Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.

When I heard the terrible news about the possible Anthrax infections in Florida and New York City, my first instinct was to find out as much information as I could. After all, I didn't want to overreact (since that is what the terrorists want us to do). There is nothing more sad than the sight of once-proud Americans flocking like frightened sheep to their local Army Surplus in search of gas masks. Such overreaction makes us look stupid in the eyes of the world, and plays into the hands of those who would terrorise us.

So instead of running in a blind panic to the local survivalist store to purchase a gas mask, I turned to the Internet, always reliable as a diverse source of up-to-date information on any subject under the sun. I then did what many of us do innocently all the time. I typed in the "Uniform Resource Locator" http://www.anthrax.com assuming that it would take me to some informative resources on this terrible disease. Boy was I ever wrong !!!.

Anthrax appears to be the name of a new "Grind-Core" rock band who are prepared to take controversy beyond the bounds of good taste and decorum, and into the realms of Satanic depravity.

Apparently they have a new CD out hatefully entitled 'Spreading the Disease' which is full of songs praising bioterrorism

The most incredible part of the whole story is the press release at their site, which shows how insensitive and unrepentant this "Death Metal" rock band seems to be.

Before the tragedy of September 11th the only thing scary about Anthrax was our bad hair in the 80's and the "Fistful Of Metal" album cover. Most people associated the name Anthrax with the band, not the germ. Now in the wake of those events, our name symbolizes fear, paranoia and death. Suddenly our name is not so cool. To be associated with these things we are against is a strange and stressful situation. To us, and to millions of people, it is just a name. We don't want to change the name of the band, not because it would be a pain in the ass, but because we hope that no further negative events will happen and it won't be necessary. We hope and pray that this problem goes away quietly and we all grow old and fat together.

It is incredible that this American band, sitting safely in the decadent rock-star comfort of their Air-Conditioned Winnebago feel they can continue their tasteless juvenile antics, while our brave soldiers are fighting on the front line against who knows what kind of evil barbarians ?

Recently our politicians have been giving out some sensible advice in these times of trial, asking that each and every American is very careful to 'watch what he says'.

Just who do these second rate "Speed Metal" band think they are ? On the one hand, Dave Mustaine complains that people are stealing the band's music via Napster, and yet at the same time, he feels free to insult the record buying public with his irredeemable horrifically tasteless posturing, at a time when the whole country is feeling weak and vulnerable.

I am not going to make any excuses for this band. Maybe they thought they were being funny. Maybe the death of 6000 innocent people is a joke to them.

I am not laughing.

Any of you who agree with me that this band needs to learn some taste and judgement should email Anthrax directly, and ask them to rename themselves forthwith. Obviously it will be better if you write your own message, but if you are pushed for time, feel free to use this pre-written example message: Click here to send petition to alphamail@anthrax.com.

I hope the sheer number of concerned readers here at adequacy.org will mean that pressure can be brought to bear on them. They seem like decent enough people, apart from the disgusting lyrics to their songs (mostly about death and destruction) and their unkempt, dishevalled aggressively long hair. Perhaps reason can prevail, and the hurting that we are all feeling can be healed.

A plea to the band currently known as ANTHRAX I am sure you are aware of the recent Anthrax infections in Florida and New York City. While I appreciate your right to artistic expression, I feel that your band's name is inappropriate in these times of crisis.

Many people find the name of your band to be offensive, and in very poor taste during these trying times.

In case you were unaware, the symptoms of Anthrax are nausea, loss of appetite, vomiting, fever are followed by abdominal pain, vomiting of blood, and severe diarrhea. Intestinal anthrax results in death in 25% to 60% of cases.

I am sure that being a member of the band 'Anthrax', gruelling touring schedules notwithstanding is nowhere near as painful as actually suffering from the disease itself.

I respectfully suggest that until the war against terrorism is over, that you consider changing the name of your band to something less offensive.

Perhaps you could call yourself 'Ant Wax' or 'Aunt Frax' or something else that would preserve the continuity of your image, without causing such enormous offense to the more vulnerable members of society.

