How do I avoid looking and acting American while traveling in Europe?

"westprog" wrote in
:


"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 227.77...
...

...
I have more freedom that you do.

It would be a very big mistake to assume that everyone in
the USA is freer than in insert country here. Governments
and constitutions can remove freedom - they can't always
provide it.

NO government provides freedom. IF the people won't fight for
it, they will lose it. Americans are too damned lazy, too much
into the "it can't happen here" mindset, to defend their
freedom.

Yet, Michael Moore can put together a bunch of lies and
slander and make a movie out of it; at the same time,
Americans are warned that there are certain books that are not
so flattering of your queen that we cannot take to the U.K.,
because they are banned.

I figure you're about 30 to 50 years farther along in watching
your rights go down the toilet than we in the U.S..

You might claim that you are more free because you have a
"right" to "free" health care. But then, those who have to pay
for your "freedom" are no better off than a Roman slave. Not
very free.

There are people in the USA today who are
little better than slaves.

Yes, the 50% of the top wage earners pay something like 95% of
the taxes; they are enslaved by the lower 50% that pays almost
nothing, and gets most of the benefit of the top 50%'s labors.

Also everywhere else. They might
have theoretical rights under the constitution, but in
practice they can't even go to the shops by themselves.

What are you talking about? Can't go to shops? ?

Can we ask whether Martial Law can be imposed whether we like it or not?

Can we walk around with protest signs during Martial Law without fear of
prosecution?




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004

"charge" wrote in message
.. .
Can we ask whether Martial Law can be imposed whether we like it or not?

Can we walk around with protest signs during Martial Law without fear of
prosecution?




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 7/5/2004


Even under martial law you do have redress of grievances. You simply have
to go through the proper channels. You may not have free speech as the
U.S.A. has now though. You cannot give aid and comfort to the enemy by
"protesting". You do have to follow Government orders. I don't think we
are anywhere near a martial law situation over the whole Country. It is
always possible in sections though. Riots, disasters (natural or man made),
health emergencies, etc. are all possible starts to local martial law
impositions. You simply have to wait out the situation then you can start
protesting after the event, and better yet, going to Court.

(FreeIreland) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com...
(FreeIreland) wrote in message . com...

Heres a more relevant example today. When Bush makes his presidencial
appearences people are not free to hold up anti-bush or anti war
banners. Instead so called free speech zones are set up usually
between 1-3 miles from the presidents location for protestors. If the
US is so free then why does the president of the US need to create
free speech zones.

Happened after Madelin Albright was heckled at Wash U. in St. Louis.
Might have been a Clinton initiative.

It doesn't matter who initiated it, though what is clear is both
democratic and republican presidents have to set up so called free
speech zones well away from their location.

Just as long as you recognize that fact.

So much for the land of the free.

So if I petition a municipality to hold a rally promoting the
Survivalist Ethic, fill out the forms, and pay a fee, and Alan Connor
shows up with a wood-gas powered giga-megaphone and he tries to shout
me down, shouldn't my free speech be protected?

Then what if Al Franken were to tackle AnalC?

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:27:51 +0100, "westprog"
wrote:


"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote in message
...
...
An overwhelming majority of the American voting public disagrees with you.

Presumably that would make no difference to the gun-right fundamentalists,
who would consider they had a right to firearms even if every other US
citizen wanted them banned.


Correct. If the entire population, or at least the majority wanted you
to be hung by the testicals using piano wire, simply because you are a
gink...it would still be illegal to do so. Even after a nationwide
vote on subject. Which is why the US is fortunately..not a
democracy.

Obviously the USA has a right to allow its citizens to use weapons. The
question then becomes - do the democratic nations of Europe and elsewhere
have the right to restrict their ownership.

J/

SOTW: "The Whore's Hustle And The Hustler's Whore" - P.J. Harvey

http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/...eon_award.html



"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by
their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in
possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the
mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of
their insanity is that they actually believe this."
-- someone in misc.survivalism

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 18:56:37 +0200, Magda
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:21:46 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, Gunner
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :


... Likely they do. On the other hand..there are 180,000,000+ people that
... agree with me. And they are the ones with the guns. Think hard
... before demanding that the remainder (who do not own guns) try to
... remove the guns from those folks. EG

Now he is cleaning his loaded guns in his sleep. G*R*E*A*T.

Wanna come get them dirty, Strumpet?

