A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where
enforcement of the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on
ANYONE'S civil rights.

http://communication.ucsd.edu/911/shenon.philip.html

Nice try, but the malfeasances (which is to say illegal acts) by agents of
the government are, well, illegal, and are not authorized by any law,
including the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act does not authorize such
illegalities, and so any such illegal acts are not legitimate enforcement of
the law.

Any government worker can abuse the civil rights of a citizen, but that does
not mean that the law sanctions that abuse or authorizes the employee to
engage in such abuse, it merely means that the government employee has
exceeded his authority and violated the law. Such illegal acts are not
authorized or sanctioned by the law, and the Patriot Act offers no
protection to government agents who do such things.

The story you cite makes it perfectly clear that the government takes very
seriously reports of ILLEGAL acts by government agents, and that it is
investigating them and will likely prosecute and/or sanction those
off-the-reservation employees appropriately.

So, once again, I defy you to cite a single incident where enforcement of
the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on anyone's civil rights.

Better luck next time...
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

Funny, I haven't noticed any substantial impairment to my freedoms.

That's because you are not particularly intelligent or perceptive.

Pot, kettle, black

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using
their guns as a necessary evil.

Ah, I see. Thanks for being more explicit. I would agree with you in that
it
is always lamentable that one is forced into the position of having to
harm
another person for any reason, even in self defense.

I wouldn't water down my own sentiments to quite that degree, but your
manner of response is appreciated.

See, I told you so...


That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts criminals
at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so many
of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why violent
crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal.

Moreover, in more than 60 percent of cases where firearms are used by
law-abiding citizens for self defense, no shots are ever fired, and the
mere
presence of the gun in the hands of a potential victim is enough to thwart
the crime.

Or back to reality,

Sorry, but that is reality. It's your utopian illusion that's unreal.

the criminal realizes he needs to shoot everyone and
deaths occur where they needed to be one.

I"m not quite sure what you're saying, but if I have it correct, you are
claiming that unarmed victims are less likely to be killed or injured by an
armed predator than armed victims are. I'd like to see some statistical
evidence to support this conclusion.

Trusting to the altruism of a violent armed criminal is stupid. Killers kill
because they don't want to be identified, if they kill at all and aren't
merely using the weapon as a threat. Whether you have a gun or not is not
likely to affect the actions a killer intent on eliminating witnesses,
unless, of course, you do, and you use it to kill the criminal and save
everyone's lives.

Or the vigilante mentality of a wanne-be like yourself results in the death
of innocent parties.

Can you cite even one such instance?

I can cite a number of instances where many people died at the hands of a
deranged killer BECAUSE nobody but the killer had a gun. I can also cite a
number of instances where many people were saved because some citizen DID
have a gun, and was willing to use it.

One excellent example is that of Dr. Suzzane Hupp, now a state
representative in Texas. She and her parents went to the Luby's cafeteria in
Killeen, Texas for lunch. Dr. Hupp had a CCW permit, and usually carried a
gun. However, Texas law forbade the carrying of guns in places that served
alcohol, and the Luby's cafeteria sold beer. So, Dr. Hupp, obedient to the
law, left her handgun in her truck.

Shortly after they sat down, a deranged killer drove his pickup through the
wall of the cafeteria, got out and began methodically executing patrons.

Dr. Hupp and several others were able to escape, but her father had been
injured and his wife would not leave him. Dr. Hupp watched as the killer
calmly shot both her parents in the head. She testified that before she
escaped, she had several opportunities to shoot the killer in the back, from
close range, had she only had a gun. But she obeyed the law, and her
parents, and 21 other innocent citizens were brutally executed because
NOBODY BUT THE KILLER HAD A GUN.

Now, do you still think that the risk of "collateral damage" by an armed
citizen trying to prevent the murders of 23 people outweighs those 23 lives?


