Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guns Are Designed to Kill (And killing is legitimate in some circumstances)
American Thinker ^ | 01/09/2013 | Kenneth Bennight

Posted on 01/09/2013 6:38:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Edited on 01/09/2013 6:40:30 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

Would-be gun controllers argue that guns are different from other dangerous commodities. Guns are uniquely are designed to kill, they say, and therefore lack the utility of other dangerous things. Take automobiles, for instance: automobiles kill more people than guns, but automobiles' primary use is peaceful, and automobiles are not designed to kill. Why, gun controllers ask, should we tolerate guns, which are dangerous and have no material utility other than killing?


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; guns; secondamendment

1 posted on 01/09/2013 6:38:16 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Headline/comment: “Guns Are Designed to Kill (And killing is legitimate in some circumstances)”

Reminds me of Dirty Harry: “Some folks just need killin’”


2 posted on 01/09/2013 6:40:49 AM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Had to be said.

Now let's see if the will to kill can be said also.

3 posted on 01/09/2013 6:41:04 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

My packing tape gun is not designed to kill. Neither is my nail gun, nor staple gun, nor caulk gun.

Were swords designed to slice bread? Undoubtedly there have been swords so used in the past.

Gotta love all these semantic arguments.


4 posted on 01/09/2013 6:44:16 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Take automobiles, for instance: automobiles kill more people than guns, but automobiles' primary use is peaceful, and automobiles are not designed to kill.

There are 300 million guns in America, but only 240 million vehicles. Yet the object who's "primary purpose" to kill is less efficient at killing Americans than the object who's primary purpose is "peaceful."

Time to ban cars. Or at least ban "High Velocity Capacity" cars such as Mustangs and Corvettes.

5 posted on 01/09/2013 6:44:41 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Sure that is a reason. But what about those of us into the shooting sports. I love 3 gun competition and other forms of timed, accurate shooting.

Then there is harvesting of animals for consumption. Notice the operative word harvesting not killing. What narrow minded propagandists.

6 posted on 01/09/2013 6:45:44 AM PST by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A Nation of Cowards

Why the Gun is Civilization


Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality by Raymond Kraft

Last week, Jack and Jill Pacifisto were walking home through the park after dinner with friends, during which they had spent a few hours discussing the immorality of violence and war and their commitments to send more money to progressive activists over the next year. Suddenly, Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows and pointed a pistol at Jack and said, “Give me your wallet,” and, pointing the gun at Jill, “Your purse.”

“What?” asked Jack, incredulous, “Hey, we don’t want any trouble. We’re pacifists. We aren’t going to hurt you.”

“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your money.”

So Jack and Jill did, and then Tony said, “And now gimme your watches, rings, jewelry, everything worth anything.”

“Hey,” said Jill, “This is my wedding ring!”

And Tony said, “Not my problem.”

Jack and Jill handed over their wallet, and purse, and all their jewelry and Rolex watches, and then Tony shot them both twice in the chest and picked up the loot and stepped back into the shadows.

As Jill lay dying she whispered, “Jack? Why didn’t you fight back? Why didn’t you have a gun?” Those were her last words.

“I couldn’t,” whispered Jack. “I’m a pacifist.” Those were his last words.

A few days later, Bill Thaxton and his wife were walking home through the park after dinner, when Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows.

“Give me your wallet, your purse,” said Tony, pointing his gun first at Bill, and then at his wife. He did not know that Bill was an old lawman, and had been a Marine sniper when he was young, and was active in the Single Action Shooters Society and had a concealed-carry-permit. Tony assumed that the old man was just an old man with some money and a few credit cards in his wallet walking home from dinner.

“Sorry, friend, I don’t like guns, and I don’t want any trouble,” said Bill.

“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your wallet, your purse,” he said, waving the gun at Bill’s wife, “Rings, watches, everything.”

“And what if I don’t?” asked Bill.

“I’ll shoot you both. Her first,” said Tony, pointing his gun at Bill’s wife again.

“Well,” said Bill, “Okay, honey, do what he says.”