Gunner

"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by
their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in
possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the
mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of
their insanity is that they actually believe this."
-- someone in misc.survivalism

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:33:04 +0100, "westprog"
wrote:


"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
.227.77...
...
So, where is this written British constitition kept

Your consitution is whatever the British press convinces the
majority that it is. Seems like a very foolish system.

Quite. A sensible system would appoint a few people for life and let them
decide what the constitution means.

In fact, whether the USA, Britain or Ireland have poor or good constitutions
should be judged entirely by how they operate in practice. It isn't an
academic exercise.

J/


Btw, can anyone give me a link to where the English Bill of Rights was
declared null and void?

Gunner

"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by
their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in
possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the
mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of
their insanity is that they actually believe this."
-- someone in misc.survivalism

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
27.77...

What are you talking about? Can't go to shops? ?

Yes, there are people enslaved by their families, by their husbands, by
gangs, by criminals - sometimes under the threat of violence, sometimes not.
They have rights under the constitution which they are unable to exercise.
They are less free than I am, even with my political restrictions.

J/

SOTW: "The Whore's Hustle And The Hustler's Whore" - P.J. Harvey

http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/...eon_award.html

Gunner wrote in message . ..
On 7 Jul 2004 01:03:25 -0700, (FreeIreland)
wrote:


The New England Journal of Medicine did a study showing that a gun
purchased to protect the household is thirty-seven times more likely
to be used against someone in the household than against an intruder.

ROFLMAO! The sad..sick and totally refuted Lautnberg
Study...ROFLMAO!!!!!

Now if you want to ask medical people about gun control..Id be happy
to provide advice on brain surgery.

As to the refutation...snicker

The report I was refering too was "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for
Homicide in the Home" by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H who is the
Director of the Center for Injury Control and Professor and Chairman
of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the Emory University School
of Medicine. He is known for his landmark research on the epidemiology
of firearm related injuries and deaths. Hes clearly more than
qualified as an expert in the field.

It is important to note that Kellermann's findings agree with many
other studies. For example, the FBI reports that in 1993, only 1.7
percent of all handgun murders were justifiable homicides.
Kellermann's team found that only 3.6 percent of the 420 homicides it
studied were justifiable. The FBI found 19.1 percent of all homicides
to be felony-related; Kellermann found 21.9 percent of those in the
home to be felony-related. In 1994, the FBI found that only 13 percent
of all murder victims were killed by strangers. Kellermann found that
3.6 percent of the domestic homicides were strangers and 17.4 percent
were never identified. The FBI found that 12 percent of all killers in
1994 were related to the victim; Kellermann found this figure to be
12.4 percent in domestic homicides.

Kellermann's research also confirms numerous studies like the one done
by Linda Saltzman, which found that assaults by family members or
intimate acquaintances are far more fatal when the weapon is a gun.
There are also many cohort and interrupted time-series studies that
demonstrate a strong link between gun availability and homicide rates
in the community. Kellermann's study has now confirmed this
correlation at the individual household level as well.

The NRA tried to refute this survey by listing several points. However
the reaction of Republicans and the NRA to this controversial study
was not to call for more studies to clarify the issue, but to censor
all further scientific research by stopping funding to the CDC. The
objection is based on a faulty view of the research method. The best
way to correct bad science is to subject it to expert criticism:
namely, peer review. They could call for pro-gun criminologists like
Gary Kleck to be included in all future peer review of CDC-funded
studies. Another principled response would be for the NRA -- one of
the richest organizations in America -- to start funding its own
research by way of rebuttal. But no instead they are trying to shut
down all further research which is both censorship and anti-science.

In 1995 a firearm was the weapon used in about 7 out of 10 murders in
the United States. In 1994, there were 39,720 firearm-related deaths
in the United States; 13,593 people were murdered with handguns;
20,540 committed suicide by using firearms; 1,610 people were killed
accidentally with firearms; and the remaining 3,977 died from other
firearm-related incidents including self-defense; justifiable use of
force by a law enforcement officer; and homicide using a firearm other
than a handgun.

More U.S. teens aged 15-19 die of gunshot wounds than of all natural
causes combined, and firearms are involved in 65% of all suicides
among persons under the age of 25.

An estimated 150,000 people are treated annually in U.S. hospital
emergency units for nonfatal gun-related injuries and approximately
80,000 require admission for in-patient care. Cost estimates range
from $1.4 billion to $4.0 billion annually in direct medical costs and
$19 billion annually in indirect costs, such as lost future earnings,
permanent disability, etc. An estimated 86% of gun shot victims
receiving medical treatment in hospital emergency units are uninsured
or insured by Medicaid, so tax payers bear most of the cost of their
medical care.

The F.B.I.'s stolen gun file contains over 2 million reports, 60% of
which are reports of stolen handguns, although handguns represent only
one third of all firearms privately owned in the U.S.

"only 1.7 percent of all handgun murders were justifiable homicides"
-FBI



Centers for Disease Control Finally Admits Conventional Wisdom is A
Crock

In a marvelous moment of candor, a federal Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) committee has reported that it cannot find any evidence that
gun-control laws reduce violent crime.

American gun owners spent most of the 1990s telling the CDC that gun
control is ineffective at best and harmful at worst. So it's
gratifying that the lesson is finally sinking in.

A task force convened by the CDC issued its report after two years of
reviewing 51 scientific studies of gun laws. The group considered only
research papers that met strict criteria for scientific soundness. The
CDC distances itself with a disclaimer, but it's pretty clear that it
supports the task force's conclusions. The report contains no
dissenting position or minority view from CDC managers.

Covered in the review were gun-ban laws, restrictions on acquiring a
gun, waiting periods for buying a gun, firearm-registration laws,
firearm-owner licensing laws, concealed-carry permit laws,
zero-tolerance laws, and various combinations of firearms laws. Most
Americans who haven't tried to buy a gun lately are blissfully unaware
of just how many laws there are. In Washington, D.C., for example,
it's impossible for a regular citizen to legally own a firearm
(although criminals seem to have no problem getting one). In other
cities, the legal hoops a gun buyer must jump through are almost as
much a barrier to ownership as an outright ban.

One would think that at least some good would come from all these
laws. Researchers should be able to prove that the laws prevent at
least a few murders, rapes and robberies. Amazingly, they can't. And
even more amazingly, they have admitted that they can't.

But, what about the violent crimes that gun-control laws have allowed
by preventing victims from defending themselves? This well-known
downside to gun-control laws keeps showing itself over and over again.
For example, during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, frantic Angelenos
rushed to gun stores to arm themselves against marauding thugs. Many
were outraged to discover California's 15-day waiting period for
buying a gun.

A woman stalked by a homicidal ex-husband is left completely
vulnerable by waiting-period laws.

A CDC task force reviewed 51 scientific studies of gun-control laws
and found no evidence the laws reduced violent crime.

These supposedly provide a "cooling-off " period for impulsive people
who would buy a gun and, in the heat of passion, commit a crime with
it. Such a patronizing law cruelly imperils a stalked woman, who
desperately needs the protection that only a firearm can give her.

And looking at Washington, D.C.'s reputation as the violent-crime
capital, how could we think that its gun ban was ever worth anything?
Does anyone really believe that justice is served by disarming good
citizens when violent criminals to obviously ignore the ban? Banning
gun ownership by good people is worse than useless. It perverts
justice by enabling violent felons while turning into outlaws people
who dare to own a gun for legitimate self-protection.

America has laws that ban handguns. We have laws that ban big,
expensive guns and other laws that ban small, cheap guns. We have laws
that condemn some guns as illegal simply on the basis of their
appearance. Other laws force average people to be fingerprinted to
carry a firearm for self-protection, even though years of experience
show such demeaning measures to be unnecessary.

The laws are so numerous and so dauntingly complex that in some cases
even law enforcement authorities can't figure out what they mean. Such
a confusing web of legal traps can easily ensnare an honest citizen.

In all, America has 20,000 laws that endanger, humiliate, criminalize
or otherwise burden good citizens who exercise their constitutional
right to own a gun. Now the CDC, a government agency not known for
friendliness to gun owners reports that it cannot find any evidence
that the laws are effective.

We should take warning from the closing comments of the CDC task
force's report. They are reminiscent of the agency's glory days of
gun-control advocacy. America is described as an "outlier" in
gun-crime rates among industrialized nations. The report insists
"research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as one
approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and
firearms injury." In other words, keep researching until we find the
conclusion we prefer: guns are bad and they should be banned.

Liberal reformers who would curb the freedom of others are obliged to
prove the efficacy of gun-control laws. They have failed to do so. Gun
owners have always known that gun control laws aimed at them instead
of criminals are futile and unjust. Now that everybody else is finally
getting it, perhaps it's time for a moratorium on new gun laws.

Dr. Timothy Wheeler is director of Doctors for Responsible Gun
Ownership, a project of the Claremont Institute.



"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by
their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in
possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the
mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of
their insanity is that they actually believe this."
-- someone in misc.survivalism

On 8 Jul 2004 00:49:56 -0700, (FreeIreland)
wrote:


The report I was refering too was "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for
Homicide in the Home" by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H who is the
Director of the Center for Injury Control and Professor and Chairman
of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the Emory University School
of Medicine. He is known for his landmark research on the epidemiology
of firearm related injuries and deaths. Hes clearly more than
qualified as an expert in the field.

Kellerman...ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.crimefree.co.za/Role-play...e/kellerma.htm
Dr A. Kellerman

There is probably no better example of junk-science that the studies
of Kellerman and co-authors. They are still widely quoted by Gun
Control despite having been soundly refuted many times.

The [Kellerman] study has been widely criticised for the following
reasons:

* The statement implies that the goal of gun ownership is a
body-count. Only 0.1% to 0.2% of the cases of defensive use involves
the death of a criminal. The truest measure of the effectiveness of
gun ownership is in the lives saved, property protected, and medical
costs reduced.

* The study group did not represent a true cross-section of the
American public. CDC studies have shown that the murder rate for
minorities is about 5 times that of whites. Despite this sad fact, 62%
of Kellerman's group was black, compared to the average 25% in the
areas the study was performed.

* Furthermore, the study group had a very high rate of social
dysfunction. 52.7% of the households had a member with an arrest
record, 31.3% had a history of drug abuse, and 31.8% had a household
member hurt in a family fight. This group can hardly be called
representative of the average household.

* It deceptively understates the protective uses of guns. Ignoring
data that shows at least 800,000 (and possibly as many as 2.5 million)
protective uses of guns each year, Kellerman chose to exclude any uses
outside the home from his study. In reality, as many as 75 lives are
saved for every one lost to a gun

Copyright © 2001 Crimefree South Africa, all rights reserved.

http://www.joepierre.com/Kellerman.htm
Arthur Kellerman "study" published in the New England Journal of
Medicine (NEJM) in 1992, which proclaimed that "a handgun in the home
is 43 times more likely to be used to kill the owner, a family member,
or a friend, than to kill an intruder."

Kellerman's study was completely disingenuous, and indicates--as does
his financing and publication by gun-control zealots James Mercy at
the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Jerome P. Kassirer, editor of
NEJM--that the intent of these so-called studies is to produce
pro-gun-control soundbites for Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc.,
rather than scientific knowledge. The CDC's anti-gun propaganda was so
flagrant and outrageous that the Congress threatened to cut off its
funding entirely.

***** Gunner's Note..see CDC report that also refutes Kellerman******
(http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/032559.htm)

The Kellerman pseudo-study was refuted by several well-qualified
sources, including sociology professor H. Taylor Buckner; Henry E.
Schaffner, Ph.D.; and J. Neil Schulman, in his book Stopping Power:
The Humanistic Case for Civilian Arms, Centurion Press, 1994. His
sampling methods, methodology, analysis of data and conclusions have
all been censured as unscientific.

But, perhaps most telling was the study by Professor Gary Kleck, head
of the criminology department at Florida State University, which was
summarized in his paper Guns and Violence: A Summary of the field
prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the American Political
Science Association, which was held at the Washington Hilton, August
29 through September 1, 1991.

Unlike Kellerman, Kleck's award-winning study has been peer-reviewed.

The paper (and his book Point Blank:Guns and Violence in America) are
replete with facts, stemming from an extensive telephone survey of
4,978 households in the 48 contiguous states, indicate that American
civilians use their firearms approximately 2.4 million times annually
defending themselves against criminals, in 1.9 million of those
incidents they use handguns. The figures exclude police, security
guards and the military.

Fifty out of 5,000 people responded that they had used handguns in an
actual confrontation against another human attempting a crime. In 47.2
percent of the cases, the criminal was armed. About one in six were
armed with a firearm, the rest with knives, clubs or some other
weapon. In 73.4 percent of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker
was a stranger to the intended victims. Defenses against a family
member or intimate were rare--well under 10 percent. This disproves
the Kellerman myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be
used against a family member or someone you love.

A quarter of the cases occurred away from the defender's home. In
about half the cases, there were multiple attackers.
"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by
their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in
possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the
mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of
their insanity is that they actually believe this."
-- someone in misc.survivalism