This is just as true with police officers. That's why they rarely hesitate
to draw their guns and *threaten* the use of deadly force when
encountering
a criminal suspect who may be armed. The threat of the use of deadly force
is, of course, a lesser application of physical force than even laying
hands
on a suspect or hitting him with a baton. I doubt you'll find many
officers
who lament that kind of use of their guns. I do see your point as it
applies
to actually having to shoot someone. That is a tough thing for anyone,
civilian or police officer.

Still, when placed between that rock and hard place, one has to weigh the
relief the potential victim feels at not being harmed against the
self-generated consequences to the violent criminal who underestimated his
victim.

On balance, the good of protecting and preserving innocent life far
outweighs the ill of doing to a criminal what the criminal himself
required
to be done to him through his actions.

Protecting and preserving innocent life is not accomplished by everyone
carrying a gun.

It's certainly enhanced by a large number of people doing exactly that.

That's the end of civilization, not a sign of progress.

No, the end of civilization is when law-abiding citizens give up their means
of protecting themselves against criminal predators and must suffer,
sheep-like, the predation of the evil men of the world.

Standing up and fighting criminals toe-to-toe is the very essence of
civilization. You fight them and you fight them until they are all dead or
run away, and then you have peace. But, you must remain armed and ever
vigilant to prevent their return.

"The only thing that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men
do nothing." Edmund Burke

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
============
That's one of the most beneficial effects of legal CCW...it puts
criminals
at serious risk of death or serious bodily harm, and they know it, so
many
of them choose a different line of work as a result, which is why
violent
crime rates drop so drastically where CCW is legal.
=============

If I may suggest an analogy: Iran and North Korea should see to it that
they acquire a nuclear arsenal ASAP so as to "threaten" any nation
which might wish to impine on their sovereignty.

Indeed. That's exactly what they are doing.

But, it would be
foolish to stop there. Clearly we need nuclear proliferation, with ALL
nations developing adequate firepower to blow any intruder into another
world.

Of course! Why didn't we think of this before. Since arming every Tom,
Dick, and Harry will seriously reduce crime, according to the Weiser
Theory of Law Enforcement, it stands to reason that arming every nation
to the max will reduce the number of wars we have to worry about.

Scott, remind me one more time why we care if North Korea has nukes?

You engage in the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a substantial
difference between an armed citizenry and nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons have no mind and no conscience, can be controlled by one
person, and once released, can kill millions in an instant.

An armed citizenry has millions of independent minds, both an individual and
a group conscience, are under individual control and one bullet can only
kill one person.

Your analogy fails.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
=================
Sorry, but you don't get off the hook by claiming hyperbole at this
juncture. Your clear claim, in context, was that one could buy a
"wicked
assault weapon" at the corner convenience store with no more scrutiny
or
difficulty than that of buying a pack of gum. That's a lie. You did not
qualify your statement by saying that it was your opinion that guns are
too
easy to acquire at the time. Now that you've been caught, you're trying
to
backpedal.

You could just admit that you were wrong.
================

In this context, there is nothing wrong with stating that a particular
comment, made earlier, was hyperbole. Why can you not accept that.

Because that would be letting him off the hook, which I don't intend to do
until he admits that he was wrong. All he has to do is admit that buying an
"assault weapon" in the US is not as easily accomplished as buying a pack of
gum.

Could it be because, when you make such statements, you don't have the
jam to just say "hey, it was a figure of speech" or "I exaggerated to
make a point" or "It was poetic licence". No, you just keep defending
your dumb-assed statements.

He's free to call me on it if I do. I'm free to defend my statements to my
heart's content. It's called a debate. So far, his claims have fallen apart
while mine have held up.

I think everyone following this thread
understood perfectly well what KMAN intended with his statement. Sure,
it was a mild case of hyperbole, but he got his point across. Why don't
you deal with the larger issue instead of nit-picking.

Because one good nit-pick deserves another. He's the one who started the
nit-picking, I'm just following his lead. Any time he wishes to engage in
reasoned, dispassionate debate, I'm happy to oblige. But since he's just
being a Netwit, I'm going to pick at his arguments like a crow on a corpse
until there's nothing left of him.

