>> It's a pretty well documented fact that criminals are
>> deterred by the knowledge that potential victims "might be
>> armed."
> That's kinda what I meant by the citizens acting as an armed police force.
> One of the roles of the police is to deter crime.
> What I was implying is that the
ED]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 8:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and
> the human rights
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote:
>> > I will have to concede then that in the current USA widesprea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> More guns will equal more shootings. Maybe they can handle their weapons
> safely in Switzerland but here in the USA we're not doing so hot.
> Anybody want to deny that obvious fact?
GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA
Crime Rate Plummets - Why
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote:
> I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun ownership
> is desirable.
Nope. I don't think so. More guns equals more shootings. It's as
simple as that.
Here's why: accidents and crimes of passion and stupidity. (Road
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:49:27 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote:
>> But I still
>> believe that no guns is a desirable state of affairs.
> Why does there seem to be simply the consentration upon "no guns" as
> being the answer to preventing cri
John,
I just realized, as I read through many messages from many people, that
I can tell you one good reason to allow people to own firearms and take
personal responsibility for the use of those firearms.
Recently we had two nuts, with lots of time to plan and top level
munitions and accessories,
Dear friend,
Are you suggesting this 18th century constitutional reasoning is tricking
you to believe that the US population would stand a chance against the US
army if ever...???
Sorry to say but I think you're tragically wrong there. Better look at more
recent past (post WW2, or even after the i
- Original Message -
From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and
the human rights
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John S
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -, John Sparks wrote:
> I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun ownership
> is desirable.
> I grew up in suburban UK and almost no-one had a gun. I never saw anyone
> carrying a gun (other than children's toys) and only knew 2 people who
John
- Original Message -
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Sparks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and
the human rights
> On Sun, 12 Ja
Hi Folks,
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:33:05 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> Ordinary citizens should not act as a though they were an armed
> police force. Such behavior is rightfully condemned as vigilantism.
> It is illegal for them to take the law into their own hands. They do
> however have th
- Original Message -
From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and
the human rights
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:36:03
- Original Message -
From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and
the human rights
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, John Sparks wrote:
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and
>> the human rights
>
>>
>>> There are no civil
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:38:37 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:23:43 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
>
> Thank you very much.. it is now part of my new sign.txt
> --
> If a country is to remain free its citizens must defy unjust laws. The new
> "anti-terrorism" laws abridge th
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:23:43 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
Thank you very much.. it is now part of my new sign.txt
--
If a country is to remain free its citizens must defy unjust laws. The new
"anti-terrorism" laws abridge the rights of us all. It is time to keep the
snoopers busy; how about
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:36:03 -, John Sparks wrote:
> Perhaps the only truly civilised society would be one where everyone was
> allowed to own weapons but no-one wanted to take up the option.
No ... because fear and hidden agendas could be the reason for persons
to not "take up the option."
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:36:03 -, John Sparks wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (ext
- Original Message -
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and
the human rights
> There are no civilized countries w
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:22:04 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
>>> What is PBS?
>> In the USA it is the Public Broadcasting System--noncommercial
>> television supported by viewer donations and charitable foundations.
> To be more exact
> 88% funding from those sources.
> 12% funding from our tax
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:28:31 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:00:59 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
>> That said, let's get back to the subject at hand -- the loss of civil
>> and human rights in the name of National Security. It's a bit scarey
>>
> Very scarey and c
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:25:18 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:28:31 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote:
>> What is PBS?
> In the USA it is the Public Broadcasting System--noncommercial
> television supported by viewer donations and charitable foundations.
To be more exact
8
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:28:31 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote:
> What is PBS?
In the USA it is the Public Broadcasting System--noncommercial
television supported by viewer donations and charitable foundations.
Sam Ewalt
Croswell, Michigan, USA
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy,
On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:00:59 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> I finally got babelfish to translate on the 2nd try [after leaving the
> Candian JS site called babelfish.com]. That wasn't news to me, because
> I'd watched the news on PBS.
What is PBS?
> For those of you [in the USA] who would like to be
I finally got babelfish to translate on the 2nd try [after leaving the
Candian JS site called babelfish.com]. That wasn't news to me, because
I'd watched the news on PBS.
For those of you [in the USA] who would like to be exposed to non-
American, non-networked news programs, I highly recommend t
25 matches
Mail list logo
