Million Mom March a success according to Klintoon (radio address on Sat.) ..even though it hasn't happened yet...when will the M-M-M occur for swimming pools,devices that kill more children every year than gun accidents or autos that always kill more people than guns...also organizer is not just a everyday mom from N.J.,but a Klintoon crony, who also used to be affliated with CBS news

-- justa (pondering@gunrange.com), May 14, 2000

Answers

The lies just go on and on. The establishment press keeps on fanning the flames with deceit. Now they're saying that one in four Americans have been personally threatened with a gun, and that one in ten have been shot at. Where did they take this poll, South Central L.A.? Of course Kalifornia has strict gun-control laws. No such problems where I live, in a pro-gun state. In my entire life, I don't believe that I have known anyone that has been personally threatened with a gun, let alone shot at. Anyone who doesn't see what the government/media combine is up to is really dumb.

Link

Sunday May 14 12:49 AM ET

Poll: Americans Say Gun Threats Widespread

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly one in four Americans say they personally have been threatened with a gun, including about one in 10 adults who report that someone had taken a shot at them, a poll published on Sunday showed.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll this month of 1,068 adults 18 and older also found that nearly half of all Americans -- 45 percent -- said a firearm is kept in their home.

The margin of error for the overall results of the poll was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Nine percent of those interviewed reported they had been shot at. That total included everything from crime victims to those involved in hunting accidents, but did not include military service, the Post reported.

An additional 14 percent reported that someone had threatened them with a gun but did not pull the trigger, the survey found.

The issues of gun control and gun ownership rights were expected to draw tens of thousands of people to rallies in Washington later on Sunday.

-- Observer (lots@to.observe), May 14, 2000.

I'll agree to all the gun control restraints the (1/20th of) Million Moms want when they agree to have the same restraints placed on themselves. Child abuse kills more children, far more, each year than guns do.

-- Fedup (Fedup@tthelies.com), May 14, 2000.

We just finished watching Meet the Press here in Southern Cal and Her Raness made an interesting observation. The woman that is the main spokesperson and organizer for the MMM (Donna ?) will be their worst enemy. She comes off as a whitebread version of the Gonzales woman and she just wont shut-up. This whole MMM is just another Clinton/Gore orchestrated political event. Enforce the existing laws! Criminals dont give a shit about trigger locks, permits, firearm education, blah,blah,blah. How about putting a bounty on gun toting felons and gangbangers? That should thin em out a little.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 14, 2000.

I would argue that the NRA is strong, as strong as the tobacco lobby,(although we see what is happening to them too). To say you are a member of the NRA now makes people round here look at you funny. Are they losing their hold? If they took a vote today in AMerica to ban guns...would that be the end of it? I think it's coming, and I think it's already lost. I don't want to give up my guns!! But there are just TOO many people in the world now..unless you own a tv station or a very large newspaper, there's no way you can get your own message out. Whomever controls the media controls the people.. so get what you can while you can, and then... report it stolen in a theft at your house.

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), May 14, 2000.

Polls and statistics are a favorite of those attempting to appeal to the intellectual aspects of this argument with emotion. However, those who say stricter gun controls would influence numbers positively do so through disingenious rhetoric. "12 children a day" appeals to the emotions, but does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny, unless young adults, 18 and 19-year-olds, are still classified by law as children.

But let's ingore the statistics because the marchers do. If this were about numbers, then where are the marchers for stricter laws on driving automobile when 23 times as many children are killed by the car each year then by the firearm? Twenty-three times in a vechicle both regulated and licensed by the state.

Oh, but frequency is the disticntion, you say? There are many more cars used daily so that comparison is mute? Well, take it from the words of one march organizer who said, "Guns are everywhere. Kids can get a hold of them as easily as getting a lollipop."

Really? This is the kind of rhetoric we want to influence legislation? I think not. I remain thankful that sound legislation comes from intellect and not emotion. For if it were the reverse, the Bill of Rights would be the Bill of Maybes.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 14, 2000.

Why rapists will love the anti-gun agenda of Sunday's Million Mom March

WASHINGTON, DC -- Women participating in the Million Mom March this weekend are making a terrible mistake by attacking guns instead of focusing on the women who have been raped or killed because of gun control laws, the Libertarian Party said today.

"Sunday should be a day to mourn the victims of gun control -- including the estimated 4,177 women who will be raped this year because it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in their state," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director.

"Instead, these marchers will demand more laws that will put more women at risk. Libertarians have to ask: What will it take to make the Million Mom marchers understand that criminals love women who hate guns?"

This Sunday, an estimated 150,000 women will participate in the Million Mom March on the Mall in Washington, DC. They will demand what they call "common sense" gun laws -- including mandatory trigger locks, gun licensing, limits on gun and ammunition purchases, an end to TV programs and movies that "glamorize" guns, more regulation of gun shows, and much more.

Unfortunately, such laws would just put more women at risk of being raped or killed, said Dasbach.

"It's impossible to count all the women who have already been victimized by anti-gun measures like waiting periods, handgun bans, and restrictions on the right to carry a weapon for self-defense," he said.

"However, we do know that at least 4,177 women are raped every year because of laws that make it illegal to carry a concealed weapon."

That figure comes from a study by the Cato Institute, which found that violent crime dropped dramatically in 24 states that passed concealed-carry laws, allowing ordinary people to carry concealed handguns.

The Lott-Mustard study, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," found that in those states, rapes fell by 5.2%, murders were reduced by 7.65%, robberies fell by 2.2%, and aggravated assaults dropped by 7%.

Had other states passed similar concealed-carry laws, that 5.2% drop in rapes would have translated into an additional 4,000+ women annually who would not have been sexually assaulted. Instead, tragically, they were raped because politicians refused to give them the right to defend themselves.

"The Million Mom March participants think they are sponsoring an anti- gun event. Instead, they are sponsoring a pro-rape event," said Dasbach. "If you listen carefully on Sunday, you just might hear the sound of rapists, stalkers, and wife-beaters cheering as they anticipate how much easier it will be to commit crimes against defenseless women."

If the marchers aren't willing to consider the past and future victims of gun-control laws, Libertarians will, said Dasbach.

"As the media focuses on women who are demanding that their Second Amendment rights be taken away from them, Libertarians will commemorate the women whose right not to be a crime victim was taken away from them," he said.

"Libertarians will remember the girls who never become mothers because their lives were cut short by criminal psychopaths. We will remember the mothers who lost children to gun-toting thugs because it was illegal for them to defend their families. And we will remember the women whose lives have been ravaged by rape, assault, or similar crimes.

"In short, we mourn the thousands of women who cannot march on Sunday -- because they are the silent victims of the lethal laws and gun- control policies that the Million Mom March so loudly advocates."

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 14, 2000.

I am on record as saying there needs to be stricter gun control, which puts me on the other side of this argument, and I am not posting to engage in a debate about it-I AM posting to say those statistics at the beginning of this post seem very skewed. I cannot believe they are true-Who DID they poll? It defies common sense to think that 1 in 10 people have been threatened with a gun.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 14, 2000.

Sure hope theres not some 'NUT' in the crowd..Clinton couldn't go that low could he?

-- george (jones@choices.com), May 14, 2000.

George, does the Sun rise in the morning?

-- Lurker2 (get@ridof.klintoon), May 14, 2000.

FS,

It says that 1 out of 10 people have actually been shot at. They're really pushing the lies beyond all credibility now. That figure is probably closer to 1 out of 1000.

Some of the things that come to my mind when I hear this talk about designing "smart" guns: Maybe not in the first models, but after people come to accept them as normal guns, I wouldn't be suprised if they find a way to put tiny GPS transmitters in them so that they will know where they are at all times. In addition, I think they will eventually have some electronic components. Then the government will ban and confiscate all analog guns, but allow us to have the "smart" ones. These will be designed in such a way that the gun would be impossible to fire if disabled by an EMP blast. Since governments will be the first to have EMP weapons, it would then be quite easy for them to instantly put an end to any attempted revolutionary uprisings. Our new guns might help protect us against our neighbors, but they will be useless against the government "peacekeepers". The way these Moms are going at it, this will probably be the reality within the next 10 years.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 14, 2000.

Hawk,

Well said and an interesting and likely hypothesis, too. What is really so sad is that these misguided women are really helping tear up the Constitution and Bill of rights, while accomplishing the opposite of what they think they are doing. The female vote put Klinton and his Scorpion wife (who's smarter and even more dangerous than him) back in office for a second term. The male vote turned decidedly against him. God help America if enough women haven't figured out what the "great seducer" and his controllers are up to by the time the next election rolls around.

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), May 14, 2000.

It's obvious that all we need are MORE LAWS!!!!!

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), May 14, 2000.

They should call it the Million Looney Mom March. They are goofy.

-- Maya (Maya@eck.ist), May 14, 2000.

Maya, I prefer to call it the "Misguided Mom's March".

Most of them mean well but are misinformed and are manipulated by dishonest news sources and a covert program of anti-gun propaganda orchestrated at the highest levels of our government by the power elite who wish to gain absolute power.

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), May 14, 2000.

I saw some snips on tv last night from other parts of US, didnt look like a 'hit' to me. I have been shot at once. Truth, it was my own brother. High on drugs, luckily he missed. (dont get smart now :-)

FS, I for one will not debate you, your opinion is valued here. I used to feel the same way, but husband and I had some round-table discussions regarding the issue.

Truth of the matter is IMHO to do so would be like letting the horse out of the barn after the fire. There are enough guns out here now and what is the point of more laws?

I am not a gun-owner, scared to death of them, but I believe responsible owners have their guns locked up and child proofed. I had someone shot and killed close to me, i dont blame the gun, it was the murderer behind it.

FWIW, I think the media spin on this one is sickening. Take away more and more of our rights, soon wont be nothin left.

just MHO.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 14, 2000.

Reuters - AP - AP U.S. - ABCNews - Photos - Full Coverage

Moms, Families Rally for Gun Control Wearing pink and white T-shirts showing flowers growing out of gun barrels, tens of thousands of protesters joined the `Million Mom March' in Washington on Sunday to demand Congress pass `common sense gun control' and try to stem rampant gun violence.

Link

Rampant gun violence? According to whom? Perhaps Dan Blather. These liars are misrepresenting the facts that overall, gun violence is DOWN, and certainly not "rampant". Lying Bastards! Oh well, what do we expect from the Clinton administration and their friends?

Complete article:

Moms, Families Rally for Gun Control

By Joanne Kenen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wearing pink and white T-shirts showing flowers growing out of gun barrels, tens of thousands of protesters joined the ``Million Mom March'' in Washington on Sunday to demand Congress pass ``common sense gun control'' and try to stem rampant gun violence.

Throngs of mothers, aunts, sisters, grandmothers, children and more than a sprinkling of fathers gave up the traditional flowers and brunches to spend Mother's Day on the National Mall. They carried signs that said ``Children are Not Bullet Proof,'' ``Guns Don't Die, People Do, and pointedly, ``I Vote.''

Some carried pictures of their dead children.

March organizers, who included a voter registration booth and a place to send ``Mother's Day'' cards to Congress, say they hope the protest is the start of a movement to make gun control sentiments clear to politicians in the next election.

``We're going to take off the oven mitts,'' march organizer Donna Dees-Thomases likes to say.

The march attracted politicians and celebrities, but most of the scheduled speakers were victims -- a teenage girl who lost her brother, mothers who have buried their children. An art teacher from Columbine High School was on hand, as well as the mother of Kayla Rolland, the six-year old killed by a first-grade classmate in Michigan this winter.

In addition to the Washington rally, a family-friendly blend of activism and entertainment with face-painters, music and a diaper-changing tent, some 65 companion events were held nationwide. Marchers want Congress to pass gun control measures including licensing gun owners and registering firearms.

Congress took up a more modest gun control bill after last year's killings at Columbine, in Littleton, Colorado, but the initiative stalled, reflecting in part the power of the National Rifle Association, the leading gun lobby.

March organizers tried to keep the focus on victims and survivors, not politicians. President Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is running as a Democrat for Senate in New York, held a separate warm-up rally outside the White House on Sunday morning.

Hillary Clinton summed up the Mother's Day message: ``We don't want flowers or jewelry. We don't want a nice card or a fancy meal as much as we want our Congress to do the right thing to protect our children.''

One of mothers on the Mall, Carol Sorenson of Waldorf, Maryland, said most years she spends this day at home being spoiled and taken to dinner by her children and grandchildren.

This year three generations of the Sorenson family were participating in the march.

``Most years they are doing something for me. Today I am doing something for my grandchildren,'' Sorenson said. ``We wanted to do something about guns. We knew we would come here the first day we heard about it.''

The gun violence issue has entered the presidential race, with likely Democrat candidate Vice President Gore embracing an ambitious gun control agenda and likely Republican challenger Texas Gov. George W. Bush (news - web sites) offering much more modest steps such as distributing trigger locks to handgun owners.

The U.S. Centres for Disease Control reports some 32,000 Americans die from gunfire each year through murders, accidents and suicides. Twelve a day are children and teenagers.

A much smaller group, the ``Second Amendment Sisters -- Armed Informed Mothers'' held a counter-protest a few blocks away. They oppose new gun laws and say firearm ownership is an important part of self-defense in a high-crime society. They also say better parenting is the key to curbing violence.

``Gun control increases violent crime by shifting the balance of power from the law-abiding to the criminal,'' Maria Heil, a ``Sisters'' coordinator, told the crowd, some of whom carried signs that said, ``Guns -- the ultimate in feminine protection.''

The Second Amendment enshrines the right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.

The sisters, however, were dwarfed by the mothers. The National Park Service no longer gives crowd estimates, but at least tens of thousands of people were pouring into the mothers march, some travelling by bus from as far away as Minnesota and Michigan, others flying in from California and Colorado.

Randy Cabell brought her daughter, Hanna Prum, 10, and a friend, Suzie Wilson, 11, on an overnight train ride from Cambridge, Mass. Both mother and daughter are diabetic, and travel isn't easy for them. But at the last minute, they decided they had to be here.

``It's a long, shleppy trip but at the end, I just didn't want this to happen without me,'' said Cabell, resting after the train trip that took from 8 p.m. on Saturday until 6:20 a.m. on Sunday.

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), May 14, 2000.

Good information observer. I should have a 'Million Thank You March' for that post! ;)

-- Maya (Maya@eck.ist), May 14, 2000.

Please don't get me wrong--I'm not into gun control. But your comparison with pools and autos is invalid. Pools and autos are not DESIGNED to kill. Guns are.

I'd be totally into gun control, if the government didn't have access to guns.

JOJ

-- jumpoff joe (jumpoff@echoweb.neet), May 14, 2000.

I agree that the MMM is a crock. But it puzzles me how some on this board that have made censorship such a big issue now seem to want to silence those with a differing view.

-- Observer (@ .), May 14, 2000.

Who wants to silence them? There may be a few people who just want them to shut up and go away, but I think most people just want them to get a clue. Sometimes it is best to just accept the pain of a personal loss, instead of trying to blame it on the way the world is.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), May 14, 2000.

I've been threatened with a gun on two occasions, shot at on a third occasion, and I don't want MY gun ownership rights infringed upon. The notion that ALL people would be safer in a world without guns presupposes that criminals won't use knives, broken bottles, rocks, baseball bats, fists, whatever. The anti-gun people I see being interviewed live in nice neighborhoods where most people have cell phones and the cops are right around the corner.

-- helen (nowhere@the.moment), May 14, 2000.

From Reuters:

"President Clinton likened registering guns to registering cars. Addressing NRA arguments that the Second Amendment enshrines the right to bear arms, he said, ``Well, the Supreme Court says there's a constitutional right to travel. But we license car owners, and we register cars and we have speed limits and we have child safety restraint laws and we have seat belt laws, and you don't hear people talk about car control.'"

This is a man who fails to recognize the distinction of the private ownership of a firearm and the use of a vehicle on public highways. There are licenses and regististration and speed limit laws for automobiles that are operated in the public domain. For firearms, there already are the same. You cannot carry pubically without a permit. You can not hunt on public land without a license. But on private land (property) federal laws have far less jurisdiction.

I could go on but then I am reminded that this is also a man who confuses "getting away with it" and being a legal action.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 14, 2000.