And I disagree that he "got his point across." His point was fallacious to
begin with, which is exactly why I challenged him.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
=============
The hilarious thing is that you really think that just because you have
anti-gun laws you're "safe" from guns. But, I'm in agreement with you
that
it's a good thing you're a Canadian.
================

The hilarious thing is we ARE safer from guns.

"Safer" /= "safe."


And I'm in agreement that it's a good thing you're not a Canadian. We
try to keep gun-toting terrorists out, so they can't slip into the
USA.... Whoops, you got in....

Actually, I was born here. I've been to Canada too. Be afraid, be very
afraid...
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
===========
Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully
picks
it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
rights or religious freedom.
=================

Hmmmm.... so supporting people's freedom not to be confronted by
religious symbols in public buildings does not, in your eyes,
constitute fighting for religious freedom? If not, then what is it?

The First Amendment protects the "free exercise of religion," not "freedom
from religion." What this means is that the Constitution prohibits the
government from favoring one religion over another in its public acts, and
it forbids the government from SUPPRESSING the free exercise of religion by
any individual or group. This happens to include the exercise of religion on
public property, within certain limits. Thus, the government may not forbid
a Christian rally on the courthouse lawn, nor may it say only a Christian
rally on the courthouse lawn is permitted. It may forbid a Christian rally
*inside* the courthouse, however.

As to religious symbols on public buildings, it depends on the context of
the symbol and the potential effect that the symbol might have on either the
acts of government officials towards people who do not subscribe to that
religious belief, and to some degree how such a symbol would impair a
non-believer's trust in the government's religious neutrality.

The SCOTUS is now considering the Ten Commandments plaque issue. I believe
they will come down with a ruling that says that while a religious symbol
may be placed on public property, generally, whether it is allowed depends
on the nature of the property involved. Thus, where a Ten Commandments
plaque might be allowable as a part of a public display of historical
documents in the context of a neutral public forum like a park or museum,
such a display in a courthouse or government office would be disallowed
because of the potential for harm to the civil rights of non-believers
engaged in conducting public business.

The demarcation line would seem to me to be wherever someone engaged in
business with the government will be unlikely to avoid exposure to a
religious message in, on, or around public buildings where public business
is conducted, such as courthouses, city halls, and other such venues. Where
the venue is a public one, but there is no business with the government
being transacted, such as a public park, it is unlikely that a reasonable
person would view such a display as some sort of government mandate or
policy, and thus it should be allowed according to the will of the people. I
think I'd suggest that a vote be required before any religious displays are
permitted on public property, however, so that the display can be
justifiably within the public will.

As for the ACLU, for example, the ACLU does not defend Christian students
who wish to form religious clubs and use school property for their meetings,
despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that they have a First
Amendment right to do so.

As I said, the ACLU carefully picks its agenda, and it's universally and
without exception a far-left, socialist, secular, anti-religious agenda.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/10/05 8:18 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:56 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or
effect
other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't
prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the
location
of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and
where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential
benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a
stolen
gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more
efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun
stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and
description is entered in the national stolen property database.

It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only
to facilitate the return of stolen guns.

It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list.
What
more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!?

I'd like for there to be some legitimate reason to collect and retain the
data beyond providing a tool for confiscation that this list could actually
accomplish. What do you see its purpose as? How does it enhance gun safety?
How does it prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns? What,
precisely, is its purpose?

It's exactly like a car registry.

It tells you who the rightful owner is.

So what? Why do you need to know who the "rightful owner" of a gun is?


As with being able to match a car to who the rightful owner is, this
information can be useful for any number of purposes ranging from returning
one that is stolen to the owner, to finding a starting point for
investigating a crime.

What other purposes? As for "starting point for investigating a crime,"
since the vast majority of crimes involving firearms involve firearms that
have been stolen and are being used by criminals, knowing who the firearm
belonged to before it was stolen can be accomplished through the stolen
property registries without having to register every firearm on the off
chance that it will be stolen.

