black@nisysg.DEC (03/21/85)
> And it would be about time! American gun control (or more specifically, lack >thereof) account for a *large* proportion of the weapons used by Canadian >criminals since guns are rather harder to get here (and most importantly, >handguns are next to impossible to get (except by buying and smuggling from >the States.)) > The American gun control laws not only kill a good number of Americans, >they also do in a number of Canadians. And we're intelligent enough to >have gun control laws. This ain't justice. [Tom West] Tom, this just shows that Canada has the same problem the US does. Canada can control neither its borders nor its criminals. Anti-gun laws only serve to kill people. For example, in New York City, which has the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation, the crime rate is outrageous. It isn't even safe to ride the subway ( :-) ). Massachusetts has one of the highest crime rates in the nation. But in New Hampshire, where every citizen is authorized to carry a firearm, the crime rate is negligible. In fact, the worst problem we have is the transplants from Massachusetts. What is justice is to allow law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves, and let the criminals be aware that if they are shot while committing a crime, they have no recourse against their victim. Here in the US, the courts are ruling that the individual citizen is NOT entitled to police protection, and that he responsible for his own safety. Now, how can a citizen be responsible for his safety without the authority to do so? How can a citizen protect himself without arms? >Obviously we worship hold different religious views if that's your idea >of heaven. However, we *are* working on it. But we still need to >(1) Boost our crime rate by an incredible amount. Especially our violent > crime rate. I'm afraid it's just way below the American standard. Be grateful. If we didn't have criminals, we wouldn't need guns to protect ourselves. Besides, if we didn't have the potential for governmental criminality, we probably wouldn't even need rifles. >(2) Give everybody handguns so that we can kill each other accidently much > faster. [Guns don't kill kids. Kids kill kids.] 99.7% of all handguns in the US are NOT involved in a crime or accident. 99.3% of all firearms in the US are NOT used in crime or and accident. Stupid parents kill kids. >(3) Up our racial hatred level by a massive factor. It takes two to tango. >(4) Increase our knee-jerk anti-communist reaction by several orders of > magnitudes. Now you're talking. >(5) Increase our willingness to let the poor starve. The US "Food Stamps" program has the largest budget ever, this year. And the "poor" are still complaining. The people who need help the most never seem to get it. Here in the US, we're so concerned about "refugees" that we fail to take care of our own first. I say get rid of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, build up North American industry again, and let people earn an honest work. >(6) Build massive amounts of ghettos "Ghettoes" build themselves. My family was always "poor" because of health problems. We never went hungry, both my parents were always around, and we were taught respect for other people's property. Poverty does not always mean a lack of money. >(7) Increase our arson rate. (Is North Tonawanda still standing?) The arsonist you will always have with you. >(8) Increase our defense spending. Great. Canada does not have to worry about "big ticket" strategic weaponry. Spend it on the condition that weaponry is manufactured entirely in Canada, to benefit Canadian workers. >(9) Increase our dollar. (Oh well...) The problem withthe Canadian dollar is that it is tied too much to the American F.R.A.U.D. (Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Dollar). Go back to a gold or silver standard. >>I also know some people from up there who would LIKE to see themselves become >>part of the good ole US of A.!! That's just so you don't think I'm a crank >>of one. I understand the provences are not getting along so well with the >>central gov.,eh? The provinces too. >>Ken Arndt I do believe things are a little better now. The US and Canada should both strive to maintain their own sovereignty > In a country of 25 million, you get every type of crack-pot. Besides, >have they ever *lived* in the States? The idea of being fearful of walking >in any part of a city (eg. Toronto, pop. 3Meg) is so unreal, that they might >not realize this seems to be the case in several American cities. The concept of respect for other people's property has a lot to do with a city's crime rate. A person who would vandalize a subway car, smash a store window, or take a car for a joy ride is the same person who would snatch a purse, mug somebody, or commit a rape. (A couple of years ago, in the small city where I live, a 16-year old boy was given 20-to-life for breaking-and entering, petty larceny, and attempted murder on a 93-year-old woman. If we had stiffer sentencing of violent juveniles, we would reduce the crime rate dramatically.) >It doesn't >fall to us to support gov'ts killing their own citizens to protect themselves >against the communist