No, let's continue. Let's expand Clinton's automobile-firearm comparison to this:

Speed limits exist yet cars are made with the capacity to travel at a far faster rate. Now why is that? Why not sue the car manufacturers for making cars that can violate the law? Maybe because there's the element of personal responsiblity? Maybe the law abiding citizen understands asks accordingly and should be left alone.

There are many gun owners who fall into this category and wish simply to be left alone. We're not in the streets shooting people. Go after those who are.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 14, 2000.

Please. I'm begging you. Crank up the name-calling a little more, and keep making fun of those (like me,) who marched this weekend to recognize those who have buried family members or co-workers who died as a result of random shootings. Considering the fact that I found myself at the wrong end of a gun while simply sitting in my vehicle at a stoplight two weeks ago, it's a miracle I'm still around to march at all.

If you could, I'd also appreciate it if you could get on a nationally broadcast network and name-call as well, because you'll just throw more gasoline on the flames. I notice that the "Second Amendment Sisters" couldn't come up with a FRACTION of the attendance there was at the Million Mom March. (Obviously, this must be another conspiracy on the part of the Clinton Administration.) I also had to laugh when the "gun rights supporter" quoted yesterday in our local paper declined to use her last name, but every supporter of common sense gun laws was more than willing to be openly identified.

By the way, for those who have never learned to spell -- President Clinton's last name is spelled C-L-I-N-T-O-N. I know that you think you're incredibly insightful and witty with your constant misspellings and even more constant conspiracy-mongering, but it just makes you look uneducated.

Also, I've never heard of a drive-by drowning.

Julie

-- Julie (helltoupee2000@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Julie, you are either naive or stupid, maybe both. Do you for one second believe that the drive by shooter gives a rats ass about any of your moaning and bitching? The 2nd Amendment is what keeps it all under control. Legislation only applies to law-abiding citizens. Why do you ignorant morons think that criminals will care about your delusional bullshit? Keep your wringing hands off of my right to bear arms. March your ass home and teach your kids right from wrong and hopefully they wont be shootin anyone soon.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 15, 2000.

Julie, we believe everyone has a right to voice their views, but most of us are very self-reliant people. You might have better luck finding supporters of your cause on this forum.

-- Charlton Heston (earth really is @ planet. of the apes), May 15, 2000.

The whiny, moaning complainers who marched yesterday in Washington are an example of one of the most racist, classist arguments to hit the Beltway in recent years. This bullshit argument about "increasing gun violence" is totally that. Gun violence isn't increasing -- it's DECREASING. The only reason you and others like you marched, Julie, is because gun violence has come to YOUR direct attention -- because YOU'VE had to deal with it. The "increasing" gun violence is only called that because it is "increasing" in middle- class and predominantly white areas. Well, la-dee-dah. Welcome to the fucking world, Julie. Gun violence was WORSE several years ago, so where were you and your million moms THEN? Didn't you care then?

Oh, I get it -- it wasn't worth caring about until middle-class white kids in your OWN NEIGHBORHOODS started getting shot at. Is that it?

Where were you and the rest of the million moms when gangbangers started offing innocent kids in the inner cities? Was that not enough for you? Wasn't THAT gun violence enough reason for you to get involved? I guess THOSE kids weren't as important, or as deserving of life, as the well-scrubbed and well-fed middle-class white kids I saw marching on TV yesterday.

The notion that middle-class white people should somehow be "safe" from this sort of violence, and the concomitant notion that lower- class urban blacks somehow deserve it or have to put with it, is one of the most racist notions on display in America today.

When you're ready to do something about ALL gun violence, Julie, not just the violence that happens in your neighborhood or in your face, then you can bitch and moan.

Until then, Julie, whether you know it or not, you're an overprivileged racist. And fuck you.

-- March For Bullshit (millionmoms@can.be.wrong.), May 15, 2000.

I think that the women (and men) behind the march were operating primarily on emotion rather than reason. While their emotions are real, their rational faculty is "left in the dust," and the participants thus lose perspective. And if this movement has enough clout...what we'd have here would be a perfect example of the root of many of our bad/immoral laws.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 15, 2000.

Link Murder by Gun Control By L. Neil Smith lneil@ezlink.com

Why is everybody being so damned polite?

No sane individual living in the last days of the 20th century would knowingly welcome Nazis, the KGB, the Khmer Rouge, the ATF, or the FBI into their homes. We've learned too much from what happened to Jews in Germany, Kulaks in Russia, "landlords" in China, everybody in Cambodia, and victims of state terrorism at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

But let the Jackbooted Thugs' Ladies' Auxiliary slap on makeup and broomstick skirts, let them prattle in squeaky little girl voices and breathe their vegetarian breath all over us, and for some reason we think we have to ask them in and offer them chamomile tea.

Well, to hell with that. I used to give a lecture at the local university that began like this: "Until this morning you could plead ignorance for positions you take or fail to take on the moral and political issues of the day. When you leave this classroom an hour from now, having heard the facts I'm about to present, it'll either be as a brand new libertarian, or as a fully self-aware fascist monster."

Today I say the same to politicians, bureaucrats, trigger happy cops, Handgun Control, Inc., Colorado Governor Bill Owens, and those so miserably lacking in originality that they had to plagiarize Louis Farrakan (of all people) and launch a "Million Moms March". Also, anybody else who thinks it's morally acceptable to use the hired guns of government to take everybody else's guns away.

Gun control may have felt like a nice, warm, fuzzy idea to its advocates back in the 1960s. However today, owing to a great deal of serious legal and historical scholarship -- and a series of horrifying but highly educational events -- anyone who wishes to violate the fundamental covenant on which this nation is based, by attempting to outlaw personal weapons, has to get past three extremely inconvenient but absolutely incontrovertible facts.

(1) Every year, in this nation of more than a quarter billion individuals, a few thousand (three quarters of them suicides) are killed with firearms, while millions of Americans successfully use personal weapons to save themselves and others from injury or death. Guns save many, many times more lives than they take.

(2) In every jurisdiction that has made it even microscopically easier for individuals to carry weapons, violent crime rates have plummeted by double-digit percentages. Vermont, where no permission of any kind is required to carry a gun, is named in many respectable surveys as the safest state to live in.

(3) More telling and urgent, every episode of genocidal mass murder in history has been preceded by a period of intense disarming of the civil population, usually with "public safety" or "national security" as an excuse. According to Amnesty International -- hardly a gang of right wing crazies -- in the 20th century alone (in events entirely separate from war), governments have slaughtered more than a hundred million people, usually their own citizens.

The U.S. is far from immune. Look up "Operation Keelhaul".

Clearly, if those millions had been armed, they couldn't have been murdered by their own governments. And if the governments hadn't known where all the weapons were and who possessed them, the people couldn't have been disarmed. It follows, then, that no amount of gun control -- especially "soft" measures like registering guns or gun owners -- is reasonable or safe. Those who tremble at the idea of personal weapons -- "hoplophobes" is the diagnostic term -- are fond of saying that guns are made for only one purpose. Well, gun control serves only one purpose, too -- the incapacitation and extermination of whole peoples.

That's why we call it by its right name: "victim disarmament".

If you think it can't happen here, ask Donald Scott (look him up, too). Ask Vicky and Sammy Weaver. Ask 82 innocent men, women, and children (two dozen beautiful, harmless, helpless little children) from the Seventh Day Adventist church at Mount Carmel near Waco, Texas. Oops, you can't ask them, can you? Because they're all dead -- murdered in cold blood by government terrorists who have yet to be brought to justice.

Let's ask some questions that everybody on my side's been too polite -- too damned polite -- to ask before.

What kind of mind would sacrifice millions for the sake of a few thousands, especially when it's been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that victim disarmament can't save even those thousands?

What kind of mind wants a return to mean streets and ever-soaring crime rates?

What kind of mind collaborates with agents of mass murder and genocide?

Make no mistake: you victim disarmament types are sick, sick people, in the words of T.D. Melrose, who'd rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand.

You're people, down deep in your blackened, shriveled souls, who wait like vultures, secretly delighted whenever atrocities like the Columbine shootings occur -- atrocities whose only significance to you is their usefulness in advancing your political agenda. Dancing in the blood of innocents, just like the lying, thieving, murdering rapist you've sent to the White House twice in a row.

You're people who, like German voters in the 1930s, have empowered and unleashed on your decent and unsuspecting neighbors the most evil and violent terrorist bureaucracy in American history.

You're people, in short, who must be stupid, insane, or evil to continue arguing -- in the face of indisputable facts and irrefutable logic -- that others must be forced into a state of helplessness and victimized by individual criminals or the state.

Stupid, insane, or evil.

You are morally responsible for what happened at Waco. It was undertaken (bad choice of words, probably) by your favorite agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, at your behest, in your name, in pursuance of the policies you've always advocated. The blood of those babies, of their mommies and daddies, is on your head. You did it. You killed them as surely as if it were your hands at the controls of those tanks.

Stupid, insane, or evil.

Harsh words, but what's the point in being polite to advocates of mass murder and genocide? Those are the alernatives: stupid, insane, or evil. Smart people, sane people, good people know, in the words of Robert A. Heinlein, that "An armed society is a polite society."

If you were interested in saving lives -- even one life -- you'd join me in demanding that the Bill of Rights be stringently enforced, that the 25,000 gun laws on he books (each and every one illegal, each and every one responsible for the injury or death of countless individuals) be repealed, nullified, or otherwise disposed of.

Immediately.

For the children.

You'd agree that, as long as we permit the public school system to continue to exist, it has an obligation to instruct children, starting in kindergarten, in the safe and effective use of firearms.

Allow me to repeat that: "safe and effective use".

Emphasis on "effective".

Now don't go all soft and skooshy on me. I can see the razor wire and bayonets behind your New Age gobbledegook. I can hear the tramp, tramp, tramp as you goose-step to the Horst Wessel Song. I can smell the first faint traces of gas seeping from your chambers of death.

Let's make it clear for the dimmest bulbs among you: the kids at Columbine High didn't die from too many guns, they died from too few. I'm not suggesting that the teachers should have carried guns -- not as franchised agents of the state. They should have carried guns as ordinary individuals, exercising a sacred right, and in performance of a solemn duty to protect the young lives that were placed -- very foolishly, as it turned out -- in their hands.

What's more, those young lives needed weapons, too. Instead, they were forbidden the means of self-defense -- even, in effct, the knowledge of self-defense -- and like millions of victims before them, their numbers were added to the ongoing Gun Control Holocaust.

And you killed them.

Stupid, insane, or evil.

You killed them all.

How many more helpless individuals will have to die for you -- be sacrificed on the altar of your nice, warm, fuzzy idea -- before you see what you've done? Don Kates, Gary Kleck, Sandford Levinson, John Lott, all were card-carrying liberal college professors who somehow forced themselves to look at the facts instead of the lint in their bellybuttons. All (and others) have reached the conclusion that the Second Amendment says exactly what we "gun nuts" always claimed it did, and that society is better off if its members have personal weapons handy. " More Guns, Less Crime" is how Lott puts it.

"Million Moms March", indeed. When you came to my town of 100,000, all you could attract was four deluded idiots. There were 16 times that number out in the parking lot, picketing your meeting!

Measly, Miniscule March.

Stupid, insane, or evil. Those are the choices. Be honest. Call yourselves "Mush Minded Morons" if you decide that stupid is the least intolerable of the options available. If you choose insane, how about "Mentally Mangled Messes"? If you want to go straight to evil, "Mass Murdering Monsters". They're alliterative as hell, and truthful.

Stupid, insane, or evil. Like it or not, after today, those three words are going to start hanging around your necks like the fabled rotting albatross until, no matter where you go, no matter what you try to say, the first association your presence calls up in people's minds will be "mass murdering genocides".

Stupid, insane, or evil.

Or all of the above.

Your choice.

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.

<>

Well, Ra, aren't you a charmer! Don't you have some "preps" to garage sale? Since you're 43 times more likely to be shot with your own gun than to protect yourself or your family by using it, who's the "delusional moron" here? Fortunately, my husband and I don't have children, so we have plenty of time to work on this issue, as we have been for the past ten years.

<>

Charlton, you're "self-reliant" as long as you don't need goverment help. It's amazing how quickly the "self-reliant" belly right up to the government trough when it suits them.

< Where were you and the rest of the million moms when gangbangers started offing innocent kids in the inner cities? Was that not enough for you? Wasn't THAT gun violence enough reason for you to get involved? I guess THOSE kids weren't as important, or as deserving of life, as the well-scrubbed and well-fed middle-class white kids I saw marching on TV yesterday.

The notion that middle-class white people should somehow be "safe" from this sort of violence, and the concomitant notion that lower- class urban blacks somehow deserve it or have to put with it, is one of the most racist notions on display in America today.

When you're ready to do something about ALL gun violence, Julie, not just the violence that happens in your neighborhood or in your face, then you can bitch and moan.

Until then, Julie, whether you know it or not, you're an overprivileged racist. And fuck you.

-- March For Bullshit (millionmoms@can.be.wrong.), May 15, 2000.>>

I didn't think anyone could be even more of a shining example of the NRA than Ra has shown us, but March For Bullshit, you're certainly giving him a run for his money!

Hey, MFB, again -- my husband and I have been working on this for the past ten years. Yesterday's march has served notice on all of you that YOUR bullshit just isn't working, is it?

MFB, evidently you weren't watching the same Million Mom March coverage we were. I saw people of all races. By contrast, I saw nothin' but lily-white at the "Second Amendment Sisters" soiree.

Flash, sorry, I'm not reprinting one word of your friend's lecture. Here's a question for you, though: There was a person inside Columbine High School with a gun last April 20th, a law enforcement officer. He exchanged gunfire with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. If his weapon was such a benefit, why was he unable to stop either Harris or Klebold, who went on to shoot twenty-eight others, thirteen fatally?

Again, keep it up. Anyone who disagrees with any of you should be deleted, censored, or flamed into the ether, shouldn't they? If people across the country weren't determined to make a change, your namecalling and obscenity-laden screeds will certainly spur them on.

-- Julie (helltoupee2000@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Julie, In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States.

-- Mr. Anti Gun-Goof (hate@thegun.morons), May 15, 2000.

Conversation with a close friend yesterday evening.

Friend: Did you catch that bullshit march today?

Me: Yeah, I saw some of it.

Friend: I heard some woman whining about how some guy held a gun on her with her kids in the car, like it was the most horrible thing ever.

Me: Are you saying that's not horrible?

F: No, I'm just saying that if she'd had a gun, maybe she could have fought him off.

M: Are you saying that you'd get into a gun fight with an armed car jacker with your kids in the backseat?

F: No, I'm just saying that if she'd been armed, this wouldn't have happened.

M: How would a gun have prevented this guy from sticking one in her face, unless she were driving around with it in her lap?

F: Okay, that's a good point...Hey wait a minute, you have a gun.

M: Yeah, so what?

F: Are you saying you're turning pro gun control?

M: Nope, I'm just saying that a gun won't always protect you anymore than not having legal guns will protect other people.

F: What do you mean by that?

M: If someone mugs me at gun point in a blind alley and wants my wallet, I'll give it to them. Heck, by the time I got my gun unholstered, they would have sussed it out and shot me. If someone tries to car jack me with my kids in the car, they can have it. I'd rather lose the car than risk getting my kids killed. There's a time to draw your gun, and there's a time to just get out of the situaiton.

F: So you're saying that if somebody gets the drop on you, you'll just hand over your wallet and say, "Thank-you sir,"

M: Hell yes.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 15, 2000.

Hey guys-you can disagree with Julie-but why the name-calling? It is unbecoming. Is that any way to treat a lady? Even if she disagrees with you? Just wondering.

-- FutureSHock (gray@matter.think), May 15, 2000.

"Charlton, you're "self-reliant" as long as you don't need goverment help. It's amazing how quickly the "self-reliant" belly right up to the government trough when it suits them."

What part of "self-reliant" do you fail to understand? That is my whole point, I don't need the fucking government for jack. It's all you soccer moms sitting on your fat butts watching soap operas who are too lazy to take care of your own kids that want all these new rules and regulations to keep your brats under control. Just keep sucking the politicians cocks and they'll give you what you want, if you can swallow it... a load of spooge.

-- Charlton Heston (Moses @ kicks evil. ass), May 15, 2000.

Lots of emotional arguments on this thread. I, particularly noticed the emotional appeal in Unk's post regarding rape. [I thought only those on the other SIDE used those emotional appeals.]