As I said, the reason for car registration is not identification as much as
taxation. The license plate that comes with the registration is used for
traffic enforcement and is intended to allow identification of the car from
a distance, by a witness or police officer, in order to facilitate
apprehending a violator.

Unless you are proposing that every firearm be supplied with a 6"x10" number
plate so that convenience store clerks can identify the owner of the gun
from a distance, there is no congruence between the motor vehicle registry
and a gun registry.

Again, the actual purpose of gun registries is to give the government
information on who owns what guns and where they are. The only reason the
government needs to know this information about *every* gun is to facilitate
confiscation. There is no other legitimate purpose that cannot be better
served by only "registering" guns reported stolen.

Goofy gun nut paranoia.

It is for the same purposes as a car is registered.

It makes it possible to match a gun with the rightful owner.

If the firearm is stolen and used in a crime, it should be obvious to an
ex-cop like yourself that knowing where the firearm came from is important.
If the police suspect the person living at 22 Scotty Lane and the gun used
in the crime comes from 24 Scotty Lane, it could be a rather important link
in solving the crime.

How do you imagine it
differs from the registration of cars?

The government has no intention of confiscating cars.

Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and
I
believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases.

Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have
them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the
occupant is doing something wrong.

Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles
too!

Are you fighting against that at present?

No, because there is no constitutionally prohibition on the infringement of
the right to keep and drive a car. That's not the case with guns. They have
a higher level of protection against government interference.

LOL. I see.

Somehow I doubt it.

You are right. What I really mean is "I'm sure that makes sense to someone
who is totally insane."


Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information
on
where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you
actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can
provide specious analogies.

The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun
and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be.

For what purpose? Why is the government interested in who owns what gun?
What possible difference does it make if I own one gun or twenty, so long as
I do so legally? The answer is that there is no legitimate government
objective to be achieved by registering guns. The only possible reason is to
provide a tool for future confiscation and gun owner harassment, much like
is taking place in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere.

I note that even you cannot explicate a rational reason for collecting this
information. Your argument boils down to "because it's there." Not good
enough.

You never asked previously, that I can remember.

Thus far I have been trying to explain to you that the gun registry is just
a list that tells you the name of the person corresponding to the serial
number on the gun.

Indeed. But the important question is what the government plans to do with
that information.

That is in fact a different question, even if you think it is important.

Perhaps part of your concern on this comes from living in a country where
the government wishes such a level of control over its populace that they
regulate such things as which orifice(s) are utilized in consensual sex. We
have a lot more respect for individual rights here.

It has not greater or lesser purpose than the registration of vehicles, a
widely accepted practice. I understand that there is a bicycle registration
available in many places. They had it here when I was a kid.

But it's VOLUNTARY.

I was talking about purpose.

You are not compelled to register your bike. The only
reason that you're compelled to register your car is so that they can
collect use and ownership taxes. In Colorado, for example, we pay an
"ownership" tax each year on automobiles, whether we license them and drive
them on the streets or just leave them parked in our garage.

Yes, it's partly a tax grab. But it is also used to match up a car with its
owner in the event that it is stolen and/or used in a crime. Or if you are
speeding down the highway at 200 and a cop pulls you over, he says "license
and registration please" and he can figure out within a few seconds if it is
your car, and if not, who it belongs to and whether or not you should be in
it.

Unless the government plans to impose an "ownership tax" on firearms

Now there's a GREAT idea. If there's anything that should be taxed heavily,
it is ownership of firearms.

the
only reason to compel registration is to facilitate confiscation.

Again, this is gun nut American paranoia.

I have no
problem with voluntary registration schemes at all, but mandatory
registration served no useful purpose that outweighs the danger of using
such registries for confiscations. You may come up with specious reasons why
you think a gun registry is necessary, but the real reason is, without
exception, to provide the information required for the eventual confiscation
of firearms.

I haven't offered anything specious on this topic. I'm just trying to help
you understand that a registry is just a list, and I think that's been
accomplished. I've further tried to explain the purposes of such a list,
other than the paranoid "the government is coming to get me" that you are
shrieking about.

Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?"

There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank
account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun.

Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now
you're trying to weasel out of your lie.

ROFL. I was not lying.

Certainly you were. Or, you're just a moron. Which is it?

Neither.

Sorry, but you lied, and you got caught. Now you're weaseling.


I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like
yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were
identical processes.

Except that precisely what you said: "You can buy a wicked assault weapon
like you are buying a pack of gum." You lie.

No, Scotty.

That's a precise quote, and it is a lie.

It's like when I say "Scott Weiser is nuttier than a fruitcake."

Sorry, but you don't get off the hook by claiming hyperbole at this
juncture.

It was exactly as I said. I know that it is not truly like buying a pack of
gum. I know that you know this too. The point of comparing it to buying a
pack of gum is to poke fun at how easy it is to buy a gun (even if it is not
actually the same as buying a pack of gum).

Your clear claim, in context, was that one could buy a "wicked
assault weapon" at the corner convenience store with no more scrutiny or
difficulty than that of buying a pack of gum. That's a lie. You did not
qualify your statement by saying that it was your opinion that guns are too
easy to acquire at the time. Now that you've been caught, you're trying to
backpedal.

You could just admit that you were wrong.

Oh, and I would, if I were actually trying to mislead anyone. Did you really
think I thought Scott Weiser would be unfamiliar with the details of gun
purchasing? Be real Scotty.

Even though it may be easily proven (I'm assuming this is true) that there
are more nuts in a fruitcake than may actually be found on your physical
person, few people (only those who are nuttier than a fruitcake) would
interpret this as lying.

The point of my comment was to indicate that I think it is too easy to
acquire a gun.

Well, of course you do. Any ability to get a gun would be "too easy" for
you.

Are you admitting that you made a false statement?

The veracity of a statement must consider intent.

Are you suggesting that I real intended to argue that buying a gun was
literally the same process as buying a pack of gum, and that my reference to
the gum was an attempt to mislead, thinking that Scott Weiser the gun nut
would not actually know what is involved in buying a gun?

Be serious. This is pathetic.

I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone
conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a
decision about blowing someone's head off.

Once again, this is specious claptrap.

No, it isn't. I really don't want those people making such decisions.

I'm sure you don't, but your delusions don't dictate public policy.

Actually, this is a view shared by many Canadians, and collectively such a
view does influence public policy. I'm happy to be a part of it.

You presume wrongly that merely
because someone possesses a gun that they will inevitably become berserk
killers.

No, I assume they will be normal people, only being normal people with a
gun, instead of giving someone the finger, they might shoot someone instead.
Not good.

And yet you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is any credible
risk...because it's not.

Really? You mean you want me to waste my time and yours quoting case after
case of a gun being fired in anger? What the hell do you think is going on
with 30,000+ gun deaths in the USA every year? Not one of those is some
idiot losing his temper? They were all just instances of detached superheros
coming to the defence of grandma and her cat?

Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than
guns.

Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!?

Every DUI-caused death is a murder. Every crash caused by deliberate
negligence is a murder. Someone does something they aren't supposed to do,
and somebody else dies. Happens all the time in cars, and lots of people are
convicted and sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter for killing
someone with a car, many more than are convicted and sentenced to prison for
shooting someone with a gun.

I think you are stretching the definition of "murder" pretty far there
Scotty!

Not at all. Deliberately engaging in conduct that results in the death of
another human being that is not permitted by law is murder. What degree of
murder it is is determined by the circumstances and mens rea, but it's all
murder.

You may be an ex-cop but you are definitely not an ex-lawyer.

I'll ask it another way.

What is the ratio of people who aimed their car at someone else with the
intent to kill them and succeeded vs the number of people who aimed their
gun at someone else with tthe intent to kill them and succeeded?

What's the ratio of otherwise law-abiding citizens with no prior history of
criminal violence randomly going berserk and shooting someone with their
lawfully-carried firearm to known violent felons shooting people with
stolen, illegally possessed firearms.

