By: Paul Nixon Re: Did you know! * Originally By: RIC DUNCAN * Originally To: ALL * Origin

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: Paul Nixon Re: Did you know! * Originally By: RIC DUNCAN * Originally To: ALL * Originally Re: Did you know! * Original Date: 15 Jan 96 21:28 * Original Area: PRMLITIA * Forwarded by : Blue Wave/386 v2.21 While cruising the Internet the other day I found this lovely anti-gun, anti-milita page. Reposted without permission....read it and steam!!! Of course the opinions below ARE DEFINITELY NOT MINE!!! ----------------------------------------------------------------- -begin- CENTURION CHRONICLES PRESENTS From The University of Southern California Pro-Gun Control FAQ - Version 1.5 Lets hope I get more support this time, or this is my LAST post. Even squeekier! Newer and more improved! Lasts longer than the pink bunny! Guaranteed, or your money back! Batteries not included. "Fingers don't kill, bullets do." Purpose of this FAQ This FAQ serves to inform the readers about the tactics used by pro-gun posters in their debates with pro-gun control advocates. It also provides a starting point for pro-gun control posters. Index. A. Frequently Asked Questions. B. Pro-Gun and Pro-Gun Control advocates... Who are they? C. Debating tactics used by Pro-Gun advocates in their posts. D. The 2nd Amendment argument. E. Self defense. F. Counters to common Anti-Gun Control arguments. G. Facts that will blow your brains out. H. Followup readings. I. Interesting Posts from the Net. J. Pro-Gun mentality. K. Why pro-gun posters are always insulting, instead of debating. L. Stories Pro-Gunners don't want you to read... 1. If everyone had guns... 2. Guns to attain respect... 3. Guns to attain power... M. Q&A Pro-Gunners don't want you to read... Frequently Asked Questions Q: Why do all the pro-gun posters resort to insults rather than debate the real issues? A: Because they know they are on the losing end of an argument. It is the last resort they use: try to intimidate the anti-gun posters away. They are afraid of the truth. Just look at the posts and you will find that pro-gun posters are the ones using personal insults, rather than debate the issues. Section K. provides a more comprehensive analysis. Q: What are the only arguments pro-gun advocates use over and over again to counter pro-gun control advocates? A: 2nd amendment, and self-defense. These are the main arguments they refer to constantly. Read section D and section E. You will find that their cause is one against the advancement of society. A cause that is destined for failure, one destined to place our society back into the past. Q: What happened to the original structure of this FAQ? A: Well, its a long story, I decided to put controversial stuff at the end following WARNING labels in case people do not have the intelligence to attain insight into the issues from stories and other methods. Pro-Gun and Pro-Gun Control advocates... Who are they? Gun manufacturers. Ammunition manufacturers. People with a psychological attachment to guns. NRA - National Rifle Association. Politicians who receive major funding from NRA. White supremacists. People joining "militias" with derranged fears of U.N. takeover of the U.S. Pro-smoking advocates... Who are they? Cigarette manufacturers. Tobacco importers/planters. People with a psychological attachment to nicotine. Politicians who receive major funding from cigarette manufacturers. Pro-Gun control advocates... Who are they? Families that want a safe street that they can walk on. People and families who have been victims of "gun wounds" (including death) Pro-Smoking ban advocates... Who are they? Families that want a safe place away from smoke. People and families who have been victims of "smoke cancer" (including death) Debating tactics used by Pro-Gun advocates in their posts. After posting here for a while, I have summarized that major tactics used by the pro-gun posters in their debates... 1) They resort to insults. This is a given. Expect an onslaught of insults expecially when you have provided information in which they cannot refute, and is especially damaging to their cause. They are trying to drive you out rather than debate with you. 2) Twisting words around so they are out of context. Examples: "Switzerland is an example of a country that has a low homicide rate, but everyone has guns." Reality: In switzerland once you use a gun when not in war, you go to prison. Use a gun for self-defense, you go to prison. The reason why they have guns in most households is because they have a low population, and everyone (who is able to serve) is by law part of the military. In addition, the guns and ammunitions are locked up separately in all households. It is illegal to use your guns unless its part of a military exercise or when the country is in war. 3) Deletion and selective deletion of posts and quotes. This is what they do to you... One of their favorite tricks is to delete parts of your posts that is particulary damaging to their cause. They will find small parts of your posts, find a small phrase, and attempt to counter