It would be a great way for you to do your bit to help us heal the wounds of 11th September and join in America's fight against the terrorist menace.

It need not affect your record sales. Other artists have made similar changes with no effect on their bottom line, for example P-Diddy changed from Puff Daddy, since the word 'Puff' was an irresponsible reference to drug-usage which could have led children astray. He chose to "do the right thing". Indeed the name change gained him a lot of positive media coverage.

Thank you for reading this, and again I hope you like Puff Daddy, have the courage to change your name, for the good of all America's children.

Insert your name here

A concered reader of adequacy.org

	It don't work. (3.33 / 3) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:36:21 PM PST

	Anthrax's statement was tasteful and appropriate, all things considered. They did not stick their heads in the sand; they admitted there was a problem; they addressed it; and they observed, correctly, that they had never been nor hoped to be part of a problem like the current one. What more do you want? Should they commit ritual suicide too? Would even that be enough? Maybe we should find observers who will make sure the way they do it is slow and painful enough to suit you. After all, It's War Now (tm).

	This is serious... (none / 0) (#9)
	by Frithiof on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:42:34 PM PST

	plus, I never really liked the band. -Frith

	damn straight this is serious! (4.50 / 2) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:10:06 PM PST

	the powdered cocaine business in NY just dried up. Fuck!

	Whoops (none / 0) (#61)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 06:50:14 AM PST

	There goes Colombia's economy...

	A concerned citizen (none / 0) (#218)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 05:41:20 AM PST

	"unkempt, dishevalled aggressively long hair." What is aggressive hair like? Can it attack me? How do I protect myself from aggressive hair? Now I'm scared. It's spelled "dishevelled", genius. And try to check your facts before embarking on another rabid tirade against this big, scary world that has you so clearly peeing your pants and running to Mommy Church. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as defining what America (the United States actually...America includes the areas south of here that we rather ruthlessly exploit and oppress)is about, liberty is a little highher on the totem pole than Christianity. Freedom of religion, expression and all that? So, what's with all these religious patriots calling for all kinds of censorship? They are totally and irredeemably un-American. And the whole gun argument: where does this statistic re: crime going up after gun control legislation being introduced originate from? I have run into it many times, but never in any form other than the traditional statement of "When legislation was introduced in England..." The source is apparently "Cos I said so"? Wow. Tickle me pink. In any case, trying to argue a case with statistics is just stupid. Remeber what they say about statistics? Remember, statistics are what advertisers use. Ban stupid Christians. I prefer the intelligent, open-minded ones that actually live by the teachings of Jesus. I don't care for this room-temperature-in-Celsius-IQ crowd, who goes about sticking their proverbial, Bible-misinterpreting genitalia in the mashed potatoes of freedom when people are just trying to live their lives.

	They should change their name (3.00 / 2) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:47:12 PM PST

	They should change it right now. For them to do anything else is simply stupidity. And Un-American. The idea that a heavy metal band is more important than the events of 11th September is ridiculous. Why can't they just change their name. After all, it would not affect their music. If they are any good at all, the name change would not make any difference would it ?

	Puerile nonsense. (1.00 / 1) (#12)
	by Hunsvotti on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:57:29 PM PST

	They should not change their name. It's a cool name. If some people want to walk around looking for things to be offended by, that's their business, but it's also their problem... not mine, and certainly not Anthrax's. Let us put an end to this over-emotional nonsense and get on with our lives.

	puerile? (3.66 / 3) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:16:32 PM PST

	How is sensitivity to victims of Anthrax childish? I would categorize such sentiment in the same league as maturity, feminism, nurturing, instinctual cooperation, selflessness, courage, humility, modesty, nobility, friendship, trust, jihad. But not puerile.

	Eh?!? (1.00 / 1) (#21)
	by Hunsvotti on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 03:17:37 AM PST

	What the fuck was that, some kind of crazy poem? Did you write that at Starbucks?!? HOW IS THE FRAPPUCCINO TODAY?!? I say it's puerile. 90% emotion and 10% false logic. Doesn't get much more puerile than that.