Oops, I think you just tried to weasel out of answering the question.

I don't know the exact numbers, but if it's less than 50 million to one I'd
be very surprised

Of the 30,000+ gun deaths per year in the USA a great number of them were
nothing more than an angry person who happened to have a gun at the time
they lost their cool. What do you think is going on with all wives that are
murdered by their husbands?

The point is, however,
that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically
turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to
be so to suit your anti-gun agenda.

An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife.

Which falsely presumes that the majority of people are idiots.

Since an idiot test is not required before buying the gun, your point is
moot. Remember, you managed to get one.

Indeed. Not only that, but I got my CCW permit (the tenth issued) from a
Sheriff who previously didn't issue them to ANYONE, after a detailed
background investigation.

Oh, by the way, "idiots" cannot buy firearms legally, federal and state law
prohibits it.

Again, you got one.

I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun,
much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't
if
it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral
coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need

It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in
need.

How would you know? You wouldn't, but you'll be insulting anyway just
because you're intellect is not up to the task of arguing rationally.

Well Scotty, I believe you made the initial accusation that I wouldn't lift
a finger to help someone in need. It turns out I help people in need as a
daily routine.

Wiping up feces at the nursing home is not the same thing as putting your
life at risk to protect others.

I don't actually do that, but frankly, someone who wipes some senior's ass
and does it in a way that helps that person to experience as much dignity as
possible and have as good a quality of life as possible in their declining
years is contributing far more to society than you ever will carrying your
gun around and hoping to get a chance to shoot someone.

Wait until you need your ass wiped and then decide what is more important,
some dufus walking around with a concealed weapon hoping for the chance to
kill someone, or someone who will care for you without making you feel like
a worthless piece of crap that would be better off dead.

I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed.

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, and I've explained it to
you numerous times. You choose to ignore that information.

I didn't ask you about the Bill of Rights.

I asked you why assault weapons are needed.

And I've explained it to you several times. Go look it up.

No, you've just shrieked about the Bill of Rights. I'm not asking about
that. Why are assault weapons needed?

I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks.

The only people who need to be scared of me are criminals. If the shoe fits,
wear it.

Well Scotty, I'm not a criminal, but someone who admits to having delusions
of grandeur about being a gun-toting superhero (and actually carries a gun
hoping to make the fantasy come true!) is very scary indeed.

I said "need." You may, of course, be as paranoid as your medication allows.

Careful Scotty, I might send "the government" to confiscate your weapons.

I think the
fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around
waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that
your
idiotic ramblings.

Whatever. Wear your chains however you wish.

No chains on me.

The cops are 100% clear that lives are endangered by goofs like you walking
around hoping to shoot someone and be a hero.

They're wrong. What makes you think cops are infallible?

Cops don't want to die, and they don't want innocent people harmed. Their
position is blatant self-interest. The last thing they want is a bunch of
yahoo vigilantes like Scotty Weiser running around the city waiting to shoot
someone and be a hero. They know that you'll likely end up shooting one of
them, or one of your stray bullets will go through a nearby window and kill
a sleeping baby.

Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers
who
are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what
Wilson
did just the other day, and he died doing so.

The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community
safer.

They are enamored of their own opinions. Down here, the police work for us,
we don't do obesience to them as our masters and superiors like you do up
there in Canada.

LOL. So all cops in the US want goofs like you walking around with concealed
weapons?

Most line cops in the US, at least outside of the leftist liberal bastions
like New York, Chicago and LA understand that armed citizens benefit the
community and pose no credible risk to police officers.

What sort of idiot cops think like that?!?

I've been in contact
with police officers on numerous occasions and not one of them has shown
your sort of paranoia when I tell them I'm carrying a weapon.

They are probably hoping you will just move on, so they tell you whatever
you need to hear to keep the conversation as short as possible. Then once
they are sure they have a safe separation from you, they call in your
information and see if you are wanted. Then the information comes back that
you are that nut, Scotty Weiser the ex-cop, and that so far you seem
harmless.