She tossed down her purse. Bill reached slowly for his left lapel with his right hand and then, like lightning, did a cross-draw with his left and came out blazing with his trusty little 9, nailing Tony three times.

As he lay on the sidewalk dying, Tony Thug was heard to mutter, “Damn, I shoulda stuck with the pacifists . . .”

An acquaintance wrote me last week to tell me proudly how he had been a pacifist since the ‘60s. His letter set me thinking about pacifism, which is the ultimate and vilest form of immorality.

If you are Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama, or Ahmadinejad, your desire to kill those you dislike is at least honest and open. You wear you hate on your sleeve and we know who and what you are. But the Pacifist wears his refusal to resist evil as if it were a badge of honor, and claims it as a sign of his or her absolute moral superiority. The Hitlers and Osamas are at least honest about who they are, the Pacifist is not. Not even to himself.

The German Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote a poem circa 1946 about the quiescence of German intellectuals in the face of the Nazi rise to power that has become famous. Translated, it reads:

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent,

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists

I did not speak out,

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews

I did not speak out,

I was not a Jew.

When they came for me

there was no one left to speak out.

The Pacifist says something like this, but, unlike Niemoller, without apology. He says:

When you come for my allies

I will not fight you,

for I am a Pacifist.

When you come for my countrymen

I will not fight you,

for I am a Pacifist.

When you come for my neighbor,

I will not fight you,

for I am a Pacifist.

When you come for my mother,

my father, my brother,

my sister, I will not fight you,

for I am a Pacifist.

When you come for my wife,

my husband, my son,

my daughter, I will not fight you,

for I am a Pacifist.

When you come for me,

I will not fight you,

for I am a Pacifist.

The Pacifist claims that he (or she) is too good to fight against evil, and this is the catastrophic intellectual and moral failure of Pacifism. In the guise of being too good to oppose evil, the Pacifist invokes the ultimate immorality by aiding and abetting and encouraging evil, on the pretext of being too pure, too wise, too sophisticated to fight evil, thereby turning the pretense of goodness and purity into an invocation and license for evil to act without opposition.

The moral stance of the Pacifist is, unwittingly perhaps, homicidal, genocidal, fratricidal, suicidal. The Pacifist says, in effect: “There is nothing good worth fighting for. And there is nothing so evil worth fighting against.”

The Pacifist is willing to give evil free reign, because he or she thinks or feels that fighting against evil is even worse than evil itself . . . an intellectual and moral equivocation of monumentally staggering proportions. In order to be a Pacifist, one must hold that Nazism or Islamism or Communism or any other puritanical totalitarian ideology that seeks to slaughter or oppress all the Jews or all of any other race or tribe is no worse, is not morally inferior, to the existence of Jews and Judaism, or whatever other race or tribe is the whipping boy of the day.

To be a Pacifist, one must hold that acquiescence to a Jihad that seeks to destroy Western Civilization is no worse than Western Civilization, even though the Jihad seeks to extinguish intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, and ultimately even the freedom to be a Pacifist.

As the English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The Pacifist replies, “I am so good that I will do nothing, I will hurt no one, even if that means that good will be destroyed and evil will win. I am so peaceful that I will not discriminate between the goodness of good and the badness of evil, certainly not with enough conviction to take up arms, literally or figuratively, against the triumph of evil over good, of totalitarianism over freedom, of barbarianism over civilization.”

And so the Pacifist, perhaps unthinkingly, unwittingly, mistakenly, is deeply mired in his intellectual confusion, but surely and unequivocally, the epitome of evil itself, For the Pacifist devoutly believes that by refusing to fight against evil he is affirming that he is good, too good and pure to oppose evil, too good and pure to fight evil, to good and pure to kill evil. But in the end, he is the enabler without whom the triumph of evil would not be possible.



7 posted on 01/09/2013 6:48:21 AM PST by EdReform (Oath Keepers - Guardians of the Republic - Honor your oath - Join us: www.oathkeepers.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, guns are designed to kill. But designed to kill whom?

