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!ix.netcom.com!dbongard
From: dbongard@netcom.com (Dan Bongard)
Subject: Re: Quake, Violence, Guns, Constitution, et al
Message-ID: <dbongardEH3CK0.wD@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$3@darla.visi.com> <01bcc0c6$a718a8c0$aa711fcc@default> <5vhaeg$6n5@news.enter.net> <01bcbd04$15545b20$e32d63c3@default> <5vhktn$9f7@news.enter.net> <341C5B22.9D579452@geocities.com> <MPG.e875093baedf9aa9896e7@news.inet.tele.dk> <34250624.B946EA9B@sover.net> <3425C542.E8BF1FE3@bscc.bls.com> <loop-ya023180002209971541460001@news.algonet.se> <3426EBB0.7C4FB9CE@sover.net> <342838E0.408D06E8@tip.nl> <loop-ya023180002409970243040001@news.algonet.se> <01bcc8bf$fac5b160$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <01bcc8e7$b68373c0$214837ce@pbcustomer> <dbongardEH13IF.33D@netcom.com> <01bcc95d$647286e0$224837ce@pbcustomer> <dbongardEH3015.MIF@netcom.com> <01bcca0e$d7712280$2a4837ce@pbcustomer>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 01:09:36 GMT
Lines: 173
Sender: dbongard@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.editing:8336 rec.games.computer.quake.playing:20383 rec.games.computer.quake.misc:14305 rec.games.computer.quake.servers:4539

Jason Nyte (nyte@ods.ods.net) wrote:
: Dan Bongard <dbongard@netcom.com> wrote in article 

:> Obviously it does -- otherwise you wouldn't own one. Nobody is going
:> to go out and plunk down $700 for a pistol they feel they have no moral
:> or legal right to own.

: Does this include all the "owners" that took it out of their neighbor's
: nightstand?

Again, obviously they feel they have a right to own a gun, or they
wouldn't own one -- even a stolen one.

:>: I know alot of individuals that would have no problem getting rid of
:>: theirs if they ever stopped liking venison or the bears, wolves and
:>: coyotes suddenly left.

:> Irrelevant. They believe -- unlike gun-control activists -- that they
:> have a right to own, and use, their guns. 

: If a law were passed, rather than trying to hide it or fight it, they
: would simply switch to a bow or crossbow.

Which is relevant because...? If anyone caught in possession of a 
book was jailed or killed, most people would get rid of their books and
stop buying new ones. Why? Because most people (perhaps foolishly)
obey the law even when it violates their basic rights. That does not 
mean they no longer think they are entitled to those rights -- it just
means that they are suffering under a tyrannical state that will not
recognize their rights.

: (BTW, my personal choice for hunting is a bow)

I'm very happy for you. Now explain why you -- Mr Lets-not-be-mean-to-
the-animals -- use a weapon that prolongs their suffering. And why
you think it is alright to own a bow, but not a gun.

:> Tell me -- are the only "free speech advocates" in this country flag
:> burners <not even going to dignify by repeating>? 

Here's the original:

:> Tell me -- are the only "free speech advocates" in this country flag
:> burners and child pornographers?

And I would like to say that it is typical of your sort of socialist
hypocrisy to raise up mass-murdering terrorists and black-beating
Nazi skinheads as examples of "gun advocates" but balk at even
_mentioning_ the fact that child pornographers often maintain that
they are protected by the first amendment. If the existance of 
people like Tim McVeigh somehow invalidates the second amendment
and renders the government immune to any possible charges of 
tyrannical behavior, doesn't the existance of child pornographers
invalidate the first amendment and render the government immune to
any possible charges of censorship?

:> Do you only call somebody an "advocate" if they are offending you?

: So tell me where the "gun advocates" were when someone attempted
: prosecuting them?

When somebody attempted prosecuting who? The flag-burners, or the
child pornographers? When the anti-flag-burning hysteria started
up _I_ was actively speaking out in favor of the burners' right
to express themselves. This is because I, unlike you, recognize that
there are ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, not eight or nine.
Some gun advocates opposed the flag burners, of course, as is their
right (check that BoR again). It is within your rights to advocate
that somebody else be stripped of his -- it is just not in the
government's power to grant you your desires. Furthermore your
failure to recognize the rights of others does not cause you to be
stripped of your rights. Nobody loses their right to gun ownership
because they advocate restrictions on free speech, just as you do
not lose your right to free speech by advocating the illegal and
unconstitutional pro-gun-control position you hold.

