Charles Black

Having just visited the Gordon Smith website, I found two "actual" Time Magazine photos of the motorcade that I found quite interesting. One is a close up which shows the respective seating positions of JFK and JBC which is quite telling.

Kennedy is very obviously seated "far" to the outside of JBC.....they are not aligned, even thru sheer imagination, for the magic bullet shot !

The other picture, if I interpret it correctly, pictures Jackie in what appears to be a "nearly prone" postion on the Limo trunk, as Clint Hill has not managed to yet fully board the limo.

If my eyes aren't deceiving me, they are quite interesting.

Charles Black

Mark

Since these are apparently recreations of various eye witness testimonies, is it known who authorized or "paid for" these recreations ?

Charlie Black

I have ordered this book and I eagerly await it on May 28, the date that Barnes & Noble told me again yesterday that I should receive it.

I decided to order this book primarily for one reason. I want to hear Mr. B's explanation of how the testimony of over one hundred eye witnesses in Dealey Plaza, plus what I consider the "expert testimony" of the Parkland Hospital Trauma Team, and the testimonies of several present during the entire Bethesda autopsy and the work of the morticians, can be disregarded or deemed unworthy or unreliable.

I have long professed a dogged belief in alteration of movie films, autopsy photos as well as xrays.

I see no way that some of the autopsy photos and xrays can be explained in the light of of these more than 100 testimonies to which I have referred. I cannot believe that the medical experts which comprised the Parkland Trauma team were confused or disoriented regarding what they saw. It should be obvious to all, that one of three things occurred.

One is that everyone at Parkland was either "blind, incompetent, or lying". The other is that the body changed between Parkland and Bethesda. The third is that some autopsy photos and xrays are forged.

Of course, points two and three prove conspiracy, and point one is most unlikely !

If Mr. Bugliosi can explain to me in a reasonable and believable manner the reasons for the above, I will not only be happy, but overjoyed, to set this study "away" forever !

I really hope that he can !

If not, I wont even find it at all necessary to read the remainder of the book, as I will truly know that I have wasted my money. Tho I suppose that a week's entertainment is worth $50.00, particularly since I just spent $60.00 to watch a prize fight on Pay TV!

The fight tho, may very well have been the better investment.

Charlie Black

Hello John

I was just contemplating your statement, "Most people might agree that you are not very bright..."

You and many of your forum members are probably absolutely right. I may not only be "not very bright", but I have decided that I am probably insane as well.

I questioned my sanity, when I just re-read every post on the Virginia Tech thread.

I must be insane because in my apparently clouded brain, I strongly feel that my posts were probably among the few rational and very logical thoughts expressed. No one was able to truly dispute anything that I posted. Merely European speculation regarding America's problems without a true understanding of the core of the problems.

Most of what I read were European "opinions" of the problems with American society. I know that you control this forum and are no doubt quite intellgent, but did it ever enter your mind the number of American Citizens who were finding fault with what I posted? Are they saying that I am dim witted ? Am I searching deeply into the forum in a paranoidal attempt to find fault with truly brilliant posts, which I recreate in my mind to be anti American "slurs" ?

If most Americans on this forum are in true agreement with you, I no doubt am quite unbalanced!

Charles Black

Hello Kathy

Neither you nor Stephen need further to respond to my questions because neither of you has truly yet given a response.

I am not very bright, but it is obvious to my little mind that this thread has received the sentence of death "with no appeal".

The subject has been relegated to the position that it will sink to page 139 within a very few days.

Not a very honorable death ! But I suppose that I understand ! Slow deaths are dreadful to watch,

Charles Black

Hello Stephen

Please indicate to me the "ire" in my posts. Perhaps I should consult Webster on "ire".

What "name calling" have I engaged in?

How did you decide that this thread was in the wrong section. Based on the responses, this thread was in absolutely the correct section.

Do you really feel that this is a political debate?

To me this smells of censorship? Doesn't it to you?

Charles Black

Hello Kathy

This has "nothing" to do with political debate whatsoever. It involves only the aftermath of the

JFK assassination / Coup.

Can you perhaps think of any other reason ?

Charles Black

Hello Stephen

I in no way understand the meaning behind your response. I stated that I know that a great many U.S. residents, as they have traced the rise in violence, feel that it is most directly related to the aftermath of the JFK assassination. What leads you to believe otherwise ?

What do you thnk that you know about America that we Amercans don't ? Please fill us in !