The way *I* see it [and I don't care if anyone agrees], a gun gives one the illusion of power. This power can be seen as power over one with more physical strength [in the case of the rape argument], power over those with more political unity [Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.], power over enemies, etc. The statistics on gun use can go either way. I've seen them used to defend gun-control, and used similarly to oppose gun-control. I've seen the 2nd amendment interpreted to include individual rights to own and bear arms, and the very same amendment interpreted to deny individual rights to own and bear arms.

I haven't decided yet the meaning of the 2nd amendment. That thought aside, however, Illinois had pretty strong gun-control laws when I lived there. I now live in Texas, where it's basically ASSUMED everyone has a gun. My personal experience was that more folks had guns in Illinois than folks in Texas. [Don't tell anyone I said that. We have NO need for a gun if folks just ASSUME we have one.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Where do these people like Julie come from? Julie, if you would stop marching and flapping your yap for a while, perhaps you and hubby could get it on and settle down. Nothing like a good lay to mellow you out-try it you might like it, or not. *Sigh*

-- Marching (dummies@on.parade), May 15, 2000.

Tarzan:

That was GREAT. I wanted to respond with something similar regarding the rape situation. Growing up in Chicago, I still keep my car key on a key-ring all it's own. I carry absolutely NOTHING of value in my purse [which is why I don't know what women keep in large purses.] If someone wants my kleenex, chapstick, small change, and tic-tacs, I'll gladly give them up. Go ahead...take my car. My house key is in my pocket, as is my money and driver's license/insurance card.

I was grabbed by a guy once in Illinois on my way to the commuter train early in the morning. It's humorous in retrospect, although I stood there with my mouth open at the time. He passed me walking in the opposite direction and I remarked to myself about how much he looked like the older brother of a kid who went to elementary school with me. After he passed me, he came up behind me, grabbed my breasts and said, "You have large breasts. Did you know that?" LOL. It must have been the coat I was wearing, because I didn't have large breasts at all.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Julie,

You said: "Flash, sorry, I'm not reprinting one word of your friend's lecture."

Who asked you to reprint anything?

Then you said: "Here's a question for you, though: There was a person inside Columbine High School with a gun last April 20th, a law enforcement officer. He exchanged gunfire with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. If his weapon was such a benefit, why was he unable to stop either Harris or Klebold, who went on to shoot twenty-eight others, thirteen fatally?"

If that man had been someone like me, one or both of them would likely have been shot dead on the spot, twice in the chest and once in the head for good measure (in case they might be wearing body armor). There are plenty of others like me around, too. We were all trained first by NRA hunter's safety instructors in the safe and moral handling of firearms. Then we went on to improve our skills. I was also trained by the weapons instructor of my local police department. Yes, most police departments in my state are happy to have responsible armed citizens in their communities.

You are severely deluded if you think that passing more and more gun laws to make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain and carry weapons will reduce crime and make people safer. It is the "unknown factor" about whether a good guy might have a weapon that deters the criminal. This fact has been proven time and again through interviews with criminals. Criminals don't obey gun laws.

The bad guys, however, will always manage to get guns. Witness the situation in England today where an unarmed populace and under-armed civil authorities are struggling to deal with a huge increase in crimes commited with weapons smuggled in from other countries.

I live in a pro-gun, right-to-carry state where any law-abiding can and may obtain a concealed-weapon carry permit. The crooks never know if the guy in the next car may be carrying the means to defend himself and others from criminal attack.

You also said"Fortunately, my husband and I don't have children, so we have plenty of time to work on this issue, as we have been for the past ten years."

Please be advised that there are now many more like me now becoming active to oppose you and the other misguided souls who are so busily tearing down our Constitutional rights. The Misguided Mom's March has galvinized a lot of people to action that have heretofore been on the sidelines. The unbelievable amount of lies and disinformation being spread by the king of liars, Bill Clinton, and his minions is going to be shoved back down your throats by a grassroots coalition.

We look forward to showing you up for what you really are.

You further said: "Anyone who disagrees with any of you should be deleted, censored, or flamed into the ether, shouldn't they?"

I don't see you being deleted or censored here. Flaming is a fact of life on Internet forums. We all have to live with it.

Finally, you said: "If people across the country weren't determined to make a change, your namecalling and obscenity-laden screeds will certainly spur them on."

I'm sorry that some people feel the need to engage in name-calling and obscene remarks. Most of us do not. I think that you and your comrades are going to be more than a little surprised at election time this year, and not in the way you have hoped.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.

Julie,

The reason the law enforcement officer didn't stop Kleibold and Harris was that he was scared. Instead of risking his life to save those of the students/teacher, he took a few shots at the bad guys and then hid.

The gun had nothing to do with the outcome that day, it was the lack of courage to use that gun that made all the difference.

What would have happened if some of the teachers had been exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and had been carrying concealed at school that day? Maybe a different story would have unfolded, Julie.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 15, 2000.

I have one more thing to add before I leave y'all to fight amongst each other over gun control. MY first experience of being shot at was at the drive-in theatre while making-out with my boyfriend when I was 17. [Must I explain how THAT killed the mood?] I wasn't shot AT in my second experience. It was my ex-husband who pulled a gun and fired a shot out our second-story window at a car with a young couple parked below. They were playing their car radio loudly and my ex yelled to them to turn it down. Their response was "Fuck you." They pulled away after he shot at them, and I sat in a chair for hours wondering who the hell I'd married.

My third experience didn't include ME being shot at either. There was a dispute between two men on my block over a woman and the gun was drawn by ONE of them [I forgot which one.] SOMEONE was killed, but I don't remember which one either.

If this is the thread in which 1 out of 10 was mentioned, I'd buy into that one.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Tarzan,

You sir, are a fool. Do you think the car jacker would wait patiently for you to retrieve your children from the backseat before taking your car?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 15, 2000.

Letter to My Anti-Gun Friends by Angel Shamaya

Link

Dear Anti-Gun Friends,

I've finally figured out that my struggle to "convert you" is wrong. Instead of seeking to understand your position, I've tried to force my beliefs on you. I'm now realizing that each of our goals is truly about peace, so I am raising the white flag and reaching to understand your point of view.

To better comprehend your position, I am opening a dialogue with you. I'll answer any questions you may have regarding my strong belief in the right to keep and bear arms, and I hope you will truthfully answer the questions I pose to you below:

1) Do you believe the government is always honest with the people?

2) A woman who is unarmed is easy prey for an armed rapist. But there are many places in America where a woman cannot legally carry a gun to protect herself from attack. Do you think it is better for a woman to be raped than to fend off a rapist in self-defense with a gun? If so, why? If not, then do you advise women to resist armed rapists with their bare hands?

3) Britain has effectively disarmed its citizens. Their own Olympic shooters had to ship guns out of the country or turn them in to be destroyed. But if more gun control decreases crime, why is Britain experiencing an epidemic of gun-related violence? (See Link)

4) Washington, D.C. has a per capita murder rate of 69 per 100,000 with the strictest gun control laws in the country. Indianapolis, with much more gun freedom, only has 9 murders per 100,000 residents. If disarming people makes cities safer, how can this be?

5) There are tens of thousands of cases of people getting no response from the 911 system--including scores of cases where people were still wounded or killed after having dialed 911. If a criminal is already inside your house, garage, or car, is dialing 911 really the most effective way of immediately dealing with the situation? (See Link)

6) Police also have no legal requirement to protect you when you call for help. People attacked by criminals and injured after calling police for help cannot sue in court and win. This places the responsibility of personal protection in the hands of each individual. Does it make sense that the individual be denied the same access to tools for self-protection that police enjoy? (See Link)

7) Every national gun licensing and registration in history has led to confiscation. Gun registration in America has already led to confiscation in New York and California. (See Link) If you support gun registration in America, would you please explain how having their guns registered helped the citizens in China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, or Uganda? Do you think gun registration was beneficial to the Jews in Germany, the Cambodians under Pol Pot, or the Chinese under Mao Tse Tung? (See Link.)

8) Why are the media and the government working in unison to disarm America when the most in-depth scientific studies on the subject of private gun ownership shows that more guns in the hands of citizens REDUCES violent crime? (See Link) What agenda for the US do they have planned that requires disarming the citizens of our country?

9) Criminals get guns, knives, and bludgeons any time they wish, and they disobey whatever laws they wish--including laws against robbery, rape, and murder. Why would you want to make law-abiding citizens easier prey by taking away their guns? (See Link)

10) We rarely see both sides of the gun debate issue on national television. Why is that? It has already been proven by the most in-depth scientific study on the subject of guns and crime that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means less crime.

11) The ACLU and most Americans think a door-to-door search for drugs is a gross violation of civil rights. Many gun banners would like to see door-to-door confiscation of guns. Are you willing to have Your Home searched for guns (or anything else) any time the government wishes to do so?

12) Every year Americans citizens legally kill 3-5 times as many criminals as are killed by all the law enforcement officials combined. Up to 2 1/2 million times a year, citizens use guns to legally thwart crime--usually when they are the intended victims. If citizens are disarmed, these intended victims will be defenseless against armed criminals. Are you saying that millions of Americans each year should have no right to stop criminals who are victimizing them? Would you prefer to give many more criminals the ability to succeed each year?

13) Today, many men and women have reason to believe that the Federal government is intent on disarming the American people as a means to significantly greater control the way citizens in disarmed China, Germany, the Soviet Union and Cuba were controlled. If these people are right, does this concern you?

14) There are 3,600 citizens in America for every law enforcement officer. (75,000 to 270,000,000) Do you believe each law enforcement officer can protect 3,600 people from violent criminals?

15) When they express anger, law-abiding gun owners are presented as "extremists" in today's media. American public servants surrounded by armed bodyguards and/or living in neighborhoods with private security are telling law-abiding citizens we cannot carry or even own (some cities/states) a gun--not even to protect ourselves and our families. Do you see the hypocrisy? Can you understand why tolerance pushed beyond a limit of fairness leads to justifiable anger? Can you understand why being told we cannot enjoy the same safety our leaders enjoy invokes outrage? Is a politician's life more important than your life? If so, why?

16) Mainstream media, which uses the publicly-owned electromagnetic spectrum to broadcast, has clearly proven to be biased against guns; it is not presenting both sides of the issue. (See Link) On the other hand, Link has a media program that presents the pro-gun side of the story. If you believe in "equality" regarding public property, should COA be given free media time to present their case? And just why IS the media so biased in the first place? (And why might the government be anti-gun?)

17) In many areas of the nation, a woman who is being stalked by her ex-husband must wait 10 days to purchase a gun--even if her life has been threatened. Why should law-abiding people in fear of their lives wait 10 days to get a gun when criminals have no waiting periods?

18) Criminals often kill people who've already turned over their money and put up no resistance. If a woman does not resist and the criminal intends to rape her, she will be raped. Do you think the government has a right to require women to submit to rape? If so, why?

19) Are we supposed to simply Submit when confronted with an armed rapist or murderer and leave our ourselves at their mercy? If so, why? Can you see how our society would revert law utter lawlessness if everyone agreed to simply submit to armed criminals?

20) Many anti-gun people use child gun-related accidents and/or deaths as a reason for banning guns. Seeing that more children drown every year than are killed by guns, do you support banning swimming pools?

21) Current federal law now limits the capacity of a gun's magazine to 10 rounds. Police often empty their guns without ever stopping a criminal. If you were out alone at a roadside rest area and were approached by 3 hardened criminals with obvious intent to do you harm, would you want to be limited to only 10 rounds?

22) Cars are commonly used to commit crimes. Far more people die in cars every year than by guns--and no Constitutional Amendment guarantees our rights to own cars. Because more people die every year in cars than by guns, do you support a ban on cars?

23) Mayors of several cities in America are suing gun manufacturers under the guise of recovering costs of gun-related injuries which took place in their cities. Because more people are hurt or killed in cars than by guns, do you support these mayors in suing car manufacturers?

24) Numerous cities in America criminalize carrying guns for self-defense. These same cities make exceptions for people carrying money and jewels. Do you agree that money and jewels are more important to protect than people's lives?

25) The National Guard is paid by the Federal government, occupies Federal property, uses weapons owned by the Federal government, and punishes trespassers under Federal law. Do you truly believe the National Guard is a State agency?

26) The National Guard is also what is commonly called the modern-day militia in anti-gun propaganda as a way of trying to deal with the Second Amendment. If the Constitution was referring to the National Guard with the term "militia," how can we account for the fact that the Second Amendment was ratified in 1787--while the National Guard was created by an act of Congress in 1917?

27) The FBI and ATF (agencies of the Federal government) gunned down innocent women and children and burned most of the evidence down to the ground in Waco. They murdered Randy Weaver's wife. The police and other state agencies shot to death Donald Scott in a bogus drug raid in California. Why would you trust these government agencies with fully automatic weapons but not trust a law-abiding individual with a simple self-defense handgun?

28) The law-abiding gun owners of today are presented as "gun nuts, extremists, militia fanatics, and killers" in the communications media. Is it possible they are depicted this way to sway public opinion toward disliking guns? If so, why would they do that? How is this different from the way the news organs of Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Cuba propagandized against the segments of their societies that opposed complete state control?

29) Many documented statements by anti-gun groups claim that the Second Amendment refers to the power of the States to keep and bear arms. In other sections of the Constitution, we find the following: "the right of the PEOPLE to peaceably assemble," the "right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their homes," "enumeration here of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the PEOPLE," and "the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the PEOPLE." Do you honestly believe "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" refers to the States but excludes Individuals?

30) Handguns are the cheapest, lightest, most portable, easiest-to-use, and most effective means of self-defense. This is why they are used by police officers. Denying people the right to use this tool leaves them defenseless against criminals on the street. Why do you advocate that law-abiding people not be allowed to protect themselves with the best means of self-defense available?

31) The Federal government and the United Nations have been working in unison for years to systematically disarm American citizens. Is it even remotely possible that the government has something planned that so many Americans would be against that it is critical that they disarm us? If so, do you see that supporting their disarmament plans could be working against the American citizens committed to preserving freedom?

I do appreciate your thoughts on these matters and look forward to your reply. I am committed to answering every question you send me by giving each one careful attention and a thorough, intelligent reply as soon as possible. If you pose a question I cannot intelligently address, I will seek out an answer until I can.

Respectfully,

Angel Shamaya http://www.keepandbeararms.org webmaster@keepandbeararms.org

Supporting editors of and contributors to this document: Inspired by original sentiments from Scott Brian Puckett, guns1776@earthlink.net Jamie Jackson, jamie@spiritone.com Angela Hunter Richardson, elan@fastlane.net

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.

Julie,

One more thing. As far as who the "delusional moron" is, I would say that would be anyone who actually BELIEVES that you are 43 times more likely to end up shot with your own gun than to use it for protection.

Out of all the people that I know who own firearms, I wonder who the ONE will be to protect himself before the other FORTY-THREE shoot themselves. LOL.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 15, 2000.

Flash:

So far your contributions to this thread have been pretty much limited to Keep and Bear Arms.Com [Gun Owners Home Page.] I don't mean any disrespect, but don't you feel these folks have an inherent interest in publicizing opinion that coincides with their CAUSE? [I'd make the same argument if something were offered from the OTHER side, BTW.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Anita,

True, a lot of my submissions have been from KABA, or contained ideas publicized by them. This is because I frequently agree with them, and/or find that they state things more clearly and/or more eloquently than I might do myself. They are reputible people, based in my home state, Arizona. I offer their material when I feel that it furthers my own positions and beliefs.

I would have to say that yes, "these folks have an inherent interest in publicizing opinion that coincides with their CAUSE?" It's just that their cause coincides with my cause. I often send articles and materials to Angel Shamaya, and hope to meet him personally one of these days.

I always value your thoughts and opinions highly. I'm kind of curious, though, what is the motivation for your question?

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.

Here's an article about some incidents that happened in my state a few months ago. Too bad the first lady didn't have a handgun (and a concealed-carry permit). She would have fared a lot better!

Link

Woman kills rape suspect in her home

By Peter Ortiz The Arizona Republic Feb. 2, 2000

When a man broke into her Apache Junction home early Tuesday and announced, "I'm going to kill everyone," Bricie Tribble didn't hesitate.

She reached for the handgun on her kitchen counter and shot the man dead. Only later did she realize that she knew the man and that he was believed to have raped and shot a woman just an hour earlier.