	*oh, that* puerile!** (none / 0) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 05:13:03 AM PST

	I say it's puerile. 90% emotion and 10% false logic. Doesn't get much more puerile than that. It might if you had a dictionary.

	the way of strength is UNCOMPROMISING. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
	by abrasax on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 11:28:21 PM PST

	What do you know about strength? Strength is standing up to what you know in your heart to be evil, and not bending for anything, much less the rather shrill prattle of some idiot local musicians from wherever they come from. Good God. I remember that kind of folk from high school- sitting behind the stadium, smoking grass during lunch hour and rolling in twenty minutes late to their next class. Does their expression really matter in any meaningful way? Ask ten people on the street. If you're lucky, you might find one weakling unable to assert his God-given high ground and condemn this trash. It is the way of strength to stand, even before the tyranny of the past. You say: > It is juvenile to respond to a tragedy by >trying to erase everything associated with it, >in essence trying hard to pretend it didn't >happen and striking out against anything that >reminds you of what happened. Oh, so we're supposed to sit back and fan our faces with our TV Guides as the fifth column of perdition hauls down its pants to smear diarrhea all over our laws and ways. It's a shame I didn't spend as much time practicing moral relativism as you. I might have had a future as a prostitute for some ridiculous university radicalism.

	Die by all means. (none / 0) (#55)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 03:56:35 AM PST

	but I still support your right to say it, and will die in the defense of that right if need be. How stupid. Dying to defend a point of view which is completely incompatible with your own. You are more likely to die by an accidental gunshot wound caused by one of your 'constitutionally correct' guns. The point is, that if you allow unrestricted free speech (which even our constitution does not - just try shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater) you allow all kinds of hateful and anti-freedom speech to be made. Now, when I say that free speech is not a good thing, I don't want to clamp down on people who believe in freedom, but rather to ban the kind of speech that would promote fascism or other kinds of political extremism. A poster in an earlier comment used the word 'ni****ng'. This kind of hate speech should not be protected by the first amendment, should it ?

	Its you who needs to pay attention. (none / 0) (#59)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 04:56:17 AM PST

	My point about freedom of speech, is that it IS restricted. All I am saying is that perhaps we should extend those restrictions. For example. Anyone who supports flying jetliners into buildings and openly says so, should be arrested. Plain and simple. The idea of freedom of speech is that it should be used responsibly. In the same way you do not let your 3-year old play with handguns, we should not allow freedom of speech to those who are not responsible enough to use it wisely. The n-word I referred to in the previous posting was 'niggling', a term in common usage amongst european-americans but deeply offensive to African Americans. Where a word exists that is a valid replacement for the racist one, there should be a law mandating that the racist word must not be used. This is simply good manners.

	Unpopular speech is protected too (none / 0) (#95)
	by Hunsvotti on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 03:46:21 PM PST

	If a person says that they support flying jetliners into buildings, they should not be arrested, because they have committed no crime. Just because you don't like someone's opinion doesn't mean that the fuzz should beat that person down, any more than it was right for the Romans to toss Christians to the hungry lions for having different beliefs. /* Where a word exists that is a valid replacement for the racist one, there should be a law mandating that the racist word must not be used. This is simply good manners. */ So good manners should be legislated? Am I to believe that you think I should be fined for belching in a restaurant? If someone wants to post a web page with racial slurs in giant letters, that is their business.

	Dictionary (none / 0) (#37)
	by Hunsvotti on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 06:58:38 PM PST

	I know what the word means. It is juvenile to respond to a tragedy by trying to erase everything associated with it, in essence trying hard to pretend it didn't happen and striking out against anything that reminds you of what happened. This is not the way of strength. It is puerile.

