From our archives of Tom's USENET posts. These posts data back to the early 1990s; the author may have mellowed with age since these were written, but the basic views remain. (Please note that web links inside this document may be broken.)
<![CDATA[From tms Mon Jul 17 12:47:25 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: balt.general,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Conceled Weapons in Balto Wanted By Good Citizens
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3u4p5t$f0t@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3u4v25$ht6@shado.
jagunet.com> <3u912b$9f6@access1.digex.net>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
mrc@access1.digex.net (Mark Chartrand) writes:
>I completely disagree with you. You are effectively saying that even
>tho' he or she threatened your life, he or she is no longer deserving of
>punishment if he or she flees. Bullshit!
It is the jobs of the courts, not you, to decide punishment.
It's this sort of "make my day" attitude that gives gun owners a bad
name. It's a lot easier for pro-gun control people to convince the
undecided to outlaw guns if we're seen as Dirty Harry wannabes.
>I assure you that if I ever am a victim of crime and manage to get the
>best of the malefactor, he or she will die, slowly and painfully if the
>circumstances permit, quickly otherwise.
Any crime? If some drunk punches you in the nose in a bar fight, will
you later track them down and kill them? A slow, painful death for stealing
your CD player from your car? For egging your car on moving night?
I'm not attempting do defend any of these actions. People who commit
such acts should be dealt with appropriately by the criminal justice
system. (What I mean by dealing with them appropriately is another matter I
won't go into here.) Citizens have the right to use reasonable force to
defend themselves against such acts.
But not to hunt down the perpetrators for revenge.
> To me, a person who initiates
>violence against another have abrogated all rights to be treated as
>anything but a mad animal.
>
>Will I regret it? Only if his or her blood disfigures my carpet or walls.
Beautiful attitude.
What was it Gandi said? "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world
blind." Something like that.
You've obviously got some issues regarding violence and revenge to
work out. May I suggest professional help?
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"The contemporary message - the subtext of contemporary life - is keep your
fucking mouth shut and be a drone." -- Frank Zappa, 1992
From tms Mon Jul 17 16:44:46 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: balt.general,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Conceled Weapons in Balto Wanted By Good Citizens
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3u79gf$klv@shado.jaguNET.com> <basia-1507951144210001@
basia.charm.net> <3ua763$jl8@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>And you are absolutely right about other ways to reduce crime. For the
>life of me, I can't figure out why the judiciary keeps handing down
>sentances far short of those allowed by law to REPEAT OFFENDERS.
Because our prisons are so crowded that there's no room. They have to
let the murders and rapists out so they have room for the drugs users who
get hit with mandatory minimums. (And to those who say the solution is to
build more prisons, I point out that we already have one of the highest per
capita incarceration rates in the world. We were number one, but I think
that Russia now has us beat. But we're working on it - 30,638 new inmates
between July 1, 1993, and June 30,1994, the third largest annual increase
recorded since 1983. 1 in every 398 adults, and 1 in every 212 men, behind
bars. Way to go, USA!)
>There is no one with less
>regard for human life and suffering than someone who sells drugs. But
>that's a whole 'nother issue.)
Does that include your local liquor store? And coffee shop? How about
that cigarette-selling scumbag at the 7-11?
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"The foolish reject what they see, not what they think; the wise reject what
they think, not what they see." -- Huang Po
From tms Wed Jul 19 13:21:08 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: balt.general,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Re: Conceled Weapons in Balto Wanted By Good Citizens
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3ua763$jl8@shado.jaguNET.com> <3uei4p$kij@shemesh.
tis.com> <3uf8gk$i34@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To: talk.politics.drugs
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
Cross-posted and follow-ups to talk.politics.drugs.
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>I agree there. If drug users were remanded to treatment, instead of prison,
>we wouldn't be forced to turn murderers and rapists loose.
Better yet, we could leave drugs users the hell alone, unless they are
behaving in such a way as to be a credible danger to others or themselves.
>>>There is no one with less
>>>regard for human life and suffering than someone who sells drugs. But
>>>that's a whole 'nother issue.)
>>
>> Does that include your local liquor store? And coffee shop? How about
>>that cigarette-selling scumbag at the 7-11?
>
>Well, you certainly are right about alcohol, cafffiene, and nicotine being
>addictive substances. And there's no denying that these substances can cause
>serious harm if abused. But I would counter that many people use these
>substances in moderation without ill effect.
And many people use currently illegal drugs in moderation with no ill
effect.
