Conference back40::soapbox

Dunno about all that, but it's about time the Monster Raving Loony Party set 
up an American branch.

Chris.

>Reformation or Revolution

Conformation or convolution?

Corrobiration or constipation?

    
    
    re: .0
    
>    American citizens". (Let's face it, considering the amount of illegal
>    guns utilized every second in violent crimes, couldn't the general
>    American populace denounce their "Right to Bear Arms" in an effort to
>    give the government the firepower it needs to properly prosecute these
>    inhuman beings who choose to indiscriminantly blow people away? Now
    
    	Oh yeah, sure. That's JUST what we need to do...give the govt all
    the firepower. Me thinks you have a bit of socialist in you son...
    
    
    jim

>    	Oh yeah, sure. That's JUST what we need to do...give the govt all
>    the firepower. Me thinks you have a bit of socialist in you son...
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You calling him a puff?

Chris.

    
    
    	Well, he had a big wad of socialist in him until he spit most
    	of it out.
    

    
    	I imagine that a big wad of socialism would look a lot like a big
    wad of well chewed RedMan Plug....:)
    
    

    
    	As always, Jim, I bow to others' superior knowledge in matters
    	such as these.
    
    
    	8^)
    

    
    	Ah, very good young grasshopper.....:)
    
    

    looks alike like a bunch of more liberal dogma
    
    FWIW

    
    
    
    Looks like someone has broken the binding on their 7th grade Civics
    book and read a chapter or two.  Here are some suggestions for the base
    noter.  Read other writings that the founders of this country have
    written.  Try starting with a little document called "Common Sense" and
    there is a lot of material written by the others. 
    
    The judicial branch, is not a legislative branch of government, but
    rather a branch which is supposed to interpret the law and the legality
    of it as it relates to the constitution of the US.
    
    When you read some of the writings of our forfathers, you will find
    that gridlock was counted on by many of the founders of this country. 
    Ever hear "The government that governs best, governs least?"  
    
    With regards to the firearms question, do you know that there are
    20,000+ firearms laws on the books in this country to date?  Criminals
    don't obey laws.  And if you want a lesson on what happens when the
    populus is disarmed, go read a little about an event that occured
    around 55 or so years ago, the idea was proposed by a politician and
    the plan was carried out, I believe it was over in Europe somewhere.  
    Didn't work out too well.  
    
    Not to be too hard on you, it seems that you are a well intentioned
    person who really wants to do what's best.  Thing is, what may appear
    to be best on the surface, may not be in the long run.  Want more info
    about gun control, read the gun control topic, there is a lot of
    valuable information in there.
    
    
    Cheers,
    
    Mike 

    This Nazi threat/fascism/gun control argument is such caca. It's
    paranoia. Let's call a spade a spade. Americans want to own firearms,
    and a lot of them do. It's big business. Don't shroud it in paranoia.
    If you believe Hitler's power came purely from the barrel of a gun,
    you don't understand what happened there at all.

    
      Revolution in the US ?  Well, this sounds like something out of
     the 1960's.  Don't hold your breath.
    
      You are right that the Prex's powers are deliberately limited -
     many of the founders didn't want to have such an office at all,
     and in the French Rev, there WAS NO executive.  But our founders
     knew better - Washington, one of the remarkable men ever, established
     a tradition that ruled out any US bonapartism.
    
      The founders didn't like judges much either, since they're appointed,
     not elected.  The SCOTUS has actually GROWN in power compared to what
     it originally was constitutionally.
    
      But just as in parliamentary countries, the bulk of power is in the
     legislature.  Our Congress is LESS powerful than a parliament,
     because of the Prex's veto, the SCOTUS' assumed right to be the
     final interpreter of the constitution, and because of rights reserved
     to the states or the people.
    
      Actually, it has proven very difficult for movements of either the
     left or right to modify our government.  Partly due to the super
     majorities required, and partly because many Americans seem very
     satisfied with the status quo.  In fact, even the resurgent
     Republicans are not really reformers - they simply want to reverse
     some of the modifications of recent years.
    
      I can discern no US movement to radically change our system in
     any new way.  Just the opposite - Americans are afraid of threats
     to what they have now.  They don't want to lose it.
    
      bb

    re: .0
    
    Looks like Mike and bb beat me to the punch on this one, so I'll just
    comment on your view of the militias, and follow it with a few thoughts.
    
    First of all, militias are DEFENSIVE organizations.  None of the major
    players plan on using force to overthrow government- that's a media
    scare-tactic.  From what I can tell, these groups see the BoR being
    demolished before thier eyes, and are banning together to defend these
    rights if they are forced to do so- on their own land (it's long been the 
    socialists' dream to destroy the Second Amendment...and to their
    credit, it's been effectively neutered over the last 70 years or so;
    and worse yet, over this time, the people have become ignorant of what
    the Second actually says and means- which insures that future
    modifications can happen without too much complaint).  
    