it. Usually it is a phrase that is inclusive of a paragraph, and the paragraph provides the support of that phrase. This is what they do for themselves... Another tactic is the quoting of phrases and excluding the relevant parts. An example is for them to quote from another source like "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", and leave the "..." unquoted. In this case, The "..." specifically places those rights within a militia. The 2nd amendment argument. Don't get brainwashed by the false 2nd amendment interpretation pro-gun advocates keep reusing over and over again. The military and the national guard are the "militias" stated in the 2nd amendment. In 1948, the lower courts ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right, NOT an individual right. Since then, the Supreme Court has SUPPORTED this judgement. They have REFUSED to hear or overturn this decision. People do NOT have a right to keep and bear arms, they have a right to keep and bear arms IN THE MILITIA. New York and Washington DC are two examples of places that restrict individuals from bearing and keeping arms. If the 2nd amendment definition of RKBA is an individual right, then NY and DC would have violated the 2nd amendment. In fact, it has not. No court has ever ruled that NY and DC's gun ban were unconstitutional, and thus, RKBA is a collective right. Do NOT get brainwashed by pro-gunner's false interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Its a collective right, NOT an individual right. In addition, we are not in the monarchy stage of kings and queens. We vote and impeach, not use guns to solve problems. Many pro-gun advocates think they can solve the world's problems all by themselves by firing their guns at people they don't like. This is a delusion. After advancing to the point of using our brains and our pens to vote, they want to retreat to using brute-force. There are no "wild indians." This is not the old cowboy times where everyone needs to carry guns to walk the streets. We don't want to return to those times. We want to advance into the future, not retreat into the past. Someone said "An armed society is a polite society." This is false. An armed society is a society of fear. A society of women and children staying at home afraid of leaving the house because of the possibility of getting shot by criminals and drive-by shooters. Self-defense- A popular argument pro-gunners will say over and over again is that they need guns "to protect themselves from criminals." Don't fall for this trap. The more you arm society with lethal weapons, the more fatalities you will have. You don't fight fire with fire. We are an advanced society, we can create tools for self-defense WITHOUT killing. There are pepper-sprays, mace, stun-guns, sirens, flashes, martial arts, and many MANY other ways. Putting more guns available to the public will cause more accidental deaths, more homicide deaths. Read section E for facts. Don't be clouded by duck speak these pro-gunners use to confuse you. Remember they are supported by institutions out to make a profit off of the loss of human life... Institutions out to make profit from instruments of death.. Instruments with a primary purpose of putting a speeding bullet through flesh. Don't be a fool. Do NOT arm society full of these weapons of death. Many pro-gunners will start writing stories about guns detering criminals. If they do, look at the following cases... 1) You have a gun, criminal does not. Criminal scared away. Guess what? Criminal will come back with a gun next time. 2) You don't have a gun, criminal does. Criminal shoots you if you don't do what he says. 3) Both have a gun. You both have a shootout. Good luck dodging bullets. What does this mean? We want to control guns. Limit it to where it is safe, in the shooting range and hunting ground, or outright ban them. Remember... a simple pull of a trigger will kill. You want to control instruments of death. Similar to the government keeping atomic bombs away from common citizens. We can invent other ways for self-defense. Do you think a robber can rob a bank without a gun? Do you think a drive- by shooter can kill you from 2 miles away without a gun? Increase the number of guns in distribution, you increase the ease of criminals obtaining guns. Increase the ease of criminals obtaining guns, you increase the homicide rate. Counters to common Anti-Gun Control arguments *Automobiles/Swimming pools also kill people, should I outlaw them as well? The primary purpose of an automobile is transportation. The primary purpose of a swimming pool is recreation. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill. The primary purpose of a nuclear bomb is to kill. Why do you think nuclear bombs are not in citizen's hands or authority? Facts that will blow your brains out. FACT: In the most recent study, States that relaxed gun-control laws had an INCREASE in number of homicides. (Yes, in Florida too) FACT: More people died from criminal use of guns than in the civil war. FACT: Every day four people die from accidental (just accidents) firing of guns. A tool used primarily to kill. A tool to send a speeding bullet through someone. Regulate this weapon where it belongs... In the shooting range and hunting grounds. FACT: In U.S. homicides, more people are killed by guns than any other method (including knives, and knives are more available). Think long and hard about this. FACT: U.S. Homicide rate is HIGHEST among the TOP first world countries: this includes Japan, England, France, and Germany. FACT: Japan, England, France, and Germany have strict gun-control laws: banned! FACT: U.S. has the HIGHEST sustained homicide rate in the WORLD. Followup Readings: "In Our Defense: The Bill Of Rights in Action", by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy. "Guns, Crime, and Freedom", by Wayne LaPierre, $24.95, from Liberty Lobby, 1-800-522-6292 REGARDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT: The United States was founded on an 18th century principle known as the "Right to Revolution." As the Declaration of Independence states: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security." Now, the founding fathers believed very much in the right to revolution, having just finished a revolutionary war, and believed that the right to revolution could be preserved only if the people had the ability to exercise it. Hence their desire that the people be armed. [As an aside, let me note that the opening engagements of the Revolutionary War, at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, were fought when British troops marched to Concord to seize arms and ammunition illegally stockpiled by the colonists. The Minutemen were criminals as far as the British were concerned.] Thus the Second Amendment. To understand the Second Amendment, it is necessary to remember that (1) It was written by men learned in the law, (2) Every word counts, and (3) It restricted action only by the FEDERAL government, not by the states. (The fact that the Bill of Rights applied originally only to action by the FEDERAL government is often overlooked by persons who have not studied constitutional law; many of its provisions have now been made applicable to the states via the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.) Now, the Constitution in Article I specifically authorizes Congress to raise armies and arm and discipline the militia. Thus, the purpose of the second amendment cannot logically be to ensure that the FEDERAL government can arm the militia, because that right is already granted to the FEDERAL government elsewhere in the Constitution. Nor can the purpose of the second amendment be merely to ensure that the STATES have the right to maintain militia, because if that were the case, it would have been sufficient to say "The right of the several states to maintain militia shall not be infringed." So why is the second amendment phrased, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free STATE, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?" The fairly obvious answer -- one which, by the way, is agreed on by all serious constitutional scholars -- is that the second amendment was written to ensure that the people would be armed so that they could resist, individually or as a STATE militia, the possible tyranny of the FEDERAL government. This is the only reasonable construction that can be placed on the amendment, and it is supported by abundant historical evidence. The second amendment is the enforcement clause for the Right to Revolution, to which our country owes its origin. (As an aside, the founding fathers looked for inspiration to the common law of England before the passing of the first statute. The Anglo-Saxon militia, called the Fyrd, consisted of all able-bodied men; and it was the Fyrd that the founding fathers had in mind when they spoke of a militia.) As noted above, the second amendment resticed action solely by the FEDERAL government, and the degree to which it is applicable to the states by reason of the 14th amendment, if at all, is unclear. AT present, it seems that the states are free to restrict firearms ownership as they please. The FEDERAL government, on the other hand, is not. Thus, it is perfectly legal to own a machine gun under federal law, so long as the appropriate application for transfer is made and the transfer tax is paid; states may, if they wish, forbid such weapons entirely. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the central issues of the 2nd amendment. [Note: The last ruling of the supreme court that dealt with 2nd amendment issues was in 1938, U.S. Vs Miller. In that ruling, Miller could not carry a sawed-off shotgun across state-lines, and the reason was "The shotgun has no legitimate use as a weapon in a militia." Thus, this implies that the Supreme Court sided with the collective definition of the right to keep and bear arms in the MILITIA. In addition, as noted in the above post, States (like NY) have a right to control guns within their borders, so the 2nd amendment really dealt with collective entities (militias), and not individuals.] [Note: "militias" with links to white supremacists] At AOL.COM - Militias. Just one