Tyrannical governments and the tyrants and despots that makes them up, that’s who.

They are used to kill others, but guns are not “designed” to kill them.


8 posted on 01/09/2013 6:58:28 AM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why, gun controllers ask, should we tolerate guns, which are dangerous and have no material utility other than killing?

It's not something you are in a position to "tolerate".
You don't want a gun - don't own one.

9 posted on 01/09/2013 6:59:44 AM PST by grobdriver (Sic semper tyrannis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Here we go again, somebody is accepting a premise that is inherently false. Guns are designed to push projectiles out of their barrels at a relatively high rate of speed.
Killing has to do with the intent of the person holding the gun. Intent with a baseball bat or a car is exactly the same.
Do not accept the false premise of the left. This is not a defensive action. They are assaulting our very rights of freedom!


10 posted on 01/09/2013 7:23:40 AM PST by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steamburg

RE: Guns are designed to push projectiles out of their barrels at a relatively high rate of speed.

But for what purpose?


11 posted on 01/09/2013 7:31:14 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Fun mostly.

My hammer was designed to drive nails but for what purpose? If I hit someone in the head with it they will most likely die.


12 posted on 01/09/2013 7:36:34 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

RE: Fun mostly.

Well, the next question liberals will ask would be this — Do you really need an AR-15 to have fun?


13 posted on 01/09/2013 7:40:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes.

Do they need: starbucks, fag tv, dope, iPads, frisbees, booze, tobacco, fast foreign cars, fag clothes made in Cambodia, trips on those evil polluting aircraft to foreign countries... ad naseum?

Fun is in the eye of the entertained. I love putting rounds into old washing machines and stuff.


14 posted on 01/09/2013 7:51:04 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

guns are force multipliers. nothing we build just has one sole purpose.

guns prevent crimes.

openly displayed guns deter crime. just ask any criminal seeing armed cops around.

guns keep the peace.

a gun drawn out of its holster and seen by a criminal is 93% of the time al that is needed to cause that criminal to break off their attack.

a gun is just one of many weapons free people have as “arms” to secure their freedom and remain free.

guns are equalizers and give weaker, older, less powerful, outnumbered, and ambushed people a better chance at defending themselves from multiple, bigger, armed attackers.

guns are a natural crime deterrent. crime stats before and after ccw laws prove it, everywhere they exist.

guns are not just made for kiling. they are a tool of defense. defense doesn’t always mean shooting the gun, as 93% of the time a private citizen pulls their gun it is not even fired to stop a criminal assault.


15 posted on 01/09/2013 7:51:35 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

Do they need: starbucks, fag tv, dope, iPads, frisbees, booze, tobacco, fast foreign cars, fag clothes made in Cambodia, trips on those evil polluting aircraft to foreign countries... ad naseum?

So, I should be allowed to buy a bazooka or dynamites as long as I want to use them for fun and not to harm others? (I’ve heard that argument too).


16 posted on 01/09/2013 8:10:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All

What do you mean “has no utility use”? You ever tried opening a can of beans without one?!


17 posted on 01/09/2013 8:23:24 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t see why not. If it really does not hurt anyone or others property. You can do more damage with a truck load of fertilizer and some chems.


18 posted on 01/09/2013 8:23:54 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

RE: I don’t see why not. If it really does not hurt anyone or others property.

Well that’s the point, with that kind of freedom, we also have to run the risk that an Adam Lanza can get hold of the bazooka and dynamite and use it.


19 posted on 01/09/2013 8:46:21 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We also run the risk of a nutjob coming loose in the cockpit and running his Airbus into something or a gas delivery truck driver from running his rig into a store or school. Do we ban Airbuses and gas delivery trucks or try and do a better job of identifying and preventing nutjobs from twisting off?


20 posted on 01/09/2013 8:51:24 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The purpose may be to break a clay pigeon. Make holes in targets in small groups. They may add to the enjoyment of a cross country ski race. They can result in a variety of healthy marksman competitions.