Not everybody
lives in your paranoid, delusional world. Most cops live in the real world
and understand their place in society quite well, and they respect and
appreciate citizens who are willing to step up and fulfill their duties to
society.

The vast majority of cops, other than the imaginary ones you know,
understand that citizens can fulfill their duties to society without walking
around with a concealed weapon hoping they will get to "play cop" and shoot
the bad guy.

And yes, they don't have a problem with "goofs" like me because they know
that we pose no risk to them, are indeed likely to assist and defend them at
need, and serve as a potent deterrent to criminals, which makes the cop's
job easier.

I think most cops do have a problem with goofs like you.

If it would be safer here with goofs like you walking around with concealed
weapons, why wouldn't the police say so?

Because in Canada there is a political predilection towards tyranny, and the
police, as I said, are enamored of their own opinions and they think that
THEY are in charge, and that citizens exist to obey them.

Ridiculous, paranoid, and silly.

Our cops here are far from tyrannical, where do you get such nonsense?

You must live in a country where individual rights are very weak.

Sir Robert Peel puts it best: "To maintain at all times a relationship with
the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are
the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of
the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent on every citizen, in the interests of community welfare and
existence."

Yawn.

It must be some sort of national
conspiracy, perhaps Fidel Castro is behind it.

It is indeed a national conspiracy, and given Canada's distinctly leftist
leanings, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Castro had something to do with
it.

Oho! You are onto something now. I think it's called LSD.

Again, that's why you're a Canadian slave and I'm a free American.

I'm free from goofs like you, which makes being Canadian even sweeter than
it already is. The more I hear from you, the more happy and grateful I am to
be Canadian.

The hilarious thing is that you really think that just because you have
anti-gun laws you're "safe" from guns. But, I'm in agreement with you that
it's a good thing you're a Canadian.

Actually, as I've tried to explain to you, it's not really about laws. As
you've pointed out, gun ownership in Canada is pretty high. But in most of
the country we don't have a gun culture, and that's what makes our
communities safer. You can't legislate away a gun nut mentality like yours.
It has to be a way of life.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/10/05 8:19 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:58 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Michael commenting on Weiser:
==============
Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.

===============

And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.

To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in
freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist
agenda.

They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of
town on a rail, at the very least.

It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps
just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.

Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks
it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
rights or religious freedom.

Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre things
as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes
that could hardly be termed far-left.

in article , BCITORGB at
wrote on 3/10/05 9:02 PM:

Weiser says:
=================
Sorry, but you don't get off the hook by claiming hyperbole at this
juncture. Your clear claim, in context, was that one could buy a
"wicked
assault weapon" at the corner convenience store with no more scrutiny
or
difficulty than that of buying a pack of gum. That's a lie. You did not
qualify your statement by saying that it was your opinion that guns are
too
easy to acquire at the time. Now that you've been caught, you're trying
to
backpedal.

You could just admit that you were wrong.
================

In this context, there is nothing wrong with stating that a particular
comment, made earlier, was hyperbole. Why can you not accept that.
Could it be because, when you make such statements, you don't have the
jam to just say "hey, it was a figure of speech" or "I exaggerated to
make a point" or "It was poetic licence". No, you just keep defending
your dumb-assed statements. I think everyone following this thread
understood perfectly well what KMAN intended with his statement. Sure,
it was a mild case of hyperbole, but he got his point across. Why don't
you deal with the larger issue instead of nit-picking.

frtzw906

What's particularly silly here is the idea that I would try to "fool" Scotty
"Gun Nut" Weiser regarding the process of purchasing a gun. Obviously
(OBVIOUSLY) I knew that Scotty would be familiar with what it takes to buy a
gun, since he brags about his own guns on a routine basis. I was must
pulling his chain about how easy it is to get a gun (and it IS pretty damned
easy!) by comparing it to buying gum. It's more like renting a tuxedo ;-)