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: <dbongardEH92Lq.HH4@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> <loop-ya023180002609970248450001@news.algonet.se> <01bccaa1$0484f8e0$646464b5@JRS486.microtronics.com> <01bccae6$6318f4c0$244837ce@pbcustomer>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 03:20:14 GMT
Lines: 81
Sender: dbongard@netcom13.netcom.com
Xref: clanworld.com rec.games.computer.quake.editing:8525 rec.games.computer.quake.playing:20694 rec.games.computer.quake.misc:14580 rec.games.computer.quake.servers:4682

Jason Nyte (nyte@ods.ods.net) wrote:
: James R. Shiflett wrote:

:> Humans eat deer. It's natural, it is the order of nature, we are MADE
:> this way. If "Return to Nature" folks are honest with themselves then
:> taking their proper place in the food chain is not rationally avoidable.
:> Besides, why is eating beef any different than eating deer?

: Technically, a human's "proper place" would be as a scavenger near a body
: of water.

Typical bullshit. Any animal's "proper place" is whatever place it can
survive and reproduce in. The "proper place" of humans is where we are;
at the top of the food chain, with the resources of the entire planet
at our disposal and the use of every other animal to aid our personal
survival. 

:> Hmmm, so the Nazi's outlawing private gun ownership was a step toward
:> totalitarian control, but Americans who see the attacks on the 2nd
:> Amendment as a precursor to totalitarianism are idiots and kooks?

: Germans had it just as well as any other country in the middle of a war.

Except for the gays, gypsies, jews, communists, pornographers, racial
minorities, and anti-government activists. Life was "good" for good 
little Nazis like yourself, but bad for anybody who thought for themselves
or had the misfortune to be a member of a group the government didn't like.

: (Though supposedly the American camps weren't as bad). 

The fact that America has also established concentration camps _should_
be a clue to you that the government is overly tyrannical. But I suppose
I'm out of line in expecting rational thought from you.

:> Hitler could not TAKE power and enslave the nation, and eventually much
:> of Europe, 

: EXACTLY!

Exactly indeed. We (meaning people unlike yourself) need guns to protect
against the day when a fool like yourself votes the next Hitler into office.

: No number of guns or weapons will make spit difference in weather or not
: a leader stays in power.

What a moron you are. If no amount of guns will make "spit difference" in
whether or not a leader stays in power, why do armies carry guns? According
to your logic the Allied military could simply have walked into Germany
unarmed and said "Hey, Hitler, we're here to overthrow you" and he would
have said "Gosh, I'll just step down then."

If every adult man and woman in the country had a gun this country would
have 200 MILLION potential rebels if the government went to far. Even if
only one percent of them took action they would still outnumber the
conventional armed forces. That is easily enough to overthrow any tyrant.

:> Once again, you prove my point above. The only people you trust with guns
:> are people who share your political view. You disregard their training,
:> expertise, competence, and all other qualifications. You only care if
:> they agree with your "party line" of "despising weapons."

: If you were black, would you turst a member of the KKK with a gun if he
: could knock a fly off a leaf at 200 yards?

Trust has nothing to do with it. I know for a fact that you plan on using
your right to free speech to advocate stripping innocent people of _their_
rights, but I still accept that you DO have a right to free speech. 

Take the above situation: a black man encounters a known KKK member who
is a good shot. Unless the KKK member is a violent criminal (by no 
means a guaranteed fact) the black man is safe. If the KKK guy is a 
violent criminal, and has a gun, the black guy is dead -- UNLESS the black
guy also has a gun. All that banning guns does is ensure that only
criminals will have guns. The situation for the black man is worse, not
better, because the only circumstance under which he would be in any danger 
is oen where the KKK guys was willing to break the law. If a man is willing
to murder in cold blood he's not likely to balk at an illegal weapons purchase.
The best possible situation is for those people who know they are in danger
to possess the means to defend themselves. That means guns.

-- Dan
