Newsgroups: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Path: clanworld.com!news.webspan.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!dbongard
From: dbongard@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
Subject: Re: Quake, Violence, Guns, Constitution, et al
Message-ID: <dbongardEHFs9J.IBH@netcom.com>
Followup-To: rec.games.computer.quake.editing,rec.games.computer.quake.playing,rec.games.computer.quake.misc,rec.games.computer.quake.servers
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <5vf0bs$3n0$3@darla.visi.com>   <3426EBB0.7C4FB9CE@sover.net> <342838E0.408D06E8@tip.nl> <loop-ya023180002409970243040001@news.algonet.se> <01bcc8bf$fac5b160$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <60bpum$f7v@alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu><60rlk8$qq0@nntp02.primenet.com> <dbongardEHCIqH.1sp@netcom.com> <60s9lg$8ds@nntp02.primenet.com> <01bcce8f$c0cae9a0$020a0a0a@dell-p200.ticksdomain.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 18:20:07 GMT
Lines: 164
Sender: dbongard@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.editing:8828 rec.games.computer.quake.playing:21198 rec.games.computer.quake.misc:15028 rec.games.computer.quake.servers:4939

Roscoe A. Sincero (legion@keg.zymurgy.org) wrote:

: People like Mr. Bondard 

Who is Mr. Bondard?

: has this little agenda that involves misleading people. They do this
: so that they are allowed to do whatever they want. Such activities
: including stocking up on pipe bombs (like one militia group did).

Pipe bombs are illegal... are you suggesting that criminals are able to
stockpile them anyway? Interesting. And yet banning guns will somehow
prevent violent criminals from getting guns. Interesting.

: While people are too busy arguing against people like Mr. Bondard,
: his allies are hard at work obtaining the big weaponry that they need to
: kill women and children.

Nice bit of libel, Roscoe, but I'm afraid I don't know anybody who
has killed a woman or a child, or a man for that matter, to my knowledge.
I assume that some of the veterans I know have, but it doesn't seem
polite to ask. But, hey, if I'm keeping you from the important 
business of Stopping Terrorists from Getting Guns -- which I'm _sure_
you were _actively_ engaged in before this thread started -- then by
all means, don't let me keep you. :)

: Re-read his arguments.   Here, let me quote him:

["Civilians have the right to military-grade weaponry", snip]

: He supports the idea that citizens have military weapons.  

Obviously. Do you think you've discovered a hidden belief of mine
that I _hadn't_ already espoused a dozen times in this thread?

: Do you really think that it is wise for our next door neighbor to be
: fully armed with an anti-tank weapon?

Do you think it is wise for the government to have them? There isn't
a country in the world who has not used its military to engage in
the wholesale slaughter of civilian populations. I, on the other
hand, have killed nobody and have no plans to kill anybody. Yet you
trust the government with guns, but not me? Interesting 'logic'.

: Boy, I can't wait to get my hands on a couple of fuel-air bombs--a
: "grenade" with octa-damage.

Fuel-air bombs are a hell of a lot more than eight times as powerful
as a grenade. And you can easily build them yourself, in your own
backyard, out of commonly-available materials. If you, or I, or your
neighbor, wanted one, they would have them. Maybe they do. :)

What does this have to do with gun control laws, btw?

: Make no mistake about it. He's a prime candidate for a terrorist. 
: oopps, excuse me.  He's a prime candidate for being a spokeman for
: the non-violent political wing of a terrorist group.

It isn't uncommon for government supporters to label all who disagree 
with them as "terrorists". I dare speak out against the government's
"right" to hold a gun to my head while I stand there helpless -- to
Roscoe, this makes me a dangerous person. Yes, I suppose I am a 
dangerous person, in the sense that everyone who speaks out against
tyranny is a danger to people who support fascism.

: You want another example of hand-gun "mishaps".

: In Florida two of his like-minded clones are now on deathrow for 
: killing a police officer.

In San Diego there are police officers walking the streets who faced no
criminal penalties after murdering civilians. 

: These two (husband and wife) were involved in anti-government 
: activities. 

Anti-government activities? How dare they. What do they think this
is, anyway? A free country? Everybody knows you should bend over 
and let the government have its way with you.

: A police officer stopped the husband at a mall parking lot and asked
: him for identification.  (I do not recall the reason, I only saw part
: of the special.  Anyways...) 

What a surprise; you get all your information from TV. Do you, by
any chance, recall why the husband was being asked for his identification?

: The wife was inside a store. The husband, being an asshole, refused
: and opened fire on the officer.  

Obviously an immoral act on his part, unless the officer was physically
threatening him. 

: The officer fired back. Their child called his mother for help. The 
: mother drew her gun and fired on the officer and killed him.  

Also immoral, as well as illegal. 

: Gee, let's think about this for a moment. We got an asshole father
: initiating a gun fight in public where people can get hurt (obviously,
: he didn't care about other people's safety and, yet, he owns a gun)
: and his very own son was in close proximity where he can also get hurt
: or even killed.  The son was like nine years old or something, he was young.  

Shocking as this may seem, guns don't change the morality of their 
owners. Murderers will still murder, and ordinary people like
myself will remain the same. 

: I seriously doubt that the framers of the constitution wanted the
: second amendment to be used in this manner. 

Of course not, but they knew that events like the above were inevitable
side-effects of a right to keep and bear arms, just as demagoguery
and zealotry are inevitable side-effects of the rights to free speech
and religion. 

: The wife is fighting to set herself free by claiming that it was 
: "self-defense".  I am not sure what the husband's defense is but I 
: won't be surprised if it is equally as stupid.

And the officers in the Rodney King trial claimed they had needed
to subdue him because he represented a threat. And OJ Simpson claimed
his wife was killed by drug dealers. Ted Bundy claimed porn made him
kill. Criminals with no defense for their crime often make pathetic
excuses. Of course it is also possible that the husband and wife
did act in self-defense, if the officer fired first, but that doesn't
seem to be the case based on your description.

: Several years ago, on Halloween, a Japanese national was gunned
: down (was he shot from behind? I don't remember.) by a "law-abiding"
: gun-toting citizen.  His crime was that he knocked on the guy's door. 

Actually his crime was trespassing by wandering into the guy's 
garage. Which doesn't excuse the guy murdering him, of course.

Twenty-five years ago our government ruthlessly murdered several
million civilians of a country we had no prior deals with purely to 
improve the political prospects of the parties involved. Would you
care to come up with an additional 2,999,998 murders to accompany
the two you describe above? Because so far the case for the government
being stripped of _its_ weaponry is far stronger than the case for
the civilian populace being disarmed.

: I, like you, have heard the report about those bounty hunters killing that
: couple.  It was a case of mistaken identity.  In any case, a gun fight
: broke out in which two or three of the bounty hunters were hurt and the
: couple killed.  I noticed that Mr. Bondard decided to ignore it completely
: in his initial response.

I didn't "ignore" it -- I did not comment on it, because (a) I am not 
familiar with the details involved and (b) it has no bearing on the
right to keep and bear arms.

: The only "response" he made (after you complained that he snipped out
: any mention of that incident) was to call it "anectodal evidence" 
: and that is it.

That's all it is. Is the OJ Simpson case grounds for banning kitchen
cutlery? Of course not, because knives serve many useful purposes
even if some people do abuse them. The same is true for guns, with
the additional point that guns are, under our Constitution, our right.


-- Dan