The man's death ended a night of terror that began in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Chandler at about 11 p.m. Monday when the man pedaled his bike up to a 33-year-old woman and asked for the time.

Police said the man pushed the woman into her sport utility vehicle and forced her at gunpoint to drive to a desert road in northeast Mesa, where he sexually assaulted her and shot her in the cheek, right arm and chest.

The attacker drove off in the woman's vehicle, but she managed to make it to a nearby house and place a 911 call.

"The guy raped me and then he took off in my truck," the terrified woman told the operator. "I guess he left figuring I was dead. I am not dead."

A little after midnight, the man, in his 20s, was inside Tribble's Apache Junction home going through the personal belongings of the sexual-assault victim, which he had brought into the house, police said.

Tribble, 28, grabbed the loaded handgun and fired several times. She later told an emergency operator that she recognized the man she had just shot as a former worker in her husband's excavation business.

Tribble's husband, Jeff, and 9-year-old nephew were also in the home but were not harmed.

The dead man's name was being being withheld by the Chandler police pending further investigation.

* * *

Reach the reporter at Peter.Ortiz@ArizonaRepublic.com or (602) 444-7726.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.

Woman kills rape suspect in her home

By Peter Ortiz The Arizona Republic Feb. 2, 2000

When a man broke into her Apache Junction home early Tuesday and announced, "I'm going to kill everyone," Bricie Tribble didn't hesitate.

She reached for the handgun on her kitchen counter and shot the man dead. Only later did she realize that she knew the man and that he was believed to have raped and shot a woman just an hour earlier.

The man's death ended a night of terror that began in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Chandler at about 11 p.m. Monday when the man pedaled his bike up to a 33-year-old woman and asked for the time.

Police said the man pushed the woman into her sport utility vehicle and forced her at gunpoint to drive to a desert road in northeast Mesa, where he sexually assaulted her and shot her in the cheek, right arm and chest.

The attacker drove off in the woman's vehicle, but she managed to make it to a nearby house and place a 911 call.

"The guy raped me and then he took off in my truck," the terrified woman told the operator. "I guess he left figuring I was dead. I am not dead."

A little after midnight, the man, in his 20s, was inside Tribble's Apache Junction home going through the personal belongings of the sexual-assault victim, which he had brought into the house, police said.

Tribble, 28, grabbed the loaded handgun and fired several times. She later told an emergency operator that she recognized the man she had just shot as a former worker in her husband's excavation business.

Tribble's husband, Jeff, and 9-year-old nephew were also in the home but were not harmed.

The dead man's name was being being withheld by the Chandler police pending further investigation.

Woman Shots & Kills rape suspect in her home (with HER HANDGUN)

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), May 15, 2000.

Can we get rid of this bold font?

AFAIK, Flash, MOST rapes occur outside of the home. Even if they DO occur in the home, the gun does no good.

Here's another story. When I was working at Justin Boots in Fort Worth, I met a woman who had just started there. I didn't know anything about her, but we met outside on lunch-hour one day. She was VERY pretty, but had a scar on her neck that surely indicated she'd had her throat slit. Once we got to know each other a bit better, she related her story.

She was a single woman living in an apartment complex in Houston when the attack occurred. Her complex had security police that patrolled the grounds. Her attacker was one of the security police.

At 3am in the morning, she awakened to a man on top of her. She screamed and she fought. He cut her with a knife and dragged her into the bathroom, where he dropped his pants and attempted a rape. He may/may not have accomplished his rape goal, Flash. I didn't want to pursue this one. The cutting he did wasn't limited to her throat, as she had so much blood running down her face that she couldn't see.

While he was raping her [or attempting to rape her], his beeper went off. He quickly pulled up his outer pants, threatened her to stay put, etc., and left the apartment. It turns out that a neighbor had heard her screams and called security.

The woman [left alone now] tried to use her phone to call the police. The phone line had been cut. She remembered she'd purchased a cell phone that was in her purse. She found it, called 911, and explained what had happened. While on the phone with 911, she heard a knocking at her door, stating that they were the police. She explained to 911 that she couldn't see who it was through all the blood running into her eyes. They suggested she NOT open the door. It wasn't the police at all, but the security guard back again.

The police showed up and the security guard stated that he was trying to help the woman with the intruder. Oddly enough, however, the police found the underpants and hat of the security guard in the bloody bathroom. He was charged, and she went to Fort Worth to get away from Houston until she had to return for the trial.

No gun in the world would have saved this woman from this attack.

-- Anita (Anita@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Anita,

Thanks for the clarification. Your experiences with being shot at also having your ex-husband fire a shot at those people are certainly different than mine!

I learned to shoot somewhere between 8 and 10 years old. My father taught me proper respect for guns and lives. He was a shooter, but not a killer, thus I didn't turn into an avid hunter. The few times I did kill animals in my youth, I was always regretful.

I grew up into a man who realizes the need for honest, law-abiding citizens to be properly prepared for emergencies, and believe that this is one of the man's roles in the family. This doesn't mean, however, that the women-folk shouldn't also be likewise prepared to back him up. I always enjoy it when I see a lady in a movie take an active role in dispatching the bad guy (usually by konking him over the head) when her man is involved in a life-and-death struggle, instead of just standing there screaming, as too often happens in Hollywood.

I grew up in Arizona, where we could just drive about 10 minutes (at most), find a suitable hill or embankment, put up our targets and fire away. I moved to Californa to chase girls, and seek my fortune about 30 years ago and ended up in Silicon Valley. It has been sad for me to watch CA slip into chaos, and I predict a lot more problems there in the coming years. I now refer to it as the People's Republik of Kalifornia, as do a lot of my friends who are still there.

I recently returned to Arizona and was pleased to find that much of it is still intact, although there are a lot of transplanted Minnesota-type liberals in Phoenix and Tucson. I live in Northern Arizona, outside the city limits, in a semi-rural area. I was ecstatic to find that not only does Arizona license any law-abiding citizen (without criminal history) to carry a concealed weapon (after an EXCELLENT 16 hour training course). Not only that, but most police and sheriff's departments in the State are in favor of us so doing. I'm not sure about the Phoenix and Tucson PD's, because they have a lot of drug and some gang-related crime. Apparently the DPS (state Department of Public Safety which includes the Highway Patrol) was not real happy about the CCW law at first, but now after several years of seeing its positive results, they have joined the supporters.

I have a personal friend in Tucson, who along with his wife, have CCW permits. Apparently a couple of years ago, he managed to irritate a carload of gang-punks in a parking garage by pulling out in front of them, and they stopped their car, blocking him, and piled out, menacing him and his wife. But, after both he and his wife simply held up their lawfully carried handguns so that the punks could see them, the punks rapidly piled back into their car and split --- pronto. This friend is a really nice, low-key guy and would never have intentionally done anything to provoke someone. This is only one of millions of instances that occur every year where the presence of a weapon in the hands of a law-abiding citizen stops a crime in it's tracks. Of course, these situations are NEVER reported by the news media.

BTW, I got a kick out of one of your previous comments about people in Illinois probably having more guns that in Texas. If Texas is at all like Arizona, I'll bet you're wrong!

Best...

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.

Aint,

Obviously our great minds are working on the same frequency. God Bless Anita for knowing the right BOLD OFF notation!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.

Anita

"Can we get rid of this bold font?" Thanks Anita!

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), May 15, 2000.

Anita, that's why ya need a dog or two also. They will wake you in time for you to draw your piece, and most likely scare off the intruded anyway.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 15, 2000.

Anita,

Are you saying that because of this instance where a gun wouldn't have helped the victim, no other potential victims should have guns?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 15, 2000.

Julie, please tell me how you and the other marchers would have kept guns out of the hands of Harris and Klebold? Trigger locks? Extended background checks and waiting periods for permits? What you well- intentioned anti-gun folks refuse to acknowledge is that criminals will ALWAYS find a way to acquire guns, ALWAYS. This simple fact of life seems to be lost on your tunnel vision model of better living. And dont be embarrassed that you bought into Billy Boys latest scam. People far smarter than you have also been taken-in. Now sit back and watch the tidal wave of opposition to your ill-informed endeavors. Lock and Load!

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 15, 2000.

J:

I'm not saying anything of the sort. Folks who want guns will have guns [despite the laws.] I guess what I'm REALLY saying is that the emotional arguments and statistics used by BOTH sides of this issue are laughable. I see gun control laws in the same way as prohibition and laws against abortion. Folks are gonna do what folks are gonna do. You can pass laws until the cows come home, but the underground will always find ways to provide.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Here I am, a flaming liberal, yet I'm against any more gun control.

I have been around guns all my life, as have all my family, and no one has ever been shot. The kids are taught beginning in toddler-hood that guns are off limits and are not toys.

My former husband, favorite aunt, a cousin, neighbor girl and former boss were all killed in automobiles, but you don't hear anyone screaming that we should ban cars. In fact, a policeman said on TV that if you wanted to kill someone, and get practically no jail time, use a car.

And yes, the mom organizer is a crony of Clinton's and his pals in Hollywood. He's pushing for this because it's a popular issue.

My favorite pro-gun story is of a little old lady in a nearby town being burgled. She called out to the intruder that she had a gun. Of course he didn't believe her. She called out that she would shoot it--still didn't believe her. He bashed in her door and she shot him in the chest. When the police interviewed her she said, "I didn't want to do this, but he just laughed when I told him I would shoot. So I had no choice." He had a record a mile long. What do you think would have been the results had she not had a gun.

I sleep with a gun under my piillow. I know how to use it, in the dark, without my glasses. I had a drunken intruder break in years ago, and when I went to investigate the sound of breaking glass, he hit met across the face, knocked me down, jerked my nightgown off as I ran outside. Then he got in his car, backed into a teleophone pole, took off down the road and crashed into a sign. He had earlier ran two different cars off the road. The police were looking for him.

I hid behind the woodpile, in only my drawers, until he finally got his car under control and took off. Would I shoot, a drunk, like that? Hell no! But I'd damned well scare nine colors of shit out of him before he took off.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 15, 2000.

Y2J:

The only time anyone has ever attempted to carjack me, I hit the gas and sped off. Later that night, the same carjacker tried to carjack a CCW, who ended up getting shot in the face before he could get his gun unholstered. The carjacker got the car, the CCW died, and his wife had to tell the police what happened. Yes, the carjacker let her out, he didn't want to kidnap her.

Any time someone gets the drop on you, whether they are armed or not, whether you have a gun or not, you are in trouble. It's a losing situation, but if someone ALREADY HAS THEIR GUN OUT AND POINTED AT YOUR HEAD, they have the advantage, plain and simple. In the 3 seconds it takes you to get your gun, the crook could very well blow your head off. Do what you can to maximize your safety, avoid playing Rambo over a car or a wallet. Do what they say, because as bad as it is to get robbed, it's worse to get killed. Yes, you may get killed anyway, but you stand a better chance by not doing anything to turn up the heat on the situation.

That being said, I think guns can be a great defense. They are not, however, a perfect defense. Don't go out and buy a gun thinking it will save you if you're not prepared to aim it at another human being and pull the trigger.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 15, 2000.

Unk:

That's not an impressive argument. I liken it to one which states that the product will work IF and only IF I purchase the add-ons.

The only time my home was burglarized was when I lived with my ex- husband [the gun freak]. This is not to say that my home was TARGETED because folks knew a gun freak lived there. There were three other burglaries on the very same night in our neighborhood.

Our home was burglarized because I [like some other fools] stayed up until the wee hours with a light burning in a room. I was laying new tile in the kitchen. It was summer, so I had the window open in the den. Once I was done, I closed and locked the window in the den and went upstairs to bed. We lived in a Georgian.

We were down to two dogs at the time, as the third had attacked my oldest daughter. My ex shot the dog in the head before we took my daughter to the emergency room. I'm quite sure the other two dogs were in the backyard while the intruder entered through the front. The screen on the window was slit just enough for a young child [burglar accomplice] to reach up and unbolt the window before raising the window and slipping in. Once inside, the child opened the door for the man. Items taken included purses of my children [the contents of which were thrown under the bushes of the next house], money, and a handgun.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

I forgot something in the above story that I should add. I don't suggest that my ex was a gun freak for no reason. He had at least 50 guns, including machine guns. The local police knew this, and accompanied him on occasion to the range for practice with the machine guns. When the police learned that a gun was stolen, their first question was, "Which ONE?"

-- Anita (Anita@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Tarzan,

Your advice about not trying to "outdraw" someone who is already pointing a gun at you is excellent, but also so fundamental that anyone who doesn't heed it deserves what they get.

A good self-defense or CCW course will spend some time discussing avoidance techniques and the undesirability of having to really shoot someone. The whole idea is deterrance if possible, shoot only to protect life and limb.

I think that the graduates of a good CCW class are a lot less likely to shoot someone than a person who has not undergone the training. They also go over the laws and a variety of potential situations.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.

Flash-

"Discretion is the better part of valor"

Most gun owners do NOT have a CCW permit, nor do they go through CCW training. They buy their guns because they believe they're the be all, end all final answer in personal protection, then they put it away only to take it out two or three times a year. These are the folks most likely to have their guns used against them. They put their faith in the gun, never really thinking that someday they may have to point it at another human being.

I grew up with guns, and have a couple of handguns for target practice. My girlfriend has little interest in it, and only goes shooting with me occasionally For her sake, we bought a shotgun for home defense. She's a small woman, who's blind as a bat without her contacts, so to her a shotgun makes sense, as it's hard to miss your target (yes, she's able to shoot it without being knocked down).

Someone tried to break into our house one night while I was away, and my girlfriend grabbed the shotgun and prepared to fire, making that lovely ratcheting sound. Suddenly, she heard "HOLY SHIT! We're sorry mister, please don't shoot!" She didn't have to show the gun, she didn't have to say a word. She just stood there in the dark for a couple of minutes until the police showed up. When the cops came, and the lights were turned on, it was discovered that one of the would-be robbers had wet himself.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 15, 2000.

Tarzan,

I agree with you about a lot of people having much gun training, especially in current laws and in how to behave in emergency situations. The NRA used to sponsor some good courses, and probably still does. Everyone who has a gun should take at least some basic instruction ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS. We don't need licensing or having our names recorded in more government databases.

A shotgun for home defense is a great idea, especially if you aren't comfortable with handguns or combat shooting. I was impressed by Gilda's being able to shoot in the dark.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 15, 2000.

Tarzan,

I don't believe a person can win every gun battle if he/she is caught unaware. My point about your advice is that I would be very doubtful that a carjacker in a hurry to steal your car would wait for you to retrieve your children from the backseat. I would go down shooting before I would let someone drive off with my kids. It wasn't too long ago that a carjacker killed a young boy by dragging him to his death. The carjacker had taken the car with the boy still in it. After getting down the road a ways, he tried to push the boy out of the moving vehicle. The boy got hung up in the seatbelt, and was dragged to his death.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 15, 2000.

Flash, my ability to shoot in the dark may not be as impressive as it sounds. But I did realize after the breaking and entering incident, that I would have to turn on the light and reach for my glasses in order to find the safety. I was trained how to shoot a rifle, but not a handgun. So I made a point of learning exactly where the safety was and how to get it off in the dark, without glasses.

The shooting in the dark part would be easy. Even though my house is dark, anyone trying to enter would be back lit by my and my neighbors yard lights.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 15, 2000.

"I didn't think anyone could be even more of a shining example of the NRA than Ra has shown us, but March For Bullshit, you're certainly giving him a run for his money!"

Really? I don't think I said whether I support gun control or not, you stupid cow. You simply decided for me what my views were without asking, didn't you? Well, that's an arrogant racist cracker for you. Don't bother ASKING me what my views are, just decide FOR me.

"Hey, MFB, again -- my husband and I have been working on this for the past ten years."

Bullshit. Prove it. How many inner-city neighborhoods have you taken your cracker ass to? How many guns have you personally taken off the street? How much time have you volunteered in inner-city hospital emergency rooms?

I say you're full of shit. I don't think you or your husband gave a shit how many black or brown kids were getting killed until white kids started getting shot, too.

If you DID care, then you wouldn't be in that march with all the other racist and classist assholes who think they have some right to be safe. If there's a right to be safe, well it SURE doesn't extend downtown.

"Yesterday's march has served notice on all of you that YOUR bullshit just isn't working, is it?"