Perhaps you have consulted the Oracle at Delphi ?

Charles Black

Charles Black

Hi Jack

On my screen it reads "moved". Also the number of reads and postings has been deleted.

Charles Black

Charles Drago

Very well put !

I see that J. Raymond has re continued his nonsensical and ridiculously venomous posts.

Frankly I can't imagine who would be interested in anything that is on his coffee table !

Charles Black

Forum Moderators

I would like to know why the thread on the Virginaia Tech Spree Killer which had received a couple of thousand reads was removed.

I felt that it was very obviously directly related to the results of the 22 November, 1963 Coup d' Etat in that it addressed the problems of increasing violence within the U.S., which I and many others feel has resulted from the assassination of JFK. I would think that this is the reason that it was posted and very closely followed with a great deal of member participation.

I request that "the forum" be advised of the reason for its removal and where it can now be located.

I am objecting to its removal because I feel that it posited some of the "real truth" regarding social problems witin the U.S., rather than the one sided view from persons who do not reside within the U.S., and their false evaluation of certain causes and events.

Is there something wrong with "actual truth" and factual matter because it does not allow for the "one sided" explanations given by non American members who, obviously are quite unaware of the truth regarding these matters ?

Or is there perhaps a reason that is above my limited comprehension ?

Charles Black

Hello Andy Walker

I have nothing more to add regarding John's slurs, as they are a matter of record. Nothing to say until the next one is posted, in his effort to bring moderation to the forum.

I would like to clarify however, your very loose and liberal personal interpretation which you have ascribed to U.S. laws.

Andy you stated "I would like to add that I believe it is utter insanity for a civilised nation to permit all and sundry within the population to walk around armed to the teeth...".

Andy your painting of American society and its laws seems to be the result of your watching too many "old cowboy movies", and actually "no understanding of the existing laws".

No one is allowed by law to "walk around armed to the teeth"! A "very few" are allowed, only after some very vigorous FBI background investigations, which are quite time consuming and expensive, a photo ID license, much resembling an American driver's licence, to carry a concealed weapon....even so, there are restictions which do not allow them to be carried into bars and various public buildings.

Since I somehow feel that you already knew this, I personally feel that you are attepting to paint a "quite false" image of American Law and the society which it was meant to serve.

Those persons who are so licensed, are quite solid citizens. These licences must be up dated every few years so they remain, as much as is reasonably possible, up to date. Former felons as well as the cognitively or emotionally impaired are not licensed.

The Virginia Tech killer was not licenced ! However he did manage, thru beaucratic error, to slip by the strict qualifications to purchase handguns.

So it should be realized by all that the U.S. is a nation that does not ".....permit all and sundry within the population to walk around armed to the teeth" !

As a matter of fact one can assume that anyone posessing a U.S. concealed weapons permit, is not one of the "all and sundry", but rather, a well regarded citizen.

The problem which does exist, is that the "criminal element" posesses a great many handguns with erased serial numbers which they themselves never purchased "new" or "legally".

So what you are realy in effect proposing is that the solid citizens who have passed rigorous FBI checks be disarmed, all the while knowing that the criminals and mentally deranged cannot be disarmed.

I feel this is what you refer to when you state, "Ifeel that it is utter insanity for a civilised nation to permit all and sundry within the population to walk around armed to the teeth".

The only "insanity" which I perceive would be for mentally cognizant American citizens to voluntarily place themselves at such a ridiculous disadvantage, and at the mercy of the felonous and misguided. As I have stated numerous times on this forum, "a reasonable and sane individual does not particpate in what he knows to be a gunfight if armed only with a knife".

The U.S. is certainly no Utopia, nor are its citizens so misguided to believe that it is; regardless of our cultural shortcomings !

I don't see how your argument is anything but an attempted furtherance of the false propaganda so often used by the anti gun lobbyists.

The U.S. has admittedly by most American opinion, some very serious social problems. They need not be falsely magnified and imaged.

Andy since I really felt that you already knew all that I have posted, I thought that I would attempt to set the record straight, for those that seem to harbor the misgivings which you were so eager to magnify.

Andy, in regard to what you claim to be my misguided posts.....is this one concise enough?

Charles Black

Charles Black

Unless John Simkin is trying to tell all Americans, in his higly cultured fashion, that he does not want our participation on HIS forum, his comments regarding Americans, as this forum's leader, are far above my comprehension.

It absolutely amazes me to see the depths to which this forum leader is willing to burrough, in order for some reason, that I can't comprehend, to slander Americans. He has appointed moderators, presumably as an attempt to keep slurs between members to a minimum, but he himself has become the prime antagonist that participates here. What is even worse, it should be obvious to even the non American members of this forum, that this is not a mistake, but a deliberate and calculated action on his part.

While hurling slurs toward American members in many prior posts, he has not failed to very explicitly remind them that this is his forum, and that he has the power to ban those who might protest. This constant flow of slurs are very obviously meant to provoke even the "meekest" American members, though of these, he remains assured, most will not raise their voices.

I feel that this form of behavior is bound to, given enough time, be self destructive of this forum.

John seems to think that his personal mental removal of himself from his governments policies, sets him apart and absolved of possible British political complacency and wrongdoing. He is able thru the enlightenment which hindsight bestows, criticize all that this hindsight allows him.

He fails to acknowledge the "hint", that without Tony Blairs approval, the Bush misadministration, may very well not have taken their course in the light of the entire world's protest.

I am referring at present to Simkins post #104. His subsequent post #106 may be an hidden acknowledgement that he had travelled far beond the realms of common couteousy, expected by all societies. John has never realized that a theoretically inherited measure of culture, unfortunately does not also bestow CLASS !

I would imagine, if a stronger action is not taken, that it will be John's natural inclination to ask me if I am so dissatisfied with him, why do I remain on this forum ? The answer is obviously simple. I remain because I respect the ideas and thought processes of many on this forum. It is not the "forum" which I would like to place behind me.

I also remain to represent those more timid countrymen of mine, whose "apathy" has allowed some of the wrongs which you, I, and the entire world know are criminally illegal, and to remind them to get off of their privileged fat asses and stand up for something for a change.

Of course I and most of the sane world condemn my countries present actions.....but that does not mean that I wish to abandon my status as an American....as this post should probably indicate !

If John were anyone other than John, I don't doubt that there would be a call for the moderation of his statements "by this forum's moderators". This forum, of course was never intended to be a representative democracy, nor should it necessarily be so. No one can be impeached or really even challenged in a meaningful way. I realize that my

protestations alone will change nothing. But I could not remain here with any degree of self respect, were I to allow myself, my countrymen, and my country, to be trodden on.

Without self respect, I would not care to live !

I would suggest to some of you who have not done so; to read this entire thread at one sitting. I feel that there is a great deal more in it than one can grasp by merely wandering in and out.

You may conclude that there are some gigantic variances in thought and beliefs.....but this is what a forum is supposed to be. But it cannot be allowed to be dominated by the decisions of only one.....Regardless of their hierarchial position !

Charles Black

With all of the criticism that has been hurled at the Secret Service, and much of it rightfully so,

can anyone comment on this ?

It has been a continuous topic in assassination discussions since day one....can anyone explain the who, how and why of the Secret Service participantion, and what the Secret Service had to gain ?

Were most of these individuals unskilled and untrained ? Poor eyesight ? Bad hearing ?

No reflexes ?

If no one has an answer, do we owe this "elite group" an apology ?

Charles Black

John Dolva

I agree with a great deal of what you posted.

However for those not living in the U.S., it must be extremely difficult to imagine the EXTENT of the disparity between "Haves" and the growing number of "Have Nots". I know for a fact that in Sweden, and probably Switzerland, which have been in this thread compared to the U.S........it is not only difficult, but rationally impossible, to make such a comparison.

In the countries mentioned, there are not aged people having to decide whether to spend their "pennies" on life preserving prescriptions or food!

There are not aged and poor who freeze to death each winter because they cannot afford heat. There are not homeless persons and "bag ladies" roaming the streets, which by the way, are physically removed often, prior to the arrival of certain international visitors.

I recently posted that I recently, on two ocassions, have watched elderly gentlemen filling only a "portion of their prescriptions". I at first thought this odd, until it penetrated my thick skull that they could not, at one time, pay for the entire prescription. "Should I buy food or life saving drugs?"

There are schools here, that teachers would rather go unemployed than to risk working. Most of these problems are usually not observed by tourists who are affluent enough to be attracted to the better areas.

The U.S. has been usually considered an affluent nation. However when studied more closely, there is great disparity between various living conditions.

When my children were young we derived much pleasure from attending professional sporting events and concerts as a family. It would today take more than a weeks salary, of one who is on minimum wage, to buy one ticket to such a sporting event or major concert.

Families are financially unable to engage as families, in activities which they once enjoyed and which also united them.

I realize that Australia has aborigines and Canada has immigrants..........but the U.S. has been a "melting pot" forever. I would venture to say that there are more illegal aliens in the U.S. than all of the immigrant population of Canada.

It is very easy for some Europeans to smugly sit back and "asess" a situation of which they have had no practical experience. Most of these, only "partially educated" SMUGS, are too stubborn to admit that they actually have NO WAY of knowing the conditions that persist within the U.S. I recently stated in a post that neither I nor anyone in my family, have ever been mugged, harmed, or robbed.

But we are not forced to live in certain areas, and we also know what to avoid. So too are most tourists guided.

We can philosophise to no end, of what life should be, but one does not truly understand a problem until one has actually been involved in it. "Passing thru", in my opinion, is not involvement!

The problem of violence has little to do with guns.

I am certain that the world has watched the devastation of the Watts and other racial riots.

As I think that I stated in my first post on this thread, that there would be many who would attempt to turn this thread into an appeal for stronger anti gun legislation. And it is being done by those who will not open their minds and eyes to the true probems. I suppose that some on "the Education Forum", feel that they are far too well educated to be hampered by truth and fact.

I suppose thre are some who are comfortable at this stratospheric height. However I am forced to reside in this worlds actual atmosphere.

I have not entered "this" post as a matter of furthering debate, or as an attempt to individually criticise anyone. This is what I truly believe and I feel that it is based entirely on actuality......

and not on the "philosophy" of how things should be in this country !

Charles Black

Charles Black

I have pursued issues in the JFK assassination to a strong degree by the ages old question of "who were the most likely beneficiaries" of JFK's removal ?

Some may agree and some may not, however I can make a pretty good case that if JFK had remained President, it would in no way be argued that the Military Industrial Complex (including oil industry) would suffer financially most seriously.

I feel also that the CIA felt that they were being cornered, and their powers were being seriously infringed upon by Jack and Bobby's interference, and certainly their lack of support.

Unlike many, I believe that the support of LBJ and JEH had to be "insured" prior to any other steps being taken. The precarious positions which these two found themselves in 1963 politically, and LBJ's additional potential of being criminally prosecuted as well as being dropped from the Democrat ticket in 1964, almost insured their support and partcipation, merely by studying both their "character flaws and history" !

I understand that JFK had individuals within his Secret Service who were not in "support" of him.

However the Secret Service is a large organization.

Even the White House and Protection Detail were numerous. Too numerous for it to have been a "unit participation" !

I also realize there has breen argument both pro and con regarding JFK's cooperation, or lack of, with this agency.

Since I do not feel that the Secret Service, as a whole, had anything to gain or lose regardless of whom they were protecting, I cannot feel how certain leadership within this unit, would be able to "let down the guard", without it being quite obvious to the entire agency.....which in my opinion was much too large to have been so chanced.

I would like opinions on how a small number within the leadership of this group, could have "truly covertly" done this ? I feel that this would have been nearly impossible.

Charles Black

John Simkin

As usual, many of you do not want to discuss the specifics of this problem which certainly HAVE beem

more than adequately addressed. You prefer to turn this into a "philosophical discussion" of Sweden, Switzerland and other countries which ethnically and socially have virtually nothing in common with the population and religious make up of the United States. They do not have the ethnic differences or the economic separation of classes which is so evident within the U.S.. You are not attempting to compare "apples and oranges" it is more like "grapes and watermelons". All of you who suggest a comparison of such divergent cultures, are

assuming that the members of this forum are certainly not only gullible, but extremely ignorant.

John, if you would for a change, approach a subject with an open mind, you would find that ALL of the "pertinent" issues which are involved with this problem, have been adequately addressed. You head this forum, however you are one of the foremost examples, of those who pre determine a conclusion,

and "reverse engineer" your supportive arguments to meet your pre formed conclusion. Yours is an prime example of the methods used by the Warren Commission.

There is never an adequate answer for those who "refuse to listen" !

You woud find my above statements are well supported, but fear of expulsion from the forum, prevents many from true self expression. Anyone disagreeing with you "feels", whether true or not, that they are playing on an unlevel field.

My opinion is that discussing a subject with one who will not listen is fruitless. That is why there are a number of, brighter than me researchers, who acknowledged this some time ago, and now never or very seldom, participate.

In any college class, has an instructor, ever to your knowledge, subjected the students to the task of comparing the U.S. problems, socially and ethnically, to those of Sweden and Switzerland?

Were I a student, my first thought would be....... "where the hell did that come from. And why?"

Well, I suppose that there is nothing more that I could add that would change the direction in which this discussion is being led !

Charles Black

Hello John

I, and I feel everyone, should applaud the work of King, Ghandi and others who strove for a non violent means to solve any problem.

I abhore the practice of slavery by any means, and

I recognize the policies practiced by both the U.S., Great Britain, and most of the worlds historical "empire building countries" throughout history, to their conquered, or those whom they, the ruling body, classified as unequals.

John, this has nothing to do with "gun control" legislation, except that it was always a good idea to have the conquered or dissidents unarmed, so that the ruling body could force its will without fear of armed resistance. The thoughts of this and the continued realization and memory that if the American Revolutionaries had not had armed militias, that the U.S. "revolt" in 1776 would have been quickly quelled, and the U.S. might have remained, until this day, "subjects" of the British Empire.

Few people, certainly not I, will argue that World History is a history of the strong subjecting the weak to the ravages of tyranny. But this is not what we have been discussing as, you well know.

We have been discussing whether or not strict gun control legislation, makes the citizens of a nation, in which there is and has been much ethnic and social violence, safer as the result of confiscating the means of self protection from the non criminal element, while there is little or no assurance that the criminal element will not maintain their weaponry.

We are discussing whether this proposed type of gun control is in the best interest of the law abiding citizenry who, for the most part, also vigorously seek an end to social and ethnic disparity.

Guns and gun control are not the problem. Some attempt to quote accidents, that might happen as a result of the presence of guns, is widely and continuously heralded by those the unknowing, or unwilling to face the REAL problems. It is treating an amputation with only a band aid.

I feel that if someone open mindedly studies "every post in this tread", and still determines that "stricter gun control legislation" will truly be an aid in curing those social and ethnic problems, which the U.S. has been unwilling to face and to admit, I hope that those persons will never play a role in directing or influencing my future.

Guns are merely tools, as are knives, hammers, axes, and automobiles. Guns, along with bows, spears and swords are tools which are designed to kll, harm, control or intimidate---OR---to protect one against

those who would use them for these purposes.

If gun confiscation occurred within the U.S., and then it was determined by those in power that this did not "solve" the problem, but perhaps increased it, what do you feel would be the next step by this group of legislative intellects? More legislation?

Of course ! Legislation which would negate our remaining civil liberties ? Of course !

In my opinion, it is the desire of those not in governmental seats, but who "truly control" this nation, to relegate some 99% of our population to the control of that truly governing 1%, and we the "governed", will be as helpless as a flock of sheep, who must look to their shepherd for all of their needs.

I don't feel these are the workings of a paranoid mind, but of one who has learned the lessons of history, and feels that he has the right to at least to some extent, be in control of his future.

You who think you are "the knowing", are merely distancing yourselves from the fact, that most intelligent men and women, do not care to be the pawns of those truly uncaring symbols of power.

Most "Empires" have so distanced themselves by self pride and self adulation, that they have not recognized the power of the "sleeping giant". This is why we are all not speaking, Egyptian, Greek or Roman ! They self destructed ! They were never defeated while they realized truth of purpose.

I remain "violently hostile" to even the hint of the removal of what I consider to be my civil and human rights. I am one of those "unteachables", who until death, remains self assured, that there is "NO HUMAN" that holds "my" best interest" ahead of their own, or has as great an interet in the protection and future of my family, than do I.

Legislate away !

Charles Black

Hello All

I have just re read every post in this thread. The

inability of some to understand that these killings, are to a very great extent, carried out by those who are already criminals or insane, and that the guns, for the most part, were never legally bought or registered, seems to go unnoticed here. I cannot begin to imagine how you can think that you will ever be able to "Remove Guns From the Criminal Element." What you are in fact proposing, is that although the guns cannot be removed from the criminal element, we can at least take the guns away from the law abiding citzens and sportsmen, because they will obey the law and give up their guns. So even tho we have not been able to remove the guns from the most probable killers, we CAN at least take away the law abiding citizens "ability to protect themselves from armed thugs".

It will surely reduce crime and killings, when the bad guys can just walk into a home or business and at gunpoint, rob, rape and kill the good guys, and have no fear that any harm can come to them. Little harm would even come to them if they increased law enforcement members ten fold, and gave the police Abrams Tanks as patrol vehicles.

So further legislation will remove at least all of the legal guns. Therefore if I understand your logic, the good people are less likely to be shot by the bad people, because the bad people know that the good people can't defend themselves. And knowing that the good people are defenseless, and can therefore not harm the bad people, then the bad people will say that, "we have a truly unfair advantage" so we will stop committing crimes. Because we all know that "it is not as much of a thrill to shoot someone if you know that they can't shoot back. It just takes the sport out of killing" !

I am happy to admit, that here in the wilderness of the colonies, I have NO friends or acquaintances that are as cultured and enlightened as some of you.

I apologize to you all for wasting your time by entering my thoughts in this topic.

I suppose I am unable to grasp the crystal clarity of some of your advanced logic.

Charles Black

I sit here with appx 13 guns in my house. Two of which are loaded and properly stored, primarily because I have grandchildren.

The primary reason that I have 13 guns is not be a frothy mouthed killer, But, target shooting and hunting are my hobby. I belong to several shooting clubs who have doctors and judges among their membership. I have a concealed weapons permit tho I seldom carry, but I do keep a loaded .45 caliber in my car. Most people don't understand that they need only ONCE to face a killer, in order to be quite dead. An anti gun enthusiast will never have the opportunity to say "that if I only had a weapon, my family would still be alive." I always carry weapons on camping trips and sometimes where I am fishing.

Dawn mentioned that she hated guns but her husband owned several but HE is smart enough to know how to store them. Why don't you understand that other people, who might be not as well educated as your husband, might still be bright enough and "care" enough, to handle their weapons at least equally as well. Is everyone that owns a gun a crazed savage?

Most persons who are licenced to "carry" weapons can usually be depended on, because of the FBI checks and local checks, to be very solid citizens.

Your Va. Tech killer wasn't licenced to "carry a weapon". He qualified to puchase one only because several people failed to properly do their job.

It is a dreadful shame that some of we gunowners were not present......because he would never have killed 32 people. If the pilots of the 911 planes had been armed, that event may have never happened.

I think it is extremely "backward thinking" to take guns away from honest upright citizens when you know that the criminal element is well armed.

John, I don't understand why you are so proud to have never picked up a gun. I am proud to have, when my help was asked for.

Yes people are angry, hurt and crying, over those victimized by a crazed person. Why are you, both Brits & Yanks, however not crying over the thousands of soldiers who have died and been maimed.

Many of them were even younger than the Va. Tech students, but most were not fortunate enough to have been attending college. Are their lives less valuable? Why ? Why don't we shed some tears over the fact that both countries are complacent enough to tolerate such political leadership that causes the deaths of thousands of middle eastern women and children. We not only chose this leadership, but have allowed it to go unchecked, since the beginning of this millenium.

As I mentioned in another post, which many of you deliberately allowed to flow over your heads, if this crazed individual was intent on killing people, he did not "need a gun" ! With a couple of home made bombs and Molotov cocktails, he, or anyone, can kill far more than 32 people in a shorter time period, with less cost, and a possibility to do it again and kill some more.

Why do you bright people attack guns. Citizen owned guns is not the problem in the U.S., nor was it in the UK and Australia before they were confiscated.

It is easier and more convenient to attack guns, than it is to attack the real problem !

Guns were less responsible for that massacre than the general citizenry. I realize, as you rally behind your anti-gun sentiments, that if I have managed to figure that out, so have you. But we are all so lazy, complacent, and eager to place blame, that we don't want to admit that we, our societies, were the enablers of this horror.

You cannot legislate away those responsibilties which we are so unwilling to accept !

Charlie Black

P. S. Would the U.S. & Great Britain allow their Nuclear weapons banned, if they knew that highly potential agressors still maintained a nuclear arsenal ? This is no different than the point being made by the outlawing of private citizens weapons, while not being able to prevent the criminal element from being armed !

Stephen

I am very sorry for my attack on you which was a result of my own stupidity. Not a valid reason, but my excuse is that I had been baby sitting two of my grandaughters for three hours, and they apparently had gotten to me more than I realized.

Your response to me was very prompt and gentlemanly

I apologize for putting both feet in my mouth.

My deepest apologies also to the forum.

Charles Black

Stephen

I quote you "differences of opinion are very tiresome and proof that the educational sytem has failed everyone except yourself."

Why are you attempting in your feeble way to attack me?

How can ANY human being, particularly a member of this forum, state that "differences of opinion are very tiresome." You would not HAVE a forum if there were no differences of opinion"!

I think that I can say, without a doubt, this statement of yours is better than me writing a thousand words.

By the way, what educational system spawned you ?

Will they admit it ?

Charlie Black

Hello John Simkin

It absolutely astonished me, but you stated in your immediately prior post that "...the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Clearly this reflects a time when people were concerned with the possible tyranny of the federal government. Is that still true today."

I cannot imagine you being in your position on this forum and stating ".....Is that still true today"

What do you think that we are referring to when we speak of an 11/22/63 Coup d' Etat? Or our often reference that the current Bush Administration is bleeding away our rights ? That the CIA is unmanaageable ? That the last election results were contested because of reported and proven improprieties?

Yes John ! We still fear tyranny of any sort.

If a majority of our 1776 revolutionaries, were not armed, we would still be a part of the "British Empire".

It was not only because of the threat of red indians or wild animals that these 1776ers bore arms. It was also against a repeated threat of tyranny.

Actually the meaning of to "keep and BEAR arms", means that citizens may be "accompanied by a gun" whenever they so choose.

I knew John, that you and a few others, would attempt to turn this thread into a gun control debate, as I stated in my post #35.

I would like to state that the great portion of my life was lived within the United States. I have been to all of the "big crime ridden cities" and never once have I or any of my family been physically threatened by ANYONE ! That is why I find it not only amazing, but preposterous that so many UK visitors are singled out and attacked.

Our southern neighbor, Mexico, banned handguns !

Would you like to walk down some dark, suburban Mexican Streets alone ?

The Mexican gun prohibition has prohibited only the citizenry from protecting themselves. There are still Banditos throughout Central America. There are certainly some areas of some American cities that one would not want to enter with a dozen guns. But this is mostly the result of gang and ethnic wars. Since you, I and everyone knows that guns cannot be kept out of the hands of criminals, why should I be stupid enough, or not care enough about the safety of my family, to give up my guns,

while knowing that the criminal element has not and never will ? I was long ago taught, "do not go to a gunfight armed only with a knife". I think that is sound reasoning !

Although there is a much greater chance that one of us is killed in an auto accident, by drowning, or some other means, than there is that we will be killed by a "bad guy", I can take steps to protect myself and my family against the bad guy, so why should I be denied this?

Charlie Black

I have refused to watch news coverage this morning,

but the questions that immediately came to my mind yesterday are 1) why has no one interviewed this killer's high school teachers and acquaintances?

2) this student was 23 years old....what had he been doing in the period between high school and college? 3) if he had been diagnosed as unstable and a threat to himself, why he was released from a mental facility after only two days...I realize that he was voluntarily incarcerated and could not be held against his will, however didn't that mental institution have at least a moral responsibility to have reported this to anyone?

Did they "cure" his mental illness within two days? Was he prescribed medication?

Had he not the financial ability to pay for further treatment, there are government agencies that could have helped him with no charge. One of the questions asked while applying for permission to buy a handgun, "have you ever been diagnosed as being not mentally stable?" Should not someone have reported his mental diagnosis so that it could be a part of his record?

I understand that this University had a campus wide loudspeaker system, that was installed to handle potential crises. Why was it not used instead of an email? How many check their emails at 7:30 AM ?

There seems to be both much wrong which include complacency of the University, slow and inadequate reaction of the Police, and disturbngly gross errors "once again by the news media."

Regardless of how many laws are on the books, one cannot legislate against a great many failures of several different systems already recognized in this case ! Complacency and the lack of "common sense" also tend to deny the practical validity of established rules and laws. Instead of more "gun control laws", there are available many psychological tests that can be given to children in both high school and college. Possibly included as part of SAT testing! Mandatory testing!

Charlie Black

Yes, the media is reacting exactly as could be expected. If I did not have cable television, which I pay $80.00 a month for, I could almost have watched nothing except this horrible incident. This is a "Media Dream Come True" !

I would like to say however, in response to John Simkin's post #29, that the young "suicidal lady",

to which you refer, would have committed suicide if she had access to a gun, is ridiculous. What is wrong with a razor blade? Her claim is ridiculous!

Please see my post #35.

Charlie Black