    Certainly, there are wackos out there who band together with guns,
    planning terrorism; and if they commit such acts, they should be dealt
    with harshly.  However, you do not deal with a few crazies by giving up your
    rights...this never solves anything.
    
    Those who are willing to give up their freedoms for perceived security
    are not only acting in a very UN-American way, but they will quickly find
    out that this act of "sacrifice" will be in vain.  Not only will their
    freedoms be taken from them, but so will what little security that
    remains.  A few oddball terrorists are much easier to deal with than an
    out of control government.
    
    Unfortunately, there are many people who have learned nothing from our
    own history, or the history of other nations.  We push headlong into
    the same mistakes those before up have made, thinking that somehow,
    this time will be different.  I've got news for these people, they are
    missing out on the one key issue that will insure that this is not so:
    human nature.  Human nature is a constant, and history more than proves
    this.  This is why the freedoms for security exchange will NEVER work.
    
    I do agree that it is the people who should hold the power, it was
    always meant to be this way.  However, you contradict this statement
    when you suggest that we, the people, should give up the one remaining
    power that we still (barely) cling to- our right to keep and bear arms. 
    Without this right, the rest of the constitution is only a toothless
    document which has no power to insure that our inalienable rights are
    guaranteed.  In effect, by doing this, you render those who should have
    the power, powerless.
    
                         
    -steve

    Re .0
    
    Brave words spoken in good time.
    
    re .1
    
    >>it's about time the Monster Raving Loony Party set
    up an American branch.<<
    
    I thought they had, and Lord Sutch was calling himself Perot now.
                                    

re: .12
> This Nazi threat/fascism/gun control argument is such caca. It's

caca?

It's obvious on the face of it that disarming the population is a
prerequisite to totalitarianism.

Remember a few years ago when the Lithuanians started kicking up their heels?
What was the first thing that Gorby did?

Demanded that all firearms in private hands be turned in. 

Paranoia? Maybe. But whose?

    Mr. Richardson

    Am I paranoid or is it just me?

    
    
    The question isn't "Am I paranoid?" but, "Am I paranoid enough???"

    So?

    Do you feel that the united states is on the brink of totalitarianism?

    If it is, then having lots of guns won't change anything. Do you think
    the US Army is going to have a problem stomping on armed pockets of
    resistance?

    Let me put it this way, is the primary reason that you own a gun the
    threat of totalitarianism? If it is, you're paranoid.

    
    >If it is, then having lots of guns won't change anything. Do you think
    >the US Army is going to have a problem stomping on armed pockets of
    >resistance?
    
    
    	I said the same thing about 6 months ago and it didn't seem to
    	matter then either.
    

    A large percentage of the army will side with the people.
    

    and we shall drink champagne down by the river...

    But the people won't mobilize, only small pockets will resist whatever
    changes are happening. The silent majority will remain silent. Having
    guns won't change a thing.

    
    <------
    
    Gee!!! Did you use Windex on that crystal ball this morning???
    

The whole point is that it is supposed to be a deterrant. And it works. Else
there wouldn't be so much effort going into disarming the people who are
not part of law enforcement/military, i.e, under direct institutional control.
And the program is being sold by the media.

Paranoid?
- Slick shows contempt for the bill of rights.
- Paid any attention to the forfeiture proceedings lately?
- Increasing encroachments on privacy by FBI, etc.
- WOD making a shambles of constitutional rights.
- People like you buying the anti-2nd amendment rhetoric hook, line a sinker.

Me? Paranoid?
YBYA. 

    
    	Legalize drugs, and most of these problems go away.
    

Well, if you're paranoid enough, you realize they don't WANT drugs legalized,
because too many problems go away :-).

    
    	Not to mention the 15-20 government agencies that monitor drug
    	problems.
    

    Well, Canadians don't have these types of problems, and we haven't
    legalized drugs. Somehow, we've managed to have a declining homicide
    rate. 

    Of course, I have to take into account that Canada is nothing more than
    a backwater country that contributes nothing to the world.

>- Slick shows contempt for the bill of rights.

Along with the Religious Right, SCOTUS, PC, Newt and his boys, et. al.

TTom

    
    There are good reasons for that, Glen.  One has to do with the
    population.  You all have a lot of space up there.  That and it's so
    doggone cold up there that people don't want to go outside. :')  
    
    Noone in Canada does drugs?  How much does Canada spend on the war on
    drugs.
    
    
    Mike

    
>    Noone in Canada does drugs?  How much does Canada spend on the war on
>    drugs.
    
    
   He's in Canada now?  Man that Herman's Hermit guy really gets around!




 Jim

    Not sure how much is spent, but the RCMP and Canada Customs concentrate
    on the trafficking end of the drug trade not so much the end user.
    They've pretty much stopped busting people for possession of marijuana
    in BC for example.

    Compare the US to Western Europe and what do you find?

    
    We're further West?
    
    
    

    Western Europe is pretty much decimated.  It's spiritually and
    economically bankrupt, rife with socialism and moral decay.
    The people are revolting.  Godlessness is everywhere.