What bullshit would that be? Have you just decided that I'm pro- gun? Well surprise, moron, I'm NOT. Maybe you ought to ASK me what my views are instead of making some up for me, overprivileged racist classist bitch.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 15, 2000.

"MFB, evidently you weren't watching the same Million Mom March coverage we were. I saw people of all races. By contrast, I saw nothin' but lily-white at the "Second Amendment Sisters" soiree."

I'm not talking to anyone else. I'm talking to YOU, overprivileged classist racist BITCH.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 15, 2000.

MFB, it's fairly obvious that you're not interested in what we have done, or what my answers are. You're much more interested in verbal abuse. Do you have a problem with women?

You're outnumbered by those of us who DO THE WORK, instead of accusing everyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with your every thought or belief as being "racist", "classist", etcetera.

-- Julie (helltoupee2000@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000.

Oh hi Julie. Havent you got some trendy little cause to go to? You are a perfect example of an ignorant person that has figured out a proper worldview for the rest of us. Stay close to home girl, youll never make it outside. The real criminals are dreaming about getting their hands on you. Be afraid.

BTW, on Sunday were you the fat ugly one carrying a sign? Or were you one of the other fat ugly ones that werent carrying (pardon the pun). Why is it that attractive people are rarely seen at these bullshit protests? Cause they are getting laid and having fun. These marches give you losers something to do besides camping on your fat ass watching Oprah.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 15, 2000.

Ra:

You are quite a brave man. I love the way you put that julie in her place. You are my hero. Could you teach ME to talk to women like that? You are everything I ever dreamed of in a man.

-- Helpless and lookinf (For@brave.man), May 15, 2000.

I live in eastern North Carolina, and if you talk to people around here about taking their guns away, you just might get shot.

I myself own:

a Remington 30.06 pump-action rifle

a Winchester lever-action 30-30 rifle

a Mossberg pump-action 12-gauge shotgun

a Colt .45 handgun

And know how to use them all. Quite well.

That's how a lot of us grew up around here; our daddies and granddaddies taught us how to defend our homes, women, children.

I'm not married; live by meself. But the neighbors know whom to call if things get out of hand. So far, so good, no trouble. 10 years & counting.

People who own guns need to own them responsibly. I'm in favor of gun owner education courses, for those who have never owned guns before.

Children don't need to be able to access guns easily, either. I'm in favor of some sort of quick-release gun lock, for use in homes where children are present. Something a kid couldn't figure out, but which could be released real quick by an adult in an emergency.

I'm also in favor of a background check. If it takes six MONTHS. This fuss over a few days is utterly incomprehensible.

(am not a member of the NRA, as you can probably tell)

Not all gun owners are rabid nuts.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 16, 2000.

Helpless, do you have any money?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 16, 2000.

"MFB, it's fairly obvious that you're not interested in what we have done, or what my answers are."

Once again wrong, Julie. YOU'RE not interested in what anyone has to say but you. If anyone disagrees with YOU, then they're automatically a gun control nut, aren't they? You're so goddamn smug and arrogant that you can't even bring yourself to ASK whether I'm pro-gun or pro-control. You've just wrapped me up in a neat little package and decided "this foulmouthed person is a misogynist gun nut."

Didn't I see you on a commercial for the Psychic Friends Network?

I'm interested in hearing you defend the MMM. You, on the other hand, are NOT prepared for someone who is anti-gun (yet who disagrees with the MMM) to attack the march itself. You TOLD us what your views were. I HAVEN'T told you what MY views are. Yet you just somehow think you know what they are? You're an arrogant, racist, classist bitch.

And THAT'S painfully obvious.

"You're much more interested in verbal abuse."

I'm interested in telling you that the MMM itself was an example of racist, classist bullshit. Gun violence is okay until it arrives in your neighborhood, isn't it? Gun violence is fine until NIMBY clicks on, right? If you gave such a damn about gun violence, then your fucking MMM would have been held FIFTEEN YEARS ago. As it is, you're late, you're lame, and you're racist and classist.

"Do you have a problem with women?"

Nope. Would you rather I had my wife make these posts? She feels much the same way about your views as I do. In fact, I think I'll invite her to hammer on you some. Maybe you'll feel better about it if another woman's giving you what-for. And I know some of the more Philistine posters on this board will be thrilled to see two women getting into a catfight.

"You're outnumbered by those of us who DO THE WORK,"

You, stupid cow, have no idea who I am, what I think or where I even COME DOWN on this issue, yet you have the supreme arrogance to SPEAK FOR ME?

Besides, I didn't THINK you'd give us any examples of what you had actually DONE. I'll say it again.

Bullshit. Prove it. How many inner-city neighborhoods have you taken your cracker ass to? How many guns have you personally taken off the street? How much time have you volunteered in inner-city hospital emergency rooms?

I say you're full of shit. I don't think you or your husband gave a shit how many black or brown kids were getting killed until white kids started getting shot, too.

If you DID care, then you wouldn't be in that march with all the other racist and classist assholes who think they have some right to be safe. If there's a right to be safe, well it SURE doesn't extend downtown.

"instead of accusing everyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with your every thought or belief as being "racist", "classist", etcetera."

Once again, moron, maybe you could ASK me what my beliefs ARE rather than deciding FOR me what they are. You still seem to think I'm pro- gun, you sad little woman.

We can add arrogance and presumption to your long list of dubious achievements.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 16, 2000.

Anita,

I was not trying to impress you. You said that no gun would have helped the woman who was raped by the security guard. That is nonsense, and you know it. ANY gun would have helped her had she been awake in time to use it. And yes, dogs are imperfect, they will not always do what you may need them to do.

When you find a device that is the perfect solution for every problem let me know, as I will gladly stand in line for it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 2000.

In returning to the original statement, there are a myriad of points that can be articulated in the defense of firearm ownership, but let's address the overriding goal of this "movement," handgun confisgation.

Ms. O'Donnell, who for better or worse now is the lightning rod for the marchers, has stated repeatedly that "we now live in an era were no one need a handgun in their homes for protection." She has also openly said that the goal of the marchers should be the total ban of private ownership of handguns.

The premise for violating gun owners' rights was repeated by the marchers ad nuseum over the weekend: "We have a right to walk down the street and feel safe." The pivotal word is "feelings." No person nor government can secure an area to the point that safety and guaranteed.

The flip side of the argument is a the private gun owner who is also not guaranteed safety in his/her own home. Evidence of this violation abounds within this thread alone. As we all know, it's not the function of modern policing to prevent criminal activity; it is to discourage or contain it. Therefore, it is the handgun, the weapon of most ready availability, that accords homeowners the "feeling" of security. Hence, this follows the homeowners right to "feel" secure in his/her home, which is a right not out weighed by any others. It is a principle bedrock of our society.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 16, 2000.

Now to the principal goal of gun registration and licensing. As stated before, the automobile licensing comparison trumpted as logic by the gun contol movement is not a valid comparison. Autombolies are registered and drivers are licensed because cars are operated in the public domain. Gun ownership is not part of the public domain.

Strictures pertaining to the poessession and use of a firearms in the public arena already exsist. To carry a concealed weapon, one must obtain a permit from the state. To hunt legally on public land, one must obtain a license. But no permit is required when hunting or target shooting on private land, as it should be. No license is required for activites that occur in the home, as it should be.

Gun ownership, at this point, is a protected activity. Gun lincensing and registration would not past constitutional muster, in the strict interpretation of law, any more than requiring a permit prior to a woman having an abortion.

Why? Because seeking a permit from the federal government prior to engaging in an activity, in this case a constitutional right, gives the government the capacity to resend said permit without proper adjudacation. That is called "infringement."

Put more sucinctly, I don't sign up for my rights.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 16, 2000.

"...I don't sign up for my rights." ---Hiway

I don't think it can be said any better than that.

-- Debra (selfprotection@ismyright.com), May 16, 2000.

MFB, I would submit that by using a racial epithet towards me, you are just as much of a racist as you accuse others of being.

We have spent the past ten years volunteering time and money on formulation and passage of common sense gun laws in Washington state. We're well known to our legislators, and at the Capitol building. We also are members of both MAVIA, Mothers Against Gun Violence, and Physicians For Social Responsibility, and volunteer time with these organizations as well. We also are active in our inner-city church.

I have a feeling, though, that no matter what my response to you, it'll be judged as "not good enough". You want everyone else to "prove" their bona fides, but you're not willing to offer any kind of information about yourself.

It would seem, again, that there were people of all races, religions, and economic backgrounds participating in the Million Mom March. If this march was so utterly offensive to those who are not rich and Caucasian, why would they participate?

-- Julie (helltoupee2000@hotmail.com), May 16, 2000.

Julie,

"It would seem, again, that there were people of all races, religions, and economic backgrounds participating in the Million Mom March. If this march was so utterly offensive to those who are not rich and Caucasian, why would they participate?"

That's an easy one. They have been duped by the same lies and distortions via TV and big city newspapers as the rich and Caucasian people.

The intentions of many people like yourself are honorable, but you have been seduced by the illusion of the "quick fix", and the lies of those whose real agenda is disarming America and trashing our Constitution.

Violent crimes with firearms have actually been declining, while the Clinton administration keeps trying to whip up a "gun crisis", just like they tried to do with the so-called health care crisis which was also manufactured and illusory.

-- Observer (observer@lots.to.observe), May 16, 2000.

Folks like Julie are sadly immune from logic. Notice that she has chosen to ignore the serious questions posed to the anti-gun crowd? It is because she cannot answer questions of logic, she "thinks" with emotion.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 16, 2000.

So very true Unk. Because Julie and others like her think with emotion they are very dangerous to the world of logic and common sense. They have an elevated self-perception that excludes anyone that does not share their narrow view of reality. I have absolutely no doubt that this woman is very well known to TPTB in the fine State of Washington. I do respect her dedication to her beliefs, however misguided they may be.

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 16, 2000.

"MFB, I would submit that by using a racial epithet towards me, you are just as much of a racist as you accuse others of being."

You really can't read, can you? I haven't told you what race I am. So how do you square that fact with you calling me a racist? You're completely bereft of logic, cracker bitch. But then again, I wouldn't expect anything better from you.

"We have spent the past ten years volunteering time and money on formulation and passage of common sense gun laws in Washington state."

Uh huh. What constitutes "common sense?" I have a feeling that you're about to get a lesson in common sense from the street. If all you're doing is trying to get guns off the street, then all you're doing is treating the symptom, not the disease.

"We're well known to our legislators, and at the Capitol building."

Are you as well-known in the inner-city? Oh, wait, Washington state is in the mostly-white Pacific Northwest. So what makes you think you can speak for urban Blacks and Hispanics? What makes you think you have a single clue how pervasive urban gun violence is among lower-class inner-city minorities when you don't appear to live within a THOUSAND MILES of a city with a significant amount of low- income minorities in its urban population? Arrogant racist cracker bitch.

"We also are members of both MAVIA, Mothers Against Gun Violence, and Physicians For Social Responsibility,"

More middle- and upper-class organizations for overprivileged classists and racists to belong to so they can feel good about themselves. Get your cracker ass into a neighborhood watch somewhere drugs are routinely sold. See if you can last ten days, let alone ten years. When was the last time someone offered to sell you drugs on the street? When was the last time you spoke to a homeless person? When was the last time you spoke to more than one homeless person at a time? When was the last time you spoke to ANYBODY outside of your SUV-driving, latte-drinking, GAP-clothes-wearing, white-Zinfandel-sipping liberal whiny-ass coterie? You're out of touch, lady. You are TOTALLY detached and insulated from the real world, in which real gun violence happens every day.

"and volunteer time with these organizations as well."

For all the good that does. I asked you some very specific questions, which you're having a hard time answering. Now, once more, for the comprehension-impaired arrogant racist cracker bitch on the forum . . .

Bullshit. Prove it. How many inner-city neighborhoods have you taken your cracker ass to? How many guns have you personally taken off the street? How much time have you volunteered in inner-city hospital emergency rooms?

I say you're full of shit. I don't think you or your husband gave a shit how many black or brown kids were getting killed until white kids started getting shot, too.

"We also are active in our inner-city church."

Doing what? Singing hymns?

"I have a feeling, though, that no matter what my response to you, it'll be judged as "not good enough."

Wrong. But ten years ago, the rate of gun violence was higher than it is today. Fifteen years ago, it was even higher. So where were you in 1985? And if you were so charged up about gun violence in 1990, then why wait so long to get up this social strut down the Washington Mall?

"You want everyone else to "prove" their bona fides, but you're not willing to offer any kind of information about yourself."

I didn't make any claims, bitch. I don't have anything to defend. If you're going to make bullshit claims, then you should expect to have to defend them.

"It would seem, again, that there were people of all races, religions, and economic backgrounds participating in the Million Mom March. If this march was so utterly offensive to those who are not rich and Caucasian, why would they participate?

I guarantee you that the woman who takes out the trash in my office building couldn't AFFORD to go the the March For Bullshit. I also guarantee you that she lives with more gun violence on a daily basis than you do. As much as you'd hate to admit it, there is more than one America, and the problems YOU face, the ones that YOU think might be solved by controlling gun ownership, are NOT the same ones faced by people who live in crime-ridden inner cities.

Picking out a middle-class black person from the March For Bullshit, and then suggesting that their problems are identical to the problems faced by every other black person in America, based solely on their race, is as ridiculous as claiming that the problems of a middle- class white bitch from Washington state with too much time on her hands are identical to the problems of a white factory worker in the cotton mills of the Deep South.

Here's a clue, honey. Just because you saw "Norma Rae" doesn't make you an expert on labor relations. And just because you know one black person, that doesn't make you an expert on Black America, "Homey."

The problem isn't the alienated middle- and upper-class asshole white kids who are getting their hands on guns. It's the black and brown no-hopers in the inner cities who see no way out other than through the barrel of a hot, unregistered Glock they picked up on the corner for thirty dollars. It's not so much a glut of guns that is the problem . . . it's the shortage of hope.

Somebody needs to love and respect these people enough to have high expectations of them, to be tough on them, and to be role models for them. It's not pretty work, it's not easy work, and it sure as hell won't get you TV coverage on C-SPAN on Mother's Day. But whether you're Wayne LaPierre or Rosie O'Donnell, it's the ONLY WAY to get serious about ending gun violence.

You've got your eye on the wrong problem. You're just afraid to admit it, cracker bitch.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 16, 2000.

"Picking out a middle-class black person from the March For Bullshit, and then suggesting that their problems are identical to the problems faced by every other black person in America, based solely on their race, is as ridiculous as claiming that the problems of a middle- class white bitch from Washington state with too much time on her hands are identical to the problems of a white factory worker in the cotton mills of the Deep South.

Here's a clue, honey. Just because you saw "Norma Rae" doesn't make you an expert on labor relations. And just because you know one black person, that doesn't make you an expert on Black America, "Homey." "

Damn.

I, for one, am speechless.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 16, 2000.

Observer:

You said: "so-called health care crisis which was also manufactured and illusory."

Manufactured and illusory? You really think so? Do you have any idea how expensive health care has become? Have you had any claims denied simply because some claims examiner broke a nail that day? Have you had any REAL emergency crisis and tried to deal with an HMO? Dental care has gone through the roof-Most folk cannot afford the crowns and bridges at the prices they are being sold, and most dental plans today give very little off the list price.

Most HMO doctors have been turned into mills just to make ends meet. The quality of health care has decreased, and the number of choices of drugs has been decreased dramatically-HMO's are only paying for those drugs they get a deal on from the manufacturer. I could go on and on.

If you really believe that there is no health care crisis, then I suggest you read a little more-I am sorry, but government conspiracy theories do not fly when a person cannot afford to get periodontal work-especially since bad gum condition has been linked to heart disease. Have you ever priced periodontal work? There IS a healthcare crisis-Big HMOs are folding, and it is costing more and more every day to provide the care.

Sorry, not buying THIS conspiracy.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 16, 2000.

March,

Reading your post with lines like,

It's not so much a glut of guns that is the problem . . . it's the shortage of hope.

Is really off the mark. People of EVERY color have it better than they did 50 years ago, but now there's more lethal violence. Why? It obviously doesn't have anything to do with guns (as you'd probably agree with), because it's no easier to get a gun now than it was then.

