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

....but you started this sub-argument off questioning there was no
relevant comparison betwixt sex/STD's and firearms; I showed there was
significant comparison regarding public safety; which indeed is the
pretext for all anti-gun arguments... I didn't bring 'sex' into this
argument anyway; some 'anti' did and I responded...

"The Reids" wrote in message
...
Of course people have human rights, but to what extend freedoms
like sexual preference are in place depends in practice on the
actions of the electorate in chosing politicians who legislate on
these things.

As to my programming; I was taught to respect firearms as potentially
dangerous objects should be respected... not to irrationally run away
from and eschew them any more than automobiles and axes...

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract
STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls...

We were talking about STDs transmitted by sex, if you recall. In fact
I
think it was you who first introduced (at least into this sub-thread)
the
comparison between banning guns and banning buggery.

I agree that other methods of infection raise other issues.

In any case, as I said, I don't think just stating...

more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls

...particularly advances the argument. Extending that logic, if there
is a
medical condition X which kills more people than any other single
medical
condition (and logically there must be), we should direct all
research,
public health activity and so on toward X and ignore the rest!

It appears that even when you
try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
programmed anti-gun bias

I haven't expressed any sentiments that I would characterise as
anti-gun and I don't consider myself anti-gun; in fact I think the
British
regulations are unnecessarily draconian and a good example of reflex
law-making.

However, I don't get very worked up about them, partly because I have
no
personal interest in guns (my hand-eye coordination is poor and the
few
times I tried target shooting at school I was laughably incompetent);
also
because although gun ownership is a restricted liberty here, I don't
think
it's the most important, or even one of the most important liberties.

However, if you think that any opinion on the matter slightly less
enthusiastically pro-gun than yours is evidence of "programmed
anti-gun
bias", maybe you should ponder whether there might not be some bias on
your side too?

....but you started this sub-argument off questioning there was no
relevant comparison betwixt sex/STD's and firearms; I showed there was
significant comparison regarding public safety; which indeed is the
pretext for all anti-gun arguments... I didn't bring 'sex' into this
argument anyway; some 'anti' did and I responded...

"The Reids" wrote in message
...
Of course people have human rights, but to what extend freedoms
like sexual preference are in place depends in practice on the
actions of the electorate in chosing politicians who legislate on
these things.

As to my programming; I was taught to respect firearms as potentially
dangerous objects should be respected... not to irrationally run away
from and eschew them any more than automobiles and axes...

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract
STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls...

We were talking about STDs transmitted by sex, if you recall. In fact
I
think it was you who first introduced (at least into this sub-thread)
the
comparison between banning guns and banning buggery.

I agree that other methods of infection raise other issues.

In any case, as I said, I don't think just stating...

more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls

...particularly advances the argument. Extending that logic, if there
is a
medical condition X which kills more people than any other single
medical
condition (and logically there must be), we should direct all
research,
public health activity and so on toward X and ignore the rest!

It appears that even when you
try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
programmed anti-gun bias

I haven't expressed any sentiments that I would characterise as
anti-gun and I don't consider myself anti-gun; in fact I think the
British
regulations are unnecessarily draconian and a good example of reflex
law-making.

However, I don't get very worked up about them, partly because I have
no
personal interest in guns (my hand-eye coordination is poor and the
few
times I tried target shooting at school I was laughably incompetent);
also
because although gun ownership is a restricted liberty here, I don't
think
it's the most important, or even one of the most important liberties.

However, if you think that any opinion on the matter slightly less
enthusiastically pro-gun than yours is evidence of "programmed
anti-gun
bias", maybe you should ponder whether there might not be some bias on
your side too?

....but you started this sub-argument off questioning there was no
relevant comparison betwixt sex/STD's and firearms; I showed there was
significant comparison regarding public safety; which indeed is the
pretext for all anti-gun arguments... I didn't bring 'sex' into this
argument anyway; some 'anti' did and I responded...

"The Reids" wrote in message
...
Of course people have human rights, but to what extend freedoms
like sexual preference are in place depends in practice on the
actions of the electorate in chosing politicians who legislate on
these things.

