"Joe" wrote

I think the smart Democrats are excusing themselfs .....

There are NO smart Democrats. If there were, they'd knock off the anti-gun
retoric. Jeeze, even Carvel (sp?) knows that every time a Democrat says
"gun" he looses 1000 votes.

In article ,
Vito wrote:
"Joe" wrote

I think the smart Democrats are excusing themselfs .....

There are NO smart Democrats. If there were, they'd knock off the anti-gun
retoric. Jeeze, even Carvel (sp?) knows that every time a Democrat says
"gun" he looses 1000 votes.

I guess that accounts for Clinton being reelected.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On 16 Sep 2004 10:41:41 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote:

In article ,
Vito wrote:
"Joe" wrote

I think the smart Democrats are excusing themselfs .....

There are NO smart Democrats. If there were, they'd knock off the anti-gun
retoric. Jeeze, even Carvel (sp?) knows that every time a Democrat says
"gun" he looses 1000 votes.

I guess that accounts for Clinton being reelected.

I have to wonder about the gun issue. I think this is just an issue
that might "mobilize the base", but doesn't move any voters. I doubt
there are many hard core gun folks who don't vote republican, just
like there aren't any hard core anti-abortion folks who would consider
crossing the line and voting democratic.

Given that the majority of Americans supported the ban, it seems more
likely that this sort of issue would help democrats, but "gun nuts",
or whatever term you prefer, are often single issue voters, while
"anti-gun nuts" typically are not single issue voters.

Get ready. The republicans are supposed to trot out the tired old
"flag burning" bill before the election, which is becoming an election
year tradition, to further stir up the "patriots". I think I'll break
my radio until New Year, as I can't stand Christmas music, either

"felton" wrote
I have to wonder about the gun issue.

It isn't really a gun issue, it is a religious issue. Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago. Criminals were fined, whipped and tortured,
subjected to public embarassment, or executed. But these punishments
horrified certain religious sects who believe only God should punish sinners
and they began lobbying to instead lock dangerous offenders away in
'penetentiaries', there to do penence and reflect on their sins. Our current
prison system is the result - and thanks to this system criminals no longer
fear the law as much as they do their victims. A young gang banger who
shares a flat with 6 brothers and sisters isn't afraid of doing a few months
in his own cell with his own TV and access to a gym - and that only after 3
or 4 convictions. He's a lot more concerned about some home owner shooting
him while he's burgling their house - and so are the religious kooks.
They're working overtime to make self defense a crime! They don't mind
hunting or target shooting, they just want to protect criminals so they
argue against "guns with no sporting purpose" - the kinds of guns intended
for self defense. These ivory tower clerics divert $millions intended for
church maintenance, missions, and charity to specialists like Sara Brady who
in turn spread lies and half truths that convince the ignorant that guns
cause crime.

Vito wrote:
.... Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago.

Your historical knowledge is amazing.

I guess that's why all those old castles had dungeons, eh? So as to have
a place to not put people?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Vito wrote:
.... Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago.

Your historical knowledge is amazing.

I guess that's why all those old castles had dungeons, eh? So as to have
a place to not put people?

DSK


You're right Doug. I should have said that common criminals didn't go to
prison. Just heretics and political prisoners. I thot that'd be implicit in
the rest of my statement, but obviously not.

Vito wrote:
You're right Doug.

Well, thanks. I try.

.... I should have said that common criminals didn't go to
prison. Just heretics and political prisoners. I thot that'd be implicit in
the rest of my statement, but obviously not.

Well, that's still not quite right. "Common criminals" still went to
prison fairly often. Remember that courts were often controlled by the
local aristocracy, but a close reading of actual history shows that
their justice was recognizably similar to ours. Usually, prison was a
holding area for people condemned to be executed, or people who had been
convicted & fined and were trying to extort the fine money from their
relatives. But it was not uncommon for people to simply locked up for
long periods of time. For example, check out the history of the Tower of
London (punch "Tower London" into Google, find your own links, you don't
seem to like mine).

You also dismiss other common punishments, such as being put in the
stock. This meant being handcuffed to a bench in the public square for a
defined period... usually 3 days or less. This was a more horrible
punishment than it sounds, in fact it was often fatal. Need I explain
why? I don't want to go into it right before lunch.

DSK

DSK wrote:

Vito wrote:

.... Nobody went to prison
a couple centuries ago.


Your historical knowledge is amazing.

I guess that's why all those old castles had dungeons, eh? So as to have
a place to not put people?


Jeeze Doug, and you pride yourself on your historical knowledge, everybody knows they were for apple storage, the locked
doors were to keep the local urchins from making of with them (and thus have to be put to death for stealing). ;-)

Cheers
Marty