	OH HO HO!!! (none / 0) (#48)
	by Hunsvotti on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 03:07:44 AM PST

	/* What do you know about strength? Strength is standing up to what you know in your heart to be evil, and not bending for anything, much less the rather shrill prattle of some idiot local musicians from wherever they come from. / I hope you're not trying to call Anthrax "idiot local musicians." They have been around for two decades and have sold millions of albums worldwide. BTW, I AM standing up to something I know in my heart to be evil: mindless reactionism. / Good God. I remember that kind of folk from high school- sitting behind the stadium, smoking grass during lunch hour and rolling in twenty minutes late to their next class. Does their expression really matter in any meaningful way? Ask ten people on the street. If you're lucky, you might find one weakling unable to assert his God-given high ground and condemn this trash. / Who are you to say whose expression does or doesn't matter? Who are you to say what is trash and what is not? Later on in your post you talk about "moral relativism." Morals ARE relative. Your morals seem to imply that everyone has to feel the same way about Anthrax (the band). My morals tell me that you can love them or hate them, but their First Amendment right supercedes that. My morals also tell me that people who think Anthrax should change their name "out of respect" or whatever are defective. THEY WERE HERE FIRST. The entire world does not have to throw a prozac panic attack whenever someone might get offended. / It is the way of strength to stand, even before the tyranny of the past. / What do you mean by that? Are you saying that Anthrax (the band) is somehow "tyrannical"? Perhaps you should listen to some of their music before you get all high and mighty and condemn them. They rail against racism and other ill conditions in society. / Oh, so we're supposed to sit back and fan our faces with our TV Guides as the fifth column of perdition hauls down its pants to smear diarrhea all over our laws and ways. / I can't really answer this fully because you haven't really said what you are talking about. You could be inferring that a band not changing its First Amendment-protected name is "smear[ing] diarrhea all over our laws and ways". If this is the case, I would encourage you to read the Bill of Rights, because it lies at the core of our laws and ways. Otherwise, set the record straight and say what you are really talking about. / It's a shame I didn't spend as much time practicing moral relativism as you. I might have had a future as a prostitute for some ridiculous university radicalism. */ It's a shame you are talking like a blithering reactionary fool who thinks everyone else has to conform to your standards. They don't. It's a free country, you don't have a right to expect not to be offended by every last entity in it. If you don't like it, I suggest you schedule a debate to look into striking the First Amendment. I support your right to do so, but you would be well advised to wear a bullet-proof vest.

	striking the First Amendment (none / 0) (#52)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 03:26:16 AM PST

	You know when you say "I suggest you schedule a debate to look into striking the First Amendment" I think you have a very good point. Our Constitution was created a long time ago, when slavery was legal, and women were not allowed to vote. It therefore carries a lot of negative baggage which is not applicable to an advanced modern society like the modern USA. Allowing any idiot to own a gun is one ancient constitutional freedom which is long overdue for removal. And the right to freedom of speech ? Well it might have been OK back in 1776 when the constitution was drafted, since everyone agreed with everyone else. But now things are different. We now have many different ethnic and religious groups in the USA. How can we allow absolute freedom of speech, if that means anyone can insult God, and defame Jesus with protection of the law ? If you ask me, it is about time that we took a look at all the constitutional amendments, and brought them up to date with America in the year 2001

	Striking bits of the constitution (none / 0) (#54)
	by Hunsvotti on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 03:41:46 AM PST

