From: Jane Galt on
Die Wahrheit <diewahrheit(a)> wrote :

> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:56:27 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
><dhanks(a)> wrote:
>>Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of
>>God and the rule of law:
> Which god? I have a book titled "Encyclopedia of 1500 Gods & Goddesses".
> All of them valid in their cultures that believe in them. Most all of
> much older and wiser than any immature god that was recently invented in
> the middle-east. Do you respect others' gods as much as you do your own?
> are you saying that your god doesn't know anything about respect. And if
> that god of yours knows nothing about respect, it knows nothing about
> either. Because love is a false love without respect. You cannot love
> unless it is first based on respect. Respect is more important and more
> powerful than love. Unfortunately that little tidbit has been
> left out of all of the middle-east's versions of god, otherwise they
> wouldn't have spanned the globe trying to kill all others in the name of
> their god.
> Which "laws"? Laws are only someone's opinion put on paper. It doesn't
> matter how many people might agree, the majority has never been right. As
> the old saying goes: "If even 5 billion people say and believe a foolish
> thing, it remains a foolish thing." The number of people agreeing is
> an affirmation of them being right.

"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new
master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves
because they are permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes
them slaves is the fact that they are now, and are always hereafter to be,
in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute
and irresponsible." --Lysander Spooner, 'No Treason'.

"Two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over
one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural
rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them
is equally a crime; whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether
committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name
indicating his true character), or by millions calling themselves a
government." - Lysander Spooner

Or as someone else taught me, no government has any right to do anything I
have no right to do myself.

- Jane Galt
From: Dudley Hanks on

"Gilford Brimly" <gilfordbrimly(a)> wrote in message
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:50:47 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dhanks(a)> wrote:
>>And, you actually think you can open your purse, drag it out and get into
>>firing position before a well-prepared thug rips your bag from your
>>and renders you immobile?
> You certainly don't know much about purse designs for holding guns. There
> is generally a freely opened pocket at one end where the gun can be
> reached
> even as the "perp" is trying to wrest it from one's grasp. They grab the
> purse and pull it off the gun in your hand. Quick and easy, the perp
> actually helps to unholster the gun.

And, if the perp is aware of purse designs, he comes from behind and hits
you hard with a stun blow to render you nearly unconscious, calmly grabs the
bag and the scenario continues...

All of your supposed claims of how great is the protection of the gun are
based on the presupposition that the thug is a complete idiot...

When was the last time a thug from a mafia family went in unprepared?

Think about gang wars. One gang knows the other has arms, so they try to
out think the other. They case the turf, judge the strengths and weaknesses
of their opposition. Then strike.

Meanwhile, the other group is doing the same, but in the reverse direction.

The end result is a rather nasty shootout where innocents get the worst of

But, who am I to point this out to you...

You have it all figured out...

Buy your gun...

Just don't get too comfortable; you're quite likely to get a rude

Take Care,

From: Jane Galt on
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)> wrote :

> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D9DE80252B19JaneGgulchxyz(a)
>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)> wrote :
>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9D9DDEE835DB7JaneGgulchxyz(a)
>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)> wrote :
>>>>> I've nothing against self-defence, have gotten into more than a few
>>>>> scraps myself takin' care of business... Even had to go one on
>>>>> three with a few cops one night when they "exceeded their
>>>>> authority."
>>>>> But, my concern with the general public carrying weapons is that it
>>>>> merely escalates the likelihood of innocents getting hurt.
>>>> Actually quite the opposite. More guns, less crime.
>>>> --
>>>> - Jane Galt
>>> Not really, current stats are based on a low percentage of gun owners
>>> to general population.
>>> As guns become more prevalent, criminals become more cautious, up
>>> until they reach a point where the criminal element knows there's
>>> going to be armed resistance, so they take precautions and get more
>>> organized.
>>> Statistics from the old "wild west" would be more appropriate to a
>>> modern civilization where concealed carry weapons are common place.
>> The old wild west was safer than modern day London. All that you posted
>> above is thoroughly debunked marxist propaganda, aimed at disarming and
>> dissolving the United States.
>> "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist
>> party must command all guns, that way no guns can ever be used to
>> command the party." -- Mao Tse Tung "Selected Works of Mao Zedong,"
>> 1965
>> yet:
>> Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty. -
>> Vladimir
>> Lenin
>> --
>> - Jane Galt
> I thought you'd come back with the populist babble of the NRA as your
> ideological doctrine, but am rather surprised that, as a republican
> American, you quote instead from communist doctrine, a Doctrine which
> was the basis of the Russian Federation.

I never said I was a Republicrat, nor have I ever been one.

There are only two parties I've ever joined in my life, the LP and more
recently the Objectivist Party.