As to my programming; I was taught to respect firearms as potentially
dangerous objects should be respected... not to irrationally run away
from and eschew them any more than automobiles and axes...

Tim K

wrote in message
...
In article et,
(Tim Kroesen) wrote:

That's just not true Barney; more babies are born with or contract
STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls...

We were talking about STDs transmitted by sex, if you recall. In fact
I
think it was you who first introduced (at least into this sub-thread)
the
comparison between banning guns and banning buggery.

I agree that other methods of infection raise other issues.

In any case, as I said, I don't think just stating...

more babies are born with or contract STD's
at birth than are shot by random bullets coming through windows and
walls

...particularly advances the argument. Extending that logic, if there
is a
medical condition X which kills more people than any other single
medical
condition (and logically there must be), we should direct all
research,
public health activity and so on toward X and ignore the rest!

It appears that even when you
try to reason the issues out you are still projecting an unfair
programmed anti-gun bias

I haven't expressed any sentiments that I would characterise as
anti-gun and I don't consider myself anti-gun; in fact I think the
British
regulations are unnecessarily draconian and a good example of reflex
law-making.

However, I don't get very worked up about them, partly because I have
no
personal interest in guns (my hand-eye coordination is poor and the
few
times I tried target shooting at school I was laughably incompetent);
also
because although gun ownership is a restricted liberty here, I don't
think
it's the most important, or even one of the most important liberties.

However, if you think that any opinion on the matter slightly less
enthusiastically pro-gun than yours is evidence of "programmed
anti-gun
bias", maybe you should ponder whether there might not be some bias on
your side too?

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

Stuart Grey wrote in
. 199.17:

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

Louis Boyd wrote in
news:ce9hjr$mi1$1 @oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:

gruhn wrote:
So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.


Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
"because it scares me"?


If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few
miltary style weapons you sure as hell can't trust a
politician who you and your neighbor helped elect to
command several hundred thousand men equiped with those
same weapons!


So what you are saying is you think the
Columbine murderers should have had real hand
grenades instead of the homemade ones that
fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked
to see that, eh?

Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy
tobacco. Kids can't buy firearms.


"What we know so far: the eighteen year old girlfriend
of one of the Columbine High School killers bought some
of the guns they used at a gun show nearby. Another gun
was purchased by a co-worker. The murder weapons were all
legally purchased in the immediate area."
www.spectacle.org/599/columb.html

And contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime, and
the people that armed them should be charged with accessory if
they didn’t provide adult supervision.

Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what
the pussy liberals have done to the educational system.
The left wing is using the schools to indoctrinate
children into the idea that they have no right to self
defense, and that their only recourse to grievances is to
appeal to government authorities. But since the assholes
in the school never did a damn thing to stop the practice
of harassment, two kids went fruitcake on them.



"Our school systems teach the children they are nothing
but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some
primordial soup of mud,"

I disagree. Most of them are not glorified apes, but rather
apes with the power of speech who have been trained to wear
clothes, after a fashion. There are very few true humans.

GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay, blaming the Columbine High
School shootings on the teaching of evolution, 8/99

I disagree. See above for why what happened, happened.

I can remember when schools had rifle teams, rifle ranges, and
real live bullets. I know of one school that had 20 .22 cal
target rifles, and 5 M1903/A3-03 with thousands of rounds of
ammunition. No one got shot.

In Texas, if you only had a Bowie Knife in your school locker,
you were considered lightly armed.

What’s different? See my comments above.
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

Stuart Grey wrote in
. 199.17:

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

Louis Boyd wrote in
news:ce9hjr$mi1$1 @oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:

gruhn wrote:
So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.


Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
"because it scares me"?


If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few
miltary style weapons you sure as hell can't trust a
politician who you and your neighbor helped elect to
command several hundred thousand men equiped with those
same weapons!


So what you are saying is you think the
Columbine murderers should have had real hand
grenades instead of the homemade ones that
fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked
to see that, eh?

Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy
tobacco. Kids can't buy firearms.