	/* Allowing any idiot to own a gun is one ancient constitutional freedom which is long overdue for removal. / Only if you think it would be cool to totally entrust your freedom to a government run by humans, who are by nature corruptible, and criminals, who by nature won't turn in their firearms. Gun crime surged in England after they clamped down on handguns, as the crooks knew that they could pick a house, any house, and be almost assured that whomever was inside would not have a gun. A well-armed society is a polite society. People who thought it would be a great idea to disarm all civilians include Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. Read on. / And the right to freedom of speech ? Well it might have been OK back in 1776 when the constitution was drafted, since everyone agreed with everyone else. But now things are different. / AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! "Everyone agreed with everyone else" indeed! Yes, let's get rid of the first and second amendments. Great. That will open the door for the government shoving you into an oven as soon as they hear you dissenting from something they have done. Freedom, what a terrible thing! RIGHT, COMRADE? / We now have many different ethnic and religious groups in the USA. How can we allow absolute freedom of speech, if that means anyone can insult God, and defame Jesus with protection of the law? / If God doesn't want to be defamed, He can deal with blasphemers when they die. If He doesn't want to wait, He has every capacity to A) strike them down or B) communicate with them directly. GASP!!!! BLASPHEMY!!!! GOD TALKED TO MY FAVORITE PROFIT ONLY!!!! AND NO ONE ELSE!!!! I KNOW THIS IN MY HEART BECAUSE MY PARENTS TOLD ME WHEN I WAS THREE!!! The government doesn't have any place telling people what they can say about God, you cretin. / If you ask me, it is about time that we took a look at all the constitutional amendments, and brought them up to date with America in the year 2001 */ They are up to date. It seems to me that you want freedom to worship God (or the gods or mother nature or nothing at all or whatever) in your way, while denying others their right to the same. Freedom of religion (including not being religious at all) is a hallmark of this country, and I, for one, am tired of narrowminded religious bigots calling other people "unamerican." Denying a person their freedom of expression is the antithesis of what this nation stands for, and what makes it so great - diversity. And while you rail against "heathens" (or, as the Taliban would say, "infidels"), I think what you are saying is simplistic and borderline idiotic, but I still support your right to say it, and will die in the defense of that right if need be.

	Pay attention. (none / 0) (#56)
	by Hunsvotti on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 04:06:50 AM PST

	I didn't say I would die to defend someone's opinion, but rather their right to express it. Can't you see that's what I wrote? It says it right in what you quoted! And yes, my right to keep and bear arms IS constitutionally correct. The Supreme Court has found this to be true time and again. Furthermore, I did not say or even imply that we needed "unrestricted" free speech of the sort you mention, i.e. yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. /* A poster in an earlier comment used the word 'ni***ng'. This kind of hate speech should not be protected by the first amendment, should it ? / What the hell is a ni***ng? In any case, yes, it should. If you want to sit here and call me lower white trash, should I call the cops and have you arrested? First off, I know* what I am. Second, I'm free to respond and call you whatever vile name I want! In doing so I have taken responsibility for a problem rather than going off and whining to some father-figure-by-proxy in a blue uniform.

	Please (none / 0) (#77)
	by cp on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 12:08:32 PM PST

	And yes, my right to keep and bear arms IS constitutionally correct. The Supreme Court has found this to be true time and again Name one Supreme Court decision that supports this assertion.

	Alright. (none / 0) (#94)
	by Hunsvotti on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 03:37:50 PM PST

	Laird v. Tatum: "They were reluctant to ratify the Constitution without further assurances, and thus we find in the Bill of Rights Amendments 2 and 3, specifically authorizing a decentralized militia, guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and prohibiting the quartering of troops in any house in time of peace without the consent of the owner." The US Army is not decentralized, nor is the National Guard. In the justice's opinion, the point of the 2nd Amendment is that we, the people, should be able to defend ourselves in case we are invaded. In the case that an invading force breeches our defenses, a well-armed militia is all that stands between them and domination. Moreover, the text of the 2nd Amendment states that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And so there is support for a well-regulated militia (which is not referred to as an army). Furthermore, the last half of the sentence says, in no uncertain terms, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you make it illegal for civilians to own guns, the only civilians who own guns will be criminals. They will not turn in their guns. Rather, they will see a freshly-disarmed populace... easy pickings. They will go into your home with the full knowledge that you haven't got a gun. Then they will steal everything you own, and perhaps even kill you. A friend of mine works in law enforcement and related the story of two individuals who passed through the juvenile hall where he works. These two guys would go, armed, into people's houses. They would then rape everyone there (man, woman, child, and adult, all the same), and then rob them. Do you really want these lunatics to be the only civilians with guns? Or is it perhaps that you pretend there is no such thing as a black market? If they broke into your house, would you rather wait five minutes for the cops to arrive (assuming they didn't cut the phone lines first or prevent you from getting to a phone), or kill them? How well do you suppose you could plead with these men while they were raping your mouth?