more example of Aryan paranoia and ignorance. I recently had a chance to see the leader of the Michigan Militia spew the following quote from his lips: "You must be prepared to stike quickly to protect your area." Protect your area from what? These idiots would form a long line at K-Mart if they were selling Surface to Air Missles (SAM) there. According to them, they would need this to protect their area against intruders. Only God knows who these intruders are that they are speaking of. It seems that there is no end to the Aryan unwarranted paranoia. It is also no surprise that these militia groups are linked to other moronic clans like Aryan Nation, Skinheads, and White Nationalist. These people oppose everything from taxes to toilet paper. These groups want to protect themselves by ridding America of blacks, Jews, and minorities. It is their claim that they will be safer that way. My question is who will protect them from themselves. Militia ignorance appears to be the militias most supreme enemy. This whole attitude and the recent developments in Oklahoma City are a synopsis of the complete mental numbness that exists in white supremacists, white nationalist, Nazis, Aryan Nation, and the rest of the dick in the hand clans of loose minded caucasians. They call themselves making this a better nation. They condemn the bombing of the Federal building on camera but they are firing their AK-47's in agreement in their secret meetings. They want Civil War but what they need is medication. It is unbelievable that these groups point their fingers at minorities as the source of the nations problems. It is so obvious that these off centered delusionists are the fabrics that threaten our existence and the very freedom that they claim to be in pursuit of. Basically, it can be traced back to what causes most social problems........lack of education. It is low mental power that leads these morons to being hand held by one guy who has some *ucked up Budweiser induced views. They walk around behind one guy (like Koresh) with their tongues out and their fists up their asses waiting for commands. Aryan extremist please tell America what your problem is. We want to help. For now you are examples of why Abortion is currently legal. You are all Abortion fugitives as well as the World's biggest cowards. THIS NOTE WAS FROM AN AMERICAN [Note: Another opinion on modern "militias"] These militia freaks are true fascists. They say they are protecting constitutional rights... BS! They would like to take the constitution and wipe their butts with it. These people are just an extremists off-shoot of the GOP who BTW are planning to replace the bill of rights with some ass-backwards biblical law! They hide behind patriotism and christianity, but all they really are is a bunch of gun toting, closet homo, hillbilly, NAZIS! These people are a danger to national security. They should all be stuffed in a warehouse and gassed with zyklon-b. That should give them a taste of the kind of ultra-REICH politics they believe in. WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING Below requires intelligence to obtain insight into the gun issues. Do not read if you are unable to be impartial in your judgement of this FAQ after reading these controversial material... If you can't handle them, take them as humor only. You have been warned... Pro-Gun mentality If we were to examine the population in detail, we can conclude that the majority of pro-gun advocates can be grouped into two categories. First there are the people from the Vietnam war era. From these, we can ascertain that the majority of them were psychologically attached to their gun-piece during the war. Their life in the military depended on a gun. This is the major uniqueness separating the first category from the second. From here on, the second category (the rest) share the same mental makeup as this first category, and this can be simplified to a concept of dependence. This attachment can be related to the Freudian concept of penis-ego. It has come to a point that their id and ego became overwhelmingly dependent on a gun, similar to a phallic symbol denoting dominance and self-identity. This extention of the inner self through an instrument of death is very addicting. After a few rounds of firing, a person gets a delusion that they are achieving a higher "power", a higher self- sufficiency. Their ego and existence is thus expressed through this notion of being an aggressive being with no equal. Soon, this psychological attachment wears off, and the person needs some sort of reassurance. So they go back to those shooting ranges and fire more shots. Soon, they become so attached, they feel a need to carry a gun with them all the time, waiting... waiting for the opportunity for their ego to rise to the occassion, an occassion to prove their dominance by firing their gun and demonstrate this reserved power of aggression. It is this addictive reliance on a gun for self-sufficiency and identity that is the driving force for many pro-gun advocates. They feel they will be stripped of their power whenever the gun is restricted