>With narcotics, the picture isn't quite so clear, is it? I have yet to
>encounter a "moderate" junkie or crack-head,
A "junkie" is, by definition, not a "moderate" drug user. You almost
certainly _have_ encountered many moderate users of currently illegal drugs
over the years. How would you know if the guy sitting next to you at lunch
smokes pot, or even opium, on occasion? In the current legal climate, he's
certainly unlikely to discuss it with you.
> and I submit that it is a rare
>addict who has the resources to support their addiction without resorting to
>burglary, robbery, or prostitution.
Without prohibition, addcits wouldn't have to pay such inflated
prices. Alcoholics don't have to rob anyone to buy a bottle of Mad Dog
20/20.
>I argue that with certain substances, there
>is only one possible direction: Straight down.
Name one. Any drug can be used responsibly, and any drug can be
abused. You're buying into the notion put forth by the Prohibitionists,
that for certain drugs, use=abuse=addiction=a ruined life. T'ain't so. Few
users are abusers; not all abusers are addicts; and whether addiciton leads
to a ruined life is more a matter of social structure than of the effects
of drugs. How would Sigmund Freud, or Thomas Edison, both full-blown coke
heads, have faired today? What about Dr. William Stewart Halsted, one of
the founders of John Hopkins Hospital (at last, something relevant to
balt.general!), a phenomenally successful surgeon and a morphine addict?
They'd probably all be in jail today.
>As for "cigarette-selling scumbags," that's a complete denial of
>accountability, is it not? Who is ultimately responsible for the smoker
>ingesting the nicotine? The clerk at the 7-11? Or the guy who purchased
>the smokes?
>
>Is every bartender responsible for every patron in his establishment, and
>that patron's subsequent actions?
>
>Is the young lady at the coffee shop obliged to scrutinize my kidney
>function test before she can "morally" sell me a double espresso?
>
>Once we start absolving the individual for the choices that they make,
>where do we then draw the line?
I agree. So why do you feel differently about those who sell drugs
currently frowned on by the govenment? (Leaving aside those who use violent
methods to control their market, or who engage in fraud; these folks are
crooks regardless of the current legal status of what they sell. Recent
evidence suggests that the tobacco companies may fit into the latter
category.) If Mary sells cannabis to Jane, is it Mary's fault is Jane uses
it inappropriately?
Over the years, I've met a few people who sold drugs. No `hard' stuff,
and not big time merchants; mostly users who would buy more than they needed
and sell the rest to friends and friends of friends. They had about as much
regard for human life an suffering as any other group of people.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
Howe's Law:
Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
From tms Thu Jul 20 17:34:21 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: balt.general,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Conceled Weapons in Balto Wanted By Good Citizens
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3ucccr$ehb@shado.jaguNET.com> <18JUL199514453243@
jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> <3uhj7k$ic9@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>You're right. I should have been more specific. I advocate life in prison
>for selling narcotics.
So sellers of heroin, morphine, and other depressants should be jailer
for life, but not sellers of cocaine, methamphetamine, PCP, LSD, cannabis,
or other non-narcotic drugs? Why?
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"The only difference between a madman and myself is that I am not mad"
-- S. Dali
From tms Thu Jul 20 17:37:05 EDT 1995
Newsgroups: balt.general,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Conceled Weapons in Balto Wanted By Good Citizens
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3uf8gk$i34@shado.jaguNET.com> <18JUL199515052012@
jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> <3uhj2u$ic9@shado.jaguNET.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: from, not for, Trusted Information Systems, Inc.
Keywords:
leebrown@[address elided] (Lee E. Brown) writes:
>
>No, I'm not having a hard time with it. I thought my original response was
>clear; that there are inherent distinctions between legal - yet addictive -
>substances, controlled substances, and narcotics.
Please explain these "inherent distinctions".
>However, to make my statement perfectly clear: I advocate life in prison for
>selling NARCOTICS.
I ask about this in a previous post.
== Tom Swiss/tms@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === _I_ shot Montgomery Burns. ==
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
"The only difference between a madman and myself is that I am not mad"
-- S. Dali
]]>
Recent comments
1 day 4 hours ago
4 weeks 4 days ago
7 weeks 2 days ago
8 weeks 19 hours ago
8 weeks 1 day ago
8 weeks 3 days ago
8 weeks 3 days ago
9 weeks 21 hours ago
9 weeks 1 day ago
9 weeks 1 day ago