"What we know so far: the eighteen year old girlfriend
of one of the Columbine High School killers bought some
of the guns they used at a gun show nearby. Another gun
was purchased by a co-worker. The murder weapons were all
legally purchased in the immediate area."
www.spectacle.org/599/columb.html

And contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime, and
the people that armed them should be charged with accessory if
they didn’t provide adult supervision.

Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what
the pussy liberals have done to the educational system.
The left wing is using the schools to indoctrinate
children into the idea that they have no right to self
defense, and that their only recourse to grievances is to
appeal to government authorities. But since the assholes
in the school never did a damn thing to stop the practice
of harassment, two kids went fruitcake on them.



"Our school systems teach the children they are nothing
but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some
primordial soup of mud,"

I disagree. Most of them are not glorified apes, but rather
apes with the power of speech who have been trained to wear
clothes, after a fashion. There are very few true humans.

GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay, blaming the Columbine High
School shootings on the teaching of evolution, 8/99

I disagree. See above for why what happened, happened.

I can remember when schools had rifle teams, rifle ranges, and
real live bullets. I know of one school that had 20 .22 cal
target rifles, and 5 M1903/A3-03 with thousands of rounds of
ammunition. No one got shot.

In Texas, if you only had a Bowie Knife in your school locker,
you were considered lightly armed.

What’s different? See my comments above.
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

Stuart Grey wrote in
. 199.17:

Mitchell Holman wrote in
:

Louis Boyd wrote in
news:ce9hjr$mi1$1 @oasis.ccit.arizona.edu:

gruhn wrote:
So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.


Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
"because it scares me"?


If you can't trust yourself or your neighbor with a few
miltary style weapons you sure as hell can't trust a
politician who you and your neighbor helped elect to
command several hundred thousand men equiped with those
same weapons!


So what you are saying is you think the
Columbine murderers should have had real hand
grenades instead of the homemade ones that
fizzled. Boy, you really would have liked
to see that, eh?

Kids can't vote. Kids can't buy booze. Kids can't buy
tobacco. Kids can't buy firearms.


"What we know so far: the eighteen year old girlfriend
of one of the Columbine High School killers bought some
of the guns they used at a gun show nearby. Another gun
was purchased by a co-worker. The murder weapons were all
legally purchased in the immediate area."
www.spectacle.org/599/columb.html

And contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime, and
the people that armed them should be charged with accessory if
they didn’t provide adult supervision.

Further, what happened at Columbine was a result of what
the pussy liberals have done to the educational system.
The left wing is using the schools to indoctrinate
children into the idea that they have no right to self
defense, and that their only recourse to grievances is to
appeal to government authorities. But since the assholes
in the school never did a damn thing to stop the practice
of harassment, two kids went fruitcake on them.



"Our school systems teach the children they are nothing
but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some
primordial soup of mud,"

I disagree. Most of them are not glorified apes, but rather
apes with the power of speech who have been trained to wear
clothes, after a fashion. There are very few true humans.

GOP Majority Whip Tom DeLay, blaming the Columbine High
School shootings on the teaching of evolution, 8/99

I disagree. See above for why what happened, happened.

I can remember when schools had rifle teams, rifle ranges, and
real live bullets. I know of one school that had 20 .22 cal
target rifles, and 5 M1903/A3-03 with thousands of rounds of
ammunition. No one got shot.

In Texas, if you only had a Bowie Knife in your school locker,
you were considered lightly armed.

What’s different? See my comments above.
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Jeff McCann" wrote in

:


"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 199.17...
"John P. Mullen" wrote in
:

gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution?
Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
"because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to
see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most
people can manage a few small arms, only a few can
safeguard a tank.

Is that so different than safeguarding a car?

IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should
put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This
is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the
theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal
them".

Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing
Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't
prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them,
because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and
abuse.

What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one
similar to this issue, and that's marijuana.

If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on
crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for
manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or
exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more
prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are
breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state
judges have been stripped of their duty to render
individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign
governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US.

How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't
soft on crime?

The latter reminds me: Kerry regularly gets bashed by the
Right's spin doctors for opposing the death penalty for
terrorists. The fools either ignore or don't understand
the fact that a potential death penalty will prevent many
foreign governments from extraditing terror suspects or
even cooperating in investigations with the U.S. Such
legislation is either cynical pandering to popular
sentiment or, worse, sheer stupidity.