My bet would be not the "shortage of hope", but a set of unreal expectations on the part of the poorest members of society. If you want to succeed from nothing, you have to work for *decades* before you get somewhere, you don't become wealthy right after high school. It seems to me many of these criminals' problem is that they want everything NOW. They can grow up or go to jail. Their call.

You also said,

You're out of touch, lady. You are TOTALLY detached and insulated from the real world, in which real gun violence happens every day.

Yes, she may be "out of touch", but no MORE so than an inner-city person is "out of touch". Poverty is no more "real" or "authentic" than wealth. It just is.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 16, 2000.

Debra, thank you.

-Hiway

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 16, 2000.

Psssssst. MFB,ah,could you hook me up with one of those $30 Glocks? Any caliber will do. Thanks.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 17, 2000.

Ra,

Henry Waxman was going on about $75 .50 BMGs a while ago if I remember right. I REALLY would like one of those as a wall hanger. If MFB finds you some good "black market" deals on Glocks, can you see if he's got any of the BMGs lying around?

Thanks,

Frank

P.S. How bout a few thousand rounds for that at $0.01 per round?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 17, 2000.

I'm up for a $35 SIG if any become available!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 17, 2000.

"March, Reading your post with lines like, 'It's not so much a glut of guns that is the problem . . . it's the shortage of hope."

"Is really off the mark. People of EVERY color have it better than they did 50 years ago, but now there's more lethal violence. Why? It obviously doesn't have anything to do with guns (as you'd probably agree with), because it's no easier to get a gun now than it was then."

You're not listening, Frank. If you live in the inner city, you can be a responsible, hardworking, contributing and taxpaying member of society, and yet are STILL probably subject to increased gun violence because SOMEONE ELSE thinks there's no hope, and because that SOMEONE ELSE made a shitty decision with their Glock. Gun violence is not a problem ONLY for the people who own guns, lackwit. It is a problem for those people who happen to CROSS THEIR PATHS.

And your claim that people of every color have it better today . . . well . . . does that mean you consider the presence of gangs and drive-bys in your assessment of "better?" I'm relatively sure that I can find you some COLORED people who don't think those sorts of things make for a better life.

"My bet would be not the "shortage of hope", but a set of unreal expectations on the part of the poorest members of society. If you want to succeed from nothing, you have to work for *decades* before you get somewhere, you don't become wealthy right after high school. It seems to me many of these criminals' problem is that they want everything NOW. They can grow up or go to jail. Their call."

Now YOU are an arrogant punk-ass racist cracker, too. Just lump 'em all together, right, Frank? All those goddamn poor colored people are exactly the same, aren't they? Goddamn poor colored people want Air Jordans for free, and THAT'S why there's so much gun violence in the goddamn poor colored people's neighborhood downtown, right? Fuck you.

If gun violence only happened to those people who made bad choices, well, that would be one thing. But the strange thing about gun violence, Fuck, I mean Frank, is that it seems to leak AWAY from the people who make bad choices, then affects others without any regard for whether they made good or bad choices.

Some poor people DO work for years, even LIFETIMES, trying to get ahead. Are you suggesting that gun violence never happens to such people? I think you know better, Frank.

There aren't a lot of middle-class jobs in the inner city, Frank. The kids who grow up down there see the honest people doing things like working the register at McDonalds, collecting garbage, detailing Hondas at the car wash and generally not getting very far in life. Then they turn their heads and see drug dealers and gangbangers with cars, cell phones and cash, and which decision do YOU think they're going to make?

It's not a question of wanting everything NOW . . . it's a question of getting anything AT ALL. EVER.

"You also said,"

"You're out of touch, lady. You are TOTALLY detached and insulated from the real world, in which real gun violence happens every day."

"Yes, she may be "out of touch", but no MORE so than an inner-city person is "out of touch". Poverty is no more "real" or "authentic" than wealth. It just is."

So's getting shot at, shithead. The bullet doesn't do a credit check and decide who to hit beforehand.

When it comes to determining how "out of touch" someone is with the problem of gun violence, poverty or the lack thereof is VERY OFTEN correlated with one's level of exposure to gunplay. Your spin has failed.

If you think that Julie's privileged white-bread circumstances have NOT rendered her out of touch with the issue of real gun violence, then I invite you to show me how.

Besides, if you could trouble yourself to READ, Frank, you might recognize the fact that an overprivileged racist and classist individual, like Julie, who professes to dig the problem of gun violence, really doesn't understand because she's nowhere NEAR the problem. Julie is "out of touch" because she has no connection to the problem of inner-city gun violence. Jamal down the street is NOT "out of touch" with it, because he saw someone get plugged in broad daylight last week.

And you know what? When Jamal saw that man get shot, do you think the city sent in crisis counselors? Do you think the President sent a grief counselor in to talk with the people in the hood who saw the shooting? Uh uh. That's because we're dealing with poor goddamn colored people and not privileged suburban white people who think they fucking GET IT.

People like you and Julie expect poor goddamned colored people to fucking shoot each other. You can live with THAT, right?

You, Julie, the NRA and about a million screaming misguided mothers EXPECT poor goddamned colored people to fucking shoot each other. Even worse, all sides of this gun debate ACCEPT IT, giving tacit approval to the idea that poor goddamned colored people's lives aren't worth the effort of saving. You've written off poor people, black people, brown people, your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and you've done it in favor of the idea that everyone should be "safe," but that SOME PEOPLE SHOULD BE SAFER THAN OTHERS.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 17, 2000.

Dear March (I KNOW I'm gonna regret this post :[ )

I have read the whole thing, with all due respect, how did you get to the conclusion that anyone desires to see (i wont use the g-d word) colored people shoot each other?

I can see you are very angry/aggitated over the gun issue, but i do not understand how you came to that conclusion.

PS, I am not rich, nor do I drive a SUV, and I do live in the inner city. Just looking for an answer, have no desired to be cursed out :-)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 17, 2000.

Consumer, what I believe my husband has been getting at is that none of these Million Moms were very concerned about gun violence when it was confined to the innercities. By accepting gun violence as endemic to the conditions of being poor and urban, the Johnny-come- lately gun control advocates and the NRA have granted tacit approval to gun violence, so long as it occurs "somewhere else". Very few of these Million Moms were up in arms over the spilled blood of black and hispanic teens. It was only after lily white blood began to be spilled that these Million Moms could trouble themselves into action. By then, of course, gun violence had already been declining sharply. The NRA is guilty in this too. How many times do you think Eddie Eagle has visited George Washington Carver High in Atlanta, or Cesar Chavez High School in east Los Angeles? How often do you hear of NRA gun safety courses happening in the 'hood? The NRA claims to represent all gun owners, but the fact remains that they're more concerned about keeping cyandie tipped armor piercing bullets in the hands of middle class, dues paying gun owners then they are teaching gun safety courses in Bedford-Stuyvesant.

-- Mrs. March for Bullshit (mrs.million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 17, 2000.

Mrs., Mr. [whichever]:

I understand your point, but would go on to suggest that ALL issues that have received more coverage in recent years have been issues all along in poorer, inner-city areas. I think it was sometime last year that 'a' began his crusade for how morals have degenerated in the past 30 years. He cited teen pregnancies, increased violence, drugs, blah blah. I went to high-school in the 60's and worked in the nurse's office. Every day on my shift alone we'd receive a stabbing/shooting victim, or someone who had been injured/raped on school grounds. There was a pusher outside my high-school every day and I sat between a pusher and a user in English that made their transactions across my desk. Our school had so many gangs that it was rare to see someone without a jacket so signifying. When someone died due to violence at the school, the death was discussed in one paragraph on page 36 of the newspaper. Johnny couldn't read then either, but nobody cared.

Compare that scenario to the one we see today. What has changed? One change is that the press is concentrating on violence. WHY? I would think one difference is that there's more lobbying power in the white middle-class/upper-class constituency. This constituency wants to DO something. You're right, they want to do something because it's finally affecting them, but why didn't my parents do something when it was happening to us? I think the mentality of folks has changed. When I was a kid, folks didn't "air" dirty laundry. Maybe they read about the killings at my high-school and maybe they didn't, but they sure didn't realize there might be something they could DO about it. They didn't think there was anything for them to do when they noticed a neighbor woman black and blue from her husband's abuse either. The thought was "Mind your own business." THEIR dirty laundry is none of our concern.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 17, 2000.

"When I was a kid, folks didn't "air" dirty laundry. Maybe they read about the killings at my high-school and maybe they didn't, but they sure didn't realize there might be something they could DO about it. They didn't think there was anything for them to do when they noticed a neighbor woman black and blue from her husband's abuse either. The thought was "Mind your own business." THEIR dirty laundry is none of our concern."

WAIT A MINUTE. Didn't you say you went to high school in the 60's? The decade that saw the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War movement, the beginnings of the Women's Lib movement, the movement to lower the voting age? The decade which saw the March on Selma, the assasinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Malcolm X, and others? The decade which saw the riots in Berkely, Birmingham, Chicago, and Watts (among others)? The decade of the "long, hot summers"? The decade of political involvement?

I have to call "bullshit" on your opening statement in the last paragraph. When you and I were kids, in the 60's, everyone was airing their dirty laundry.

-- Mrs. March for Bullshit (mrs.million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 17, 2000.

Mrs.:

The YOUTH did, but their parents didn't. Of course I was one of the youth, and I DID ask my parents. Their response was oftentimes, "We don't TALK about stuff like that, dear." I'd suggest that one of the strongest reasons the youth got so involved in the 60's was because our parents "didn't TALK about stuff like that."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 17, 2000.

MFB,

I understood this line,

Now YOU are an arrogant punk-ass racist cracker, too.

But the rest of it sort of ran together on me. Do you think you could repost a two or three line summary of what you were trying to say?

Thanks in advance,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 17, 2000.

To Whom It May Concern:

Get your facts straight. The NRA does NOT represent All gun owners. The NRA represents all LEGAL gun owners. That excludes the group of gun owners that are responsible for 99% of gun related violence in this country. Harris and Klebold were not LEGAL gun owners. Very few of the high-profile incidents that we are flooded with are perpetrated by a LEGAL gun owner. Yes, there are exceptions but they make-up a tiny fraction of the whole picture. Im more concerned about the mindset of the MMM group as they just dont seem to be able to GET IT! Of course, most of those that marched were like the protesters in the 60s, just along for the ride. If these activists would spend more quality time with their family units our society would receive some REAL benefits.

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 17, 2000.

Willy, I found this on the NRA's web site:

"In countless ways every day, the NRA is making the great American traditions of gun ownership and marksmanship enjoyable, everyday activities for the nation's entire family."

No mention of only representing part of that family, no mention of disowning part of that family. The NRA is making gun ownership and marksmanship enjoyable for the nations ENTIRE family.

-- Mrs. March for Bullshit (mrs.million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 17, 2000.

Mrs. Bullshit

Im not sure what you are attempting to convey with your last post. Im a long-time card carrying member of the NRA and I agree totally with the entire family assessment brought forth. Was there some thing I said that did not align with that? Just curious.

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 17, 2000.

Hey Willy!

Send me down one of those Pat's cheesteaks would ya? I'm freekin dyin down here. Hell, I'll settle for a Lee's Hogie House cheesteak, nobody south of Wilmington knows what a real one is.

Many thanks.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 17, 2000.

". . . the rest of it sort of ran together on me. Do you think you could repost a two or three line summary of what you were trying to say?"

No, not just two or three lines. Here's what you said, Frank.

"My bet would be not the "shortage of hope", but a set of unreal expectations on the part of the poorest members of society. If you want to succeed from nothing, you have to work for *decades* before you get somewhere, you don't become wealthy right after high school. It seems to me many of these criminals' problem is that they want everything NOW. They can grow up or go to jail. Their call."

I'll try it nice, for all the good it is likely to do. The problem of gun violence, Frank, is that it is not CONFINED to the lazy criminals who want everything now. It also EXTENDS to their victims. The way you have framed your response makes it appear that you are saying that ALL PERSONS touched by gun violence are lazy and want something for nothing, and therefore, ALL PERSONS touched by gun violence should either grow up or go to jail.

Now, since I think you are smart enough not to say such a thing accidentally, I can only conclude you meant it, which means. . .

"Now YOU are an arrogant punk-ass racist cracker, too."

Now, with all that freshly in mind, let's revisit the next part of my reply to you.

"Just lump 'em all together, right, Frank? All those goddamn poor colored people are exactly the same, aren't they? Goddamn poor colored people want Air Jordans for free, and THAT'S why there's so much gun violence in the goddamn poor colored people's neighborhood downtown, right? Fuck you."

So now what?

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 17, 2000.

"Dear March (I KNOW I'm gonna regret this post :[ )"

No, no, no, that's not the case. See, you ASKED. You came right out and essentially said 'I really don't understand where you're coming from, so lay it out for me.' That's a good thing, and that's something Julie never did. There is nothing wrong with honestly asking a question, and an honest question should be met with a patient answer.

You may or may not get it when it comes to gun violence, but you DO get it when it comes to DISCUSSION. I am tired of being lectured by both the NRA and by Million-Mom-types, so your QUESTION is very welcome.

"I have read the whole thing, with all due respect, how did you get to the conclusion that anyone desires to see (i wont use the g-d word) colored people shoot each other?"

I didn't say "desires." I said "expect." Many people EXPECT to see poor black and brown people shoot each other. They ANTICIPATE it. It has become ROUTINE to them. It no longer MEANS ANYTHING to them. TV viewers have become desensitized to that kind of image. Where the sight of a dead white suburban teen evokes anguish and indignation, the sight of a dead black urban teen evokes a need to change the channel and to go get another beer out of the Frigidaire.

At any rate, I've got to defer to my wife's post on that matter. I think she did a better job of setting that out that I would have. Did you follow what she was saying? Would you like to ask some further questions on the topic?

"I can see you are very angry/aggitated over the gun issue, but i do not understand how you came to that conclusion."

By watching and reasoning it out for myself. By not buying the spin of either the pro-gun or anti-gun crowds. Neither of those groups represent the issue accurately. They're just making faces at each other while more poor urban black and brown people get shot. While both of these groups of bullshit artists piss and moan, there's a heap of dark-skinned people whose views - and lives - get lost in the shuffle.

"PS, I am not rich, nor do I drive a SUV, and I do live in the inner city. Just looking for an answer, have no desired to be cursed out :- )"

I can relate to that. Well, living in the inner city, you may very well know firsthand about gun violence. You might also know about the limited economic opportunities available to the people who live and work in the inner city. I am sure you have seen the lazy sort of people Frank has described for us, but I am also sure that you have seen inner city residents with good hearts, healthy work ethics and strong characters. The truth is that those good people, through NO FAULT OR CHOICE OF THEIR OWN, can be subjected to gun violence.

And that's a fact.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 17, 2000.

Gun violence occurs where there is lack of personal restraint. It knows no geographic bounds.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), May 18, 2000.

MFB,

You should start out "being nice", then people (I) wouldn't think you were a jerk for no reason.

I did not mean to imply that everyone *touched* by gun violence was a lazy criminal, just the people COMMITTING the gun violence. You could have asked me to clarify this if you were unsure, rather than going berserk.

And the only person bringing up COLOR here is YOU. Personally, I'd be just as happy to throw a white criminal in jail as a black one.

If anything you are the "racist (non?)cracker" here, not me. But then you have to live with you, I don't, so feel free to rave on.

Frank

P.S. For all your insults, I haven't heard you counter the assertion that the people COMMITTING the gun violence ARE lazy good-for-nothings. -F

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 18, 2000.

"MFB, You should start out "being nice", then people (I) wouldn't think you were a jerk for no reason."

Fuck you and what you think I SHOULD do. You should start out by not being racist, cracker-ass punk. I don't give a good goddamn WHAT you think about me, and I have no idea why you think I should CARE.

"I did not mean to imply that everyone *touched* by gun violence was a lazy criminal, just the people COMMITTING the gun violence. You could have asked me to clarify this if you were unsure, rather than going berserk."

I could have asked you to explain, but then again you could have tried harder to explain YOURSELF from the get-go. And the sky could have been green and the grass could have been red. I wasn't unsure of ANYTHING. Once again, a cracker-ass racist expects someone else to do his work FOR HIM. What a fucking SURPRISE.

After reading what you wrote, I was CERTAIN you're a racist, whether you know it or not. As I said, I was actually paying you a COMPLIMENT by assuming you were a racist, since I didn't think you could have made as STUPID a mistake as you now admit. Poor black people's choice is to grow up or go to jail, right, Frank? Well, your choice is to be stupid or be a racist.

"And the only person bringing up COLOR here is YOU.

WAKE UP AND CLEAN THE MARTHA STEWART'S IMPORTED COMPOST OUT OF YOUR EARS, FRANK! That's the PROBLEM with the goddamn ARGUMENT! NONE of these assholes in either the NRA or the March For Bullshit are bringing race or class UP! But it is as plain as the noses on their well-exfoliated faces that they only care NOW because ISOLATED instances of gun violence have popped up in the suburbs!

It would do the people MOST affected by gun violence SOME GOOD if these fools actually WOULD bring up race and social class in their debate, BUT THEY AREN'T DOING THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE RACIST AND CLASSIST. They aren't doing it because they EXPECT and ANTICIPATE that poor goddamn black and brown people WILL SHOOT EACH OTHER, and so both sides have WRITTEN THEM OFF. It would BE TOO HARD and TAKE TOO LONG to save the lives of all those poor goddamned black and brown people, so they simply say to themselves "that is an acceptable level of gun violence."

"Personally, I'd be just as happy to throw a white criminal in jail as a black one."

So would I. But you, Julie and most of white America wouldn't really care if a black or brown person got shot dead, would you? Just so long as it didn't happen in your neighborhood. Because THEN it is someone ELSE'S problem. It's easy to not give a shit when the dead man doesn't look like you.

"If anything you are the "racist (non?)cracker" here, not me. But then you have to live with you, I don't, so feel free to rave on."

If I thought you actually had some substance behind that comment, I'd go off on your cracker punk self. But you don't have anything there. You're just scrambling for something to say that you think might upset me or hurt my feelings. You're PATHETIC.

"P.S. For all your insults, I haven't heard you counter the assertion that the people COMMITTING the gun violence ARE lazy good-for- nothings."

There's nothing to counter there, Frank. It's true, as far as it goes, but to rely on that fact conveniently overlooks the OTHER fact that the VICTIMS are not necessarily lazy-good-for-nothings, Frank. And it is reliance on THAT part of the argument that gets YOU called a punk-ass cracker racist.

Plus, that's the excuse that gets implicitly used to write off the poor goddamned black and brown people. Your posts, whether you realize it or not, illustrate the very thinking process that has led to this situation whereby the victims are written off along with the perpetrators, simply because they both happen to have dark faces.

If the only emphasis you place happens to be placed on punishing gun violence and/or getting guns out of circulation (like the NRA and/or the March For Bullshit), then you're not attacking the roots of the problem. You might as well stop building schools in the inner cities and just build jails down there, because you've already taken the first few steps towards writing off the lives of people who already have scant hope.

Do you even know what time it is?

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 18, 2000.

I grew up in Detroit and watched dozens of new projects built for the low income black community. In a matter of months these brand new facilities would turn into fucking sewers with garbage everywhere and rats a-plenty. Then, these people would turn around and blame the white devils for making them live like animals. Youve all seen this scenario repeated throughout the country and until folks raise their own standards of cleanliness and living then there is no hope. Ill be damned if we should spend another penny of public assistance money to get someone to wash his or her ass. Just like the MMM, everyone wants others to do what they are unwilling to for themselves. Responsibility has disappeared. Keep your hands off my guns AND my money!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 18, 2000.

Listen up, Ra, and listen good.

Throwing money at the problem doesn't work. Ignoring the problem doesn't work. Everything you ignorant racist crackers have tried has failed.

The only thing that will work is for the rest of America to wake the hell up and stop pretending that those who live in the projects aren't actually Americans. Stand up and do some actual work, stop wishing the problem will go away, or that there's some easy answer to it. It won't and there isn't. No one wants your money, you scum sucking ignoramus. What's needed is your time and your effort.

-- Mrs. March for Bullshit (mrs.million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 18, 2000.

MFB,

You know what the really sad part here is? Since this is over the internet and not face to face, I don't know whether you're really an upset minority, or some Klansman trying to stereotype one. If the latter, you're doing it textbook.

In any event, your behavior is IMO terrible. If you don't " give a good goddamn" that's o.k. by me.

And again you missed the point about the MMM. IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE. IT'S ABOUT VIOLENCE IN ***YOUR*** NEIGHBORHOOD. When violence came to these people's neighborhoods, they cared enough to do *something* about it. When violence came to YOUR neighborhood, (well, assuming you're not really a white racist yourself) what did YOU do about it? My point is that the REAL person who didn't care about the inner city residents was YOU, and the other people that live there.

Now keep in mind I disagree with the MMM, as I'd like EVERYONE (who's not a felon) to be able to carry a firearm, but the point is even if wrong, these people were trying to do *something*, they didn't just sit there and say someone else should be doing something for them.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 18, 2000.

MFB = Hawk!

MMFB = Hawk2

-- Sleuth (sleuth@watching.you!), May 18, 2000.

This Mrs. Bullshit does not sound like Hawk to me. She/it has so much anger that even those that agree with her/it are flamed for doing so. Im not sure just why she/it is so vehemently defending the low lifes but who cares.

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 18, 2000.

Frank says

"MFB, You know what the really sad part here is? Since this is over the internet and not face to face, I don't know whether you're really an upset minority, or some Klansman trying to stereotype one. If the latter, you're doing it textbook."

No. The really sad part here is that you won't confront the SUBSTANCE of the ARGUMENT, and instead you're more interested in what COLOR I am. As if that made any FUCKING difference at all. It's just easier TO NOT FACE THE PROBLEM, isn't it, Frank?

"In any event, your behavior is IMO terrible."

Fuck you and your opinion.

"If you don't " give a good goddamn" that's o.k. by me."

Fuck you and your permission.

"And again you missed the point about the MMM. IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE. IT'S ABOUT VIOLENCE IN ***YOUR*** NEIGHBORHOOD. When violence came to these people's neighborhoods, they cared enough to do *something* about it. When violence came to YOUR neighborhood, (well, assuming you're not really a white racist yourself) what did YOU do about it?"

You INCORRECTLY PRESUME that EVERYONE is in a position to DO SOMETHING about gun violence in their area. You are making the SAME FUCKING PRESUMPTIONS as the original cracker-ass racist bitch Julie was. You ASSUME that everyone has the same amount of discretionary time and money, as well as the requisite organizing skills to EFFECTIVELY COMBAT GUN VIOLENCE ON THEIR OWN. YOU ARE WRONG. Are poor, uneducated people just supposed to KNOW what to do? Are they just supposed to KNOW where to go for advice? Are unemployed inner city residents just supposed to KNOW how to make out a resume?

Listen closely, Frank. EVERYONE IS NOT THE SAME. EVERYONE DOES NOT POSSESS THE SAME KNOWLEDGE. EVERYONE DOES NOT POSSESS THE SAME SET OF SKILLS. EVERYONE IS NOT CAPABLE OF SOLVING THEIR PROBLEMS ON THEIR OWN.

But almost everyone can be SHOWN HOW to solve their problems. Almost everyone can be TAUGHT how to organize to address community problems. Give that some thought, Frank. If you CAN.

Get it together, Frank. Lawmakers in general don't LISTEN to residents of the inner cities because those residents usually aren't registered to vote, and also because they rarely donate time and/or money to candidates. So why the hell should a lawmaker give a shit whether or not his INVISIBLE CONSTITUENTS are shooting each other?

And the March For Bullshit is NOT about keeping one's OWN community free of gun violence. Just in case you weren't listening, Frank, the Million Moms CLAIM to be interested in ending ALL gun violence. If you think these Million Moms ALL LIVE IN THE SAME GATED COMMUNITY, then you're more FUCKED UP than I thought.

What did I DO about gun violence in my hood? I organized a neighborhood watch. I paid for walkie-talkies out of my OWN POCKET. I kept on the police's COLLECTIVE ASS until they agreed to work with us and help us keep on the right side of the law. Then I kept on their ass until they started to RESPOND IN A TIMELY MANNER to calls from my neighborhood. I lost sleep because I was PARTICIPATING in the neighborhood watch. I started a Big Brother/Big Sister program in my area so that poor kids could be mentored by adults of ALL races who cared enough to show disadvantaged kids that there ARE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES to the SHIT THEY HAD HITHERTO SEEN EVERY DAY.

And I gave first aid to TWO people who HAD been shot so that they had a FUCKING CHANCE TO LIVE LONG ENOUGH FOR THE EMTs TO GET TO THEM.

"My point is that the REAL person who didn't care about the inner city residents was YOU, and the other people that live there."

You can kiss my ass, Frank, because until just now, you had no FUCKING IDEA what I had done to fight gun violence in my area. You are a presumptuous, elitist, arrogant, punk-ass cracker racist, and you are PITIFUL.

"Now keep in mind I disagree with the MMM, as I'd like EVERYONE (who's not a felon) to be able to carry a firearm, but the point is even if wrong, these people were trying to do *something*, they didn't just sit there and say someone else should be doing something for them."

Frank, again you PRESUME. You PRESUME that doing SOMETHING is always the ideal. Well, what if the SOMETHING is ill-conceived and turns out to be the WRONG thing? Wouldn't it then have been better to have done NOTHING, rather than the WRONG thing?

I'm not saying that someone else should have to solve the gun problem of the inner cities. I'm saying that those who PROFESS TO CARE ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE would more directly address the issue by ATTACKING IT AT ITS ROOTS. It just demonstrates how ignorant and misguided the participants in the March For Bullshit actually were.

Sleuth says

"MFB = Hawk!" "MMFB = Hawk2"

Sleuth = WRONG

Willy says

"This Mrs. Bullshit does not sound like Hawk to me. She/it has so much anger that even those that agree with her/it are flamed for doing so. Im not sure just why she/it is so vehemently defending the low lifes but who cares."

So, Willy, show me and my wife where we have "defended" lowlifes. We are eager to see that, because we missed it.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 18, 2000.

Dear Mrs. MFB. Im on record as opposing the MMM so what is your problem you half-wit, ignorant air head bitch. You and your alto ego sound somewhat unbalanced. I doubt if you two/one shithead(s) have ever been near the hood. Bullshit artists.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 18, 2000.

MFB,

Nice try.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 19, 2000.

Ra says

"Dear Mrs. MFB. Im on record as opposing the MMM so what is your problem you half-wit, ignorant air head bitch."

Dear arrogant cracker-ass punk . . . can you READ? If so, then perhaps you should GO BACK AND READ ALL THE POSTS in this thread. If you have any questions after THAT, then get back to us.

"You and your alto ego sound somewhat unbalanced. I doubt if you two/one shithead(s) have ever been near the hood. Bullshit artists."

Well, it is certainly BETTER to call your debating opponent's character into question than it is to actually TAKE ON THE SUBSTANCE of their arguments. You debate like CLINTON and BUSH do, shit-wit.

Frank says

"MFB, Nice try."

That's nice, Frank. You aren't even BOTHERING to try. You're a pitiful sack of SHIT with nothing to contribute and nothiing of value to offer to the discussion.

Prove me wrong. I DARE you.

Is ANYBODY on this thread capable of discussing the ISSUES behind gun violence, or are you all so WRAPPED UP IN YOUR OWN LITTLE WORLDS that you REFUSE to consider ANYTHING but your OWN LAME BELIEFS and MISPERCEPTIONS about the issue?

I'd like to know.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 21, 2000.

Yeah, I didn't THINK SO.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 28, 2000.

MFB= Steve, the MPD hemp guy.

-- (spliff@work.now), May 28, 2000.

Hey MFB asshole, did it take you a week to detox? Nobody wants to talk to you ya dumb fuck. Drop the keyboard, back into your hole.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 28, 2000.

MFB,

This thread has gotten too big. Why don't you start another one on the causes of violence, period, not just gun violence. In The Netherlands they have now had to ban knives because of increasing violence and use of knives in assaults.

I recall a recent "spirited exchange" about inner city violence, featuring Decker and someone called Urbanologist. Maybe you can get them to join in the fray by not limiting it to guns.

-- Flash (flash@stop.the.violence), May 28, 2000.

On the original post, JUSTA PONDERING mentioned swimming pools and autos.

Playing the Devil's Advocate here:

In my part of the USA, swimming pools have to now be surrounded by fences, and auto's have to be registered. How many more deaths would have occurred had these regulations NOT taken place?

The Million Mom March was a grass roots organization that started up recently. Some of the individuals involved in our area are NOT "Klintoon cronies", or whatever derogatory name you wish to call them, but people that felt strongly about the problem.

That is the nice thing about this country - you can demonstrate about things that you disagree in the government.

I firmly believe in an individuals right to own arms, but I also believe in an individuals right to disagree with that, and I will defend that person's right to the upmost.

-- Steve (sron123@aol.com), May 28, 2000.

Steve,

In my opinion, the "Misguided Mom's March" was anything but spontaneous. It turns out that Mrs. Dees-Thomases is related by marriage to Susan Thomases of Bill & Hillary Klintoon fame.

The MMM's didn't even achieve half a million attendees, and may get more than they bargained for. People like my 76 year old mom and her friends are planning on joining the NRA and support the Second Amendment Sisters. You can bet I'll get the signup sheets to them!

I wonder if the Dees part of Mrs. Dees-Thomases name is by relation to the wealthy hypocrite Morris Dees?

-- Flash (flash@no.more.misguided.dupes), May 28, 2000.

Spliff said

"MFB= Steve, the MPD hemp guy."

Spliff=WRONG

Ir.ra@tional said

"Hey MFB asshole, did it take you a week to detox? Nobody wants to talk to you ya dumb fuck. Drop the keyboard, back into your hole."

For someone who claims to be rational, you've run out of rational arguments. For that matter, you've run out of arguments at all. You're completely INCAPABLE of discussing or debating the issue, you punk-ass white-bread racist FAKE.

You can't address the issues, you can't answer my questions and you can't formulate a COHERENT REPLY. Ignorant cracker.

Besides, it seems like some people DO want to talk to me. YOU, for example. Jive-ass BITCH.

Flash said

"MFB,This thread has gotten too big. Why don't you start another one on the causes of violence, period, not just gun violence. In The Netherlands they have now had to ban knives because of increasing violence and use of knives in assaults.

I recall a recent "spirited exchange" about inner city violence, featuring Decker and someone called Urbanologist. Maybe you can get them to join in the fray by not limiting it to guns."

Maybe. That's a thought.

Steve said

"The Million Mom March was a grass roots organization that started up recently. Some of the individuals involved in our area are NOT "Klintoon cronies", or whatever derogatory name you wish to call them, but people that felt strongly about the problem."

They're classists and racists. They just don't realize that they are. They didn't give a shit about gun violence as long as it was confined to people with dark skin who didn't live nearby. Now, even though gun violence in this country is DOWN OVERALL, these same racist and classist assholes are bitching and moaning about gun violence. Why? Because WHITE KIDS are caught up in it. And we can't have THAT. It's OKAY if poor goddamned black and brown people shoot each other up, but it's NOT OKAY if upper and middle-class WHITE people get shot. Isn't that right, Steve? Doesn't that smell bad to you?

"I firmly believe in an individuals right to own arms, but I also believe in an individuals right to disagree with that, and I will defend that person's right to the upmost."

Well, then, Steve, you ought to be fucking THRILLED with what I have to say.

And then Flash spoke again

"Steve, In my opinion, the "Misguided Mom's March" was anything but spontaneous. It turns out that Mrs. Dees-Thomases is related by marriage to Susan Thomases of Bill & Hillary Klintoon fame."

Whoever's behind it doesn't matter. They're still classists and racists. Their position is indefensible. They may TRY to defend it, but in the final analysis, their position still comes down to racism and classism.

"The MMM's didn't even achieve half a million attendees, and may get more than they bargained for. People like my 76 year old mom and her friends are planning on joining the NRA and support the Second Amendment Sisters. You can bet I'll get the signup sheets to them!"

The NRA is no better than the March For Bullshit. They're every bit as racist and classist as the March For Bullshit See earlier in this thread for more discussion on that.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), May 31, 2000.

Hey MFB, is there anybody that you DO like in this issue? Just curious.

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 31, 2000.

Willy said

"Hey MFB, is there anybody that you DO like in this issue? Just curious."

What is there to like? Neither the Million Moms or the NRA are even TALKING ABOUT gun violence. Their WHOLE DEBATE is over GUN CONTROL.