> Do you remember how the USSR came to an end? It was overthrown, not by
> guns, but by peaceful democratic ideals. Where was the necessity for an
> armed citizenry, even in one of the most totalitarian regimes?

I was just stating it in terms that I thought a comrade like yourself might
relate better to. Socialists have never objected to guns, they only use
such objections to dupe "useful idiots" into helping them disarm their
intended victims. Good job with that, comrade.

> Also, the Chinese communist doctrine you so freely quote is also slowly
> being undermined, not by an armed citizenry, but by peaceful democratic
> ideals...

Like I said in another post, I certainly wouldnt equate democracy with

> Your country chose the armed revolution to free itself from British
> tyranny, Canada chose peaceful diplomacy. We both ended up in the same
> place, but with a fair bit less bloodshed.. north of the border.

I believe that diplomacy didn't work in our case. Read your history books.

The founders of this country appealed to King George for years in such
efforts. They sailed back and forth doing it, to no avail.

> BTW, I can't help but notice you don't have any links to statistics on
> how peaceful Dodge City was in comparison to modern day London...

An armed society is a polite society.

Has anyone got stats on violent crime before and after the various states
passed their concealed carry laws?

Things have sure tamed down here since 2003 when concealed carry was passed
in Colorado. People are much more polite and less likely to be surly and
rude to others in public, because you just never know who's armed.

"Let the wookie win!"

- Jane Galt
From: Dudley Hanks on

"Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)> wrote in message
> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)> wrote :
>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D9DE769DD65BJaneGgulchxyz(a)
>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)> wrote :
>>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9D9DDE18D3661JaneGgulchxyz(a)
>>>>> Gilford Brimly <gilfordbrimly(a)> wrote :
>>>>>> So let's see... you are so insecure and afraid that you wish everyone
>>>>>> had their own personal cop to protect them 24 hours a day.
>>>>> Isnt that called a police state?
>>>>> In a free society, we can all be armed for our own defense.
>>>>> I didn't realize he was in Canada though, a country that can arrest
> and
>>>>> try
>>>>> you if you say something that someone else "feels hurt" by.
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Jane Galt
>>>> With freedom goes responsibility...
>>>> Take Care,
>>>> Dudley
>>> Sounds like your country allows neither.
>>> --
>>> - Jane Galt
>> Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of
>> God and
>> the rule of law:
>> Rights and freedoms in Canada
>> 1.
>> The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
>> guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
>> reasonable
>> limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
>> democratic society.
> Free and democratic are oxymoronic.
> Democracy is forming a mob and forcing everyone else to provide your needs
> and whims, and voting on how to oppress people in your favorite ways.
> It's essentially akin to two sheep and a wolf voting on what's for dinner.
> While with true libertarianism and/or Objectivism, the sheep is armed.
> --
> - Jane Galt

And, the Libertarian theory has proved itself so wonderfully where?

Would you not say that a people without a government is basically in a
Libertarian state?

And, how stable has any country ever been without a government?

Don't make me laugh...

Take Care,

From: Jane Galt on
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)> wrote :

> That's a nice start, but it's not the end of all ends.
> A female friend of mine once thought she was impervious to attack after
> a few years of martial arts training, until she asked me to test her...
> At the time, I weighed 220 lbs and stood 6' 4", and all I had to do was
> pick her up and hold her. She couldn't do a damn thing.

So what are you suggesting? Pacifist resignation to anything anyone wants
to do to us?

> Yeah, she tried to stomp on my foot, but that was a couple of feet too
> far away for her to reach, and it's hard to kick a guy in the groin when
> your having the breath squeezed out of your lungs...

Bravo for you. I had a guy try that on me in the dojo and head butted him
from in front, right in the nose, fortunately not hard enough to injure
him, but he sure let go fast.

But again, what's your aim here? To claim that in rare instances, self
defense may not work? What are the alternatives to trying? Being a self-
defeated negative ninny?

> The lesson wasn't one I enjoyed teaching, but I wanted her to have a
> healthy dose of skepticism in addition to her training...
> Good Luck if you're ever attacked by somebody either too skilled, or
> just too damn tough for you to overcome, and who knows you're packing
> and is looking for a challenge...

You sound like the people who tell us that we'd never have any hope of
defending ourselves, from others, or from a tyrannical government. Surely
not, if we resign in defeat in advance.

And you imbue government and other assailants with omnipotence and
omnipresence, as if they know all and see all in advance. They dont.

Government botches up virtually everything it touches that it has no
business touching.

The average criminal isnt well trained, in fact the reason they're a
criminal and not an honest hard worker is most often because they're too
lazy to be disciplined and diligent at anything and they want the easy way,
to just take it by dumb force.

- Jane Galt