    
    
    That's seems reasonable if there needs to be a "war" on them drugs. 
    Going after the trafficing that is.  Here, law enforcement gets a big
    hoot out of busting someone with a bit of grass on them.  Gotta keep
    these dangerous folks off the streets, dontcha know.
    
    
    Mike

    
    >The people are revolting.
    
    	Yeah, they stink on ice.
    
    
    	RE: Deb [a few back]
    
    	Depends on where you start.
    

    
    .30
    
    Do I detect just a smattering of bitterness Glenn?? nah, at least you
    contribute some fine beers, other than that I agree with your
    asessment. 

    
    	re: declining homocide rate in Canada
    
    	I beg to differ. Canada's homocide rate has been approximately the
    same since the mid '70s. Canada has always has a low homocide rate,
    even before gun-control or the war on drugs. Same with England and
    other countries with strict gun-control laws. In most cases
    (England/Canada, etc) the homocide rate BEFORE strict gun-control/drug
    laws was LOWER than it is today. 
    
    	FYI,YMMV,IMHO,etc....
    
    	jim
    

    If I remember correctly, the homicide rate in Canada peaked at close to
    4 per 100K in 1974 and in 1994 it's 1.8 per 100K.

    I suppose if you compare that to the US rates, it's about the same.
    
    Seems like a 50% drop to me.

    
    
    	Take a peek at the stats. The homocide rate for the 13yrs before
    1974 was LOWER than the 13yrs after 1974.
    
    
    

    .42
    
    Yeah, maybe, but what about the hetcide rate?

    Is it not lower now that in '74, Jim?

    
    
    	yes, so what Glenn? You need to take an average. You can't simply
    pull one data point out of the chart, compare it to another data point
    and say it just has to be so! When you sample populations do you simply
    take one person from one area and one person from another, or do you
    sample a GROUP from each area to allow for natural variations? Ever
    take a statistics class?
    
    
    jim 

> Ever take a statistics class?

	why, is there one missing?
	
	ba-doom.

    
    
    	jols! :)
    
    

    I don't have a graph in front of me, but if the trend is downward it's
    downward. You seem to be dividing the data into two segments, pre and
    post 73. What the hell does that tell you? You seem to concentrate on
    the gun control angle. I'm not trying to draw this into any gun control 
    debate, but you can't ignore that the ideology has an effect.

    As to my knowledge of stats, I have 4 years experience in quality
    engineering and 2 years experience in support of a statistical process
    control software tool. 

    
    	Apparently, when 1973 is used as a reference point, it proves
    	Jim's side of the argument.
    
    	Swing a couple years either way, and it probably disproves his
    	side of the argument.
    
    	Statistics can be tossed and turned to prove either side of an
    	argument.
    

    Well, that's his angle, okay, it does raise a point. I also like to
    look at what's happening now.

    
    	
    
    	Shawn, 1973 is when Canada has it's highest murder rate for one
    year. Call it a burp, statistical weirdness, whatever. It is also the
    center point for which I base my argument (I go 13yrs back from 1973
    and 13yrs forward from 1973). Please tell me how I can twist anything
    there. I use equal numbers of years from both sides.
    
    
    	jim

    
    	Was 1973 a burp, or was it a peak?
    
    	If it was a burp, what reason did you have for selecting that
    	year over another?  Why wouldn't you pick the year that showed
    	a "negative" burp instead of a "positive" burp?
    

    
    
    	It was a peak Shawn. The reason I go with 1973 is that it was a
    the most extreme point and also I have data for 13yrs before that date
    and 13yrs after.
    
    
    jim

>                       <<< Note 647.0 by CSCMA::GEDDIS >>>

>    Yet, suprisingly, the Legislative branch (ie, Congress, the Senate, the
>    House, etc) have usurped a lot of the other two branches powers behind
>    the backs of the unsuspecting public.

>    (Let's face it, considering the amount of illegal
>    guns utilized every second in violent crimes, couldn't the general
>    American populace denounce their "Right to Bear Arms" in an effort to
>    give the government the firepower it needs to properly prosecute these
>    inhuman beings who choose to indiscriminantly blow people away? Now

This has mostly been said already, but...

I find this utterly amazing, yet rather typical. You've found the Legislature
to be usurping power in unconstitutional, possibly dangerous ways, yet you go
on to recommend that we hand over even more control to these tyrants.

The second quoted paragraph is especially intersting. Why would we need to
give the government more power to prosecute things which are already illegal?
To make them MORE illegal? Perhaps a piece of paper which declares that the
governement is REALLY REALLY MAD at illegal gun users will make them easier
to identify and catch than is now the case?

    A major problem with the burgeoning of government is explained by the
    following aphorism:
    
    	The more control, the more that needs control.  This is the road to
    	chaos.

	"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."

      Steve,
    
        In regards to reply .14  
    
       Very well said !!!
    
        Yup, I finally pulled myself away from topic 654.*
    
    Jack
     

    <-- Whatdoyaknow...someone read my rantings.  8^)