So, we can't kill terrorist because the foreign governments
who harbor the terrorist who kill us, won't help us to kill
terrorist or do anything to stop them if we do?

An interesting argument. However, no terrorist group ever
committed a terrorist act to get back a dead terrorist. They
do it to get back live imprisoned terrorist. That alone
justifies the death penalty for terrorist. How many innocent
lives is Kerry willing to sacrifice to keep his terrorist
buddies alive at tax payer expense?

If you liberals didn't turn the entire free world into a
prison, this wouldn't be a problem.

How, exactly, are liberals doing that?

By letting the criminals out of jail early, trying to give
them the vote, calling the lack of ice cream or Nike shoes in
prison "cruel and unusual punishment", demanding that racial
quotas be levied on the prison population, by dragging people
who defend their homes against invaders into court and making
them spend their life savings in legal costs, by giving rights
that don’t exist to criminals and denying the rights of the
honest man; and other such acts.

What we need are more dead
criminals, not fewer firearms.

Criminals need to be made afraid, very afraid, of
victimizing innocent people, to the degree that they are
glad when the cops show up to arrest them, thereby sparing
them from the righteous wrath of the locals.

During the Night stalker murder spree, there was a dramatic
rise in the number of firearms owned by private citizens.
People who were afraid of getting their eyes scooped out with
a spoon were armed and ready to blast any home invader to
hell.

During this time, residential burglaries dropped dramatically
because burglars feared for their lives.
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Jeff McCann" wrote in

:


"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 199.17...
"John P. Mullen" wrote in
:

gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution?
Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
"because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to
see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most
people can manage a few small arms, only a few can
safeguard a tank.

Is that so different than safeguarding a car?

IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should
put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This
is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the
theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal
them".

Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing
Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't
prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them,
because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and
abuse.

What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one
similar to this issue, and that's marijuana.

If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on
crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for
manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or
exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more
prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are
breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state
judges have been stripped of their duty to render
individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign
governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US.

How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't
soft on crime?

The latter reminds me: Kerry regularly gets bashed by the
Right's spin doctors for opposing the death penalty for
terrorists. The fools either ignore or don't understand
the fact that a potential death penalty will prevent many
foreign governments from extraditing terror suspects or
even cooperating in investigations with the U.S. Such
legislation is either cynical pandering to popular
sentiment or, worse, sheer stupidity.

So, we can't kill terrorist because the foreign governments
who harbor the terrorist who kill us, won't help us to kill
terrorist or do anything to stop them if we do?

An interesting argument. However, no terrorist group ever
committed a terrorist act to get back a dead terrorist. They
do it to get back live imprisoned terrorist. That alone
justifies the death penalty for terrorist. How many innocent
lives is Kerry willing to sacrifice to keep his terrorist
buddies alive at tax payer expense?

If you liberals didn't turn the entire free world into a
prison, this wouldn't be a problem.

How, exactly, are liberals doing that?

By letting the criminals out of jail early, trying to give
them the vote, calling the lack of ice cream or Nike shoes in
prison "cruel and unusual punishment", demanding that racial
quotas be levied on the prison population, by dragging people
who defend their homes against invaders into court and making
them spend their life savings in legal costs, by giving rights
that don’t exist to criminals and denying the rights of the
honest man; and other such acts.

What we need are more dead
criminals, not fewer firearms.

Criminals need to be made afraid, very afraid, of
victimizing innocent people, to the degree that they are
glad when the cops show up to arrest them, thereby sparing
them from the righteous wrath of the locals.

During the Night stalker murder spree, there was a dramatic
rise in the number of firearms owned by private citizens.
People who were afraid of getting their eyes scooped out with
a spoon were armed and ready to blast any home invader to
hell.

During this time, residential burglaries dropped dramatically
because burglars feared for their lives.
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Jeff McCann" wrote in

:


"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 199.17...
"John P. Mullen" wrote in
:

gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution?
Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
"because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to
see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most
people can manage a few small arms, only a few can
safeguard a tank.