	LIE! (none / 0) (#96)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 03:53:37 PM PST

	The first sentence of the article: "This decision concerns military surveillance and whether this activity exceeded constitutional uses of the Army, and whether it violated the First Amendment." This case did not apply to firearms. You have lost.

	Wrong. (none / 0) (#97)
	by Hunsvotti on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 04:07:01 PM PST

	Dude, how come you didn't quote the next sentence as well? "In his dissent, Justice Douglas quoted a law review article by Chief Justice Warren which referred to numerous bill of rights guarantees, including the Second Amendment, as safeguards intended to protect America from rule by a standing army." I haven't lost a thing, dear anonymous reader. I quoted the opinion of a Supreme Court justice, which you did not refute. You also failed to refute my assertations as to why the populace should be armed. I guess this is because you know my argument is logically consistent and that you have zero chance of besting it. Don't feel bad, though. It is natural to try to use a technicality to invalidate an argument rather than attacking it head-on. Have fun getting faceraped.

	You are still lying (none / 0) (#98)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 04:12:55 PM PST

	You were asked for a second amendment case, you gave a first amendment case. Do you not know how to count? There have been exactly two second amendment cases before the supreme court in all history, and only one in the last century. I suggest you try to be more fastidious in your research in the future, rather than trying to impress people with your command of foul language. I find it amazing that you quoted the second sentence, but ignored the third. Justice Douglas also said that he felt handguns should be banned from everyone except the police. You just lost a second time. Try again?

	Lost? (none / 0) (#131)
	by Hunsvotti on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 03:02:43 AM PST

	/* You were asked for a second amendment case, you gave a first amendment case. Do you not know how to count? / Yes, I know how to count. Do you know how to talk an insane madman out of strangling your whole family with piano wire? I don't either. That's what revolvers are for. Try this on for size: http://www.nraila.org../../images/Ashcroft.pdf / There have been exactly two second amendment cases before the supreme court in all history, and only one in the last century. / The original argument was that the right to keep and bear arms is not constitutional. Go read that PDF. I was asked to yield up a case regarding the Deuce, and I went for that distraction rather than sticking to the original argument. My mistake. Perhaps I should do more research, yes, but what about said original argument? It IS my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court may have the power to determine what sort of arms I can own, and whether or not I have to register them, and whether or not they need serial numbers, etc. But I am one of "the people," and my right to keep and bear arms, as the Deuce says, shall not be infringed. / I suggest you try to be more fastidious in your research in the future, rather than trying to impress people with your command of foul language. / I'll be more fastidious in the future, but I don't particularly care about what someone who can't be bothered to register a nickname (or perhaps several people who can't be bothered to register nicknames) think about me. I do this in order to sharpen my debating skills. And if you don't like my "command of foul language," well, TOUGH SHIT! Some of us like to use expletives to drive a point home. I guess it works for you as well as for us, as you seem to be using it as a lever to make yourself feel like you are better than I. / I find it amazing that you quoted the second sentence, but ignored the third. Justice Douglas also said that he felt handguns should be banned from everyone except the police. You just lost a second time. Try again? */ I have tried again. Read the PDF. Now how about answering the rest of my questions?

	Sharpening your debating skills? (none / 0) (#135)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 03:45:28 AM PST

	By argument ad hominem, and blatant lying? That's sharp. Here's my answer to the rest of your questions: 981 people died due to accidents with guns in the US in 1997 and 17,000 were injured. Enjoy accidentally killing or injuring yourself and those near you. 52% of gunshot deaths in the US are suicides. Enjoy killing yourself intentionally. The heavy metal should help with that. In homes with guns, the homicide rate is 3 times as high as in those without. Enjoy killing your family and friends intentionally. Use of firearms for criminal purposes outnumber defensive use of guns by 6 to 1. Enjoy losing the leg you were hopping around the argument on. No federal court has ever struck down a gun control law in the United States. Enjoy the fact that the courts don't agree with your reading of the constitution.

	Need I say... (none / 0) (#136)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 03:47:06 AM PST

	You just lost a third time, hunsvotti. Keep 'em coming.