menace. Maybe it has to be done by someone (Although >I have my doubts) but I am thankful it will never have to be us. Fear not, guys. We still owe you for the assistance in Iran. You got us stuck in between you and Mexico. Take a look at a map sometime, and count the dominoes between Nicaragua and Canada. You'd better pray we can stop the swarming hoards at the Rio Grande, so you won't have to do it at the St. Lawrence. > In case this article sounds too anti-American, my apologies, but Mr. Arndt >*does* have the ability to say things in need of strong rebuttal. I am >certainly glad that the USA has chosen to be the world super-power. It >means that the rest of us don't have to be totally ruthless to survive. >And if history shows anything, either you have to be totally ruthless,or >under the protection of a country that is. The States have my gratitude, >as long as they don't force us to become them. [ Tom West] My apologies also, if I sound anti-Canadian. What we need is better cooperation between the two nations to solve what difficulties we have. >Surely agreement by treaty is better than these bully-boy tactics? >Reciprocity in international relations is more than just courtesy. >The United Nations has never been seen as a place to supercede national >governments or laws, but it is a place where they can talk together, >and with luck work together to make the world a better place. >Over the decades (or centuries, if we are so lucky), it just might >become a world forum with some authority to back up its decisions >(e.g. a standing peace-keeping force that could break up little >quarrels among neighbours, or that could go and reinforce the troops >of a country being invaded). >Actually, I suppose the dream of all mankind would at heart be that >the world COULD be made one United Nation -- and the lion shall lie >down with the lamb, and all that. National chauvinism is unfortunately >only one of the reasons it probably won't happen for a long time, >if ever.[Martin Taylor] I'm proud to be an American chuavinist. The United Nations is nothing more than a hotbed of Communist infiltrators, formed by Communist conspirators, to serve the purposes of international Communism. The lion only wants to lay down with the lamb in its belly. Why is it that American blood gets shed every time some little banana republic has a revolt? We get engaged in so many petty quarrels that we fail to see the real issues, the problems here at home that are destroying our own society. >In article <709@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >>I read in our local paper that a man was convicted of spreading rumors >>for the publication of his book calling the concentration camps of Nazi >>Germany a hoax. Is it true that you can be arrested and tried for >>spreading rumors in Canada? If we had that law here, we would have to >>designate several states criminal colonies to hold all the convicts! >[:-/-)] > It is true that a man was convicted of knowingly spreading false >information likely to cause racial hatred. This false information >was that the concentration camps in Germany were a hoax. I believe >his sentence was for a few months. He is currently trying to appeal, >but will in all probability lose. > It is dangerous to be publicly racist in Canada. (Thank goodness.) [Tom West] Ernst Zundel was acquitted on one count and convicted on a second. The big issue in the trial was not the correctness of his information, but rather his freedom of speech and press. The government was forced by the Antidefamation League to prosecute, because a single individual refused to drop the case. The League really didn't want the case tried because they didn't want the man to get publicity. (You can see why.) Zundel was acquited of the charge concerning a publication that he himself wrote. He was convicted for publishing a 32-page pamphlet that was written by a British author. Barring appeal, the conviction carries a maximum two-year imprisonment. Some interesting points were raised, including the fact that the judge failed to take judicial notice that the Holocaust actually took place thus placing the burden of proof that it took place on the plaintiff. Scientific and forensic evidence was presented by Zundel that it never took place. Alleged eyewitnesses to the event were time and again proven to be telling falsehoods. This is exactly the thing that Constitutional reformers want for the United States. They don't want anybody to go digging around in Orwellian Memory Holes, so they can spout only their version of history. Granted some horrible things took place during World War 2. But at least let's get at the truth, whatever it may be. Respctfully submitted, Don Black
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (03/21/85)
