1989 issue of REASON, Free Minds & Free Markets)
Someone once wrote: "Statistics are like a bikini.  What they real is
suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."  The problem is demonstrated
by the most recent entry in a long line of scientific research purporting
to show a causal link between gun availability and homicide.  Funded by
the federal government and published last year in the New England Journal
of Medicine, the study compared homicide rates in Seattle and Vancouver and
suggested that a handgun ban "may reduce the rate of homicide in a
community."
The nine medical doctors who published "Handgun Regulations, Crime,
Assaults, and Homicide" essentially reasoned in three steps: (1) Despite
many historical, social, and demographic similarities, (2) Vancouver
has a markedly lower homicide rate (3) because its stricter gun regulations
make guns less available.  The second step in their reasoning seems
indisputable.  The overall homicide rate in Seattle (for the period
1980-86) was 11.3 per 100,000 popuation, compared with 6.9 in Vancouver.
Homicide is definitely more common in Seattle.  The question then becomes,
Why?
The authors present a believable although not entirely accurate case
to support the notion, as claimed in the third step of their reasoning,
that Vancouver's handgun regulations are much more stringent.  But their
evidence on the difference in gun *availabilty* is indirect and
unpersuasive; indeed, they acknowledge that direct evidence on the point
does not exist.  They offer two fragments of inferential data in support
of the claim that guns are more available in Seattle; but for all anybody
knows as a matter of empirical fact, the opposite could be true.  We
are therefore being asked, at the conclusion of the study, to believe that
a difference in gun availability explains the difference in homicide rates
when a difference in gun availability has not itself been established.
Indeed, the situation is even more troublesome.  The first of the two
indirect bits of evidence is a difference between the number of concealed-
weapons permits issued in Seattle and the number of restricted-weapons
permits issued in Vancouver.  Differences between the two cities in the
permit regulations render these two numbers strictly noncomparable.
*     The second bit of evidence is "Cook's gun prevalence index," which stands
*  at 41 percent for Seattle but only 12 percent for Vancouver.  Cook's index
*  however, does not measure the relative prevalence of gun ownership in
*  various cities.  It measures gun misuse--it is an average of the percentage
*  of homicides and suicides involving firearms.
*     In the present case, the index shows only that in homicides and suicides,
*  firearms are more likely to be used in Seatte than in Vancouver.  To take
*  Cook's index as a measure of general firearms availability, it must be
*  assumed that the proportional involvement of guns in homicides and suicides
*  is directly related to their relative availability in the general
*  population.  But this is exactly what the authors are seeking to prove. To
*  assume what one is seeking to prove, then to "prove" it on the basis of
*  that assumption does ot constitute scientific evidence for anything.
Even if we were to grant, on the basis of no compelling evidence, that
guns are less common in Vancouver, we might still question what causes what.
The authors attribute Seattle's higher crime rate to a higher rate of gun
ownership.  But it might well be argued that low crime or homicide rates
reduce the motivation for average citizens to obtain guns--in other words,
that crime rates explain the variation in gun ownership, not vice versa.
In fact, it was once commonly argued that Great Britain's low rate of
violent crime was a function of that nation's strict gun laws and the
consequent low rate of gun ownership--until British researcher Colin
Greenwood found that Great Britain had enjoyed low rates of violent crime
for many decades before strict firearms controls were enacted.  To invoke
an ancient methodological saw, correlation is not cause.
Nor do the problems with this study end with its lack of direct data
on gun ownership.  The authors say Seattle and Vancouver are "similar in
many ways," implying that they differ mainly in gun availability, gun-law
stringency, and crime rates.  This is an evident attempt to establish
the ceteris paribus condition of a sound scientific analysis--that "all
else is equal" among things being compared.
*     Clearly the two cities are similar in some ways, but a closer look
*  reveals differences in ways that are relevant to their respective crime
*  or homicide rates.  The cities are closely matched in what percentage
*  of their population is white (79 percent and 76 percent).  But Seattle
*  is about 10 percent black, while Vancouver is less than 0.5 percent.
*  Vancouver's minority population is overwhelmingly Asian.  So although the
*  authors show that th two cities are approximately comparable on a half-
*  dozen readily available demographic indicators, they have not shown
*  that all potentially relevant sources of variation have been ruled out.
*     In fact, the differences in racial compositions of the two cities is
*  particularly relevant in light of the study's breakdown of homicide rates
*  according to the race of the victim.  For the white majority, the homicide
*  rates are nearly identical--6.2 per 100,000 in Seattle, 6.4 in Vancouver.
*  The differing overall homicide rates in the two cities are therefore due
*  entirely to vastly different rates among racial minorities.  For blacks,
*  the observed difference in homicide rate is 36.6 to 9.5 and for Hispanics
*  26.9 to 7.9.  (Methodoligical complexities render the Asian comparison
*  problematic, but it too is higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.)  Racial
*  minorities are much more likely to be the victims of homicide in Seattle
*  than in Vancouver; the white majority is equally likely to be slain
*  in either city.
Since the nearly 2:1 initial difference in homicide reates between the
cities is due exclusively to 3:1 or 4:1 differences between minority
groups, it is fair to ask why postulated difference in "gun availability"
(or gun-law strigency) would matter so dramatically to minorities but not
matter at all to whites.  Can differential gun availability explain why
blacks and Hispanics--but not whites--are so much more likely to be killed
in Seattle than in Vancouver?  (Studies in the United States, incidentally,
do not show large or consistent racial differences in gun ownership.)
Or are other explanations more plausible?  Could the disparity between
Canadian and American rates of poverty among racial minorities have
anything to do with it?  What are the relative rates of drug or alcohol
abuse?  Of homelessness among each cty's minority population?  (The city
of Seattle runs the largest shelter for homeless men west of the
Mississippi.)  Unemployment among young, central-city, nonwhite men in the
United States usually exceeds 40 percent.  What is the comparable Canadian
percentage?
The crucial point is that Canada and the United States differ in many
ways, as do cities and population subgroups with the two countries.  Absent
more detailed analysis, nearly any of these "many ways" might explain part
or all of the difference in homicide rates.  In gross comparisons such
as those between Seattle and Vancouver, all else is *not* equal.
*     The authors of this study acknowledge that racial patterns in homicide
*  result in a "complex picture."  They do not acknowledge that the ensuing
*  complexities seriously undercut the main thrust of their argument.  They
*  also acknowledge that "socio-economic status is probably an important
*  confounding factor in our comparison," remarking further that "blacks
*  in Vancouver had a slightly higher mean income in 1981 than the rest of
*  Vancouver's population."  Given the evidence presented in the article,
*  it is possible that all of the difference in homicide rates between Seattle
*  and Vancouver results from greater proverty among Seattle's racial
*  minorities.  But the authors pay no further attention to this possibility,
*  since "detailed information about household incomes according to race
*  is not available for Vancouver."
The largely insurmountable methodological difficulties confronted in
gross comparative studies of this sort can be illustrated with as simple
example.  If one were to take all U.S. couties and compare them in terms
of (1) pervalence of gun ownership and (2) crime or homicide rates, one
would find an astonishing pattern: Counties with more guns have less crime.
Would one conclude from this evidence alone that guns actually reduce
crime?  Or would one insist that other variables also be taken into
account?  In this example, the "hidden variable" is city size: Guns are
more common in small towns and rural areas, whereas crime is a big-city
problem.  If researchers failed to anticipate this variable, or lacked the
appropriate data to examine its possible consequences, they coud be very
seriously misled.  In the study at hand, the authors matched two cities
for size but not for minority poverty rates or other hidden variables,
and their results are impossible to interpret.
In the editorial "Firearm Injuries: A Call for Science" accompanying
the study, two officials from the Centers for Disease Control lauded the
authors for applying "scientific methods" to a problem of grave public
heath significance.  But in attempting to draw causal conclusions from
nonexperimental research, the essence of scientific method is to anticipate
plausible alternative explanations for the results and try to rule them
out.  Absent such effort, the results may well seem scientific but are
little more than polemics masquerading as serious research.  That this
study is but one of a number of recent efforts--all employing practical
identical research designs and published in leading scientific journals--
is cause for further concern.
[James D. Wright is professor of sociology at Tulane University.  He has
researched extensively on the relationship of firearms and crime.]
Reason published monthly except combined August-September issue by the Reason
Foundation, a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization.  Subscription rate: $24.00
per year.
Reason Foundation
2716 Ocean Park Blvd.
Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: cower@csli.stanford.edu (Richard Cower)
Subject: Waco dates - are these coincidental?
Organization: CSLI, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Lines: 34
The ATF agent interviewed on "Street Stories" reported that the raid was
ill planned, and went ahead even when they (the BD's) knew the ATF was
coming. WHY?
I believe this raid was ill planned because they only had 2 days to plan it,
and it was continued when failure was obvious because it had a bit part
in the much larger political agenda of President Clinton. I would even
suggest that the loss of 4 ATF agents is inconsequential in this the
context of his political agenda. It MIGHT even be beneficial to his agenda,
as it helps point up just how evil these assualt weapons are. Further proof
might be that the ATF denied their agents (Street Stories report) requests
for sufficient fire power.
Important dates:
Feb 25th - NJ assembly votes to overturn assault weapon ban.
Feb 28th - Compound in Waco attacked.
On Feb. 25th the New Jersey assembly voted to overturn the assault weapon
ban in that state. It looked like it might be a tight vote, but the Senate
in N.J. was going to vote to overturn the ban. It would not sit well to have
an Eastern state overturn an assault weapon ban, given Clintons stated
agenda on gun control. I suspect Clinton gave the order to get someone or some
group with assualt weapons and have the press present (they were initially
at the incident in Waco) to record the event for the TV audience. The agent
on "Street Stories" reported that a supervisor was urging them all to "get
ready fast", as "they know we are coming". I believe this attack continued,
even tho the probablility of failure was high,  because it came from the top
down. After the N.J. assembly vote, the ATF had a limited amount of time to
come up with something, and the Wackos in Waco fit the bill nicely.
...rich
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 9
aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber) writes:
>>Ever notice that people in these cases are always described by clever
>>handles such as "eccentric", "religious wackos", "gun nuts", "cultists",
>>"survivalists", etc. so the general public will *not* identify with them?
The San Jose Mercury News described him as "a 61-year old retired
chemical engineer".
John Nagle
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Article-I.D.: gap.1ppu9hINNl0v
Distribution: na
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 57
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>hambidge@bms.com wrote:
>: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
>: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
>: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
>: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
>: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
>:
>: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
>: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
>: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
>: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
>: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.
Killed by handgun, or killed?  If I'm dead, I don't much care if it
was by being shot or stabbed to death.
>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?
>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:
>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000
>... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.
>--
>Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
>Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o
I don't think you can get an accurate indicator of how safe England is
compared to Switzerland by concentrating only on handgun murders and
completely ignoring murders by other weapons, not to mention the rate of
other violent crimes.  If there are more guns in circulation, if follows
that more people will be killed with them 'cause they are available to
the person intent on committing a crime _regardless_ of whether they
have to do it with a gun, knife, or bare hands.
The gun control lobby doesn't seem to understand this point.  If people
are intent on committing a crime, they will do it with whatever means
are available to them.
aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: WACO: The Militia Assembles
Keywords: We Salute Them
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Lines: 7
Dumb move.
The smart move would be to sneak in someone with a TV camera
and video transmitter.
John Nagle
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: Gun Nuts and Holly Silva
Article-I.D.: calspan.1993Apr5.215700.4600
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Lines: 45
Nntp-Posting-Host: riemann-gw
In article <C4tsD1.1vA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>In article <1993Apr1.010834.4326@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:
>>Both the " Gun Nuts" and the gays are aggressively defensive and quite
>>hostile to any one trying to deprive them of their rights.  Just like
>>any group trying to protect their rights.
>
>The fallacy of this whole thing is that YOUR RIGHTS ARE NOT IN JEAPARDY
>BY THESE POSTS.
How can you say that?  I presume that you mean that talking about
restricting rights is not the same as restricting those rights.  Well,
arguing for those restrictions may lead to implementation, much
the same way as assault can lead to battery (legal definitions).
>Most t.p.g people and the homosexual groups won't even
>discuss the subject at all in a polite form.  The mere raising of a question
>as to why the rights are there or what exactly the 'right' encompasses
>bring shrill posts and angry/hostile traffic.
Well, I can't speak for the homosexuals, but I've seen ALOT
of polite discussion on t.p.g.  Please, everyone, don't take
this guy's word, or mine for that matter, on it.  Read t.p.g.
for a while, and try to determine from which direction most of
the flameage originates.  If you post without flamebait, you
will generally receive reasoned responses.  True, there are
those who tend to lose their tempers quickly, as there are on
all newsgroups, but they really do feel their rights are in jeopardy.
Oh, and neat trick talking derisively about another newsgroup while
not crossposting to allow them to defend themselves.
>I think a lot of t.p.g people have very thin skin when it comes to
>discussing these subjects.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
Dave Schabel
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Schabel         | Opinions and comments contained herein are mine and  |
schabel@calspan.com  | do not necessarilly reflect those of Calspan Corp or |
Located in Western NY| its customers.                                       |
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: ACLU (was Re: Waco Shootout ...)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <1993Mar31.140529.10843@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Paul Hager"
><hagerp@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>
>> As an old post of mine came up in a collection of posts about
>> the ACLU's position on gun-control, I would like to note that my
>> own position has been evolving.  But, I'm still not sure how to
>> answer the question, "does the 2nd allow me to have my own nuclear
>> device?"
>The second amendment does not prohibit it, but it can probably be argued that
>there is no way you can operate one without severely impacting on the safety
>and rights of others, and so might not be permitted on that basis.
The existence of the weapon in and of itself (and this is also
true for biologics and chemical weapons, but for slightly different
reasons) poses a threat to living critters.  Can you say "neutron
and other radiation flux due to radioactive decay", boys and girls?
aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT HOLLY SILVA INFORMATION
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 19
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
In article <1pkojmINNmuq@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
> In a separate post over on soc.culture.usa she explicitly said that while
> she cross-posts to t.p.g and sets follow-ups to there, she does not READ
> talk.politics.guns. If you think about it, it's a clever way of keeping
> some of the politer respondents who will edit their newsgoup line, or
> properly use the follow-up: from being heard over there. It also makes it
> easier for her to claim all she ever sees is "squeaky weasels".
> So if you want her to see your insiteful analysis, e-mail it. If you
> want to point out her flaws in public, make sure your newsgroup line
> includes soc.culture.usa.
To keep from flooding s.c.u, I e-mailed it.  However, I agree that it's
quite the sneaky trick.  No more than I would expect, however.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: ATF suspects drug lab in compound
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu
>In article <1993Mar28.180629.21574@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy) writes:
>>A Associated Press News story 3/28/93 reports:
>>
>>"    In other developments Saturday, David Troy, intelligence chief for
>>the ATF, confirmed reports that authorities suspected the cult had a
>>methamphetamine lab.  He said evidence of possible drug activity
>>surfaced late in the ATF' investigation of the cult's gun dealings.
Wow, the scope of the mission of the ATF continues to expand.  Besides
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, they now seem to be involded in Child
Protective Services, Drug Enforcement and Tax Evasion.
They look to be on the road to being the nations *boys in blue*!
No Knock in one hand, M-16 in the other.  Zeik-Heil!!!
Lance
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: Threatening Gun Owners
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 47
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu
In article <7178@blue.cis.pitt.edu> gswst@cislabs.pitt.edu (Gary S. Wachs) writes:
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm writing a story on the future of Gun Control.  There are a
>few points I would welcome your opinion on.  It's wonderful having a
>resource like this newsgroup to take advantage of and I thank you in advance
>for your feedback!
>
>1. What do you believe are the most serious threats to gun-owners in the
>future?
* The Government
* Liberals
* BATF, FBI, DEA, etc.  (see #1)
>2. Are you concerned that the 2nd ammendment could be reinterpreted to
>apply to the armed forces only, barring civilians from owning arms of
>any kind?
Well...
contributions == taxes
abortion == elimination of fetal tissue
Clinton == president
faggot == spouse
It could happen...
>3. If you did have control over what types of arms people would be allowed
>to buy, which types would you feel compelled to restrict to military
>uses only (ie. bazooka, M16, grenade, atomic bomb, etc.)
Hydrogen Bomb, perhaps.
>4. Would you describe HCI and all other gun control activists as being
>determined to make it illegal for a civilian to own or use a firearm?
Yep.
>5. Have you personally read the Brady Bill in its entirety?
Yep.
>Thank again,
>
>Gary
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
Subject: Re: Waco Shootout Highlights Total Irresponsibility of the
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 13
Reply-To: aj359@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher C. Morton)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) says:
>Come on, guys, looks like its time to move that juvenile public-post
>either to E-mail or to a different newsgroup (alt.sex.bondage.holly.silva?).
No, Brent that would be
alt.sex.bondage.holly.silva.goofy.anti.semite.... :)
--
*************************************************************************
If you were smarter, you'd have these opinions....
*******************************************************************************
From: "George Guillory" <wk04942@worldlink.com>
Subject: Tx. Senator Bob Krueger RTKBA statement
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
X-Mailer: WORLDLink-DOS (3.3)
Lines: 10
For those of you interested, I just finished talking with a
representative of Senator Bob Krueger's reelection campaign about his
position on the RTKBA.  Krueger was appointed by the  Democratic Governor
of Texas to complete Lloyd Bentsen's unexpired term.
The representative said that Senator Krueger did not have a position and
would only comment on specific legislation that was pending.  No comment
was available on the various versions of the Brady Bill.
Be warned and vote accordingly.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Govs. Florio, Wilder Hit Airwaves In Support of Brady Bill
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 14
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
In article <1993Apr1.015043.5662@r-node.hub.org>, ndallen@r-node.hub.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
> Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.
>    "It is ironic that Jim and I are observing this March 30 in a
> country that finds America's level of gun violence not only
> unacceptable, but unbelievable," said Mrs. Brady, chair of Handgun
> Control Inc.
So where was she?  And would she consider staying there?
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: I believe in gun control.
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Lines: 22
In article <1993Apr3.221837.2324@news.duc.auburn.edu> bixledn@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>In article 16193@cbnews.cb.att.com, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>> No, you haven't read it very closely .  It says you may answer "No" if your
>> civil rights have been restored; that can be done either by the feds' or a
>> a state.  I think the feds stopped doing this for those convicted of violent
>> felonies.  At least a dozen states still restore a felons civil rights, some
>> immediately upon release, some after a waiting period.  I will post a list
>> of the states later.
>>
>
>  A quick question, then Larry, If a person's civil rights have been restored,
>  then are they still considered a felon?
Good question; I don't know what the law considers them.
>  IMO, if rights have been restored, then it makes sense to me that the
>  record of the felony, and everything else has been purged, and the
>  person in question is no longer a felon.
I believe this is what happens in some states.
--
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Lavishly Funded "Gun Epidemic" Propaganda Campaign to Commence
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 38
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
In article <C4txEK.FCq@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
> Morris the Cat (rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com) wrote:
>
> : Well, as Neal Knox of the Firearms Coalition points out, the full
> : force of the anti-gun ruling class, their multi-millions, their
> : polling organizations, their schools, their news media, their
> : "entertainment" media
>
> The entertainment media... a "force of the anti-gun ruling class"??
> Is this the same media that's made billions producing films and
> television that glorify guns and gun users?  Or is that another
> anti-gun media?
>
> You've got to be kidding.
By this, do you mean that you consider it absolutely impossible for the
media to be guilty of hypocrisy?
Note that the film industry in California traded their political support
for an "assault weapon" ban in the state for an amendment to the bill
exempting the entertainment industry from that very ban.
Note that the very issue of the Batman comic book ("Seduction of the Gun")
that was produced as a tool for gun-control organizations carries a back-
page ad for a "Terminator II" video game extolling the numerous and
varied sophisticated weapons available to the player.
Note that Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, publisher of the NY Times -- one of the
oldest and most incessant gun-control grinders -- himself carries a
concealed handgun.
Still, you find it completely incredible that these folks live by the
aphorism, "Do as I say, and not as I do."
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Govs. Florio, Wilder Hit Airwaves In Support of Brady Bill
Nntp-Posting-Host: taos
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Lines: 26
In article <1993Apr5.015209.29431@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr2.231109.23378@msc.cornell.edu> srussell@msc.cornell.edu (Stephen Russell) writes:
|> >ObGuns:  I'm moving to Arizona; everyone carries guns there.  If I don't, what
|> >are the approximate probabilities that I'll get shot by the end of six months?
|>
|> Under 1 in 20,000 assuming FBI statistics are meaningfull.
Of course, if you're a criminal, or hang around with criminals, or
flash large wads of cash in the wilder parts of town, or utter verbal
bigotry in the right public places, your chances of being shot are much
higher.
Avoiding these behaviors, on the other hand, decreases your chances of
being shot.
Something like 60% of all murders are criminals killing criminals.
Over 90% of murders are committed by people with a prior *known*
history of violence.
Simplistic moral, suitable for my three year old, and most inane
posters:  "Bad people do bad things - repeatedly."
--
Kirk Hays - NRA Life, seventh generation.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: Waco dates - are these coincidental?
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Lines: 50
Richard Cower (cower@csli.stanford.edu) wrote:
:
: I believe this raid was ill planned because they only had 2 days to plan it,
: and it was continued when failure was obvious because it had a bit part
: in the much larger political agenda of President Clinton. I would even
: suggest that the loss of 4 ATF agents is inconsequential in this the
: context of his political agenda. It MIGHT even be beneficial to his agenda,
: as it helps point up just how evil these assualt weapons are. Further proof
: might be that the ATF denied their agents (Street Stories report) requests
: for sufficient fire power.
:
: Important dates:
: Feb 25th - NJ assembly votes to overturn assault weapon ban.
: Feb 28th - Compound in Waco attacked.
:
: On Feb. 25th the New Jersey assembly voted to overturn the assault weapon
: ban in that state. It looked like it might be a tight vote, but the Senate
: in N.J. was going to vote to overturn the ban. It would not sit well to have
: an Eastern state overturn an assault weapon ban, given Clintons stated
: agenda on gun control. I suspect Clinton gave the order to get someone or
: some: group with assualt weapons and have the press present (they were
: initially
: at the incident in Waco) to record the event for the TV audience. The agent
: on "Street Stories" reported that a supervisor was urging them all to "get
: ready fast", as "they know we are coming". I believe this attack continued,
: even tho the probablility of failure was high,  because it came from the top
: down. After the N.J. assembly vote, the ATF had a limited amount of time to
: come up with something, and the Wackos in Waco fit the bill nicely.
:
: ...rich
I don't know Rich. Last year when the congress was debating the Bushmans
'Crime Bill', the incident at Lubys' cafe occured. Most of the anti-gun
crap was amended out of the bill anyway.
Could a president 'order': go find some 'assault weapons' and bring the
media". I hope not.  Frankly, the Toon-meister* scares me. Of course
having a Democratic majority in congress doesn't help. (Apologies to all
Demos' who support RKBA)
( *definition: toon-meister - a characatureic name for the current
president of the U.S.:   Clinton aka, Clintoon aka Toon-meister.)
Rob P.
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: NRA Fucks Up Bigtime
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com's message of Mon, 5 Apr 1993 04:24:50 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
<SLAGLE.93Mar29232337@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
<1993Apr5.042450.2071@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
Lines: 27
In article <1993Apr5.042450.2071@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
> In article <SLAGLE.93Mar29232337@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>>In article <xw1twyl@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>> No, actually I'm a lot more familiar with the libbers than I
>>> care to be.  I'm a bit hesitant to continue this thread because
>>> it brings back horrible memories of my first encounter with the
>>> libbers in the LaRouche branch.  I made the mistake of buying a
>>Any connection between Lyndon LaRouche and the Libertarian Party
>>is a pure product of your own fertile imagination.
> Naw, perhaps he reads Time magazine.
It's a fair stretch of anyone's imagination to expect them to
attach any credibility to anything written in Time magazine in
the past twenty years, I'd imagine.  The Enquirer at least gets
the names attached to the right body parts.
=Mark
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
From: jyoung@Cadence.COM (John Young)
Subject: FFL&gunsmithing questions
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Lines: 8
I have a few questions I'd like to ask;
First,How would someone(me)be able to get a dealers license
and second,besides dear old departed gramp's,where would I
find a good place to learn gunsmithing.
all replies appreciated!
John
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 63
In article <C4tr3M.Eqw@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>On the other hand, we can draw lessons from neighbors who are more
>culturally similar, namely the Canadians...
I don't think such a Canada is any more "culturally similar" to
the United States than England. In terms of laws regarding individual
rights, restrictions on police searches, etc... (all closely
related to crime) Canadian laws parallel England's and differ
greatly from those of the United States.
>...In fact, an exhaustive,
>seven-year study has already been done of the respective crime rates
>of Vancouver, British Columbia and Seattle, Washington... cities
>with roughly the same population, urban economy, geography
>and crime but with decidedly different approaches to gun control.
Actually, they do not have "roughly the same... urban economy",
and extremely different ethnic composition.
>Over the seven-year study, 388 homicides occurred in Seattle
>(11.3 per 100,000) vs. 204 homicides in Vancouver (6.9 per 100,000).
>After adjustment for differences in age and sex among the populations,
>the relative risk of being a victim of homicide in Seattle, as
>compared to Vancouver, was found to be 1.63.
However, if you account for economic and ethnic differences,
the difference disappears completely: Seattle's minorities are
predominatly poor, while Vancouver's are middle or upper class.
The rates for whites in both cities were found to be identicle,
while the rate for poor, Seattle minorities was almost three
times as great as for the well-to-do minorities of Vancouver.
The pattern seems to be one of poverty and race relations, not
one of gun control.
>The authors of the report also investigated "legally justifiable"
>homicides (self-defense).  Only 32 such homicides occurred during
>the seven-year study, 11 of which were committed by police.  Only
>21 cases of civilians acting in self-defense occurrred...
That is a gross distortion: "Self-defense" does not mean killing
the attacker. There were 21 cases of civilians killing their
attacker in self-defence. But such cases represent less that
0.5% of the crimes prevented by armed self-defence; for every
case you cite, there were over 200 other cases of self-defence
where the crime was prevented but the attacker was not killed.
(0.5%, by the way, is the most conservative possible figure,
based on the National Crime Survey's estimate of 80,000
crimes prevented by armed self-defence each year. Most other
studies on the subject put the figure at 500,000 to 600,000.
Those figures would imply less than 0.08% of sucessful self-defences
involve killing the attacker.)
So, more correctly, there over 4000 (possibly as many as 25,000)
cases of civilians acting in self-defence, only 21 of which resulted
in the death of the attacker. This is a significant factor, in
comparison to the 592 homicides. If memory serves, homicides
make up approximately 1% of the violent crimes the study
considered, so the fair comparison would be 40 - 250 homicides
prevented and 592 homicides. Clearly, the study can not be
close to accurate, since it ignored these cases of self-defence.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Subject: Re: Bill 'Blame America First' Clinton Strikes Again.
Summary: Repost from alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.
Lines: 31
Nntp-Posting-Host: red5.acpub.duke.edu
jeddi@next06pg2.wam.umd.edu (Anheuser Busch) writes:
>This argument sounds very stupid.. if the ability to make guns from
>"simple metalworking" was easy,  then Drug dealers would make their own
>wouldn't they???.. why spend hundreds of dollars buying a gun that
>somebody else made cheap and is selling it to you at an
>exorbitant markup???... The simple truth of the matter is, that regardless
>of how easy it is to make guns, banning guns will reduce the
>the number of new guns and seriuosly impede the efforts of a
>killer intent on buying a weapon....
>To show why the tools argument is the silliest i have ever seen.. take an
>analogy from computer science... almost every computer science major
>can write a "wordprocessor" yet we(comp sci majors)  would willingly pay 3
>to 400 bucks for a professional software like wordperfect... why don't we
>just all write our own software???...... Because it is highly
>inconvinient!!!..
>Same with guns... secondly.. how does one get this gunpowder for the
>"home made gun" ??? Take a quick trip to the local 7-eleven???.
> If guns were really that simple to make... the Bosnian muslims would
>be very happy people (or is it the case that metalworking tools are
>banned in bosnia??? (deep sarcasm)  ).
>
>well this is my two cents..
>   i will now resume reading all these ridiculus post from people
>     who must make their living doing stand-up comedy.
** END OF FORWARDED MATERIAL **
--
And so, the rubber spheroid arced beneath the brilliant lights.
Headed for a hoop of dreams he'd dreamt of all those nights.
The crowd gasped as the ball descended; Would it grant their fondest wish?
There was no doubt in Casey's mind, He knew it was a *SWISH*!
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Subject: Re: Fwd: FREE NRA MEMBERSHIP OFFER
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)
Lines: 28
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>The NRA supports anyone who's pro-gun and has a chance of winning
>election, regardless of their other positions.  Is it their fault that
>some drug-legalizers are anti-gun?  Is it their fault that the
>drug-legalizers who are pro-gun can't get elected?
It's not the NRA's fault; but it is something to consider if you are
considering contributing to the NRA. If candidate B is a complete asshole
whose only saving grace is that he opposes unnecessary restrictions on
firearms, I wouldn't want my membership dues funding efforts to get him
re-elected.
I have other problems with the NRA (as an organization; the individual
members I've met have been loyal, trustworthy, honest, brave, etc.,
especially my boss who probably reads this newsgroup B->); they are
definitely pro-hunting, and I recall seeing a pro-Desert Storm NRA bumper
sticker. Sometimes they come on too strong in the political arena, which
contributes to their reputation as "bad guys" amoung many people.
===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent
less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her
sweetness and respecting her seniority." -- E.B. White
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: the usual
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 30
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) writes:
>I just heard some anti-gun-control people giving the usual arguments:
>It's everyone's right to bear arms, and the way to solve the problem
>of people getting killed by guns is better law enforcement.
>It strikes me that this argument could be logically extended as follows:
>A nuclear weapon is an "arm", hence anyone has a right to have
>nuclear weapons. And if someone uses his nuclear weapons to blow
>up New York, L.A., and Chicago, that's okay as long as we have a
>good police force capable of finding him and putting him in jail,
>which will serve as a deterrent to others.
>Do any anti-gun-control people disagree with this, and if so,  why?
Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
(Can you say "neutron flux"?)  Plus these things have no self-
defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
(translation:  cities and population centers).  Not to mention that
for it to be used as a militia weapon and expect the user to live
requires some sort of launch vehicle . . .
aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Lines: 62
In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all
>: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation
>: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death
>: by stabbing?)
>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?...
>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.
No. The issue is reducing crime, not guns. If gun control doesn't
lower crime overall, then is doesn't address the issue.
>...Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...
Does that matter if assaults with a baseball bat become much
more common? Muggers using a gun rely primarily on the
threat of the gun, and rarely shoot their victim. A mugger
using a knife is much more likely to start by stabbing his victim
in an effort incapacitate him. So, while a knif may not
be as deadly as a gun, criminals are more likely to actually
_use_ the knife (as opposed to threatening the victim with it.)
It isn't at all clear that replacing the criminal's gun with a
knife would reduce murders. Stabbings might just become more
common. That's why it is important to look at the overall
(not the with-gun) homicide rate. It avoids the issue of
substitution, different criminal techinques of using different
weapons, etc... and measures what we want to prevent: Murders.
>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks.
"Face"? Possibly. However, facing knife-welding attackers isn't
too common: Stabbing without warning and by supprise is the
usual tactic. Very few criminals shoot from cover: It attracts
to much attention and they don't have a chance to go through your
pockets. Overall, I'd much rather be threatened with a gun
than actually stabbed with a knife.
>...Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).
Actually, the exact same statement is true of guns: Training in
unarmed self-defence will let you disarm an untrained gunman
without much problem.
You also ignore the criminal's reaction: The National Crime
Survey clearly shows that criminals (unarmed, armed with a
knife, gun or whatever) are unwilling to risk their lives
in a confrontation. If faced with a serious threat, almost
all prefer to leave and find an easier target. Therefore,
using (or threatening to use, as is much more commonly the case)
a weapon _is_ the best defence against an attacker, regardless
of how he is armed. Knives, however, are much less effective
than guns: Criminals don't consider knifes as a "serious threat"
nearly as often as they do guns.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Lines: 59
In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
>effect on homicide rates.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there would be no effect. But
there would be no _net_ _positive_ effect. You also have to
consider the negative side: Law abiding citizens, armed with
fireamrs (pistols for the most part), prevent between 80,000
(National Crime Survey) and 1,000,000 (Dr. Kleck) crimes
each year. (Those are the extremes. Most studies find
the number to be 500,000 to 600,000.) About 1% of those crimes are
homicides, so private ownership of firearms _saves_ approximately
5,000 lives each year. There are roughly 12,000 criminal homicides
and fatal accidents involving guns each year. For there to
be any net benefit, you would have to show that gun control measures
would disarm over 40% of the criminals currently using guns.
That would be very hard to do: According the the federal BATF,
only 8% of criminals buy their guns over the counter. Since
gun control laws, by their very nature, only effect legal
sales, such a law would remove all the benefits of armed,
law-abiding citizens while having only a minimal effect on
armed criminals (who, by and large, get their guns illegally.)
That doesn't sound like a net benefit to me.
>...There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
>homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.
Since most were with licensed weapons, I assume you are not
supporting "reasonable" laws (i.e. waiting periods, background
checks, licenses, etc...). Since only a complete ban would
alter the statistic you refer to, I assume that's what you
are supporting.
By the way, 1135 people dies in 1986 from falling down stairs.
250 accidental handgun deaths isn't significant next to
other household accidents.
>...More
>American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
>than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.
1080 children under the age of 10 died by drowning, 69 from
drinking poisonous household chemicals (like Drano), 139 from
falls. If the real goal is to reduce the tragic, accidental
deaths of children, wouldn't a ban on drain cleaners be a
better palce to start? (Or, perhaps, restricting ownership to
professionals like plumbers?)
>...Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
>TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).
While you might call it "emphasis", refering to completely two
statistics in the same sentence _implies_ a comparison. If it
isn't valid, and you put the numbers together to convince people
you are right, the kindest thing I could call it is propaganda.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Lines: 31
In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?
>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:
>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000
>... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.
Because there are about 40 homicides total (i.e. using guns, knives,
tire-irons, baseball bats, bare hands, etc...) in Switzerland
each year and 850 homicides, total, in England. That's three
times worse per capita in England than in Switzerland. Since
dead is dead, it really doesn't matter that 60% of the Switz
murders involved a gun or that only 0.9% of the English murderers
do.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Bill 'Blame America First' Clinton Strikes Again.
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Lines: 82
In article <12741@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> >This argument sounds very stupid.. if the ability to make guns from
> >"simple metalworking" was easy,  then Drug dealers would make their own
> >wouldn't they???..
They do. According the the Los Angeles Police Department, illegal
manufacture is one the three primary sources of machine guns and
submachine guns used in crimes (sumggling and theft from the
police and military being the other two.) Washington D.C. police
have stated that 40% (If I'm remembering the figure correctly) of
the guns they conficate were illegally built.
> >...why spend hundreds of dollars buying a gun that
> >somebody else made cheap and is selling it to you at an
> >exorbitant markup???...
It takes about 6 hours and a few tools to make one (at least one
of reasonable quality). Unless the drug dealer enjoyes messing
around on a lathe (say, as a hobby), he's going to have to
pay someone anyway. Materials plus six hours of a machinist's
time for something legal would run about $100. The blackmarket
prices for guns are usually in the $50 to $200 range (at least
those few I've seen cited in newspaper articles were...)
> >...The simple truth of the matter is, that regardless
> >of how easy it is to make guns, banning guns will reduce the
> >the number of new guns and seriuosly impede the efforts of a
> >killer intent on buying a weapon....
Washington D.C. has a total ban on handguns and prohibits assembled
rifles within city limits. It's homicide rate is almost ten
times the national average. It is also illegal for a D.C.
resident to drive to the Virginia or Maryland suburbs and
buy a gun (dealers are required by federal law to check IDs
and make sure the buyer isn't from another state) so the ban
can not be easily side-stepped.
> >To show why the tools argument is the silliest i have ever seen.. take an
> >analogy from computer science... almost every computer science major
> >can write a "wordprocessor" yet we(comp sci majors)  would willingly pay 3
> >to 400 bucks for a professional software like wordperfect... why don't we
> >just all write our own software???...... Because it is highly
> >inconvinient!!!..
Sure. But it you couldn't buy one, you would write your own (in
fact, people _did_ write their own 15 years ago...) More likely,
you would find a friend who was a particularly good programer
and get him give you a copy of his. Software is a _very_ bad
example for your case: How many people do you know with illegal
copies of $400 word processors? If people want something, and
it isn't available (or affordable) legally, they will usually
get it illegally.
> >Same with guns...
Quite.
> >secondly.. how does one get this gunpowder for the
> >"home made gun" ???
13-3-2. The formula has been around for half a million years.
Or are you going to restrict sales of sulpher, charcoal and
saltpeter? That's alot cruder than modern smokless powder, but
it works very well. The only real problems are a ~25% reduction
in energy (so a .357 magnum would "only" be as deadly as a 9mm)
and it makes alot more smoke... Of course, a smart black marketeer
could just make the gun in 9mm and steal the ammunition from the
police (the police are often corruptable, and things are known
to disappear from police evidence rooms and armories and
reappear on the streets...)
> > If guns were really that simple to make... the Bosnian muslims would
> >be very happy people (or is it the case that metalworking tools are
> >banned in bosnia??? (deep sarcasm)  ).
Perhaps you weren't watching the news two years ago, but the Serbs
also tried to invade Slovinia. They were driven out after a few
weeks by partisans armed with home-made _anti-tank_ weapons.
The Afghan rebels frequently made their own rifles.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)
Organization: Bank America Systems Engineering, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 20
On a Los Angeles radio station last weekend, the lawyers for the
family of the MURDERED rancher said that the Los Angeles Sheriff's
Department had an assessment done of the rancher's property before
the raid.
This strongly implies that the sheriff's department wanted the property;
any drugs (which were not found) were only an excuse.
In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his
troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is time
that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to
standards at least as moral as the military's.
Greed killed the rancher, possibly greed killed the Davidian children.
Government greed.
It is time to prosecute the leaders who perform these invasions.
Fred Franceschi   (These are my own opinions!)
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Organization: Manes and Associates, NYC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 24
J. Spencer (J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk) wrote:
: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
: >Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
: >: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental
: >: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK
: >: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population
: >: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted
: >: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the
: >: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as
: >: > many people with baseball bats.
: [snip]
: If you examine the figures, they do. Stabbing is favourite, closely
: followed by striking, punching, kicking. Many more people are burnt to
: death in Britain as are shot to death. Take at look and you'll see for
: yourself.
It means that very few people are shot to death in Great Britain.
--
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o
From: manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Organization: Manes and Associates, NYC
Distribution: na
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 44
Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
: In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve
: Manes) writes:
: [...]
: > I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
: > effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
: > homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More
: > American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
: > than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National
: > Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
: > TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).
: >
: You're a great debater.  You chose your sources of information, claim them
: to  be superior,
I've made no such claim.  Please direct my attention towards any
posting of mine where I claimed superior sources of information.
It's probably because I bothered to post any references at all while
others seem content to post numbers pulled from the ozone, that
you've confused it with fact-twisting.  If so, I apologize.
: then take those twisted numbers and twist them further by trying
Well then, here's fair opportunity for you to prove that I've "twisted
numbers."  On what grounds do you contradict those references?  Do you have
any citations... any sources of your own that I can take similar
gratuitous shots at?
: to compare absolute numbers between two countries that have major population
: differences, the USA and GB, and then whine that you are afraid someone might
: attack your process, and so claim the numbers are for "emphasis, not
: comparison"?  Emphasis of what?
Nitpicking and scolding is a whiney debating style, Jim.
: Anything else is blowing smoke.
You seddit, brudda.
--
Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o
From: kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT)
Subject: Re: A universal RIGHT to bear arms? NOT!
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 73
nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) writes:
>In article <1993Apr2.080842.3554@a.cs.okstate.edu> kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu
(KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> >In article <1993Apr1.173759.4636@cs.yale.edu>
nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu writes:
>> >>In article <C4sK5w.Lsr@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant)
writes:
>> >>> nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette) writes:
>> >> >
>> >>> >I suppose that's true if you maintain that AK-47s and AR-15s are hunting
>> >>> >weapons.  I think they are fun to "plink" cans/targets/random VC with,
>> >>> >but not suitable for "real" hunting.
>> >>>
>> >>>  Wrong. Both are legal to hunt with here in Kentucky. I have a picture of
>> >>>  a friend with a nice 8-point buck which he shot with his AR-15 rifle.
>> >>
>> >>I don't think many deer hunters would condone your friends choice of
>> >>rifle.
>
>> >I must agree with Nathan. As a deer hunter, I find it inhumane to use
>> >underpowered weapons for deer hunting. To kill cleanly with the little
>> >.223 requires extremely good marksmanship. Most hunting situations don't
>> >allow for "perfect" shots. Hunters should use sufficiently powerful
>> >weapons to drop the deer with a single hit to the chest. The 7.62x39
>> >from the AKS-47 or SKS is adequate to this task, having similar ballistics
>> >to the familiar 30-30, but the little .223 is very marginal. In the
>> >hands of the expert, or the lucky, it will do, but hunters really
>> >should have more respect for their quarry.
>
>> >Gary
>
>> I'll agree that the popular 55 gr. loading for .223 rem.  is too small for
>> deer-sized game.  However, if you use a 70 gr. semi-spritzer or the Sierra
>> 63 gr. semi-pointed bullet this would be suitable (like any round,
>> you keep your shots within a reasonable range).  It would still be on the
>> lower end of what I'd consider acceptable performance, especially those
>> long distance shots out West hunting Monster Mule Deer.  The .223 rem. has
>> been declared legal for deer hunting in Oklahoma.
>
>> The .223 is excellent for varmit hunting and pest control.  The AR-15 in
>> particular is well suited, given its heavy barrel and heat shielded foregrip.
>> Add a high-power scope, and you're in "Dog heaven".
>
>> However, I don't think Nathan Janette was refering to the specific chambering
>> of the rifle in question.  Maybe he thinks self loading rifles have no
>> place in deer hunting.  That may (or may not) be his opinion, but many
>> sportsmen do use self loading rifles and shotguns.
>Wrongo, NRA man.  I was definitely referring to the round, not the
>auto-loading aspect of the rifle.  I have no problem with *responsible*
>hunting.  That doesn't include machine guns from choppers, but a semi is
>fine.  My uncle has bagged several deer with 12 gauge slugs.  I would prefer
>that a hunter use as much of the catch as possible, and I don't condone
>hunting for "sport" only.
>IMHO, of course.
Two questions:
1)  You asserted that both the AR-15 and AK-47 are not suitable for
"real hunting".  If you have no problem with hunting, or using
self loading rifles for hunting, why did you say this?  If not
for deer, then what about other, smaller game?
2)  When did I get the nickname "NRA man"?  Notice I have never referred
to you as "Janette" which you don't seem to like.  Do I get any
super-powers, like Spider Man or Powdered Toast Man?
Scott Kennedy    Brewer, Patriot, and now NRA-Man, defender of Truth,
Justice, and the 2nd Amendment.
kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)
Nntp-Posting-Host: taos
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Lines: 23
In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com>, franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:
|> On a Los Angeles radio station last weekend, the lawyers for the
|> family of the MURDERED rancher said that the Los Angeles Sheriff's
|> Department had an assessment done of the rancher's property before
|> the raid.
The briefing documents for the raid had a notation on them about a
similar local property which had sold for $800,000 prior to the
raid, if recent TV coverage can be believed.
|> This strongly implies that the sheriff's department wanted the property;
|> any drugs (which were not found) were only an excuse.
The Ventura County DA came to the same conclusion in the report he
released, which lambasted the Sheriff's Office.
Too bad the old man was nearly blind, and didn't take a few
goose-stepping Drug Warriors (TM) with him.
--
Kirk Hays - NRA Life, seventh generation.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: a universal RIGHT to bear arms? NOT!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 25
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>||	Wrong again, but if you want proof: turn on your TV and look
>||for a show starring Chuck Connors.  It was called, "The Rifleman."
>||Time how fast he can fire that old lever-action rifle.
>|Believe it or not, I remember seeing an advertisement for someone
>|selling one of these; apparently Winchester produced a bunch of
>|these commercially to commemorate the television show. I believe it was
>|being sold as a handgun because of the barrel length and lack of a stock.
>I might be mistaking the above weapon for the gun used by Steve
>McQueen in "Wanted: Dead or Alive." If so, sorry. Did Winchester
>make any commemorative models of the rifle used by Chuck Connors
>in the movie? Chuck Connors was an NRA member before he died recently...
I don't know for sure if Winchester made any commemeratives.  If I
recall correctly, the rifle itself was a .44-40 Model 92 with an
oversized loop lever.  I don't think Winchester makes this rifle
any more.  Rossi make a Model 92 look-alike in .38 Special and
.357 Magnum.
aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: ACLU (was Re: Waco Shootout ...)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
"Paul Hager" <hagerp@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>The 2nd Amendment does say "keep and bear."  If "bear" is defined to
>>mean "carry," then most people are physically unable to carry a several
>>hundred pound nuclear device.
>As I understand it, sub-kiloton nuclear demolitions are man-portable
>and carried in a backpack.
As I recall, in the 60's the Kennedy Administration had sub-kiloton
nuclear weapons withdrawn from Europe and destroyed.  They were man-
portable and made for use in shoulder-mount rocket launchers.  The
smallest nuclear test I've seen data for was a .1 (yes, one-tenth)
kiloton weapon tested either in the late 40's or early 50's.
aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
From: Minh Lang <minh@inst-sun1.jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.149.109.37
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d17
X-XXDate: Mon, 5 Apr 93 16:17:37 GMT
In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com> ,
franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:
> In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his
> troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is
time
> that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to
> standards at least as moral as the military's.
No, Lt Calley was later acquitted. His troops killed 400-500
people, including kids, elderly and women... I sure don't want
to see the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country
adhere to those "military standards"... If they did, we're
all in big trouble...(The My Lai massacre was covered up
by high-ranking officials and ALL who were involved were
ACQUITTED).
== Minh ==
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Minh Lang, Software Engineer  - Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Instrumentation Systems Group - Instrumentation section 375
Note:  My employer has nothing to do with what I said here...
+------------------------------------------------------------+
From: alleyja@yang.earlham.edu
Subject: <None>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana
Lines: 44
In article <1993Apr4.4332.33144@dosgate>, nigel.allen@canrem.com (nigel allen) writes:
> Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.
>
>  Sarah Brady Calls On Governor to Veto NRA Bill; Bayh Urged to
> Follow Clinton's Lead
>  To: State Desk
>  Contact: Cheryl Brolin of Handgun Control Inc., 202-898-0792
>
>    WASHINGTON, April 2 -- In a letter today to Indiana Gov.
> Evan Bayh, Sarah Brady, wife of former White House
> Press Secretary James Brady and chair of Handgun Control Inc.,
> called on the governor to veto NRA-backed "preemption" legislation
> (S.B. 241), which would wipe out existing local gun laws and
> prohibit localities from enacting future regulations governing the
> sale, possession or transfer of firearms.
>    "I'm counting on Gov. Bayh to show the same kind of political
> courage President Clinton showed as governor of Arkansas, when he
> twice vetoed this type of special-interest legislation," Mrs. Brady
> said, referring to Clinton's veto of NRA-backed preemption bills in
> 1989 and 1991.
>
I knew that Cutie would sell us out.  Full-blooded Democrat, he is :-)
Seriously folks, if it can happen here (remember?  we all got gun racks on
our 4x4s), it can happen anywhere.  Now to get that letter ready.  `Dear
Cutie, as one who didn't vote for you, I can sincerely say I am unhappy...'
>  -30-
> --
>  Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada  nigel.allen@canrem.com
> --
> Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
> 416-629-7000/629-7044
Those who know what's best for us
Must try to save us from ourselves
-- RUSH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jason Alley                  || The opinions expressed were given to me      |
| Earlham College, Richmond IN || by aliens living in my pancreas.             |
| AlleyJa@Yang.Earlham.Edu     || The Empire never ended.                      |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: the usual
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 41
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>The possession of nuclear arms (actually weapons grade fissionables) is
>currently regulated only by market forces.  I.e.:  To own them you have to
>either make them, buy them or steal them.  The only thing that stops you
>is the staggering cost (more than most nations can afford), the fact that
>no one who has them wants to sell to you and the tight security maintained
>on existing stocks. (Just ask Saddam Hussein).
I was under the impression that to obtain fissionable materials (i.e.,
plutonium or reactor/weapons-grade uranium) one was required to obtain
a federal permit to own such materials.
>Given a source of fissionables, you can build a bomb in your garage with
>parts from hardware stores and electronic junk supplies.  You might have
>to engage in some shady dealings to get the explosive charge, but that's
>trivial compared to getting the plutonium.  The basic information on the
>design was declassified years ago and can be dug out of any technical
>library by a physics grad student.
Actually, why bother looking it up?  From the material we covered last
term (in 10 weeks) of Ge/Ch 127 (Nuclear Chemistry), I could *derive*
what it would take to build a bomb.  And as far as the explosive charge,
I (as a chemist) could synthesize a variety of explosives from commonly
available chemicals in the garage if I felt like.  The electronics
behind the detonator and the shaped charges are a little trickier,
however . . . but not impossible using a few "tricks of the trade."
And if I really wanted to be nasty, I could include a core of
hydrogen and deuterium . . .
Of course, the hardest part is getting the fissionable material
to start with, and living long enough to put a bomb together.
(Plutonium has some *nasty* properties . . .)
>The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
>Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                      Laws define crime.
>3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483       Police enforce laws.
>Santa Monica, CA  90405                            Citizens prevent crime.
aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: Another NYTimes Yellow-Sheet Editorial (4/4/93)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 23
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:
[other uninformed, purposefully ignorant gun control ranting deleted]
>*  Thanks to the N.R.A., the A.T.F. is prohibited from researching the
>effectiveness of using taggants in explosives, Taggants are a cheap
>and technologically feasible microscopic additive that would help
>investigators at crime scenes - like the World Trade Center bombing
>- trace the explosives involved.
I want this man to tell me how in the hell you can take the
explosives used in the WTC bombing, considering that the
consensus seems to be that the explosive was a fertilizer-based
one.  Ammonium nitrate, to be exact . . . of which about
90,000 tons disappears per year (if I recall the stat correctly;
I don't have it here.)  Just one more disregarding of reality
to push a point.
[more bunk deleted]
aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Waco dates - are these coincidental?
Distribution: usa
<1993Apr5.193927.19951@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com>
Lines: 19
I do not think it is at all unlikely that Clinton ro his policy
wonk facilitators arranged the Waco raid as a display piece for  the
Gun War on the Constitution.  Look at what the Bush administration did to
get material for the Drug War on the Constitution--remember that baggie of
crack George waved at the cameras?  They took a dealer from the ghetto
and brought him to the White House so they could say drugs had been
dealt onb the White House Lawn.
And I don't think anybody could honestly think Clinton would have any
moral qualms about the raid...
The only really worrisome thing is that the BD's heroic defense of
their ranch will make Clinton's Gun War on the Constitution _more_
successfull--exactly as he wanted.  The media and politicians will
filter this so that the general public will think the BD's
are bad guys!  Don't help them.  Stand up for the BD's with your
friends and family adnd in public anytime you can--their supposed
moral qualms are not important to the issue.  They are heroes in the
fight against oppressive government;  it could just as well have been
you.
-watkins@earth.eecs.uic.edu  (Brian E Watkins)
From: dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com
Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders
because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but
500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you
picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing
sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? Sure.
Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this
world. We'd do well to emulate them on that and forget about getting more
rifles on the street. Let's disband the NRA and start a National Investment
Banking Association, replete with red and black sticker for the back window
of Bubba's Mercedes 600! We could fire Charlton Heston and get Paul Volcker
for a spokesman.
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Questions to Ponder
Distribution: usa
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanca.lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Lines: 62
The Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus in Fort Collins, Colorado,
submitted this as a questionnaire to the city council candidates
in the upcoming election. As expected, very few of the candidates
(3 of 13) responded, but they know we're watching.
Feel free to use any and all of these questions that strike your
fancy or use them as inspiration for your own.
*****
1.  Would you be willing to state, in writing, that if you are
publicly demonstrated to have violated your oath of office
you would resign and never run for office again?
2.  Under what circumstances do the rights of the group come
before the rights of the individual?
3.  Would you support a city charter amendment prohibiting the
city government, its officials, agents, and employees from
initiating force against any human being for any reason?
4.  Please put the following list in order of precedence (from
lowest to highest): a) city ordinance, b) city resolution,
c) state law, d) federal statute, e) U.S. Constitution,
f) state constitution.
5.  Do you believe that it's appropriate for any city official or
employee to be paid more than his or her average private
sector constituent?
6.  Do you believe that involuntary contributions are a legitimate
means of funding council programs?
7.  Would you support a program recognizing the right of
taxpayers to "earmark" their taxes (either as "must be used"
or "must not be used") for specific programs?
8.  In the event that the candidate "None of the Above" were to
win a city election, which option do you believe most
appropriate? a) The candidate with the next highest vote total
fills the office. b) A special election is held to fill the
office, with none of the previous candidates eligible to run
again. c) Let the office remain unfilled and unfunded until
the next election. d) Abolish the office.
Please return your questionnaire to: [address of your choice]
A signature and date line were added here.
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire.
******
The questionnaires were sent with self-addressed, stamped envelopes.
P.S. One person _did_ get a perfect score on the questionnaire, and,
no, he didn't help write it.
Cathy Smith
My opinions are, of course, my own.
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 29
In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes:
>Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders
>because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but
>500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you
>picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing
>sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman? Sure.
The Swiss population is (and well was) far larger than that. I think
your question should be, "...losing sleep over a million expert
riflemen?" Certainly he could have conquered Switzerland, but
a million armed militiamen (especially in a mountainous area,
where tanks' effectiveness is limited) would have made it a
real pain. The question a conqueror would ask, is "is it worth
the trouble?" The more difficult an invasion is, the more likely
the answer would be "no." Certainly a million riflemen (as
opposed to a professional army of only ten or twenty thousand, the
best a country the size of Switzerland could support), makes
invasions more difficult.
>Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this
>world.
Really? In 1939? I'm not even sure you could prove that today (despite
the steriotype.) Certainly the Swiss bankers were not essential
to the German war-time economy.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: the usual
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Lines: 54
arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
>Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
>decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
>weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
>(Can you say "neutron flux"?)
Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in
Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing
next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear
warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You
don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin
cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons
are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?
>  Plus these things have no self-
>defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
>a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
>(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
>(translation:  cities and population centers).
If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal
government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.  They
won't be too useful in certain areas, but leveling the Pentagon
would be a "good thing" for said overthrow and it's likely one man
carrying a backpack would stand a better chance than one thousand
armed with Colt Peacemakers.  Don't let self-defense become the
only reason you can have a gun and your sole means of justification.
Myself, I won't overthrow my government until it ceases to be my
legal government, but if I need to I want every weapon I can get.
One can just as easily say no rifle larger than a .22 is
needed to kill a human being.  They are right.  When that human
being is wearing armor and riding in an APC, things get a bit
different.  I don't see where the weapon is a problem.  It's not.
Only the manner of use is in contention here.
>  Not to mention that
>for it to be used as a militia weapon and expect the user to live
>requires some sort of launch vehicle . . .
I guess you either don't have an alarm clock or have never
heard the terms "timer" or "martyr" either.  Don't forget remote
detonation devices.  That CB radio in the pickup next to you can
easily transmit ten miles in decent weather.  That's out of the
blast radius of many portable nuclear devices.
Just what is it about radioactive decay that has you worried?
< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: the usual
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: na
Lines: 45
arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>I was under the impression that to obtain fissionable materials (i.e.,
>plutonium or reactor/weapons-grade uranium) one was required to obtain
>a federal permit to own such materials.
No, you merely have to start working on yellowcake or else
devise a system to get it from other sources.  BTW: the DOE handles
reactor fuel, and merely leases it to reactors.  The NRC certifies these
reactors.  The military have their own sources.  A private citizen has
none of these official sources.
>Actually, why bother looking it up?  From the material we covered last
>term (in 10 weeks) of Ge/Ch 127 (Nuclear Chemistry), I could *derive*
>what it would take to build a bomb.
That's freshman-level chemistry.  Big deal.  Can you make it
work?  That's PhD-level physics.  Big difference.
>  And as far as the explosive charge,
>I (as a chemist) could synthesize a variety of explosives from commonly
>available chemicals in the garage if I felt like.  The electronics
>behind the detonator and the shaped charges are a little trickier,
>however . . . but not impossible using a few "tricks of the trade."
>And if I really wanted to be nasty, I could include a core of
>hydrogen and deuterium . . .
So you admit that there's no law that could stop you?  Physics
aside, could you make one if you had the funds and time?  The answer
is yes.  So, do we lock you up now because of this?  Surely you can
see where the comparison with anti-gun laws comes into play here?
>Of course, the hardest part is getting the fissionable material
>to start with, and living long enough to put a bomb together.
>(Plutonium has some *nasty* properties . . .)
Precisely why it's not as readily utilized as you seem to have
been lead to believe.  BTW: 98% U235 is far better for home-made bombs
than trying to use plutonium.  The laws of physics make the creation of
a device without serious manufacturing facilities very low in probability.
< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Waco Shootout Highlights Total Irresponsibility of the
Nntp-Posting-Host: solomon.technet.sg
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Lines: 20
In article <1993Apr5.213034.10706@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <1pdmgaINN95f@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>
>> >> If she *needs* a gun right now, why doesn't she already have one?
>>
>> >You are the victim of a cut-and-run purse-snatcher.  He makes off
>> >with your purse, containing your ID, your house keys... and your gun.
>>
>> So you're saying she can RUN RIGHT INTO A STORE, BUY A GUN, RUN BACK
>> OUTSIDE AND SHOOT THE GUY IN THE BACK AS HE RUNS OFF?  This doesn't
>
>No, he's saying she just lost her gun and she wants to buy another
>so that as she sits home alone tonight, she's not a sitting duck to
>any bastard who wants to break in.
In fact, the situation is more grim that that, even. The purse snatcher
now has her home address. If the woman lives alone, she is in great
personal danger.
Subject: Re: Washington State
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)
Organization: Harvard University Science Center
Nntp-Posting-Host: scws8.harvard.edu
Lines: 14
In article <1993Mar30.191157.8338@synapse.bms.com> hambidge@bms.com writes:
>In article <93088.191742U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>What is a CCW
>Acronym for Concealed Carrying of Weapon; basically, a permit to carry
>a concealed pistol or revolver.
I phoned Licensing Division in Washington State to ask for an application
for a CCW.  Instead they promptly sent me an applicationfor becoming a
firearms dealer in Washington!
They even sent me a firearms safety pamphlet.
-Case Kim
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Gov't break-ins (Re: 60 minutes)
Nntp-Posting-Host: imagine.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 25
In article <1993Apr5.155733.114@pasadena-dc.bofa.com> franceschi@pasadena-dc.bofa.com writes:
>In Viet Nam, Lt Calley was tried and convicted of murder because his
>troops, in a war setting, deliberately killed innocent people. It is time
>that the domestic law enforcement agencies in this country adhere to
>standards at least as moral as the military's.
Here! Here!  But any call for responsibility and accountability
from police is invariably interpreted as being "soft on crime".
Being "tough on crime" and building more prisons and seizing more
property is the politically astute thing to do these days.
>Greed killed the rancher, possibly greed killed the Davidian children.
>Government greed.
And citizen complacency!
>It is time to prosecute the leaders who perform these invasions.
Don't forget the politicians that write the laws that make it
easy for the police agencies to become corrupt.  The War on Some
Drugs brought us this corruption and only an end to it (legalization)
will stop the corruption.
smg
Subject: thanks to poster of NY Times article on ATF in Texas
From: kim39@scws8.harvard.edu (John Kim)
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center
Nntp-Posting-Host: scws8.harvard.edu
Lines: 12
good job to whoever posted the article.  I'd
been saving that NYTimes edition for a while, planning to ytpe it
in myself, but now I don't have to.
For all of those people who were worried about whether or not
the media would even question the raid, we owe it to the
NY Times (despite their rabidly anti-gun editorials) for
being willing to talk to these 4 BATF  agents.
-Case Kim
From: greg@puck.webo.dg.com ()
Subject: Re: RKBA on NYC radio station
Reply-To: greg@puck.webo.dg.com
Organization: NSDD-X.500, Data General Corp.
Lines: 31
|> Actually, the real reason that Stern was getting a bigger rating share was that
|> he was new in D.C., not because of the quality (if you can call it that) of
|> his show. After the Fine was issued he started to get better ratings because
|> of the curious individuals who wanted to see how bad he actually was. Since
|> he came to D.C. he has had a greater turn over of listeners than the "Grease"
|> has. In other words, more people get sick of him sooner than they do of the
|> "Grease". After all, saying vagina or penis on the air is hilarious at first,
|> the second time it is still a little funny, but when you do it all the time,
|> and at the same time, think you are the greatest man on the planet (and tell
|> everyone so) than you are going to get old really quick.
|> Give it up Mark you are WRONG.
|>
Excuse me, but if you really new what the show was about, you'd know that he
doesn't just say vagina and penis and that is how he get's his ratings. He
also addresss real issues as well as being outrageous. I don't hear any of these
other idiots doing a funny show and getting into some serious topics at the
same time, he get's people to think and entertains them at the same time,
so try listening to his show a little closer before you tell them that they are
WRONG, and by the way, if he is such a flash in the pan, why do his ratings sustain
so well? Hmm?
--
-----------------------------------------------
Greg W. Lazar             greg@puck.webo.dg.com
J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS
-----------------------------------------------
From: pspod@bigbird.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski)
Subject: Re: Founding Father questions
Nntp-Posting-Host: bigbird.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Lines: 21
arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>Wasn't she the one making the comment in '88 about George being born with
>a silver foot in his mouth?  Sounds like another damn politician to me.
>
>Ain't like the old days in Texas anymore.  The politicians may have been
>corrupt then, but at least they'd take a stand.  (My apologies to a few
>exceptions I can think of.)
>
>News now is that the House may already have a two-thirds majority, so
>her "opposition" out of her concern for image (she's even said this
>publicly) may not matter.
Do people expect the Texans congressmen to act as the N.J. Republicans did?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@gonzo.lerc.nasa.gov
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Lines: 70
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com
In article <C519Mt.Apq@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve
Manes) writes:
> Jim De Arras (jmd@cube.handheld.com) wrote:
> : In article <C4u3x5.Fw7@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve
> : Manes) writes:
> : [...]
> : > I don't know how anyone can state that gun control could have NO
> : > effect on homicide rates.  There were over 250 >accidental< handgun
> : > homicides in America in 1990, most with licensed weapons.  More
> : > American children accidentally shot other children last year (15)
> : > than all the handgun homicides in Great Britain.  (Source: National
> : > Safety Council.  Please... no dictionary arguments about RATES vs
> : > TOTAL NUMBERS, okay?  They're offered for emphasis, not comparison).
> : >
>
> : You're a great debater.  You chose your sources of information, claim them
> : to  be superior.  I'm not aware of using any numbers from the ozone, unless
you consider those I got from you to be such.
>
> I've made no such claim.  Please direct my attention towards any
> posting of mine where I claimed superior sources of information.
> It's probably because I bothered to post any references at all while
> others seem content to post numbers pulled from the ozone, that
> you've confused it with fact-twisting.  If so, I apologize.
>
Yes, You state the reference, and then YOU claim it's a good or fair treatment.
> : then take those twisted numbers and twist them further by trying
>
> Well then, here's fair opportunity for you to prove that I've "twisted
> numbers."  On what grounds do you contradict those references?  Do you have
> any citations... any sources of your own that I can take similar
> gratuitous shots at?
>
You fail to see the differences between absolute numbers and rates.
> : to compare absolute numbers between two countries that have major
population
> : differences, the USA and GB, and then whine that you are afraid someone
might
> : attack your process, and so claim the numbers are for "emphasis, not
> : comparison"?  Emphasis of what?
>
> Nitpicking and scolding is a whiney debating style, Jim.
>
No, you just miss the point.  By your methods, I can prove gun control to be a
total failure.  New York's total homocide count, with it's strict gun control,
is MUCH higher than Rhode Island's, with it's less strict gun control.  FAR
more folks are killed in New York, than Rhode Island.  Therefore, according to
Mane Logic(tm), gun control has made New York a much more dangerous place than
Rhode Island.  Remember, it's "Nitpicking" and "a whiney debating style" to
point out the differences between New York and Rhode Island that might defeat
my argument.
> : Anything else is blowing smoke.
>
> You seddit, brudda.
Now you agree?  Wow, a break-through!
>
> --
> Stephen Manes					   manes@magpie.linknet.com
> Manes and Associates				   New York, NY, USA  =o&>o
--
Jim
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 24
In article <C518B1.AMF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>: >: > Last year the US suffered almost 10,000 wrongful or accidental
>: >: > deaths by handguns alone (FBI statistics).  In the same year, the UK
>: >: > suffered 35 such deaths (Scotland Yard statistics).  The population
>: >: > of the UK is about 1/5 that of the US (10,000 / (35 * 5)).  Weighted
>: >: > for population, the US has 57x as many handgun-related deaths as the
>: >: > UK.  And, no, the Brits don't make up for this by murdering 57x as
>: >: > many people with baseball bats.
>: If you examine the figures, they do. Stabbing is favourite, closely
>: followed by striking, punching, kicking. Many more people are burnt to
>: death in Britain as are shot to death. Take at look and you'll see for
>: yourself.
>It means that very few people are shot to death in Great Britain.
And I'm sure that is a great comfort to the widows and children of
those stabbed, beaten and burned to death. The real question is,
"Did the crime rate in England go down, after they enacted
gun control laws?" If you look at the rates before and after their
first such law in 1920, you will see no effect.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com (Ron Phillips)
Subject: Armed Citizen - April '93
Nntp-Posting-Host: hound
Reply-To: crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com
Organization: "Intergraph Electronics, Mountain View, CA"
Distribution: usa
Lines: 150
THE ARMED CITIZEN
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents
crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The
Armed Citizen.  Shooting usually can be justified only where
crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life or limb
or, in some circumstances, property.  The accounts below are from
clippings sent in by NRA members.  Anyone is free to quote or
reproduce them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
Retired Las Vegas deputy police chief Larry Bolden initially
tried to defend himself with a steering wheel bar lock when a
criminal attacked him in his car.  But then the intruder wrestled
it from him, Bolden pulled his pistol and fired several times,
wounding his attacker and stopping the incident.  "He was just a
citizen defending himself," a police official said.
(The Review-Journal, Las Vegas, Nev., 11/11/92)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
A pair of teenaged robbers armed with a sawed-off shotgun and
handguns took the day's receipts from Brooklyn bodega owner Hector
Martinez.  As they made their getaway, Martinez grabbed his
registered 12-gauge shotgun and gave chase.  When one fired,
Martinez returned three blasts, slightly wounding his assailants.
They fled but were apprehended when they sought medical attention.
(Newsday, Long Island, N.Y., 01/05/93)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
A sign posted on the door of Roman Paras' shop reads "The
owners of this property are armed and highly skilled to protect
life, liberty and property from criminal attack."  Apparently, a
pair of robbers didn't pause to read it as they threatened Paras'
wife in their Oxnard, Calif., convenience store.  Hearing her
scream, Paras grabbed his .38, ran to the front of the store and
shot it out with the masked and armed men, killing one criminal.
(The Times, Los Angeles, Calif., 12/04/92)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
Anne Marie Sullivan was showering in her Portland, Oreg., home
one morning when she heard the front door crash in.  She jumped
out of the shower in time to see a man entering the home.  Running
to the bedroom, Sullivan retrieved her boyfriend's pistol and
fired two shots, mortally wounding the intruder.  The dead man had
a lengthy police and prison record.
(The Oregonian, Portland, Oreg., 01/07/93)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
Mike Baranelli would have let two robbers who burst into a
Birmingham, Ala., barber shop keep his money.  But the 75-year-old
retired teacher was unwilling to surrender his life.  When the
intruders ordered Baranelli, the shop owner, and another man to
lie on the floor, Baranelli pulled his pistol and shot both men in
the head, killing one.  "I felt sure there was going to be three
dead people in there.  I think I had some divine help," Baranelli
said.
(The Sunday Advertiser, Montgomery, Ala., 01/03/93)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
Believing an elderly Harvey, Ill., couple would again be easy
prey, a knife-wielding home invader instead met death when the
76-year-old homeowner loosed three rounds from a semi-automatic
pistol.  Police said the dead man had been charged several times
for thefts from the couple's home.
(The Star, Chicago Heights, Ill., 01/07/93)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
The criminal's profile was scheduled to appear on "America's
Most Wanted," but his shot at fame was abruptly canceled by a
Hallandale, Fla., service station clerk.  The Michigan prison
escapee walked into the station and announced a robbery.  Instead
of cash, he got bullets in the head and chest from station clerk
Gary McVey.  Police said McVey acted in self-defense and would not
face charges.
(The Sun-Sentinel, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., 12/04/92)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
A Bridgeport, Conn., oil delivery man handed over the few
dollars he had.  But the thug, apparently unsatisfied with his
take, turned his gun on his victim and demanded more money.
Instead of more cash, the deliveryman instead pulled his own
pistol and fired, mortally wounding the robber.  Police said the
dead man had held up a nearby market just before the fatal
incident.
(The Courant, Hartford, Conn., 01/13/93)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
After repeated burglaries at her San Marcos, Calif., home, Joan
Vessel, 64, was ready with a .38 and a cordless phone when she
heard glass breaking one afternoon.  When she found two teenagers
attempting to get into her woodshed, Vessel fired a warning shot
over their heads, marched them into the front yard and called
police.
(The Times Advocate, Escondido, Calif., 12/25/92)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
Angry that his auto insurance had been canceled, a client used
brass knuckles to take it out on Brandon, Fla., agent Steven
Taylor.  When his assailant walked out of the office, Taylor
grabbed a pistol kept there and held the former client at gun-
point until police arrived.
(The Tribune, Tampa, Fla., 01/14/93)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
Dozing one evening at his Exeter, Pa., office, Jim Pisano was
awakened by the barking of his dog.  Sitting in stunned amazement,
he watched as two men smashed out his office window, reached in
and grabbed one of his hunting rifles.  Reaching a pistol on his
desk, Pisano fired several shots, apparently wounding one of the
burglars, and putting them to flight.
(The Times-Leader, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 12/09/92)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
Trying on a pair of shoes was just an act for a criminal who
then pulled a knife and demanded money.  When the man advanced,
the Flint, Mich., shoestore owner drew his pistol and fired,
critically wounding the would-be robber.
(The Journal, Flint, Mich., 01/13/93)
==================================================================
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
==================================================================
Disarmed and pistol whipped after struggling with a pair of
shotgun-toting thugs, Brooklyn, N.Y., pharmacist Soel Melero
continued fighting and managed to retrieve a second-also licensed-
hidden pistol.  Firing three times, the druggist killed one of his
assailants.  The other fled empty-handed.
(The Daily News, New York, N.Y., 01/18/93)
==================================================================
--
*************************************************************
*Ron Phillips               crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com *
*Senior Customer Engineer                                   *
*Intergraph Electronics                                     *
*381 East Evelyn Avenue               VOICE: (415) 691-6473 *
*Mountain View, CA 94041              FAX:   (415) 691-0350 *
*************************************************************
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Founding Father questions
Lines: 35
Nntp-Posting-Host: skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
In article <1993Apr5.153951.25005@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, pspod@bigbird.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski) writes:
>arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>>Wasn't she the one making the comment in '88 about George being born with
>>a silver foot in his mouth?  Sounds like another damn politician to me.
>>
>>Ain't like the old days in Texas anymore.  The politicians may have been
>>corrupt then, but at least they'd take a stand.  (My apologies to a few
>>exceptions I can think of.)
>>
>>News now is that the House may already have a two-thirds majority, so
>>her "opposition" out of her concern for image (she's even said this
>>publicly) may not matter.
>
>Do people expect the Texans congressmen to act as the N.J. Republicans did?
There is a (likely) veto proof majority in the house.  The Senate,
unfortunately, is a different story.  The Lt.Gov. has vowed that the bill will
not be voted on, and he has the power to do it.  In addition, the Senate is a
much smaller, and more readily manipulated body.
On ther other hand, the semi-automatic ban will likely not live, as at least
fifty per cent of the house currently opposes it, and it is VERY far down in
the bill order in the Senate (I believe it will be addressed after the CCW
bill).
And I thought my TX Political Science class was a waste of time!
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |about other things.
PADI DM-54909                     |
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Article-I.D.: martha.1993Apr6.161640.18833
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Lines: 46
In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>hambidge@bms.com wrote:
>: In article <C4psoG.C6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>: >: Rate := per capita rate.  The UK is more dangerous.
>: >: Though you may be less likely to be killed by a handgun, the average
>: >: individual citizen in the UK is twice as likely to be killed
>: >: by whatever means as the average Swiss.  Would you feel any better
>: >: about being killed by means other than a handgun? I wouldn't.
>:
>: >What an absurd argument.  Switzerland is one-fifth the size of the
>: >UK with one-eigth as many people therefore at any given point on
>: >Swiss soil you are more likely to be crow bait.  More importantly,
>: >you are 4x as likely to be killed by the next stranger approaching
>: >you on a Swiss street than in the UK.
>
>: You are betraying your lack of understanding about RATE versus TOTAL
>: NUMBER. Rates are expressed, often, as #/100,000 population.
>: Therefore, if a place had 10 deaths and a population of 100,000, the
>: rate would be 10/100,000.  A place that had 50 deaths and a population
>: of 1,000,000 would hav a rate of 5/100,000.  The former has a higher
>: rate, the latter a higher total.  You are less likely to die in the
>: latter.  Simple enuff?
>
>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:
>
>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000
>
>.... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.
If you want to talk "less likely to get killed with a handgun"
you'd have a point.  "Safer" includes other things than simply handguns,
and you can't conclude "safer" by ignoring them.
Now if somebody's got the total homicide rates...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed." - Lazarus Long
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Article-I.D.: martha.1993Apr6.162820.19369
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Lines: 47
In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com> manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>: That's all very well and good, but I was refering to all
>: homocides, not just ones involving handguns (what is this fixation
>: on death by shooting, as if it were somehow worse than death
>: by stabbing?)
>
>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?  What do you think gun
>control advocates are saying: that if we get rid of all handguns we will
>live in a homicide-free world?
The relevance is that if you've got x homicides and reduce
the number of gun homicides in that group, but x doesn't decrease
by a significant amount, have you made an improvement, and is that
improvement worth what you've paid?
>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...
>certainly of outrunning a bat-wielding assailant.
If a baseball bat is a tenth as likely to kill a victim as a gun,
is that any comfort to that tenth?
>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks.
I've faced a knife.  And I was damn annoyed I didn't *have*
a gun.  All the statistics in the world didn't change the fact that
*he* was interested in cutting *me*.
>Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).
"Anyone trained in self-defense."
Unarmed self-defense isn't for everyone.  What's more, it requires
substantially more training to be safe and effective than a firearm.
It requires physical proximity and thus a greater threat to the victim,
which is a primary problem with stun guns.  You have to actually touch
your assailant.  Unless you're *very* good, a large, stronger assailant
can simply ignore your blows long enough to incapacitate you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: the usual
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 77
In article <viking.734084516@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
>>Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
>>decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
>>weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
>>(Can you say "neutron flux"?)
>	Can you say, "I get more background radiation from living in
>Denver or having an office in a limestone building than I do standing
>next to a power reactor at full power or standing next to a nuclear
>warhead that is armed?"  Look up "shielding" in your dictionary.  You
>don't need six feet of lead to make decent shielding; your dead skin
>cell layer does an excellent job on alpha particles, and neutrons
>are slowed by mere *water*.  What do you think 75% of you is?
But whatever the neutrons hit has a good chance of absorbing the
neutron and becoming radioactive itself. Mostly, that means water
turning into (harmless) heavy water. But some neutrons would
also hit bones, and the resulting harmfull, secondard radioactives
would remain in the body for decades. I think an unshielded nuclear
warhead could reasonably be considered a public health hazard.
As for a shielded warhead, I think a fair amount of maintaince
is required for it to remain safely shielded (e.g. storage in
a dry, temperature-regulated facility, etc...) For private
ownership to be unregulated, I think a single individual must
be able not only to keep the weapon, but keep it in a safe
condition. If any random private citizen could not properly
keep, maintain and store a nuclear weapon, then some regulation
is clearly appropriate.
>>  Plus these things have no self-
>>defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
>>a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
>>(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
>>(translation:  cities and population centers).
>	If the militia has as its job the overthrow of an illegal
>government, they are indeed useful weapons to the militia.
I disagree with this purpose: The job of the militia is to defend
themselves and their community. If you look at the American
revolution as an example, the militias won by seperating themselves
from, and becoming independent of, a repressive government. They
didn't overthrow it, and those communities (Canada and England, for
example) that didn't defend themselves were still under that same
old regime. If the role of the militia were offensive, to go out and
destroy repressive governments, nuclear weapons _might_ be appropriate.
But their jobs is defensive, and nuclear weapons aren't suited
for that.
There is also the question of personal and collective arms: The
Second Amendment definately protects ownership of personal
weapons (since the very nature of the militia requires members
to provide their own arms.) But it isn't clear if it covers
other arms. Certainly, not all members would supply (for example)
a tank, only a few could or (if they were to be used effectively)
should. However, those providing the heavy weapons have a
disproportionate control over the militia and its fierpower.
The militias, as the framers envisioned them, were extremely
democratic: If only 50% of the members supported the cause, only
50% would respond to a muster, and the militia's firepower would
be proportionately reduced. Militia firepower and the popular
will were, therefore, linked. But if a small minority of the
members supplied a large fraction of the firepower (in the
form of heavy weapons) this would all change: The militia's
firepower would depend on the will of a small minority, not
of the general public. Worse, that minority would be quite
different from the general public (at the very least, they
would be much richer.) As a result, I think the nature and
character of the militia requires that each member provide
a roughly equal share of the militia's firepower: His personal
weapons, and some equitable fraction of a squad's heavier firepower.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Subject: Re: Statement of Sarah Brady Regarding Texas State Carrying Concealed Legislation
Article-I.D.: usenet.1psstg$bbe
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 83
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu
In a previous article, nigel.allen@canrem.com ("nigel allen") says:
>
>Here is a press release from Handgun Control Inc.
>
> Statement of Sarah Brady Regarding Texas State Carrying Concealed
>Legislation
> To: State Desk
> Contact: Susan Whitmore of Handgun Control Inc., 202-898-0792
>
>   WASHINGTON, March 25 -- Following is a statement of Sarah
>Brady regarding Texas state carrying concealed legislation:
>
>   "A handful of lawmakers in Austin today have told the public that
>their safety is of less importance than the interests of the National
>Rifle Association.  This action comes as local, state and federal law
>enforcement officials continue their stand-off with a religious cult
>that has highlighted the need for tougher gun laws, not weaker ones
>like the carry concealed bill.
"A handful of anti-gun zealots are telling the public that their
right to self-defense is of less importance than the interests of
Handgun Control, Inc.  This action comes as local, state and federal law
enforcement officials continue their assault on the Branch Davidian
compound--an assault which has already resulted in the death of one
two year old child at the hands of federal agents.  This has highlighted
the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves and their children
against the excesses of their own government."
>   "Any suggestion by proponents that this bill will help to reduce
>crime is a distortion of the facts, at best.  This so-called
>crime-fighting law has resulted in a 16 percent increase in violent
>crime in the state of Florida, and I have never heard law enforcement
>officials bragging that more guns on the streets is the way to reduce
>crime.
"Any suggestion by opponents that this bill will increase crime is a
distortion of the facts, at best.  The aggressive outreach by officials
in central Florida to train and arm women has led to a dramatic drop in
the level of assault and rape in that area.  Of course, this program is
a rare gem, as many law enforcement officials apparently believe that an
unarmed citizenry will be easier to control, and thus favor tighter
restrictions."
>   "The vote today is an insult to the law enforcement officials who
>are putting their lives on the line every day to end the standoff in
>Waco.  The entire country now knows just how easy it is for an
>individual bent on destruction to amass an arsenal of weapons.  Texas
>lawmakers who voted for this concealed handgun bill have shown total
>disregard for those law officials on the front lines, and the
>families of those who have fallen.
"The vote today is a tribute to the good sense of the public at large
who are putting their lives on the line every day as they go about their
lawful affairs.  The entire country knows how vulnerable the average
citizen is, both to attacks from criminals and from armed assault by our
own police.  Texas lawmakers who voted for this concealed handgun bill have
shown total understanding for those innocent, law-abiding citizens on the
front lines, and the families of those who have fallen."
>   "I urge the House of Representatives to listen to the 70 percent
>of Texans that oppose this measure, and reject this ill-conceived
>legislation."
"I urge the House of Representatives to pay attention to the needs
of their constituents, and not be stampeded by ill-conceived arguments
from ideological fanatics."
> -30-
>--
> Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario     nigel.allen@canrem.com
>--
>Canada Remote Systems - Toronto, Ontario
>416-629-7000/629-7044
>
Ain't propaganda fun?
--
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: What if the Dividians were black?
Article-I.D.: NCoast.C528ww.L5M
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Lines: 35
As quoted from <1993Apr5.172734.8744@icd.ab.com> by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):
> oleary@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (brian.m.leary) writes:
>
> > Questions for the media and the politically correct:
> >
> > Try asking people who don't understand why anyone would worry about
> > the tactics used against the "child molesting, drug dealing, gun running,
> > cop killing religious wackos in Waco" (1) these questions:
> >
> > If the people in the compound were black and the guys in ninja suits
> > charging in with assault weapons and grenades were LAPD
> > what would you think?
>
>
> The charges are essentially the same they used against Operation MOVE
> in Philadelphia a few years back, where the cops dropped an incendiary
> bomb on the roof of a tenement and burned down a whole block.
>
> MOVE was a black group.
There were some significant differences.  Whereas the Branch Davidians are
reported to have gotten along rather well with their neighbors, the MOVE
people are generally conceded to have gone far out of the way to antagonize
their BLACK neighbors, using loudspeakers to all hours of the night, keeping
large piles of garbage, promoting rat and insect infestation, and allegedly
threatening to kidnap their neighbors' children.
Still the same sort of questions regarding use of force remain in that case.
--
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Reply-To: hambidge@bms.com
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Distribution: na
Lines: 28
In article <C4tM1H.ECF@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>For chrissakes, take out your calculator and work out the numbers.
>Here... I've preformatted them for you to make it easier:
>
>			handgun homicides/population
>			----------------------------
>	Switzerland :	24 /  6,350,000
>	         UK :    8 / 55,670,000
>
>.... and then tell me again how Switzerland is safer with a more
>liberal handgun law than the UK is without...by RATE or TOTAL NUMBER.
>Your choice.
Please, PAY ATTENTION.
I, and others, were referring to TOTAL HOMICIDE DEATHS, NOT JUST
HANDGUN HOMICIDES.  In terms of how likely are you to be killed,
(regardless of how it's done, 'cause DEAD is DEAD), the UK has a
higher homicide rate. Period.  You are more likely to be killed in the
UK than in Switzerland.  If you were to be murdered with a handgun,
then yes, Switzerland has a higher rate.  But, to belabor the point,
you are MORE LIKELY to be murdered in the UK. In that sense, the
weapon is irrelevant.  The UK is more violent, period.
Al
[standard disclaimer]
>
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control (was Re: We're Mad as Hell at the TV News)
Reply-To: hambidge@bms.com
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Distribution: na
Lines: 35
In article <C4tsHu.Ew6@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>What relevance are ALL homicides in this debate?  What do you think gun
>control advocates are saying: that if we get rid of all handguns we will
>live in a homicide-free world?
They sure make it sound like that.
>
>The issue is guns, not baseball bats.  Even a simpleton knows that
>he stands a better chance of surviving an attack with a baseball bat...
>certainly of outrunning a bat-wielding assailant.
>
Even a simpleton knows a baseball bat is considered a deadly weapon.
If one cannot run away (e.g. old, infirm, even middle-aged if the
assailant is younger), a handgun is the most effective means of
defense. You won't even have to fire a shot 98% of the time.
>As for knives, see my earlier post.  I'd much rather face a knife
>than a gun, thanks.  Fortunately, the best defense against a knife isn't
>another knife.  Anyone trained in unarmed self-defense won't have
>much of a problem disarming a knife assailant untrained in knife
>assault (which probably means 99.9% of knife assailants).
Any real streetfighter (and there are LOTS of them), with or without a
knife, will kick the living sh** out of most people "trained in
unarmed self defense".  For the majority of people, a gun is the most
effective form of self defense.
Al
[standard disclaimer]
Subject: Re: Nazi memoribilia
From: cmay@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Christopher C May)
Organization: University of Arizona - Tucson, Arizona
Lines: 34
In <1993Apr2.232511.10711@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:
>Swatikas were also common in American Indian markings/painted walls etc.  Is
>it the Swastika that is bad?
Just want to back this up with a personal anecdote.  My grandparents
have a Navajo rug made in the 1920's, which they received in trade
from the weaver while living in Flagstaff, Arizona.  The decorative motif
consists of 4 large black swastikas, one in each corner.  What's more, the
color scheme is black, white, and red.  To the casual glance it would
undoubtedly appear to be a Nazi relic of some kind.  Yet they owned it
ten years before Hitler and the National Socialists came to power.
As I recall, they took it down in the 30's, and didn't feel quite right
about putting it back up until the 60's.  It still draws comments from
those who don't know what it is.
--ccm
--
Christopher C. May * U. of Ariz. Coll. of Medicine '93 * cmay@ccit.arizona.edu
+=============================================================================+
| Do your part for Liberty: Teach your children to hate Big Government.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Do you care about freedom? Dreams may have inspired it, and wishes promoted |
|     it, but only war and weapons have made it yours. -- Robert Ardrey       |
| Armaque in armatos sumere jura sinunt. -- Ovid                              |
| The wise man's understanding inclineth him toward his right hand, but a     |
|     fool's heart turneth him to the left. -- Ecclesiastes 10:2              | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
Christopher C. May * U. of Ariz. Coll. of Medicine '93 * cmay@ccit.arizona.edu
+=============================================================================+
| Do your part for Liberty: Teach your children to hate Big Government.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: Nazi memoribilia
Nntp-Posting-Host: taos
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Lines: 38
In article <cmay.734085409@helium>, cmay@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Christopher C May) writes:
|> In <1993Apr2.232511.10711@raid.dell.com> mikepb@lupus.dell.com (Michael P. Brininstool) writes:
|>
|> >Swatikas were also common in American Indian markings/painted walls etc.  Is
|> >it the Swastika that is bad?
|>
|> Just want to back this up with a personal anecdote.  My grandparents
|> have a Navajo rug made in the 1920's, which they received in trade
|> from the weaver while living in Flagstaff, Arizona.  The decorative motif
|> consists of 4 large black swastikas, one in each corner.  What's more, the
|> color scheme is black, white, and red.  To the casual glance it would
|> undoubtedly appear to be a Nazi relic of some kind.  Yet they owned it
|> ten years before Hitler and the National Socialists came to power.
|>
|> As I recall, they took it down in the 30's, and didn't feel quite right
|> about putting it back up until the 60's.  It still draws comments from
|> those who don't know what it is.
Having lived, played, and worked on and near the Navajo reservation
for a number of years, I can confirm this is an ancient pattern,
found in petroglyphs dated 800 to 1200 years old.
Also, the Indians never stopped making rugs with this pattern - they
just stopped selling them after the Nazi's pre-empted the swastika.
Note also that the Indian versions use both clockwise and
counter-clockwise swastikas.
Ob guns:  It's the rare Navaho family that doesn't own a rifle.
They remember being "relocated" by the US Army, and don't intend to
do it again.  The Hopi, on the other hand, have a dislike for
weapons, from my experience.  Perhaps they just hide them better
from strangers.
--
Kirk Hays - NRA Life, seventh generation.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: National Crime Survey
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Lines: 19
Well, I dropped by the library yesterday, and picked up back copies
of the National Crime Survey (1986-1990) in an effort to examine what
it said about self-defense with a firearm.
I haven't ground through much in the way of numbers yet, but a couple
of things jumped out at me.  First only 1986 and 1987 specify the type of
weapon used in self defense.  1988, 1989, and 1990 refer only to "weapon."
The second is that while assaults rose about 3% from 1986 to 1987, w/gun
defenses reported *fell* by almost 25%.  Unless there's an explanation for
this, I'm tempted to mark it as a reporting problem, and as such going
ahead with any examination of the numbers would be a waste of time.
Anybody have an idea what might have cause a real difference, and
not just a reporting difference?  The survey doesn't appear to have
changed significantly between 1986 and 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
From: dlb5404@tamuts.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf)
Subject: Re: Do they really believe?
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Lines: 38
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamuts.tamu.edu
In article <1993Apr5.150031.3123@colorado.edu> ajteel@dendrite.cs.Colorado.EDU (A.J. Teel) writes:
>
>	Q: Do you think that HIC et al really believe that the laws
>that they are trying to get passed are for the good or are they just
>lying through their teeth and trying to disarm the populace?
I think that HCI people honestly believe that passing more gun control
laws will be in the best interests of public safety.  Why do I think
this?  Because I used to buy the HCI line.  During my freshman year (1987),
their line made so much sense -- only people who "need" guns should be
able to get them, and the people who "need" them are the police and
other elites.  Unfortunately for us, this position is highly emotional
and not well thought-out.  They never stop to think that HCI's position
basically says that the non-elite are incompetents (that's you and me,
folks!) and that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with
hunting or other "legitimate" uses (which excludes overthrowing tyrannical
governments and defending yourself when the police have proven they
can't protect you).
>	We all know that the end result, regardless of the intention,
>will be to have a MUCH easier to subdue population for the UN/NWO.
>This is definitely a motivation of many in power, but I wonder to
>what degree this is planned vs just duped.
Every pro-control person I've talked to is always left  stumped when I
simply argue the facts of gun control (that it has yet to be proven to
lower crime rates) and weapons terminology (and I'm no expert -- but
explaining exactly how an "evil" semiautomatic weapon really works
does wonders).
I hvae personally found well-reasoned arguments to be most effective
against the emotional pro-control people.  The trick is to get them to
realize that the Second Amendment exists not for hunters but for the
oppressed and the terrorized.
Daryl
Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu
+ Sola Gratia + Sola Fide + Sola Scriptura
From: dale@access.digex.com (Dale Farmer)
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Frank Crary (fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com> dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes:
: The Swiss population is (and well was) far larger than that. I think
: your question should be, "...losing sleep over a million expert
: riflemen?" Certainly he could have conquered Switzerland, but
: a million armed militiamen (especially in a mountainous area,
: where tanks' effectiveness is limited) would have made it a
: real pain. The question a conqueror would ask, is "is it worth
: the trouble?" The more difficult an invasion is, the more likely
: the answer would be "no." Certainly a million riflemen (as
: opposed to a professional army of only ten or twenty thousand, the
: best a country the size of Switzerland could support), makes
: invasions more difficult.
Hitler invaded Yugoslavia and occupied it.  The mountainous portions were
sometimes patrolled by the wermacht, but they were certainly not in control.
There were two major native factions opposing each other and the germans,
It was basically useless to the germans (no production) and a drain on their
resources (a armored division and a couple of infantry divisions) Which if
my memory is correct, were kind of stuck there up until the allies accepted
their surrender.  (I think that the allies also let the germans keep some
of their weapons for self defense unitil they were able to get to the
lowlands, away from the resistance factions.  This is from memory, and
it is unreliable.
--Dale Farmer
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: I believe in gun control.
Reply-To: hambidge@bms.com
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Lines: 17
In article <C4vG3F.Kx3@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>I believe in gun control.  How about you?
>
>  I believe in gun control, too . . . assuming by "gun control"
>  you mean always being able to hit your target.
>
>
>---peter
>
Or, how about the Clint Eastwood line in "Pink Cadillac" -
"I believe in gun control.  If there's a gun around, I wanna be
the one controlling it."
Al
[standard disclaimer]
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Lavishly Funded "Gun Epidemic" Propaganda Campaign to Commence
Reply-To: hambidge@bms.com
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Distribution: usa
Lines: 20
In article <C4txEK.FCq@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>Morris the Cat (rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com) wrote:
>
>: Well, as Neal Knox of the Firearms Coalition points out, the full
>: force of the anti-gun ruling class, their multi-millions, their
>: polling organizations, their schools, their news media, their
>: "entertainment" media
>
>The entertainment media... a "force of the anti-gun ruling class"??
>Is this the same media that's made billions producing films and
>television that glorify guns and gun users?  Or is that another
>anti-gun media?
>
>You've got to be kidding.
I'm afraid he isn't.  They are a hypocritical lot.
Al
[standard disclaimer]
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control: proud to be a Canuck
Reply-To: hambidge@bms.com
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Lines: 28
In article <1pqsruINNiae@hp-col.col.hp.com>, dduff@col.hp.com (Dave Duff) writes:
>Does anyone really believe the Swiss have had no war within their borders
>because every adult male owns a rifle? I'm a great admirer of the Swiss, but
>500 years of peace on their turf has zilch to do with gun ownership. Can you
>picture Hitler, with Panzers and Focke-Wulfs poised on the border, losing
>sleep over a few thousand expert rifleman?
Not just because of the riflemen.  They also have many hard bunkers in
the mountains that would be nearly impossible to penetrate. As for
tanks, they would be rather useless in such mountainous terrain.
>Hitler stayed out of Switzerland because the Swiss run the money in this
>world.
Gee, that's a new one.  He thought it was a different ethnic group.
Since Hitler was determined to control, at the least, all of Europe,
do you think he gave a damn about international monetary concerns?
Also, there's a LOT of gold in Swiss vaults.  Don't you think he new
that?  If he could have, he would have taken Switzerland.  However,
crazy as he was, he wasn't totally stupid.  It would have cost him a
hell of a lot to take Switzerland, with no guarantee that an invasion
would be successful.  He probably figured (or his generals did, when
he was listening to them) that it wasn't worth the cost.
Al
[standard disclaimer]
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: Gun Control
Reply-To: hambidge@bms.com
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Lines: 94
In article <C51L52.BGo@magpie.linknet.com>, manes@magpie.linknet.com (Steve Manes) writes:
>
>I would be surprised if there weren't contrary studies.  I might add that
>Sloan and Kellerman was endorsed by the police departments of both Seattle
>and Vancouver and is considered by most of the references I have at hand the
>most exhaustive study of its kind, even by those who take issue with some of
>the essay's conclusions.  S&K's statistics speak largely for themselves
>without postulate.
And, I might add, vitamin C has been endorsed by a Nobel Laureate as a
panacea for almost everything from the common cold to cancer.
> In order to compare violent crime trends, S&K compared >all<
>violent crime categories, from simple assault through various mechanisms of
>homicide.
Wait a minute. S&K did NOT compare trends.  If they did, they would
have seen that the advent of Canada's gun law had no effect on
homicides, total or handgun.  Without a pre- vs. post comparison, one
cannot speculate as to the utility of anything.  All they have is a
correlation, and correlation DOES NOT prove causality.
>If your point is that non-whites commit more handgun crimes than whites
>then yours is the dubious assumption.  Conventional social theory is that
>economic status, not color, is the primary motivating factor for crime,
>especially violent crime.  What's your point anyway, that white people
>are more responsible gun owners?  Should we assume that it's a coincidence
>that there are comparitively fewer white people earning below the poverty
>line and living in tenement neighborhoods where most violent crime occurs?
Hold it again. You dismiss a point about demographics, then you ask
about socio-economic demographics? Very slick.
>
>:    Differences between the two cities in the
>:    permit regulations render these two numbers strictly noncomparable.
>
>On the contrary, it's these differences that are the very basis of the study:
>the easy availability of legal handguns in Seattle and the much more
>difficult "restricted-weapons" permit required in Vancouver.
Once again, correlation does not prove causality.  Looking at pre-vs.
post data, the Canadian gun law had no effect.
>
>Not so.  Cook measures suicides and assaultive homicides with
>firearms against a survey-based estimate of the number of legal and
>illegal guns in circulation within a city.
Sir, if you were a Canadian, and owned a gun before the restrictive
gun laws were passed, and decided to hide it rather than turn it in,
would you answer truthfully a question about gun ownership from
someone who calls, writes, or asks you on the street?  That is one
problem with surveys.  Nobody will answer an incriminating question.
Another is that people will often tell you what they THINK you want to
here.
>
>Again, your author misses the core issue: that Vancouver citizens are
>prohibited from purchasing handguns on the basis of self-defense.  They
>don't have a choice in the matter.
Does that mean no Vancouver citizens have handguns? I think not. You
are discounting guns purchased beforehand, and guns purchased for
purposes other than self-defense, which can also be used for defense.
>
>Hmmm... sounds like your author might like a bumper sticker that reads "Guns
>don't kill people, black people kill people!"  Honestly, his conjectures,
>backed up by zero evidence, zero studies and even less common sense, aren't
>worth the considerable time it must have taken you to type in.  His
>assumptions look frighteningly close to those pseudo-scientific "studies"
>that the white supremist assholes love... the crap that takes published
>statistics, twisted around in an attempt to prove the inherent criminal
>nature of black people.
He makes valid points about demographic differences.  You then resort
to the kind of argument that the "Politically Correct" movement often
uses to stifle any debate.  Nice, real nice.
>This author's essay contains 0% independent study upon which to base his
>conclusions, just some strained, disjointed statistical discourse attempting
>to blame Seattle's murder rate on blacks.
One doesn't have to produce his own data in order to point out the
flaws in the methodology and conclusions of another's study. Again,
you resort to PC tactics.
Al
[standard disclaimer]
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Another NYTimes Yellow-Sheet Editorial (4/4/93)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
In article <1pmol6INNod9@gap.caltech.edu>, arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
>
> >*  Thanks to the N.R.A., the A.T.F. is prohibited from researching the
> >effectiveness of using taggants in explosives, Taggants are a cheap
> >and technologically feasible microscopic additive that would help
> >investigators at crime scenes - like the World Trade Center bombing
> >- trace the explosives involved.
>
> I want this man to tell me how in the hell you can take the
> explosives used in the WTC bombing, considering that the
> consensus seems to be that the explosive was a fertilizer-based
> one.
Proper counter to this claim:  "Forensic analysis of the WTC bomb by
means of taggants would have been as impossible as semantic analysis
of NYT editorials by means of taggants -- the difficulty in both cases
being to have persuaded the bull to consume the taggants before
production of either item."
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 58
Jason Kratz (U28037@uicvm.uic.edu) writes:
> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says:
> >Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> >
> >Don't be silly.  Of course you can.  The police have everything
> >the gangs have and then some.  Plus they've got access to the
> >National Guard (via the Governor) if things get too rough.  That's
> >tanks for those of you who've never seen them at play.  Of course,
> >they've got rifles and helicopters.
> >
> >And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
> >armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
>
> What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally
> blown out of proportion.  In my post I was referring to your
> regular patrolman in a car cruising around the city vs. gang
> members.  Of course the police have access to the things that you
> mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the time?  Of
> course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
> day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The
> majority that I see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there
> is anything wrong with a revolver but if you're a cop that is up
> against some gang member with a couple of automatics in his coat (I
> mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a disadvantage even
> with training.
how so? i think you're making assumptions here that might not
necessarily be true. -my- personal choice would be a semi-auto, but
revolvers are just as effective, if not more so.
> I have been at a shooting range where gang gang members were
> "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing taking out
> their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target and they
> weren't doing too badly either.
relevancy, please? you sound shocked, but that hardly proves anything.
> The University cops here (who are are state cops) are armed better
> than the Chicago police.  It seems most state cops are.  I don't
> know where you are originally from David but you live in Tennesse
> and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news and in
> the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
> than there.
wait, doesn't Chicago have -serious- gun control? if so, why do the
police need all that firepower in the first place? (sarcasm alert)
all the patrol cars i've seen around here have shotguns clamped to
the dash board. IMHO, that's all the police need to outgun just about
anything.
jason
--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` The Crystal Wind is the Storm, and the Storm is Data, and the Data  `,`
`,`  is Life -- The Player's Litany, from _The Long Run_ by D.K. Moran  `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Letter to a Liberal Colleague -- L. Neil Smith
Distribution: usa
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanca.lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Lines: 147
Posted by Cathy Smith for L. Neil Smith
LETTER TO A LIBERAL COLLEAGUE
[AUTHOR'S NOTE:  "Adrian" -- name changed to protect the guilty --
and the author are science fiction novelists who once worked with
the same editor at a famous New York publishing house.]
Dear Adrian:
I'm way behind schedule on my current book again, so this reply to
your note -- criticizing the recent magazine interview I gave and
generally attacking gun ownership -- will necessarily consist
mostly of assertions you're free to believe (or not) I can back
with evidence and logic I've neither time nor energy to present
now.  I've written fully on this topic before and will again in the
future.  When I do, I'll make sure you get copies.
There are many arguments I might make, from the futility and danger
of delegating self-defense to the police (see Don Kates in the Jan.
10, 1985 WALL STREET JOURNAL) to the real effect of prohibition,
shifting consumers from newly-outlawed handguns or semiautomatic
rifles to items like sawed-off shotguns or homemade bombs, but I'll
limit myself here to commenting on the newspaper clipping you sent
with your note.
First, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Second, publication of some latter-day "scientific study" doesn't
alter the fact that the gun prohibitionists I discussed in my
interview -- annoying you so much in the process -- were lying.
Third, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Fourth, as often happens with these things, the "study" doesn't
support the gun prohibitionists' original numerical contentions
anyway, but simply adds a new layer of spurious claims to an older
body of lies, omissions, and distortions.
Fifth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Sixth, the fact that gun prohibitionists have been caught lying on
countless occasions (Carl Bakal, author of NO RIGHT TO KEEP AND
BEAR ARMS, even confessed to it publicly) makes the value of this
present "study" dubious, to say the least.
Seventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil,
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Eighth, given your own lifelong service as a federal bureaucrat
(not to mention the cynical sophistication of your fiction), you
should be better aware than most people how "progress" -- in
designing "studies" to prove whatever you want -- outstrips our
ability to collect meaningful data.  A case in point we might agree
on is the fact that it took another kind of prohibitionist 20 or 30
years to create "studies" "proving" that pornography causes crime.
More naive (and probably more honest) efforts in the 50s and 60s
clearly indicate the contrary.
Ninth, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Tenth, another reason to doubt all such "studies" is that human
behavior (as the Austrian School of economics demonstrates) is far
too complex and unpredictable to be meaningfully quantified.  The
attempt to do so -- and then create public policy based on the
resulting pseudo-information -- is wrecking our civilization.
Eleventh, the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is
a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil,
and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic
process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
Twelfth, the "study" is also worthless because it incorporates
figures for suicide, which is not necessarily a tragedy but
basically another individual right, sometimes with ancillary social
benefits.  If anything, perhaps suicide INTERVENTION should be a
criminal offense.
Thirteenth and finally, the National Rifle Association officials
quoted in the article, whatever their shortcomings (and they are
many), are correct in this instance:  the "study" is meaningless
because the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a
natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process
nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
And because of that, Adrian, even if the "study" were valid, it
wouldn't deter me from a lifelong personal objective of seeing that
anyone can own any weapon he or she prefers and carry it however,
whenever, and wherever he or she desires without asking anybody's
permission. In this I'm ably assisted by gun prohibitionists
themselves, whose yawping invariably moves previously unarmed
people to go out and buy their first gun "while they still can".
Before the '68 Gun Control Act, most of the "shooting fraternity"
viewed handguns (incorrectly, as it turned out) as inaccurate,
ineffective toys.  There probably weren't six million of them in
the whole country.  Now, thanks to Kennedy, Metzenbaum, the Bradys,
and their ilk -- AMERICA'S GREATEST SPORTING GOODS SALES TEAM -- we
probably manufacture at least that many every year.
The fascinating datum is that Handgun Control, et al. are perfectly
aware of this -- so I guess you'll have to ask them yourself what
their real motives are.
Look:  gun-making isn't an arcane or difficult art (and by the way,
it's easier to make a fully automatic weapon than a semiautomatic;
the fact that I can still obtain my own weapon of preference, the
self-loading pistol, is the only thing which keeps me from pursuing
this further).  Even if it were difficult, there are already a
quarter billion firearms in America, with an estimated "half life"
of 1000 years -- possibly more for stainless steel.  Guns are gonna
be around a long time, Adrian, whether you like it or not.
As for me, to paraphrase Elmer Keith, regardless of what the law
provides or any court decides, I'm always going to be armed.  And I
will always work to see that others are, as well.  The bad news is
that there are thousands more -- perhaps even hundreds of thousands
-- where I come from.  We can't be stopped by passing laws, we can
only be forced to arm ourselves and others secretly and -- given
both the practical and alleged differences between full automatics
and semiautomatics -- perhaps more efficiently.
So what's the point?
L. Neil Smith
Author:  THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE, HENRY MARTYN,
and (forthcoming) PALLAS
LEVER ACTION BBS (303) 493-6674, FIDOnet: 1:306/31.4
Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
NRA Life Member
My opinions are, of course, my own.
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Lines: 40
In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com>, allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
>
> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
>
>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
>
>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>    No comparison.
>
> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.
If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation.
The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.
In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
thus it is economical. Of note though ... domestic reefer
is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
good dollar/pound deal.
Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
would have to be local. There are not all that many people
who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
pay through the nose for it.
From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
X-Posted-From: iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu
Lines: 86
I wrote :
Nice strawman indeed.  The discussion is not about whether there were
tanks
used in sixties riots; instead, it is about whether those tanks fired
their
main guns in one of those riots.  You claim they did.  That claim is
ludicrous.
Awesley replied:
I repeated what I had been told, under what context I had heard it,
supporting the claim that tanks were indeed used in Detroit in 67.
The issue has never been whether tanks were used in Detroit in 1967.  It
has been whether they fired their main guns.  You did not merely claim that
tanks were used--you claimed that they fired their main guns to suppress
sniper fire and that they were "quite" effective at this.  You continue to
back away from this claim and defend something else that nobody is
disputing.
Awesley went on:
I
spent a few minutes in a library today -- found their computer was
down and they don't have a card catalog.  Anyway, it took about 10
minutes to find this in _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion and It's
Victims_ by Sauter and Hines, on page 133, telling of the death of
Tonia Blanding, age 4.
"When the tank was fired upon by snipers it turned in the direction
the shots came from. [...] the fifty-caliber machine gun mounted on the
tank belched fire into the buildings.  After a short round into the front
of the buildings, the tank guns spit again, tearing apart huge holes out
of the side of the apartment."
Well, it's not the main gun.
"Well, it's not the main gun."  Gee, that's only the entire point.  Are you
now going to admit that you were wrong?
I wrote:
will I see any pictures of tanks firing their main
guns?  Will I see pictures of buildings damaged by the shells?  Will I
read
the reports of the tank fire?  I'll bet you dollar to doughnuts I won't.
It will take more than second-hand accounts from a few old National Guard
sergeants shooting the shit to convince me that tanks shelled American
cities in the Sixties.
Awesley replied:
Well, if you bothered to read them, it wouldn't take long at all to
find reports of tank * fire * -- although not necessarily of the main
guns.
I will never read of tanks firing their main guns in Detroit in the '67
riots.  There is simply no way that such an event could have taken place
without it being common knowledge even 26 years later.  The American
military firing shells from tanks in American cities on blacks would have
been *big* news.
Awesley goes on:
You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.
To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
it makes your other claim seem more plausible.
And on:
I don't
expect to convince you; you'll have to open your mind and eyes and
actually
do a little research to be convinced one way or the other.  Let me know
what you find.
I already know what you found: nothing.  If I claimed that the Marines used
F-4s to launch rockets at buildings in Trenton, New Jersey would you
believe me?  Would you suspend judgment until you had a chance to research
it?  Or would your bullshit filters kick in?
If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
it.  Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up.
If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I prefer
to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.
--John L. Scott
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Deep Thirteen, Gizmonics Institute
Lines: 90
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu
In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
[deleted]
[]       And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
[]armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
[]
>What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
>proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
>cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
>to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
>time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
>day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
>see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
>revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
>of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
>disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang
>gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing
>taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
>and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are
>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
>state cops are.
Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to
3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).
A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.
- A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
the trigger again.
- A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.
- A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
to rotate to the next round.
- A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
easy motion, even one handed.
- Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.
- A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
about clearing it.
- Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the
chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
of employment as a revolver.
- There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
operation of many of them requires more training.
Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
as the timer on a VCR.
Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
equipped for anything short of a riot.
Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a
wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
criminal encounters is less than 5.
What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
.38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police
prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....
ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they
introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.
--
"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
-BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.
From: vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Deep Thirteen, Gizmonics Institute
Lines: 22
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cae.cad.gatech.edu
In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
[deleted]
>The University cops here (who are
>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
>state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live
>in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news
>and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
>than there.
Which crap, the ridiculous assertions that Uzis are mowing down cops
right and left? The assertions that dialing 911 should be the proper
and only option available to the law-abiding citizens?
A factoid:
56 cops were killed in the whole country last year. This is down from
around 100 in the early '80s. Wow, a real explosion in cop killings
there eh?  :-)
--
"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
-BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Lines: 53
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
In article <1qiebiINN1c1@cae.cad.gatech.edu> vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
>In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>[deleted]
>>The University cops here (who are
>>are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
>>state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live
>>in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news
>>and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
>>than there.
>
>Which crap, the ridiculous assertions that Uzis are mowing down cops
>right and left? The assertions that dialing 911 should be the proper
>and only option available to the law-abiding citizens?
>
>A factoid:
>
>56 cops were killed in the whole country last year. This is down from
>around 100 in the early '80s. Wow, a real explosion in cop killings
>there eh?  :-)
Well, if we're going to discuss being a police officer in
America today.
The FBI lists 132 police officers killed (feloniously and
accidentally) in 1990.  That's apparently everybody at all levels.
Year        Officers killed       Rate/100,000 police officers
1982             164*                  47.6
1983             152**                 40.2
1984             147                   39.4
1985             148***                37.9
1986             133                   34.9
1987             148                   39.0
1988             155****               41.9
1989             145*****              38.1
1990             132                   32.0
* Includes one officer in Mariana Islands
** Includes one officer each in Guam and Mariana Islands
*** Includes one officer in Guam and two in foreign locations
**** Includes one officer in American Samoas and two in foreign countries
***** Includes one officer in Guam and one Federal officer killed in
Peru
God, I love the information age!  :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Lines: 89
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com>, allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim) writes:
>>
>> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
>>
>>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
>>
>>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>>    No comparison.
>>
>> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
>> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
>> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
>> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
>> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
>> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.
>
>	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
>	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation.
>	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
>	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.
>
>	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
>	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
>	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
>	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
>	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
>	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
>	thus it is economical.
Here's a question:  If most marijuana is domestic and
producing it here is economical, why would we expect it to be
imported?
>       Of note though ... domestic reefer
>	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
>	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
>	good dollar/pound deal.
Yet it was done.  Done quite successfully for a number of years.
*Somebody* thought it was worth the risk.
>	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
>	It would not be economic to smuggle them in.
Your assumption is that this "low" dollar/pound area is
sufficiently low as to make gun-running unprofitable.  On what
do you base this?
And given that smuggling channels are already established,
and given the economies of scale, would it really add significantly
more expense to start smuggling firearms, especially considering
doing so would be less hazardous (in terms of getting caught) than
drugs?
>       All production
>	would have to be local.
Now *that* was a jump.  In any case, define "local."  It's
a big country.
>       There are not all that many people
>	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
>	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
>	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
>	pay through the nose for it.
Wow, you gotta love the speculation.
As I posted before, we import billions upon billions of raw
ores across the Mexican border.  Not only that but ships come in and
out of U.S. harbors every day full stuff.  And customs doesn't even
have the extra advantage of being able to sniff them out.
I'd be willing to wager that a shipload of handguns would be
worth more than a shipload of raw ore, *and* you're virtually guaranteed
to get it past customs, because they'd have to hand search every hold of
every ship which came through.
It's not simply a matter of how much money are they worth, but how
much *more* money are they worth than other goods, based on the likelihood
of being caught.  Less money than drugs, but also a safer thing to smuggle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Distribution: usa
<1qfrhbINNo80@cae.cad.gatech.edu>
Lines: 27
In article <1qfrhbINNo80@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
Fox) says:
>[...]
>this measure as it will prevent the evil Bambi-killers from hunting,
>and another will fight it for the interference with Nature that it is.
Such a measure would also have another benefit. It would relieve the
various states of the thorny problem of what to do with the hundreds
of millions of dollars hunters pour into the economy annually. I'm
sure that, to attain sure a lofty, humane, liberal and ecologically
(not to mention politically) correct goal, the environmental and animal
rights groups/individuals supporting such a measure would be more than
willing to add their names to a list of supporters seeking increased
taxation to replace these lost revenues. I am equally confident that
these same entities, given their noteworthy record in the area of social
responsibility and respect for private property, would feel morally
and ethically bound to raise the necessary funds to acquire the
hundreds of thousands of acres of land now held in private hands
solely for use as private hunting preserves by the landowner(s). To
do less than this would place these same groups/individuals in
the ethically untenable (to say nothing of environmentally and
politically incorrect) position of sanctioning the logging and
subsequent development and urbanization of these former private
hunting lands, which would no longer be useable by, or of any
benefit to, the landowner(s) in such a capacity.
W. K. Gorman
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?
Nntp-Posting-Host: beethoven.cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
Keywords: handgun mace pepper-spray taser tasp phaser
Lines: 102
In article <1993Apr13.221936.28301@watson.ibm.com> mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps) writes:
>
>In article <shepardC5FtLs.681@netcom.com>, shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard)
>writes:
>|> How effective are personal defense products like mace, pepper-spray,
>|> tasers and other non-lethal "stun" devices compared to handguns?
>|> Any statistics on #'s and types in use?
>|>
>|> These products seem very attractive compared to handguns
>|> because, being non-lethal, they are more "forgiving" of accident or
>|> mistakes/wrongful shooting (such as the Yoshi Hattori case), and
>|> allow the justice system to deal with the criminal (rather than
>|> criminals simply being _dead_, which has a certain "vigilante feel"
>|> which seems to bother anti-gun people).
>
>The "more forgiving" nature also has its down side; it allows a criminal
>to use them w/o the ADW [assault with a deadly weapon] charge.  They also
>can have lethal or dangerous side effects -
> - some people have violent reactions to mace/pepper sprays
> - stun guns can harm people with weak hearts
> - people have suffered eye damage from mace; the stuff that is available
>   now is less concentrated than it used to be.
> - some of the spray propellents are flammable
>
>|>
>|> The arguments I see _against_ these non-lethal weapons compared to
>|> handguns are lack of range, lack of "stopping power" or effectiveness,
>|> and limited "ammo".  True?  How about cost?
>
>Sprays
>
>- using any of the spray based [eg mace, pepper] indoors is bound to
>  affect anyone else in the room (like the victim) due to the nature
>  of the stuff.
>
>- using the sprays outdoors in any sort of breeze mitigates its
>  effectiveness.
>
>- from reading various articles, it appears that mace, especially the
>  mace available to citizens, is pretty ineffective on people under
>  the influence of drugs or alcohol.
>
>- pepper spray appears to be more effective, but has the inherent spray
>  delivery problem.  It still does not appear to be anything better than
>  a distraction that might buy you time to run like hell [if you can].
>
>Consider that running like hell isn't always a viable solution.  For
>example, if you are dressed in boots and the assailent is dressed in
>sneakers .. you might have a tough time outrunning them!
>
>Tasars and Stun Guns
>
>- require contact with skin for max effectiveness; a jacket [like a
>  leather one] will mitigate its effectiveness
>
>- the user must be extremely close to the assailent; that puts them
>  at a considerable risk of injury.
>
>- the user must keep the stun gun in contact with the assailent for some
>  non negligible period of time.
>
>- tasar darts can be pulled out.
>
>Consider the problem a small women would have keeping a stun gun in
>contact with a average size man for any length of time w/o sustaining
>serious injury.
>
>|>
>|> Have any anti-gun groups suggested non-lethal weapons, to counter
>|> the pro-gun argument that people will be left defenseless?
>
>I haven't heard of any.  Generally they contend that people don't
>need to [or aren't able] to defend themselves.
>
>|>
>|> And, what legal restrictions/licensing apply to non-lethal devices?
>
>Civilian ownership of stun guns is frequently illegal [NY].  The sprays
>are also illegal in some states.  Believe it or not, they are still
>illegal in NY, although about half the state thinks they are legal!
>[I believe that NY almost legalized them; i have heard that the reason
>they didn't was due to their ineffectiveness]
>
>I feel that the sprays are better than nothing, but only if the user
>does not believe the hype ["this'll drop 'em in their tracks" stuff]
>and uses it as a diversion o_n_l_y .
>-
>|>
>|> 	MarkS
>|> --
>|> Mark Shepard | shepard@netcom.com | Portola Valley, CA
>
>--
>Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
>                (internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy
> (and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..
What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets. Would
those work very well in stopping an attack?
Doug Holland
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: "High Power" Assault guns
Nntp-Posting-Host: gozer
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club
Lines: 12
In article <1993Apr14.143825.13476@stortek.com> vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak) writes:
> Alaska with 1 UZI, 1 20 rnd Magazine, and 1 BIG Polar bear @
^
I'd make that, "1 BIG, MAD, and HUNGRY with CUBS NEARBY Polar bear @..."
Drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
<93104.173826U28037@uicv <PA146008.711.734832476@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Lines: 79
In article <PA146008.711.734832476@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
(David Veal) says:
>>
[stuff deleted]
me:
>>What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
>>proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
>>cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
>>to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
>>time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
>>day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
>>see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
>>revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a
>couple
>>of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
>>disadvantage even with training.
>
David:
>      This is the "arms race" fallacy.  That somehow bigger guns make an
>individual safer.  The problem is that for each corresponding level of
>offensive power the is not an automatic level of defense increase.  The
>problem is that there's a sort of lethality threshold that once you get
>past you're only talking about a metter of degree.
>
>      Regardless of what cops are up against there's really no reason
>for the average beat cop to have anything bigger than a pistol on him
>as a personal weapon and maybe a rifle and a shotgun in the cruiser.
>
>      I mean, think about it.  Carrying a monster pistol or sub-machinegun
>doesn't make the cop any less wounded if somebody shoots him.  A lot
>of police departenments have switched to semi-automatics, as better
>more reliable weapons, and more stopping power, but there's a point
>of diminishing returns.
>
This is a very, very good point.  Who cares what kind of gun you've got if
you're lying on the ground dead.
>      And as far as automatics go, any gang member carrying around "a
>couple" of automatics (an incredible rarity) is going to be far more of
>a menace to himself and innocent bystanders than anything he might be
>tryinh to aim at.  One auto is hard enough to control.  Anybody who
>could control two is going to get the police officer regardless of
>what the police officer is armed with.
>
[more stuff deleted.  mostly mine]
>        My question is this:  What would a police officer gain from
>having a sub-machinegun or similar personal weapon that he already
>doesn't have with a 9mm or 10mm semi-automatic pistol?  I don't see
>as how the police should be hosing around full-auto fire, nor has
>my experience with police officers (or the stats regarding how many
>police officers get killed by other cops) made me feel such would be a
>good idea.  Precise fire is far more preferable.  Nor should they using
>"bigger" guns.  Most standard sidearms have more then sufficient
>stopping power when properly applied.  All more powerful weapons would
>do is make the likelihood of death higher without really giving police
>significantly more options.
>
Another very good point that is well taken.  It seems that when lots of lead
is flying (either the cops or the gangs) someone innocent always gets caught
in the crossfire.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
>your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
>love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
All points made above are well taken.  I guess I am in the mindset of
"having more makes it better" which is obviously not the correct mindset
to take in this discussion.  Now that I think about the situation a
little more carefully I see your point exactly David and I
wholeheartedly (sp?) agree.  Like I said I'm just assuming that "more
bullets and/or bigger bullets is better".  Once again though I want to
state that I am a pro-gun individual and do NOT believe that gun control
is really a viable option here in the United States regardless of the drivel
that I spout here :-)
Jason
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Distribution: usa
<93103.170753U28037@uic <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>
Lines: 73
In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
Fox) says:
>
[stuff deleted. all mine]
>Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
>Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
>faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
>guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
>in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to
Aw come on.  It worked great in the 1920's (or the movie version of the '20s
anyways) :-)
>3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
>like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
>often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).
>
>A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.
>
[stuff deleted about how revolvers are just as good as semi-autos]
All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>as the timer on a VCR.
Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
>the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
>and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
>merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
>with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
>equipped for anything short of a riot.
>
Actually I don't watch those shows :-)  And you're right (at least partially).
I don't know much about handguns.  I'm more familiar with rifles.
>Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a
>wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
>Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
>I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
>to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
>what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
>wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
>extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
>criminal encounters is less than 5.
>
>What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
>.38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police
>prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....
>
>ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they
>        introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
>        as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.
>
>--
>"If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
> -BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.
No flames here.  All your points are well taken.  Guess I still have a
lot to learn but thanks to this discussion I already am :-)  Guess I
assume too many things like more bullets are better and that sort of
thing.  Of course you know what happens when you assume ......... :-)
Jason
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 16
douglas craig holland (holland@CS.ColoState.EDU) writes:
[...lostsa' crap deleted. trim your articles!...]
> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic
> bullets. Would those work very well in stopping an attack?
last i heard, "non-lethal" was a bit of a misnomer for these things.
jason
--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`
`,` Democrat:    Give us your money. _We'll_ solve your problems. `,`
`,` Republican:  Give us your money. We'll ignore your problems.  `,`
`,` Libertarian: Keep your money. Solve your own problems.        `,`
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,`,`,`
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Lines: 61
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Promising field experiments are being done this year in several areas of
>the country relating to chemical contraceptive baits for deer. Preliminary
>data suggests that this will be a cost-effective and humane method for
>preventing over-population of habitats.
Preliminary data regarding similar research into kangaroo overpopulation
in Australia do not in any way support the cost-effectiveness of this
approach.  It _may_ be cost-effective for deer--if you quietly overlook
the fact that the net cost to the state of deer hunting is _negative_
(i.e. a profit) because the (majority of) hunters pay for licences.
The cost comparisons are probably being done assuming that people have
to be employed to cull the animals, which is not in fact the case.
You figure people are going to pay for licences to implant contraceptive
pellets or spread baits?
There has been a fair bit of discussion about this here recently,
because the kangaroo population in the grounds of the Governor-
General's residence has now reached plague proportions.  Despite the
whines of the rampant animal-libbers, the most effective method of
controlling the population is still considered to be controlled
shooting.
>So, now why should we allow hunting ... to prevent over-population of
>the deer/bear/<whatever> ? Sorry, but that 'justification' of blood-
>lust is now gone with the wind. Once mass-production of this stuff
>begins, animal populations can be easily managed without a shot being
>fired.  This leaves only the fact that some people *like* to go out
>in the woods and *kill* things.
Some people take satisfaction (IMHO, legitimate satisfaction) in eating
food that they have harvested themselves.  The pleasure derived from
hunting is the same as that you get from eating fruit and vegetables
grown in your own garden (and, in general, game meat is probably much
freer of unpleasant chemicals than what you buy from the butcher or
the supermarket).
> That may be a motivation, but it
>cannot now be justified. Expect PETA and like organizations to use
>this argument to get hunting banned - period.
By "cannot now be justified" I guess you mean that you personally
don't see any justification.  Fine--but what makes your opinion
so important?
>With no legitimate hunting, with the papers filled with stories of
>senseless murders ... I guess there won't be a chance in hell of
>building a case for the RKBA that will withstand either public
>opinion, necessity or scientific scrutiny. Don't give me that
>"silent majority wants guns" crap ... they are and will be 'silent'.
>No votes for RKBA, no RKBA.
Certainly the last point is correct.  If politicians don't see any
votes for themselves in opposing stupid legislation or in developing
and supporting measures which might be effective in reducing the
incidence of violent crime they won't do these things.
Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.edu.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy
From: ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Lines: 19
> From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
>
> >RM:Just a short thought:
> >When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
> >programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
> >"no, it's total amnesty".
>     Please note that the $50 given for each firearm, in the Boston `buy
> back' will not be in cash, but money orders.  How much `total amnesty" can
> you get if you leave paper trail behind?
In the latest case in Denver, they were giving away tickets to a Denver
Nuggets basketball game.
How traceable is a money order?  (I don't know. Haven't used one in 20 years)
Is that even an issue if the weapons aren't checked for being stolen?
Ron
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Lines: 125
Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>	Observations from a naive norwegian:
Yup, you said it.  I admire such honesty. ;-)
>	1) Guns are made to KILL people, not to shoot target or to
>	have something more macho than stamps to collect.....
Fire an Anschutz .22, then come back and talk to us.  You're letting
ignorance and possibly fear cloud your thinking.  Either that, or this
is sour grapes because we beat you in the Olympic shooting events.
Funny, you'd think biathalon would be a natural sport for the norse. ;-)
>	2) It IS more easy to kill/injure someone with a gun than
>	with a knife or a bat (as in baseball).
Precisely.  That makes them the best method of defense for the citizenry.
Not everybody has the time to train with a gladius, you know, but for
some reason those who prey on others seem to have more free time.  To
extend this a bit further, you need only a certain level of competence
to beat another with a range weapon.  Getting in their face with a
weapon and winning is much more difficult, and requires more training
time the average citizen just does not have.  I've spent a few years
practicing with a sword.  I can take the common person armed with one
(though self-defense isn't the reason I own one).  My kid sister would
have an even chance of beating me, gun vs. gun, with only a month of
training.  That makes firearms much better, in our eyes.
>	3) It's not very wise to compare two completely different
>	countries like USA and, let's say, Island on issues like
>	crime and violence.
Excellent point.  Perhaps you aren't so naive after all?
>	4) Yes, the problem is  people committing crimes, not the tools
>	beeing used, but 1) should be taken into concideration.
Taken into consideration in what respect?  Though quite wrong, let's
make it a blanket statement for weapons in general.  This has been
taken into consideration.  We call use of them aggrivated assault,
assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to kill, attempted
murder, and a whole host of others, and tack on extra prison time.
>	We have a very strict gun-legislation in Norway, but until recently
>	it was possible for enyone over 18 years to buy a shotgun.
>	Shotguns are used mainly for hunting in Norway(...), but because it
>	was so easy to accuire one, it was THE most used gun in crimes.
In Norway I suspect it was about the only weapon available.  You conquered
your land (among others) a full millenia before we were thought of, and
shortly thereafter weapons weren't quite so common.  I suspect that a few
world wars made a difference too, since in times of emergency weapons
tend to be turned in or donated to needy causes.  I'm curious, though,
were the weapons used in the crimes bought shortly before the crime, or
were they aquired by other means?  Any requirements other than just
registering the shotgun?
>	And -unbelievable- the use of guns in crime fell.....
>	There are now a new law against wearing long knives in public,
>	and why should it be allowed ??
"Come on down to honest Erik's Used Swords!  Here's a slightly-used
short sword, *THE* battlefield supremacy weapon of the eleventh
century!  Only $39.95 with trade-in.  Easy financing!"  Sorry, I
couldn't resist.  You guys still slicing each other with long knives,
or is this really not a problem?
>	What I, as an scandinavian, have problems to understand is that
>	you (Americans) have a more liberal view on guns and violence
>	than on nudity and sex.
>	Try showing a bare breast on tv insted of violence and murder...
I'm all for that.  What gets me is that scandanavians (and yes, I'm only
a couple generations off the longship) used to be some of the most
feared warriors on the planet a mere millenia ago, yet now seem to
spend their time sitting in spas and doing a bit of topless sunbathing.
Maybe you had a bit more time, and a more homogeneous culture, to become
civilized with?
>	Yes, I know a little American history, but is it a civil/human
>	right to have an assault gun in your home and/or an handgun
>	in your car??
Yes.  We're too damned violent, partially I believe because we are not
a homogeneous culture and don't identify ourselves as "Americans" first
and foremost.  I'm rather proud of my Norwegian and Danish heritage,
whereas I suspect you couldn't care less about that 2% Welsh blood in
your veins thanks to a raid in Ireland back in 1055?  The time scale
and the homogeneous culture are important.  Equally important is a
basic philosophical difference in personal versus collective good.
In America, the individual is more important than the masses.  Personal
liberties are prized above all.  This is, sadly, changing of late, but
I trust you notice how this call for freedom makes laws that restrict
individuals for little collective benefit hateful to Americans.  I'd
hazard a guess that, were America less interested in freedom and
personal liberty and more interested in collective good we never would
have sent our armed forces anywhere.  One poor effect of this culture
we have is that we're looking out for ourselves and it is quite easy
to identify with only a small segment of the population.  My grandmother
tells of being discriminated against back in Denmark because she spoke
"low Dane," whereas others spoke "high Dane."  It was shortly after
World War II, as I remember, that "low Dane" was abolished so there was
one common dialect.  We cannot fathom such a minor thing being a problem,
because we have even more obvious means of identifying an "outsider."
>			The bad english is not my fault, it's probably
>			the keyboard-software or the quality of the
>			subtext on tv......
Take heart, yours is better than 90% of what gets posted by native speakers.
Any helpful hints for our educational system?  People have this annoying
tendency to drop out of school and sell drugs over here.
[ ;-) And what kind of name is Thomas Parsli?  Here, you can use my great
grandfather's before he changed it: Christian Aarskog.  That's a
great one for getting mispronounced.  I think that's why he changed it.
I don't think he needs it anymore ;-) ]
< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Gun Talk -- Legislative Update for States
Keywords: gun talk, ila
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Lines: 15
lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>IOWA:  All firearm related bills are dead.  Senate File 303
>dealing with off-duty police officers carrying concealed remains
>viable.
The *POWER* of the word processor and a stamp at work.
The fact that around here the state rep generally lives no more than
nine miles from any constituent doesn't hurt, either.
< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Lines: 52
In article <1qibs0$flk@vela.acs.oakland.edu> awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.225910.14964@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
i]>>Since there was no sniper fire, doing nothing was equally effective,
>>as was yelling "stop that".  Of course, if one wants to credit the
>>tanks with stopping non-existent sniper fire, we might was well credit
>>it with stopping an invasion by Martians.
>>
>>See "Firearms, Violence and Civil Disorders" (from SRI) and "Sniping
>>Incidents - A New Pattern of Violence" (from Brandeis University's
>>Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence).
>
>>>>There was precisely ONE
>>>>verified sniper in the 67 riots, a drunk firing a pistol out a window.
>
>Actually, there was only one confirmed sniper to >die< in Detroit,
>according to Sauter & Hines, _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion & It's
What sources did Sauter and Hines use?  In Congressional hearings
later, the newspaper folk admitted that their reports were completely
wrong.  (Some of their excuses are understandable, while others amount
to gross negligence.  Then there's their "we lied".)  As far as I
know, they never did the followup.
>>So?  People other than snipers can shoot firemen.  If they are,
>>shooting at "snipers" can't help.  Blowing big holes in buildings that
>>don't contain "sniper nests" or worrying about travelling "sniper
>>squads" is a complete waste of time.
>
>Interesting.  Just curious, they do you believe that tanks did blow
>big holes in buildings in Detroit 67?
I don't have any relevant knowledge about the counter-sniper tactics
or what the govt did with the big war toys.  That's why I've only
commented on what they couldn't have accomplished, no matter what
they did.
>>Nope - the "sniper" fire was coming from other police/guard positions.
>
>The guard certainly needed to learn.  But I don't agree with the
>idea that there were no snipers at all.  From p. 121 of Sauter & Hines:
>
>     "Despite the force of the National Guard in alliance with the
>Army troops, the snipers did not stop.  The snipers boldly lay siege to the
>Fifth Precent police station and took pot shots at the Seventh.  Firemen
>were under constant harassment from snipers fired from half-closed
>darkened windows in high apartment buildings and from roof-tops."
Not in Detroit, not during the 60s.  That's newspaper copy and they
admitted later that they were wrong.
-andy
--
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Lines: 117
In article <PA146008.710.734831135@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>
>>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>>
>>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>>	own, use or display a firearm.
>
>        You might have missed the U.S. News & World Report excerpt
> I posted.  It is fairly consistant with other such polls, finding
> that approximately 40-50% of households have at least one firearm.
> How this translates into individual ownership is questionable, but I
> think it's fairly safe to say that you're wrong about the "vast majority."
OK ... a near-majority actually OWN firearms, but I will still
claim that the VAST majority never needs to use them or even
threaten anyone with them. What do they do right ... or are
they just lucky ? In either case, this means the 'average
threat level' in this country is rather low.
>>       Besides, there are other
>>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>>	as firearms.
>
>        Please name them.  The key phrase is "can be."  Theories are
> nice, but practicality is more important.  A taser (to chose an
> exmpale outlawed virtually everywhere) "can" be as effective as a gun,
> under optimal conditions when dealing with your absolute average
> [...]
I think you have weapons on the brain. I never said that these
alternative means of self-protection involved any hardware.
Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
was robbing Mr. Jones' house".
In short, the alternative to firepower is gangs ... or at
least a benificent manifestation of that social cooperative.
Replace lead with flesh ... the flesh makes a better
conversationalist too and you can invite it over for a
block party.
>>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>>> scientific scrutiny.
>>
>>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.
>
>        In a very real sense *everything* the government does is based
> on public approval, if for no other reason than at any particular time
> there aren't "public servants" commonly adorning trees.
>
>        But legality and legitimacy also matter.  If a government's charter
> makes a rule, which the government then violates, it is violated the
> basis for its existance.  Enforcement of its will becomes a matter
> solely of force of arms.
Oliver North. The man is positively worshiped in many
all-American 'conservative' quarters. He and Big Ron
set-up a secret government and did all sorts of severely
illegal deeds - the kind of stuff you and I would be doing
twenty-to-life for, yet he walks free. This BS happens all
the time. In fact, it happens so much that no one really
cares anymore.  'Legitimacy' is a non-issue. Legality is
a non-issue. So long as we get T-bones and our MTV, who
gives a rats ass ?
>>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>>
>>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
>
>        Excuse me, sir, but *you* were the one suggesting that arguments
> for RKBA would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
No. I claimed that no one is interested in the statistical
aspects of the argument. Pure emotion, like the abortion issue.
>>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>>	in the night .... the RKBA dies.
>
>         Emotion is hard to argue against.  But it must be done anyway if
> emotion is wrong.
Argue away ... you can't win.
>>       The stats are not all *that*
>>	clearly behind firearms -
>
>         And just yesterday you claimed they weren't behind them at
> all.
>
>>       the protection factor does not
>>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor.
>
>         Operating under the assumption that the same conditions absolutely
> govern both of them.  That the expansion of one automatically necessitates
> the contraction of the other.
Firearms-related mindless mayhem will be related to the
availibility of firearms. If they become scarce and
and expensive, a different psychology will take hold.
I *think* they would be used far less to settle trivial
complaints.
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 16
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Declaration of Independence
4 July 1776
aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Lines: 24
As quoted from <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:
> 	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
> 	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
> 	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
> 	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
> 	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
> 	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
> 	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
> 	pay through the nose for it.
You don't know much about modern automatic weapons, do you?  Just about ANYBODY
with basic manufacturing skill can turn out HIGH QUALITY submachineguns.  A
couple of high school shop teachers were recently arrested for building
submachineguns in the school shop.
I suggest that you go to the library and find a copy of "Smallarms of the
World".  Your entire premise is based on non-factual assumptions.
--
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com  (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY
Keywords: handgun mace pepper-spray taser tasp phaser
Lines: 27
holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes:
|> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets.
|> Would those work very well in stopping an attack?
|>
|> 						Doug Holland
Any projectile traveling at or near typical bullet speeds is potentially
lethal.  Even blanks [which have no projectile] can cause death if the
muzzle is in close proximity to the victim.  I have heard of rubber or
plastic bullets being used effectively during riot situations [where the
intent is crowd control, rather than close range self defense]; i've also
seen reports of deaths caused by them [the British in Northern Ireland].
Use of a firearm for self defense is appropriate and lawful only in the
gravest of situations; at that point, i consider deadly [lethal] force to
be a proper reaction [and so does the law].
Furthermore, use of less effective [but still potentially lethal] force
has its own set of problems.  It may well take more applications of the
less effective force to stop the incident; this places all parties at some
risk; the victim because the attack has not stopped, and the assailent
since the aggregate damage done by the multiple applications may well be
more deadly.
--
Michael Phelps, (external) mjp@vnet.ibm.com ..
(internal) mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com .. mjp at kgnvmy
(and last but not least a disclaimer)  These opinions are mine..
From: hambidge@bms.com
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Reply-To: hambidge@bms.com
Organization: Bristol-Myers Squibb
Lines: 81
In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>>
>> The Second Amendment is about sovereignty, not sporting goods.
>
>	Perfectly correct, but it won't make any difference.
Hmm.  I beg to differ.  It will probably make a big difference at some
point.
>
>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>
>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>	own, use or display a firearm. Besides, there are other
>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>	as firearms.
Thankfully, it is true that the majority go through life without
having to use a firearm.  Howver, there are situations where firearms
are the most effective means of self protection.  What other means do
you propose as equally effective?
>
>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>> scientific scrutiny.
>
>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.
New to this country? New to political theory?
Alas, I was speaking of principle.  Without principle, all attempts at
republican forms of gov't are futile.  There are times when public and
political opinion are contrary to principle, which is why we have a
Constitution which enumerates gov't powers and presumes certain
rights.  A major reason for this was to prevent a tyranny of the
majority.
>
>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>
>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>	in the night .... the RKBA dies. The stats are not all *that*
>	clearly behind firearms - the protection factor does not
>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. Given society
>	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of
>	as many guns as possible. That may be an error, but enough
>	active voters believe in that course.
This is exactly why law should be based on reasoned thought, not
immediate perception.  Of course, it doesn't always work that way.
Fortunately, while there are no guarantees, logic sometimes does
prevail.  And, if not, there are still means for correction.
As far as "enough active voters" are concerned, that is still
an open question until the vote is made.
>
>> How do you intend to 'silence' RKBA supporters?
>
>	Talk all you want. Talk about the "good old days" when
>	you used to own firearms. After a while, such talk will
>	take on the character of war stories ... and no one will
>	be very interested anymore.
You portray a possible scenario for the future.  But, how will you
silence RKBA supporters right now?  As long as public debate is
allowed, such debate will continue. If we allow public debate to be
restricted or denied, then we will get a gov't we deserve.
Al
[standard disclaimer]
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: CNN for sale
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Lines: 18
Reply-To: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Bill Vojak:
BV>I read in the paper yestarday that Ted Turner wants to "trim" down
BV>his media holdings and is putting CNN up for sale.  The #1 potential
BV>bidder?  TIME/Warner of course.  Sigh . . . . . Just what we need. :-(
Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band
together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast
the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two....
---
. OLX 2.2 . There is no way they can get over here!        A. Maginot
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like The
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Lines: 27
Reply-To: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Paul Prescod pontificating:
PP>State.EDU (Cathy Smith) writes:
PP>>     Libertarians oppose BOTH waiting periods AND background checks
PP>>-- or ANY prerequisite for exercising rights that are supposed to
PP>>be guaranteed.
PP>Let me get this straight.  Unlike the other idiots in this newsgroup,
PP>you actually support anybody having unlimited access to guns,
PP>inclucing criminals.  (or would you prohibit them from owning them,
PP>but not from buying them?)
PP>You are a supreme idiot.  You make the other idiots look like Mensa members.
Thanks Paul, for yet another fine example of the holier than thou gun control
mindset. Why don't you add something intelligent to the debate, like maybe
nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.
---
. OLX 2.2 . Fight crime..... shoot back!
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: Re: My turn
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Lines: 29
Reply-To: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Dan Sorenson writing:
...
DS>I'd rather not get into the Nationalized Medical Care debate
DS>here, but I find it amazing that criminals often live better than the
DS>rest of the population, in some aspects, and that we're paying for
^^^^
DS>them to do so.  As an example, in November I had my annual dental
...
Here, you are somewhat in error.....in ALL respects we are paying. When we
are not paying for their countryclub incarceration, we are paying with our
lives and belongings as their prey. Upon what would they practice their
nefarious predatory acts if not for the citizens of this country. What is
amazing to me is the mindset of those who overtly and covertly perpetuate
a justice system (har) that essentially mandates that some of us offer up
ourselves as that prey while they suitably insulate themselves from the
preyground.
---
. OLX 2.2 . Church of Crime & Justice....come, let us prey!
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Lines: 34
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com
In article <1993Apr14.183025.29688@sco.com> allanh@sco.COM (Allan J. Heim)
writes:
>
> papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod):
>
>    >Drugs are banned, please tell me when this supply will dry up?
>
>    Drugs are easier to manufacture, easier to smuggle, easier to hide.
>    No comparison.
>
> Then let's use another example--alcoholic beverages.  Bottles of whiskey
> are larger, heavier, and more fragile than bags of drugs.  Barrels and
> kegs are larger and heavier still, and are difficult to manipulate.
> Yet, a lot of people managed to get very rich off of the smuggling of
> booze into this country during the years of Prohibition.  There was a
> demand, so an entire industry formed to supply it.
I beleive this was the source of the Kennedy clan's money.
>
> So unless there's something I'm missing, I think your argument that guns
> won't be smuggled because theyr'e more difficult to manufacture, smuggle
> and hide won't wash.  If enough people want something, somebody will try
> to supply it.
> --
> Allan J. Heim   allanh@sco.COM   ...!uunet!sco!allanh   +1 408 427 7813
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Lines: 76
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com
In article <CMM.0.90.2.734814613.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli
<thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>
> 	Observations from a naive norwegian:
>
> 	1) Guns are made to KILL people, not to shoot target or to
> 	have something more macho than stamps to collect.....
>
> 	2) It IS more easy to kill/injure someone with a gun than
> 	with a knife or a bat (as in baseball).
>
> 	3) It's not very wise to compare two completely different
> 	countries like USA and, let's say, Island on issues like
> 	crime and violence.
>
> 	4) Yes, the problem is  people committing crimes, not the tools
> 	beeing used, but 1) should be taken into concideration.
>
Only as far as it affects the crime rate.
>
> 	We have a very strict gun-legislation in Norway, but until recently
> 	it was possible for enyone over 18 years to buy a shotgun.
> 	Shotguns are used mainly for hunting in Norway(...), but because it
> 	was so easy to accuire one, it was THE most used gun in crimes.
> 	The solution was to restrict the sale, so it's now necessary to
> 	apply and register your shotgun.
> 	And -unbelievable- the use of guns in crime fell.....
Did the RATE of crime fall?  If not, the ban was of no use.  It is the rate of
violent crime that matters, not the tools used.  "It's the crime, stupid!"
> 	There are now a new law against wearing long knives in public,
> 	and why should it be allowed ??
>
Apparently that became the weapon of choice after the shotguns were banned.
After that, they'll decide the car of choice  is the Saab, and propose a ban on
that!
> 	What I, as an scandinavian, have problems to understand is that
> 	you (Americans) have a more liberal view on guns and violence
> 	than on nudity and sex.
> 	Try showing a bare breast on tv insted of violence and murder...
>
> 	Yes, I know a little American history, but is it a civil/human
> 	right to have an assault gun in your home and/or an handgun
> 	in your car??
>
Yes.  We still trust honest people here.  For the time being.
>
> 			The bad english is not my fault, it's probably
> 			the keyboard-software or the quality of the
> 			subtext on tv......
>
>
> 	Disclamer(not):
> 	These are the views of all studens at my university,
> 	all Norwegians and probably whole of the universe...
>
>
> 			                       Thomas Parsli
> 	                                     thomasp@ifi.uio.no
>
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: A Scoop of Waco Road, Please
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 13
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
Keywords: topical, smirk
Your "lite" posting for the day, from rec.humor.funny:
In article <S539.2adf@looking.on.ca>, bellas@tti.com (Pete Bellas) writes:
>
> There is a new Ice Cream Flavor inspired by the incident at Waco.
>
> It's called Mount Caramel, it's full of nuts but you can't get it out
> of the carton.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt)
Subject: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements
Lines: 88
Recently while looking around in Traders Sporting Goods store, a very well
stocked firearms store, I discovered a printed document that was being
distributed by the good folks who work there.  Traders, BTW, is located in
San Leandro, CA.
Granted, the document may be asking you and I to help out Traders, but in the
big scope of things, I feel that we would do all gun owners a favor by helping
to this cause.
Anyway, here it is:
NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP
Are you letting the newspapers tell you how to live your life, what's good for
you, what's not, and exercise blatant censorship over what you read in their
advertisments?
The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer
see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years.
These ads were run for the law-abiding honest citizens who own firearms for
sporting use or self-protection.  They certainly have the right to do so, under
the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.
If you are tired of newspapers who run sex and liquor ads galor, yet refuse to
run legitimate gun ads, please send a letter to the editors indicating your
displeasure over their censorship doctrine.
Following is a list of Bay area newspapers who censor gun ads.  Perhaps you'd
like to send them your thoughts on this issue!
Oakland Tribune		Daily Review		Alameda Times-Star
POB 28883		POB 5050		1516 Oak St.
Oakland, CA 94604	Hayward,94540	Alameda, CA 94501
Argus			Tri Valley Herald	San Leandro Times
3850 Decoto Rd.		POB 10367		161 W. Juana Ave.
Fremont, CA 94555	Pleasanton, CA 94588	San Leandro, CA 94577
Contra Costa Times	San Mateo Times		San Francisco Chronicle
POB 5088		POB 5400		901 Mission St.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596	San Mateo, CA 94402	San Francisco, CA 94103
San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News
1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr.
San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190
Then there are six pages of "facts".  I can not validate these facts, and
there were no sources, but many feel and sound very true.  Here are the topic
headlines:
- Big Media Snow Job
- Blaming Firearms for Murder is Like Blaming Hospitals for Death
- I could use the same Nazi Journalistic Technique of CBS and ABC to prove
that Hospitals Cause Death
- How NBC, CBS, and ABC have scammed the American people on "gun control"
- American TV journalism is based on Nazi journalism
- Why TV journalists lie
- The Government with the help of the TV networks, has succeeded in playing
one group against the other
- Gun laws are unconstitutional
- American gun laws are based on Nazi gun laws
- The Government is trying to devide and conquer
- The CIA wants your firearms
and so on for six pages.
So now we have the media trying help put gun dealers out of business by trying
to limit their exposure to potential customers, and preventing the customers
from reading about sales of ammunition and firearms for sporting, hunting, or
other recreational use.
Let me know if you write to any of these bozos.
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Peter D. Nesbitt |     Air Traffic Controller     | PNESBITT@MCIMAIL.COM    |
|                  |       Oakland Bay TRACON       |                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  CBR600F2 Pilot  |       NRA Member CCX1380F      |  S&W .41 Magnum Carrier |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Lines: 43
|What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
|proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
|cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
|to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
|time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
|day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
|see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
|revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
|of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
|disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang
|gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing
|taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
|and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are
|are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
|state cops are.  I don't know where you are originally from David but you live
|in Tennesse and I live in Chicago and see this crap everyday on the news
|and in the papers.  I think the situation is just a tad different here
|than there.
However, don't forget that the police in Chicago can carry just about
anything they want except for the Glock, which is not approved for
carry (Guess they figure all cops are like the Police Chief of Winnetka,
who happened to let off a stray round of 9mm. This is the same anti-gun
police chief that wanted full-auto Uzis for his patrol cars...).
Perhaps in the judgement of the majority of Chicago's finest, a close-to-
100% reliable weapon like a revolver is preferable to a 99.99% reliable
automatic. I note that in Germany, where certainly the 9mm semi-auto
handgun is king, some of the more elite police types want revolvers.
I don't think the issue is cost, because Chicago police certainly make
on the order of at least $40K/year.
Your presumption of "disadvantage" I think is not borne out by the
experiences of New York City's cops; there the cops usually come out
on top with their standard .38 Spl revolvers.
I've seen S&Ws, Rugers and Beretta 9mms in addition to the revolvers
carried by Chicago cops.... in the past, I've seen .45 M1911s; others
have seen Browning Hi-Powers...
|Jason
From: gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Nntp-Posting-Host: imagine.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 20
In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
Why?  Either the numerator or the denominator could fluctuate.
The dollar value of a gun would (of course)
go up if supply were restricted.  The weight of a gun might
go down significantly as technology improved.   I don't
think you have a basis to assert this.
>It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
>would have to be local. There are not all that many people
>who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>firearms from scratch.
The skill is easily taught to anyone with a modicum of
mechanical aptitude and the ONLY motivator needed is
money.  If guns were banned then this motivator would kick
in big time.  Now, of course, it is not a moneymaking
proposition for every machine shop to make guns on the
side when it ain't rebuilding engines.  Ban guns and
watch what happens.  You'll have to schedule a year in advance
to get your brakes resurfaced. ;-)
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Lines: 38
|	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
|	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
|	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
|	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
|	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
|	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
|	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
|	pay through the nose for it.
This is not borne out of reality; the old Soviet Union had a very
serious domestic handgun and submachinegun trade, guns that were
of commercial grade because they were produced in honest-to-goodness
machineshops. Why would all production have to be local; don't we
have a road system that is the envy of the world?
I seem to recall incidents in the past where Chinese entreprenaurs
attempted to smuggle AK-47s (semi-autos) into this country to
get around import number limitations (May have been Gunweek where
I read that years ago...)
Any person with high-school drafting skills and vocational school
machineshop training could produce a submachinegun. You talk about
the average person not being able get even a zip-gun; well now, think
of all that private CNC controlled machinery that is not being used for
3 shifts a day; do you think that if guns were being sold on the
black market for say, $150, an enterprising mechanical engineer
could be using that machinery to produce workable submachineguns
for sale? After all, GUNWEEK had an article and pictures on how BATF
was looking for the manufacturer of quite efficient silencers that
were of commercial quality and finish.
Look at it this way, 25% of the U.S. households have a handgun. Say
at least half of those keep one for self-defense. You are talking a
potential market of of tens of millions of people who would seek
firearms for the purpose of self-preservation. Only a fool would
believe that market would not be filled, regardless of government
prohibitions.
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Armed Citizen - April '93
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 22
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) /  9:23 am  Apr 13, 1993 /
In article <1993Apr5.164728.10847@dazixco.ingr.com> crphilli@hound.dazixca.ingr.com writes:
>>
>>THE ARMED CITIZEN
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Mere presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents
>>crime in many instances, as shown by news reports sent to The
>>Armed Citizen.
>
>Perhaps so, but note that of the accounts cited, there was only
>one in which no shot was fired. Of the other twelve, five
>described cases in which the assailant was wounded by a shot,
>and six described cases in which the assailant was killed by a
>shot.
Follow more than one months posting.  As more than one reader has noted,
there IS some reporting bias here.  I have seen months where these
numbers were reversed.  I don't keep a constant tally, but it seems
this particular issue had more shots fired than any other I can remember.
Rick.
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 21
Woops.  I'm not sure if I screwed up, but this is either forgery or some
sort of mistake (aborted post that didn't abort) on my part.
Bogus article below if seen in another post should be ignored..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) /  3:29 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) /  1:49 am  Apr 12, 1993 /
In article <92468@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) writes:
>
>I certainly hope this is somebody's idea of a joke, as poor as it it...
>My earlier posting mentioning an illegal firearms MANUFACTURING site being
>searched for by the Feds in the Florida area was evidently ignored..
Let's look at this critically:
1.How many guns did this illegal manufacturing site make compared to
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<and so on...>
Sorry.
Rick.
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 96
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider) /  8:51 pm  Apr 12, 1993 /
>I think most of us would rather be held up with a knife than with a gun,
>but HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO MANAGE THAT?  You still haven't offered
I've been watching this knife verses gun bit for a while now, (even
contributed a few comments) but this stuff "I'd rather face a knife than
a gun" has GOT to come from ignorance!  I used to think pretty much the
same thing, then I got 'educated.'
People do not as a rule understand how deadly knives can be, or how
quickly you can be killed with one.  Most people don't understand that
it takes less than an inch of penetration in some areas to cause quick
(within a minute or so) death.
The death rates from handguns and knives are within a few percentage
points of each other.  Many people not realizing how deadly knives are
'try their luck' and thus more get injured by knives.  A gun is deadly
only in a single direction and it's only advantage is that it is a
remote control weapon.  A contact weapon such as a knife controls a
spherical area 7 to 10 feet in diameter.
Most people have never seen knife wounds, aside from slicing a finger by
accident.  From 21 feet or so, a knife is very nearly an even match for
a holstered gun in experienced hands, even if the knife wielder has only
moderate skill.  From inside 10 feet or so, a knife is a match for a
DRAWN gun.  A knife is utterly silent, it never jams and never runs out
of ammunition.  It is limited only by the speed, dexterity skill and
ability of it's wielder.  Criminals in general are young, fast and
strong.  It's interesting to note that the patterned slashing attacks
used by many martial artists remarkably resemble the wild uncontrolled
slashing attacks of novices.  I've talked to several well trained
martial artists.  They have unanimously agreed that if they ever go up
against a knife they simply plan on being cut, hopefully not as bad as
the attacker.
Practicing with firearms requires facilities and equipment.  Practicing
with knives requires only a small area and something to simulate a
knife, say a popsicle stick or tooth brush.  Criminals practice their
knife attacks in prison.
If you have not trained against knives with a firearm and do not realize
these facts the first inkling you will have that something is wrong is
the knife ripping through your throat, or in the case of an experienced
attacker, parts of your body falling off onto the ground.  A 60 year old
man with arthritis can close that 7 yard distance and gut you in about
one and a half seconds.  Dennis Tueller with a broken leg in a walking
cast managed it in two.  I've seen people close that distance and strike
in 1 second.  I'm old, over weight and slow.  I can do it in 1.3
seconds.  I've seen morgue footage of people killed with edged weapons
that you would not believe.  (How about a single stab wound to the chest
with a TABLE FORK!  In this case the attacker used the HANDLE, not the
pointed end.)
Add to this the 'fact' that hand gun 'stopping' power is largely a myth.
Except in the case of a central nervous system shot, or a round that
destroys the skeletal structure, it takes anywhere from 3 to twelve
seconds for a bullet wound to 'take effect.'
This is true of even heart shots.  There is the case of the police woman
in L.A., the first recorded survivor of a .357 shot to the heart.  That
lady not only killed her attacker, but chased him down to do it!  All
four of her shots, fired after SHE had been shot, struck the perp.  Atta
girl!  The bullet entered her on a downward angle, went through the apex
of her heart, down through the diaphragm, clipped her liver and
destroyed her spleen.  It then exited her back leaving a tennis ball
sized hole.  She died about six times on the operating table, but was
out of the hospital in 15 days and was back on full duty in eight
months!  She was off duty at the time and not wearing her vest.  She was
on her way home so happened to have her gun.  No, she doesn't think
civilians should have the same rights.  Sigh.
The moral of the story is that even if you DO manage to shoot a knife
attacker, you'd better be planning on doing some dodging.  A good
alternative is to shoot for and break the pelvis.  People can often walk
(a little) on broken legs but a broken pelvis will nearly always anchor
them.  Many firearms schools recommend pelvis shots against contact
weapons.  The target is as large as the traditional 'center of mass' and
is more reliable to STOP somebody with a contact weapon, assuming a
caliber powerful enough to 'do the job.'  Hot .38's on up will usually
do this.
Remember folks, the idea isn't to 'take em with you' but for you to live
and them to fail, whatever the consequences for them.  This the reason
'killing them' isn't our goal, or in many cases even good enough to keep
us alive.
I don't want to face a violent attack of any sort.  Knowing what I now
know, I can't rightly say I'd rather face a knife than an gun.  It would
have to depend on the attacker, and if I could pick and choose, I
WOULDN'T BE THERE.  This is really the bottom line.  Criminals do not
fear the law.  Criminals do not fear the weapon.  They fear the citizen
behind the weapon that has shown the resolution and determination to do
whatever it takes.
Rick.
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 16
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /  3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /
>Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread
>"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several years
>while posting in this group, as an example.  There are others.
Good point, Kirk.
He's still around too.  He's responded by email to a couple of my posts,
and gosh darn, he's gotten down right civil!  This happed about the time
he got his first firearm.  Wonder if there is a relationship here?  Turns
out that MOST people (at least the ones who are not criminals to start
with) act responsibility once given the chance.
Rick.
From: chris@MorningStar.Com (Chris Miller)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Nntp-Posting-Host: beluga.morningstar.com
Organization: /usr/local/etc/organization
Lines: 79
In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.120958.11363@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
>>
>> The Second Amendment is about sovereignty, not sporting goods.
>
>	Perfectly correct, but it won't make any difference.
I agree.  Sad, but true.
>
>> Self defense is a valid reason for RKBA.
>
>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>	own, use or display a firearm. Besides, there are other
>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>	as firearms.
Please name one.
>
>> Freedoms and rights are not dependent on public opinion, necessity, or
>> scientific scrutiny.
>
>	New to this planet ? EVERYTHING is dependent on either public
>	or political opinion, usually political. To imagine that
>	inalienable 'rights' are somehow wired into the vast cold
>	cosmos is purest egotism and a dangerous delusion.
>
.... Upon which our Bill of Rights is based.  Some delusion.
>> No arguments against RKBA can withstand scientific scrutiny.
>
>	They don't have to. Like so many other things, the issue
>	is one of -perception- rather than boring statistics.
>	Every time some young innocent is gunned-down in a drive
>	by, every time some kid is murdered for a jacket, every
>	time a store clerk is executed for three dollars in change,
>	every time some moron kills his wife because she took the
>	last beer from the fridge, every time someone hears a 'bang'
>	in the night .... the RKBA dies. The stats are not all *that*
>	clearly behind firearms - the protection factor does not
>	strongly outweigh the mindless mayhem factor. Given society
>	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of
>	as many guns as possible. That may be an error, but enough
>	active voters believe in that course.
>
If this were not true in practice, then certain unethical politicians would
not be passing gun control laws.  Politicians are generally whores to public
opinion.  This does NOT mean the the public is either well informed or correct.
As for the stats,  anyone can support anything with the right stats.  The
"right" stats, from what I've seen, are sometimes even used to support
conflicting sides of the same issue.
>> How do you intend to 'silence' RKBA supporters?
>
>	Talk all you want. Talk about the "good old days" when
>	you used to own firearms. After a while, such talk will
>	take on the character of war stories ... and no one will
>	be very interested anymore.
>
Used to own firearms? While armed insurrection, as the FF's of the Const.
may have envisioned seems to me a somewhat fanatical approach to avoiding this,
Political protest is still an option at this point.  I agree that it's
argueably not enough and/or too late.  If all else fails, there's always
PVC pipe and cosmoline.
--
Chris Miller
chris@MorningStar.Com
My opinions are my own (obviously), and by definition do not reflect the
opinions of anyone else...
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Lines: 42
In article <1993Apr14.232806.18970@beaver.cs.washington.edu> graham@cs.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) writes:
>In article <1qhpcn$b12@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>Consider a similar structure:
>>"A well-educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a
>>free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not
>>be infringed."
>>
>>Now, does this mean only the electorate can keep and read books?  Does{
>>it mean only registered voters can keep and read books?  Does it mean
>>only those who have voted can keep and read books?  Does it imply any
>>restrictions AT ALL on the right to keep and read books?
>
>But it would imply that the state had the right to regulate and enforce
>education.
That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question.  There is a difference
between "the feds can mandate literacy" and "the feds can't interfere
with literacy/book possession".
>>As far as "John Q. Public with a gun," the Supreme Court has already
>>ruled in cases such as US v. Miller (307 U.S. 175 (1939)), and US v.
>>Verdugo-Urquidez (110 S. Ct. 1839 (1990)) that that is EXACTLY what
>>the amendment protects.  This interpretation can be found as far back
>>as the Dred Scott case, in 1857.
>
>It's worth noting that US vs. Miller sustained Miller's conviction
>of possession of an illegal firearm, noting that a sawed-off shotgun
>was not a proper militia weapon. Therefore, US vs. Miller supports
>limited government regulation of firearms.
Actually, the Miller court did nothing of the kind.  It remanded
the case back to the trial court because the miller court didn't
know if the weapon in question was a militia weapon.  (Doesn't it
bother anyone that a major constitutional issue was taken up in
a case where there was no defense?  Miller had been released by
the appeals court and disappeared - only the govt was represented.)
We don't know what would have happened with the reasonable "all guns
are militia weapons" argument.
-andy
--
From: mpetro@brtph126.bnr.ca (Myron Petro P030)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back
Organization: BNR Inc. RTP, NC
Lines: 17
>Ron Miller wrote:
>When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>"no, it's total amnesty".
(good point about registration schemes being used only for harassment deleted)
I would also like to point out that this is receiving stolen property and is
no different than a pawn shop owner doing the same thing.
Myron Petro
NRA, USPSA
DVC y'all
**************************************************************************
The opinions included in this post are my sole responsibility.
And are protected by the First Amendment and guarnteed by the
Second Amendment.
From: slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Lines: 24
The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do
they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it
only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?
BTW, anybody planning on shaving Hillary's head to look for *666*? 8^)
Later Dave,
Days
^^^^^^^^
Goverment logic or just the Clintons?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|_/_/_/  _/       _/      _/_/  _/  _/ | David H. Slack                  |
|_/      _/      _/_/    _/     _/ _/  | Boise Surface Mount Center      |
|_/_/_/  _/     _/  _/   _/     _/_/   | email: slack@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com |
|    _/  _/    _/_/_/_/  _/     _/ _/  | telnet: 323 4019                |
|_/_/_/  _/_/ _/      _   _/_/  _/  _/ | phone: (208) 323 4019           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Hewlett-Packard, 11213 Chinden Blvd., Boise Idaho 83714-1023, M/S #625 |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 8
The San Francisco Examiner reports that Clinton has issued instructions
to federal law enforcement that they may not kill or injure anyone to
resolve the Waco situation.  So they've built a fence around the compound,
and are now seriously considering building up the fence to prison-camp
levels, pulling out most of the manpower, and waiting however many months
it takes.
John Nagle
From: jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...
Organization: Interactive Media Group - University of Massachusetts at Lowell
Lines: 76
In article <1993Apr16.171115.16812@synapse.bms.com>, hambidge@bms.com writes:
-> Actually, the words "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the
-> security of a free state" is a present participle, used as an
-> adjective to modify 'militia', which is followed by the main clause of
-> the sentence, the subject being 'the right', the verb 'shall'.  It
-> asserts that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for
-> maintaining a milita.
-> a free state.
Yes, I agree the first half of the amendment does modify the noun
militia.  But the difinition of modify that applies to how "well regulated"
modifies "militia" is:
to qualify or limit the meaning of.  For example, "wet"
modifes "day" in the phrase "a wet day."
The amendment is similiar to the statement:
A wet day, being annoying, the right of the people to keep
and wear boots, shall not be infringed.
So how does a dry day pertain the right to use boots?  Similiar,
what does the "unorganized militia" have to due with the right to
own guns?
-> The sentence [in the Second Amendment] doesn't restrict the right, or
-> state or imply possession of the right by anyone or anything other
-> than the people.  All it does is make a positive statement regarding a
-> right of the people. The PEOPLE, as in you and me, as in the First,
-> Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, as well as the Second amendment.
-> The existence of this right is assumed - it is not granted by the
-> amendment. There is no stated or implied condition relating the right
-> to bear arms to the necessity of a well-regulated militia to the security of
-> In other words, the entire sentence says that the right to keep and
-> bear arms is UNCONDITIONAL.
No not, unconditional, but "shall not be infringed".  Infringed
is defined as:
To break or ignore the terms of or obligations (an oath,
an agreement, law, or the like); to disreguard; violate.
To go beyond the boundaries or limits; tresspass; encroach.
This definition implies the following of some form of existing
agreement.  Laws and agreements are made in advance.  Boundaries
or limits of behavior are set by society as a whole.  The word
"unconditional" implies no agreements or all previous agreements
are off, which is the opposite.
The words used in the first amendment are much stronger, i.e.,
"congress shall make no law," are much stronger.  They clearly
^^^^^^^^^^^
imply "unconditional."  If the writers of the amendment, wanted
unconditional whay didn't they says, "congress shall make no
laws pertaining the the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
The second amendment implies a sort contract between the people
the people and the state.  The bigger part of the contract is
the people have the right to overthrew the government and its laws
at any time.  To guarantee this right, the laws cannot stopped
the people from forming a "well regutaled militia."  The duties
of a "well regulated militia" to the government are descussed in
Federalist No. 29.  And the limits of of the governmental control
of the militia are descussed in Article I Section 8, Article II
Section 2, and the Second Amendment of the constitution.
--
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                             |  "If only it were a modern document, with a   |
| John Lawrence Rutledge      | smart index and hyper links stretching all    |
| Research Assistant          | through the world data net.  It was terribly  |
|                             | frustrating to flip back and forth between    |
| Interactive Media Group     | the pages and crude flat illustrations that   |
| Computer Science Department | never even moved.  Nor were there animated    |
| UMass - Lowell              | arrows or zoom-ins.  It completely lacked a   |
| 1 University Ave.           | for sound.                                    |
| Lowell, MA 01854            |  "Most baffling of all was the problem of new |
|                             | words...  In normal text you'd only have to   |
| (508) 934-3568              | touch an unfamiliar word and the definition   |
| jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu     | would pop up just below."                     |
|                             |                    from David Brin's "Earth"  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
From: jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge)
Subject: Re: "militia" (incredibly long)
Organization: Interactive Media Group - University of Massachusetts at Lowell
Lines: 54
In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
-> In article <C5L0n2.5LL@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
-> > But, do you knew how much organization is required to training a large
-> > group of poeple twice a year.  Just to try to get the same people
-> > every year, provide a basic training to new people so they can
-> > be integrated into the force, and find a suitable location, it
-> > requires a continually standing committee of organizers.
->
-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from
-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.
No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the
people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional
interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.
> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the
-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a
-> number of times.
No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
organized militia."  And I have also stated that a militia that
meets once or twice a year is clearly "well organized."  And this
state of readiness that I have claimed the people have a "right"
to, is the same state of readiness expected of the militia as stated
by Hamilton.
--
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
|                             |  "If only it were a modern document, with a   |
| John Lawrence Rutledge      | smart index and hyper links stretching all    |
| Research Assistant          | through the world data net.  It was terribly  |
|                             | frustrating to flip back and forth between    |
| Interactive Media Group     | the pages and crude flat illustrations that   |
| Computer Science Department | never even moved.  Nor were there animated    |
| UMass - Lowell              | arrows or zoom-ins.  It completely lacked a   |
| 1 University Ave.           | for sound.                                    |
| Lowell, MA 01854            |  "Most baffling of all was the problem of new |
|                             | words...  In normal text you'd only have to   |
| (508) 934-3568              | touch an unfamiliar word and the definition   |
| jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu     | would pop up just below."                     |
|                             |                    from David Brin's "Earth"  |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: FYI - BATF reply on Waco
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 43
In article <C5L480.K7u@elite.intel.com> dgw@elite.intel.com (Dennis Willson)
writes:
>On March 8, I sent strongly worded letters critisizing the BATF in
>their handling of the Randy Weaver and Branch Davidian cases to
>several politicians (Ore. Senators Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield,
>Representative Elizabeth Furse and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen).
>While I have never been a supporter of Bob Packwood, I must admit
>that he seems to be the only one who has done anything but round-file
>my letter.
Well, I didn't bother writing to Boxer, Feinstein or Eshoo, the terrible
trio who allegly represent me.  Instead, I wrote to Bentsen.  My letter
was not exactly strongly-worded; I simply stated that the BATF approach
was immoral (military-style assault, firing into a house where they knew
there were kids).
Aparently, Bentsen forwarded my letter to the BATF and they responded to
me directly.  It follows the text of your reply pretty closely.  However,
I intend to send another letter directly to them, in return.
>Prior to the service of the Federal search warrant, numerous efforts
>were made to locate and effect the arrest of David Koresh away from the
>compound.  These efforts were unsuccessful.  Even if David Koresh had
>been arrested while away from the compound, action would have been
>required against his followers (who are just as violent as he) during
>the subsequent search of the premises.
This section is not in the letter that I received.  The parts about ATF
logo and steenking badges or their loss of the element of surprise
were not included, either.
>                          Sincerely yours,
>
>                          Daniel M. H??l??tt  [can't make out signature]
>                          Deputy Director
The same guy with the bad handwriting apparently signed my letter, "for
Richard L. Garner; Chief, Special Operations Division".
don
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 25
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / steiner@jupiter.ca.boeing.com / 12:07 am  Apr 15, 1993 /
>douglas craig holland (holland@CS.ColoState.EDU) writes:
>[...lostsa' crap deleted. trim your articles!...]
>
>> What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic
>> bullets. Would those work very well in stopping an attack?
>
>last i heard, "non-lethal" was a bit of a misnomer for these things.
Also, you need to consider our legal system.  Since any of these things
CAN be lethal, you are going to have a hard time explaining why you applied
lethal force when you DIDN'T think it was necessary.  (If you thought lethal
force was necessary, you wouldn't be using rubber bullets, would you?) Ouch.
If you are justified in shooting them at all, you are justified in using
the best self defense ammunition you can get your hands on.  It might actually
IMPROVE the legal outcome.
This is why hollow points hold up in court.  They are safer for you, safer
for innocent by standers, (don't as a rule go through the perp) and actually
safer for the perp.  If you are using military hard ball, you may have to
shoot him 'MANY' times, where one or two hollow points might stop him and
do the job.  As a rule, the fewer wound channels, the better the chance
for his surviving the incident.
Rick
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Gun Lovers (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 35
>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
You're getting warmer.  The 'little thing in the trigger' has to be
depressed before the trigger can move.  What this means is the damned
thing won't go off until the trigger is pulled.  This makes it just
about (there HAVE been some problems, but we're assuming the gun is
functioning correctly..) as safe as a revolver.  The gun when working
correctly is totally drop safe.
Now, in police work this is a consideration.  There is not a single
documented case I'm aware of where a police officer was killed because
he failed to operate the safety on his firearm.  There are quite a few
documented cases where criminals got hold of the cops gun and couldn't
figure out how to get the safety off in time to use the gun, thus the
proprietary nature of the safety (to the criminal at least) very likely
prevented the office from getting shot.
The purpose of a safety is to make the gun safe from unintentional fire.
This does not mean it should be so complicated as to slow down
intentional use!  Thus the Glock safety is perfectly adequate from a
'safety' standpoint, but not necessarily the most desirable from the
standpoint of open carry where it is easily grabbed by somebody else.
By this criteria it DOES make a lot of sense as a concealed carry piece.
From the standpoint of police use, it is no better (or worse) than a
revolver as far as being 'proprietary' to the officer in the method of
firing it.
The ideal solution may someday be biometric sensing of the user so that
the firearm can't be used by anybody but it's owner, but for now the
wide variety of safety systems helps, unless the criminal happens to be
familiar with that particular type of firearm.
Rick.
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: Gun Lovers (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 104
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) / 10:34 am  Apr 14, 1993 /
This isn't rec.guns, so maybe this is getting a bet technical, but I
can't resist....
> - A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
>   the trigger again.
Sometimes.....  Depends on WHY it misfired....
> - A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
>   but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.
I can't imagine doing much combat type shooting single action.....
> - A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
>   to rotate to the next round.
Assuming the cylinder WILL rotate....
> - A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
>   hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
>   easy motion, even one handed.
Never hurts to err on the side of safety, but if you've got one of those
'new fangled' hammer blocks or transfer bar safeties, it's unnecessarily
redundant.  I'd rather have the extra round.
> - Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
>   on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.
Quite true.  Speed loaders are a little less convenient to pack around
than magazines though.
> - A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
>   first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
>   lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
>   about clearing it.
True, but this is a training function.
> - Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
>   and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the
>   chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
>   this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
>   of employment as a revolver.
Cocked and locked for single actions or hammer down on double actions
are the only carry modes that make sense...  The 80 series Colt's for
example are quite safe to carry this way.
> - There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
>   operation of many of them requires more training.
Agreed.
Now that I've shot off my mouth a bit, let me back some of this up.  It
is true that a simple misfire on a revolver doesn't cost you much.  On
the other hand, I've had all sorts of interesting things happen over the
years.  For example, I've had FACTORY ammunition that has had high
primers.  A high primer will tie your revolver up somewhere from seconds
to minutes while you try to pound the action open to clear the problem.
An auto?  Jack the slide and continue.
I've had bullets come out of the case, keeping the cylinder from
turning, see clearing paragraph above.  About the WORST that can happen
with a semi auto is a double feed.  This can be cleared in seconds.
Most revolvers are more 'fragile' then semi auto's.  There are all sorts
of close tolerance parts and fitting involved.  Dropping the gun, or a
blow to the gun or all sorts of things can take it out of action.  Many
of the problems that can be cured on the spot with a (quality) semi auto
take a gun smith for a revolver.  In short a revolver MAY be less likely
to malfunction, but as a rule when it does, you're out of the fight.
The majority of malfunctions that occur with semi autos does not fall
into that category.
Vincint makes many good points in this post, but leaves off the opposing
view of most of them.  A real good starting place is Ayoob's "The Semi
Auto Pistol for Police and Self Defense."
In general, I'd agree, the revolver is an excellent first gun and self
defense weapon for somebody that does not have the time, and inclination
that is necessary for the training and practice needed to use a semi
auto effectively as a self defense arm.
Most cops are notoriously indifferent to firearms.  If the department
isn't going to train them, they aren't going to take the time on their
own.  There is no doubt that training is an issue.  The amount of
training required for effective use of a semi auto is probably several
times that of a revolver.  Many cops don't bother.
For myself, I'd hate to be limited to one or the other.  I'd rather pick
what fits better with my personal inclination, what I'm wearing that day
and so on.  Like the Moderator on rec.guns says, buy em all!
That said, I have to admit that often my advice to people thinking of
buying their first defense arm is (right after taking a class) get a
Ruger or Smith revolver....  (Sorry Colt fans.  Colt revolvers are ok
too!)
If this post had gone the other way, I'd be arguing for revolvers. :-)
Rick.
From: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Lines: 37
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu /  6:26 am  Apr 14, 1993 /
>	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
>	own, use or display a firearm.
I suppose that depends on how you define 'vast' majority....
You are correct about 'majority.'  Somewhere between 1 out of three and
one out of 10 will at some period in their lives experience a violent
assault.  The risk is generally higher than emergency medical problems
like heart attack and stroke.
'Vast' is probably too loose a term.  With approximately 1,000,000 Americans
using firearms each year, over a 30 year period we get (roughly, since some
may have to do this more than once) 30 MILLION Americans with experience in
using firearms for self defense.  30/250 yields 12 percent of the population.
(Yes, I know that is a REAL rough estimate.  We're closer to 270 million now,
but many of these are minors and should be included etc, thus the percentage
if anything is low.)
At any rate, most minority groups in this range are not usually referred
to as 'tiny' minorities, so I don't see how the other part of the group
can be referred to as the 'vast' majority.  A little more work might
support a 'simple' majority of Americans never use, own or display a firearm.
Certainly when you are talking about OWNERSHIP you are wrong.  Nearly half
of your fellow citizens own one or more firearms.
>	                               Besides, there are other
>	means of self-protection which can be just as effective
>	as firearms.
Please provide a list of other means that are as effective.  Then you might
convince your local police departments to switch.  Good luck.
Rick.
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Lines: 59
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com
In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu
(Paul E. Reimer) writes:
> In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano
Pitargue) writes:
>
> [stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
>
> >and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in
> >due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
> >cars.
> >marciano pitargue@cisco.com
>
> There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
> regulation to try to combat this.
Such as?  Drunk drivers get back on the road in no time, to kill again.  Seems
the driver's license process does not work for this.
> When I got my drivers license, I HAD
> to take a drivers safety class.
Because you wanted one while you were underage.
> I HAVE to be licensed to drive.
Only on public roads.
> My car
> MUST be registered.
Only if it is to be driven on public roads, other than between segments of my
property.
> I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
> insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
> accident with it).
Only on public roads.
> Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
> of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
> gun owners.
Perhaps, if it gave them permission to shoot in public roads and parks. :-)
>
> Paul Reimer
> reimer@uinpluxa.npl.uiuc.edu
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777
From: jfs@cco.caltech.edu (Johanes F. Swenberg)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 63
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu
In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle -
Steve,
It's nice that you find me laughable but I don't quite
understand.  Is it because you think my firearms clash with
what I'm wearing, or that my NRA sticker isn't on straight?
Please state your judgement!
I find it sad that people won't accept the responsibility
to defend themselves.  And I laugh with the same contempt you
have for me at the sheep who expect the government to protect
them.
>What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and
>showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from
>originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a
>sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the
>first place! :)
You and your friends sound like a bunch of smug intellectuals.
>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons.
Oh,   I guess you are.  I'm still waiting for you all-knowing
academic-likes to solve the worlds problems.  Let us know when
you have the answers or punch lines as this case may be.
>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.
So it's not a "Yankee" thing?
Are Canadians actually as uncivilized as we Americans?
>Hell, here in Britain, the cops don't even carry guns.
Well if it's anything like here it wouldn't matter if they
did; they wouldn't be able to use them.
>Hell, as I recall, in People's Court, even Rusty carried a gun! Never
>know, some plaintiff might go nuts. :)  )
You shouldn't waste your time watching TV, Steve. It will corrupt
your mind.
>
>Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes
>against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny!
>You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples of
>why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!
Ditto to you, Self Righteous One.
Lay your derogatory tirade on thick, Steve.  Y'all can keep laughing and
I'll keep feeling safe and secure.
>
>Steve
Johanes
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Reminder -- Denver Rally Tomorrow
Distribution: usa
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanca.lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Lines: 23
*****************************************************************
*                                                               *
*                        MONSTER RALLY!!                        *
*          ==  For the Right to Own and Carry Weapons ==        *
*                                                               *
*    TOMORROW, Sunday, April 18, 1993, from 1:00 to 3:30 p.m.,  *
*       the Denver LIBERTARIAN PARTY will sponsor a rally       *
*              AT THE STATE CAPITOL in support of               *
*         the individual right to own and carry weapons.        *
*                                                               *
* Speakers will include former Colorado deputy attorney general *
*  DAVID KOPEL, radio host KEN HAMBLIN, DLP Chair DAVID SEGAL,  *
* pistol instructor LENDA JACKSON, and novelist L. NEIL SMITH.  *
*                                                               *
* Your presence and participation are highly welcome.  For more *
*       information call David Segal at (303) 296-4059.         *
*                                                               *
*****************************************************************
Cathy Smith
My opinions are, of course, my own.
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: "militia" (incredibly long)
Lines: 47
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <C5n0vy.EJ6@ulowell.ulowell.edu> jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) writes:
>In article <1qna9m$nq8@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>->
>-> Again, my response is, "so what?"  Is Mr. Rutledge arguing that since
>-> the local and federal governments have abandoned their charter to support
>-> such activity, and passed laws prohibiting private organizations from
>-> doing so, that they have eliminated the basis for the RKBA?   On the
>-> contrary, to anyone who understands the game, they have strengthened it.
>
>No, I originally argued that the Second Amendment was "a little bit
>and an anachronism."  These prohibiting laws are examples why the are
>an anachronism.  After all, laws in made by representatives of the
>people.  These representatives of the people have already decided
>that the Second Amendment does not apply or is too broad in some
>cases.  Since these representatives feel an unconditional
>interpretation is not wanted, then it is probable that they majority
>of the people feel the same way.  If this is so, it is an example
>of the people using their power of government.  If this is not
>how the people feel, the people should stand up and state their wishes.
I'll point out that the whole point of the difficult amendment
process was to require a super-majority to change the Supreme Law,
making it impossible for a "majority" of the people to simply change
the law on a whim.  Simply changing the meaning based on "the
representatives" of the people effectively destroys the amendment
process.  The State's, you know, are also entitled to a say under
that process.
>> Mox nix, Mr. Rutledge.  YOU are the only one here claiming that the
>-> RKBA is dependent on the existence of a top-flight, well-regulated
>-> militia.  Why this is a false assumption has already been posted a
>-> number of times.
>
>No, I simple stated that the people have a right to "join a well
>organized militia."
I'll note that that right could be considered protected under
the first amendment's protection of peaceful assembly.  Unless
you would consider a militia inherently non-peaceful, then they've
stated the same thing twice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....
Lines: 88
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle
That's nice.  We strive for entertainment value.  :-)
>- I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a
>pick-up truck in front of the car that my friend and I were in. It had a bumper
>sticker proclaiming "Gun Control is a firm grip on a .45." Now I'm sure that
>that wanker thought he was pretty cool.
>What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and
>showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from
>originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a
>sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the
>first place! :)
In the first place, you have to realize the feeling goes both
ways.  Canadians laugh at the U.S., and Americans simply shrug and
woner why the hell we let them be a State in the first place.  ;-)
>I knew somebody else who went to one of your "Gun-mart" superstore places, just
>so he could experience the sight of people putting guns and ammo into shopping
>carts! I didn't believe it myself until I drove by one in Vegas last year!!!
Interesting strategy, posting here with complaints about
people elsewhere.
>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons.
Courtesy is apparently a dead commodity in the rest of the
civilized world.  "Gun nut morons," indeed.
>The BBC recently referred to the American
>penchant for pistols, automatic weapons,etc.  very  appropriately - it was
>called a "national eccentricity."
We've got guns, they've got a monarch and an economy on the verg
of collapse.  Finger pointing across the Atlanticis a waste or time.
>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.
Canada has been blaming the U.S. for their problems for years.
The simple fact of the matter is this:  Ten years ago they crowed about
how great their system was because they'd gotten rid of the guns and
the U.S. would be so much better if they'd just get into the divine light
shining from the North.  We pointed out that it was cultural differences,
and pointed to their pre-control crime rates.  We also pointed out that
the history of the entire world contained smuggling, and that whenever
something was wanted, it was smuggled in.
If the problem were based on U.S. guns, it would have surfaced
years before.
Now more Canadian criminals want guns.  And they are being provided.
Canada has its own version of the drug problem.  Yet drugs are prohibited
in the U.S.
>Hell, here in Britain, the cops don't even carry guns. (That's another funny
>thing - you see a US border guard, and he's got his .45 or .38 on his belt,
>with tons o' spare ammo - never know, maybe some canadian shopper might get out
>of hand. Hell, as I recall, in People's Court, even Rusty carried a gun! Never
>know, some plaintiff might go nuts. :)  )
Saw a news report out of Britain that armed crime is on the rise,
and several police agencies are considering have permanent "firearms
officers" to deal with it.
According to U.S. News & World Report, British handgun deaths have
risen over 250% over the past twelve years.  The U.S. number has dropped
5%.
Maybe they're smuggling them across the U.S./U.K. border.  Yeah,
that's the ticket.
>CYA!
Have a nice day, Steve.  Learn a little common courtesy and
politeness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Lines: 67
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Paul E. Reimer) writes:
>In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
>
>>and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in
>>due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
>>cars.
>>marciano pitargue@cisco.com
>
>There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
>regulation to try to combat this.  When I got my drivers license, I HAD
>to take a drivers safety class.
Tennessee, at least, does not require any sort of safety class to
get a driver's license.  All that is required is one twenty question
quiz and to drive a car around the block without crashing.
>I HAVE to be licensed to drive.
In all probability, no you don't.  You are required to be licensed
to drive on public roads.  A license is not necessary on private property.
>My car
>MUST be registered.
Most states do not require the registration of cars that are
not used on public roads.  Those that do (California I know of) do
so for tax purposes more than anything else.
>I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
>insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
>accident with it).
Many states do not currently require this, and most, again,
only make this requirement for public roads.  A car sitting unused
is not required to have insurance.
>Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
>of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
>gun owners.
The two are not the same, as I pointed out above.  There are
significant difference between making rules for *use on public property*
and *making rules for ownership*.
The other half of the objection is trust.  Similar things to this
have been tried in many local jurisdications across the country, and
have been abused in far too many cases.   Safety classes which are
never sheduled, never funded, or only one or two is held a year for
a limited number of participants.  Registration lists in New York,
Chicago, and California have been used for confiscation.  *Many* gun
owners would, in theory, support these planes.  (Although the
numbers overwhelmingly show that competence is not the problem, that
intentional misuse is).  They've simply seen it abused and are leery of
the next person who comes down the pike with a "reasonable" suggestion
they've already seen abused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu (David N. Bixler)
Subject: Re: criminals & machineguns
Nntp-Posting-Host: mosquito.eng.auburn.edu
Reply-To: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Lines: 14
There's only one way I know of to tell an AR-15 from an M-16.
Pick it up, hold it about a foot from your face and look closely
at the saftey lever.  If it has two positions, its an AR-15, if
it has three, its an M-16.  There are numerous internal differences
as well, but since one would have to field strip the weapon to see
them, they are not valid in this discussion.  So, in conclusion,
there is very little external differences to distinguish an AR-15
from an M-16 except at close (very close) range.
David Bixler
Auburn University
All standard disclaimers apply.
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 40
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu
In article <C5Lrpq.50o@idacom.hp.com> guy@idacom.hp.com (Guy M. Trotter) writes:
>
>Hi,
>
>In Canada, any gun that enters a National Park must be sealed (I think it's a
>small metal tag that's placed over the trigger).  The net result of this is
>that you _can't_ use a gun to protect yourself from bears (or psychos) in the
>National Parks.  Instead, one has to be sensitive to the dangers and annoyances
>of hiking in bear country, and take the appropriate precautions.
>
>I think this policy makes the users of the National Parks feel a little closer
>to Nature, that they are a part of Nature and, as such, have to deal with
>nature on it's own terms.
>
>Guy
Hello,
I understand this philosophy.  The bears are a national
treasure, the area is their sanctuary and people who enter it
do so at their own risk.  It is better that that rare human be
killed by a bear than that bears be provoked or shot by unbear-savvy
visitors.  The bears aren't having a population explosion, humans
are so it is better that a human be killed than endanger the bears.
I don't agree with this philosopy, but I understand it.
The psychos are a bit different.  They are not a national
treasure but I suppose the decision has been made that to "allow"
provision for defense against them would also "allow" provision
for defense against bears.  Again, I suppose it has been decided
that it is better for the rare human to be killed by a psycho than
to take a chance on threatening the bears.
Personally, I wouldn't go into an area where I would be
"managed" so as to reduce my safety ..... but ... come to think
of it I guess I live in a managed wilderness myself :-)
Joan V
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 53
In article <1993Apr16.010235.14225@mtu.edu> cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) writes:
<In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
<jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:
<
<> [ ... excellent exchange deleted ... ]
<> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give
<> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the
<> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit
<> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think
<> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.
<
<    Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This
<    country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
<    it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
<    they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
<    their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
<
<    Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
<    over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August
<    1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
<    establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
<    Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
<    the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
<    to raise an army upon their ruins."
<
<So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
<our Liberties and Rights.
What I find so hard to understand is how come some people, apparantly
NOT connected with government or otherwise privileged, will
go to great lengths, redefinitions, re-interpretations, in a full-bore
attempt to THROW AWAY THE PROTECTION OF THEIR OWN RIGHTS under the
Constitution!!!
Almost makes me think of lemmings running into the sea during a lemming
year...
I really wonder that Jefferson and Madison would say to these folks?
<-------------------------------------------------------------
<"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
<drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
<powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
<become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
<separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821
Excellent quote.
--
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 91
In article <1qpavfINN2jp@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
:In article <0096B294.AAD9C1E0@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu> reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu
:(Paul E. Reimer) writes:
:> In article <1qkftjINNoij@cronkite.cisco.com>, pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano
:Pitargue) writes:
:>
:> [stuff deleted about causes of people in ER]
:>
:> >due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
:> >cars.
:> There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
:> regulation to try to combat this.
:
:Such as?  Drunk drivers get back on the road in no time, to kill again.  Seems
:the driver's license process does not work for this.
:
I can testify to this. My cousin spent a few weeks in the hospital, and his
friend was killed, because of a drunk driver.  The son-of-a-b**** is back on
the streets... Officers from the scene are still p***ed about that one.
:> to take a drivers safety class.
:
:Because you wanted one while you were underage.
:
:> I HAVE to be licensed to drive.
:
:Only on public roads.
:
:> My car
:> MUST be registered.
:
:Only if it is to be driven on public roads, other than between segments of my
:property.
:
:> I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
:> insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
:> accident with it).
:
:Only on public roads.
And this obviously doesn't always work, else why would they offer uninsured
motorist coverage?
:
:> Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
:> of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
:> gun owners.
I object to mandatory registration because I don't trust my government not to
use any information I give them for their own purposes.  I am licensed to
carry a concealed pistol in my home state, but they never asked whether I
actually owned a firearm.  A safety class before issuing a permit to carry is
reasonably, provided such classes are regularly available to the public.  Of
course, most places would consider my time in the reserves and on a competition
rifle team to count.
:
:Perhaps, if it gave them permission to shoot in public roads and parks. :-)
Hey, now that's an idea :)
:
:> Paul Reimer
:
:Jim
Now, unless you have an agenda against private ownership of firearms, why would
you want to harass the person trying to legally defend themselves or exercise
their rights? (I know, defending oneself/family/whoever IS a right... at least
as far as my 9mm and I are concerned... ) (Also as far as the State of Alabama
seems to be concerned)  Why don't you push for stricter prosecution of those
who use firearms in the commission of a crime?  I've already pointed out how
we aren't nailing DUI's hard enough...  Comparing the US with other countries
seldom works, but the European attitude towards alchohol and DUI seems to work..
Their attitude towards weapons isn't really a valid comparison because they've
historically done their best to keep the populace disarmed and submissive,
while our country was founded by a bunch of rugged individualists who told the
European monarchies (for the most part) to take a flying leap (used more polite
language though).  We even weaseled out of our first international treaty, and
then convinced the French that it was in their best interests not to complain..
But first we had to overcome the fact that the Brits were doing their best to
restrict us to squirrel guns and such, so we'd be properly submissive while
they forced us to pay for their wars.  Of course, most American history classes
these days tend to gloss over facts that do not fit the image they wish to
convey... I'm glad my Amer. Hist. teacher was a Libertarian who had us review
a good portion of the Federalist Papers, and debate their origins and meanings.
enough rambling,
James
--
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: CNN for sale
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Lines: 32
Reply-To: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
W.K. Gorman:
<3>> Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band
<3>> together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast
<3>> the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two..
<3>I would like to see this happen. I don't think it will. I don't
<3>think the average gun-owner will take any notice of what is happening
<3>until they break down HIS door.
<3>BUT I will go on record publicly to the effect that I will contribute a
<3>minimum of $1,000.00 to the buy-out fund if it can be organized and made
<3>viable. Anybody else want to put their money where their mouth is?  :)
<3>There ar 50+ MILLION gun owners out there. If - and it's a big and
<3>not very realistic if - we got hold of CNN, the anti-gun bullshit would
<3>STOP RIGHT THERE. Why won't it happen - because nobody will get off their
<3>ass and MAKE it happen. Nuts.
Any NRA headquarters weenies listening to this man. Any RTKBA organization
honcho listening. It's time to stop fighting the Brady's and the Schumer's
(now there's an interesting meaning to the acronynm BS) from the comfort
of the office....we had better get serious with our time and money and get
after it or we might just as well pack it in now.
---
. OLX 2.2 . Gun control advocates must have had a sanity by-pass!
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Carrying Arms
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Lines: 32
In article <1993Apr5.220457.6800@spdc.ti.com> dwhite@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Dan White) writes:
>	I have a question about the second amendment that has bothered
>me for awhile.  The amendment guarentees our "right to keep and bear
>arms." Currently, the gun prohibitionists are trying to restrict or
>eliminate our right to keep arms with the Brady Bill and the assault
>weapon ban.  However, haven't we already lost our right to bear arms?
>	It seems that in most states, like Texas, a citizen may own a
>gun and carry while at his home or business.  But a citizen is severely
>restricted from bearing outside these areas.  Here in Texas you cannot
>carry in your car except when "traveling" which is usually defined as
>"traveling across a county line."  How did this come about?  Are there
>any court rulings on the legality of restricting the carrying of a
>weapon outside the home?
There are, but not any that would help Texans: In many states,
such laws have been found to violate the state constitution.
But the federal Second Amendment does not apply directly to the
states. It was written to limit the federal government only.
The Fourteenth Amendment was written to extend the restrictions
of the Bill of Rights to the state level. However, the exact
wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is very vague. The Supreme
Court has been dancing around the issue without facing it
directly for over 100 years. In practice, the Bill of Right
(indirectly applies through the Fourteenth) applies to the
state governments only if the Supreme Court has ruled that
particular provision. The Court has made no such rulings on
the Second Amendment.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 29
In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
writes:
>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
>would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
>take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.
That's open for debate.  Certainly, an excessive number of people are
murdered every year but people also do save innocent lives with firearms.
The media just don't tell us when it happens...
>Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery.
>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
I think there are more of us than there are federal marshalls...
>No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
>than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault.
Crap.  It's simplistic thinking on the part of feather-headed dolts.
>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
Nuts.
don
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 14
In article <1qrn3aINN4rq@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com
(Jim De Arras) writes:
>> The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
>
>It ain't dead, yet.  And even if it were repealed, remember, it just protects
>our RKBA, it does not grant any rights.  There would then have to be
>additional laws passed to outlaw gun possession.
Even if they outlawed private posession of firearms, there would be no moral
force behind that law; I imagine compliance would be low.
don
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Lines: 80
In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk>
jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't
>seem to realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you.
So what.  We think you're pretty hilarious too.
I love how you Brit's kiss royal arse.  That you're willing to throw
out freedom-of-speech for the sake of protecting the reputation of the
royal sluts.
That the British government advertised in American newspapers "Send A Gun
to Defend a British Home -- British civilians, faced with threat of
invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." during
WWII.  [American Rifleman November, 1940]
That The Obscene Publications Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act have been
used as justification for the police to seize masterpieces such as William
S. Burrough's "Junky", Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas",
and Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test".  British courts have
never recognized the right to assemble or to demonstrate.
That evidence obtained form coerced confessions is allowed in a trial.
That only serious felonies warrant a trial by jury.
That suspected terrorists must prove their innocence, instead of the
government having to prove their guilt.
That the secretary of state may issue an "exclusionary order" which
bars someone from ever entering a particular part of the United Kingdom,
such as Northern Ireland or Wales.
That the BBC banned Paul McCartney's "Give Ireland Back to the Irish"
as well as John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" during the Gulf War.
Yes, England is very very funny.  And very pathetic.
>I knew somebody else who went to one of your "Gun-mart" superstore
>places, just so he could experience the sight of people putting guns
>and ammo into shopping carts! I didn't believe it myself until I
>drove by one in Vegas last year!!!
So what.  Laughter is a way of dealing with things we find uncomfortable.
I thought the "Las Vegas Show Girl" ads on Las Vegas street corners were
pretty funny.
Yes indeed, there are many strange and wonderous things in this country.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. The BBC recently referred to the American
>penchant for pistols, automatic weapons,etc.  very  appropriately - it was
>called a "national eccentricity."
I don't disagree with that, I don't think it's bad either.
>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.
So what.  If they didn't come from here they would come from elsewhere
disguised as cocaine.
>Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes
>against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny!
>You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples
>of why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!
You can laugh all you want, for us it's a matter of life or death.
I don't find that funny in the least.
As for England:
"As our allies become more open, Britain grow yet more secretive and
censorious.  Perhaps the real British vice is passivity, a willingness
to tolerate constraints which others would find unbearble." [in "Britain,
An Unfree Country" by Terrence DeQuesne and Edward Goodman, pp 33.]
--
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com
From: donb@netcom.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 41
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
writes:
>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.
Nope.  Here in Northern California, a newspaper recently did a survey,
asking if people favored stricter gun controls.  A full 40% said no.
Here, in one of the most Liberal (it wasn't always a swear word :( areas
of the country, nearly half the people don't want additional controls, let
alone revocation of RKBA...
>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.
Misguided dolt though he may be (though, I still maintain, less dangerous
than Bush), Clinton does not publicly support revoking the second amendment.
>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
>Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
>immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'.
Well, I'll help MY neighbors...
>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
Violent solutions are passe'?  I take it you propose disarming the police,
then?
Please don't mention RKBA in the same breath as the KKK.  RKBA is about
being able to defend yourself and others, not about killing the innocent.
Actually, your mention of the KKK is rather funny, considering that the
first gun control law in the US were created specifically to disarm black
people...
don
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 85
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>Drivers licence:
>Forgot that USA is THE land of cars.....
>Getting one in Scandinavia (and northern europe) is not easy.
>Average time is about 20 hours of training, and the cost is rather......
Is the license required for driving a car exclusively on private
property, such as a farm? Here in the United States, the license
is required only for the use of public roads.
>Abuse by the goverment:
>This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
>would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
>Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...) OR you should
>get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)
We also have a nation of 250 million people, _many_ issues and
usually only two candidates for a given office. A President
might be willing to abuse mild gun control laws and create
a de-facto ban (something a majority of the people would object to)
and still be elected: The voters might look at issues like the
civil rights of minorities, health care, etc... and vote
for the "lesser of two evils." I don't think this is a matter
of paranoia, since local governments in (for example) New York
and Chicago have abused existing, mild gun control laws to
create a virtual ban.
>Guns 'n Criminals:
>MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.
>Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.
In which case, the United States already has adaquate gun control laws:
According to federal statistic, only 7% of gun-wielding criminals
legally purchase their own guns from licensed dealers. If that's
the point of gun control (to prevent criminals from legally purchasing
guns) then America doesn't need any additional laws to accomplish
this.
>Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
>What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!
How is this any different from guns? There are legal purposes for
owning and using a gun: They are appropriate tools for hunting,
target shooting and self-defence. Like cars, murder isn't
their only (or even a common) use.
>If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
>or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
>it's the 'axer' ??
I certainly couldn't imagine the American public accepting regulation
of axes. While the politics of other nations may be different,
in America there is strong opposition to any intrusive law that
primarily would effect the average, law-abiding citizen who had
not done anything wrong.
>Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
>themselves. Is this a good situation ?? Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??
A good way to deal with which problem? It is an excelent way to deal
with the short-term problem of rioting and violent attacks. Of course,
it doesn't do anything for the long-term issues that start riots. But
at this point, what can these individuals do about long-term social
problems?
>If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
>guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)
There are, according to surveys, guns in 40% of American homes.
In many parts of the country, this is closer to 100%. Those places
where almost everyone owns a gun are, on average, safer than those
where guns are less common.
>LAST WORD:
>Responsible gun owners are not a problem, but they will be affected if
>you want to protect your citicens.
This is, I think, a fundamental difference between American government
and that of other nations. Here it is not acceptable to punish
or restrict the average, law-abiding citizen in the name of some
vague "common good."
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody
Lines: 29
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>the people on the net.
>
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?
As a data point from Tennessee, a friend of mine and a police
officer essentially recommends that if you can, fade away.  Even if
you were perfectly justified you're likely in for a great deal of
hassle.  (A side note, carrying a gun concealed is a misdemeanor.)
>What kind
>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>saw you and you were caught?
It's one of those "by State" things, pretty much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Lines: 88
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>You are loosing.
>
>There is no question about it.
>
>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.
Not so.  Surveys have shown while the public thinks certain types
of gun control may be acceptable they do believe they have an
individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the police should
not have /discretion/ over who may and may not own firearms.
>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void.
By the end of the Clinton administration a lot of things will be
screwed up.  Hell, we'll probably be just like England.
> Tough titty.
"Tough titty" ?  My how eloquent you are.
As for your claim, I think Clinton has a big fight ahead of him if
he thinks he's going to pass some comprehensive gun legislation.
He will sign the Brady Bill if it gets to his desk.  We will do
whatever we can to either keep that from happening, or modify it
such that it is acceptable to us.
>You had better discover ways to make do without firearms.
Sorry, that's not possible.  And that's why we won't give them up
either.  Legally or illegally, American's will keep their firearms.
The number of unregistered weapons in New York City is in the millions.
There aren't even close to that number of violent criminals there.
>The number of cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause.
If the gov't was serious about stopping violent crime they would
keep violent criminals in jail for a long long time where they
belong instead of letting them out on early release.
>There is nothing you can do about it.
Hey, we can go into politics too if we feel like it.
> Those who live by the sword shall die by it.
I don't believe this one bit.
>The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
>you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !
Snore.  Like I take advice on the RKBA from a Brit.  No way.
>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless.
You watch too much "Star Trek".  Actually, this is an understandable
attitude from a Brit; you are a subject of the state.
>They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
Not necessarily.  There are ways of resisting oppression without
getting caught by the gov't.
>Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
>immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'.
The "abstract criminal" like the ones who killed a relative of mine
while she was working in a carry-out.
>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'.
While undesirable, they are sometimes unavoidable.  If you don't want
to resist a criminal attack by all means do nothing.  I will (a) take
my chances resisting violent attack, and (b) stand a better chance of
being unharmed than someone who does nothing.
>Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
What a joke.  Criminals want a disarmed population.  How can you keep
criminals from preying on us after our best means of self defense is
taken away ?
--
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !
Lines: 47
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
>'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable.
Not provable.  It's about as "provable" as the number of votes
vast for Bill Clinton in the last election.  If you accept the information
available, you can prove one way or the other.  If you refuse to accept
it, nothing is "provable."
>I think that that
>there are actually *few* cases where this is so.
Fine, support your assertation.  But, you haven't supported
any assertations just yet.
The National Crime Survey, that secret Arm of the NRA, estimates
between 40,000 and 50,000 with-gun self-defenses from assaults, and
is considered to considerably under-report.  When broken down by weapon,
there is no form of "self-defense" including dowing nothing which is
more effective at avoiding injury or death.
>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents ...  those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
>would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
>take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.
Ok, support *this* assertation.  Hell, support *one*.
>Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery.
That's nice.
>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
That's nice, too.
>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
Why on Earth should we?  If you're correct we've nothing to
lose by continuing to argue against it and everything to gain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Lines: 128
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735132009.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>Abuse by the goverment:
>This seems to be one of the main problems; Any harder gun-control
>would just be abused by the goverment.(!)
>Either some of you are a little paranoid (no offence...)
Mr. Parsli, I have to take exception at this.  There are
verifiable, previous *examples* of levels of U.S. governments
abusing gun-control restrictions.  I don't think it is paranoid
to worry that what has been abused in the recent past might be abused
in thye future.  After so many times of getting burned any sane person
will stop putting his hand on the stove.
>OR you should
>get a new goverment. (You do have elections??)
I'd love to.  But as long as the politicians grab power to sell
pork back to their constituents, there's not a lot I can do.
It's silly to suggest that if there's anything we can't trust
the government to do, and therefore the government should be allowed
to do it, then we should change governments.  Down that road lies
total government power.   I've never been a fan of totalitarianism.
>Guns 'n Criminals:
>MOST weapons used by criminals today are stolen.
This is very likely.
>Known criminals can NOT buy weapons, that's one of the points of gun control.
>And because gun control are strict in WHOLE scandinavia (and most of europe),
>we dont have any PROBLEM with smuggled guns.
The North American Continent is not Europe, no matter how many
people would like it to be.  Drugs are very illegal and they're
here.  For years Canada has crowed about its gun control.  If it is
necessary to control guns over the whole continent, then Canada should
have always had comparable rates to the U.S., yet they still don't.
Unless you can tell me why the Canadian border is so much more
magical than the Mexican border (which is shorter and far more
heavily patrolled) then I really can't accept that argument.
>Mixing weapons and things that can be use as one:
>What I meant was that cars CAN kill, but they are not GUNS!
No, there are approximately 31,000 deaths due to guns in the U.S.,
two-thirds of which are suicides.  (Unfortunately I don't have suicide
rates for Norway.)  However, this makes the per-gun death rate about
half the per-car death rate.
>The issue (I hope..):
>I think we all agree that the criminals are the main problem.
>Guns are not a problem, but the way they are used is.... (and what are they for??)
>
>I think this discusion is interesting when you think of (ex)Jugoslavia:
>They should all have weapons, it's their rigth to have them, and if they use them
>to kill other (Innocent) people the problem is humans, not guns.
The problem's been humans since before we had stone axes.  The
fct of the matter is simply this:  If nobody ever assaulted anybody,
whether there is a weapon of any sort around would be totally
irrelevent.
Yet weapons are *built*.  I'd suggest, then, that the murderous
impulse in humanity pre-dates weapons.
Anyway, the Bosnians et al. have been making an excellent attempt
to kill each other for half a thousand years.  Taking away their guns, even
if we could, would neither halt the killing nor reduce the brutality.
>If 50% of ALL murders was done with axes, would you impose some regulations on them
>or just say that they are ment to be used at trees, and that the axe is not a problem,
>it's the 'axer' ??
>(An example, don't flame me just because not exactly 50% are killed by guns...)
In the U.S., approximately 60% of murders are commited with firearms.
(50% with handguns, 10% with non-handguns.)  The reason I say that guns, per
se, are not the problem, is that our non-gun rate exceeds most of Europe's
countries *entire* violent crime rate.  I don't really think we've got
more knives or fists.
In any case, I think examples of gun control *applied* to the U.S.
have been abkect failures, just like drug prohibition and other forms
of prohibition.  Until you deal with *why* people are doing what they
are doing, you won't solve your problem.  And if the problem is
violent crime, you shouldn't concentrate on the tools instead.  The
*vast* majority of guns is never, ever misused.  (On the order of
99.5% over the entire lifetime of the gun).  This says to me that
you can't make the argument that the gun itself causes the misuse.
>Think about the situation in Los Angeles where people are buying guns to protect
>themselves. Is this a good situation ??
The situation is not "good" in that people fear for their lives.
But recall the scenes of the store-owners during the last riots,
protecting their shops with guns.  Would it have been better they,
too, lost their livelihoods?
>Is it the rigth way to deal with the problem ??
The problem of poverty and rage in Los Angeles, no it isn't.
However, if that problem becomes a violent action, then yes, it can
be appropriate.  Whether or not some person has been hurt by their condition
won't make me less dead if they burn down my house with me in it.
You have to examine which problem you're referring to.  If
you're discussing someone violently assaulting you, then it is
a perfectly legitimate response to make them stop.  (Hopefully
simply letting them know you're prepared to shoot them would be enough,
as it was with the above-mentioned store-owners.)
>If everybody buys guns to protect themselves from criminals (and their neighbor who have
>guns) what do you think will happen ?? (I mean if everybody had a gun in USA)
45% of Households have some form of firearm, usually a long gun.
That accounts for a level of access for at least 100 million Americans.
Firearm ownership is most likely among educated, well-off whites, the
group *least* likely to be involved in violent crime.
You may take that for what it's worth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 32
In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?
For me, it would be an obvious choice: Armed self-defence is clearly
and strongly protected by the Colorado Constitution and the laws
of the state. In the very clear-cut situation of your hypothetical,
I wouldn't have anything to fear from the police (unless I had been
publicly carrying the weapon concealed, something I'm not in
the habit of doing... Even then, the worst I'd have to deal with
was a class 2 misdemeanor.) Even if the situation were not so
clear, and I might have to worry about arrest for manslaughter or
homicide, it would still be safer to wait for the police. If
I were to leave and try to avoid police involvement, I'd be committing
several felonies and ruining my chances of claiming self-defence
in court ("If it really was self-defence," the prosecuter would
ask, "why did you run away and hide from the police?")
In other states, however, this decision might not be so clear-cut:
If someone in, say, Washington D.C. were to use a gun in self-defence
he would _automatically_ be guilty of several felony violations of
that city's gun control laws. Such a person's choices would be
between certain conviction for a couple of felonies versus possible
conviction for half a dozen.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: billma@utoday.com (Bill Mallon)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !
Reply-To: billma@utoday.com (Bill Mallon)
Organization: CMP Publications, Inc., Manhasset, NY
Lines: 18
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339
@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
> Surrender your arms. Soon enough,
> officers will be around to collect
> them. Resistance is useless. They
>       ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^
> will overwhelm you - one at a time.
Are you certain you didn't mean to post
to alt.french.captain.borg.borg.borg?
You'd better rush home...I hear Kruschev
calling "Come to papa, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu!"
"I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory
circuit, using stone knives and bearskins."        --Spock
- Humble Typesetter -
From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Subject: Re: Tanks against civilians (was Re: That silly outdated Bill/Koresh)
Summary: Tanks against Civilians (couldn't happen here... read yer history)
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 70
In article <scottj-150493092731@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu> scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
>
> [ ... picking nits over tanks firing the main gun or not deleted ...]
>
I think the point is being missed - that it is apparantly acceptable for
Big Government (Big Brother?) to use TANKS to control the people, as
long as they don't use the BIG GUN (but everything else is allright...).
Tanks deployed against civilians, let alone FIRING on them with crew
served weaponry (a .50 Heavy Machine Gun is crew-served) is something
both our press and government howl about instantly when done in some
other country.  Against civilians that have, at most, one-shot-at-a-time
LIGHT small arms.  Certainly nothing that places the people in or behind
the tank in any real danger.  Molotov coctails?  A round from a rifle
or pistol deals with anybody approaching with one of those.  And "snipers"
too often turn out to be strays from other cops/guard/army gunfire.
I don't know about the other people in this group (or on the net) but
the idea of tanks being used to control civilians, in anything that
pretends to be a free society is outrageous.  When Big Government feels
it is necessary to use that kind of force to stomp out protests (even
violent) of the citizens, that suggests that the government is totally
out of control, since that is effectively the government declaring war
on its own people.  If the government was living up to its responsibility,
government of the people BY THE PEOPLE, not the 'lords' and other elites
who want to keep their good thing going, the citizens wouldn't feel the
need to be resorting to acts that need to be squashed with a military
boot.  People do things like that because they have become convinced
that it is the only option that remains, other attempts to have grievances
redressed have been ignored.  And yes, there is a criminal element that
will exploit this, but the fact remains that the government has been
unresponsive or such acts wouldn't be apt to happen.  Still not an excuse
to open up on civilians with tanks, heavy machine guns, or whatever.
Its the old 'might makes right' philosophy that is the hallmark of a
government going rogue:  They don't like it? Tough. We will simply
squash them under an iron boot.  Actually addressing their grievances
in other than token fashion with huge volumes of hot air is just too
inconvenient...  Sort of a variation on mushroom management:  Keep them
in the dark, Smother them with shit, and Crush them when ready...
And these are the folks that many liberals are trying to arrange things
so that they will have a MONOPOLY on coercive force (firearms that are
than expensive toys...) by gutting the Bill of Rights (cuz it just isn't
PROGRESSIVE or doesn't fit in with MODERN THINKING anymore)...
Unbelievable.
And I do believe amid the smoke, confusion, etc of a real riot situation,
that it would be POSSIBLE for a tank to get away with firing the main gun
into a building at close range?  One would hear an explosion among many
explosions.  It is loud, but it is not going to stand out like a 1000
pound bomb or a tactical nuke.  There would be a hole blown in the wall,
and some rubble, but with tanks knocking over walls, and other sources
of buildings turning into rubble, and other covering racket such as
gunfire, including 50's tacking away, it would not stand out that much,
and could be explained by "musta been a gas leak... ".  I think it could be
done and not be reported under such conditions - it is POSSIBLE.  It is
not like a tank driving down a quiet street on a Sunday afternoon, turning
and firing, you know.  THAT would stand out, and be pretty impossible
to cover up.
>--John L. Scott
--
pat@rwing.uucp      [Without prejudice UCC 1-207]     (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
If all else fails, try:       ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
WISDOM: "Only two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity,
and I am not sure about the former."              - Albert Einstien
From: chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !
Organization: San Diego State University, College of Sciences
Lines: 50
NNTP-Posting-Host: io.nosc.mil
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu wrote:
: You are loosing.
: There is no question about it.
: Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
: how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.
Care to show some *real* numbers instead of something HCI make up?
I thought so, all "foaming at the mouth" shouting but nothing is
ever said...
: This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
: RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.
Well, we'll just have to wait and see about that, won't we?  Or are
you quite satisified with living in your little fantasy?
< SNIP >
: cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
< SNIP >
: The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
: you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !
Not true, it is ONLY those who are ignorant and are afraid to understand,
accept, and deal with the real problems behind this violent society
who are proposing gun control as a band-aid solution.  May be I should
refresh your memory with a quote from Prez. Clintion?
"It's the criminals, stupid!"
HEY, why is he cutting the budget for more prisons? May be someone need
to remind him of what he promised...on second thought, why bother...
: Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
: them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
: Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
: immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'.
Oooh, WACO II, coming to your living room soon...  When was the last
time you turned off your TV?  Can't remember?  I thought so...
: Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
: are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
: be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
Wait, I got it, this is a late April fool post, right?  I didn't
think ANYBODY is stupid enough to post something like this...good one
guys, this group was getting boring without Holly and Susan.
--Francis Chiu, Professional Student, Programmer, Tax Payer.
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: 2%: We're undertaxed/Poll
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 39
kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.190829.17141@cunews.carleton.ca> akasacou@alfred.carleton.ca (Alexander Kasacous) writes:
>>In article <VEAL.729.734979393@utkvm1.utk.edu> VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>       No, what you said was that we had spent money on "guns" rather than
>>>"people," as Canada does.  Which is ridiculous.
>>>
>>
>>Once again I have over estimated the general level of intellegence of
>>the average reader of rush-limbaugh.  Canada PER CAPITA spend more
>>money on people where the US spend more money PER CAPITA on guns.
>What exactly do you mean when you say the U.S. spends more per capita on
>guns than Canada does?  Are you talking about the U.S. government or are you
>talking about the purchase of guns by private citizens or both?  If you are
>referring to private citizens then your point is irrevelant because what
>individuals do with their money is essentially *their* business.
>If, on the other hand, you meant that the U.S government spends more per
>capita on guns than Canada does then your point *is* relevant.  So, if this
>is true then the U.S. needs to get its priorities straight.  People are more
>important than guns.  That is not to say that guns aren't important.  I'm
>just saying that if the U.S government *does* spend more per capita on guns
>than they do on people then something is awry.
He meant the US spends more per capita on guns than Canada which isn't
really surprising because we were so busy protecting the western world from
the USSR that all other countries could slack off on their defense spending.
I would like to see if the US spends more per capita on people than
Canada does.  This is a true apples - apples comparison where the previous
post was apples - oranges.
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Randy Weaver trial update: Day 4.
Nntp-Posting-Host: gozer
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club
Lines: 87
Note: These trial updates are summarized from reports in the
_Idaho Statesman_ and the local NBC affiliate television
station, KTVB Channel 7.
Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial update: Day 4.
Friday, April 16, 1993 was the fourth day of the trial.
Synopsis: Defense attorney Gerry Spence cross-examined agent
Cooper under repeated objections from prosecutor Ronald
Howen.  Spence moved for a mistrial but was denied.
The day was marked by a caustic cross-examination of Deputy
Marshal Larry Cooper by defense attorney Gerry Spence.  Although
Spence has not explicitly stated so, one angle of his stategy
must involve destroying the credibility of agent Cooper.  Cooper is
the government's only eyewitness to the death of agent Degan.
Spence attacked Cooper's credibility by pointing out discrepancies
between Cooper's statements last September and those made in court.
Cooper conceded that, "You have all these things compressed into
a few seconds...It's difficult to remember what went on first."
Cooper acknowledged that he carried a "9mm Colt Commando submachine
gun with a silenced barrel." [I thought a Colt Commando was a revolver!]
Cooper continued by stating that the federal agents had no specific
plans to use the weapon when they started to kill Weaver's dog.
When Spence asked how seven cartridges could be fired by Degan's
M-16 rifle when Degan was apparently dead, Cooper could not say for
sure that Degan did not return fire before going down.
Spence continued by asking with how many agents (and to what extent)
had Cooper discussed last August's events, Cooper responded, "If
you're implying that we got our story together, you're wrong,
counselor."  Spence continued to advance the defense's version of
the events: Namely, that a marshal had started the shooting by
killing the Weaver's dog.  Cooper disagreed.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Howen repeatedly objected to Spence's
virulent cross-examination of agent Cooper, arguing that the questions
were repetitive and Spence was wasting time.  Howen also complained
that Spence was improperly using a cross-examination to advance the
defense's version of the events.  U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge
sustained many of the objections; however, both lawyers persisted
until Judge Lodge had the jury leave the room and proceded to
admonish both attorneys.  "I'm not going to play games with either
counsel.  This has been a personality problem from day 1, so start
acting like professionals."
Spence told the judge that, "When all the evidence is in, we'll see
that ... his [agent Larry Cooper] testimony is not credible, that
he was panicked and cannot remember the sequence of events."
Spence continued, "We're going to find...that there is a very unlikely
similarity - almost as if it had come out of a cookie cutter - between
the testimony of Mr. Cooper and the other witnesses."
Spence then moved for a mistrial on the grounds that Howen's repeated
objections would prevent a fair trial, "We can't have a fair trial if the
jury believes I'm some sort of charlatan, if the jury believes I'm
bending the rules or engaging in some delaying tactic or that I'm
violating court orders."
Judge Lodge called the notion that his repeated sustainings of Howen's
objections had somehow prejudiced the jury was "preposterous" and
denied the motion for a mistrial.  Lodge did tell Howen to restrict
his comments when objecting.
The trial resumed with the prosecution calling FBI Special Agent Greg
Rampton.  The prosecution's purpose was simply to introduce five
weapons found in the cabin as evidence: However, the defense seized
on the opportunity to further address Cooper's credibility.
Defense attorney Ellison Matthews (Harris' other attorney) questioned
Rampton about the dog.  Rampton stated that there were no specific
plans to kill the Weaver's dog without being detected.  Matthews then
had Rampton read  a Septtember 15, 1992 transcript in which Rampton
had said that Cooper had said that the purpose of the silenced weapon
was to kill the dog without being detected, if the dog chased them.
Rampton then acknowledged that he believed that Cooper had said that,
but he could not remember when.  He then stated that, "I did not conduct
the primary interview with Deputy Cooper, but I have had conversations
with him since the interview was conducted."
Monday, April 19, 1993 will begin the fifth day of the trial.  Scheduled
is the continued cross-examination of FBI agent Greg Rampton.
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Randy Weaver trial update: Day 1.
Nntp-Posting-Host: gozer
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club
Lines: 49
Here is a copy of my first update on the Randy Weaver trial.
After a large response (about 15 email messages), I've decided
that there is sufficient interest here on t.p.g. to warrant
posting.
*** file follows ***
Hi Folks;
As perhaps the only Boise resident on the list, I guess it
kind of falls on me to keep people updated about the
Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial.
Yesterday marked the seating of the jury.  Apparently no other
legal activities occurred.  The jury was selected and things
start today.
More interesting is what happenned outside.  About a dozen
Weaver supporters showed up to stage a protest outside the
courthouse.  One woman carried a sign that read, "Who stands
trial for the murder of Vicki and (son's name - I forget)
Weaver?"  On the evening news she said, "I am here protesting
because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
I thought we all did."  Nice sound bite (grin)!
The news reporter also interviewed some guy named "Tim"
who refused to give his last name.  Not to prejudge the
guy, but he looked like a neo-nazi.  He also said he
expected many neo-nazis to show up throughout the trial.
"Tim" had been handing out leaflets in support of Weaver
and Harris and the news had footage of a Boise cop
telling him to move along or he'd arrest.  I don't know
the finer points of this one.  Perhaps there's a law
against political activity within X feet of a courthouse
or something (what happenned to the First Amendment?!?).
Most ominous of all was that the local reporter filmed
an agent of the Gestapo...err...ATF with a minicam
FILMING THE PROTESTORS!  Welcome to the world of Big Brother.
Anyhow, Gerry Spence came out and asked the protestors to
leave because he didn't think it would help Weaver's case
any.  He said he was confident that, once the evidence
came out, that Weaver would be aquitted.
More stuff as it comes available.
Drew
From: shepard@netcom.com (Mark Shepard)
Subject: S414 (Brady bill) loopholes?
Keywords: brady handguns s414 hr1025 hr277 instant check waiting period
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Lines: 40
Hi. I've just finished reading S414, and have several questions about
the Brady bills (S414 and HR1025).
1. _Are_ these the current versions of the Brady bill?
What is the status of these bills?  I've heard they're "in committee".
How close is that to being made law?
2. S414 and HR1025 seem fairly similar.  Are there any important
differences I missed?
3. S414 seems to have some serious loopholes:
A. S414 doesn't specify an "appeals" process to wrongful denial during
the waiting period, other than a civil lawsuit(?)  (S414 has an appeals
process once the required instant background check system is established,
but not before).
B. the police are explicitly NOT liable for mistakes in denying/approving
using existing records (so who would I sue in "A" above to have an
inaccurate record corrected?)
C. S414 includes an exception-to-waiting-period clause for if a person
can convince the local Chief Law-Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of an
immediate threat to his or her life, or life of a household member.
But S414 doesn't say exactly what is considered a "threat", nor does
it place a limit on how long the CLEO takes to issue an exception
statement.
True?  Have I misunderstood?  Any other 'holes?
4. With just S414, what's to stop a person with a "clean" record from
buying guns, grinding off the serial numbers, and selling them to crooks?
At minimum, what additional laws are needed to prevent this?
'Seems at min. a "gun counting" scheme would be needed
(e.g., "John Doe owns N guns").  So, if S414 passes, I wouldn't be surprised
to see legislation for stricter, harder-to-forge I.D.'s plus national gun
registration, justified by a need to make the Brady bill work.
Please comment.  I'm mainly interested in specific problems with the current
legislation--I don't mean to start a general discussion of the merits
of any/all waiting-period bills ever proposed.
MarkS || shepard@netcom.com
From: "Faustus" <p00056@mail.psi.net>
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Organization: INFERNO
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.01)
Lines: 27
>DATE:   18 Apr 93 00:13:19 -0500
>FROM:   jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
>
>Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
>'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable.
In my case I am alive thanks to a gun, that is provable..
even in your twisted logic.
>I think that that there are actually *few* cases where this is so.
No... Wrong again brain trust..
>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents
Huh? What planet are you from?
>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
Wrong... Not as long as freedom remains ..
PS: Get a Dictionary..
Faustus
(Gun of the month club... hmmm.. Glock 10mm this month.. Sig 226 next..)
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....
Organization: .
Lines: 10
NNTP-Posting-Host: apple.com
In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle - I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a
>...
You consider laughing at others civilized behavior?  What was I supposed to
learn from your article?  Treat people like dogs?
I am not impressed by your attitude.
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !
Organization: .
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: apple.com
In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>...
>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
>No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
>than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault.
>
>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
You know, in many ways this might be just the kick we need to straighten
things out in this country.  Also, people would have a need to replace
guns with something else, perhaps deadly sprays that would make Mace and OC
seem like water.  They would be lighter and easier to conceal.
Guns are really "old" in design and as long as we have tons of them, no one
is motivated to design something better.  I'm sure we could come up with
some real nasty stuff if we tried and getting rid of these guns would get
us moving on this track asap.  This is what we really want, right?  Stuff
that's smaller, lighter and far more deadly.
Remember, in this country we'll really scramble to accomplish impossible
feats if we are motivated enough and I think "self-defense" is high on our
list of motivators.
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !
Nntp-Posting-Host: gozer
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club
Lines: 66
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>You are loosing.
What's "loosing?"
>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.
I vote.  I don't consider RKBA an abomination.
>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.
I'm sure Sarah Brady would be delighted to hear your ranting and
raving.  However, Clinton has not publically stated that he would
like to repeal the Second Amendment.  "Tough titty" to you.
>You had better discover ways to make do without firearms. The number of
>cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
>can do about it. Those who live by the sword shall die by it.
Are we going to "make do without" like the people in New York City?
You know New York City: That gun ban utopia you dream about, with
the millions of unregistered handguns?  New York City, by the way,
has a very high crime rate.
Perhaps you should know about a gungrabber's nightmare - Idaho.
Here in Idaho, the police give concealed carry permits to anyone
over 21 without a criminal record.  There are no gungrabber schemes
such as FOIDs, waiting periods, "gun a month," or LTCs.  And horror
of horrors!  You don't even NEED a permit to carry a concealed
weapon while outside of city limits (although you do need a permit
for concealed carry in an automobile).
I feel a hell of a lot safer in Boise than I would in your gun ban
dream state (e.g., Washington, D.C.).
>The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
>you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !
The voting public in Idaho is staunchly pro-gun.  Both senators
are NRA-endorsed "A" rated!  Buy a clue, pal.
>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
>Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
>immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'.
>
Get out your wallet and buy another clue.  There are millions upon
MILLIONS of pre-1968 (i.e., non-4473'ed) firearms out there.
They have a half-life approaching eternity.  And cosmoline is not
exactly tracked by the feds.
>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
>
Gun control laws were passed to PROTECT the KKK from blacks!
Drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Distribution: usa
<1qm7qoINNqnv@clem.handheld.com> <1993Apr17.235338.2819@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
Lines: 31
In article <1993Apr17.235338.2819@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
(Frank Crary) says:
>
>>>>...I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by
>>>> taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.
>
>>>That is the recommended way to practice with a CCW, too.  Aim alone is no   d
>goo
>>>for defense, if you can't get the gun rapidly.
>
>>Very true but the way it was being done was just a little unusual.  It looked
>>to me like they were practicing to shoot someone...
The point that I forgot to bring up here (and this has nothing to do with being
a gang member or not) is that it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in this
area (or in the state of illinois for that matter).  This is not to say that
people in Illinois don't carry concealed weapons illegaly but practicing like
that when there are other people around wasn't too bright of an idea.
>
>There isn't necessarily a conflict between practicing with a concealed
>weapon for self-defence and practicing to shoot someone. Armed
>self-defence does occasionally involve shooting an attacker.
>
>                                              Frank Crary
>                                              CU Boulder
I agree.      If you don't practice at all and carry a gun for self-defense you
most likely would be in big trouble if a situation were to arise.
Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !
Lines: 18
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu says:
Ah I love posts like this.  Many people have already replied to this one as I
knew they would.  I'm not going to say much as this just seems like baiting to
me.  Someone decided to post to see how many people would get mad and reply.  I
am just going to ignore it but I do have one thing to say.  See below.
>
>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Listen buddy, if you're going to quote Star Trek get the quote right.  It was
"Resistance is futile".  Get it right the next time :-)
Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu
>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody
<1993Apr18.061532.3288@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Lines: 40
In article <1993Apr18.061532.3288@uoft02.utoledo.edu>,
steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Jason 'Think!' Steiner) says:
>
>Jason Kratz (U28037@uicvm.uic.edu) writes:
>>
>> Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.
>>  You give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in
>> their action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My
>> question is what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops
>> or should you collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and
>> get out of there (provided of course you don't think that you have
>> been seen)?  What kind of laws are on the books regarding this type
>> of situation?  What would be the most likely thing to happen to you
>> if you stayed and waited and it was a first offense?  What would
>> happen if you took off but someone saw you and you were caught?
>
>ghods. do you have -any- idea how much trouble you'd get into for
>taking off like that? leaving the scene of an auto accident is bad
>enough! killing someone & leaving is 10 times worse. who's going
>to seriously believe it was self-defense when you took the time
>to collect your spent casings? "But officer, I reload!"
>
Well, like someone said in a reply to this it really all depends on the area
that you live in.  See David Veal's reply to this.  I have heard exactly the
same thing that he said in his reply - to fade away if you think that you
haven't been seen (I heard this from a police officer).  For the record though
he was talking about in Tennessee - not everywhere.
>even if you could get away with it, you're still a fugitive. do
>it nice & legal, keep your law-abiding status & send your story
>into the Armed Citizen column of American Rifleman.
>
>jason
>
>--
Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: What to do if you shoot somebody
<VEAL.744.735151266@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Lines: 43
In article <VEAL.744.735151266@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
says:
>
>In article <93108.025818U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     >
><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu
>
>>I have heard many opinions on this subject and would like to hear more from
>>the people on the net.
>>
>>Say you're in a situation where you have to pull a gun on somebody.  You
>>give them a chance to get away but they decided to continue in their
>>action anyway and you end up shooting and killing them.  My question is
>>what do you do?  Should you stay and wait for the cops or should you
>>collect your brass (if you're using a semi-auto) and get out of there
>>(provided of course you don't think that you have been seen)?
>
>       As a data point from Tennessee, a friend of mine and a police
>officer essentially recommends that if you can, fade away.  Even if
>you were perfectly justified you're likely in for a great deal of
>hassle.  (A side note, carrying a gun concealed is a misdemeanor.)
>
This is exactly what I have heard before.  If you were to fade away and
nobody saw you what kind of evidence would they be able to get to catch you
(this is assuming that you either collected your brass or had a revolver)?
>>What kind
>>of laws are on the books regarding this type of situation?  What would
>>be the most likely thing to happen to you if you stayed and waited and
>>it was a first offense?  What would happen if you took off but someone
>>saw you and you were caught?
>
>       It's one of those "by State" things, pretty much.
Guess it's time to take a trip to the library and look at the Illinois statutes
again :-)  Just for the record folks I'm just asking this because I'm curious.
I'm just trying to find out from people who have read more on stuff like this.
>David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
>your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
>love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
Jason - u28037@uicvm.cc.uic.edu
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my....
Nntp-Posting-Host: gozer
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club
Lines: 84
In article <1993Apr16.194708.13273@vax.oxford.ac.uk> jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>What all you turkey pro-pistol and automatic weapons fanatics don't seem to
>realize is that the rest of us *laugh* at you. You don't make me angry, you
>just make me chuckle - I remeber being in Bellingham, Washington and seeing a
[Warning: Flammage to follow...]
Ah, that British sense of humor.  Probably got a real gut-buster going
when the IRA blew that kid up a couple of weeks ago, huh?  Of course,
in Britain, your government has ordered you defenseless, so your way
of coping with violent criminals is to laugh at victims.
>pick-up truck in front of the car that my friend and I were in. It had a bumper
>sticker proclaiming "Gun Control is a firm grip on a .45." Now I'm sure that
>that wanker thought he was pretty cool.
I don't know about a .45.  My own preference is for 9mm.
>What he didn't realize was that we took a photo of the back of his truck, and
>showed it to our friends when we got back to Vancouver,  Canada (where I'm from
>originally). People were guffawing at the basic stupidity of such a
>sticker, and the even greater stupidity of the person who put it there in the
>first place! :)
Ah, Canada.  Where the criminals don't bother with checking to see
if the victims are home.  They just break on in.  America's a little
different, you see.  Criminals worry a bit more about getting shot,
so they more frequently check to see if anyone's home.
>I knew somebody else who went to one of your "Gun-mart" superstore places, just
>so he could experience the sight of people putting guns and ammo into shopping
>carts! I didn't believe it myself until I drove by one in Vegas last year!!!
I've heard Gun World in Phoenix, Arizona, is fantastic!  I'm hoping
to visit there myself soon.
>Now that I live in Britain, I can see how the rest of the civilized world
>perceives you gun-nut morons. The BBC recently referred to the American
>penchant for pistols, automatic weapons,etc.  very  appropriately - it was
>called a "national eccentricity."
Ah, Britain again.  Isn't that the place where you're guilty until
proven innocent?  Tell me, Mr. "jaj@vax.oxford.ac.uk" didn't Britain
come begging to us "gun nut morons" in the early 1940s for guns to
defend yourselves against Hitler?  Seems as though your supposedly
enlightened government had disarmed you: "Aw chaps, you can jolly
give up your guns.  If that Hitler man starts to threaten, we can
always hit up the Yanks for a few guns.  They've got a bloody
eccentric habit about those guns, you know.  Just hand in your
shotgun, that's it.  Thank you."
>The only problem is that Canada, I hear, is suffering from your national
>eccentricity, in that easy to purchase weapons are being smuggled cross the
>border.
Ain't it just amazing how those black markets work?  Damn if those
drugs from south america keep coming over our borders, too, even
though we've banned them.  Guess we might as well legalize them.
Makes you want to send fifty bucks to the Libertarian Party just
thinking about it, doesn't it?
>Anyway, all you gun nut Rush Limbaugh fans, please *keep* up your diatribes
>against Brady and other  evil "Liberal media" plots  - you 're so damn funny!
>You provide endless amounts of entertainment in your arguments and examples of
>why someone should be allowed to carry a piece! Keep us all chuckling!
>
Your close-minded ignorance is without parallel.  I guess that's what
happens when you're raised as a "subject" without rights.  Your
type gravitates to those who desire to hold power over you.
>Hell, I miss those NRA ads with Gerald McRainey now that I'm over here! Those
>were like Monty Python sketches!
Just chuckle as the cops beat you senseless to get a confession.
Just laugh yourself silly when you find that confession is valid
in court.  "Hey mate, this is justice, British style."
Drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium
From: keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca (Keith de Solla)
Subject: CDN gun laws
Organization: Canadian Microelectronics Corporation
Lines: 37
[MODERATOR:  Nice summary, Keith, thanks.]
I talked to the federal Dept. of Justice (DOJ, Ottawa) to try and
clarify a bunch of things regarding changes to Canadian gun laws.
I am posting here for informational purposes; questions to email,
followup to t.p.g.
1. It is still technically feasible (but almost impossible) to get
a concealed carry permit in Canada.  This is contrary to what I
was told by a police officer.
2. It is still legal to use lethal force (such as a firearm) to
protect life, also contrary to what the officer told me.  Guns
must be stored locked up and unloaded, however.
3. Regarding hi-capacity magazines, it is still not clear who will
be exempt or how this will be managed.  This is up to each province.
The general idea is that exempt persons will receive a letter/form
authorizing them to possess the high capacity magazines.
Apparently, the authorization is to specify how many of these
'prohibited weapons' you will be allowed to possess.  Dealers will
be allowed to order high capacity mags for those allowed to possess
them, but will not be allowed to stock them.
4. High capacity magazines converted to comply with the new limits will
not be considered prohibited weapons.  Amendments to the regulations
specify some possible methods to alter the magazines.  Some
manufacturers (Beretta) will be marketing reduced capacity magazines.
(God knows how much they'll charge for these)
This covers most of what we discussed.  I have typed this from memory,
do not take it as gospel.  I am not a lawyer and I refuse to play one on TV.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Keith P. de Solla, P.Eng |  IPSC Ontario, OHA, NFA, SFC, OFAH   |
| keith@orion.ic.cmc.ca    |  Frontenac Rifle and Pistol Club     |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
Subject: sign of the times...
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Lines: 31
Reply-To: jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Article in this morning's Houston Post...."negotiators send food to
rebellious inmates as humanitarian gesture"...speaking about the Ohio prison
riot where they have killed at least one of the hostage guards.
I know it's not the same "group" but the mindset appears to be common to
"those what rule" here lately....they won't give diddley to the BD's in Waco
but they treat criminals as deserving of "humanitarian gestures".
This is but another indicator that the criminal caste seems to enjoy more
priviliges in today's society than their victims or other law abiding
citizens. What is it that makes the criminal so precious to the "leaders of
the system"?
Could it be that the criminal is one of the "tools" the "authorities" are
using to "excuse" some of the rights negation they are trying to foist upon
the law abiding citizen in the name of crime control....don't solve the crime
problem because then the citizen couldn't be held hostage to "our help".
If the crime problem were solved in favor of the citizen/victim at the
expense of the criminal none of the crap such as RICO and gun banning could
be used as excuses to work the agenda of those who would control our every
move and thought.
---
. OLX 2.2 . If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.
----
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ye Olde Bailey BBS   713-520-1569 (V.32bis) 713-520-9566 (V.32bis)     |
|   Houston,Texas          yob.sccsi.com       Home of alt.cosuard       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: ghm@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Lines: 18
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
>	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
>	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
>	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
>	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
>	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
>	pay through the nose for it.
So why did the Australian Customs Service make a public statement to
a parliamentary committee last year that weapons smuggling was a problem
which it was not able to control?  Possibly criminals don't have your
grasp of economics?
Geoff Miller  (g-miller@adfa.edu.au)
Computer Centre, Australian Defence Force Academy
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 49
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Originator: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Oh Christ, here we go again. I'm actually going to assume that
this was a serious posting, fool that I am.
In article <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
>'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
>there are actually *few* cases where this is so.
And I suppose I should just take your word for it. Did you ever
think that many people who use firearms to protect themselves
might not admit to it because of the ridiculous laws which exist
forbidding concealed carry?
>The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
>opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
>would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
>take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.
I already own a cool jacket. I ride a bicycle to work and park
it behind my desk. And if my woman decides to go with someone
else, I'd be disappointed but killing her new suitor will probably
not endear her to me any more than before. Frankly, I've never
met a woman worth killing for anyway. (Now, an AR-15 with a chrome
barrel, THAT's worth killing for ...!-))
>Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery.
>In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
>No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
>than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault.
Does this pinhead know something the rest of us don't?
I'm not too worried about federal martials coming to get my guns.
The government can't seem to keep violent criminals in jail since
they don't have enough prison space, and the legal system is over-
burdened anyway. Where are they going to put all the millions of
gun-owners who won't fork over their weapons? Maybe you'd like to
volunteer the services of your humble abode, since you obviously
feel sooooo strongly about this.
>The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
Your argument has been rendered useless. Accept this. Find another
newsgroup.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher   NRA                |  My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu   |  No one else's.
------------------------------------------------------------
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Ohio House Bill 278 (Otto Beatty's military weapons ban)
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Keywords: Otto Beatty, military weapons, registration, sales ban
Lines: 486
[Note, Ohio legislation unlike Federal legislation, shows the entire
law as it would be changed by the legislation.  These parts are in
ALL CAPITALS, the rest (i.e., current law is in regular type)].
AS INTRODUCED
120TH GENERAL ASEMBLY
REGULAR SESSION                       H. B. NO. 278
1993-1994
REPRESENATIVE BEATTY
A BILL
To amend sections2923.11, 2923.17,and 2923.20 and
to enact section 2923.181 of the Revised Code
to expand the defintion of dangerous ordnance to
include military weapons that do not use bolt
action, to increase the penalty for a violation
of the prohibition against possession of
dangerous ordnance, to prohibit any person from
acquiring a military weapon on or after the act's
effective date, to require the licensure of
military weapons acquired for aproper purpose
prior to the act's effective dte, to prohibit a
person from importing, manufacturing, or selling
a military weapon, and to declare an emergency.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:
Section 1. That sections 2923.11, 2923.17 and 2923.20 be
amended and section 2923.181 of the Revised Code be enacted to
read as follows:
Sec.  2923.11.  As used in section 2923.11 to 2923.24 of
the Revised Code:
(A) "deadly weapon" means any instrument, device, or thing
capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted
for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.
(B)(1)  "firearm" means any deadly weapon capable of
expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of
an explosive or combustible propellant.  "firarms" includes an
unloaded firearm, and any firearm which is inoperable but which
can readily be rendered operable.
(2) When determining whether a firearm is capable of
expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of
an explosive or combustible propellant, the trier of fact may
rely upon circumstancial evidence, including, but not limited to,
the representations and actions of the individual exercising
control over the firearm.
(C) "Handgun" means any firearm designed to be fired while
held in one hand.
(D) "Semi-automatic firearm" means any firearm designed or
specially adapted to fire a single cartridge and automatically
chamber a suceeding cartridge ready to fire, with a single
function of the trigger.
(E) "Automatic firearm" means any firearm designed or
specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a
single function of the trigger.  "Automatic firearm" also means
any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire
more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a
firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long, or long-rifle
cartridges.
(F) "Sawed-off firearm" means a shotgun with a barrel less
than eighteen inches long, or a rifle with a barrel less than
sixteen inches long, or a shotgun or rifle less than twenty-six
inches long overall.
(G)  "Zip-gun" means any of the following:
(1)  Any firearm of crude and extemporized manufacture;
(2)  Any device, including without limitation a starter's
pistol, not designed as a firearm, but which is specially adapted
for use as a firearm;
(3)  Any industrial tool, signalling device, or safety
device, not designed as a firearm, but which as designed is
capable of use as such A FIREARM, when possessed, carried, or
used as a firearm.
(H)  "Explosive device" means any device designed or
specially adapted to cause physical harm to persons or property
by means of an explosion, and consisting of an explosive
substance or agency and a means to detonate it.  "Explosive
device" includes without limitation any bomb, any explosive
demolition device, any blasting cap or detonator containing an
explosive charge, and any pressure vessel which has been
knowingly tampered with or arranged so as to explode.
(I)  "Incendiary device" means any firebomb, and any device
designed or specially adapted to cause physical harm to persons
or property by means of fire, and consisting of an incendiary
substance or agency and a means to ignite it.
(J)  "Ballistic knife" means a knife with a detachable
blade that is propelled by a spring-operated mechanism.
(K)  "Dangerous ordinance" means any of the following,
except as provided in division (L) of this section:
(1)  Any automatic or sawed-off firearms. zip-gun, or
ballistic knife;
(2)  Any explosive device or incendiary device;
(3)  Nitroglycerin, nitrocellulose, nitrostarch, PETN,
cyclonite, TNT, picric acid, and other high explosives; amatol,
tritonal, tetrytol, pentolite, pecretol, cyclotol, and other high
explosive compositions; plastic explosives; dynamite, blasting
gelatin, gelatin dynamite, sensitized ammonium nitrate, liquid-
oxygen blasting explosives, blasting powder, and other blasting
agents; and any other explosive substance having sufficient
brisance or power to be particularly suitable for use as a
military explosive, or for use in mining, quarrying, excavating,
or demolitions;
(4)  Any firearm, rocket launcher, mortar, artillery piece
grenade, mine, bomb, torpedo, or similar weapon, designed and
manufactured for military purposes, and the ammunition for that
weapon;
(5)  Any firearm muffler or silencer;
(6)  ANY MILITARY WEAPON;
(7)  ANY DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, MAGAZINE, DRUM, BELT, FEED
STRIP, OR SIMILAR DEVICE THAT HAS A CAPACITY OF, OR THAT READILY
CAN BE RESTORED OR CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS
OF AMMUNITION;
(8)  Any combination of parts that is intended by the owner
for use in converting any firearm or other device into a
dangerous ordinance.
(L)  "Dangerous ordnance" does not include any of the
following:
(1)   Any firearm, including a military weapon and the
ammunition for that weapon, and regardless of its actual
age, which employs a percussion cap or other obsolete ignition
system or which is designed and safe for use only with black
powder, and
(2)  Any pistol, rifle, or shotgun, designed or suitable
for sporting purposes, UNLESS THE FIREARM IS EITHER OF THE
FOLLOWING;
(a)  A military weapon as issued or as modified, and the
ammunition for that weapon;
(b)  AN automatic or sawed-off firearm.
(3)  Any cannon or other artilery piece which,
regardless of its actual age, is of a type in accepted use prior
to 1887, has no mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or other system
for absorbing recoil and returning the tube into battery without
displacing the carriage, and is designed and safe for use only
with black powder;
(4)  Black powder, priming quills, and percussion caps
possessed and lawfully used to fire a cannon of a type defined in
division (L) (3) of this section during displays, celebrations,
organized matches or shoots, and target practice, and smokeless
and black powder, primers, and percussion caps possed and
lawfully used as a propellant or ignition device in small-arms or
small-arms ammunition;
(5)  Dangerous ordinance which is inoperable or inert and
cannot readily be rendered operable or activated, and which is
kept as a trophy, souvenir, curio, or museum piece.
(6)  Any device which is expressly excepted from the
definition of a destructive device pursuant to the "Gun Control
Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(4), as amended, and
regulations issued under that act.
(M)  "MILITARY WEAPON' MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING;
(1)  ANY FIREARM THAT ORIGINALLY WAS MANUFACTURED FOR
MILITARY USE, OR A COPY OF ANY SUCH FIREARM, IF THE FIREARM IS
NOT A BOLT ACTION FIREARM;
(2)  ANY MODEL OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM AND IS A RIFLE OR ANY MODEL OF ANY COPY OF
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM
AND IS A RIFLE;
(a)  ARMALITE AR-180;
(b)  AUTO-ORDNANCE THOMPSON MODELS 1927A1 AND M-1;
(c)  AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV;
(d)  POLY TECH AK-47S;
(e)  CHINA SPORTS AK-47 BULLPUP;
(f)  MITCHELL AK-47 AND M-76
(g)  BARRETT LIGHT-FIFTY MODEL 82A1;
(h)  BARETTA AR-70;
(i)  BUSHMASTER AUTO RIFLE;
(j)  CALICO M900 AND M-100
(k)  COLT AR-15
(l)  COMMANDO ARMS CARBINE, MARK 111, MARK 45, AND MARK 9;
(m)  UNIVERSAL 5000 CARBINE, ENFORCER;
(n)  AMERICAN ARMS ARM-1 AND AKY 39;
(o)  DAEWOO MAX-1 AND MAX-2;
(p)  FABRIQUE NATIONALE FN/FAL, FN/LAR. AND FN/FNC;
(q)  FAMAS MAS 223;
(r)  FEATHER AT-9;
(s)  FEDERAL KC-900 AND XC-450
(t)  GALIL AR AND ARM;
(u)  GONCZ HIGH-TECH CARBINE;
(v)  HECKLER AND KOCH HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, AND PSG-1;
(w)  MANDALL TAC-1 CARBINE
(x)  RUGER MINI 14/SF FOLDING STOCK MODEL;
(y)  SIG 57 AMT AND 500 SERIES;
(z)  SPRINGFIELD ARMORY SAR-48, G-3, BM-59 ALPINE, AND M1A
CARBINE;
(aa)  STERLING MK-6 AND MARK 7;
(bb)  STEYR AUG;
(cc)  UZI CARBINE AND MINI-CARBINE;
(dd)  VALMET M-62S, M-76, M-78, AND M82 BULLPUP CARBINE;
(ee)  WEAVER ARMS NIGHTHAWK;
(ff)  MILITARY M14 AND MILITARY M1 CARBINE .30;
(gg)  SPRINGFIELD ARMORY M1A ASSAULT;
(hh)  THOMPSON 27A-5 WITH DRUM MAGAZINE;
(ii)  PLAINFIELD COMMANDO UNIVERSE 5000 CARBINE;
(jj)  COBRAY M-11 WITH OR WITHOUT SILENCER;
(kk)  SPECTRE AUTO CARBINE;
(ll)  SWD    COBRAY;
(mm)  ARMI JAGER AP-74 AND AP-74 COMMANDO;
(nn)  ARMSCORP OF AMERICA ISRAELI FN-FAL;
(oo)  CLAYCO SKS CARBINE;
(pp)  DRAGUNOV SNIPER;
(qq)  EMF AP-74;
(rr)  IVER JOHNSON PM30 P PARATROOPER;
(ss)  NORINCO SKS;
(tt)  PARTISAN AVENGER;
(uu)  SIGARMS SG 550 SP AND SG 551 SP;
(vv)  SQUIRES BINGHAM M 16;
(ww)  WILKINSON "TERRY" CARBINE.
(3)  ANY MODEL OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM AND IS A PISTOL OR ANY MODEL OF ANY COPY
OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM
AND IS A PISTOL:
(a)  BUSHMASTER AUTO PISTOL;
(b)  CALICO 100-P AUTO PISTOL;
(c)  EBCIN NJ-IV, MP-9, AND MP-45;
(d)  FEATHER MINI-AT;
(e)  GONCZ HIGH TECH PISTOL'
(f)  HOLMES MP-83 AND MP-22;
(g)  INTRATEC TEC-9 AND SCORPION .22;
(h)  IVER JOHNSON ENFORCER;
(i)  INGRAM MAC-10 AND MAC-11;
(j)  MITCHELL ARMS SPECTRE AUTO;
(k)  SCARAB SKORPION;
(l)  STERLING MK-7;
(m)  UZI PISTOL;
(n)  UNIVERSAL ENFORCER;
(o)  WILKINSON "LINDA" AUTO PISTOL.
(4)  ANY MODEL OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A
SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM AND IS A SHOTGUN OR ANY MODEL OF ANY COPY
OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FIREARMS THAT IS A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM
AND IS A SHOTGUN:
(a)  FRANCHI SPAS-12 AND LAW-12;
(b)  STRIKER 12 AND STREET SWEEPER;
(c)  BENELLI M1 SUPER 90;
(d)  MOSSBERG 500 BULLPUP;
(e)  USAS-12 AUTO SHOTGUN.
Sec. 2923.17.  (A)(1) No person shall knowingly acquire,
have, OR carry any dangerous ordnance.
(2)  NO PERSON SHALL KNOWINGLY USE ANY DANGEROUS ORDNANCE.
(B)  This section does not apply to ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1)  Officers, agents, or employees of this or any other
state or the United States, members of the armed forces of the
United States or the organized militia of this or any other
state, and law enforcement officers, to the extent that any such
person is authorized to acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous
ordnance and is acting within the scope of his duties;
(2)  Importers, manufacturers, dealers, and users of
explosives, having a license or user permit issued and in effect
pursuant to the "Organized Crime Control Act of 1970," 84 Stat.
952, 18 U.S.C. 843, and any amendments or additions TO or
reenactments OF THAT ACT, with respect to explosives and
explosive devices lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used
under the laws of this state and applicable federal law;
(3)  Importers, manufactuers, and dealers having a license
to deal in destructive devices or their ammunition, issued and in
effect pursuant to the "Gun Control Act of 1968," 82 Stat. 1213.
18 U.S.C. 923 and any amendments or additions TO or
reenactments OF THAT ACT, with respect to dangerous
ordnance lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used under the
laws of this state and applicable federal law;
(4)  Persons to whom surplus ordnance has been sold,
loaned, or given by the secretary of the army pursuant to 70A
Stat. 62 and 263, 10 U.S.C. 4684, 4685, 4686, and any
amendments or additions TO or reenactments OF THAT ACT, with
respect to dangerous ordnance when lawfully possessed and used
for the purpose specified in THAT section;
(5)  Owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the
national firearms registration and transfer record pursuant to
the act of October 22, 1968, 82 Stat.1229, 26 U.S.C. 5841, and
any amendments or additions TO or reenactments OF, and
regulations issued UNDER THE ACT.
(6)  Carriers, warehousemen, and others engaged in the
business of transporting or storing goods for hire, with respect
to dangerous ordnance lawfully transported or stored in the usual
course of their business and in compliance with the laws of this
state and applicable federal law;
(7)  The holders of a license or temporary permit issued
and in effect pursuant to section 2923.18 of the Revised Code,
with respect to dangerous ordnance lawfully acquired, possessed,
carried, or used for the purposes and in the manner specified in
THE license or permit.
(C)  DIVISION (A)(1) OF THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO THE
ACQUISITION, HAVING, OR CARRYING OF DANGEROUS ORDNANCE THAT IS A
MILITARY WEAPON IF BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY:
(1)  THE PERSON WHO ACQUIRES, HAS, OR CARRIES THE DANGEROUS
ORDNANCE IN QUESTION ACQUIRED IT BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS AMENDMENT AS A COLLECTOR'S ITEM OR FOR A LEGITIMATE
RESEARCH, SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR OTHER PROPER
PURPOSE;
(2)  NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE SEVENTH DAY
AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE PERSON WHO
ACQUIRED THE DANGEROUS ORDNANCE IN QUESTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
DIVISION (C)(1) OF THIS SECTION SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 2923.181 OF THE REVISED CODE FOR A LICENSE TO HAVE AND
CARRY IT AND THE APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN DENIED OR A VALID
LICENSE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE PERSON.
(D)  DIVISIONS (A)(1) AND (2) OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY
TO THE ACQUISITION, HAVING, CARRYING, OR USING OF ANY DANGEROUS
ORDNANCE DESCRIBED IN DIVISION (k)(7) OF SECTION 2923.11 OF THE
REVISED CODE THAT WAS ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS AMENDMENT.
(E)  Whoever violates this section is quilty of unlawful
possession of dangerous ordnance, a AN AGGRAVATED felony of the
FIRST degree.
Sec. 2923.181.  (A)  ANY PERSON WHO ACQUIRED A MILITARY
WEAPON BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION SHALL FILE A
WRITTEN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO HAVE AND CARRY THE MILITARY
WEAPON WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OR SAFETY DIRECTOR OR
POLICE CHIEF OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHERE THE APPLICANT
RESIDES OR HAS HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.  THE APPLICATION
SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE SEVENTH
DAY AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A FILING FEE OF FIFTY DOLLARS.  THE PERSON SHALL
FILE A SEPARATE APPLICATION AND PAY A SEPARATE FILING FEE FOR
EACH MILITARY WEAPON THAT HE HAS OR INTENDS TO CARRY.  THE
APPLICATION SHALL CONTAIN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
(1)  THE NAME, AGE, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION, AND BUSINESS
ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT, IF THE APPLICANT IS A NATURAL PERSON,
OR THE NAME, ADDRESS, AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE
APPLICANT, IF THE APPLICANT IS A CORPORATION;
(2)   A DESCRIPTION OF THE MILITARY WEAPON FOR WHICH A
LICENSE IS REQUESTED, INCLUDING THE SERIAL NUMBER AND ALL
IDENTIFICATION MARKS;
(3)  A STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE MILITARY
WEAPON WAS ACQUIRED AND FOR WHICH IT IS TO BE POSSESSED, CARRIED,
OR USED;
(4)  ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT THE ISSUING AUTHORITY MAY
REQUIRE IN GIVING EFFECT TO THIS SECTION;
(5)  THE OATH OF THE APPLICANT THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE
APPLICATION IS TRUE.
(B)(1)  NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE
FOURTEENTH DAY AFTER AN APPLICATION FOR A LICENSE TO HAVE AND
CARRY A MILITARY WEAPON HAS BEEN FILED UNDER DIVISION (A) OF THIS
SECTION, THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL EITHER APPROVE THE
APPLICATION AND ISSUE A LICENSE TO THE APPLICANT OR DENY THE
APPLICATION AND SEND A LETTER OF DENIAL BY ORDINARY MAIL TO THE
APPLICANT.  AFTER CONDUCTING ANY NECESSARY INVESTIGATION, THE
ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL ISSUE A LICENSE TO AN APPLICANT WHOM IT
DETERMINES SATISFIES THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:
(a)  THE APPLICANT IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER, IF
THE APPLICANT IS A NATURAL PERSON;
(b)  IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL POSSESS AND CARRY
THE MILITARY WEAPON AS A COLLECTOR'S ITEM OR FOR A LEGITIMATE,
SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATIONAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR OTHER PROPER PURPOSE;
(c)  IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUFFICIENT
COMPETENCE TO HAVE AND CARRY THE MILITARY WEAPON AND THAT PROPER
PRECAUTIONS WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THE SECURITY OF THE MILITARY
WEAPON AND THE SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY;
(d)  THE APPLICANT OTHERSWISE IS NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM
HAVING OR CARRYING DANGEROUS ORDNANCE.
(2)  A LICENSE ISSUED PURSUANT TO DIVISION (B)(1) OF THIS
SECTION SHALL BE VALID FOR ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF ITS
ISSUANCE.  THE LICENSE SHALL BE RENEWED PURSUANT TO DIVISION
(C) OF THIS SECTION.
(C)(1)  EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN DIVISION (C)(3) OF THIS
SECTION, ANY PERSON WHO IS ISSUED A LICENSE UNDER DIVISION (B)(1)
OF THIS SECTION SHALL RENEW THE LICENSE BY FILING AN APPLICATION
FOR RENEWAL BY REGULAR MAIL WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OR THE
SAFETY DIRECTOR OR POLICE CHIEF OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHO
WAS THE ISSUING AUTHORITY OF THE LICENSE.  AN APPLICATION FOR
RENEWAL SHALL BE FILED ANNUALLY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
DATE ON WHICH THE LICENSE WAS ISSUED OR LAST RENEWED.
(2)  EACH SHERIFF AND EACH SAFETY DIRECTOR AND PEACE OFFICER
OF A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE APPLICATIONS FOR
THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE ISSUED UNDER DIVISION (B)(1) OF THIS
SECTION.  IN THE APPLICATION THE APPLICANT, UNDER OATH, SHALL
UPDATE THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION FOR
A LICENSE OR THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE.
THE APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF A LICENSE SHALL BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE OF FIVE DOLLARS.  THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE A
SEPERATE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL AND PAY A SEPERATE RENEWAL FEE
FOR EACH MILITARY WEAPON THAT HE INTENDS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE AND
CARRY.
(3)  A PERSON WHO HAS CHANGED HIS RESIDENCE OR PRINCIPAL
PLACE OF BUSINESS TO A LOCATION OUTSIDE OF THE JURISDICTION OF
THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUANCE OR RENEWAL OF A
LICENSE UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL RENEW HIS LICENSE BY FILING AN
APPLICATION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY DIVISION (A) OF THIS
SECTION WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OR THE SAFETY DIRECTOR OR
POLICE CHIEF OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WHERE HE THEN RESIDES
OR HAS HIS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS.  WHEN MAKING AN
APPLICATION TO RENEW A LICENSE AFTER A CHANGE IN RESIDENCE OR
PLACE OF BUSINESS, THE APPLICANT SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE CHANGE
OF ADDRESS BY REGULAR MAIL TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUING AUTHORITY FOR
THE LICENSE AND THE STATE FIRE MARSHALL ON NOTIFICATION FORMS
PRESCRIBED BY THE SHERIFF, SAFETY DIRECTOR, OR POLICE CHIEF FROM
WHOM HE SEEKS RENEWAL.
(D)  A LICENSE TO HAVE AND CARRY A MILITARY WEAPON SHALL
IDENTIFY THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ISSUED, IDENTIFY THE MILITARY
WEAPON FOR WHICH IT IS ISSUED, STATE THE PURPOSE IDENTIFIED IN
DIVISION (B)(1)(b) OF THIS SECTION FOR WHICH THE MILITARY WEAPON
WILL BE POSSESSED AND CARRIED, STATE ITS EXPIRATION DATE, AND
LIST ALL RESTRICTIONS ON THE HAVING OR CARRYING OF THE MILITARY
WEAPON AS PRESCRIBED BY THE LAWS OF THIS STATE AND APPLICABLE
FEDERAL LAW.
(E)  ANY PERSON WHO IS ISSUED A LICENSE TO HAVE AND CARRY A
MILITARY WEAPON UNDER THIS SECTION AND WHO CHANGES HIS ADDRESS
SHALL NOTIFY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY OF THE CHANGE OF HIS ADDRESS
NO LATER THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE CHANGE HAS OCCURRED.
(F)  THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL FORWARD TO THE STATE FIRE
MARSHALL A COPY OF EACH LICENSE ISSUED OR RENEWED UNDER THIS
SECTION.  THE STATE FIRE MARSHALL SHALL KEEP A PERMANENT FILE OF
ALL LICENSES ISSUED OR RENEWED UNDER THIS SECTION.
(G)  THE ISSUING AUTHORITY SHALL CAUSE EACH APPLICATION FEE
OF FIFTY DOLLARS, FILED UNDER DIVISION (A) OF THIS SECTION, TO BE
DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND OF THE COUNTY OR MUNCIPAL
CORPORATION SERVED BY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY.  THE ISSUING
AUTHORITY SHALL CAUSE TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS OF EACH RENEWAL
FEE, FILED UNDER DIVISION (C) OF THIS SECTION, TO BE DEPOSITED IN
THE GENERAL FUND OF THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SERVED BY
THE ISSUING AUTHORITY AND SHALL SEND TWO DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS
OF EACH RENEWAL FEE TO THE TREASURER OF STATE FOR DEPOSIT IN THE
STATE TREASURY TO THE CREDIT OF THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND.
(H)  WHOEVER VIOLATES DIVISION (A) OF THIS SECTION IS
GUILTY OF FAILING TO APPLY FOR THE LICENSURE OF A MILITARY
WEAPON, A FELONY OF THE FOURTH DEGREE.  WHOEVER VIOLATES DIVISION
(C) OF THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF FAILING TO APPLY FOR RENEWAL OF
A LICENSE FOR A MILITARY WEAPON, A MISDEMEANOR OF THE FIRST
DEGREE.
(I)  A MILITARY WEAPON THAT IS NOT LICENSED AS REQUIRED BY
THIS SECTION IS CONTRABAND, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2901.01 OF THE
REVISED CODE AND IS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE UNDER SECTION 2933.43
OF THE  REVISED CODE.
SEC. 2933.20.  (A)  No person shall DO ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING:
(1)  IMPORT, MANUFACTURE, POSSESS FOR SALE, SELL, OR
FURNISH TO ANY PERSON ANY MILITARY WEAPON;
(2)  Recklessly sell, lend, give, or furnish any firearm to
any person prohibited by section 2923.13 or 2923.15 of the
Revised Code from acquiring or using any firearm, or recklessly
sell, lend, give, or furnish any dangerous ordnance to any person
prohibited by section 2923.13, 2923.15, or 2923.17 of the Revised
Code from acquiring or using any dangerous ordnance;
(3)  Possess any firearm or dangerous ordnance with
purpose to dispose of it in violation of division (A) of this
section;
(4)  Manufacture, possess for sale, sell, or furnish to
any person other than a law enforcement agency for authorized use
in police work, any brass knuckles, cestus, billy, blackjack,
sandbag, switchblade knife, springblade knife, gravity knife, or
similar weapon;
(5)  When transferring any dangerous ordnance to
another, negligently fail to require the transferes to exhibit
ANY identification, license, or permit showing him to be
authorized to acquire dangerous ordnance pursuant to section
2923.17 of the Revised Code, or negligently fail to take a
complete record of the transaction and forthwith forward a copy
of THE record to the sheriff of the county or safety
director or police chief of the municipality where the
transaction takes place;
(6)  Knowingly fail to report to law enforcement
authorities forthwith the loss or theft of any firearm or
dangerous ordnance in such person's possession or under his
control.
(b)  Whoever violates this section is quilty of unlawful
transactions in weapons.  Violation of division (A)(1) OF THIS
SECTION IS AN AGGRAVATED FELONY OF THE FIRST DEGREE.  VIOLATION
OF DIVISION (A)(2) OR (3) Oof this section is a felony of the
third degree.  Violation of division (A) (4) OR (5) of this
section is a misdemeanor of the second degree.  Violation of
division (6) of this section is a midemeanor of the fourth
degree.
Section 2.  That existing section 2923.11, 2923.17 and
2923.20 of the Revised Code are hereby repealed.
Section 3.  This act is hereby declared to be an emergency
measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health, and safety.  The reason for this necessity is that
with immediate action, this act will prohibit the continued
purchase, possession, and use of military weapons and as a result
will ameliorate a substantial threat of death and injury to the
public caused by the misuse of improper use of these weapons.
Therefore, this act shall go into immediate effect.
--
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 77
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Originator: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
In article <1993Apr18.000152.2339@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>You are loosing.
^^^^^^^
>There is no question about it.
You can't spell. There is no question about it.
>Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
>how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.
We must be reading different public opinion polls. I agree that the
misguided public would like to see assault weapons banned (mainly because
they are being lied to by the media about the frequency of their use
in violent crime ... ~1%), but if public opinion were so dead-set
against the RKBA you can bet that idiots like Metzenbaum and Schumer
would be seeing their foolish bills getting passed through Congress
a LOT easier than they are. And as governments go broke and can no
longer protect their citizens you can bet that the American people
will start to really appreciate the usefulness of firearms. Contrary
to what you might think, time is probably on OUR side, not YOURS.
>This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
>RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.
Yeah, right. Don't hold your breath. My condolences on the discovery
of uncomfortable resilience in your mammary glands, but this has nothing
to do with the issue at hand.
... ridiculous tripe deleted ...
>The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
>you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !
Yeah, the liberal press doesn't like us much, but you can't really
expect coherent thought from them anyway. Their opinions are based
more on a desire to appear politically correct than on facts (which
are generously provided by the FBI, if they'd bother to put on their
Birkenstocks and go to the library to read them). Most of my friends
are anti-gun, and without exception NONE of them bases his/her opinions
on facts. They would rather believe (despite all evidence to the
contrary) that disarming law-abiding citizens would make the world
more civilized, when all it really does is make us all sheep. They
would rather wallow in their pitiful liberal white guilt about how
society has driven the criminal to rob, rape, and murder. They
support spending millions of public dollars protecting the rights of scum
who have already demonstrated that they have no regard for society
or its laws. They ignore the fact that areas with the strictest gun
control (NYC,DC) have the worst crime and areas with little gun
control (VT,NH,ID) have very little crime in comparison. But they
have to ignore this because otherwise they would need to confront
the fact that law-abiding citizens who own guns are not the ones that
are causing most of the trouble in society. Oh no, we certainly can't
accept that! But I guess I have faith that when crime starts making
significant inroads into their neighborhoods and starts directly
hurting them and their families, they will probably whistle a different
tune. They just better hope it isn't too late then.
>Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
>them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
Hmmm. I wasn't expecting company tonight. I might be able to whip
up a quick cheese and cracker plate, but they should probably bring
their own drinks. Do I have time to vacuum the rug?
>Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
>are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
>be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
I'm glad you ended the posting here. Your medication seems to have
worn off ...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher    NRA               | My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu   | No one else's.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Seth Adam Eliot <se08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !
Organization: Doctoral student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 58
NNTP-Posting-Host: po3.andrew.cmu.edu
In-Reply-To: <1993Apr18.001319.2340@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
Excerpts from netnews.talk.politics.guns: 18-Apr-93 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD -
GOOD ! by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
> Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
> 'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
> there are actually *few* cases where this is so.
excerpted from a letter I wrote a while ago:
Although less apparent to those who have not researched
the facts, personal protection is as legitimate a reason  as
sport for the private citizen to own a gun.  The most recent
research  is  that  of Dr. Gary Kleck of the  Florida  State
University  School of Criminology.1  He found that  handguns
are  more  often  used by victims to defeat  crime  than  by
criminals to commit it (645,000 vs. 580,000 respectively  in
this  study).  These figures are even more encouraging  when
you  consider the number of crimes that never occur  because
of  the  presence  of a gun in the hands  of  a  law-abiding
private  citizen.  In a National Institute of Justice  study
of  ten state prisons across the country they found that 39%
of  the  felons  surveyed had aborted  at  least  one  crime
because  they believed that the intended victim was  armed.,
and  57% agreed that "most criminals are more worried  about
meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the
police."2
One  of the most heinous of crimes is that against  the
women  of  this country.  It has been my recent  observation
that  more  women  are purchasing handguns  for  defense  in
response  to  the  present danger of these  assaults.   This
should be taken as encouraging news if the events of Orlando
Florida  are any indicator.  In the late 1960's  the  female
populace was plagued with a series of brutal assaults;  just
the  publicity of the record number of women buying guns and
obtaining training resulted in an 88% decrease in  rape  for
that  area,  the  only city of its size in  the  country  to
experience a decrease of crime for that year.  Additionally,
a 1979 US Justice Department study of 32,000 attempted rapes
showed  that overall, when rape is attempted, the completion
rate  is 36%. But when a woman defends herself with  a  gun,
the completion rate drops to 3%.
1 G Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America Aldine
de Gruyter, NY, 1991
2 JD Wright & PH Rossi Armed and Considered Dangerous:  A
Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, NY,
1986
-------
__________________________________________________________________________
[unlike cats] dogs NEVER scratch you when you wash them. They just
become very sad and try to figure out what they did wrong. -Dave Barry
Seth Eliot                    Dept of Material Science and Engineering
Carnegie Mellon Univerity,   Pittsburgh, PA
ARPA    :eliot+@cmu.edu       |------------------------------------------
or    se08+@andrew.cmu.edu |
Bitnet:  se08%andrew@cmccvb   |
------------------------------|
From: tnyurkiw@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (TN)
Subject: definition of 2nd
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 9
The debate over the Second Amendment rages on.
Arguments continue over what a "well-regulated militia"
is and what TRKBA means in practical terms.  However, the
ONLY authority in this area, is a binding court decision
on the matter.  Even a decision in this area is subject to
an overturning by a higher court.  Is there anyone who
has the facts of a legal precedent, preferably a Supreme
Court decision on the specific meaning of the 2nd Amendment?
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: CNN for sale
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 40
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: louie.cc.utexas.edu
In article <93106.21394634AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
|In article <2001.150.uupcb@yob.sccsi.com>, jim.wray@yob.sccsi.com (Jim Wray)
|says:
|>
|> Bill Vojak:
|>
|> BV>I read in the paper yestarday that Ted Turner wants to "trim" down
|> BV>his media holdings and is putting CNN up for sale.  The #1 potential
|> BV>bidder?  TIME/Warner of course.  Sigh . . . . . Just what we need. :-(
|>
|> Maybe now's the time for us, the NRA, GOA, CCRTKBA, SAF, et al to band
|> together and buy CNN as *our* voice. Wouldn't that be sumpin....broadcast
|> the truth for a change and be able to air a favorable pro-gun item or two...
|>
|I would like to see this happen. I don't think it will. I don't
|think the average gun-owner will take any notice of what is happening
|until they break down HIS door.
|
|BUT I will go on record publicly to the effect that I will contribute a
|minimum of $1,000.00 to the buy-out fund if it can be organized and made
|viable. Anybody else want to put their money where their mouth is?  :)
|There ar 50+ MILLION gun owners out there. If - and it's a big and
|not very realistic if - we got hold of CNN, the anti-gun bullshit would
|STOP RIGHT THERE. Why won't it happen - because nobody will get off their
|ass and MAKE it happen. Nuts.
I will join the ranks here.  If someone has the ability to actually put this
thing together and get enough support, I'll also contribute $1000 to the
effort.  And jeeze, people, I'm a *student*, with *no job* yet, and I will
put up my own hard-earned savings if it means we have a shot at getting
the truth told on the airwaves.  Count me in.
Mike Ruff
--
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 34
NNTP-Posting-Host: louie.cc.utexas.edu
reimer@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Paul E. Reimer) writes:
|There are a lot of automobile accidents, but atleast there is some
|regulation to try to combat this.  When I got my drivers license, I HAD
|to take a drivers safety class.  I HAVE to be licensed to drive.  My car
|MUST be registered.  I MUST (at least where I live) have liability
|insurance on both myself driving and my car (if someone else had an
|accident with it).  Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
|of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
|gun owners.
As I'm sure others will have pointed out to you by now, none of the above
measures are required for you *on your own property*.  You do not have to
have a license, your car does not have to be registered or inspected, and
you do not have to have insurance or safety training classes, when you own
and operate that vehicle on your own premises.  If you are going to make use
of this dubious analogy, at least make it accurate.  And by the way, in Texas
you can drive a car in public (with the proper credentials), but an ordinary
civilian can't carry a gun legally in public to save his/her life.
So I won't even consider registration, *manadatory* safety classes, or
*manadatory* liability insurance unless I get a federal law repealing
all local, state, and federal gun control laws which abridge the Second
Amendment, and a non-discretionary federal weapons carry permit, good
anywhere in the United States.  Come on, you wanted the analogy.
Mike Ruff
--
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: Guns GONE. Good Riddance !
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 79
NNTP-Posting-Host: louie.cc.utexas.edu
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
:You are loosing.
"Loosing"?  Well, I'll avoid the spelling flames and see if this person
can make up for it.
:There is no question about it.
Oh, there's LOTS of question about it.  People are becoming more aware each
day that their rights are being threatened, so much so that NRA membership
is growing at the rate of nearly 2,000 per *day*.  We are slowly gaining
our rightful voice, despite the biases, prejudices, and veiled motives of
the liberal media and anti-gun politicians.  We will win.
:Of those who vote, your cause is considered an abomination. No matter
:how hard you try, public opinion is set against the RKBA.
What do you base this on?  Some highly-skewed poll conducted by NBC News?
The same group who faked GM pickup explosions just to make "news"?  Right.
:This is the end. By the finish of the Clinton administration, your
:RKBA will be null and void. Tough titty.
It is true that we face even greater obstacles to our rights, betrayed by
those lying politicians who swear an oath to protect the Constitution "from
all enemies, both foreign and domestic."  But the People will take only so
many lies and deceits.
:You had better discover ways to make do without firearms. The number of
:cases of firearms abuses has ruined your cause. There is nothing you
:can do about it. Those who live by the sword shall die by it.
Then the criminals who live by murder shall die by it.  Honest, law-abiding
citizens need have no fear on that count.  You, however, will evidently
die by (or at least in) ignorance.  And the number of firearms self-defenses
shall spell out our ultimate victory.
:The press is against you, the public (the voting public) is against
:you, the flow of history is against you ... this is it !
The flow of history was against the Founding Fathers, but they managed to
successfully form the first real free republic on the face of this planet,
a republic that has become the model for all others to follow.  The press
is against us, for its own selfish motivations.  And the people will soon
realize the depths of deceit being spread by that media, and nullify its
ill-directed power.  The People are with us.
:Surrender your arms. Soon enough, officers will be around to collect
:them. Resistance is useless. They will overwhelm you - one at a time.
:Your neighbors will not help you. They will consider you more if an
:immediate threat than the abstract 'criminal'.
I shall never submit to an illegal, unConstitutional police state.  I will
take my own vow to uphold the Constitution, and I shall defend it and my
country against a tyrannical government gone mad, should it become
necessary.
:Too fucking bad. You have gone the way of the KKK. Violent solutions
:are passe'. Avoid situations which encourage criminals. Then you will
:be as safe as possible. Such as it is ...
I will not be your sacrificial sheep, and I shall not bow down to you or
anyone else who seeks to control my life.  Being an unarmed target is the
SUREST way of encouraging criminals, and believe me, I shall avoid it as
much as possible.  Then I shall be as safe as possible.  I will answer
with violence only when no other option exists, but I shall surely answer.
Mike Ruff
--
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *
From: mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Strider)
Subject: Re: 2ND AMENDMENT DEAD - GOOD !
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 44
NNTP-Posting-Host: louie.cc.utexas.edu
jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
:Yea, there are millions of cases where yoy *say* that firearms
:'deter' criminals. Alas, this is not provable. I think that that
:there are actually *few* cases where this is so.
You "think" wrong.  Ask the FBI.  They've got the proof.  Look it up.
:The bulk of firarems are used against unworthy and unnesessary
:opponents ... those who posessa a cool jakcet you want, those who
:would argue with you about a parking space, those who would
:take your woman. In short, trivial and worthless causes.
You lie like a snake.  The "vast majority" of the 200 MILLION firearms
in this country are never used in anger.  Your feelings notwithstanding.
:Too much of this has ruined you cause. There is no recovery.
:In the near future, federal martials will come for your arms.
:No one will help you. You are more dangerous, to their thinking,
:than the 'criminal'. This is your own fault.
We will overcome the kind of blind, pig-headed, utterly stupid idiocy that
you and others spout in a vain attempt to further your own agendas.  We
will make the truth be known, despite your best efforts to the contrary.
:The 2nd amendment is dead. Accept this. Find another way.
The Second Amendment won't be dead unless it is repealed.  That won't happen.
EVER.
Accept this.  Find another way to try and control other's lives, because we
see you for what you are, and we are not fooled.
Mike Ruff
--
- This above all, to thine own      S T R I D E R      mikey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
-     self be true.  --Polonius     *  * *****    **  *  * **** ***** *** *   *
Those who would sacrifice essential *  *   *     *  * *  * *      *    *  **  *
liberties for a little temporary *  *   *     **** *  * ****   *    *  * * *
safety deserve neither liberty   *  *   *     *  * *  *    *   *    *  *  **
nor safety.  --B. Franklin       ****   *     *  * **** ****   *   *** *   *
From: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov (Steve Podleski)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: hooch.lerc.nasa.gov
papresco@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod) writes:
>...
>Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
>die because of them.
Do you have any statistical evidence to back you claim that requires another
limitation of the citizenry freedom?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Podleski			|     phone: 216-433-4000
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: pspod@hooch.lerc.nasa.gov
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Lines: 37
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24
In-Reply-To: jmd@cube.handheld.com's message of 20 Apr 1993 12:34:13 GMT
In <1r0qk5INNc5m@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com writes:
> In article <C5rynw.Iz8@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
> writes:
> > I balance my gut reaction to question authority together with the
> > independent facts as I see them on video.  I usually adopt the
> > scenario that is simplest and most plausible.  I do not generally
> > believe in conspiracy theories that involve complicated and unlikely
> > scenarios.
> >
> Then answer the question:  Why was NO ONE ELSE permitted to talk to Koresh,
Koresh had a lawyer, Deguin(?) who he spoke to in person several times during
the last few weeks.
> It cannot be denied that if they had left them alone, there would have been
>no fire yesterday.
This strikes me as a tad ingenous.  "If X had done/note done Y, then Z would
never have happened."  I tend to place tha responsibility on the group/person
actually committing the act, not on those whon "forced them to do it".
After all, to take an extreme example, if the British were not in Northern
Ireland, the IRA would not be forced to place bombs in shopping centers.
That said, this whole sorry story was a totally unecessary, utterly fucked
up mess from the get go.
semper fi,
Jammer Jim Miller
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
________________________________________________________________________________
I don't speak for UH, which is too bad, because they could use the help.
"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."
"Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."
---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Letter to the President
Nntp-Posting-Host: sora.icd.ab.com
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Lines: 46
Here's a copy of a letter I'm e-mailing to the Slickster at
his address of 75300.3115@compuserve.com:
____________________________________________________________________________
To: William J. Clinton
President of the United States of America
Mr. President:
I am writing to express my utter outrage at the conduct of various
government agencies in regards to the tragedy in Waco.  I DEMAND
the dismissal or resignation of Lloyd Bensen, Secretary of the Treasury,
who bears responsibility for the initial helicopter and grenade attack
by the ATF against the Branch Davidians, and of Janet Reno, who authorized
the final assault on the very day that we were commemorating the Warsaw
ghetto revolt.  And I would truly appreciate it if you would make
sure something like this never happens again on your watch.
Respectfully yours,
Kenneth D. Whitehead
___________________________________________________________________________
Get involved, gang.  It's your Republic.  Let's take it back.
**************************************************************************
*   I will be much more willing to believe the Government's side of the  *
*   Waco story AFTER we are allowed to hear from the survivors.  So far, *
*   all we've gotten has been censored by the very people who have the   *
*   most to cover up.  And I'd REALLY like to know how they got the      *
*   press, who complained so loudly about being kept off the front lines *
*   during the Gulf War, be such obedient lap dogs in Waco...  Kind of   *
*   makes me wonder if this so-called "freedom of the press" isn't       *
*   highly overrated.                                                    *
**************************************************************************
Ken Whitehead (kdw@odin.icd.ab.com)
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: na
Lines: 38
In article <1576@heimdall.sdrc.com> crrob@sony1.sdrc.com (Rob Davis) writes:
> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun-
> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?
No, but I have several other breakdowns of accidental shootings.
I've never seen one that specifically provides the info that Davis insists
that he has, so I'd love to have a cite.
>If you fall, for example,
> and land on the handgun or cause a sudden blow, the gun will discharge.
Wrong.  There's one gun design where that can happen, and it is
supposed to be carried with the hammer over an unloaded chamber.
(Cocking the gun turns the cylinder so that a loaded cylinder is under
the hammer.  In other words, it can be usefully carried in a safe
manner.)  Other handgun designs don't have that property; if their
trigger isn't pulled, the hammer can't hit the firing pin.
> The number of people killed in this manner far outweighs the number of
> deaths caused by animal attacks or "wacko" attacks combined.
The breakdowns that I do have include the above category.  From them I
can safely say that if Davis is right in ALL of his claims, a large
negative number of people are killed by animals, because we know that
the number of killings by wackos is reasonably large and that the
number of accidents due to gun failures (which is a superset of the
described circumstance) is near zero.
>I can find the figures if you don't believe me.
Please do.  Include a cite for those of us who like looking at
context.  Make sure that your source excludes other types of
accidents and suicides that are misreported.  ("Gun cleaning
accident" is police-speak for "the family needs the insurance
money.")
-andy
--
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Lines: 34
|in L.A., the first recorded survivor of a .357 shot to the heart.  That
|lady not only killed her attacker, but chased him down to do it!  All
|four of her shots, fired after SHE had been shot, struck the perp.  Atta
|girl!  The bullet entered her on a downward angle, went through the apex
|of her heart, down through the diaphragm, clipped her liver and
|destroyed her spleen.  It then exited her back leaving a tennis ball
|sized hole.  She died about six times on the operating table, but was
|out of the hospital in 15 days and was back on full duty in eight
|months!  She was off duty at the time and not wearing her vest.  She was
|on her way home so happened to have her gun.  No, she doesn't think
|civilians should have the same rights.  Sigh.
Well, if police think they are so special that only _THEY_ are worthy
of self-defense, perhaps we start putting the arm on police; maybe
we should start demanding that police are only police when ON-DUTY,
that after that they are just like the ordinary disarmed helpless
chumps they consider "civilians."
Let's prohibit arms carrying by police when off-duty. Or, if they make
the assertion that "Well, I need to maintain my gun" let's make it
regulation that they can carry an UNLOADED firearm home, that it's
only fair that they be just as helpless as poor schmuck coming home
from his computer operator job...
NRA Director/ex-San Jose cop Leroy Pyle states in the latest SWAT
magazine that anti-cops better watch out for this schism between
RKBA folks and the police. He asks the rhetorical question of 'What
if what's left of the gun lobby starts demanding the disarmament
of the police?"
Well, I guess anti-gun cops who think only they should be armed,
along with the wealthy and politically connected, should be made
to realize that screwing can cut in ways they have yet to imagine.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 144
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
In article <1993Apr14.221646.2332@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
> >        You might have missed the U.S. News & World Report excerpt
> > I posted.  It is fairly consistant with other such polls, finding
> > that approximately 40-50% of households have at least one firearm.
> 	OK ... a near-majority actually OWN firearms, but I will still
> 	claim that the VAST majority never needs to use them or even
> 	threaten anyone with them.
500,000 to 1,000,000 self-defense incidents a YEAR doesn't count with you?
>       What do they do right ... or are
> 	they just lucky ?
Maybe they're just UNLUCKY.  If a rapist pulls a woman into an alley
in Boston, chances are almost certain that she won't be counted
as one of those self-defenders because our local constabulary didn't
consider it important that she be allowed to arm herself.  Even though
the shotgun she owns at home makes her show up in the "gun owner" column.
>       In either case, this means the 'average
> 	threat level' in this country is rather low.
Ironic words for somebody who lives in Florida.  The "average threat
level" in Florida has been REDUCED by a liberal CCW policy.  It's well
known that your local thugs like to target tourists precisely because
they are less likely to be carrying than your natives.  Come on up to
Boston, or NYC, or Washington DC, and see how much diddlysquat the
"average threat level in the country" means to a resident there.
> 	I think you have weapons on the brain. I never said that these
> 	alternative means of self-protection involved any hardware.
> 	Why are 'good' neighborhoods 'good' ? It isn't because every
> 	person is armed to the teeth. It is because of (1) attitude
> 	and (2) cooperation. In the 'good' neighborhoods, the residents
> 	make themselves aware of their neighbors and notice when
> 	strangers are lurking around. 'Good' neighborhoods form groups
> 	like 'crime-watch' to increase this effect, and the relative
> 	effectiveness of the police. When hostiles are arrested, the
> 	good neighbors step up and say "THAT'S the one officer ! He
> 	was robbing Mr. Jones' house".
Sometimes this works.  Sometimes it just lands your good neighbors
on the dance card for the next wave of drive-bys.  Someone here once
told a story about LA gangs moving into Phoenix.  I've misplaced the
original text, but the story started with one resident calling the
cops on a gang member.  Sure enough, a few nights later, there was a
drive-by performed at the resident's house.  Except that this time,
unlike in LA, the entire street came out and returned fire, putting
an end to the car's occupants.  The gang packed up and left.
Of course, in LA, or in a place like Florida after the hurricane,
your first problem is to FIND an officer to step up to and tell
anything.
> 	In short, the alternative to firepower is gangs ... or at
> 	least a benificent manifestation of that social cooperative.
> 	Replace lead with flesh ... the flesh makes a better
> 	conversationalist too and you can invite it over for a
> 	block party.
Look, nobody is arguing this.  I have a fire extinguisher at home.
That doesn't mean I can be careless about tossing my burnt matches
on the carpet.  I live carefully, monitor the woodstove, get my flue
cleaned twice a year, and test my smoke alarms annually.  But if --
DESPITE all this -- a fire does start, it's too late for any of
these things EXCEPT the extinguisher.
> >        But legality and legitimacy also matter.  If a government's charter
> > makes a rule, which the government then violates, it is violated the
> > basis for its existance.  Enforcement of its will becomes a matter
> > solely of force of arms.
>
> 	Oliver North. The man is positively worshiped in many
> 	all-American 'conservative' quarters. He and Big Ron
> 	set-up a secret government and did all sorts of severely
> 	illegal deeds - the kind of stuff you and I would be doing
> 	twenty-to-life for, yet he walks free. This BS happens all
> 	the time. In fact, it happens so much that no one really
> 	cares anymore.  'Legitimacy' is a non-issue. Legality is
> 	a non-issue. So long as we get T-bones and our MTV, who
> 	gives a rats ass ?
You seem to be agreeing with your opponent.  You can't trust your
government to protect you from abusers and violators -- white-collar,
blue-collar, epauletted, or tank-shirted.  Ultimately, no one has the
power to enforce your "rights" but you.  Unless you've given up that
power.
> 	No. I claimed that no one is interested in the statistical
> 	aspects of the argument. Pure emotion, like the abortion issue.
Too many people fit that category, that is true.  Some of us like to
believe that they are uninterested in the facts behind the case for gun
ownership because they've been conditioned to believe that there AREN'T
any.  You seem content to underestimate the electorate; I'm willing to
try to raise their consciousness.
> 	Argue away ... you can't win.
I think we can.
HCI was founded in what, 1980?  In the mid-80's, they ran a "One
Million Strong!" campaign for two years before reaching this goal.
My understanding is that they "reached" it by the stratagem of including
wide classes of people other than dues-paying members.  (I can't speak
authoritatively on this -- maybe somebody else has details.)  Then they
started running a "Two Million Strong!" campaign for a while -- but they
let it slip into unannounced obscurity when it became clear that they
simply were never going to reach that level of membership.
In 1964, just after the commencement of the Dodd Hearings -- the starting
point of the modern gun-control movement, the NRA had a mere 625,000 members.
By 1968, barely after the first murmurs of future registration, it had
about a million.  Today, it has over three million members, making it the
third largest membership organization in the country (next to AARP and AAA).
And its membership is GROWING FASTER than at any previous time.  (Historical
figures from Kukla's "Gun Control," pp. 61 and 420.)
As you say, many of the people in the middle of this debate are bemused
by their T-bones and MTV.  That leaves hard-core gun-owners against
hard-core gun banners.
I know a number of ex-HCI members who have recently become NRA members.
I've never heard of a single one who has gone the other way.
Yes, I think we can and will win this one.
> 	Firearms-related mindless mayhem will be related to the
> 	availibility of firearms. If they become scarce and
> 	and expensive, a different psychology will take hold.
> 	I *think* they would be used far less to settle trivial
> 	complaints.
I think they would be used far less to hammer nails, as well, but,
like you, I can't give any citation showing that this utilization is
CURRENTLY significant at more than an anecdotal level.  If you can,
I'm waiting.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Lines: 50
In article <1993Apr14.175931.66210@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>> (BTW - Which parts should be secure?  Criminal
>> records, ie convictions, are typically considered public information,
>> so should that info be secure?  Remember, the population includes
>> parents checking prospective childcare worker.)
>
>	Like I said, I'm not sure of the details.  But it seems to me that you
>could access medical information without giving out a name, or any other
>information.
Medical info without a name/body attached is completely useless for
treatment.
>The article I mentioned the the earlier post described a debit
>card type transaction in which neither the store nor the BANK, knew who was
>withdrawing the money.
Thus making it as secure as cash, for some purposes, but far less
secure for others.
>	Parent's checking a babysitter shouldn't need access to the information
>stored in the card.
Sure they do.  The prospective sitter may have a nasty habit of molesting
kids three or four months into the job.  The references may not have
known him long enough or may not have picked up on this yet.
Remember, criminal conviction info is public, so if you're going to
argue for an ID card, other people are going to have a strong argument
that it disclose public info.
>things.  I think anything that you choose to keep unknown should be.
Thus making it useless for negative information.
>could have it so that only doctors can access medical information, police
>criminal records etc etc.
Yeah right.  How are you going to keep doctors from spilling the
beans?  (We already know that you can't keep cops from disclosing
info, but at least that info is typically supposed to be public
anyway.)
>	Like I said, it's best if you read the article for yourself.
The article discusses technology, not appropriate policy.  It also
fails to deal with "what happens if the folks with the secrets blab".
-andy
--
From: jaf@a2.cim.cdc.com (James Foster x2912)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Control Data
Distribution: usa
Lines: 197
In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent Fox) writes:
|> In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
|> [deleted]
|> []       And as far as fully-automatic weapons, you can be a lot better
|> []armed if you want to hit what you aim at.
|> []
|> >What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
|> >proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
|> >cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
|> >to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
|> >time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
|> >day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
|> >see are still carrying revolvers.  Not that there is anything wrong with a
|> >revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
|> >of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
|> >disadvantage even with training.  I have been at a shooting range where gang
|> >gang members were "practicing" shooting.  They were actually practicing
|> >taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
|> >and they weren't doing too badly either.   The University cops here (who are
|> >are state cops) are armed better than the Chicago police.  It seems most
|> >state cops are.
Every city and suburban police officer I've seen around the Twin Cities in the
last two years has carried a semi-auto of some type (different brands though
I haven't seen any Glock's).
With regard to this discussion:  We are getting dangerously far from the usual
rantings of t.p.g, and close to the realm of r.g, but I'd like to put my two
cents worth in.  While there's nothing wrong with a revolver (especially a
large frame S&W in .357 magnum - my favorite) there are valid advantages to
semi-autos.  I suggest reading Massad Ayoob's (I know, some people can't stand
him and think he's full of bull, but I think that in general his material is
very valid and useful) book _The Semi Auto Pistol in Police Work_ (or something
like that).  He defines a number of ways that semi-auto's are different, and that
"different is good".  The main advantage is not in increased firepower, but in
more accurate followup shots when you go to single action mode.  There is also a
certain "propriatory nature" of each gun that takes some familiarity to
learn.  This may have diminished with time as more criminals become familiar
with different models of semi-autos, but it was cited as stopping or at least
slowing down criminals who had grabbed a police officers gun.
|>
|> Define "armed better". Go shoot a revolver and a semi-auto like the
|> Colt .45. Does one fires faster than the other? Nope. Aside from which
|> faster rate of fire is usually not desirable. Sure it makes the other
|> guys duck for cover, but just *YOU* trying hitting anything with a Thompson
|> in hose-mode. This is why the military is limiting it's M-16 now to
|> 3-round burst-fire. Simple semi-auto would be better, but the troops
|> like to be able to rock and roll even if it is wasteful of ammo (something
|> often in short supply when the enemy is plentiful).
|>
|> A revolver is equally capable as a semi-auto in the same caliber.
|>
|> - A revolver also has the advantage that if it misfires you just pull
|>   the trigger again.
|> - A double-action revolver (almost all of them) can be hand-cocked first,
|>   but will fire merely by pulling the trigger.
Yes, but this is best done with a two hand hold.  With a single hand you either
pull the gun far off target to cock, or must fire double action.  The DA semi
auto has the same advantages plus is always SA after the first shot.
|> - A misfire in a revolver merely means you must pull the trigger again
|>   to rotate to the next round.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be different from your first point.  In a DA
semi-auto you can pull the trigger again to try dropping the hammer on the same
round - an advantage you don't have in a revolver where the next trigger pull will
always go to the next round (discussing this point now).  This is fine with a dud
but what about a hangfire situation?  Granted it's very rare, but your round will
now go off confined in the cylinder with no place to go.  Slingshotting the slide
on a misfire takes very little time.
|> - A revolver can be carried with the 6th chamber empty and under the
|>   hammer for maximum safety, but still can be drawn and fired with an
|>   easy motion, even one handed.
Actually with modern revolver designs incorporating hammer blocks this is not
necessary or usually recommended.  A revolver would have to fall hard enough and
at the right angle to actually break the hammer and driver the firing pin into the
round to set it off.
|> - Speedloaders for a revolver allow reloads almost as fast as magazines
|>   on semi-autos. Can be faster depending on users.
The best speedloader users, especially those using the spring loaded speed
loaders are very fast.  A problem is that ejecting the spent cases is a two
handed job where dropping the expended magazine is one handed.  This means that
while you can be inserting a fresh magazine as soon as the old one clears the
gun, with a speed loader you have to go through more motions that will always
take more time.  You also don't have the advantage of tactical reloads (replacing
a partial magazine to bring you back to full capacity - the partial magazine can
still be used if needed later).
|>
|> - A misfire in a semi-auto will require you to clear a jammed shell
|>   first, time spent which can be fatal. And a vital second or so is often
|>   lost as you realize "hey, it's jammed!" before starting to do anything
|>   about clearing it.
Yes, the time to recognize the problem is just as important as the time to clear
it.  Really though, in either a revolver or semi-auto the odds of an actual misfire
with factory ammo are awfully small.  You are more likely to get a jam in a semi-auto
but even these are exceptionally rare with modern quality guns (Sigs, Glocks, et.al.).
|> - Most semi-autos must have the slide worked to chamber the first round
|>   and cock the hammer. Some police carry their semi-autos with the
|>   chamber loaded and hammer cocked, but a safety engaged. I do not consider
|>   this safe however. You must trade-off safety to get the same speed
|>   of employment as a revolver.
|> - There are some double-action semi-autos out there, but the complexity of
|>   operation of many of them requires more training.
All common semi-auto's can be carried with a round in their chamber without any
safety problems.  While I put that out as a statement that I believe, I should
say that this applies to all of the ones I've looked at.  For the DA semi's it's
no different from the revolver situation:  The guns all have hammer or firing
pin blocks.  They also have a safety.  Because there's no real advantage
carrying one of these cocked and locked you have the same safety and speed
of employment as a revolver, plus the advantage of SA followup shots.  I'm
not familiar with SA semi-autos except for the 1911-A1.  I admit that I was
initially skeptical about carrying this cocked and locked, but after examining
the design, trying to defeat the safeties (gun unloaded of course), and
shooting it a lot, I see no inherent safety problems with it, especially in
a thumbreak holster with the strap under the hammer.  This design also gets
you more speed for an accurate first shot than a revolver.
|>
|> Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
|> switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
|> accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
|> require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
|> as the timer on a VCR.
Yeah, the infamous Glock.  I still can't figure out how it's worse than a revolver
for safety.  If you don't pull the trigger it doesn't go off.  I imagine that if all
your revolver shooting was done double action then you could pull the Glock trigger
far enough to fire before you realized it.  In addition, if you had developed that
nasty habit of keeping your finger on the trigger when holstering your gun and
relying on your thumb on the hammer to remind you to take it off before you blew
off your foot then you'd have problems when the hammer wasn't there.
|>
|> Anyone who goes anyone saying that the criminals obviously outgun
|> the police don't know nothing about firearms. Turn off COPS and Hunter
|> and pay attention. I do not seek here to say "semi-autos are junk"
|> merely that assuming they are better for all jobs is stupid. A cop
|> with a revolver on his hip and a shotgun in the rack is more than
|> equipped for anything short of a riot.
I think this is even okay for a riot (as long as it's a small one B^)).
|>
|> Gun control is hitting what you aim at. If you whip out a
|> wonder-nine and fire real fast you may find you don't hit anything.
|> Good controlled fire from a revolver is more likely to get you a hit.
|> I own a 9mm Beretta myself but consider it inferior as a carry weapon
|> to something like the Ruger Security Six revolver. If I haven't hit
|> what I'm aiming at in the first 5 shots, something is quite seriously
|> wrong somewheres. While I might like having the backup capacity of those
|> extra shots in certain cases, overwhelmingly the # of shots fired in
|> criminal encounters is less than 5.
I have the poor man's Beretta (Taurus 99) and consider it inferior as a carry
weapon to the Springfield .45 (oops, 9mm vs. 45 arguments are relegated to
r.g).  You are right, though.  If you don't hit what you aim at then the
shooter/gun combination has failed.  I don't ascribe failures in the the
fire real fast with a wonder-nine scenario you mention to the gun.  This is
a shooter failure, whether through lack of discipline or lack of training.
|>
|> What do crooks overwhelmingly use in crime? Why the same nice simple
|> .38 revolvers that the police often use. Well actually some police
|> prefer the much heftier .357 Magnum, but anyway.....
9mm's are becoming more popular with crooks too, though the .38 does still
lead the list.  And like I said, around here semi-auto's seem the rule for the
street cop.  Don't know about the State Patrol however, they may still carry
the "Highway Patrolman".
|>
|> ObPlea: Don't flame me, I prefer semi-autos for most things. But they
|>         introduce unneccessary complications to something as nerve-wracking
|>         as an abrupt encounter with a lone criminal.
Vincent, please don't take any of this as a flame.  Just my $0.02 (whoops, looks more
like $2.00) worth.  And much of it is IMHO, but do check Ayoob's book.
|>
|> --
|> "If everything had gone as planned, everything would have been perfect."
|> 	-BATF spokesperson on CNN 3/2/93, regarding failed raid attempt in TX.
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?
Keywords: handgun mace pepper-spray taser tasp phaser
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
In article <Apr15.032620.75908@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland) writes:
>
>What about guns with non-lethal bullets, like rubber or plastic bullets. Would
>those work very well in stopping an attack?
Ask the Brits.  Enough people have been killed by rubber bullets that they now
use them under only certain "controlled" circumstances.  And they are fired
from something that looks like a tear gas launcher.
There are smaller rubber bullets and pellets (for shotguns).  I understand that
they are only intended to be discouragers, ie. for the snapping but not truly
dangerous animal.  In general, they do not seem capable of really stopping
someone who wants you or past you.  They are fired at very low muzzle velocity
(the .38 ball round is intended for a 400fps load).  Finally, as your mother
warned you, you can put an eye out with that thing.  :-)
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: "High Power" Assault guns
Lines: 12
Nntp-Posting-Host: skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
High power assault gun?  Why, you must be talking about the 155mm Howitzer.
Or did you want to try a 16 incher?  Or one of the German railway guns?
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)
Lines: 36
Nntp-Posting-Host: skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
Distribution: usa
In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>, Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>In article <1qie2rINN1b9@cae.cad.gatech.edu>, vincent@cad.gatech.edu (Vincent
>Fox) says:
>>
>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
>>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>>as the timer on a VCR.
>
>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
Ahem!!!  Hrumph!!!!  You have encurred the wrath of Glock owners.  We will beat
you with our hammers.  Oooops, don't have any  :-)
Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA
revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver.
Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that
autoloaders give you, that is.
Every gun has its safe moment and its dangerous moment.  If you just learn how
to handle it, it becomes a lot less dangerous (to you).
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
PADI DM-54909                     |
From: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 33
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Originator: gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
In article <81930415084418/0005111312NA3EM@mcimail.com> 0005111312@mcimail.com (Peter Nesbitt) writes:
>Recently while looking around in Traders Sporting Goods store, a very well
>stocked firearms store, I discovered a printed document that was being
>distributed by the good folks who work there.  Traders, BTW, is located in
>San Leandro, CA.
.
.
.
>The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer
>see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years.
>
>These ads were run for the law-abiding honest citizens who own firearms for
>sporting use or self-protection.  They certainly have the right to do so, under
>the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.
Are you sure about this? I'm currently looking at a copy of last
Thursday's SF Chronicle and there is the typical one column Traders
ad on page C7 in the Sports section. Not only that, but there is
a part in the middle which rather prominently says "WANTED: We pay
cash for assault rifles and pistols.". Granted, I haven't seen today's
paper yet. But I'd be surprised if there wasn't a Traders ad in it.
It's probably worth it to write to the Chronicle (and other papers)
anyway, because all their anti-gun editorials are disgusting.
By the way, let me put in a plug for Traders. I have shopped all
over the SF Bay Area and I have never seen another store with lower
prices. And their selection is amazing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Gaucher                         |   My opinions.
gaucher@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu      |   No one else's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)
In-Reply-To: bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com's message of Wed, 14 Apr 1993 17:16:21 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: fanny.wash
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA
Lines: 15
/ iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /
3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /
>Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread
>"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several
>years while posting in this group, as an example.  There are
>others.
For what it is worth, I own no firearms of any sort.  As long-time
readers of this group know, I am dedicated to the RKBA.
This is not about toys.  It is about freedom.
Dave Barton
dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"
Lines: 40
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <1993Apr15.201756.29141@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1993Apr14.175931.66210@cc.usu.edu> slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>>> (BTW - Which parts should be secure?  Criminal
>>> records, ie convictions, are typically considered public information,
>>> so should that info be secure?  Remember, the population includes
>>> parents checking prospective childcare worker.)
>
>>	Parent's checking a babysitter shouldn't need access to the information
>>stored in the card.
>
>Sure they do.  The prospective sitter may have a nasty habit of molesting
>kids three or four months into the job.  The references may not have
>known him long enough or may not have picked up on this yet.
>
>Remember, criminal conviction info is public, so if you're going to
>argue for an ID card, other people are going to have a strong argument
>that it disclose public info.
As perhaps some insight into how this sort of thing works, the
local college newspaper had a big crusade to have the U.T. police
release crime stats.  (The school claimed that to do so would violate
federal education records privacy laws).  They swore up and down they
weren't interested in student discipline records, only for stats so people
could make an evaluation of how safe the campus was.
It was barely a week after crime stats were released before the
Daily Beacon had an editorial calling for student disciplinary stats
to be released, because they complained certain segments of the campus
population were treated administratively rather than turned over to the
police and therefore the criminal states weren't accurate.
What people say they want public today may not be what they
say tomorrow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)
Lines: 17
slp9k@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>	I just want to point out that while I am fully in support of privacy,
>it will be possible soon to have a completely secure ID card, useable in bank
>transactions, medical, etc etc.
There is no such thing as "completely secure," especially when dealing
with High Technology. It's all a question of cost: what cost are you
willing to bear to protect your information vs. what rewards the "bad guys"
are going to get if they break it. The rewards of breaking such a single ID
system would be high indeed.
===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
This .sig contains no animal products and was not tested on animals.
"Time is just nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once."
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Boston Gun Buy Back
Lines: 40
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
In article <8110356@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> ron@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ron Miller) writes:
>> From: urbin@interlan.interlan.com (Mark Urbin)
>>
>> >RM:Just a short thought:
>> >When you ask the question of the "authorities" or sponsors of buyback
>> >programs whether they will check for stolen weapons and they answer
>> >"no, it's total amnesty".
>
>>     Please note that the $50 given for each firearm, in the Boston `buy
>> back' will not be in cash, but money orders.  How much `total amnesty" can
>> you get if you leave paper trail behind?
>
>In the latest case in Denver, they were giving away tickets to a Denver
>Nuggets basketball game.
>
>How traceable is a money order?  (I don't know. Haven't used one in 20 years)
Money orders operate pretty much like checks, with both parties being
supposed to sign them.  I assume you'd have to show the buy-back people
an ID, and you'd then have a money order made out to that ID.
As far as traceable as a practical matter, I don't know, it would
depend on whether they bother to computerize who the recipient's name is
on the money order and bother keying that sort of thing in.  I'd say
certainly the police and the buyback people would keep a record of who
they gave money orders out to.
>Is that even an issue if the weapons aren't checked for being stolen?
There might be some questions asked, I suppose, if somebody
brought in a number of weapons each time over a series of "buy back"
programs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Lines: 30
As quoted from <C5J5IM.3C9@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> by rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat):
>
> |	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
> |	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
> |	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
> |	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
> |	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
> |	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
> |	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
> |	pay through the nose for it.
>
> This is not borne out of reality; the old Soviet Union had a very
> serious domestic handgun and submachinegun trade, guns that were
> of commercial grade because they were produced in honest-to-goodness
> machineshops. Why would all production have to be local; don't we
> have a road system that is the envy of the world?
>
If anybody wanted proof of the nonsense of the "you can't build guns" claim,
they need look no farther than the Philippines.  Amateur gunsmiths there
regularly produce everything from .45 automatics to full auto shotguns.  Now
if this guy wants to claim that the Philippines is either technologically
superior to the US or that their transportation is better than ours, all I
can say is that he's living in a fantasy world.
--
===================================================================
"You're like a bunch of over-educated, New York jewish ACLU lawyers
fighting to eliminate school prayer from the public schools in
Arkansas" - Holly Silva
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Nntp-Posting-Host: gozer
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club
Lines: 58
In article <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>	If alcohol were again banned today, it would be MUCH more
>	difficult to manage a large-scale smuggling operation.
>	The cops now rank just a narrow notch below the military
>	in communications, intelligence gathering and firepower.
Proof by assertion!  I love it!  Uh, please explain why the smugglers
do not also rank a notch below (or above) the military in terms
of communications, intelligence gathering (e.g., why fight officials
when you can bribe them..."I'll give you a hundred grand to let that
semi past..."), and firepower.
>	In a similar vein, the amount of marijuana smuggled into
>	this country has greatly decreased. This is because its
>	value-per-pound is very low when compared to cocaine or
>	heroin. It's simply not worth the risk, it's uneconomical.
>	Now, most reefer is domestic. There is less pressure on
>	the domestic producer (showy raids notwithstanding) and
>	thus it is economical. Of note though ... domestic reefer
>	is now very strong, so a small volume goes a long way.
>	You cannot make alcohol stronger than 200 proof - not a
>	good dollar/pound deal.
>
What's the point here?  You're arguing that the black market
WORKS (which it does, of course).
>	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
This is the wrong way to quantify things.  The smuggler would
be concerned about value/cubic foot.  Go to a gun show and
price out a crate of good quality handguns.
>	It would not be economic to smuggle them in. All production
>	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
What's "local?"
>	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
>	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
What is a worthwhile firearm?  Hell, anything that WORKS!  Go
get yourself a copy of the Army's 1969 Improvised Munitions Manual.
See how easy it is to make a functional firearm.
>	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
>	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
>	pay through the nose for it.
If paying $10 for inconspicuous parts at the local K-Mart is
"through the nose."
Drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
*** when you outlaw rights, only outlaws will have rights   ***
*** spook fodder: fema, nsa, clinton, gore, insurrection, nsc,
semtex, neptunium, terrorist, cia, mi5, mi6, kgb, deuterium
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 22
In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
outside.)
A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
-andy
--
From: sylvain@netcom.com (Nicholas Sylvain)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Lines: 17
In article <DLB.93Apr15130411@fanny.wash.inmet.com> dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton) writes:
>For what it is worth, I own no firearms of any sort.  As long-time
>readers of this group know, I am dedicated to the RKBA.
A long-time reader of t.p.g, I am also a staunch RKBA supporter, yet
I own no firearms.
>This is not about toys.  It is about freedom.
Amen, brother.
--
Nicholas Sylvain (sylvain@netcom.com) --- I am the NRA
--
Nicholas Sylvain (sylvain@netcom.com) --- I am the NRA
From: hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control? (was Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card)
Nntp-Posting-Host: taos
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems Division
Lines: 30
In article <15240077@iftccu.ca.boeing.com>, bressler@iftccu.ca.boeing.com (Rick Bressler) writes:
|> / iftccu:talk.politics.guns / hays@ssd.intel.com (Kirk Hays) /  3:31 pm  Apr 13, 1993 /
|>
|> >Some of the pro-gun posters in this group own no guns.  The dread
|> >"Terminator", aka "The Rifleman", owned no firearms for several years
|> >while posting in this group, as an example.  There are others.
|>
|> Good point, Kirk.
|>
|> He's still around too.  He's responded by email to a couple of my posts,
|> and gosh darn, he's gotten down right civil!  This happed about the time
|> he got his first firearm.  Wonder if there is a relationship here?  Turns
|> out that MOST people (at least the ones who are not criminals to start
|> with) act responsibility once given the chance.
I'd like to point out that I was in error - "Terminator" began posting only
six months before he purchased his first firearm, according to private email
from him.
I can't produce an archived posting of his earlier than January 1992,
and he purchased his first firearm in March 1992.
I guess it only seemed like years.
Back to your regularly scheduled flame fest.
--
Kirk Hays - NRA Life, seventh generation.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."  -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Lines: 38
As quoted from <1993Apr14.184448.2331@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> by jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu:
> 	Firearms tend to fall into this low dollar/pound area.
> 	It would not be economic to smuggle them in.
That depends only on the profit of doing so.  The differences
in cost of production will determine local vs smuggle.
> 	would have to be local. There are not all that many people
> 	who have both the skill AND motivation to assemble worthwhile
Those of us who have actually made semi-autos (full-autos are easier)
are getting quite a giggle out of this.  I'd estimate that 5% of
the people at my high school couldn't do it.  (I was one of the
few who failed shop.)  People who have actually seen me do mechanical
work would probably say that 1% is more like it.
Starting with even 90% of the population, you can be sure that
"enough" people will be motivated.
> 	firearms from scratch. High-ranking crime figures could
> 	obtain imported Uzis and such, but the average person, and
> 	average thug, would be lucky to get a zip-gun - and would
> 	pay through the nose for it.
How much is "through the nose"?  After all, we know quite a bit
about how much a gun is worth to a criminal, so if that is dwarfed
by the price demanded by the "bad" part of that 90%....
The relevant economic analysis has been made.  The "profit" of
gun crime is high enough that the price required to push criminals
out of the market is high enough that everyone will be motivated.
That analysis ignored some "improvements" in the criminal gun
market that could make them even cheaper.  (They're not efficiently
used now, but a "loaner" set up would drive the value still higher
without affecting criminal use.)
-andy
--
From: meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I
Lines: 115
103D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 1276
To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms
in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement
of such right.
=======================
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 10, 1993
Mr. BARTLETT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
=======================
A BILL
To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
to provide for the enforcement of such right.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Citizens' Self-Defense
Act of 1993".
SEC. 2. RIGHT TO OBTAIN FIREARMS FOR SECURITY, AND
TO USE FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF SELF,
FAMILY, OR HOME; ENFORCEMENT.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT. -- A person not pro-
hibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm shall have
the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use fire-
arms in defense of self, family, or home.
(b) FIREARM DEFINED. -- As used in subsection (a),
the term "firearm" means a --
(1) shotgun (as defined in section 921(a)(5) of
title 18, United States Code);
(2) rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(7) of such
title); or
(3) handgun (as defined in section 10 of Public
law 99-408).
(c) ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHT. --
(1) IN GENERAL. -- A person whose right under
subsection (a) is violated in any manner may bring
an action in any United States district court against
the United States, any State, or any person for
damages, injunctive relief, and such other relief as
the court deems appropriate.
(2) AUTHORITY TO AWARD A REASONABLE AT-
TORNEY'S FEE. -- In an action brought under para-
graph (1), the court, in its discretion, may allow the
prevailing party, other than a State, a reasonable
attorney's fee as part of the costs.
(d) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. -- An action may not
be brought under subsection (c)(1) after the 5-year period
that begins with the date the violation described therein
is discovered.
------------------------ (end of HR 1276) ------------------------
Well, this sounds good to me.  The key is Section (2)(c)(2), which
will effectively open up the Federal court system to all the folks
who can't afford to adopt an Attorney with whom to fight city hall.
All of you who've been saying "hey, isn't that illegal?" could just
go hire your own Attorneys on a pay-if-you-win ("contingency fee")
basis, and sue the bums ...   :-)
What you can do now:
(1)  Write your Representative, and ask them to co-sponsor HR 1276.
(2)  Write Representative Roscoe Bartlett, the sponsor --
Representative Roscoe Bartlett
312 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
-- to tell him who your own Representative is, and that you've
asked them to join him as a co-sponsor of HR 1276.
(3)  Contact Gun Owners of America --
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place
Springfield, Virginia 22151
-- which has committed to lobby on behalf of HR 1276.
(4)  For those of us with a RealJob (TM), find out how to reach
Representative Bartlett's campaign fund (I'm working on it)
and toss in a few bucks.  You can bet your bippy that he's
going to be one of the HCI "targets" in the next election,
which isn't that far away (1994).
(5)  Tell your family, friends, gun club, etc.  Enjoy ...   :-)
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Lines: 48
>NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP
>
>The newspapers have now decided to censor gun ads - which is why you no longer
>see the ads that Traders, San Leandro, has run for many years.
>
>If you are tired of newspapers who run sex and liquor ads galor, yet refuse to
>run legitimate gun ads, please send a letter to the editors indicating your
>displeasure over their censorship doctrine.
>
>Following is a list of Bay area newspapers who censor gun ads.  Perhaps you'd
>like to send them your thoughts on this issue!
>
>Contra Costa Times	San Mateo Times		San Francisco Chronicle
>POB 5088		POB 5400		901 Mission St.
>Walnut Creek, CA 94596	San Mateo, CA 94402	San Francisco, CA 94103
>
>San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News
>1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr.
>San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190
I have the April 15, 1993 issue of the SF Chronicle in my lap.  Page
E7 (in the "Sporting Green" section) has a Trader's advert.  (The
copy is a bit screwed up - it says that the prices offered expire
4-14-93, but the ad is there.)
The SF Examiner and Chronicle run the same set of adverts (because
they have a joint printing/biz agreement and differ only in editorial
content).
I've seen gun ads recently in the merc, which is anti-gun editorially,
albeit not from traders, but from its competitors.
I don't know about the other papers.
Does Traders claim that things are changing?  When?
>- Why TV journalists lie
Because it's easier than telling the truth and no one much cares
either way.
>Let me know if you write to any of these bozos.
Before you do, make sure that the bozos are actually doing what
you're accusing them of.
-andy
--
From: pitargue@cisco.com (Marciano Pitargue)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Organization: cisco
Lines: 58
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: lager.cisco.com
Originator: pitargue@cisco.com
In article <1qkcok$s9i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ci946@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John K. Gever) writes:
|>
|> Do you Rambos who worry so much about rape and murder in the
|> wilderness also carry your guns all the time at home too?  You
|> should, since you're in a hell of a lot more danger there than
|> in the backcountry.
when does carrying a tool classify someone as a rambo.  so all the
pioneers that came west were rambo's?  adrienne!!!  :-)
|>
|> Does anybody reading this group have an actual, honest-to-God
|> experience with violent crime in the backcountry to tell about?
|>
|> I can sort of understand the people who want to protect themselves
|> from bears and such, although there are, what, maybe a dozen or
|> two bear attacks on people in North America each year?  But to
|> worry about being raped by some buck-toothed Bubba in overalls
|> is just irrational.  I think we'd all be a lot safer if all the
|> videocassettes of "Deliverance" were gathered up and burned.
would your tune change if you were one of the "dozen or two bear attacks"?
believe me, when you need a firearm, you NEED a firearm.
|>
|> Public health experts will tell you that you are far more likely
|> have your gun stolen, use it yourself on a family member or
|> have it used on you than you are to use it on an actual criminal.
please cite your references.   i'll let others (please note followup)
cite valid references to show you that this is an untruth.
|> The Rambo warriors we've heard from here undoubtedly consider
|> themselves exempt from this statistical reality -- they're much
|> too smart and responsible.  Living in a city where there's a
|> drive-by shooting every couple of days, and working in a medical
|> center where a day doesn't go by without a shooting victim coming
|> into the ER, I'm just a bit skeptical about the value of gun
|> ownership.  I go to the backcountry to get away from this
|> environment, and I don't want to find other people there who
|> insist on bringing the urban environment along with them -- boom
|> boxes, computers, or guns.
well, you might as well go naked.  forget the matches, backpack, sleeping
bag and all the rest that's is a modern convenience.  a firearm is just
a tool.  as some people won't carry gaiters, some people do.  firearms
should be in the same category.  it should be a personal choice.
and your factoid about shooting victims in the ER.  count how many come in
due to automobile accidents and automobile crimes.  maybe we should outlaw
cars.
|>
|> Please post flaming responses to rec.guns.rabid  >:-(
|> - J. Gever, B'ham, Ala.
marciano pitargue@cisco.com
From: chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Lines: 26
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com
In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com> meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>        (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHT. -- A person not pro-
>    hibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm shall have
>    the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use fire-
>    arms in defense of self, family, or home.
So, you have the right unless the Federal Government says you don't.
I don't think I like this very much.
This would be much better if it said "everyone except those who have
been striped of this right by due process of law" or some such thing.
Also, I don't care for the Federal Government stepping on states rights
regardless of which state right is being stepped on.  If the constitution
doesn't give the Feds some power then they have to just shut up about
it.
The only way the Feds should have anything to say is if the Constitution
prohibits localities from infringing on the RKBA.  In which case this
bill should just reiterate that the RKBA is guaranteed by the Constitution
and that the Feds will take appropriate action if it is infringed.
--
-- chris bartz (chrisb@natinst.com)
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: With Friends Like These -- L. Neil Smith
Organization: Apple Computer Inc. ESD/OSBU/Cross-Platform Software
Lines: 17
NNTP-Posting-Host: apple.com
>> Look, if you can figure out a reliable means of keeping guns away from
>> bad people, while not interfering with good people, I think we'd all be
>> for it.  The problem is, the methods we're using now don't do the trick.
> Don't manufacture them.  Don't sell them.  Don't import them.
>
> Some guns will get through, but far fewer, and far less people will
> die because of them.  Hunting weapons could be allowed, of course, as
> long as they are big, and bulky, and require reloading after a few
> shots (how many times can you shoot at the same animal, anyways One
> assumes they are moving!)
A better solution:
If the 'bad' people can't be trusted with guns, then lock them or knock
them off.  Stop punishing good people.
From: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu (David N. Bixler)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Car
Nntp-Posting-Host: liberator.eng.auburn.edu
Reply-To: bixledn@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Lines: 36
In article 27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
> >All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
> >I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
> That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
>
> >Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
> >that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
> >that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
> Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
> do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
> Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
> outside.)
>
> A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
> what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
> off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
> it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
>
> -andy
> --
I agree very much.  I have read almost every article written about
the Glock, and IMO, it is probably the safest auto-loader made.  It
has the best safty of all, Jeff Cooper's First Rule, "Keep your finger
OFF the trigger until you want to shoot."  If everyone just observed
this, there would be fewer "accidents".
David N. Bixler
Auburn University
Standard Disclaimers apply.
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: Non-lethal alternatives to handguns?
Nntp-Posting-Host: beethoven.cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
Keywords: handgun mace pepper-spray taser tasp phaser
Lines: 18
In article <1993Apr15.150736.15793@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com writes:
>
>Ask the Brits.  Enough people have been killed by rubber bullets that they now
>use them under only certain "controlled" circumstances.  And they are fired
>from something that looks like a tear gas launcher.
>
>There are smaller rubber bullets and pellets (for shotguns).  I understand that
>they are only intended to be discouragers, ie. for the snapping but not truly
>dangerous animal.  In general, they do not seem capable of really stopping
>someone who wants you or past you.  They are fired at very low muzzle velocity
>(the .38 ball round is intended for a 400fps load).  Finally, as your mother
>warned you, you can put an eye out with that thing.  :-)
>--
Oh, OK.  Just wondering.  I am not a real expert on weapons, I was just
wondering if they would do the job.
Doug Holland
From: brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Disclaimer: Views expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 28
You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make
sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.
Say U.S.C. 922 :
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person"
might also be an artificial entity that is created by government
and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I
don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on
an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law
does not make it LAW. Everyone knows that laws are constitional
until it goes to court. So, has it ever gone to court, not
just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"
Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told
by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?
--
Brian Sheets		    _   /|  	"TRUCK?! What truck?"
Support Engineer  	    \`o_O'
Atlas Telecom Inc. 	      ( ) 	   -Raiders of the Lost Ark
brians@atlastele.com           U
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Cop kills teenager
Nntp-Posting-Host: beethoven.cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
Keywords: handgun mace pepper-spray taser tasp phaser
Lines: 26
OK, here's something for all of those people who think cops are always
more responsible then the rest of the population.  I found this article in the
Rocky Mountain Collegian, Colorado State University's newspaper.
SUSPENDED POLICE OFFICER ARRESTED IN REVENGE TRIPLE HOMICIDE
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- A police officer afraid he would be fired for
allegedly assaulting a teen-ager walked into an auto body shop wher the youth
worked, said "You're going to die" and fatally shot him and two others, police
said.
A fourth youth was wounded.  A fifth escaped injury by hiding under a car.
The wounded youth ran about two blocks to a house after the shooting at about
midnight Tuesday and called police.  He was hospitalized in satisfactory
condition Wednesday.
Suspended police officer Robert Sabetta, 23, of Cranston, was arrested at
gunpoint over three hours after the shooting at Wilson's Auto Enterprises in
Foster, a rural town of about 4,000 people in northwest Rhode Island.
Well, this just goes to show that cops are capable of snapping, just
like everyone else.  Now who was it who said only cops should have guns?
Doug Holland
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 44
In <93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>What seems to be happening here is the situation getting totally blown out of
>proportion.  In my post I was referring to your regular patrolman in a car
>cruising around the city vs. gang members.  Of course the police have access
>to the things that you mentioned but do they use tanks and such all of the
>time?  Of course they don't and that's the point I was trying to make.  Every
>day when I go out to lunch I always see cops coming in.  The majority that I
>see are still carrying revolvers.
So?  Look in the trunk some time.  Heck - look at the dash.  That
funny thing attached with a quick-release is a gun.  The ones in the
trunk are "better".  (I don't have numbers for Chicago, but
Philadelphia police cars carried multiple automatic weapons and
thousands of rounds as standard issue in the 60s.)
>Not that there is anything wrong with a
>revolver but if you're a cop that is up against some gang member with a couple
>of automatics in his coat (I mean semi-auto handguns) you're going to be at a
>disadvantage even with training.
What is the nature of this disadvantage?  If the cop can shoot, 6
rounds will do the job against a single opponent (especially since the
cop has guaranteed backup).  If the "gang member" can shoot, the extra
rounds don't help.  The only time this difference can matter is if
neither can shoot, and cops aren't supposed to be throwing lead around
like that.
BTW - most cops carry multiple guns.  You're not supposed to know
about the second, third, and so on.
>I have been at a shooting range where
>gang members were "practicing" shooting.
How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?
They were actually practicing
>taking out their guns as quick as possible and shooting at the target
>and they weren't doing too badly either.
Then the extra rounds won't make any difference, so why is it an issue?
-andy
--
From: amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Nntp-Posting-Host: bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Lines: 17
In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
>That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
>
k
Guys, guys, (and gals), let's lay off Jason here.  Though he stepped
in it, he has been very good so far about admitting he doesn't know
what he's talking about, and even more stunning is that he seems
--
Anmar Mirza   # Chief of Tranquility  #My Opinions! NotIU's!#CIANSAKGBFBI
EMT-D         # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#ASSASINATEDEA
N9ISY (tech)  # Somewhere out on the  # Politicians prefer  #NAZIPLUTONIUM
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants.   #PRESIDENTFEMA
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Lines: 11
In article <1qk3jm$9sh@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>I know a number of ex-HCI members who have recently become NRA members.
>I've never heard of a single one who has gone the other way.
I've been a member of the NRA for several years and recently "joined"
HCI.  I wanted to see what they were up to and paid the minimum ($15)
to get a membership. I also sent the NRA another $120.
--
Would the founding fathers have approved of encryption so
strong that the government could not break it?
From: bbs.billand@tsoft.net (Bill Anderson)
Subject: Handgun Restrictions
Organization: The TSoft BBS and Public Access Unix, +1 415 969 8238
Lines: 7
I would like to know what restrictions there are on purchasing handguns
(ie waiting periods, background check etc..) in the states of Nevada and
Oregon. Thanks.