	Lost? (none / 0) (#168)
	by Hunsvotti on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 11:18:57 PM PST

	To who? For all I know this "Anonymous Reader" business is all coming from one guy who is trying to post a bunch of different questions, as though they were coming from different people, in order to try to get me off the main topic of discussion. You can post all the "Yeah, me too! Hunsvotti sucks!" messages you want, as though there were two or five or fifty different people jumping on my back.

	No, you need not say. (none / 0) (#178)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 12:46:39 AM PST

	So, uh, bust out your dictionary and look up "Lost" and "Won". I do believe you have the definitions reversed. So far not one of us Anonymous Chicken Tenderizers has proven Hunsvotti wrong. Just because there are a handful of minor points on his arguement that may slip through the cracks from some extreme perspective does not mean his arguement is unsound. I could make an arguement for the extinction of humanity that would look sane from many perspectives. Gun crime may have dropped after the gun ban, however violent crime in general increased markedly (estimated between 10 and 30% increase '97 - '01). This is due to criminals knowing their targets do not have a gun with which to defend themselves.

	Yus. (none / 0) (#180)
	by Hunsvotti on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 02:09:04 AM PST

	Thanks for having my back, man. 'S kinda funny how successful a tactic it is to try to steer someone into a different but similar argument, in the hopes that they'll knuckle under and forget that the original argument even exists... Well folks, I'm not going to knuckle under. Anyone who would like to tell me how wrong I am (snicker) can reply to this post. I'm not going to keep track of three different threads any more. SETTLED LAW ARGUMENT: I concede that there is no supreme court decision that gun control is somehow "illegal." In order for such a case to arrive at the Supreme Court, the legislative branch or a state government would have to attempt a massive disarming of civilians. A total firearms ban, not just on expensive toys like Uzis. It'll never happen. Such a ban would be unconstitutional. INTERPRETATION OF 18TH CENTURY SEMANTICS: There are arguments on both sides. Some of the framers thought civilians ought not be guaranteed any right to arm themselves. Other framers thought that to deny such a right would be the single best way to enslave them. More modern personages who agree with this notion include Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, whose forces stood to gain a lot by having the citizens disarmed. Clearly the framers did not agree on a number of things. However, the 2nd Amendment says "the people" - as in, "We, the people", not "We, the people who are in an army". Yes, yes, you have an amicus brief to throw at me, I'm sure! Well, I have quotations from the framers that say your amicus briefs are full of beans. Who's right and who's wrong? Neither and both. It's a purely subjective argument. I could also posit that we do have a well-regulated militia in gun owners, since they are required to register many of their firearms, and stand as the single last line of defense in the case that our national army is overrun. Oh yeah, one more thing. If guns had been banned by England, we would not have stood a chance of winning the revolution, because A) our ragtag army would not have had a means to present a real threat to the lobsterbacks; and B) even if the army had guns, many local nonmilitary residents were called upon to help deflect said lobsterbacks. BENEFITS VS. DANGERS: Bunk. Over ten thousand people are murdered in this country every year, and less than a thousand of these murders were accomplished with a gun. The very large majority of murders are accomplished via other means. Furthermore, banning guns would do nothing to address the cause of murder. Tens of thousands are injured by guns every year. However, 3,200,000 people were injured by cars in 1999, with 15,794 fatalities. Cars are responsible for an exponentially higher number of injuries than guns. There are people who drive drunk and endanger us all, it's true, but should we then ban all cars and force everyone to ride bikes and mopeds because of the poor decision-making capability of a minority of people? The argument about suicide is similarly flawed. Guns are but one of many hundreds (thousands?) of methods available to a suicide case. Again, banning guns would not solve the underlying problem of insanity. Gun usage: 1 in self-defense to 6 in crime. That's nice. At least that 1/6th segment had a chance to defend themselves. I wonder how much larger that segment would be if more people had (and used) permits to carry concealed weapons. It also completely ignores the gun usage that occurs at shooting ranges. Domestic violence: Again, this is caused by insanity, not inanimate objects. You ban the guns and people will still have Ginsu knives in their kitchens, pokers by their fireplaces, pens in their pockets, blunt objects on their mantles, etc.