from their immediate possession. Their id and ego is dependent on this instrument of death. It is their self-extension, to take it away is to make them less "full." This is why, when given facts of the detrimental effects of guns, these pro-gun advocates feel personally insulted, because to them having a gun is a self-identity. No matter how you phrase it, they will take it personally, and attack you on a personal level. In essense, they are like brute-force animals, unable to detach their egos from their gun. Unable to reason with truth. To them it is like a religion, a cult, or a need. No matter what you throw at them, they will call you a "sinner", or a "fascist", etc. A church milks its members for free work and money. They take advantage from those brainwashed into their crusade. Similarly, the NRA can be described as an entity using the membership fees and propaganda to help the gun manufacturers in continuing their crusade to sell these instruments of death. Not unlike how the cigarette companies are taking advantage of the populace.... Making profit on the loss of human life. Why pro-gun posters are always insulting, instead of debating. When confronted with logic that is against the existentialism of ones psychological makeup, a person breaks down into a state known, in simplified phrase, as "incoherent servitude to aggressiveness and an overt tendency to attack." This logic of which we are speaking of deals with the issue of gun control. After being bombarded again and again, through their primary external sensory organs, with information against their mental addiction to guns, pro-gun advocates are unable to sustain their id, their ego. A seek then ensues... the primative instinct to strike back supresses all other types of reason and logic. From here we can analyze behavior exhibited by the majority of the pro-gun posters...This behavior is simply one of aggression, a simplied form of immaturity in situations of discomfort. The typical post by the pro-gun advocates have a main agenda in justifying existence. To accomplish this task, they confront those providing information that might damage this sad existence, with kindergarden insults. In addition, they are usually followed up with chitchat of like kind. A major problem with this mentality is that they are unable to heal from within. An inability to understand themselves. Rather than confront their own weakness, they try to destroy those helping them. Again, a simple form of animal instinct, one that is indicative of a brute-force mentality. There are many types of character analysis that can be placed on the population. Those that fall under this brute-force category have an aggressively wired predisposition to attack and dominate. Reason is secondary to physical confrontation. Since the internet provides no way for physical dominance, a typical pro-gun advocate will use insults as a substitute. Some are so enfatuated, and so unable to supress this anger, they resort to all available means. Anything to satisfy a release of hate. A hate as a substitute of an inability to accept what in reality is an internal problem.... That guns are part of their existentialism. STORY 1: If everyone had guns... Case A: Everyone allowed to carry guns. Two people in a bar start arguing. One starts insulting the mother of the other. The other tells him to say sorry, "or else." The first says *uck you. The second threatens again, "or else". The first says your mother again. The second reaches in his holster, and brings out a gun. The first hurries and shoots. Bullets are exchanged between the two. Three innocents die inside. These two arguers DIE. Their families have no more father. The kids grow up in poverty. In their exchanges of bullets, 4 travel out of the bar, fly 65 feet across the streets. One hits a little baby right inbetween the eyes. DEATH. Blood gushes out and mother cries. One hits a guy running home, finding out he just won the lottery. One hits a policemen trying to control traffic. One hits a little girl right in the eyeball, shattering it, blood flows down the face of that little girl. She dies 3 days later. Mother of that girl vows never to walk outside of her home anymore. Case B: Guns outlawed. Two people in a bar start arguing. One starts insulting the mother of the other. The other tell him to say sorry, "or else." The first says *uck you. The second threatens again, "or else". The first says your mother again. The second starts swinging a fist at the other. They start fighting. Bouncer comes and breaks them up and sends them out. Both are arrested, and sent home to their families. Another day passes. Happy happy. STORY 2: Guns to attain respect... A: Son B: Father A: Dad, I want to shoot guns. B: Why, son? A: Well, I don't know, I just like to be Dirty Harry. You know, shoot people, and be so cool. So powerful. Make people fear me. B: That is not true son. The main reason is because you want respect. You don't need guns to get respect. Our society is past that stage. We use education, not might. Intelligence, not brute force. Understanding, not hate. Peace, not war. We