-Bill
--
Bill Anderson (bbs.billand@tsoft.net)
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)
Distribution: usa
<93104.231049U28037@uicv <1993Apr15.152834.16638@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
Lines: 46
In article <1993Apr15.152834.16638@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
(Dillon Pyron) says:
>>>Some police departments switched to Glocks, and then started quietly
>>>switching many officers back to the old revolvers. Too many were having
>>>accidents, partly due to the poor training they received. Not that Glocks
>>>require rocket scientists, but some cops are baffled by something as complex
>>>as the timer on a VCR.
>>
>>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Ahem!!!  Hrumph!!!!  You have encurred the wrath of Glock owners.  We will
>beat
>you with our hammers.  Oooops, don't have any  :-)
>
>Seriously.  There is no difference in the safeties betweena Glock and any DA
>revolver.  Intellectually, think of the Glock as a very high cap revolver.
>Ignoring stove pipes, misfeeds and all the other bonus exercises that
>autoloaders give you, that is.
>
>Every gun has its safe moment and its dangerous moment.  If you just learn how
>to handle it, it becomes a lot less dangerous (to you).
>--
>Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
>TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
>(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
>(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |Texans: Vote NO on Robin Hood.  We need
>pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |solutions, not gestures.
>PADI DM-54909                     |
>
All very true.  I'm going on what I have read and heard from friends.
Basically the Glock is great but I have heard/read that it is a lot harder to
learn proper handling because of the type of safety that it has.  I was
looking at a Glock .40S&W and the S&W 4006 a couple of weeks ago and the
safties on the guns were very different.  The saftey on the 4006 seemed a lot
more "safe"  (for lack of a better word) than the one on the Glock.  Of course
this could also be a bad thing if you were to pull the gun on somebody.  You
would spend more time fiddling around turning the safety off.  Personally I
like the Glocks because they are very light and I think they look really cool
(guess that's why they use them in so many movies) but I wouldn't get one as
my first semi-auto because of the safety.  I would prefer more training with
a "traditional" semi-auto (ala Colt .45) but of course that's just my opinion.
Jason
Nntp-Posting-Host: surt.ifi.uio.no
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
In-Reply-To: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)'s message of 15 Apr 1993
13:08:14 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
<1qjmnuINNlmd@clem.handheld.com>
Lines: 73
Originator: thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no
I HATE long postings, but this turned out to be rather lengthy....
Overall Crime rate:
It fell....just like that...
Acquiring weapons in Norway:
You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a
permit, and a good reason to get the permit....
If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from
the police and to be a member of a gun-club.
The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or
records of SERIOUS mental diseases.
Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun
-club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.
It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...
Use of guns in crimes (in Norway):
Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms'
for a long time, but these are rather the exeption.
Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short
time befor the crime.
Use of knives:
It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
in public -rigth ??
Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive':
We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide
to take action we DO.
Ask ANY historian or millitary with an knowledge of europe....
(Or ask any German who served in Norway in WW2.....)
Individual vs masses:
Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
extent....
Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of
all the others ??
The issue:
I believe the issue is GUNS, and gun-legislation.
We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....
IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
But should it have to be like that ??
Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??
If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
it should be free to buy guns ??
Disclaim-her:
I'm not a pacifist or anti gun.
I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as
neccities or toys.
I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't
want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....
This is not a .signature.
It's marly a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
and to bring down the evil Internet.
Thomas Parsli
thomasp@ifi.uio.no
From: awesley@vela.acs.oakland.edu (awesley)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A.
Lines: 115
NNTP-Posting-Host: vela.acs.oakland.edu
scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) writes:
: The issue has never been whether tanks were used in Detroit in 1967.  It
: has been whether they fired their main guns.
Never?  This is incorrect.  Either you don't read very well or resort
to falsehoods in an attempt to make a point.
At the risk of boring and belaboring the point, my claim was
the chain was regarding the tanks "last used in Detroit in 48".
The text follows.
:  You did not merely claim that
: tanks were used--you claimed that they fired their main guns to suppress
: sniper fire and that they were "quite" effective at this.
Indeed, when Coffman claimed they were only used as APCs, I did say
I had been told they did fire their main guns.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: You continue to
: back away from this claim and defend something else that nobody is
: disputing.
Well, the poster who I responded to did dispute the use of tanks
post-48.  Rude of you to call Gary Coffman a nobody.
: "Well, it's not the main gun."  Gee, that's only the entire point.  Are you
: now going to admit that you were wrong?
That was the entire point to *you*.  What exactly did I claim?
--------------------------------------------------
"I've heard eye-witness descriptions of tanks using their main guns
to respond to sniper fire.  Quite effectively."
--------------------------------------------------
I wasn't wrong . . . I've heard those descriptions.  If you're
paying attention, I've mentioned that I saw the tanks with my own
eyes, but the main gun firing was an account I heard.  That helps
people judge whether or not to kick in the, to use your words,
"bullshit filters".  Stating that I *claimed* this is a falsehood.
What was it I claimed as fact?  Here's the entire post:
--------------------------------------------------
>We haven't used tanks against the black ghettos since Detroit 1948.
Correction.  I know they used tanks in Detroit 1968.  I saw em, it
was well covered in the news at that time.  Gordon Lightfoot mentions
it in his song "Black Day in July".
--------------------------------------------------
Since you don't dispute that and claim that nobody else does, that
means I was right.
: I will never read of tanks firing their main guns in Detroit in the '67
: riots.  There is simply no way that such an event could have taken place
: without it being common knowledge even 26 years later.  The American
: military firing shells from tanks in American cities on blacks would have
: been *big* news.
So one would suppose.  Some folks think in happened in 48.
Awesley goes on:
You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.
: To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
: grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
: perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
: it makes your other claim seem more plausible.
John, again, strawman techniques.  Do you feel you're losing it so you
have to stretch what I said and knock that down?  What I read said
nothing about what they fired.  And so I put nothing in there.  If you
need some help, let me know and I'l take your side of this for a
while.  You're not scoring here, you're boring here.
: If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
: screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
: it.
Glad to know you're such an expert.  Nice to hear some an
authority.  I especially appreciate your basis of knowledge -- if it
had happened, you would have know it.  Since you are such an
authority, you probably know that people did scream about an alleged
massive cover-up in the number of people killed in the Detroit riot.
Some claimed 100+ dead, others said 300.  The offical number is 43 but
the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia says it was "several".  I've also
heard some things about that but I won't dare repeat them.  You'd
assert that I claimed they were truth.
: Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up.
Taking the tour after the riots, it was pretty easy to tell the
difference between Army and Guard troops.  Or so I recall from 26
years ago.  And I seem to recall it was the Army running the tanks.
So it would have been an Army cover-up.
Another part of my memories was that while most damaged building
were burnt, some were in rubble.  Based on what I remember, I was and
am inclined to believe an old sarge or two.
: If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I prefer
: to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
: those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.
Given the level in destruction in Detroit, I'm quite willing to believe
that they did fire their guns.
Now then, we've bored the shit out of anyone whose bothered to read
this far and all you've managed to say is that you don't believe the
account I cited.
: --John L. Scott
-- wes
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Distribution: usa
<93104.231 <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Lines: 44
In article <1993Apr15.184452.27322@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>In article <93104.231049U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz                     >
><U28037@uicvm.uic.edu
>>All your points are very well taken and things that I haven't considered as
>>I am not really familiar enough with handguns.
>
>That's not all that Kratz doesn't know.
>
>>Hell, a Glock is the last thing that should be switched to.  The only thing
>>that I know about a Glock is the lack of a real safety on it.  Sure there is
>>that little thing in the trigger but that isn't too great of a safety.
>
>Now we know that Kratz doesn't understand what a safety is supposed to
>do.  (He also confuses "things he can see" with "things that exist";
>Glocks have multiple safeties even though only one is visible from the
>outside.)
>
Excuse me but I do know what I safety is supposed to do.  It's basic purpose -
not to let the gun fire until you're ready.  Christ, I've known that since I
had my first Crosman air gun.  You don't know me so don't make assumptions
about what I know and don't know.  I do know that the Glock has multiple
safties from reports, looking at them at a gun shop, and friends who own one.
>A safety is supposed to keep the gun from going off UNLESS that's
>what the user wants.  With Glocks, one says "I want the gun to go
>off" by pulling the trigger.  If the safeties it has make that work,
>it has a "real" safety, no matter what Kratz thinks.
>
>-andy
>--
From the things I have read/heard Glocks are always knocked because of the
trigger safety.  They are supposedly harder to learn to use properly.  Every
article that I have read can't be wrong about the damn thing.  And don't ask
me to quote my sources because I don't keep a ton of gun magazines and/or
rec.guns articles laying around.  Boy, you can't make a simple statement on
here without someone getting right on your ass.  No wonder why there are so
many problems in the world.  Everyone takes everything just a little too
seriously.  By the way,  I'm not going to reply to any of this stuff anymore as
someone made the good point that this discussion is getting too close to r.g
(And yes I know that I had something to do with that).
Jason
From: paull@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Robert Paull)
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Lines: 17
Andy Freeman (andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: >NEWSPAPER AD CENSORSHIP
: >
: >San Fran. Independent	San Fran. Examiner	San Jose Mercury News
: >1201 Evans Ave		110 5th St.		750 Ridder Park Dr.
: >San Fran., CA 94124	San Fran., CA 94103	San Jose, CA 95190
:
Hmmm, the SJ Merc. carries Targemasters West, National Shooting club,
Reeds sportshop, Sportsmens supply and Big 5 ads. They all sell guns.
No they don't have any adds like in Shotgun news.  If they won't at least
run the current adds I swear I'll cancel my subscription and end to cash
to the CRPA.
Rob P.
From: syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu (Steven B Syck)
Subject: Re: Don't knock the Glock (was Re: My Gun is like my Am Ex Card)
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Lines: 61
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.9.13
In article <93105.164406U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>
>All very true.  I'm going on what I have read and heard from friends.
>Basically the Glock is great but I have heard/read that it is a lot harder to
>learn proper handling because of the type of safety that it has.  I was
>looking at a Glock .40S&W and the S&W 4006 a couple of weeks ago and the
>safties on the guns were very different.  The saftey on the 4006 seemed a lot
>more "safe"  (for lack of a better word) than the one on the Glock.  Of course
>this could also be a bad thing if you were to pull the gun on somebody.  You
>would spend more time fiddling around turning the safety off.  Personally I
>like the Glocks because they are very light and I think they look really cool
>(guess that's why they use them in so many movies) but I wouldn't get one as
>my first semi-auto because of the safety.  I would prefer more training with
>a "traditional" semi-auto (ala Colt .45) but of course that's just my opinion.
>
>Jason
At the risk of starting the 'my gun is better than yours' flame
war, I must disagree.
There is no secret in handling a Glock.  In fact, it is often
chosen (besides its other merits) because it shoots like a revolver does
basically.  It can limit the training time (read budget $$$) due to the
fact there are no 'external' safties other than the trigger, hence less
training time required.
Smith & Wesson (among other types) are chosen due to the fact taht
they do have the external safties (hammer drop,as well as mag drop) which
if properly used have saved many lives when 'Mr. Bad' snatched the gun
from the officer and tried to shoot said officer the gun was on safe and
would not fire.  This point had been made in many articles in various
gun magazines.  If fact, one author (can't remember who) staged a little
test where he had a revolver and a S&W on safe laying on a table and asked
people with little firearms experience to on his signal, grab the gun and
shoot a target.  He timed the people using each gun.  The revolver times
were pretty close, but some of the times with the S&W were in minutes, or
the person just gave up because they could not figure out the saftey.
You don't often see Colt 45 autos issued due to the light trigger
which can be accidentally fired in a stress situation, opening the issuing
city,county, etc.. to lawsuits, bad press, etc..
Of course any problem can be overcome with enough training, but
such training is not always available to budget crunched departments.  I
know if I were a Cop I would want something like a S&W just for the off
chance of the gun getting taken away.  The safety doesn't guarantee that
'Mr. Bad' won't figure it out and shoot me, but it could buy enough time
to draw a second gun and shoot 'Mr. Bad' before it's too late.
Don't think I am too biassed here just because I have had 3 Glocks
in my possession at one time, because I have had a .45 as well.  In fact,
it was my first handgun.  Remember, the ultimate 'safety' is YOU the
operator, and no safety is going to stop an negligent discharge (note I
don't say accidental) if you break the rules of gun handling.
As per the part of being light weight and looking cool, I agree
100%.  I wouldn't rule it out as a first purchase.
-Just my $.02 + tax
-------   Steve Syck        syck5280@miller.cs.uwm.edu        --------
From: brant@seq.uncwil.edu (AT-Dreamer)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: na
Lines: 10
Anyone who worries about his own gun should not have one.  If you carry
any pistol with a empty chamber and safety the chances of it going off
are about zero.  Unless you sit it on top of a lite stove for a couple
of minutes or put it in a fire. :-)
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger"  Spoken by many A.T. hikers         |
|  Kilo Delta Four Zulu Papa Uniform -KD4ZPU 146.82
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: earlw@apple.com (Earl Wallace)
Subject: Re: "Proper gun control?" What is proper gun control?
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc. ESD/OSBU/Cross-Platform Software
Lines: 26
NNTP-Posting-Host: apple.com
In article <C5JAtz.5G4@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat) writes:
>...
>Let's prohibit arms carrying by police when off-duty. Or, if they make
>the assertion that "Well, I need to maintain my gun" let's make it
>regulation that they can carry an UNLOADED firearm home, that it's
>only fair that they be just as helpless as poor schmuck coming home
>from his computer operator job...
>
>NRA Director/ex-San Jose cop Leroy Pyle states in the latest SWAT
>magazine that anti-cops better watch out for this schism between
>RKBA folks and the police. He asks the rhetorical question of 'What
>if what's left of the gun lobby starts demanding the disarmament
>of the police?"
>
>Well, I guess anti-gun cops who think only they should be armed,
>along with the wealthy and politically connected, should be made
>to realize that screwing can cut in ways they have yet to imagine.
>...
We all know this will never happen.  Because the Police are under the wings
of Government, they will always be considered more important than Citizens.
Government pens, pencils and paper are considered more important than
Citizens.
I think we have a problem with our Government.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Lines: 134
In article <CMM.0.90.2.734911642.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no> Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>Overall Crime rate:
>It fell....just like that...
Two questions:  When was this, and do you have the relevant
numbers.  (Please note, this is *not* in any way an indication I don't
believe you or that you're not correct, but when the drop occured is
relevant.)
>Acquiring weapons in Norway:
>You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a
>permit, and a good reason to get the permit....
>If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from
>the police and to be a member of a gun-club.
The primary objection (beyond ones based on the ideal of
RKBA that it is simply not something the government should do) is
that it makes guns a play-thing and tool of the rich and connected.
It discriminates against the poor.
Is self-defense considered appropriate, and if so, under what
conditions?  (Are you allowed, for instance to get a gun for protection
if you're going to be carrying a very large sum of money on a regular
basis or have been threatened.)
>The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or
>records of SERIOUS mental diseases.
This has been suggested in the U.S., and generally supported among
gun owners.  What many object to is that many, if not most, proposals
contain a sort of "gotcha" clause which allows an arbitrary denial, even
if you qualify in every way.
>Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun
>-club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.
>It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
>You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...
At this point, it should be pointed out that in general
a driver's licence in the U.S. is for the most part nothing like its
European counterpart.  I understand getting one is far more difficult
there than here.  In the U.S. it's a joke.
But my usual objection is that you're discussing two different
things.  For instance, in the U.S. a driver's license is a permit
to operate a motor vehicle on a public road.  It is not necessary
to own one, or to operate it on private property.  That is, the
ability to require driving permits is generally considered to arise
from the government's legitimate power to enact reasonable regulations
for behavior on public lands.  A permit to own an automobile, for instance,
which is far closer an analogy, would be a much harder thing to get
past legally, since it wouldn't be based on making regulations on public
property, but in restricting activity on private property.
>Use of guns in crimes (in Norway):
>Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms'
>for a long time, but these are rather the exeption.
>Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short
>time befor the crime.
>
>Use of knives:
>It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
>You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
>in public -rigth ??
This varies *widely*.  (One thing I think Europeans have
a difficult time with is that the U.S. has fifty unique jurisdictions,
where the laws from one state to another can be as radically different
as from one country in Europe to another).
Some places allow open carry of both guns and knives.  Some allow
concealed.  Some prohibit both, or allow one or the other.  And it can
be either a state or local restriciton.
>Individual vs masses:
>Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
>extent....
>Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
>What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of
>all the others ??
The question must be asked:  Is the right of *this* individual
affecting the rights of this *other* individual.  What we usually
get is that the rights of this *group* (meaning some individuals within
this group, here defined as "people who own guns,") are adversely affecting
the rights of some other group.
If for instance, "Bob" were using his gun to attack "Steve," you'd
have a point.  But essentially what we're discussing is that becuase
some person who qualifies as a member of the group "people who own
guns" then some third person, perhaps in another *time zone* is told
that their being a member of that group is taking away somebody else's
rights.  It's like trying to punish all newspapers for the libel commited
by one.
>The issue:
>I believe the issue is GUNS, and gun-legislation.
The issue is crime, violence, and murder.  The question is to
what extent guns and gun legislation impact those.
>We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....
>IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
>But should it have to be like that ??
Of course not.  It would be nice if we didn't have to fear that
other people might get it into their twisted little minds to hurt us.
But currently we don't have that option.  Nor do I expect we will.
>Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??
No state does.  In any case, there's a limit to which the state
may enforce it's "wisdom" on me.  Freedom in general is an unwise
concept.  If you pre-emptively restrict everything which might be
"unwise" then freedom becomes a meaningless concept.
>If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
>it should be free to buy guns ??
I'll raise my hand against driver's licenses.  As currently
implemented they're a waste of time and little more than revanue
generation for the State and ignored by a startling number of
drivers.  It does not guarantee a level of skill any higher than is
necessary to get your car on the road and get yourself or somebody
else killed, or a knowledge of traffic laws beyond what any ten year
old will have picked up riding around in his parents car.
But, as I mentioned, they're two different things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 15
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>                                     A BILL
>
> To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
>     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
>     to provide for the enforcement of such right.
Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C 922(o)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 53
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
In article <1993Apr15.142322.1318@atlastele.com>, brians@atlastele.com (Brian Sheets) writes:
> You know, I was reading 18 U.S.C. 922 and something just did not make
> sence and I was wondering if someone could help me out.
>
> Say U.S.C. 922 :
>
> (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for
> any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
>
>  Well I got to looking in my law dictionary and I found that a "person"
> might also be an artificial entity that is created by government
^^^^^
> and has no rights under the federal constitution. So, what I
> don't understand is how a statute like 922 can be enforced on
> an individual. So someone tell me how my government can tell
> me what I can or cannot possess. Just passing a law
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> does not make it LAW.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, but I really can't figure out what you're trying to say, above.
> Everyone knows that laws are constitional
> until it goes to court.
Not exactly:
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes
no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the
form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the
time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so
branding it."
"No on is bound to obey an uncontitutional law, and no courts are
bound to enforce it."
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177
late 2d, Sec 256
> So, has it ever gone to court, not
> just your run of the mill "Ok I had it I am guilty, put me in jail"
> Has anyone ever claimed that they had a right to possess and was told
> by the Supreme Court that they didn't have that right?
Automatic weapons?  No.  The Supreme Court has never heard such a case.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: ACLU policies
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 59
ACLU Official Policies.
Policy 18, for example, opposes rating systems for motion
pictures: "Industry sponsored ratings systems create the
potential for constraining the creative process and thus
contracting the marketplace of ideas. Despite the stated goal of
providing guidance to parents, experience has shown that ratings
inevitably have serious chilling effects on freedom of
expression."
In regards to the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU states in its
Policy 84: "The insertion of the words `under God' into the
Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of the constitutional
principle of separation of Church and State."
Policy 120 states that, "Military conscription under any
circumstances is a violation of civil liberties and
constitutional guarantees." The ACLU objects to the draft even
during wartime because of the "anti-democratic power it gives
government to wage war without support of the people."
Policy 125 states, "The ACLU calls for a broad-based inquiry into
war crimes within the widest possible definition of war crimes
against humanity, and crimes against the peace, focusing upon the
actions of the United States military and other combatants
against the people of South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and North
Vietnam."
Policy 133 states, "The ACLU recognizes that US government
reliance upon nuclear weaponry as a dominant element of foreign
and domestic policy, while propounded as a defense of democracy,
is in fact a great threat to civil liberties. Four decades of
adherence to this policy has fundamentally altered the nature of
our constitutional democratic process and poses a paramount
threat to our civil liberties."
Policy 217 objects to roadblocks "where drivers are stopped for
sobriety tests" because they "violate Fourth Amendment
principles."
Policy 242 states the following on criminal
sentencing: "The most appropriate correctional approach is
reintegrating the offender into the community, and the goals of
reintegration are furthered much more readily by working with the
offender within the community than by incarceration. Probation
should be authorized by the legislature in every case; exceptions
to the principle are not favored, and any exceptions, if made,
should be limited to the most serious of offenses, such as murder
or treason."
Bill Vojak
vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
NRA, ILA,
Colorado Firearms Coalition
------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------
From: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com (Bill Vojak)
Subject: UPI News Release
Originator: vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: icebucket.stortek.com
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.
Lines: 82
UPI Washington DC, Update Desk			4/15/93
For the past several months the Clinton administration has been
stymied by mixed signals coming from the economy.  While most
leading indicators has shown an apparent improvement in the
economy, there has been no corresponding improvement in the area
of jobs creation.
The unemployment figures seem stalled at the 7% mark.  last month,
in an effort to understand this problem, President Clinton appointed
a blue ribbon panel to try to resolve the apparent conflicting
economic signals.  This panel was chaired by Vice President Gore.
Today the panel released their results, providing a shocking conclusion.
"It's the guns" Vice President Gore said.  Apparently NRA members, and other
"gun-nuts" are purchasing firearms at in record numbers, pulling the
economy out of the recession.  "Their buying them five times faster than
ever before, and stockpiling left and right", the Vice President said.
However, since many domestic firearm and ammunition manufacturers have
been experiencing hard times during the past few years, including several
declarations of bankruptcy by many leading American gun makers, they have
not rushed to increase hiring to meet the new demand.
"We want to see if this run will continue before hiring more people", said
the President of Colt industries.  "As long as Clinton is in office, we
suspect it will", he added.
In response to this new information, President Clinton announced a new
Gun Control measure to be introduced into Congress this session.  It's
called the "Ban-One-A-Month" Gun Control Bill.  Under the terms of this law,
every make and model of all firearms will be written on individual index
cards.  The cards will all be put in a big hat and the President will draw
one card every month.  Sixty days later that gun will be banned from any
further manufacture/importation or sale in this country, except to the
politically connected and to members of the National Police Force.
The President said, "This law will benefit America two ways.  When the
Gun-Of-The-Month is announced every thirty days, the gun-nuts will run
out and buy thousands of them, boosting the economy even more.  In addition,
over the long run, we will get all of these icky-evil guns off of the
street."  He also announce the appointment of Sarah Brady to oversee
this program, citing her "Honesty, and unbiased view on the subject
of gun control".
Senators Metzenbaum, DeConcini, Feinstein, and Boxer have proposed an
amendment to the Bill which would add additional index cards containing
caliber designations for all know ammunitions.  "Their stockpiling,
stockpiling, stockpiling" screamed Metzenbaum during a press conference
at the national Headquarters of Handgun Control Inc.
Senators Simon, Metzenbaum, and Moyenhan also introduced an amendment
that would make all guns illegal to possess once the last card has been
drawn from the hat.  Senator Simon was quoted as saying, "First we'll
fuck em, then we'll kick em out of bed in the morning", during a press
conference he held in the second floor Mens Restroom of the Senate
building.  He of course was referring to the fact that he would allow
the people to purchase the guns to help the economy, but would require
the BATF to seize all of the guns in America sometime in the year 2008,
after all of the cards have been drawn.
The head of the BATF responded by saying, "We will have to see if this
thing in Waco is over by then.  We may be too busy to seize all those
guns".
US House Representatives Pat Schroeder and David Skaggs of Colorado
declared this proposed law as being "reasonable gun control which won't
affect anybodys Constitutional right to own sporting guns".
- end article -
For the humor impaired :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)
Bill Vojak
vojak@icebucket.stortek.com
NRA, ILA,
Colorado Firearms Coalition
------------------------------------------------------------
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER NOT!)
The CBS Nightly Propaganda With Dan Rather. (RATHER BIASED!)
------------------------------------------------------------
From: arf@genesis.MCS.COM (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....
Organization: MCSNet Contributor, Chicago, IL
Lines: 28
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.mcs.com
In article <1qanj0$22d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>How many are aware that the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a verbatim translation
>of a Nazi gun control law passed shortly before the Holocaust?
>
>For those of you who think I'm being paranoid in asking these questions,
>pray that you are right.  Unchecked democracies usually end in
>dictatorship.  Remember, Germany was a democracy when Hitler rose to power.
>Can we be absolutely certain nothing like that could happen today?
I can't speak for the organizations you cited but everywhere you look in
our society and government, one can see the relentless movement toward
one world government.  The fact that the media demeans such charished
values as patriotism, nationalism and protectionism are some of the
clues.  The fact that we are sapping the economic strength of americans
to prop up a former and possibly future enemy is just another.  The fact
the words like community of nations, global village and international
business are in vogue are others.  International corporations are
destroying our identy and economy and the propaganda they are playing
through the media and government is over powering our ability to resist.
Our porous border both people and trade are an indiciation that we have
already lost a great deal of sovergnty.
The bottome line is that the single most evil aspect of One World
Government is that you have nowhere to run to and history has proven
that would be a disaster.
Beware the LIBERAL and the conservative and the moderate.  Think for yourself
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 122
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
In article <CMM.0.90.2.734911642.thomasp@surt.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> If I would like to have a handgun, i would have to get an gun-licence from
> the police and to be a member of a gun-club.
> The police would check my criminal records for any SERIOUS crimes and/or
> records of SERIOUS mental diseases.
> Now, if a got my licence, I would have to be an active member of the gun
> -club for 6 months BEFORE I could collect my gun.
So, like, what do you do during those six months to be "active?"
My town has a similar requirement, and it's rather stupid.  Before
you can buy a handgun, you have to be an active member of a gun club.
Well, how active can you be without a gun, chief?
Most gun owners feel a check of criminal records for crimes and mental
disorders would be a very good thing -- IF it couldn't be abused by the
government.  But every time this is proposed, there is always some
trapdoor by which the government can deny your purchase EVEN IF you
are perfectly qualified to own a gun.  And we oppose this.
> It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
> You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...
Since the fatal accident rate for licensed automobile drivers in the US
is around 50 times the fatal accident rate of largely unlicensed gun
owners, I'd think twice before using this analogy.
Besides, the problem is criminal use of guns, not accidents.  (There
are about 500,000 criminal uses of guns in the US every year -- but
only 1,400 accidents.)  I don't think it's necessary to spend a lot
of energy making sure a criminal CAN shoot a gun before he gets one.
Just like the check, most gun owners feel positively about requiring
safety courses -- IF they couldn't be abused by the government.  But
they already have!  One state doesn't hold the courses, another doesn't
fund them, a third holds them only once a year with limited attendence
to those with political connections.  Is this fair?
> Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short
> time befor the crime.
And how many of them acquire these guns from legal retail outlets?
How many are borrowed, stolen, smuggled, bought on the black market?
> Use of knives:
> It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
> You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
> in public -rigth ??
Some states allow ONLY open carry.  Some allow ONLY concealed carry.
Some allow both.  Some allow both, but require licenses for concealed
carry.  All you can say is if one of these modes has a clear advantage
over another in terms of reducing crime or any other public good,
then state legislators SOMEPLACE are doing exactly the wrong thing.
Which means that they really don't have any objective reasons for
these laws other than their preferences -- a bad way to govern.
> Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive':
> We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide
> to take action we DO.
("Hot-livered."  I LOVE that expression.  Here, we say "hot-headed.")
> Individual vs masses:
> Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
> extent....
> Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
> What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of
> all the others ??
Typically, the only criminals who can affect the rights of ALL the other
people are criminals in government offices.  The rest of our criminals
affect the rights of only one or a few people at a time, and they do this
during the commission of a crime.  POSSESSION of a gun by someone hurts
NO ONE else.  It is when they do something violent with that gun that
the crime occurs.  Of course, it is a crime for a felon or ex-felon to
possess a gun, but we don't feel it is right to treat common citizens
who have lived good lives as if they were just "pre-felons" waiting to
commit crimes.
> We shouldn't mix weapons and items that can serve as one....
I don't understand this sentence.
> IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
> But should it have to be like that ??
Life isn't fair.  I shouldn't need a fire extinguisher either, or
flood and theft insurance, or to lock the doors of my house and car.
But pining for a better world won't do anything to address what I have
to do to live in this one.
> Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??
None of ours, I'm sure.
> If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
> it should be free to buy guns ??
Frankly, I'm not sure I know what good a driver's license does anyone,
either.  The people who drive safely never use it, and the people who
drive drunk, drive without it!
However, a car is a good tool, but not one that protects my right to life.
I rank the right to life somewhere north of the right to travel freely.
> I'm not a pacifist or anti gun.
> I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as
> neccities or toys.
> I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't
> want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....
The question is not whether or not you want to own guns personally.  It's
whether or not you think that ALL people should be forced to do as you do.
I don't have any problem with someone who says they would never own a gun.
I do have a problem with someone who says I should be prevented from owning
one, too.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Subject: Re: [long]: Gun Hearings Day in Massachusetts (April 7)
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Lines: 263
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com
[This is a co-authored report from two of us who were there.]
Gun Owners Action League, our state rifle association, started the day
with a rally in the secluded courtyard behind the statehouse at 9:30.
It was looking sparse (about 40 people) until the speaker began,
whereupon about 120 more people followed the loudspeakers from
wherever they had been lost, and filled out the area something proud.
Mike Yacino of GOAL spoke.  One of his best throwaway lines was to
remind us that all of us holders of carry permits there had been
checked and certified clear of all crimes by the state; while the
people in the Statehouse behind us only had to be certified clean of
"election fraud" to hold their jobs.
Nancy Snow and Amos Hamburger were busy handing out ID buttons and
sheets describing all the bills to be presented at the hearings, and
telling people where to find their own representatives (and in too
many cases, who they were).
Mike warned us that the committee was going to suspend its rules and
discuss a bill that hadn't made it onto the official list.  It seems a
delegation of students from Simon's Rock of Bard College (alma mater
of Wayne Lo, who shot up the place with an SKS late last year) was
being bussed in to testify for a bill to ban all sales of firearms or
ammo to anyone who is not a state resident.
The hearings were originally scheduled in the (large) Gardner
Auditorium at 10:30, but that had been pre-empted by the Governor's
hearings on the Framingham Eight (women in prison for killing abusive
husbands, and seeking release).  So we had until 1:30 to buttonhole
our representatives, after which we would be squashed into an
inadequate hearing room.
One of my representatives' staffers was somewhat offensively smarmy.
He said, "Oh, it must be gun hearings day again!  The gun lobby is
always so organized every year."  I got a little pissed, and replied,
"I'm not from the gun lobby -- I'm from your district."
At 12:30, your second reporter arrived in time to notice a
demonstration going on in front of the statehouse (where the
pro-gunners weren't).  Randy Price from the TV News was there, in his
mirror reflective shades, talking to one of the anti-gun types, and
several Simon's Rock anti-gun "close-the-loophole" protestors.
(Earlier, Randy had covered the GOAL rally.)
The room we had been assigned seated about 50.  Remember, there were
about 160 gun owners there, plus another 20-30 students and teachers
from Bard.  One of us had already reserved a seat; the other never got
closer than the atrium outside -- and there was a crowd behind HIM.  A
cop took up station at the entrance and prevented the rest of the
crowd from coming in.  Soon after the debate started, a loudspeaker
was set up outside in the hall for the benefit of everyone else.
Everyone who was there (inside and outside) got to sign up on a sheet
saying what their position was on which bills.  Most of us signed up
to "support GOAL's position" on "all bills."
First, because of their time constraints, public officials got to
testify.  And first up was the bill that nobody had seen (the students
had some curfew, I guess).
Currently, Massachusetts law allows a non-resident to purchase long
guns or ammo from a local dealer provided he complies with the laws of
his own state.  Previously, the law was similar, but applied only to
non-residents from states adjoining Massachusetts.  The Simon's Rock
folks called the current law a "loophole" and wanted it closed.
Two of their reps spoke about Wayne Lo and his "SKS assault rifle."
The second one, Hodgekiss, a co-sponsor, had done his homework so well
that he kept confusing Montana (Wayne Lo's home state) with Missouri,
and became belligerent when about five gun owners in the gallery
corrected him after his second muff.  Carr, from Gloucester, claimed
that the new bill would put the law back the way it was, but he was
lying: the new bill allows purchases by non-residents of adjoining
states ONLY if they have licensing in their own state "as strong as"
that in Massachusetts.  Since none of them do, that's that.
Some of the things these two said were really offensive.  "In some of
these other states, anyone can buy a gun as long as he's breathing!"
(Oooooo!)  "We have some very, very good gun laws in Massachusetts; if
only the other states would adopt the same type of laws, we wouldn't
be having this situation -- but they won't."  (Naughty, naughty!)
Next up was Boston city councilman Albert "Dapper" O'Neill.  He was
there to testify pro-gun, but in some ways he was a liability.  He's
reasonably elderly and tends to wander and repeat himself, plus he's
almost a caricature of a law-n-order politician.  He badmouthed the
ACLU, said violent criminals should be executed, and that if he were
judge, he'd give arrestees their "last rights" (pun intended) on the
spot (at which many of the gun owners applauded, which bothered me.)
He said that all the proposed gun restrictions were a step in the
right direction -- for the criminals.  He said this FOUR times :-(
Two of the bills under consideration would allow police to rescind a
CCW or FID, and confiscate all your guns, if someone had filed a
restraining order against you.  (Note that the filing of a restraining
order requires no warrant, no hearing, no evidence, and no conviction
-- just an accusation.)  Senator Barrett of Reading testified in favor
of it, and patronized the pro-gunners there several times by saying,
"I'm sure all the gun owners here will agree with me that we have to
get these weapons out of the hands of people that our courts have
convicted."  I haven't seen such a disgustingly disingenuous
performance since Nixon whined that he wasn't a crook.
Barrett also spoke in favor of the bill making the FID card renewable
every five years, instead of permanent as it is now.  The stated
purpose is to remove FID cards from those who have become ineligible.
"Revenue has nothing to do with it."  (Yeah, right.)  Apparently, some
congressmen think we're stupid enough to swallow the argument that
it's preferable to process 1.6 million renewals every cycle in the
vague hope of catching a recent felon than to simply take the goddamn
card away from a criminal at conviction time.  As usual, hassle the
law-abiding instead of the crook.
The two co-chairs of the committee were Rep. Caron and Sen. Jujuga.
Jujuga didn't say much (he was a co-sponsor of both "restraining
order" bills) but Caron struck me as a sharp guy that wouldn't let any
bad logic or lies on the part of either side to go unchallenged.  (He
was a co-sponsor of one of the "restraining order" bills as well.)  One
of the younger reps on the committee (forgot his name) was
vociferously pro-gun, somewhat embarrassingly so.  His heart was in
the right place, but his arguments seemed to be confined to, "every
year it's the same damn thing, you come in here with this crap..."
It's nice to have a friend on the committee, but he could have been
more effective.
At about 3:00, it was clear that the hall-jam couldn't continue.
Someone came out of another meeting hall and yelled at the cop because
the loudspeaker was disturbing their meeting, so the loudspeaker was
disconnected.  So they found a bigger hall upstairs.  One of us had
to leave to catch his charter bus, and so missed the "public"
testimony; the other got a seat this time.
Caron began by talking about how he got his FID 16 years ago, left the
state, and then returned without notifying them of his address change.
He complained that the state record system was not up-to-date and that
his PD back in his city of birth still thought he lived there.  Great
quote: "If you purchase a gun today, it will not get into the state
computer system until 1999."  (This was also an argument he used
against the renewable FID card.)
Testimony was heard from several "battered women," one of whom had
been attacked by some guy in his 20's who had an FID card because he
got it when he was 15 or thereabouts.  They used a lot of emotion and
said how they were scared of these men.  A staffer of Attorney General
Harshbarger testified in favor of this anti-gun bill, saying how
50,000 restraining orders were granted last year, and how these women
needed to be protected.  Caron noted that a restraining order was
granted for 10 days, and then a hearing was held to determine whether
the order would be extended to a year.  He asked whether she would be
satisfied if the FID were revoked at the time of this hearing rather
than after the initial issuance of the FID.  She gave some long
rambling circumlocution in response.
Then testimony against the bill was heard.  Mike Yacino (who looks
something like Einstein) got up and made the point that restraining
orders were issued on too little evidence, that judges like to issue
restraining orders just to let things cool off no matter who they
think is right (man or woman), and that the hearings for restraining
orders are lightning sessions with little time to consider facts.
Atty. Karen McNutt spoke with him a few times during his testimony.
Other pro-gunners got up to testify.  One said he had had to file a
restraining order against a tenant to clear her out, and that she
countered by filing one against him!  He noted that this would have
allowed the state to confiscate his guns if the new bill became law.
One of the junior reps noted that "this is America" and we have to be
certain that individual rights are respected.  Senator Jujuga
reiterated this, saying that "people who abuse smaller people can go
to Hell as far as I care, but we have to be careful about equating
conviction with a restraining order."  (Point and match, Senator.)
Another pro-gunner got up and testified that he didn't know his
citizenship "expired every 5 years," and that a driver's license was a
privilege, not a right like the right to keep and bear arms.
A third got up and said the problem was with the criminal justice
system, and argued in favor of a death penalty bill and public
hangings.  Senator Jujuga said he had himself tried to get a death
penalty bill passed, and joking responded that he, too, favored public
hangings.  The speaker then responded, "I'll make you a deal.  You get
me the rope, and I'll tie the noose."
Next came public testimony on the Simon's Rock bill.  A teacher
testified that she had been the teacher of Wayne Lo, and that "he
wouldn't have been able to shoot people inside a building while he was
outside" without his evil gun.  She said that the "loophole" should be
closed to prevent something like this from "ever happening again".
Four or five other kids testified in favor of this bill, one of
spilling tears for the good legislators.  One of the students actually
shot by Wayne Lo was also there.  Many of them had T shirts on,
saying, "As long as one person can buy a gun in anger, none of us are
safe -- support gun control."  The committee was reluctant to grill or
correct the kids, except for Caron, who corrected one student who had
claimed that anyone could apply for an FID.  "Only residents can get
FID's," he said.  (How much do you want to bet that this kid had no
idea he had been conned into testifying for a bill that would cut
out-of-staters completely off?)
Yacino and McNutt spoke again, this time noting that the bill as
written would affect both ammo AND ALL guns possessed by
out-of-staters.  Karen also noted that hunters in CT, NH, and VT could
be put away for a year if they wandered across the MA boundary
somewhere in the woods and got challenged by game wardens.  Yacino
underscored the fact that Lo COULD have gotten an FID as a resident
student -- and, hell, even an CCW, as he had NO criminal or mental
record.
One junior rep was upset that it would take MA residents longer to buy
a gun than out-of-staters, and thought it was "elitist".  Another
(Caron?) said that we need the protection of preventing non-residents
from buying without an FID because only two other states in the union
had "FID-type" cards, so complying with all the laws of one's home
state was "not enough."  One pro-gun speaker replied that this
resembled a mother watching her son in a marching band and exclaiming,
"Everyone's out of step but Johnny!"
All the Bard College people were filing out as the pro-gun testimony
for this bill was made, and thus only pro-gunners were around when the
other bills came under consideration.  The main bills remaining (and
GOAL's position) were:
o  H.4375 and four others: Notify police chiefs so they can pull
licenses when a holder is convicted (strongly supported)
o  H.1732: Require trigger locks on all handguns sold (opposed)
o  H.962: Require trigger locks on all loaded firearms (strongly
opposed)
o  H.1350: Allow every municipality to enact their own gun laws
(opposed)
o  H.1731: Fund bullet-proof vests for municipal police (supported)
o  S.1097: State Constitutional Amendment for the RKBA (supported)
o  Several on police discretion in the issuance of FID cards (opposed)
o  Several altering non-resident license conditions (supported)
o  H.1135: Ban damn near all guns everywhere in the state (guess!)
Some of these took only 30 seconds to consider, as the remaining
pro-gunners raised hands in unison either for or against them.
Mike Yacino noted that, besides the danger in screwing with a trigger
lock on a loaded gun, that bill would make it illegal for a licensee
to carry his concealed handgun unless it were locked.
Caron blew right through H.1350 when he saw that we opposed it.
Again, he brought up the state's archaic records capability and said,
"This would create hundreds of different licensing systems."
The session ran late -- since it was the last scheduled hearing, it
could not be adjourned until everyone who wanted to had testified.  It
ended at about 6:30.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: HR 1276 ("A gun law I can live with!" :-)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 27
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.171601.25930@dg-rtp.dg.com>, meyers@leonardo.rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers) writes:
>>                                     A BILL
>>
>> To establish the right to obtain firearms for security, and
>>     to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and
>>     to provide for the enforcement of such right.
>Maybe I'm too "religious," but when I see a bill to "establish a right,"
>I wince.  Keep in mind, what the law giveth, the law can taketh away.
>--
>cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
I don't think your objection is beyond the bounds of rationality.  The
right mentioned in the bill is already established under the Second
Amendment; the bill should be reworded to reaffirm the Second Amendment
RKBA, and then establish the procedures for redress through the federal
court system.
The right already exists and is already embodied in our Constitution.
aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 21
In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes:
>The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do
>they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it
>only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?
This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical
coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future
national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured
must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital,
you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills.
In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them,
you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do
so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within
24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need
your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly
wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry
the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: cathy@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Cathy Smith)
Subject: Re: UPI News Release
Nntp-Posting-Host: blanca.lance.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523
Lines: 12
Cathy Smith posting for L. Neil Smith
Dear Bill --
Very, VERY good -- you made my whole day with this post. Thanks
a lot.
L. Neil Smith
My opinions are, of course, my own.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: Jason Kratz <U28037@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Distribution: usa
<93104.173826U28037@uicvm.uic.edu
<1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Lines: 28
In article <1993Apr15.202811.29312@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) says:
>
>>I have been at a shooting range where
>>gang members were "practicing" shooting.
>
>How do "we" know that they were gang members and not undercover cops
>or even law-abiding menacing minorities.  BTW - Why the sneer quotes?
>
"We" know because the area that the gun shop/shooting range is in is right on
the border of the west side of Chicago.  That is a gang infested area.  There
are many, many bad things going on in that area.  Also, I have several friends
that live very close to that area who have had problems with some of these
folks.  By the way, where did I say that they were minorities?  Do you think
that only minorities have gangs?  Not so.  As far as the quotes are concerned
it was totally obvious that they weren't just practicing for marksmanship.  I
don't know about you but I have never seen anyone else practice marksmanship by
taking their gun out of their coat as fast as possible and start shooting.  If
you would have been there Andy it would've been obvious to you too.  Of course
it might not have been.  Who knows.  All I do know is that I was there, I live
here and I know that they were gang bangers.  When you live here long enough it
becomes pretty easy to spot them via gang colors, gang signs, etc.  One last
thing.  My sister is a social worker.  She makes it her point to find these
things out (gang signs, colors, etc) because it is in her best interest to do
so.  She is nice enough to let me know these things so I can watch out for
myself as I live right on the border of the west side of the city. Enough said.
Jason
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Subject: Re: Ban All Firearms !
Lines: 16
In article <1qc5sa$obl@pandora.sdsu.edu>, chiu@io.nosc.mil (Francis Chiu) writes:
}     A note on the lighter side, I've noticed most gun-banners (some of my
}   friends included) are the one who make comments that indicate they are
}   more likely to resort to violent.  So are they really banning guns so they
}   wouldn't end up shooting someone else?
Could be.
It is also likely that since they feel they are more likely to resort to
violence, they have a hard time believing that anyone else would react
otherwise.
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"Well, I did say we'll put it out and we'll put it out when we can.
But I don't know what we can put out or when we can put it out."
-- George Stephanopolous.
From: dlo@druwa.ATT.COM (OlsonDL)
Subject: Re: The 'pill' for Deer = No Hunting
Lines: 20
In article <1993Apr14.182610.2330@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
} 	The vast majority get through life without ever having to
} 	own, use or display a firearm.
} ...
}
}       Given society
} 	as we now experience it - it seems safer to get rid of
} 	as many guns as possible.
Considering that the uses include self defense, hunting, target shooting
and collecting, I don't buy the notion that the vast majority of people
don't "own, use or display a firearm".
But let's say your contention is true.  What's the point of "get[ting]
rid of as many guns as possible", if they weren't being used anyway?
--
David Olson            dlo@drutx.att.com
"Well, I did say we'll put it out and we'll put it out when we can.
But I don't know what we can put out or when we can put it out."
-- George Stephanopolous.
From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Subject: Re: Newspapers censoring gun advertisements
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu
I don't know what Traders is claiming, but it appears to me that
the Oakland Tribune has censored gun ads in the past.  Likewise
for the San Francisco Chronicle, and I have never seen a gun
ad in the San Francisco Examiner.
Specifically, about a year ago on Thursdays, when Traders placed
its ads, the Chron. ad would not have any graphics representing
any handgun sale, though text could list it.  The Trib. would
run a graphic of a handgun.  The Examiner would not have a Traders
ad at all.
Over the past year while Oakland politicians have made a lot of noise
about measures to fight crime the Trib stopped taking the Traders
ad, then started publishing it, but without any handgun graphic, then
stopped, then started.  Since the Trib. was sold some months ago it
has not had the Traders ad.  During one of these non-ad interludes
a Traders employee told me that the Trib. had refused to take their
ads.
Yes, the usual Chron. Thursday ad was there today, with graphics
representing rifles, safes, etc. as usual.
Joan V
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!
Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Lines: 40
>> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun-
>> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?
There are roughly 1200 fatal, firearms-related accidents each year.
The large majority involve rifles and shotgun; there are under 500
fatal handgun accidents each year. I really doubt all of those
occur while the pistol is holstered, so the number of "self-inflicted
gunshot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters" is probably
well under 250 per year.
>>If you fall, for example,
>> and land on the handgun or cause a sudden blow, the gun will discharge.
Handguns designs have included a "hammer block" since around 1960
or earlier. This is a metal part which physically seperates
the cartridge and the firing pin: Even under impact, the gun
cannot fire. The hammer block is connected to the trigger and
is pulled out of the way as the trigger is pulled. As a result,
modern pistols can fire _only_ if the trigger is pulled (or
in some cases, if they are cocked by hand and then dropped.)
>> The number of people killed in this manner far outweighs the number of
>> deaths caused by animal attacks or "wacko" attacks combined.
I don't know about animal attacks, but there are 23,500 murders
each year and under 500 die in the manner you suggest. If only
2.1% of the murders were killings by "wacko"s, you would be
wrong. Worse, there are also 102,500 rapes and 1,055,000 aggravated
assaults each year. These numbers make violent attacks, and
preventing them, thousands of times more significant than the
accidents you are worried about.
(These figures, by the way, are from the FBI's "Uniform Crime
Report" for 1990. I'll stop by a library tomorrow and look at
the "National Crime Victimization Survey", which is more
specific about where and when the crimes occured.)
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: DeConcini -- ten years ago and today
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Lines: 120
Dennis Deconcini, 1982
...In these and similar areas, the
Bureau has violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5
U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intended to prevent "secret lawmaking" by
administrative bodies.
These practices, amply documented in hearings before this Sub-
committee, leave little doubt that the Bureau has disregarded
rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United
States.
It has trampled upon the second amendment by chilling exercise
of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens.
It has offended the fourth amendment by unreasonably search-
ing and seizing private property.
It has ignored the Fifth Amendment by taking private property
without just compensation and by entrapping honest citizens with-
out regard for their right to due process of law.
The rebuttal presented to the Subcommittee by the Bureau was
utterly unconvincing. Richard Davis, speaking on behalf of the
Treasury Department, asserted vaguely that the Bureau's priorities
were aimed at prosecuting willful violators, particularly felons ille-
gally in possession, and at confiscating only guns actually likely to
be used in crime. He also asserted that the Bureau has recently
made great strides toward achieving these priorities. No documen-
tation was offered for either of these assertions. In hearings before
BATF's Appropriations Subcommittee, however, expert evidence
was submitted establishing that approximately 75 percent of BATF
gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither
criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into
unknowning technical violations.
( Exerpt from: 97th Congress; 2d Session   COMMITTEE PRINT
T H E   R I G H T   T O   K E E P   A N D   B E A R   A R M S
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY, 1982
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-618 O
WASHINGTON : 1982
Letter to Constituent: April 1993
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms (ATF), which is the Federal law enforcement agency with
jurisdiction over firearms violations and regulations.
It has been my experience as chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government which
funds ATF, that ATF is one of the most competent and highly
professional law enforcement agencies in the Federal government.
The agents of ATF have proven their value again and again in
successful, legal operations to curb the unlawful possession and use
of firearms, especially in the area of  drug-related crimes.  It
enforces the Armed Career Criminal Act which calls for mandatory
minimum sentences for repeat felons using firearms to carry out  an
illegal activity.  The Bureau has made itself a key component in
preventing gang related violence, also, both by educating at-risk
youth to the dangers of gang membership as well a s by depriving known
gangs from access to weapons.
The Waco, Texas case involved the execution of search warrants by ATF
on the Branch Davidians for illegal firearms and explosives possession
(automatics, semi-automatics, and machine-guns, in addition to bombs
and other explosives.)  In virtually every gun case, ATF is asked to
trace weapons through its' National Firearms Tracing Center, where
they keep all dealer and Federal firearms license information.  ATF
is the Federal governments' firearms expert and routinely works with
state and local police to execute warrants.  ATF, working with state
and local law enforcement in Texas and the U.S. Attorneys' office
felt it was necessary to execute these warrants in order to legally
establish that a crime had been committed and conclude a long and
thorough investigation of illegal gun and explosives held by members
of the Branch Davidians.  In addition, ATF carefully selected a
Sunday morning, knowing from their source, inside, that the men would
be separated from the women and children and not in the area where
it was known that the illegal weapons were stored.
As you may be aware by now, Vernon Howell a.k.a. David Koresh
spiritual leader of the Branch Davidians was tipped of the impending
execution of the search warrants.  Unfortunately, ATF lost the
element of surprise and the cult was able to arm themselves  and
prepare for ATFs' entry into the compound.  Once a hostage situation
presented itself, the ATF asked the FBI to become involved since the
FBI is skilled in hostage negotiations.  In addition, and military
tanks were brought in due to the serious nature of the situation and
firepower of the Branch Davidians.
Based on what I have learned about ATF's role in the Branch Davidian
raid, I believe the agency acted responsibly.  I am, however, deeply
saddened by the loss of lives of the 4 law enforcement agents who
attempted to enter the compound and the civilian members of the
cult.  I fully expect the Department of  Treasury to conduct a
thorough evaluation with representatives from law enforcement outside
the Department to be headed by the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement.  In addition, ATF will conduct its' own review of the
Waco operation.  I look forward to reviewing the findings of the
evaluators and hope this situation in Waco will be brought to a quick
and peaceful conclusion.
Sincerely,
Dennis DeConcini
Chairman
Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal Service and
General Government
April 7, 1993
--
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Crimestrike Alert for Texas
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Keywords: crime strike
Lines: 69
Fellow Texans and Members of Crime Strike in Texas
Crime Strike in Texas has a loosely knit coalition with most
Victims Rights Groups in Texas. We ask that you write a
letter protesting the release of the following murderer.
This letter should be written to :
Raven Kazen - Victims Services
Board of Pardons and Paroles
P.O. Box 13401 - Capital Station
Austin, Texas 78711
The letter should be written if at all possible on RED PAPER
as that was agreed on at one of our first meetings . It
represents the coalition and all of its parts as well as the
heart ache of those left behind and the blood spilled by
these criminals. The letter should have only one name on it
so it can be filed in the folder of that criminal waiting for
his next try at parole.
List of Criminals:
Today we have only one parole to protest , On October 4,
1990, Mark Steven Hughes rendered numerous blows to the head
of James Allen Pompa . Ten month old James went into a coma
and died two days later.
On July 8, 1992, Mark Steven Hughes pled guilty to Injury to
a Child and received a ten-year sentence. According to Texas
law, Mark became eligible for parole on January 4, 1992 --
six months before he was even sentenced!
Would you join us in strongly protesting the release from
prison of Mark Steven Hughes, who beat a baby to death .
Mark Steven Hughes - beat to death the baby boy of
Russel Pompa -- Reference Mark Steven Hughes - TDC# 633546
Mark your envelope   "PROTEST LETTER" on the front and back.
A typical letter is indicated on the next page ---
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Irvin Wilson - Volunteer Crime Strike Texas
Date: April 13, 1993
Raven Kazen - Victims Services
Board of Pardons and Paroles
P.O. Box 13401 - Capital Station
Austin , Texas 78711
I protest the parole of Mark Steven Hughes TDC#633546, who,
murdered James Son of Russel Pompa.
He should be kept in prison for his full sentence and not be
released at any time prior to his full sentence for any
reason.
Irvin Wilson
Houston, Texas
--
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Ohio Legislative Alert -- H.B. 278
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Keywords: otto beatty goes for a gun ban again
Lines: 21
OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE  TUEDAY, APRIL 6, 1993
H.B. NO. 278- REPRESENTATIVE BEATTY
TO AMMEND  SECTION 2923.11, 2923.17, AND 2923.20 AND TO ENACT
N 2923.181 OF THE REVISED CODE TO EXPAND THE DEFINTION OF DANGEROUS
ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE MILITARY WEAPONS THAT DO NOT USE BOLT ACTION, TO
INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE PROHIBTION AGAINST POSSESION
OF DANGEROUS ORDINANCE, TO PROHIBIT ANY PERSON FROM ACQUIRING A MILITARY
WEAPON ON OR AFTER THE ACT'SEFFECTIVE DATE, TO REQUIRE THE LICENSURE OF
MILITARY WEAPONS ACQUIRED FOR A PROPER PURPOSE PRIOR TO THE ACT'S
EFFECTIVE DATE, TO PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM IMPORTING, MANUFACTURING, OR
SELLING A MILITARY WEAPON, AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
As of Monday, April 12, 1993  H.B. 278 had not been assigned to a
committee.  Introduced as an emergency measure if this passes there is no
chance for a reforendum, and would go into effect immediately as opposed
to the state requirement of 90 days before a law goes into effect.
--
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Ohio Legislative Alert -- H.B. 287
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Keywords: mourning dove hunting season
Lines: 14
OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE   THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1993
H.B. NO. 287- REPRESENTATIVES SEESE, DAVIS, BATCHELDER, AMSTUTZ, T.
JOHNSON, VAN VYVEN, WACHTMANN, WHITE, DI DONATO, BOGGS, LOGAN
TO AMEND SECTION 1531.01 OF THE REVISED CODE TO ADD MOURNING DOVE
TO THE GAME BIRD LIST AND PERMIT THE CHIEF OF THE DIVISION OF WILDLIFE IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO REGULATE THE HUNTING OF MOURNING
DOVES, AND TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATION.
This would allow the hunting of mourning doves in Ohio and give the
sportsman something they have been pushing for.
--
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, academic Computer Center
From: <U23590@uicvm.uic.edu>
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/...
Lines: 5
Note that Bo Gritz was on the Populist party ticket with David
Duke (for veep) in 1988 until he found out that Duke was leading
he ticket, when he withdrew his candidacy.  So Gritz gave up his
chance to be Vice President of the US just to aviod supporting
Duke.
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Insane Gun-toting Wackos Unite!!!
Lines: 21
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: na
In article <1993Apr16.030706.3318@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>> Do you know how many deaths each year are caused by self-inflicted gun-
>>> shot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters?
>
>There are roughly 1200 fatal, firearms-related accidents each year.
>The large majority involve rifles and shotgun; there are under 500
>fatal handgun accidents each year. I really doubt all of those
>occur while the pistol is holstered, so the number of "self-inflicted
>gunshot wounds by people wearing thigh holsters" is probably
>well under 250 per year.
I'm neither a doctor nor a firearms tech expert, but it would seem
that given the way a holstered gun points, accidental injuries inflicted
that way would be among the least lethal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu - "I still remember the way you laughed, the day
your pushed me down the elevator shaft;  I'm beginning to think you don't
love me anymore." - "Weird Al"
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Some more about gun control...
Nntp-Posting-Host: fishlab3.fsh.mtu.edu
Organization: Help, my server's fallen, and can't get up (MTU)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Lines: 185
In article <C5Bu9M.2K7@ulowell.ulowell.edu>
jrutledg@cs.ulowell.edu (John Lawrence Rutledge) wrote:
> In article <1q96tpINNpcn@gap.caltech.edu> arc@cco.caltech.edu
> (Aaron Ray Clements) writes:
> >The Second Amendment is a guarantee of the right to bear arms.  Clearly
> >and unequivocally, without infringement.
> Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not as clear as you state.  If last
> part of it is taken along, it follows what you have said.  The problem
> I have is with the first part of the single sentence which makes up the
> amendment.  The Second Amendment is:
> 	A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security
^^^^^^^ Militia
> 	of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear
^^^^^ State
> 	arms, shall not be infringed.
^^^^ Arms
You didn't even get the capitalization correct!  Try reading USCA on
the Constitution, or get any other CORRECT version of the
Constitution.
> This mention of a well regulated militia is what confuses me.  According
> to the Federalist Paper's, a well regulated militia has a well defined
> structure and follows nationally uniform regulations.
Perhaps you should actually READ the Federalist Papers!!
James Madison, Federalist Paper 46: "Besides the advantage of
being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost
every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to
which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers
are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of
ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government
of any form can admit of.  Notwithstanding the military
establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are
carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments
are afraid to trust the people with arms."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789: "The right
of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed.  A
well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free
country..."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (on the organization of
the militia): "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with
respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it
will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of
a year."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 29 (speaking of standing
armies): "... if circumstances should at any time oblige the
government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be
formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large
body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*****
own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
***^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But *surely* Hamilton and Madison didn't mean the PEOPLE when they
said "people", right?  That's why the Amendment refers to "the Right
of the Militia"?...  ;-)
> Your average
> 17-45 year old male does not fall into the definition.
You're right, the Militia consists of ALL able bodied males (and
probably females under current interpretation).
> Therefore most
> members of The Militia, the one the every gun advocate refers to, are
> not members of a well organized militia and therefore are not directly
The Amendment does nor refer to "well organized", it says "well
regulated".  I have some targets you may examine if you wish to check
how _well regulated_ I am.
> mentioned in the amendment.
> If this amendment wanted to allow every member of The Militia to keep
> and bear arms, why did it specificly mention a "well organized militia"
> in the SAME SENTENCE as the right to keep and bear arms?
Correct.  That's why the Right is reserved to the People.  And that
was to insure the People could form a "well regulated Militia", not a
"well organized militia".
> It could be
> argued that the first part of the sentence is separate from the last
> part.  If so, why was it include in the same atomic unit of written
What do Atomic Units have to do with this argument?  Any moron can set
h_bar = C = 1...
> instead of a separate sentence?
Oh, I see what your question is; Why don't you read the federalist
Papers?!
James Madison, Federalist Paper 41 (regarding the "General
Welfare" clause): "Nothing is more natural nor common than first
to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a
recital of particulars."
But what does Madison know about the grammatical style of the 2nd?  He
only wrote it.
> The amendment also implies that the right to arms has to due with
> the security of a free state.  The Federalist Paper's mention of a
> well regulated militia gives many examples of how this militia protects
> the security of a free state.  All these examples are actions of a
> very organized force, not some John Q. Public with a gun.
That's obviously because you've never actually *read* the Federalist
Papers.
> All that the Second Amendment clearly states to me is that the people's
> right to form well regulated militias shall not be infringed.  That is
> people have the right to join a well organized militia.  This well
> organized militia will, of course, provide training in how to use arms
> and in basic military tactics.  These training members of the militia
> can keep and bear the arms.
Can't read, huh?  Show me where the document says "well organized
militia".
> Lastly, reading through the Federalist Paper's on well organized
> militia it is very clear that many of the reasons for these militias.
> One reason stated is the protection from a standing army.  These days
> the standing army could easily defeat a group consisting of every
> 17-45 year old male and female not in the armied forces.
That is *exactly* why EVERY PERSON should be allowed to own *any*
weapon currently in use in the armed forces.
> Another
> reason stated for well organized militias is to reduced the need
> for a standing army.  Well, the US Armied Forces have been a standing
> army for more than half the history of the US.
But the major reason is to protect against that very same army.
> It seems to me the whole reason for the Second Amendment, to give
> the people protection from the US government by guaranteeing that the
> people can over through the government if necessary, is a little bit
> of an anachronism is this day and age.  Maybe its time to re-think
> how this should be done and amend the constitution appropriately.
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861: "This
country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government,
they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or
their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate
over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, 17 August
1789: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...
Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise an army upon their ruins."
So now we know which category Mr. Rutledge is in; He means to destroy
our Liberties and Rights.
--
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Tech, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render
powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we
separated."   Thomas Jefferson, 1821
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Nuclear/heavy weapons and the Militia [Long]
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Lines: 194
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
Down to 170-some odd lines.  We must be making progress!
On an ironic note, where I deleted lines Emacs continually gave me
the message "Garbage collecting... Done."  Think it's trying to
tell me something?
>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>And thank you: It's a great change from the same tired old debates...
You lurkers can join in at any time, you know!  Ahhh..
Talk.politics.guns -- the kindler, gentler newsgroup.  Who would
have thought?
>No, not exactly: The only reason for this sort of restriction is
>the possible endangerment of others. A poorly maintained
>rifle is dangerous, but only to the user; since it doesn't
>endanger others, there is no justification for such restrictions.
I remind you of shrapnel.  I consider 5' a reasonable space
limitation, but make no mistake a gun blowing up is a hazard to
those nearby, say in the next lane at the range.  My point was at
what distance, or level of threat, we draw the line.  Is it the
endangerment of others, so we do a 5' restriction, or the possibility
of being shot, hence we draw a 1.5 mile restriction, or a nuke and
draw a 5 mile restriction?  To me they al suffer from the fundamental
flaw that they restrict based upon the instrument rather than placing
the responsibility for usage squarely upon the shoulders of the user.
Perhaps Sen. Metzenbaum declaring the Barrett Light Fifty an assault
rifle has made this more apparent to me, since the Barrett has
only range and acurracy going for it.
>They have determined that their lives are worth the effort to
>protect their homes and families. Using nuclear weapons close
>to home will not accomplish this.
I disagree, on the grounds that a house can be rebuilt much
more easily than my family once I have died.  I assume that word
would get to the citizens that such an attack was planned.  If this
is not the case, the tactical and strategic implications change
quite a bit.  Personally, my home is worth, say, twenty Martians
intent on taking over the world.  My family?  All of them.  The
balancing act here is hard to judge sitting at my desk.
>There is, however, another problem: In any case of civil war,
>the strength of the militias fighting on each side should
>reflect the popular will. If the public is split 67% versus
>33%, then the minorities' militias should be at a 2:1 disadvantage.
>Such a need for popular support would, hopefully, prevent
>insurrections unless the people really were behind the rebels.
>But heavy weapons owned by a small fraction of the militia
>could distort this: What if the 33% minority included all the
>tank and artillery owners?
That seems to be the case already, given that heavy
weapons aren't commonly owned by the citizenry.  With such low
numbers, obviously due to cost, I don't think the superior
weapons are going to be of great effect against a numerically
superior foe.  Furthermore, it is even more doubtful their training
includes proper tactical movements that best utilize tanks,
whereas the commonly rifleman is not so hampered in effectiveness.
>I think it is vital to avoid such a situation, where a small
>minority would have a reasonable chance of gaining political power
>through violence. To prevent this, it may be necessary to give
>control of heavy weapons (e.g. those which only a small number
>of individuals would own _and_ whose firepower would grossly
>distort the relation between popular support and military
>strength) to someone other that individual militiamen. This is
>certainly not a good thing, but I think it is the lesser of two evils.
>Whoever controls these weapons must be a democratic body,
>responsive to the will of the people.
I had envisioned that the armorer, perhaps the officers
of a select group, and the like would exercise control over the
heavier, more complex weapons.  But, if Joe Bob owns an old Sherman
tank I certainly wouldn't ask him to give it up.  Follow orders
from the officers, yes.  Since the expense of a tank is so large,
though, chances are it would be jointly purchased and should
therefore be jointly maintained and operated.
>Here, I think we have to be carefull about _which_ "state" we
>are talking about: Certainly one role of the militia is to
>overthrow a repressive government, and it would be completely
>destructive to that end for that same government to control
>the militia's arms. But the United States have several levels
>of government, each able to act independently, but not all
>likely targets of rebelion.
>As such, rebelions against state and
>local governments are very unlikely. I think, therefore, that the
>state (or possibly local) governments could safely be allowed to
>keep the select militia's heavy weapons. The risk of abuse, while
>still something to consider, is far less than the similar risk
>were the federal government in control.
This I'll agree with to a point.  The State having control
over the heavy weapons should not be justification for the state
to have them centrally located.  Keep them spread out, such that
the ability of the State to lock them up isn't so easy.  Otherwise,
I would have to assume that State control would rest on the
authority of the Governor and militia officers.
>That is eaxctly why I think they should be removed: The select
>militia should privide the militia's heavy weapons and highly-trained
>specialists. For the reasons I have outlines above, I think
>these heavy weapons (tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc...) are
>better off being kept by local governments than by a small
>number of individuals. However, local governments shouldn't
>be able to use the select militia without the support to the
>people. Ideally, the general militia, under the direct
>control of the people, and the select militia, under the direction
>of democratic, local governments, would opperate together.
>But even in the worst case, the general militia should be able
>to functional without the select militia. Similarly, the
>select militia should be incapable of action without the
>aid of the general militia.
I'm having a hard time seeing how these heavy weapons,
fairly few in numbers, could not be easily wielded by a few
people with government support.  Just as you argued above that
the weapons should be divvied up and under democratic control
so one side doesn't have all of them, I can't see where this
situation is alleviated in having the select militia holding
all the weapons and the unorganized militia being the infantry.
I think a better mix is called for.  But, I would argue that
the Federal army should rely upon the select militia and the
unorganized militia for the bulk of its infantry units.
>Consider, then, the effect of removing the National Guard's
>infantry and placing the Guard under the control of local
>governments. The government-controled select militia could
>not fight effectively without infantry support provided by
>the general militia (an inherently infantry organization.)
>On the other hand, the general militia could function (although
>at a disadvantage) without the backing of local governments and
>the select militia.
We have to assume that there would be those who would
side with the government-controlled forces, and if they've all
the equipment an infantry force 3x the size would be in trouble.
I'd like to see that heavy stuff, say tanks, offset by the
local troups having a few 105's and anti-tank weapons in their
armory.  These would be much more useful to infantry than the
tank would be when cost and training requirements are figured in.
I suppose I'm quibbling over what constitutes heavy equipment.
>>...but a mechanized infantry unit is what builds
>>dikes in times of flood, sets up disaster relief cities, and
>>the like.
>
>I would much rather see these things handled by the local,
>general militias.
So would I, but the resources often aren't available to
outfit local units well enough.  Thus, we will certainly have to
call in others, and a mechanized unit carries more stuff faster
than anything else.
>Perhaps the National Guard isn't as close to my conception of
>the select militia as I thought: I was considering them to
>be the heavy weapons/armor arm of the militia, not the infantry
>arm of the regular army.
Perhaps our ideas of heavy weapons are different?  I think
main battle tanks, self-propelled artillery, and 155mm and up
field pieces are heavy stuff.  M113 troop carriers, 2 1/2 ton
trucks, HumVee's, old M60 tanks, 105 Howitzers, are more the stuff
of a mechanized infantry.  Actually, this is what the Guard units
in Iowa are currently fielding in some units.
Perhaps it is just my innate fear of having the real heavy
equipment under State control, with little but numbers and light
stuff to act as a deterrent.  Allowing main battle tanks to the
states should be balanced with anti-tank capability in the local
ranks.  Similarly, local units would need to band together quickly,
hence small and fast response means mechanized infantry.  Finally,
the militia is more than just fighting.  Equipment is needed for
other responses.  The Federal army, I'm convinced, should have a
very minumum of infantry, relying on the state and local militias
for these functions.
< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Lines: 108
Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>I HATE long postings, but this turned out to be rather lengthy....
That's OK -- you can mail me if you want more discussion.
>Acquiring weapons in Norway:
>You can buy (almost) all kinds of weapons in Norway, BUT you must have a
>permit, and a good reason to get the permit....
Around here, long-guns are proof of age and fill out the forms.
For pistols, nation-wide check for felonies and three days wait.  The
"good reason" is the difference, and one Americans tend to get annoyed
over as we see no reason the guy with the badge is any better than us.
>It's a little like getting a drivers licence isn't it ???
>You have to prove that you CAN drive before you are allowed to...
Not when dealing with America.  I can drive an 18-wheel truck
with no permit, no license, and at age 12 if I'm engaged in farming
work.  Strange, that, but there is little to no problem with this.
Again, personal rights versus collective security.
>Some crimes are commited with guns that have been in the owners 'arms'
>for a long time, but these are rather the exeption.
>Most criminals accuire guns to use them in crimes, and mostly short
>time befor the crime.
Strange that the rates would decline, since killing somebody
is much more frowned upon than merely stealing a gun.
>Use of knives:
>It IS allowed to cary knifes in public, but not in your belt or 'open'.
>You (Americans) think it's ok to have a gun, but not to carry it open
>in public -rigth ??
Why attract attention?  I carry my sword openly to and from
practice, as that is the only legal thing I can do.  I also attract
a lot of attention doing this.  I'd rather be lost "in a crowd of one"
than be the subject of attention while carrying a weapon.  Think of
the word "intimidation" and you can see where intimidation is not
the preferable method for the normal citizen.
>Scandinavians ARE 'aggressive':
>We northeners are not as hot-livered as southeners, but when we decide
>to take action we DO.
>Ask ANY historian or millitary with an knowledge of europe....
>(Or ask any German who served in Norway in WW2.....)
Aggressive towards whom?  Southerners?  Germans?  Precisely
why I think your society is less violent, weapons aside.
>Yes the individual is more important than the masses, but only to some
>extent....
>Your criminal laws are to protect the individuals who makes the masses ??
>What happens when the rigths of some individuals affects the rights of
>all the [masses?? -- editor barf -- Dan]
Then the masses have the same rights as the individuals, because
everything comes down to the individual in one instance or another.  To
draw an analogy, Norway is involved in the EEC.  The USA in involved in
NATO.  The EEC requires certain changes in your laws.  NATO requires
no such changes in USA law.  These laws affect citizens, and hence
Norway is saying Europe is more important than, say, Norwegians having
motorcycles that make over 100bhp.  In the USA, we'd likely tell the
EEC to get stuffed since the EEC has no business, in our eyes, in
telling us how much horsepower we can safely ride.  While I note
that our own state governments often play with game with the federal
government, in essence this is a cultural difference between us.
>IF i lived in Amerika I would probably have a gun to defend myselfe in HOME.
>But should it have to be like that ??
It shouldn't.  Since neither of our countries has managed to
remove criminals from society, in America we feel (and remember we
have individual states that are larger than your country) that if the
police cannot protect us then we must do so ourselves.  The criminals
in our country are quite violent, hence we prepare for them.
>Do you think it's wise to sell guns like candy (some states do...) ??
>If you believe it's smart/neccacery to have drivers-licence WHY do you think
>it should be free to buy guns ??
We don't.  E-mail me to find out just how difficult it really
is in this country.  It is easier than in yours, but theft is far
easier than the troubles we go through to purchase over here.
>I would defend my home, loved ones and country, but I don't view guns as
>neccities or toys.
They are neither.  They are an option.  We would never force
you to own guns if you lived here.  We would, however, fight to keep
that option open to you.
>I HAVE done army service, and HAVE used a variaty of weapons, but wouldn't
>want to have one for self defence or because they 'feel good'....
Then you show you are a responsible, rational user of weapons.
Welcome to our ranks.  Now, how do we teach the young people this sort
of responsibility?  Cultures seem to have a grave impact here.
I notice you didn't use my great-grandfather's name.  Well,
he didn't like it much either ;-)
< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: That silly outdated Bill (was Re: Koresh and Miranda)
Reply-To: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Lines: 9
In article <1993Apr14.165633.2170@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:
>As for the MOVE incident, wasn't the mayor of Philadelphia at the time Black ?
For the first Move incident (no bomb, several members killed in
gunfire, circa 1978) the mayor was the very white Frank Rizzo.
For the second (bomb included) the mayor was Wilson Goode, who
is indeed black.
-jim halat
From: yoony@aix.rpi.edu (Young-Hoon Yoon)
Subject: Re: A Scoop of Waco Road, Please
Keywords: topical, smirk
Nntp-Posting-Host: aix.rpi.edu
Lines: 62
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>Your "lite" posting for the day, from rec.humor.funny:
>In article <S539.2adf@looking.on.ca>, bellas@tti.com (Pete Bellas) writes:
>>
>> There is a new Ice Cream Flavor inspired by the incident at Waco.
>>
>> It's called Mount Caramel, it's full of nuts but you can't get it out
>> of the carton.
>--
>cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
>OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Even though I find this to be funny on the surface, the original poster of the
joke has  tried and convicted the members of the BD to be a bunch of "nuts".
This may be a dangerous thing to do.  It is my opinion that most educated
or well informed people of this country have some distrust of the government.
This should exist because as a bureaucracy, any government given enough time
will tend to exist for it self and not for the original purpose it was
created for.  This distrust by the people should keep those in power in-line.
That and a properly functioning press.  When a sensationalism oriented press
portrays a group of people as "nuts" or crazies, a violation of those
people's civil rights seem justified.   Since we, as American's, have the
gurantee of rights as enumerated in the constitution, to include the
2nd ammendment, the government must appease the public's opinion or risk
voted out of existance, or if it has become corrupt enough to tamper with
domocratic process itself, being thrown out by force.
Our government as it stands, must appease the public.  Therefore the
official press releases portray the BD's as fanatics who are a threat to
public safety.  We must not prejudge people based on one sided information.
So far the only information that we are being given is comming from the very
agency that was embarrased by the BD(Branch Davidians sp?).  It is to their
advantage to make the BD's as fanatical and dangerous as possible.  If they
were portrayed as law-abiding citizen's, then they(ATF) had no justification
what so ever of doing what they did.
So let's keep an open mind.  Jokes like above, even though it may be funny,
may mislead the public from the truth of the matter.
Just as an aside,  my understanding of U.S. vs Rock Island and U.S. vs Dalton
leads me to believe that the National Firearms Act, which allows the Fed's
(in this case ATF) to regulate firearms(machine guns), has been deemed to be
unconstitutional since 1986.(By two federal district courts at least).
And since, I believe the only reason ATF was involved
in this case is because of firearms violations, it would be interesting to
find out whether or not the search warrent was based on the NFA.
It would be very embarrassing indeed if a search warrent based on a possibly
unconstitutional law has resulted in 4 deaths(Law enforcement).
****************************************************************************
The above opinions are mine and mine only.
I'm solely responsible for my opinions and my actions.  If you must flame
then flame away, but a well constructed argument will be much more respected.
Young-hoon Yoon                         yoony@rpi.edu
211 North Hall                          n6zud@hibp1.ecse.rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute        N6ZUD/2   HL9KMT(former)
Troy, NY 12180
From: tsmith+@cs.cmu.edu (Tom Smith)
Subject: Re: Clinton wants National ID card, aka USSR-style "Internal Passport"
Nntp-Posting-Host: seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 34
In article <1993Apr16.022926.27270@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <C5JIF8.I4n@boi.hp.com> slack@boi.hp.com (David Slack) writes:
>>The idea of the card is bull in and of its self, but I'm curious to know, do
>>they plan on making it a requirement to *always* have it on you, or is it
>>only going to be required to be *presented* when trying to ge medical aid?
>
>This, at least, has already been determined: The Blue Cross medical
>coverage for all federal employees is a good model for a future
>national system. To get emergency medical care, anyone so insured
>must always carry their Blue Cross card. Before entering a hospital,
>you must notify Blue Cross, or they will refuse to pay your bills.
>In an emergency, where you must be treated before notifying them,
>you must inform them within 24 hours or (if you are unable to do
>so for medical reasons) the hospital must. Failing to do so within
>24 hours means they will not cover the hospitalization. In you need
>your card to notify them (and without the card, the hospital certainly
>wouldn't know they had to.) Therefore, you are required to carry
>the card at all times, or do without emergency medical coverage.
>
>                                                 Frank Crary
>                                                 CU Boulder
>
Which works fine until you end up in the hospital because you were hit on the
head and your wallet, with your insurance card, is stolen.  This happened to
me, and it took six months to sort the mess out.  These sorts of plans sound
nice at first, but in the end they just create a lot of paperwork and
bureaucracy to deal with all the checking and filing they involve.
Tom the non hacker
tsmith@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
The return address is set wrong, send personal
response to the above address.
From: holland@CS.ColoState.EDU (douglas craig holland)
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Nntp-Posting-Host: beethoven.cs.colostate.edu
Organization: Colorado State University, Computer Science Department
Lines: 27
>>Hmm, wouldn't manditory saftey classes, registration
>>of both the owner and gun, and manditory liability insurance be nice for
>>gun owners.
>
>       The two are not the same, as I pointed out above.  There are
>significant difference between making rules for *use on public property*
>and *making rules for ownership*.
>
>       The other half of the objection is trust.  Similar things to this
>have been tried in many local jurisdications across the country, and
>have been abused in far too many cases.   Safety classes which are
>never sheduled, never funded, or only one or two is held a year for
>a limited number of participants.  Registration lists in New York,
>Chicago, and California have been used for confiscation.  *Many* gun
>owners would, in theory, support these planes.  (Although the
>numbers overwhelmingly show that competence is not the problem, that
>intentional misuse is).  They've simply seen it abused and are leery of
>the next person who comes down the pike with a "reasonable" suggestion
>they've already seen abused.
Gun safety classes sound good in theory, but they kind of remind me of
the "literacy tests" used in the bad old days to keep blacks from voting.
They came with the "grandfather clause": if your grandfather could vote,
you could vote.  Sort of like the gun safety laws that only let the
political ass-kissers have guns.
Doug Holland
From: tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Gift)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge
Keywords: BATF FBI Korash "child abuse"  guns murder CONTROL
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 10
pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>Well, maybe I AM overreacting.
This is probably the best part of your post.  Everything else is
shrill speculation.
Tom Gift
tomgift@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Rewording the Second Amendment (ideas)
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 29
|You believe that individuals should have the right to own weapons of
|mass destruction?  I find it hard to believe that you would support a
|neighbor's right to keep nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and nerve
|gas on his/her property.
There is no law prohibiting having biological weapons or nerve gas
on his/her property, or even walking on government property with such
items: ipso facto it is now one's _RIGHT_ to have such weapons of
"mass destruction."
Hell, the U.S. patent office has patents on the manufacture of nerve
gas that anyone can obtain simply by sending a $1.50 to the Patent
Office in Washington, D.C. (P.O. Box 8). These same patents are
verboten to English citizens from their own patent office, which doesn't
surprise me based on the mistrust of the UK government against private
ownership of semi-automatic rifles.
|If we cannot even agree on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of
|the hands of individuals, can there be any hope for us?
So, you are saying we should have legislation prohibiting owning
biological warfare agents or nerve agents? Will you pass laws against
owning chlorine gas or cyanide as well? Will you pass laws against
owning acetylene gas that could have been used against the Bradley
IFVs had the Branch Dividians known of their anti-combustion engine
effects? Will you pass laws against owning 5-gallon cylinders of
propane because they could have been used as flame throwers? Yes, the
proverbial "Road to Hell;" it's always for "Our Own Good."
Nntp-Posting-Host: holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no
From: Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Change of name ??
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
Lines: 23
Originator: thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no
1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or
talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY
2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..
3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup
We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil
goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
let's say 1000 people ????
This is not a .signature.
It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
and to bring down the evil Internet.
Thomas Parsli
thomasp@ifi.uio.no
From: mhamilto@Nimitz.mcs.kent.edu (The Lawnmowerman)
Subject: Re: ATF BURNS DIVIDIAN RANCH! NO SURVIVORS!!!
Keywords: Nata thing !!
Nntp-Posting-Host: nimitz.mcs.kent.edu
Reply-To: Matthew Hamilton
Organization: Kent State University CS
Lines: 68
In article <93109.13404334AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET>, <34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> writes:
> I will be surprised if this post makes it past the censors,
> but here goes:
>
> Monday, 19 April, 1993 13:30 EDT
>
>                     MURDER  MOST  FOUL!!
>
> CNN is reporting as I write this that the ATF has ignited all
> the buildings of the Branch Dividian ranch near Waco, TX. The
> lies from ATF say "holes were made in the walls and 'non-lethal' tear
> gas pumped in". A few minutes after this started the whole thing went up.
> ALL buildings are aflame. NO ONE HAS ESCAPED. I think it obvious that
> the ATF used armored flame-thrower vehicles to pump in unlit
> napalm, then let the wood stove inside ignite it.
>
> THIS IS MURDER!
>
> ATF MURDERERS!  BUTCHERS!!
>
> THIS IS GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, INCLUDING CHILDREN!
>
> I have predicted this from the start, but God, it sickens me to see
> it happen. I had hoped I was wrong. I had hoped that there was
> still some shred of the America I grew up with, and loved, left
> alive. I was wrong. The Nazis have won.
>
> I REPEAT, AS OF THIS TIME THERE ARE **NO  SURVIVORS**!
>
> God help us all.
>
>
> PLEASE CROSSPOST -- DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHILDREN!
>
>
> W. K. Gorman - an American in tears.
Flame on!!
Is this guy serious????
If he would ever really pay attention to the news (oops I forgot that the media
for the most part loves to jump right on top of a story before all the facts
are known, as well as to manipulate what we see and thus what we believe).
Any ways one of Koresh's DEVOTED followers that DID I REPEAT DID survive this
"GENOCIDAL MASS-SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE".  Besides there are nine
survivors in the burn-unit of the local hospital and was reported that David
was in one of the towers when the shit hit the fan.  Besides, a majority of
these children were children that he was supposed to have been the father of,
this then makes them bastard children to a sacraligious zeloit (sp).  Also
someone should have told David and his followers that if they can't the heat
then they should stay out of the kitchen!! (pun intended)
Flame off
" Aaah Daniaalson yah wanna fight,  fight me!!"
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Matthew R. Hamilton   | mhamilto@mcs.kent.edu    |      A.K.A              |
| CS/ Physics Major     | 1499h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |   (The Lawnmowerman)    |
| Kent State University	| 1299h751@ksuvxb.kent.edu |			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|      Look here for future advice.quotes.sayings.jibberish.philosohy        |
|                                                                            |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Lines: 14
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com
>True, Congress has said that possesion of an unlicensed automatic
>weapon is a violation of the law.  Congress did not, however, say
>that such possesion was a capital offense or a transgression worth
>getting four good government agents killed and 16 others wounded.
Even if it were a capital offense, the warrant was not even an arrest warrant,
but a search warrant.  In other words, there was no evidence of illegal
arms, just enough of a suggestion to get a judge to sign a license to
search for illegal evidence.
Question:  As in the Rodney King case, will the US DOJ institute
criminal civil rights proceedings against the BATF?  Or at least an
investigation?  OK, sorry I asked.
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI revenge
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
Lines: 18
>>Am I having a vain hope that an honest investigation will occur on this
>>thing?  Or will it simply be whitewashed under the rug, and Business
>>as Usual will continue to be the Order of the Day in the New Order?
>>Who will be given the official title of "Thought Police", I wonder...?
>>
>>And if Clinton and friends have their way, (highly likely at this point)
>>the New Order Government will also have all the guns...  So what if
>>"1984" is going to be ten years late...  I think we are going to discover
>>that we will be paying DEARLY for putting this fellow in office for decades
>>to come.  Even some die-hard supporters are having serious doubts about
>>their Savior.
Ahem.  See the War on Drugs, as sponsored by the Bush and Reagan
administrations.  The precedent had well been set for federal agencies to
step on more than a few of what people consider "rights."  I won't make
excuses for anyone, but most of the damage had been done before Clinton
even entered the race in '92.
From: kevin@axon.usa (Kevin Vanhorn)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19
Organization: /usr/users/kevin/.organization
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: axon.cs.byu.edu
In-reply-to: roby@chopin.udel.edu's message of Tue, 20 Apr 1993 05:53:07 GMT
In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
> Two of the nine who escaped the compound said the fire was deliberately set
> by cult members.
Correction: The *FBI* *says* that two of the nine who escaped said the fire
was deliberately set by cult members.  Since the press was kept miles away,
we have absolutely no independent verification of any of the government's
claims in this matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Van Horn       | Is your religion BATF-approved?
vanhorn@bert.cs.byu.edu |
From: dswartz@osf.org (Dan Swartzendruber)
Subject: Re: Ax the ATF
Organization: Open Software Foundation - Research Institute
Distribution: usa
Lines: 64
A few comments on the ATF's botched handling of this case:
1. Attempting to storm the compound in broad daylight?  The explanation
we were given (at least at one point) was that they thought the cult
members would be at religious services.  My only comment on this bit
of idiocy is that if you're going to operate as a quasi-military unit,
you'd better understand basic military tactics.  One cardinal rule
is that only a fool plans an operation where if one assumption is
incorrect, the operation will fail disastrously.
2. We were told that ATF got four agents killed because they were
outgunned, they didn't expect such heavy resistance.  When
questioned about why such an overwhelming military-style assault
was planned, we were told that it was because the cultists were
thought to be heavily armed.  Can you say contradictory?  I knew
you could!
3. The BATF has had a bad reputation for years as a bunch of arrogant,
hotdoggers.  I was talking to relatives a couple of weeks ago and
referred to them as a bunch of Crockett and Tubbs wannabes.  I'm
more than ever convinced that's right on target.  An anecdote not
related to the Waco fiasco is that apparently the BATF screwed up
some of the evidence in the World Trade Center bombing.  There's
now an excellent chance some of the forensic evidence gathered by
the FBI will not be admissible in court.  This is not hearsay.  I
was told this by a relative of my wife's who happens to be an FBI
agent.  His opinion of the BATF was, ummm, well, let's just say
uncomplimentary.
4. I have *still* not been presented with one iota of evidence that
the BD's had *any* of the alleged illegal weaponry which was the
reason for the raid in the first place.  BTW, we're *still* hearing
this justification.  AG Reno, on CNN yesterday, made references
to this issue, without any substantiation.  She also waved around
the "He's a child abuser and we heard he was beating the children!"
flag.  Sigh.
5. A point re the Feds in general: their handling of the whole siege
reflected a complete lack of understanding of the probable thought
processes of the cultists.  AG Reno said they pushed the button
because they were afraid a mass suicide was in the offing.  My
only comment on that is that if the cultists were that close to
the edge, what the hell did she think their reaction would be to
an hours-long assault on the compound where holes were punched in
the walls and CS gas pumped in?  If I were a BD, I'd expect the
forces of the godless government to assault me at any time.  In
that light, whether they torched themselves or drank Jim Jones
Kool-Aid is irrelevant.  Also, look at how the siege was conducted:
Bright lights, loud rock music, cutting off communications and
other contact with the outside.  All measures designed to make the
BD's feel more and more isolated and threatened.  This might have
been a great strategy - if they were dealing with criminals.  As it
was, it looks to me like everything they did fed into Koresh's
paranoid delusions.
--
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Dan S.
From: paale@stud.cs.uit.no (Paal Ellingsen)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19
Organization: University of Tromsoe
Lines: 17
In article <1r0qsrINNc61@clem.handheld.com>, Jim De Arras writes:
|> Mr. Roby, you are a government sucking heartless bastard.  Humans died
|> yesterday, humans who would not have died if the FBI had not taken the actions
|> they did.  That is the undeniable truth.
...the question is: for how long? Even if the FBI had done nothing, I guess the
BDs would have committed suicide, but maybe not until hunger and thirst gave them
the choice between sucide or surrender.
The BDs was warned in beforehand about the FBI action. They HAD the chance to
surrender and get a fair trial. No matter who started the fire, the BDs were
responsible for 80+ peole dying. No one else.
--
============================================================================
Paal Ellingsen       | Borgensvingen 67/102 | Tlf.: 083 50933
paale@stud.cs.uit.no | 9100 Kvaloeysletta   | DATA = Dobbelt Arbeid Til Alle
============================================================================
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Gritz/JBS/Liberty Lobby/LaRouche/Christic Insitute/Libertarian/....
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Lines: 49
In article <1993Apr17.082102.4155@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <KCKLUGE.93Apr16155756@krusty.eecs.umich.edu>, kckluge@eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>>
>> ...and I'm sure that people who were big fans of fuedalism pissed and
>> moaned about the emergence of the modern nation-state. Imagine, the King
>> allowing serfs their freedom if they could live in the city for a year!
>> Times change, technology changes, viable forms of social organization
>> change. While concerns about preserving Western notions of civil liberties
>> in the face of cultures with very different values is a valid one, it's
>> a waste of effort to try to turn back the tide. It's much smarter to focus
>> on trying to make sure that the emerging forms of social organization are
>
>	Your response is yet another sign of the trend towards One World
>Government.  Many people such as yourself, who are otherwise probably
>likeable and intelligent, show every sign of having been successfully
>brainwashed.  You don't recognize that your "inevitable tide" is rolling
>into chaos and in no way represents an advance for civilization.  Some
>of us do indeed "lament the passing of old forms", such as the Bill of
>Rights, which are indeed inalienable rights of man that cannot be
>changed, transferred or surrendered...rights of man that far transcend
>
>	Yes, Napoleon wanted a Grand New Order.  Hitler wanted a
>Thousand Year Reich.  Lenin knew that Bolshevism would give us the
>Universal New Man.  The New World Order is just so much of the same
>old tired garbage.  The pathetic part is that so many Americans seem
"Put not your trust in princes" is the Biblical proverb.  The modern
analog is governments.  At the time of the founding of the US, the
idea that citizens had rights above those of the government was not
that common, but was explicit in the writings of the founders.  To a
considerable extent, Englishmen also had those rights.
Yes, times change, and technology changes.  The possibility of
a few governments enserfing all of mankind was not possible until
quite recently.  In the feudal system, the lord was almost as
restricted as the serfs, so having the people enserf themselves
does not make anything better; most feudal lords, and even most
slaveowners, did not mistreat those under them.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are under real attack NOW.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: jbs@rti.rti.org
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19
Organization: Joe's Bar and Grill
Lines: 16
In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>
>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv
>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their
>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.
This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night
in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes
out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke
and then fire?
Do tell.
-joe
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Gun Talk -- State legislative update
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Keywords: Gun Talk
Lines: 208
April 19, 1993
As William O. Douglas noted, "If a powerful sponsor is lacking,
individual liberty withers -- in spite of glowing opinions and
resounding constitutional phrases."
The legislative scorecard outlined below resulted from subcommittee,
committee, and floor action.  Many important victories, however, come
from coordinating with legislators to ensure anti-gun/anti-hunting
legislation is either amended favorably, rejected, or never voted.
These quiet victories are no less impressive in protecting our
fundamental civil liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
****
Arizona - SB 1233, NRA-supported legislation concerning minors in
criminal possession of firearms  passed the House 36-18, is currently
awaiting action by the Governor.
Arkansas - HB 1447, Firearms Preemption Legislation was signed by the
Governor making this the forty-first state to pass preemption.
Preemption had passed twice in previous sessions only to be vetoed by
then Gov. Bill Clinton.  HB 1417, mandatory storage of firearms,
amended and then killed in committee.
Colorado - SB 42, mandating the storage of firearms with a
trigger-lock, killed in committee.  SB 104,  prohibiting the sale of
certain semi-auto firearms was killed in committee.  SB 108,
so-called Colorado Handgun Violence Prevention Act, including a
provision for a 10-day waiting period, killed in committee.
Connecticut - Substitute Bill No. 6372, imposing a 6% tax on all
firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment killed in Environment
Committee.
Florida - A bill to require a 3-year license at a cost of $150 to own
or possess semi-automatic firearms with a second degree felony
provision (15 years in prison) died in committee along with numerous
other anti-gun owner bills.  No anti-gun legislation passed in
Florida this year.
Georgia - SB 12, supposed instant check with provision allowing for
up to a 7-day "waiting period,"  defeated in House Public Safety
Committee and sent to Interim Study committee.  Mandatory storage
bill -- SB 247 -- was defeated 39-15 in the Senate.  The same bill
passed the upper-House 52-2 in 1992.
Illinois - HB 90, prohibiting the sale, possession, manufacture,
purchase, possession, or carrying of certain semi-auto firearms, was
defeated in House Judiciary II Subcommittee on Firearms. HB 91,
mandatory storage legislation, failed in House Judiciary Subcommittee
on Firearms. HB 1550, repeals FOID and makes FTIP, point of sale
check permanent, passed out of Judiciary Committee by a 10-4-2 vote.
Presently on the calendar for third reading in the House.
SB 40, mandatory storage bill, defeated in committee.
SB 265, imposing a handgun excise tax, failed in Senate committee on
Revenue's Subcommittee on Tax Increases.
SB 272,imposing a tax on all persons engaged in the business of
selling firearms, failed in Senate Revenue Committee's Subcommittee
on Tax Increases.
Indiana - SB 241, Statewide Firearms Preemption, passed in the Senate
34-16, and in the House 77-22.  Twelve amendments were introduced on
the House floor to SB 241.  Among these amendments were a ban on
certain semi-auto firearms, Mandatory Storage, Trigger-Lock, a ban on
"Saturday Night Specials" (Similar to 1988 Maryland Bill), and
Handgun Rationing (one handgun per month).  All were defeated.
[I read this morning (4/20) S.B. 241 was defeated -- lvc]
Kansas - HB 2435, providing for a 72-hour waiting period on all
firearms was defeated in committee.  HB 2458, presently on the
Governor's desk, HB 2459 and SB 243 and 266 all relating to victims'
rights, are expected to be enacted into law.
Maine - Funding for the Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-94
budget, was restored following severe  reductions in the Governor's
proposed budget.  LD 612, an anti-hunting bill which included reverse
posting and 1000 yard safety zones, killed in committee.
Maryland - SB 6-(Firearms Incendiary ammunition) died in committee on
a 8-3 vote, SB 41 (Reckless  Endangerment - Firearms - Sale or
Transfer) died in committee on a 11-0 vote, SB 126 (Gun Control -
"Assault Weapons") died in committee on 9-2 vote, SB 182 (Weapons
-Free School Zone) was withdrawn, SB 185 (Weapons on School Property-
Driver's License Suspension was withdrawn, SB 265 ("Assault Pistols"
- Sale, Purchase or Transport) died in committee on 8-3 vote, SB 328
("Assault Pistols" Act of 1993) died in committee on a 8-3 vote, SB
682 (Baltimore City-Firearms-Rifles and Shotguns) died in committee
on a 9-2 vote.
HB 274 (Pistol and Revolver Dealers Licenses - compliance with zoning
laws) was withdrawn, HB 366 (Regulated Firearms-sales and transfer)
died on the Senate Floor, HB 374 (Handguns and "assault weapons" -
Advertising for sale or transfer) died in committee, HB 384 (Handguns
and "Assault Weapons" - Exhibitors) died in committee, HB 495
("Assault Pistols" Act of 1993) died in committee on a 14-9 vote, HB
496 (Gun Shows-Sale, Trade, or Transfer of regulated firearms) died
in committee on a 19-6 vote, HB 601 (Firearms - Handguns - "Assault
Pistols" - Handgun Roster Board) was withdrawn, HB 683 (Rifles and
Shotguns - Registration) was withdrawn, HB 945 (Pistols and Revolvers
- Private sales  or transfers- required notice) died in committee,
and HB 1128 Prince Georges County -
Weapons - Free School Zone) was withdrawn.
Mississippi - HB 141, closing a loophole allowing felons to possess
firearms, passed both Houses and signed by the Governor.  The bill
codifies into law mechanism for certain felons to have their Second
Amendment liberties reinstated.
Nebraska - LB 83 and LB 225, mandatory trigger-lock bills, killed in
committee.
New Hampshire - H.B. 363, providing for reciprocity for concealed
carry licenses passed.  H.B. 671,  increasing the term of a License
to Carry Loaded Handguns passed.
New Mexico - SB 762, imposing a 7-day "waiting period," defeated in
Senate committee (0-5) and then on  floor of the Senate (15-24).  HB
182, mandatory storage legislation, was killed by a vote of 1-8 in
committee.  HB 230, legislation safeguarding sportsmen in the field
from harassment by animal rights extremists, signed into law by the
Governor on March 30.
New York - Seven-day waiting period was defeated in the City of
Buffalo.   Ban on certain semi-autos was defeated in Monroe County.
The tax and fee bills to be imposed on guns and ammo were not
included in the 1993-94 budget. SB 207, making pistol licenses
provides for validity of pistol license throughout the state, passed
Senate.  Currently awaiting action in Assembly committee.
North Dakota - HB 1484, granting victims compensation in certain
circumstances, was signed into law by the Governor on April 8.
Oregon - SB 334, banning firearms on school grounds and in court
buildings, withdrawn as a result of gun owners opposition.
Rhode Island - HB 5273, mandatory firearms storage legislation,
defeated in committee by a vote of 8-5. HB 6347, an act prohibiting
aliens from owning firearm; defeated by unanimous vote in committee.
HB 5650, excepting NRA instructors from the firearms safety
requirement, reported favorably. HB 5781, exempting persons with an
Attorney General's permit from the 7-day waiting period, reported to
the floor by a vote of 11-1.
HB 6917, extending the term of a permit to carry from two years to
three years, reported to the floor unanimously.
Utah   HB 290, reforming the state's concealed carry statute, passed
out of House committee.  SB 32, creating civil liability for
so-called negligent storage of a firearm, and SB 33 creating the
offense of "reckless endangerment" with a firearm, killed on Senate
floor.
Virginia: S.B. 336, and S.B. 803, requiring proof of state residence
to obtain Virginia Driver's License passed.  S.B. 804, which
increases the penalty and imposes a mandatory minimum sentence for
"straw man" purchases of multiple firearms passed.  S.B. 858,
allowing possession of "sawed-off" rifles and shotguns in compliance
with federal law passed.  S.B. 1054, making it a felony for first
offense of carrying a concealed firearm without a license (which the
NRA opposes until law-abiding citizens can acquire a concealed carry
license for self-defense), was defeated. H.B. 1900, increasing the
penalty for use of a firearm in committing a felony was passed.  H.B.
2076, requiring proof of residence to obtain a driver's license
passed.  H.B. 2272, providing for a referendum on the imposition of a
statewide three- day "waiting period" in handgun purchases was
defeated.
Washington: SB 5160, calling for waiting periods and licensing for
all semi-automatic firearms, died  in committee.
West Virginia - S.C.R. 18, which calls for a study to control
transfers of handguns and "Assault Weapons" was defeated in the
Senate 24-10.
Wisconsin - In a referendum up against all odds, the determined
efforts of the Madison Area Citizens Against Crime paid off on April
6 when a nonbinding referendum banning the possession of handguns in
Madison, Wisconsin, was defeated.  Despite opposition to the ban --
aired largely by firearms owners at a series of public meetings on
the issue -- the Common Council voted on February 17 to place the
referendum on the ballot, allowing only seven weeks of campaigning to
reverse public opinion on the controversial issue.
An October 1992 poll conducted by the Wisconsin State Journal found
57% in support and 38% opposed, with 5% expressing no opinion.  By
election day, of the more than 56,000 voters who went to the polls,
51% cast ballots in opposition to the proposal while 49% voted to
have the Madison Common Council enact such a ban.  The campaign
committee, spearheaded by the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement and NRA-ILA,
relied on neighborhood canvassing, direct mail and radio/TV
advertising to educate voters on the civil liberties implications
raised by enforcement of the ban if the referendum was approved.
Despite the surprising defeat, it is expected that the Madison
initiative's chief proponent, Mayor Paul Soglin, will attempt to have
the Common Council enact an ordinance banning handguns.
Downloaded from GUN-TALK (703-719-6406)
A service of the
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
Washington, DC 20036
--
Larry Cipriani -- l.v.cipriani@att.com
From: bjones@convex.com (Brad Jones)
Subject: Re: Letter to the President
Nntp-Posting-Host: neptune.convex.com
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
not necessarily those of CONVEX.
Lines: 8
kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>the dismissal or resignation of Lloyd Bensen, Secretary of the Treasury,
In case you haven't sent it yet, it's "Bentsen", not "Bensen".
Brad
From: mporter@cis.ohio-state.edu (matthew dale porter)
Subject: Re: Reasonable Civie Arms Limits
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Lines: 42
NNTP-Posting-Host: python.cis.ohio-state.edu
In article <1993Apr19.223925.2342@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>A poster claims he 'always asks [anti-gunners] what they think would
>be reasonable personal firepower restrictions'. OK then ...
>
>Caliber : Not greater than 32
>Muzzle  : Not greater than 300 ft/lbs with any combo of bullet wt/vel
>Action  : Single shot rifles and single action revolvers
>          Revolvers bearing no more than six rounds and incorporating
>          an 'anti-fanning' mechanism to discourage Roy Rogers wannabes.
>Bullets : Any non-explosive variety, HPs just fine.
>
>Now - these specs leave the 32 H&R magnum as about the most powerful
>allowable civie cartridge for handgun or rifle use. It would be
>reasonably effective against home intruders, muggers, rabid wolves
>and other such nasties, even with the firearm-type limitations. At the
>same time, this caliber/power limit would reduce the ultimate lethality
>of hits. The chances of the average joe encountering a gang of huge
>individuals all drunk and stoned on PCP and crystal meth and with a
>bad attitude and all armed and willing to die ... well, it's about
>zero - far less than the chances of getting killed driving your car.
When will you people realize that our right to keep and bear isn't
primarily intended to be for protecting against criminals and beasties
in the wild?  Granted, it is a big part, but we also need military style
weapons so we can fight off the government when they come to our door.
When ten agents come to my door, it would be nice to be able to shoot
all of them for 'not upholding the constitution to the best of their
ability'.  It will be a lot harder doing that with the puny weapons you
listed above.
Please read the Federalist papers for all clarification on RKBA.  These
documents have cleared up plenty of misnomers that friends of mine have
had.
--
Matt Porter
mporter@cis.ohio-state.edu
mporter@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 35
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no> thomasp@ifi.uio.no (Thomas Parsli) writes:
:
:
:	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or
:	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY
:
:	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..
:
:	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup
;
:	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil
:	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
:	let's say 1000 people ????
:
:
:                        Thomas Parsli
And everybody who talked about the evil arising in Europe was labeled
reactionary in the late 1930's... after all, we could negotiate with Hitler and
trust him to keep his end of the bargain... at least that's what Stalin and
Chamberlin thought... I guess they forgot to teach you about your country being
overrun by the Germans in WWII, 'eh Thomas?  And I'm sorry you consider outrage
at government excesses to be ####... Everytime the Israelis conduct a mass
operation against a terrorist group that is actively killing their citizens and
soldiers, the world gets indignant, but it's ok for the US to assault it's own
citizens who were a religous minority and accused of sexual deviation and
hoarding weapons... I find it real ironic this happened the same day Al Gore
arrived in Poland to recognize the sacrifices made in the Warsaw Ghetto where
the same 'justifications' were raised for an armed assault by black-clad troops
with armor support...
--
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane        *  When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu *  circles, scream and shout.          * for rent
********************************************************************************
From: jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum)
Subject: Re: Change of name ??
Originator: jon@atlas
Nntp-Posting-Host: atlas.mitre.org
Organization: The MITRE Corp. McLean Va.
Lines: 33
In article <CMM.0.90.2.735315429.thomasp@holmenkollen.ifi.uio.no>, Thomas Parsli <thomasp@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> 	1. Make a new Newsgroup called talk.politics.guns.PARANOID or
> 	talk.politics.guns.THEY'R.HERE.TO.TAKE.ME.AWAY
>
> 	2. Move all postings about waco and burn to (guess where)..
>
> 	3. Stop posting #### on this newsgroup
>
> 	We are all SO glad you're trying to save us from the evil
> 	goverment, but would you mail this #### in regular mail to
> 	let's say 1000 people ????
>
>
>
>
> 	This is not a .signature.
> 	It's merely a computergenerated text to waste bandwith
> 	and to bring down the evil Internet.
>
>
>                         Thomas Parsli
>                         thomasp@ifi.uio.no
How about a group called talk.that.thomas.parsli.approves?
--
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)
--
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
provided as a public service by     | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org)     | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Lines: 18
In article <1993Apr20.003522.22480@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
>>next?  The Mormons or Jews?
>The Koreshians rubbed themselves out.  Neither Mormons nor Jews have a
>propensity for dousing themselves with kerosene, so I'm not particularly
>concerned.  (Or shall we blame Jim Jones on the government also?)
I believe we still remember Masada, where Jews killed themselves rather
than being captured by the Romans.  While I do not agree with the
Davidians, I must admire their willingness to die for what they
believed, which Jews have had to do often.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19
Nntp-Posting-Host: chopin.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 32
In article <1993Apr20.142131.27347@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv
>>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their
>>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.
>
>This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
>fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
>want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night
>in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes
>out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke
>and then fire?
I've already corrected my mistake earlier in this thread.  I saw a brief
news report which led to the above inaccuracy.  I have since seen detailed
summaries that show the tanks returned in the late morning.
So, why didn't the BD's leave when the gas was first introduced much
earlier in the morning?  Didn't they care about the children?
Why didn't they release the children weeks ago?
>
>Do tell.
>
>  -joe
--
From: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: BATF/FBI Murders Almost Everyone in Waco Today! 4/19
Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 32
In article <1993Apr20.142131.27347@rti.rti.org> jbs@rti.rti.org writes:
>In article <C5rpoJ.IJv@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>>
>>Well they had over 40 days to come out with their hands up on national tv
>>to get the trial they deserved.  Instead they chose to set fire to their
>>compund hours after the tanks dropped off the tear gas.
>
>This is about the third person who's parroted the FBI's line about the
>fires being set "six hours after the tear gas was injected."  Suppose you
>want to explain to us the videotape footage shown on national TV last night
>in which a tank with the gas-injecting tubes is pulling its injection tubes
>out of the second story of a building as the building begins to belch smoke
>and then fire?
>
>Do tell.
>
>  -joe
Not to mention that the story was rewritten today. Those two BD's who
"admitted to starting the fire", forget 'em, they don't exist anyone.
Today, "a few saw someone starting a fire" and "our aerial surveillance
showed them starting fires" at this morning's press conference.
Tomorrow, even this excuse may evaporate. A reporter pointed out
that a BD being brought to arraingement shouted that tanks knocking
over lanterns started the fire. Curiouser and curiouser.
--
+   Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only   +
|*Clinton*Gore*CIA*FBI*DEA*Assassinate*Bomb*WoD*BoR*ATF*IRS*Resist*NSA* |
|*Christian*God*Satan*Apocalypse*ZOG*Nazi*Socialist*Communist*Explosive*|
+*fundamentalist*revolution*NSC*Federal Reserve*Constitution*gold*FEMA* +
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: My Gun is like my American Express Card
Organization: Hand Held Products, Inc.
Lines: 22
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: dale.handheld.com
In article <93109.172450U28037@uicvm.uic.edu> Jason Kratz
[...]
> It is kind of funny though how you were the only one who picked up
> the part about my sister being a social worker and keeping me up to date on
the
> gang thing.  Everyone else seemed to just skim by that part.
>
> Jason
I guess that just means "Everyone else" was mistaken?
Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"