	The real problem I have with guns (none / 0) (#186)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 06:58:26 AM PST

	Is that they don't really help anyone. Most of the people who try to use them to solve crimes, end up shooting themselves. It isn't that guns kill people, it's just that most people aren't really capable of operating firearms without injuring themselves. Compare the amount of time a person takes learning to drive to the amount of time taken learning to shoot a gun. It's clear that guns are an ineffective deterrent to crime, since most criminals don't know how to use guns. Allowing the people to have guns is exactly the same as giving bombs to children. Arming citizens is the pure neglectful insanity.

	Gun problems (none / 0) (#212)
	by Hunsvotti on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 12:33:36 AM PST

	Back in the old days, "driver education" consisted of the guy who sold you your car having you do a few loops around the parking lot on a Sunday afternoon. We no longer permit people to operate motor vehicles without proof of competency, nor should we, as a car is a piece of heavy machinery and improper use can very easily lead to death. I support a similar licensing requirement for guns. They are dangerous in inexperienced hands. Before being allowed to buy a gun, a person should be required to show proof that they have completed an extensive gun safety and usage course. (I think it should be harder to get a gun license than a driver's license, because they give those out like candy to people who just don't have the skill to drive.) There is a test one must take to obtain a hunting license, but it's mostly just common-sense questions; just about anyone can pass it. As far as guns "clearly" not being a deterrent to crime, I have addressed that elsewhere. Finally, disarming the people requires that you have complete trust that your government is not now and never will be run by individuals who would deprive us of as many freedoms as they can get away with, under the guise of "protecting" us or something similar. I don't want to live in a nanny state. Humans are corruptible. I, for one, believe the government is more polite to us because they KNOW we are armed. If the only people who are armed are taking their orders from politicians (i.e. the police and armed forces), who as I have said are corruptible, where is the counterbalance? There is none. Our representatives don't have to comply with the wishes we express in letters they receive from us; they can vote as they like, according to their own moral sense, with no regard for their constituents' wishes. They can be bribed, and often are. The day may come when an armed citizenry is the only thing that stands between the people and heinously suppressive behavior. If you don't believe me, look at Germany. Their government was led by a real smooth talker (Hitler), who was able to convince the majority that Jews as a race were responsible for the problems of their country. Then look at the mass internment of Japanese that went on RIGHT HERE in the USA. Again, we see a government abusing its powers to an outrageous extent in the name of "protection." Granted, the Japanese had it easy compared to the Jews, but they were still forced to sell all their posessions at laughable prices before getting herded onto trains and placed in prison camps. The Germans were fooled, and we were fooled. I don't think that exact sort of thing can happen again, but who knows what the next hundred years will bring? Finally, what if an invading force overruns our national defenses? It might not be likely NOW, but what about twenty years from now, or fifty? Armed citizens might be the one chance we had for a last stand. Armed citizens in Los Angeles certainly played a role in repelling rioters from their businesses back in '92, when it was demonstrated that our police force and the National Guard could be rendered ineffective by nothing more than bad management.

	History and the modern american twit (none / 0) (#215)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 02:52:32 AM PST

	Germans were renowned for anti-semitism well before Hitler came on the scene, as was most of Europe. Particularly the catholic dominated parts. Hitler didn't invent racism. As for the rest of your arguments, I have grown tired of whipping you. You and your associates lost this argument a long time ago. Enjoy a long bitter life of denial and rage.

	In the words of Lars Ulrich... (none / 0) (#253)
	by Hunsvotti on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 11:45:26 PM PST

	"Huh? You gonna cry, ya little sissy Mary? Huh? Not so tough, not so tough!" Alright, he didn't really say that, but that flash movie was some funny shit! Ya can't whip someone in a subjective argument unless they concede the whole argument. You better figure that out before you get married! :P As far as the "long bitter life of denial and rage," my response is a light-hearted PTHBBBBBBBBBBB! Thank you for your time.