Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids

Timothy C. May wrote:

> I wonder when and how raids in the U.S. moved from the "Come out with your
> hands up" verbal announcement (for the cases that needed more than a knock
> on the door) to this blast-in-the-doors approach, where the raiders are
> dressed in "tactical black" and are wearing black Nomex hoods and carrying
> MP-5s and blast any "perp" who looks at them cross-eyed?
 
If people decide that they are going to permit widespread ownership of guns
then these tactics are inevitable. They are rare in the UK because gun
ownership is relatively rare.

I find this type of talk typical wishy washy libertarian twaddle. There are
dangerous people arround besides the government and the government is the
only agency that is going to protect society from them. If you don't like 
living in a country where the police are armed to the teeth then move to
the UK where there are very few armed police. Of course you will find that
the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal freedom,
you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff. 

If you want to own guns then you should accept the fact that you risk having
your head blown off in the middle of the night by a SWAT team. Just as the
car has introduced the risk of being killed in a trafic accident the gun has
introduced new risks. If society dosen't like the risks then it can opt
to ban the technology. 

If you want to own a gun because you have some kind of personality problem
and you need to prop up your ego then 


		Phill

Hallan-bakar:

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Hallam-Baker wrote:

> dangerous people arround besides the government and the government is the
	
	The most dangerous person is the world is a an armed
	law enforcement officer.  The least dangerous person is 
	that same law enforcement officer, dead.   

	The _only_ difference between a gang of thugs, and a government,
	is that the latter admit to being thugs, whilst the former deny
	that.  They both operate on the same prinicple -- steal from
	others, and kill those that oppose them.  

> only agency that is going to protect society from them. If you don't like 

	Governments are the agencies _most_ likely to abuse one's
	freedom.   << Take Northern Ireland, as an example of what 
	happens, when a government tries to pacify a region, by
	prohibiting everything.  >>

> living in a country where the police are armed to the teeth then move to
> the UK where there are very few armed police. Of course you will find that

	Note in passing that the British Army is more than perfectly
	willing to massacre the civilian population, it purportedly 
	protects.   Of course, that is in their capacity as an 
	occupation force, as part of their pacification procedures.  

> the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal freedom,
> you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff. 

	Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live
	in a country where everybody  << including six year olds >>
	carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.  

	Where weapons are just another thing to carry around, and 
	used to kill those who don't respect human rights --- like the
	British and American governments, for starters.  

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com

> > the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal
> > freedom, you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff. 
> 
> Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live
> in a country where everybody  << including six year olds >>
> carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.

Oh my ... you aren't serious, are you?

I suspect you might be baiting ... but ...

If you can trust a six-year-old with an Uzi, I assume that you believe
the six-year-old can "properly" judge what is a threat and what isn't?
Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say,
another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone?

Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?

You might have had a different childhood, but when I (and most of my
friends) were 6 (or 12 or even 18), our primary concern was having fun,
avoiding stuff we don't like (like homework), attracting females (or
males, as the case may be), attracting attention in general, avoiding
being one-upped (in conversation or in sports or otherwise) but always
on-upping someone else, ...

Oh ... and ice cream ... but that was mostly me ... most of my friends
wanted candy.

No where in this list of high priority items is respect for human life,
peace and brotherhood among mankind, end world hunger, etc ...  There
are very good historical reasons why 18 and 21 are reasonable (though
sometimes conservative) guesses at the age of maturity, responsibility
and consent.

If you are not killing someone else because they (may) have an Uzi, I
think, sooner or later, you will figure out a way to kill him before
he can pull it out.

This means that a group of 1000 KKK members will kill a group of 10
blacks due to overwhelming force.  One principle in the Constitution
(which I personally respect very much) is that a majority should not
force its views on a minority.

Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs),
and I certainly would not even contemplate letting him have a gun (no
matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself.  I
will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved)
if I ever found him with a gun.

By the way, would you let a 6 year old drive?  or fly?  (Assuming that
they are physical capable and trained to do such.)

Ern

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:
> 
> Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?


     I was 17 when Uncle Shithead handed me my first M-16, and I wasn't 
the youngest person in my company.

> No where in this list of high priority items is respect for human life,

     I'm in my late 20's, and respect for human life is lower than ever.

> Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs),
> and I certainly would not even contemplate letting him have a gun (no
> matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself.  I
> will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved)
> if I ever found him with a gun.


     Yes, those guns are evil things. Evil I tell you, constantly shooting
people for no reason, going off half-cocked and whooping it up all by 
their polished oiled ol selves.

     Isn't it funny how otherwise rational people can ascribe intentions
and moral alignement (ie. good/evil) to an inert chunk of steel?

> 
> By the way, would you let a 6 year old drive?  or fly?  (Assuming that
> they are physical capable and trained to do such.)

     I was driving tractors(small ones) and motorcycles long before I 
turned 16. My father started teaching me to drive a car (thru asking 
questions &etc.) when I was about 12, and put me behind the wheel of 
a van when I was 15 (in a controled situation away from traffic). 

     He also taught me the basics of gun saftey, and made sure that
I took those classes that were available to me in the areas of gun 
saftey and marksmanship. 

   Then again for all his faults my father is a relatively rational 
human being about most things. 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

> > Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs),
> > and I certainly would not even contemplate letting him have a gun (no
> > matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself.  I
> > will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved)
> > if I ever found him with a gun.
> 
>      Yes, those guns are evil things. Evil I tell you, constantly shooting
> people for no reason, going off half-cocked and whooping it up all by 
> their polished oiled ol selves.

Hmm.  Sarcasm?  Cannot definitively say, but I'll guess it is.

>      Isn't it funny how otherwise rational people can ascribe intentions
> and moral alignement (ie. good/evil) to an inert chunk of steel?

Assuming you are accusing me of such, you should probably point out
specifically where I said such a thing.  (If I did, it would be bad
grammar or some such, and I would certainly retract it.)

>      He also taught me the basics of gun saftey, and made sure that
> I took those classes that were available to me in the areas of gun 
> saftey and marksmanship.

You might be missing the mark too, but I thought the subject was
giving a gun to every child who enters school, not YOURs or SOME
EXPERT 6 YEAR OLD's special case.

Yes, if every child was truly an exemplary God-fearing Christian,
I would probably have fewer objections to giving every child a
gun.  After all, they would NEVER use it in a fit of rage or
jealousy or any such sins ...  Right?

Death is permanent.  A child is prone to accidents.  Maybe those
of you who are just too "special" and "talented" don't need such
paternalistic frameworks, but I know my child cannot tell right
from wrong, good from bad.  He will get better over time.  But I
don't want another child to pay for my son's less than full
maturity by getting shot.

Ern

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:
> > > Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs),
> > > matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself.  I
> > > will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved)
> > > if I ever found him with a gun.
> >      Yes, those guns are evil things. Evil I tell you, constantly shooting
> > people for no reason, going off half-cocked and whooping it up all by 
> > their polished oiled ol selves.
> Hmm.  Sarcasm?  Cannot definitively say, but I'll guess it is.

     Only a little bit.

> >      Isn't it funny how otherwise rational people can ascribe intentions
> > and moral alignement (ie. good/evil) to an inert chunk of steel?
> Assuming you are accusing me of such, you should probably point out
> specifically where I said such a thing.  (If I did, it would be bad
> grammar or some such, and I would certainly retract it.)

      Not accusing you specifically, only really mentioning it in passing.
If I was accusing you of it, I would have said so. 

> >      He also taught me the basics of gun saftey, and made sure that
> > I took those classes that were available to me in the areas of gun 
> > saftey and marksmanship.
> You might be missing the mark too, but I thought the subject was
> giving a gun to every child who enters school, not YOURs or SOME
> EXPERT 6 YEAR OLD's special case.

     I was no expert, and I am (IMO) still a lousy marksman. I just don't
have the money to practice _at all_ so I don't keep my guns here in Chicago.

> Yes, if every child was truly an exemplary God-fearing Christian,
> I would probably have fewer objections to giving every child a
> gun.  After all, they would NEVER use it in a fit of rage or
> jealousy or any such sins ...  Right?

     Hmmm... Sarcasm? I _really_ can't tell. 

> Death is permanent.  A child is prone to accidents.  Maybe those
> of you who are just too "special" and "talented" don't need such
> paternalistic frameworks, but I know my child cannot tell right
> from wrong, good from bad.  He will get better over time.  But I

     Are you telling me that I give your kid more credit than you? There 
is a difference between knowing and caring. 

> don't want another child to pay for my son's less than full
> maturity by getting shot.

    There is a difference between teaching a 6 year old proper gun saftey and 
letting the kid carry. 

     If it was you, you said that you were going to let your kid have a gun 
until he was old enough te get it himself. How do you expect him/her to 
know how to use it if you don't teach them? Would you give a kid the keys 
to a car at 16 if they have never been taught how to drive?

  

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:

> I suspect you might be baiting ... but ...
> 
> If you can trust a six-year-old with an Uzi, I assume that you believe
> the six-year-old can "properly" judge what is a threat and what isn't?
> Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say,
> another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone?

Works for me.  Throughout most of the history of the US, children
have routinely been intrusted with deadly weapons--rifles, pistols
and shotguns.  I got my first real gun when I was seven or eight.
(Before that, I had a BB gun as long as I can remember.)  I gave 
my daugher one when she was nine or ten.  I know of one FOUR YEAR 
OLD whose parents gave her a gun.  (I have no doubt she would use 
it far more judiciously than your average cop.)  

For two hundred years Americans have been able to buy small
guns made especially for children.  I've seen them and they
were beautiful little guns.  Nowadays, the gun manufacturers
has eschewed them--probably for PR reasons.

> Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?

Hell no!  Let them or their parents buy them.
 
> You might have had a different childhood, but when I (and most of my
> friends) were 6 (or 12 or even 18), our primary concern was having fun,

Ditto, bro.  And guns are great fun.  That's why Thomas Jefferson
opined that giving a young man a gun would do far more to build
his character then engaging in sports.  (I agree.)  Next time you
are in the San Francisco Bay Area, let me know and I'll take you
shooting.  Looks like you need some character building.  :-)

> This means that a group of 1000 KKK members will kill a group of 10
> blacks due to overwhelming force. 

Again, history shows you to be wrong.  Gun control started in
the antibellum South as a means to disarm the newly freed blacks.
When the Black Muslims bought a Southern plantation in the '60s
they were harassed--until they armed themselves with AR-15s. 
After that, no more problems.  Finally, I know a lawyer who was
a Freedom Rider in the '60s.  Whenever they were confronted with
threats of force, they shot back.  Presto, off into the woods
shrank the cowardly Klansmen.  Other--unarmed--civil rights
workers ended up being encorporated into dams and land fills.

> One principle in the Constitution (which I personally respect
> very much) is that a majority should not force its views on a
> minority.

Me too.  That's what we gun owners are fighting to preserve.
 
> Incidentally, if you are interested, I DO have a child (almost 2 yrs),
> and I certainly would not even contemplate letting him have a gun (no
> matter how well he can use it) until he can legal get one himself.  I
> will certainly invoke serious wrath (on him and anyone else involved)
> if I ever found him with a gun.

Unfortunately, the first you might know of it is when he comes
across a gun and ends up shooting himself or someone else because 
of the gun ignorance to which you have condemned him.  Good luck.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ernest.

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:

> > in a country where everybody  << including six year olds >>
> > carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.
> Oh my ... you aren't serious, are you?

	Deadly.

> Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say,
> another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone?

	I can only assume that
	#1:	You've never lived where both long arms, and side 
		arms were a part of normal casual dress attire. 
	#2:	You have no comprehension of non-wasp culture norms.
	
> Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?

	I'd expect them to buy the guns, but yes.

> friends) were 6 (or 12 or even 18), our primary concern was having fun,
> avoiding stuff we don't like (like homework), attracting females (or

	Lot like mine.  

	Thing was, without the FN's, or the Uzi's there wouldn't 
	have been a childhood to grow out of. 
> By the way, would you let a 6 year old drive?  or fly?  (Assuming that
> they are physical capable and trained to do such.)

	Yes.

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com


	AOL coasters are unique, and colourful.  
		Collect the entire set.

> > Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say,
> > another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone?
> 
> I can only assume that
> #1:	You've never lived where both long arms, and side 
> 	arms were a part of normal casual dress attire. 
> #2:	You have no comprehension of non-wasp culture norms.

Before you make some irresponsible accusations, please investigate
the facts.  I grew up in both Western-style and backward country
Taiwan.  Neither required side arms, and we did fine.  Neither are
what you might consider "wasp".  And I certainly would not want
your own childhood distortions to become the social norm.  I am
sure they killed and lynched many Asians "in the good ol' days".
I'm not for those days.

The point is, you would not give a gun to someone with mental
disorders.  Right?  (If you would, then we might as well just stop
the conversation here.)  The reason you would not is because there
is a "significant" chance that this person would not respect basic
social values like life, liberty, etc ...

If I remember correctly, there were MANY times when, if I had a
weapon capable of killing someone near invisibly (say a poison
dart), I just might have used it.  Of course, as an adult I would
live to regret having the ability and resources to following
through on a fit of childhood rage.

When your BIG goal is to get to 16.5 so you can a learner's permit,
you just don't have a well-balanced view of the world yet.  In
addition, when you don't have a family, when you don't have buy-in
of ANY SORT into your community, when you have ZERO future (as in
the lives of some inner city kids), you simply do not care about
these other concepts like brotherhood and community.

I have always argued that those who have vesting in a community
will work harder to make that community great.  The same principle
applies to companies where the employees get profit sharing or own
significant stock.  If you HAVE to care because it would benefit
you to care, YOU WILL.  If you don't have to care, YOU WON'T.

A 6 (or 12 or 18) year old, simply does not have to care.  I can
bribe my 2 year old with one simple thing:  Sweets.  He is vested
in his immediate futures in cookies and ice cream.  Beyond that, he
has nothing vested whatsoever (mostly because he just isn't aware
of anything serious yet).

As a stereotypical geek at 12, at 18, at 24 and now at 30, I am
still not completely sure I am mature enough that I would trust
my own judgements with a gun.  And I have had the fortune of a
reasonably good, well-educated, upper-middle-class life.  I would
hate to see what would have happened if I grew up in a gheto.

Ern

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:

> 
> > > the price of freedom of mind is a minor restriction on your personal
> > > freedom, you won't be allowed a weapon either but that is the tradeoff. 
> > 
> > Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live
> > in a country where everybody  << including six year olds >>
> > carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.
> 
> Oh my ... you aren't serious, are you?
> 
> I suspect you might be baiting ... but ...
> 
> If you can trust a six-year-old with an Uzi, I assume that you believe
> the six-year-old can "properly" judge what is a threat and what isn't?
> Just why do you suppose a pissed-off six-year-old (because, let's say,
> another six-year-old stole his lunch) would not blast someone?
> 
> Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?

My twelve-year-old daughter asked for and received a .22 for her birthday.
Her four and six year old siblings enjoy shooting it, under close 
supervision.

Rural America has a very different culture than urban America and urban 
America's recent attempts to impose its values (like hoplophobia) on us 
really chafes.

bd

> > > Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live
> > > in a country where everybody  << including six year olds >>
> > > carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.
> > 
> > Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?
> 
> My twelve-year-old daughter asked for and received a .22 for her birthday.
> Her four and six year old siblings enjoy shooting it, under close 
> supervision.

The question was not whether you might let your little girl operate
a gun.  The question was whether you might let her carry it as part
of her standard equipment.  Would you let her go to school with it
loaded or with ammo within easy reach?  I mean, what's the point of
carrying a gun without bullets?

Ern

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:

> 
> > > > Thanks, but if it is all the same to you, I'd rather live
> > > > in a country where everybody  << including six year olds >>
> > > > carry, and can use Uzi's, etc, as a matter of course.
> > > 
> > > Would you just hand out guns to all teenagers?
> > 
> > My twelve-year-old daughter asked for and received a .22 for her birthday.
> > Her four and six year old siblings enjoy shooting it, under close 
> > supervision.
> 
> The question was not whether you might let your little girl operate
> a gun.  The question was whether you might let her carry it as part
> of her standard equipment.  Would you let her go to school with it
> loaded or with ammo within easy reach?  I mean, what's the point of
> carrying a gun without bullets?

My daughter often carries her gun to school, complete with large 
quantities of high-velocity long-rifle cartridges.

She's homeschooled and marksmanship is one of her extracurricular activities.

bd

p.s.  In two years of homeschooling, she has advanced 6 grade levels on 
the state-mandated achievement tests.  

> 
> Ern
> 
> 
>

At 5:31 AM -0700 7/20/96, Brad Dolan wrote:

>My twelve-year-old daughter asked for and received a .22 for her birthday.
>Her four and six year old siblings enjoy shooting it, under close
>supervision.
>
>Rural America has a very different culture than urban America and urban
>America's recent attempts to impose its values (like hoplophobia) on us
>really chafes.

Though it is well known that I am in favor of gun control regulations, I
have to support Brad Dolan here. There is a huge and traditional gun
culture in rural American, particularly in the midwest. The way most Jewish
kids get Bar Mitzvahed at 13 as a rite of passage into adulthood, or the
way most kids get their learner's permit to drive as such a symbol is the
way many midwestern kids get their first gun.

David

> >Rural America has a very different culture than urban America and urban
> >America's recent attempts to impose its values (like hoplophobia) on us
> >really chafes.
> 
> Though it is well known that I am in favor of gun control regulations, I
> have to support Brad Dolan here. There is a huge and traditional gun
> culture in rural American, particularly in the midwest. The way most Jewish

Or the way many blacks were lynched (physically and socially) in the South.
Or the way many asians were segregated.  Or the way many ethnic groups
fought each other in inner cities.

These are cultural relics of the good ol' days I simply can do without.

Ern

At 5:14 PM -0700 7/22/96, Ernest Hua wrote:
>> >Rural America has a very different culture than urban America and urban
>> >America's recent attempts to impose its values (like hoplophobia) on us
>> >really chafes.
>>
>> Though it is well known that I am in favor of gun control regulations, I
>> have to support Brad Dolan here. There is a huge and traditional gun
>> culture in rural American, particularly in the midwest. The way most Jewish
>
>Or the way many blacks were lynched (physically and socially) in the South.
>Or the way many asians were segregated.  Or the way many ethnic groups
>fought each other in inner cities.
>
>These are cultural relics of the good ol' days I simply can do without.
>
>Ern

I find myself in the very peculiar and unfamiliar position of defending the
gun crowd--I fail to see how (speaking generally) a midwestern rural teen's
having a hunting rifle affects someone in urban America.

Any integrity with respect to civil liberties extends to the rights of
those with whom you disagree. Otherwise it's self-indulgence wrapped in
fancy-looking clothes.

David