The March For Bullshit is bitching about increasing gun violence at a time when gun violence overall is DECREASING. How about that?

The only reason the Million Moms are whining is because gun violence has started to pop up in middle and upper-class areas, and we CAN'T HAVE THAT. Gun violence is acceptable to the Million Moms as long as it stays downtown with the poor goddamned black and brown people. They won't complain about THAT gun violence. See if they have had anything to say about that in the last 20 years. When the pro- safety/anti-gun/lying bullshit lobby tosses out examples of gun violence to scare people, see how many of their examples come from the 'burbs and how many come from the hood. You will find something interesting.

And the NRA wants gun rights for all, except for those same poor goddamned black and brown people.

The NRA won't carry Eddie Eagle's cracker ass down to the hood to teach gun safety, because to NRA members, a poor goddamned black or brown person with a gun is AUTOMATICALLY UNSAFE TO THEM. The NRA wants people to have guns in order to PROTECT THEM from poor goddamned black and brown people with guns. I want Wayne LaPierre to tell me that he thinks Jamal and Curtis down the street should be able to own all the guns they want. I want Wayne LaPierre to come to MY HOOD on a fundraising drive. See what fucking happens.

So, Willie, do you think there's anyone on any side of this debate who's WORTH agreeing with? The ten percent on each of the extremes get eighty percent of all the coverage. The other twenty percent of the coverage goes to the remaining eighty percent of the people. So who do you think gets covered by the media? The March For Bullshit and the NRA, or the poor goddamned black and brown people who don't vote and don't donate to candidates?

Think about it.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), June 06, 2000.

MFB

Your passionate pleading for the poor blacks and browns is not making a lot of sense, to me anyway. Many of the poor Browns were dirt poor in their native country and have not been able to elevate themselves after settling here in the U.S., legally or not. So what? There are no guarantees of success in this country only the opportunity to try. These folks as a whole bring no skills to the table so what would you expect the outcome to be? Would you have us support the entire poors of the world? Ill pass on commenting on the Blacks; they speak loud enough for themselves.

Your bleeding heart bullshit will not get you an audience with people who work their butt off to enjoy some quality of life. It amazes me how these poor folks always seem to have enough money for drugs, guns, and ammo.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 06, 2000.

Ir.r@tional said

"MFBYour passionate pleading for the poor blacks and browns is not making a lot of sense, to me anyway."

Well, that's because you're a stupid cracker punk-ass racist. If I'm not asking for them to be given money, federal programs or federal cheese, then WHAT am I asking for them to be given? Help me out, Irrational.

"Many of the poor Browns were dirt poor in their native country"

Many of those people were born HERE, too. So are you saying that people should not be able to IMPROVE THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES here in the land of opportunity? Are you saying that HARD WORK SHOULD NOT GET YOU ANYTHING IF YOU ARE BLACK OR BROWN?

Racist fuckhead.

"and have not been able to elevate themselves after settling here in the U.S., legally or not. So what? There are no guarantees of success in this country only the opportunity to try."

You are TOTALLY FUCKING ILLITERATE, Irrational. I am saying that BOTH SIDES of the FUCKING DEBATE are DISMISSING POOR GODDAMNED BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE as not being WORTHY OF HELPING. The Million Moms are lying when they say they want to reduce gun violence BECAUSE

1) It was going down before their bullshit march

2) Most didn't get involved before white kids started getting shot

3) All their scary examples involve white people getting shot

They don't give a SHIT about poor goddamned black or brown people getting shot. The March For Bullshit was racist and classist, and YOU CAN'T DISPROVE THAT, IRRATIONAL. You're not even coming CLOSE to the FUCKING POINT.

The NRA is lying when they claim they want gun rights for all, because they SURE DON'T WANT POOR GODDAMNED BLACK OR BROWN PEOPLE TO OWN GUNS, NOT EVEN LEGALLY. You don't see the NRA doing SHIT in the hood, because even an HONEST, HARDWORKING BLACK OR BROWN PERSON IS A THREAT to them, if that honest hardworking black or brown person has a GUN.

"These folks as a whole bring no skills to the table so what would you expect the outcome to be?"

Arrogant racist cracker PUNK. You didn't bring any skills to the table when you were four, so why'd your parents bother sending you to school? Didn't they know you'd never learn anything and would never make anything of yourself? Look at your sorry-ass self. So no black or brown person can EVER LEARN, and they can't BE TRAINED, EITHER?

Bullshit, Irrational. Prove it. I say you're a lying sack of shit who can't even PROVE WHAT HE SAYS.

"Would you have us support the entire poors of the world?"

Who asked you to support ANYBODY, dipshit? Show me where I begged for these people to be supported. SHOW ME. My wife even went so far as to tell you that your money wasn't the fucking issue, moron. She told you that your money WASN'T NEEDED, fool.

You can take your hand off your wallet now, Irrational. We know where it is, but we're not after it. IDIOT.

"Ill pass on commenting on the Blacks; they speak loud enough for themselves."

That's because you don't want to DEMONSTRATE just how racist you are. You'd rather not say what you think, because you KNOW you'll just PROVE MY POINT FOR ME.

"Your bleeding heart bullshit will not get you an audience with people who work their butt off to enjoy some quality of life."

Some poor goddamned black and brown people work THEIR butts off to enjoy some quality of life, but they're subject to relatively high levels of gun violence. I guess they should just FUCKING DEAL WITH IT, HUH? Is that what you're saying, Irrational? All poor goddamned black and brown people should just SUCK IT UP? So how come cracker- ass white people, middle-class people and upper-class people don't do that?

It would serve your racist and classist ass JUST RIGHT if you got carjacked.

"It amazes me how these poor folks always seem to have enough money for drugs, guns, and ammo."

Well, since you have such a line on the home lives of poor goddamned black and brown people, then perhaps you could tell us how many firearms the average minority family OWNS. Maybe you could fill us in on their rates of DRUG USE. Perhaps you could tell us why, when these people are just exercising their constitutional right to own firearms, you're so GODDAMNED AFRAID OF THAT.

I am ready and waiting for you, racist.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), June 08, 2000.

Ready and waiting for what? Im not so much a racist as I am a realist. It would be nice to debate you but I still cant see what you are advocating here. Other than your screeching for the ghetto folks what is your platform on this issue? Ill discuss this with you if you lay out some sort of proposal for change. Your ball.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 08, 2000.

Ready and waiting for you to PROVE YOUR FUCKING POINTS, idiot. I KNEW you'd fucking PUNK OUT, Irrational.

You can call yourself a realist, but the fact is, REALISM HAS BEEN CUSSING YOUR ASS OUT ON THIS BOARD, and you can't see it. What a pathetic and cowardly SACK OF SHIT you are.

I don't think you don't want to debate ANYTHING, Irrational. All you have done is disagree with me and my wife, bring up NON-PERTINENT BULLSHIT, spew RACIST STATEMENTS on this thread and NOT EVEN BOTHER TO PRESENT CITATIONS TO PROVE YOUR PISSANT POINTS. And NOW you punk out. Maybe YOU'RE THE ONE who needs to take a week to DETOX, jive BITCH.

I have TOLD YOU BEFORE. Go BACK. Re-READ. If you have QUESTIONS after THAT, then ASK THEM, biaaaaaaatch.

Oh, just so you'll know, it's not "ghetto" anymore. It's "hood." And not all poor goddamned black and brown people live in one. I bet you think that's "peachy" and "keen."

What is my platform? My platform is (as I have said it AT LEAST THREE TIMES NOW) is that NEITHER the March For Bullshit NOR the NRA are interested in reducing gun violence. They are BOTH racist and classist groups of people who have WRITTEN OFF the poor goddamned black and brown people of this country. Did you hear it that time?

I've TOLD you what must be done in order for there to be positive change. I have TOLD you what I did. I am NOT PROPOSING government action or government money be used, because we all know the government will just FUCK IT UP LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO.

'My ball.' Fuck you. Another arrogant racist bastard expects someone ELSE to do all the work.

You tell ME where I have been wrong ANYWHERE on this thread. And PROVE YOUR FUCKING POINTS this time, fool.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), June 08, 2000.

March for Bullshit,

I won't say you're wrong, just hypocritical. How can you call someone racist with one breath and call them "cracker" on the other? Isn't that the same as nigger?

-- Can (You@tell.me?), June 08, 2000.

Even though MFB is a foul mouthed jack-ass he...she...IT has a point. And I must admit that I agree with IT, life for the millions of lilly white concerned mommies was fine until it was no longer just Wogs killing each other.

Fucker will never get anyone to listen seriously with IT's writing style, but that is beside the point.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 08, 2000.

Can, I didn't claim not to BE a racist. I never claimed not to BE a hypocrite. I'm not saying what my race is, but sometimes you have to BE EXTREME in order to get the OTHER EXTREME to recognize how wrong it is.

But when it comes down to it, the kind of racism that calls someone a "cracker" on a message board is much less hazardous than the kind that claims 'I ain't racist, but them poor colored people always got money for drugs m guns m fried chikin m waddermellons m tacos m big pimpmobiles. Let um shoot each other, huh huh huh.' I remind you that Irrational asked me earlier on this thread if I could get him a $30 Glock. Am I supposed to laugh at that, or is that thinly disguised racism? Irrational would probably say it was just a joke, and maybe he really thought it was, but the fact that he would MAKE such a joke suggests that he has ALSO written off poor and inner-city minorities as unsavable. And I'm supposed to be polite in return?

The attitude of the NRA and the March For Bullshit is hazardous to the lives of poor minorities in this country, whether they use the words "nigger" and "wetback" or not. Words have meaning, but actions speak more loudly than words. The actions of both groups demonstrate quite clearly to me that their membership, as a group, feels that the lives of poor minorities in this country aren't worth saving. Only middle-class, upper-class and white lives are worth their effort.

Deedah, neither I nor my wife really care what anyone thinks of our writing styles. We do feel very strongly about this matter, and I will personally come on like the Human Torch when someone like Julie, Frank or Irrational makes unsupported bullshit claims. And all of them have. If you look back through this thread, I think you will find that I can and will write calmly when people speak plainly and politely with me. Listening seriously would be nice. I'd do it again if people would WRITE seriously. There's some sad, deep-seated racism floating around on this board that doesn't even realize it exists. I appreciate that you have received my point. Whether you like the package makes no difference to me so long as you got the contents.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), June 08, 2000.

MFB,

Thank you for a calm, coherent answer. For the record, I think Ra is an asshole too.

-- Can (You@tell.me?), June 08, 2000.

Actually can I am somewhat of an asshole but so what? Im on record as being somewhat of a racist by PC standards but so what? Do you think I give a flyin fuck what pencil dicks like you and MFB think of me? You folks are just made-up personas so who gives any real credence to what you say? And MFB, I dont give a damn if you are Al Sharpton or Rosie ODonnell. Youre venting your spleen at me cause the poor folks are butchering each other like I have something to do with it. Take your sad ass down to the ghetto and do something other than running your mealy mouth on this forum, which aint doin jack shit. You sound like the wimps from the ACLU that think they have all of societies problems solved by flapping their jaws. Let me say in closing that if Ive upset you than my job is accomplished. You obviously are not in control of all of your limited facilities and I find it entertaining to watch you unravel on cue. Moron.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 09, 2000.

Irrational, you're on record as being a racist asshole by the standards of everyone except OTHER racist assholes. You do what you want, but you're sussed here. And you can't even be bothered to stand by your piss-weak statements. You won't even prove your points. You're a fucking COWARD, Irrational.

I know you want me to BELIEVE you don't care what I think, but then again, if you really DIDN'T care, you wouldn't come back to talk to me again and again. You wouldn't offer to "discuss" things with me if you DIDN'T care. You wouldn't claim NOT to be a racist if you DIDN'T care. You're a transparent as a Miller High Life bottle, and you argue like your last name is CLINTON. You're fucking PATHETIC. Rational, my ASS.

Made-up persona? Maybe. Maybe not. You never really know online, do you? In any event, that's a limp-dick attempt on your part to wring some self-respect out of a debate you have ALREADY LOST. Let me know where you want your $30 Glock and ammo delivered, Irrational. I'll have Jamal and Curtis bring it by to you. That ought to just give you the shivering shits when two homeys with a gun come looking for you. Never mind that they don't want to harm you, because two minorities with a handgun are AUTOMATICALLY DANGEROUS, aren't they, Irrational? Fuck you, cracker-ass BITCH.

You foolishly claim that I believe you have something to do with gun violence in the inner city. You are either illiterate or you have absolutely no reading comprehension skills WHATSOEVER. I have been venting my spleen at BOTH pro-gun AND pro-gun control dimwits on this board, fuckwit. Go back and read my exchanges with Julie. She's just as FUCKED UP as YOU are, shit-for-brains.

Goddamn, Irrational, if you don't get caught up with the rest of the class, we're going to have to send you to join the SPECIAL READING GROUP that meets in the basement. Maybe once you get done reading "Dick and Jane Run for Cover" we'll let you come back and sit with the regular class.

"Take your sad ass down to the ghetto and do something other than running your mealy mouth on this forum, which aint doin jack shit."

That's funny as shit. You must have missed that post a couple of weeks ago where I laid out what I HAVE DONE and what I CONTINUE TO DO to fight gun violence in my community. You let me know the next time you give CPR to a gunshot victim, Irrational. When you've kept three people alive long enough for the EMTs to get to them and save their lives, then you can tell me I'm not doing Jack shit. Do that three times, Irrational. I've done it TWICE. Fuck you.

"You sound like the wimps from the ACLU that think they have all of societies problems solved by flapping their jaws."

That would actually mean something if you could tell me how my views coincide with the views of the ACLU. This is kind of like that claim you made a couple of posts back, accusing me of wanting to support all the poor people of the world. See, Irrational, that's called "emotional argument." You're flinging bullshit, hoping some of it will stick. You have to BACK YOUR STATEMENTS UP, otherwise, YOU are the one FLAPPING JAWS. You have UTTERLY FAILED to disprove any of my statement, and have UTTERLY FAILED to prove any of your own.

Yeah, I guess "made-up persona" is right. There's nothing rational about YOUR persona, Mr. UTTER FAILURE.

"Let me say in closing that if Ive upset you than my job is accomplished."

Well, not really accomplished yet, Irrational. Not until a few more niggers and wetbacks shoot each other dead, right? Racist sack of SHIT.

"You obviously are not in control of all of your limited facilities and I find it entertaining to watch you unravel on cue."

Speak for yourself, cracker racist BITCH. You came running right back when I posted "Yeah, I didn't THINK so." You better recognize, Irrational -- YOU are the one who's unraveling on cue. Just keep coming back for more abuse, racist idiot. I'll gladly keep dishing it out to you.

MFB's got the points, the logic and the reasoning. Irrational's got emotional arguments, no support for his statements and empty, bullshit statements. Spot the difference, BITCH.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), June 09, 2000.

MFB,

You're showing your age by calling adult males BITCH. It has no meaning to us except as in regard to denigrating certain types of females. It's just another sad example of how pathetic Generation X really is. When my teenage stepson used to scream BITCH, BITCH, at me when he was mad, I just laughed so hard I almost couldn't stop.

-- An Adult (nofan@of.rosie.the.bitch), June 09, 2000.

Not saying my age, not saying my race. But I am definitely older than you appear to think. Maybe older people don't call others "bitch" with the vigor or frequency that some younger people do, but then again, you don't hear many younger people using the pejorative adjective "jive-ass." That part seems to have gotten past you.

Too many people on this thread are concentrating on my race, and now my age is becoming an issue. I think that people who raise those issues simply don't want to confront the ACTUAL ISSUES I have raised, and are looking for something else to address in my posts. Come on, Adult, let's talk about the REAL ISSUES. I could be a little green man from Mars, but would that really have any bearing on what I'm saying? Is any of it wrong, or are you more worried about the color of my skin and how many gray hairs I have? Which is of more consequence?

Calling Irrational an "adult" male might be correct, depending on his chronological age. It doesn't have much to do with his emotional or mental age, though.

-- March For Bullshit (million.moms@can.be.wrong), June 09, 2000.

Some good arguments being put forth here, but the thread is getting so long that it's a problem to load. Let's start a continuation thread.

I'll give it a shot.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 09, 2000.

The new thread is here: Link

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 09, 2000.