In article <1218@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes: > Tom, this just shows that Canada has the same problem the US does. >Canada can control neither its borders nor its criminals. Anti-gun laws >only serve to kill people. For example, in New York City, which has >the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation, the crime rate is outrageous. >It isn't even safe to ride the subway ( :-) ). Massachusetts has one of >the highest crime rates in the nation. But in New Hampshire, where every >citizen is authorized to carry a firearm, the crime rate is negligible. I'm not sure I see how that follows. It is not obvious that just because NYC has the strongest anti-gun law in the nation and a high crime rate that the former causes the latter. Maybe there is a correlation between crime rates and anti-gun laws, but a perhaps more plausible explanation of the correlation would be that the people that live in high crime municipalities and states are thereby strongly motivated to support such laws. A fairly rural state like New Hampshire is bound to have a fairly low crime rate, and so the citizens/legislators see little reason to pass anti-gun legislation. I think that IF there is a correlation between crime and anti-gun laws, my hypothesis is much more plausible. Can you offer any evidence to support your hypothesis? > > What is justice is to allow law-abiding citizens the right to protect >themselves, and let the criminals be aware that if they are shot while >committing a crime, they have no recourse against their victim. Here in >the US, the courts are ruling that the individual citizen is NOT entitled >to police protection, and that he responsible for his own safety. Now, >how can a citizen be responsible for his safety without the authority >to do so? How can a citizen protect himself without arms? > > >>Obviously we worship hold different religious views if that's your idea >>of heaven. However, we *are* working on it. But we still need to >>(1) Boost our crime rate by an incredible amount. Especially our violent >> crime rate. I'm afraid it's just way below the American standard. > > Be grateful. If we didn't have criminals, we wouldn't need guns >to protect ourselves. Besides, if we didn't have the potential for >governmental criminality, we probably wouldn't even need rifles. > >>(2) Give everybody handguns so that we can kill each other accidently much >> faster. [Guns don't kill kids. Kids kill kids.] > > 99.7% of all handguns in the US are NOT involved in a crime or accident. >99.3% of all firearms in the US are NOT used in crime or and accident. > > Stupid parents kill kids. > >>(3) Up our racial hatred level by a massive factor. > > It takes two to tango. > >>(4) Increase our knee-jerk anti-communist reaction by several orders of >> magnitudes. > > Now you're talking. > >>(5) Increase our willingness to let the poor starve. > > The US "Food Stamps" program has the largest budget ever, this year. >And the "poor" are still complaining. The people who need help the most >never seem to get it. Here in the US, we're so concerned about "refugees" >that we fail to take care of our own first. I say get rid of the Council >on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, build up North American >industry again, and let people earn an honest work. > >>(6) Build massive amounts of ghettos > > "Ghettoes" build themselves. My family was always "poor" because of >health problems. We never went hungry, both my parents were always around, >and we were taught respect for other people's property. Poverty does not >always mean a lack of money. > >>(7) Increase our arson rate. (Is North Tonawanda still standing?) > > The arsonist you will always have with you. > >>(8) Increase our defense spending. > > Great. Canada does not have to worry about "big ticket" strategic >weaponry. Spend it on the condition that weaponry is manufactured entirely >in Canada, to benefit Canadian workers. > >>(9) Increase our dollar. (Oh well...) > > The problem withthe Canadian dollar is that it is tied too much to the >American F.R.A.U.D. (Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Dollar). Go back to >a gold or silver standard. > >>>I also know some people from up there who would LIKE to see themselves become >>>part of the good ole US of A.!! That's just so you don't think I'm a crank >>>of one. I understand the provences are not getting along so well with the >>>central gov.,eh? The provinces too. >>>Ken Arndt > > I do believe things are a little better now. The US and Canada should >both strive to maintain their own sovereignty > >> In a country of 25 million, you get every type of crack-pot. Besides, >>have they ever *lived* in the States? The idea of being fearful of walking >>in any part of a city (eg. Toronto, pop. 3Meg) is so unreal, that they might >>not realize this seems to be the case in several American cities. > > The concept of respect for other people's property has a lot to do with >a city's crime rate. A person who would vandalize a subway car, smash a >store window, or take a car for a joy ride is the same person who would snatch >a purse, mug somebody, or commit a rape. (A couple of years ago, in the >small city where I live, a 16-year old boy was given 20-to-life for >breaking-and entering, petty larceny, and attempted murder on a 93-year-old >woman. If we had stiffer sentencing of violent juveniles, we would reduce >the crime rate dramatically.) > >>It doesn't >>fall to us to support gov'ts killing their own citizens to protect themselves >>against the communist menace. Maybe it has to be done by someone (Although >>I have my doubts) but I am thankful it will never have to be us. > > Fear not, guys. We still owe you for the assistance in Iran. You got us >stuck in between you and Mexico. Take a look at a map sometime, and count >the dominoes between Nicaragua and Canada. You'd better pray we can stop >the swarming hoards at the Rio Grande, so you won't have to do it at the >St. Lawrence. > >> In case this article sounds too anti-American, my apologies, but Mr. Arndt >>*does* have the ability to say things in need of strong rebuttal. I am >>certainly glad that the USA has chosen to be the world super-power. It >>means that the rest of us don't have to be totally ruthless to survive. >>And if history shows anything, either you have to be totally ruthless,or >>under the protection of a country that is. The States have my gratitude, >>as long as they don't force us to become them. [ Tom West] > > My apologies also, if I sound anti-Canadian. What we need is better >cooperation between the two nations to solve what difficulties we have. > > >>Surely agreement by treaty is better than these bully-boy tactics? >>Reciprocity in international relations is more than just courtesy. >>The United Nations has never been seen as a place to supercede national >>governments or laws, but it is a place where they can talk together, >>and with luck work together to make the world a better place. >>Over the decades (or centuries, if we are so lucky), it just might >>become a world forum with some authority to back up its decisions >>(e.g. a standing peace-keeping force that could break up little >>quarrels among neighbours, or that could go and reinforce the troops >>of a country being invaded). >>Actually, I suppose the dream of all mankind would at heart be that >>the world COULD be made one United Nation -- and the lion shall lie >>down with the lamb, and all that. National chauvinism is unfortunately >>only one of the reasons it probably won't happen for a long time, >>if ever.[Martin Taylor] > > I'm proud to be an American chuavinist. The United Nations is nothing >more than a hotbed of Communist infiltrators, formed by Communist conspirators, >to serve the purposes of international Communism. The lion only wants to >lay down with the lamb in its belly. Why is it that American blood gets shed >every time some little banana republic has a revolt? We get engaged in so >many petty quarrels that we fail to see the real issues, the problems >here at home that are destroying our own society. > >>In article <709@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >>>I read in our local paper that a man was convicted of spreading rumors >>>for the publication of his book calling the concentration camps of Nazi >>>Germany a hoax. Is it true that you can be arrested and tried for >>>spreading rumors in Canada? If we had that law here, we would have to >>>designate several states criminal colonies to hold all the convicts! >>[:-/-)] > >> It is true that a man was convicted of knowingly spreading false >>information likely to cause racial hatred. This false information >>was that the concentration camps in Germany were a hoax. I believe >>his sentence was for a few months. He is currently trying to appeal, >>but will in all probability lose. >> It is dangerous to be publicly racist in Canada. (Thank goodness.) >[Tom West] > > Ernst Zundel was acquitted on one count and convicted on a second. >The big issue in the trial was not the correctness of his information, >but rather his freedom of speech and press. The government was forced >by the Antidefamation League to prosecute, because a single individual >refused to drop the case. The League really didn't want the case tried >because they didn't want the man to get publicity. (You can see why.) > > Zundel was acquited of the charge concerning a publication that he >himself wrote. He was convicted for publishing a 32-page pamphlet that >was written by a British author. Barring appeal, the conviction carries >a maximum two-year imprisonment. > > Some interesting points were raised, including the fact that the >judge failed to take judicial notice that the Holocaust actually took >place thus placing the burden of proof that it took place on the plaintiff. >Scientific and forensic evidence was presented by Zundel that it never took >place. Alleged eyewitnesses to the event were time and again proven >to be telling falsehoods. > > This is exactly the thing that Constitutional reformers want for the >United States. They don't want anybody to go digging around in Orwellian >Memory Holes, so they can spout only their version of history. Granted >some horrible things took place during World War 2. But at least let's >get at the truth, whatever it may be. > >Respctfully submitted, > >Don Black -- Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California {ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob _^__ ~/ \_.\ _ ~/ \_\ ~/ \_________~/ ~/ /\ /\ _/ \ / \ _/ \ _/ \ \ /
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (03/22/85)
>Anti gun laws only serve to kill people.
Sorry to bring this up again, but look at how many people the anti-gun
laws kill in Europe!
--
James C Armstrong, Jnr. { ihnp4 || allegra || mcnc || cbosgb } !abnji!jca
I think he needs more than water, Peri, ay?