vote and impeach, not kill and murder. We need not take bows and arrows to hunt for food. We are cultivated now. We can grow our own food. A: But why are guns still legal then? B: Well, son, there are god damn idiots out there that played with guns and find it so fun to shoot those bullets. So they make up all these reasons to keep their guns. They don't realize that we can regulate and control it in the shooting range and hunting grounds and let them satisfy their (or our) hobby. A: Why are you cursing dad? B: Well son, I'm just foul-mouthed like many gun-owners. I am orry. A: Are all gun-owners foul-mouthed? B: Yes, they curse at those that they don't like. Similar to shooting people they don't like. In addition, they are stupid, fat, and ugly. A: Really? B: Yes. They have very big bellies from drinking too much beer and eating too much junk food. A: But Dirty Harry is skinny. B: Trust me, do you want to be stupid, fat, and ugly? A: No. B: Then don't treat guns as toys. Grow up and be a contributor to society, an educator, rather than a brute-force animal. Use reason, not force. Understanding, not hate. All of a sudden a stray bullet from a drive-by shooter breaks through the window, and hits the son right through the heart, killing him instantly. The dad cries out in sorrow and pain. STORY 3: Guns to attain power... A: Gun-happy person B: person A: Hey man, I just love playing with guns... I mean, I feel so powerful. B: Why do you need a tool to feel powerful? A: Well, you know, makes me feel like Rambo, I can just pull a trigger, and BOOM, kill someone. B: So you want people to fear you? A: Yeah. It's also easier to rob banks with them. It's also easier to get the money off of another person. You know... simple pull of a trigger. B: But why? Why not vent your ego-complex somewhere else like sports? Must you carry a weapon of killing? I mean, if you want it as a hobby, then do it where it is safe like in a shooting range. Why are you advocating we retreat to those cowboy times, where everyone carries a gun just to walk the streets? A: I like a showdown, where I can prove my toughness. Shoot people. B: You are basically acting out your instinctive drive of aggression. Like a brute-force animal. Do you know what separates us from most animals? We have higher mental ability. We reason better. If we can use our brains and our pens, rather than through brute force and aggression, then we are no better than monkeys. A: I don't care, I want to be able to carry it around in the streets so I can find a chance to show off my shooting ability and kill people. I'm basically looking for trouble, looking for a chance to show my aggression. Shooting range is dull, I want real action... I want to kill people. That is why I want to carry guns with me all the time. B: With this kind of attitude, I'm sure you will find it...Why don't you just carry some other types of self-defense items, why guns? A: Look, I told you already. Guns kill. More excitement. More satisfaction... loud noise, bloody results... like hollywood. B: This is a sad... A: Trying to insult me? B: No, trying to help you. A: Damn idiot.. you are trying to insult me...!?!?!?! The gun-happy person then takes out a gun, aims it at the other person... A: Take back that statement... what do you mean you feel sorry for me?!?! B: I was only kidding... please put down that gun...please... A: Liar, I will teach you a lesson... (Music from movie _The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly_ plays in the background) The gun-happy person then steps back, and retracing the imagery of Clint Eastwood, spins his gun in a circle, and shoots three times. Shot one: BOOM, right through the heart of the other person. Blood pours out by the gallons, changing the color of the ground red. Shot two: BOOM, right through the face. Bones shatter, brain and blood mesh together and squirt everywhere. Shot three: BOOM, right across the stomach. Intestine and kidney explode... Blood flows everywhere. Later, police storm in, and find that Billy has just shot his brother. Mother receives news, and cries out in pain and suffering. Original Q&A pro-gun posters don't want you to read... Q: Is it true that pro-gun posters are ugly, fat, lazy, and beer- swilling? A: Yes, three people have admitted to it. In essence, its as true as it can be. Q: Do pro-gun posters have a hard time getting women? A: Yes, just look in the advertising sections in the back of gun magazines. (hint: tons of ads for information on buying wives from overseas.) Q: If they do get women, are they usually ugly? A: Yes. One of the posters likes hairy women. He indicated his desire for women's skin to be like that of a Kiwi fruit. (hairy). Other Articles By A Trojan of the University of Southern California ===================================================================== Note by cross-poster: I have a number of comments I'd like to make on the above, but time is against me...I have to go help my wife depilate her back... ... "fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity"

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank