> Richard, the only thing I really get from you is that you seem to hate the
> American Government and the American People.
***With comments like that; I am glad there are educated people in the U.S. otherwise your country wouldn't have made all these wonderful achievements and won all those Nobel prizes. As other people have said, in other threads, to many other people, but to you as well; read and comprehend. Don't make assumptions because you are incapable of reading with clarity.

Just look at your attacks against Petit Soleil in the thread What will be if we found an Alien signal under the Seti@Home Science Forum, which you went back to and erased - though some can be found in the replies of others to your insults. You totally misconstrued what he said but attacked him for being French, for being a Canadian, for having the audacity to comment on President Bush and the CIA? - for not being an American?

Why haven't you done so here, or does it take someone like SetiSkywalker insinuating Petit Soleil was a Nazi before you try to erase your tracks? Note: nowhere am I implying anything of the sort to you, just that the increase in tone of racism seems to have worried you - since you don't read with clarity***

> That the USA is the cause of all the evil and problems in the world.
***You are an utter fool if you think I wrote anything like that***

> That an American who is pro-American is racist.
***No, you are a racist because you attack the French, the Arabs, the Pathans, Muslims, and who knows who else.***

> That someone who HONESTLY speaks their mind, without lies or deceit,
> without giving in to supression or censorship by you or others is racist.
***Written like the truly ignorant. What does having pride in ones country have to do with insulting, condemning, those of another?***

> Well my friend
***No, we are not friends nor could I ever be a friend to someone like yourself. Not even an acquaintance.***

> all I can respond to you regarding this is nothing is farther
> from the truth. Do I hate the French people? No. In fact I love their
> language. Do I hate the French government? No, but I admit sometimes I'm
> confused by their votes in the UN. Do I hate the Canadian government or its
> people? No. I've vacationed there before and probably will do so again. Do
> I hate you? No. I dont hold grudges and tomorrow is a different day. Now
> maybe you hate us and maybe you dont. But *IF* you do dont expect that
> because of that we would hate you back. You just pissed me off this evening,
> not because of your world political feelings but because of your blatant
> accusations.

> Hypocracy is my biggest pet peeve and sometimes causes me to fly
> off the handle.
***Too bad you haven't the faintest clue what it is.***

> Do I believe that non-Americans have the right to comment,
> whether good or bad, about my Country and its government? Absolutely.
***Really? What you wrote in What will be if we found an Alien signal proves differently - even if you went back to try to edit out all your remarks.

> But you have to also realize that you may get responses to your comment, for the good or bad.
***Gosh, really? You mean like you have done? Wow!!! I never would have realised that! Thank you O so much for making aware of what you are doing - especially when you use such moderate language. Merci beaucoup! Having visited Canada, you are, no doubt, aware that French is also an official language here.***

> It follows the cliche of "Dont dish it out if you cant take it."
***But, from your anger and vulgarity; it does not apply to you?***

> Do I believely that Americans can comment on other countries? Again
> absolutely and I would expect comments in return.
***Only if you do not resent the comments, right?***

> Now I for one have
> RESPONDED to what I perceived to be anti-american comments both jokingly and
> seriously but I have never INITIATED any anti-other country comment.
> I hope you'll be able to read this and take it at face value, without "reading
> between the lines" or superimposing your thoughts onto mine. I've tried to
> express and explain myself here as best as I could. Whether or not you choose
> to understand what Im trying to say here is entirely up to you.

Okay, then I terminate this 'discussion' with you - until you attack another non-American.

-H. Richard Utzig

I was going to let this rest Richard but I had to say two more things.
First off one of the main reasons we have the right is to keep the goverment in check so they don't become a tyranny. Also the second ammendment DOES say that it guarantees an individuals right to keep and bear arms. The part about the militia is just saying that is also allowed. On top of that the men who wrote that very constitution made it very clear in speeches they made and letters they wrote that they wanted ordinary citizens not affiliated with any military to have arms if they chose too. I could spout off so many places where they said just this but I think a good look at the second amendment will clear that up.

Secondly, when I said I was fairly liberal I meant about other things. For example, I believe in the woman's right to choose when it comes to abortions, I happen to be Agnostic as far as religion is concerned and I also am more tollerant of gays, probably because I am not religous. I also am pretty open to the idea of legalizing Marijuana which the liberals have talked about. I am basically PRO-Freedom. I think that the individual should make their own decisions good or bad and the government should stay out of it unless it directly and I emphasize directly hurts me physically. Our country seems to be full of alot of emotional wimps from what I have seen. They all want to be victims and taken care of by the government. Another thing I disagree with is the death penalty. I don't think any government should have the power of execution over it's citizens.

Oh, and one more thing. I think the reason I hate all the anti gun politicians, such as the UNs Kofi Annan, is they think guns are bad yet they want to be able to have them. Kofi Annan was found to be running around New York city back in the 90s with guards carrying machine guns. When police questioned one of his guards about this and found out he didn't have the required permits did he go to jail like you or I would have??? Nope, they just blew it off and worked out things later. Nothing scarier than someone saying you can't defend yourself but I can because I am more important. What a load of crap.


---Still Crunching ;)---
Keith

It seems to me indicative of current times through which we're passing that the concept of nation as it's always been known to mankind has about outlived its' usefulness.
Not to try to take this deteriorating collection of rants in another direction, as it appears to have died a natural, if ugly, death on its own-
We have such a long ways to go before we can collectively be appreciated as a single people populating this little planet.
We are still arguing amongst each other over ancient history while we all walk unprepared toward a completely unknown future content to be led like sheep by obviously corrupt and antiquated masters like morally bankrupt nationalism and hocus pocus religionism.
An advanced civlilization, one that had long come to terms with the value of the diversity inherent in the mixture of race and culture within its' population, could only look at the human race today as only a few baby steps removed from barbarity.
It may come to the day when free distribution of the damn weapons to all who feel the urge to kill is implemented in order to maintain a mamagable number of humans on the planet. Our facination with the intricacy and mechanism and apparatus of warfare and mayhem just tells me that great purging wars happen because men like to kill. We make the weapons and make war on each other because we enjoy it.
An advanced ET civilization can probably smell that from 1000 light years out.
...cc

Okay, let me comment on two of the following.

> Secondly, when I said I was fairly liberal I meant about other things. For
> example, I believe in the woman's right to choose when it comes to abortions,
> I happen to be Agnostic as far as religion is concerned and I also am more
> tollerant of gays, probably because I am not religous.

> I also am pretty open to the idea of legalizing Marijuana which the liberals
> have talked about.

***Canada is just proposing to decriminalise marijuana, not legalise it. Have you read any of the warnings, if not out-right threats, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada has made if we go through with it? If there are such threats against us, while there is open, democratic, free, debate about a proposal in Parliament, by your government, how likely is it that decriminalisation, let alone legalisation, would occur within the U.S.?***

> I am
> basically PRO-Freedom. I think that the individual should make their own
> decisions good or bad and the government should stay out of it unless it
> directly and I emphasize directly hurts me physically. Our country seems to be
> full of alot of emotional wimps from what I have seen. They all want to be
> victims and taken care of by the government. Another thing I disagree with is
> the death penalty. I don't think any government should have the power of
> execution over it's citizens.
>
> Oh, and one more thing. I think the reason I hate all the anti gun
> politicians, such as the UNs Kofi Annan, is they think guns are bad yet they
> want to be able to have them. Kofi Annan was found to be running around New
> York city back in the 90s with guards carrying machine guns. When police
> questioned one of his guards about this and found out he didn't have the
> required permits did he go to jail like you or I would have??? Nope, they just
> blew it off and worked out things later. Nothing scarier than someone saying
> you can't defend yourself but I can because I am more important. What a load
> of crap.

*** Kofi Annan is the Secretary-General of the United Nations - a position equivalent to the head of a State. He carries a diplomatic passport and has diplomatic immunity. If his guards have weapons, which he is entitled to, then they were given the right to do so by your government. I could easily complain about your President visiting Canada and having his secret service detail carry weapons. That is a direct violation of Canadian law. He, technically, has a diplomatic passport and diplomatic immunity. He is the head of a State, just like Kofi Annan, and the Pope are, and so receive priviliges that are a direct violation of local law. Such is diplomatic protocol.***

Cool Beans...


It's only fair to let people do as they want to do...If people want to own firearms then so be it.


It's what makes america such a free country...people are free to do as they choose. While of course we would hope people make wise choices...they are of course free to make bad ones also and suffer any bad consequences of those choices.


I see no reason to deprive other people of the enjoyment that owning a fine firearm or a 'fun gun' such as a assualt rifles with all the goodies like banettes and flash hiders and whatever else people want to put on them. Some people enjoy this as a hobby...I see not reason to deprive them of it.

Belial... Do you REALLY believe this?!!

> I see no reason to deprive other people of the enjoyment that owning a
> fine firearm or a 'fun gun' such as a assualt rifles with all the goodies
> like banettes and flash hiders and whatever else people want to put on them.
> Some people enjoy this as a hobby...I see not reason to deprive them of it.

Have you had a look at the murder rates in the US recently? I'd have thought there were a few million reasons there...

> While of course we would hope people make wise choices...they are of course
> free to make bad ones also and suffer any bad consequences of those choices.

Surely it's part of the role of Government to try to protect innocent civilians from nutters who "make bad choices" with their assult rifles and inflict those bad consequences on others. Let's just hope to God that you or your loved ones never fall victim to some mad-man with his "hobby" assult rifle having a bad day and making a couple of "bad choices"

[url=http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=112265]
<a>

Even though I have made it clear that I find it absurd that legally owned guns do anything but save lives I will present another question. Even if you think the semi-automatic assault rifles that hold more rounds are the problem, which is what the ban restricted, what about the fact that most people who commit murders use pistols? Rifles are just to big and bulky to carry around anyway. Hardly anyone you see in the news uses a rifle.

Soleil, I just looked at your profile. I am rather jealous, it sounds like you have quite a life. :) Sailing around surounded by all that neat gadgetry.

> Where all this paranoia come from ?
>
> I don't know anyone in Italy, France, Norway, England, Germany, etc. who would
> feel
> the need to have a M16 under his pillow to sleep well. Is it because of what
> you see on
> TV. When I am in the US I open the TV in my hotel room for 5 minutes and what
> I see is
> COPS, AMERICA UNDER ATTACK, CRIME, WAR, INVESTIGATIONS, A FULL DOCUMENTARY
> ABOUT HOW M1 TANK IS POWERFULL, ETC, ETC, ETC. I have never seen a cultural
> channel
> where they talk about arts, poetry, history, etc. Only very low intelectual
> level program.
> like MONSTER GARAGE, etc.
>
> Actually you would have to pay me a great amount of money for me to live
> their. You guys
> are still living in the wild west or what ?
>
-
-
Change the channel to Arts and Entertainment, History Channel, Good Housekeeping, Home and Garden, or even Nickelodeon for a change of pace. You might even like to check out the guide listings for other decent programming once in a while.
-
When I watch the International News, I am happy to be safe at home in the USA. At least we are not bombing each other for the hell of it.



<a> [/url]

> Change the channel to Arts and Entertainment, History Channel, Good
> Housekeeping, Home and Garden, or even Nickelodeon for a change of pace. You
> might even like to check out the guide listings for other decent programming
> once in a while.

I haven't seen any of those, next time I will look for these. (these those ???)
Or change hotel for one that has good tv cable. Thanks for the advise.

> When I watch the International News, I am happy to be safe at home in the USA.
> At least we are not bombing each other for the hell of it.

I have the same feeling home When in Canada or France. especialy since not any
mentally insane can by an M16 at the street corner store.

> Okay, then I terminate this 'discussion' with you - until you attack another
> non-American.
>
> -H(ypocrite) Richard Utzig
>
>
>
Wah Wah Wah! Oh poor baby. Did I hurt your little feelings? See I try to explain because you asked me to and all you do is attack attack attack. You asked for it, you got it, you didnt like it. Insted you lost your cool. As evident by your own lack of self-respect and self-esteem you attack others and me in attempt to raise yourself up. The amount of self-hatred you appear have for yourself is without measure. From this point on I will always look upon you as the little boy throwing a temper tantrum everytime he cant have his way. Your insults have no weight. I'll say what I want, when I want, and will NOT under any circumstances be supressed or censored by you; no matter how many names you call me or others. But like I said yesterday, tomorrow is a different day, and that would be today. I'm SO done with you. Have a nice day, if you can!

> Surely it's part of the role of Government to try to protect innocent
> civilians from nutters who "make bad choices" with their assult rifles and
> inflict those bad consequences on others. Let's just hope to God that you or
> your loved ones never fall victim to some mad-man with his "hobby" assult
> rifle having a bad day and making a couple of "bad choices"
>
>
Whats really sad is when people dont properly lock up their firearms and ammo and have children around their home. I dont think a month goes by where the local news doesnt report a child (or their friends) got shot and killed by one kid finding a gun, playing with it, and accidently shooting themselves or their friend.

> Even though I have made it clear that I find it absurd that legally owned guns
> do anything but save lives I will present another question. Even if you think
> the semi-automatic assault rifles that hold more rounds are the problem, which
> is what the ban restricted, what about the fact that most people who commit
> murders use pistols? Rifles are just to big and bulky to carry around anyway.
> Hardly anyone you see in the news uses a rifle.
>
Here in Cali there is still a state ban on assualt weapons. I remember before the ban there seemed to be a huge number of gang related killings using the TEC-9, but I cant remember a single one in recent history. I dont know if that had to do with the ban or with the extra years tacked onto a prison sentence for using a banned weapon.

I realise I'm coming into this late, but I wasn't aware of this very interesting thread.

Just so we can get this out of the way: I'm Canadian. The only time I have ever seen a gun in my life, they were carried by Police officers or the RCMP (which stands for Royal Canadian mounted POLICE, they aren't paramilitary, they are the police in in many Northern and Rural areas).

I personally don't think that owning guns is necessary, but I will not refuse Americans the right to do so, if they think it is necessary. In Canada, apperently a lot of people in agriculture need and use them: as tools to get rid of pests and such. From what I understand, most of those guns are shot guns, or long guns.. or... manual to say the least.

I understand hunters, who use their guns either for food or sport (though I disagree with hunting for sport, I realise that it happens). Again, I think most of these guns are manual (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I also understand the need some people feel to protect themselves in their own home. Generally, I find a lock is enough, but again, that's me. If you are attacked in your home, and you are defending yourself, are you more likely to be able to usefully and effectively use a pistol or an AK-47?

I don't think I've ever seen a real AK-47, but I believe that it's fairly large, not something that you could keep under your pillow or on your bedside table. So, really, not something to use in an emergency.

So this makes me wonder, what are all these automatic weapons going to be used for? Are they just going to sit on your mantel piece as decoration?? (If that's the case, at least tell me it wouldn't be loaded!!!) Are you going to use it for pest control in your back yard?? to completely destroy the deer that you're hunting?

I think the point is that most people don't have a good reason to own a gun with that kind of power. I'm trying to think of something that's more powerful... and is still a gun-type weapon.

A rocket launcher? A grenade launcer? I turret machine gun to attach to your car? I think that most people would agree that these are DEFINATELY not needed by the general public as these are weapons of war. Personally, I consider automatic weapons in that same category. They are designed only to kill people. That's why I think that they should be banned.

Thank you, and have a good night =-)


<br />

Feel free to take a look inside my brain

> I also understand the need some people feel to protect themselves in their own
> home. Generally, I find a lock is enough, but again, that's me. If you are
> attacked in your home, and you are defending yourself, are you more likely to
> be able to usefully and effectively use a pistol or an AK-47?
>
The statistics here show that you are more likely to have your gun stolen, whether by home invasion or burglary, then you would be able to use it to sucessfully defend your home. Unfortunately criminals dont call ahead and make an appointment.

> I don't think I've ever seen a real AK-47, but I believe that it's fairly
> large, not something that you could keep under your pillow or on your bedside
> table. So, really, not something to use in an emergency.
> So this makes me wonder, what are all these automatic weapons going to be used
> for? Are they just going to sit on your mantel piece as decoration?? (If
> that's the case, at least tell me it wouldn't be loaded!!!) Are you going to
> use it for pest control in your back yard?? to completely destroy the deer
> that you're hunting?
When California enacted its State ban the police here did demostrations between the firepower of a .38 pistol and an AK-47 using a watermelon and concrete block. The pistol put a hole thru the watermelon and ricocheted off the block. The AK-47 exploded both. It was an amazing thing to watch.

> I think the point is that most people don't have a good reason to own a gun
> with that kind of power. I'm trying to think of something that's more
> powerful... and is still a gun-type weapon.
> A rocket launcher? A grenade launcer? I turret machine gun to attach to your
> car? I think that most people would agree that these are DEFINATELY not
> needed by the general public as these are weapons of war. Personally, I
> consider automatic weapons in that same category. They are designed only to
> kill people. That's why I think that they should be banned.
I agree and thanks to the State ban here they still are.

When I was an impressionable US Midwest teen
My father refused to let me purchase the gun for sale
with the following ad in Guns and Ammo magazine...
and I was so excited by the excess of it all.

"Get your buck every time
with a direct hit or a near miss!"

They were selling 1.1 inch automatic anti aircraft cannons with
one case of 100 rounds of ammo included....

It is not the sane and well adjusted that are at issue.

And statistics.. Seem to see a thread from the UK
of a happy birthday. mother and daughter went to the theater
mothers wallet was lifted. Police made the report
"lost in street'.. refused to put it down as theft.

See crime stat's went down.

take care.. live long and process....

George

The real problem is that Criminals are using these weapons and they do not go to the local store to buy them. They are acquired from other criminals. Law abiding citizens are not the ones with the firepower out on the streets using it to cause havoc.

Outlawing Criminals would be the way to go. Instead of rounding up all the guns and dumping them in the Ocean, round up the Criminals and dump them in the ocean (strapped to their illegal weapons).

Currently the Law has no teeth. Police Officers risk their lives to clean up the streets only to have the Criminals back on the street before the police can get the paperwork finished and filed.

I love our U.S. Constitution, but somewhere over the years it seems to have given Criminals more rights than the law abiding Citizens.

I could go on and on, but that is enough from me on the subject.






<a> [/url]

Exactly, people say that gang members and what not use Tek 9s. I seriously doubt these were legal weapons. Everyone seems to brush over the fact that these bans don't affect them, they only affect the guy who has kept his nose clean and never committed a felony. These days everything is a felony, writing a bad check and not paying child support are both felonies which would cause you to never be able to have a gun. I will say it again. Legally owned guns are not a problem. 99.999999% of the guys who legally own guns could be trusted with grenades or whatever else. And remember, none of the recent laws make it easier to get machine/automatic guns. Those have had the same restrictions since 1934. This is all about rifles that appear menacing being legal. It is also to a lesser degree about weather your pistol can hold 10 vs. 15 rounds.

Hey Misfit, AK47s don't have any astonishing amount of firepower. My pistol will go through more and leave a bigger hole in what it hits than an AK47. Assault weapons, as referred to in the AW Ban, are no more powerfull than any other firearm. A .38 is a very weak and slow cartridge to begin with.

--Keith

> Hey Misfit, AK47s don't have any astonishing amount of firepower. My pistol
> will go through more and leave a bigger hole in what it hits than an AK47.
> Assault weapons, as referred to in the AW Ban, are no more powerfull than any
> other firearm. A .38 is a very weak and slow cartridge to begin with.
>
I'm just relating what I saw. BOOM! Maybe the bullets they were using were depleted uranium. Who knows... :)

Yeah, I am not sure but I heard a while back that one of the major networks had a piece in the news about the Assault Weapons ban and they came out and said that if it wasn't in place people could get guns like this, then they showed a policeman firing a full automatic Uzi. With missinformation like that no wonder the public is scared. LOL