: Were they standing in front of them with a rifle pointing it at the
: cops or were they pushing for them to be arested and incarcerated
: for speaking against the government?

"They" were doing neither. This is because "they" (gun advocates) have
no universal opinion on anything other than the right to gun ownership.
You are persisting in your bullshit belief that your neo-Nazi Wisconsin
friends somehow represent gun advocates as a whole. They don't. They
represent the population of Ass Fuck, Wisconsin, or wherever the hell
you live. Tell me, are you also one of those people who assumes that all
atheists are also pro-science, and that all gay men hate women?

:> You are using the actions of those same loonies to say that the rest
:> of us shouldn't have the right to protect ourselves against government
:> tyranny -- the main purpose of the second amendment.

: So what have YOU done to prevent "governmental Tyranny?"

Asked and answered, but I'll repeat:

Thus far the government has attacked me only passively, through the
passage of oppressive laws and taxes. Thus I oppose it by acting to
change those laws and repeal those taxes. If the government took
more direct action -- such as attempting to confiscate my possessions
with armed thugs -- I would defend myself and my belongings, with
lethal force if necessary.

But the point is moot -- it is not necessary to exercise a right in
order to retain it. According to your logic, nobody should have
a legal right to publish unless they do so regularly, and nobody
should have a right to criticize the government unless they have
done it before. Moreover the right to keep and bear arms in defense
against government tyranny is a precautionary measure designed to
be in effect at all times. It makes no sense to wait until AFTER
the government has stormed into your house and tried to arrest you for
crimes against the state before going out and trying to buy a gun.
You own one "just in case".

:>: But in my expereince, anyone going around telling people about 
:>: "governmental tyranny" need a reality check or a trip to the middle
:>: east or any other "third world" country.

:> I see. So, in your bright and shiny little world-view, any government
:> behavior short of that exhibited by Iran and El Salvador cannot
:> possibly be tyrannical? 

: Have you left the United States even once in your life? 

Yes, but that is of no importance. Tyranny is not relative, ergo it
does not matter how other governments act. You are presenting a
false dichotomy, suggesting that the only two possible states of
government benevolence are represented by the United States and the
Evil Third World Terrorist Nations. That's a crock of shit. The
US government is tyrannical; Iran and the like are vastly worse. If
I lived in Iran, I'd be concerned about the government THERE. But
I don't; I live in the United States, and what concerns _me_ is
that a cop could kick in my door, shoot me, and get off scot free
so long as he thought I had drugs in my house. 

: This world is in NO WAY "bright and shiny"

Apparently in your mind it is -- at least our corner of it. Here's a
clue for you: the fact that Americans have more freedom than some
other countries does not make American a free state. Jews in Iran
are better off than Jews in Nazi Germany were -- does this mean
the Jewish population of Iran has no grounds for complaint about
the government's oppression of their religion?

: Canada has gun control laws and the worst going on
: there is that Quebec no longer wants to be Canadian.

The worst going on there today. What about tomorrow? Are you the
sort of fellow who waits until his house catches fire before buying
a fire extinguisher? Compare and contrast the US of today with
that of twenty years ago. Twenty years ago police needed a search
warrant, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Now they don't. It used
to be illegal to stop citizens and force them to allow their cars
and persons to be searched without cause; now it isn't. It used to
be illegal for the government to take all of your possessions without
a trial first -- now it isn't. Tell me, why do you think that the
government is going to do anything OTHER than become more and more
restrictive and eliminate more and more human rights?

: They VOTED on what to do. (hmm...what a concept, aye? actually USING
: your right to vote to prevent "tyranny")

Hitler was elected. Voting isn't enough, because nothing prevents
the majority of the population from being morons. Take flag-burning,
for instance -- if we could just 'vote' on that, it would be illegal,
because virtually everyone opposes it. But hey, what do you know --
the Constitution prevents the government from restricting anti-
government speech even when the population of that country wants them to.
This is because the authors of the Bill of Rights were smarter than you.
Rights to free speech and gun ownership are fail-safe mechanisms for
when the normal channels fail.

-- Dan