Is that so different than safeguarding a car?

IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should
put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This
is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the
theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal
them".

Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing
Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't
prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them,
because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and
abuse.

What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one
similar to this issue, and that's marijuana.

If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on
crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for
manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or
exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more
prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are
breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state
judges have been stripped of their duty to render
individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign
governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US.

How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't
soft on crime?

The latter reminds me: Kerry regularly gets bashed by the
Right's spin doctors for opposing the death penalty for
terrorists. The fools either ignore or don't understand
the fact that a potential death penalty will prevent many
foreign governments from extraditing terror suspects or
even cooperating in investigations with the U.S. Such
legislation is either cynical pandering to popular
sentiment or, worse, sheer stupidity.

So, we can't kill terrorist because the foreign governments
who harbor the terrorist who kill us, won't help us to kill
terrorist or do anything to stop them if we do?

An interesting argument. However, no terrorist group ever
committed a terrorist act to get back a dead terrorist. They
do it to get back live imprisoned terrorist. That alone
justifies the death penalty for terrorist. How many innocent
lives is Kerry willing to sacrifice to keep his terrorist
buddies alive at tax payer expense?

If you liberals didn't turn the entire free world into a
prison, this wouldn't be a problem.

How, exactly, are liberals doing that?

By letting the criminals out of jail early, trying to give
them the vote, calling the lack of ice cream or Nike shoes in
prison "cruel and unusual punishment", demanding that racial
quotas be levied on the prison population, by dragging people
who defend their homes against invaders into court and making
them spend their life savings in legal costs, by giving rights
that don’t exist to criminals and denying the rights of the
honest man; and other such acts.

What we need are more dead
criminals, not fewer firearms.

Criminals need to be made afraid, very afraid, of
victimizing innocent people, to the degree that they are
glad when the cops show up to arrest them, thereby sparing
them from the righteous wrath of the locals.

During the Night stalker murder spree, there was a dramatic
rise in the number of firearms owned by private citizens.
People who were afraid of getting their eyes scooped out with
a spoon were armed and ready to blast any home invader to
hell.

During this time, residential burglaries dropped dramatically
because burglars feared for their lives.
--multiplaza.nl.nu--

"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 204.17...
"Jeff McCann" wrote in

:


"Stuart Grey" wrote in message
. 199.17...
"John P. Mullen" wrote in
:

gruhn wrote:

So you think you have a constitutional right to
own everything in the US military arsenal? Amazing.

You think there is some limit imposed by the Constitution?
Amazing.

Why is this amazing? People think all sorts of things.
Can you give an answer that doesn't boil down to
"because it scares me"?

Because with owning a weapon comes the responsibility to
see it doesn't fall into the wring hands. While most
people can manage a few small arms, only a few can
safeguard a tank.

Is that so different than safeguarding a car?

IF the left wing is so concerned about that, they should
put theives in jail for a long time. But they don't. This
is a red herring. "You can't own weapons, because the
theives and criminals we keep letting lose might steal
them".

Its exactly the same argument used by our Right Wing
Authoritarian "Drug Warriors" who claim that doctors can't
prescribe certain drugs for patients in need of them,
because they might be diverted into illegal commerce and
abuse.

What drug or drugs are you talking about? I know only one
similar to this issue, and that's marijuana.

Heroin leaps to mind. It is more effective with fewer side effects
than
MS. Furthermore, we know that pain is one of medicine's most
undertreated syndromes, and this is in large part due to the
tremendous
hassles MDs face from the DEA and law enforcement over prescription
analgesia and other Rxs with high abuse potential.

If you think the left wing has made America "soft" on
crime, you are mistaken. Crime rates are down (for
manifold reasons), incarceration rates in the US rival or
exceed those of the worst dictatorial regimes, we kill more
prisoners than just about anybody, the cost of prisons are
breaking the backs of state governments, federal and state
judges have been stripped of their duty to render
individual justice by sentencing laws, and foreign
governments are leery of extraditing prisoners to the US.

How do the facts you state explain that the left wing isn't
soft on crime?

Read for comprehension. I wrote " . . . made America "soft" on crime