Or, they may be used to like our nuclear deterrent to prevent tyrants from becoming dictators, just like a small band of Rebels did in 1778.

Just like cameras don’t cause kiddie porn, guns don’t cause firearm deaths. Just like computers, it’s the loose radical behind the keyboard that makes them dangerous.


21 posted on 01/09/2013 10:00:11 AM PST by Steamburg (The contents of your wallet is the only language Politicians understand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So, I should be allowed to buy a bazooka or dynamites as long as I want to use them for fun and not to harm others? (I’ve heard that argument too).

So hypothetically, if you do own dynamite and don't use it to harm others, who but you will know? Does a tree falling in the forest...

If you wanted to harm others you don't need dynamite, you could stand on an expressway overpass and drop rocks on cars passing below, as children of the "inner city" do on occasion when they become bored.

Guns don't cause harm by themselves, they are inanimate objects, not posesed of a will of their own. If you decide to harm others you make the decision not the implement you use to carry out your will. In a fit of rage you could possibly beat someone to death with your bare hands. Do we preemptively cut off your hands, lest you sin?

Regards,
GtG

22 posted on 01/09/2013 6:02:19 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

RE: So hypothetically, if you do own dynamite and don’t use it to harm others, who but you will know? Does a tree falling in the forest...

And that’s the point, I can use it as an excuse to practice blowing up hypothetical terrorists who attack this country (practicing the defense of America) and if laws allowed that, I should have freedom to do so, even if my REAL intent is to blow up innocents (How can anyone read my real intent? Aren’t we all supposed to be presume innocent until proven guilty?)

RE: If you wanted to harm others you don’t need dynamite, you could stand on an expressway overpass and drop rocks on cars passing below, as children of the “inner city” do on occasion when they become bored.

Yes, but if I want to do MORE harm to others, A Bazooka or Dynamite will do MORE damage. Why use the boring rock to harm only a few people when I can use the bazooka or dynamite to kill 10 or more in one shot?

Yes, I do make the decision to harm. Therefore by your reasoning, since bazookas and dynamites are in and of themselves harmful only if evil people use them, then by extension to this reasoning, since the vast majority of people are NOT evil and law abiding, they should legally be allowed to own them for whatever not harmful reason they might have, right?

The other fellow who responded to my question seem to have answered ‘YES’ to my question (see posts 18 and 20 above ).


23 posted on 01/09/2013 6:21:18 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Steamburg

RE: Or, they may be used to like our nuclear deterrent to prevent tyrants from becoming dictators, just like a small band of Rebels did in 1778.

Well, why stop at AR-15’s if the purpose is to prepare for fighting tyrants? We should all be allowed to practice using AUTOMATICS and MORE POWERFUL weapons for this purpose, shouldn’t we?

What good is a small revolver when you are fighting a tyrant? You need bazookas and heavier weapons to fight them.


24 posted on 01/09/2013 6:24:00 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Therefore by your reasoning, since bazookas and dynamites are in and of themselves harmful only if evil people use them, then by extension to this reasoning, since the vast majority of people are NOT evil and law abiding, they should legally be allowed to own them for whatever not harmful reason they might have, right?

First of all I did not say that weapons "are harmful only if evil people use them", I said that weapons are inanimate objects and do not possess free will. That's quite a reach you made of what I said. My original point was if you had a basement full of dynamite and didn't use it (being the nice guy that you no doubt are) no one would know but you, so who cares what you are sitting on?

Likewise if every person (good or evil) had a basement full of "assault weapons" and nobody talked about them, who cares. If however you suspected your slightly creepy neighbor had something dangerous and he had the same idea about you would have reached a sort of MAD which worked perfectly for scores of years and kept the peace in an unstable world. My position is that what I have in my basement is my business and none of yours. I couldn;t care less about what you have in yours...

Regards,
GtG

PS If you really want to cause a lot of damage to a lot of people just clog the storm drains of the underpass on a rainy night, you still don't need dynamite. You keep asking for outside help, if you put your mind to it you are capable of creating disasters of biblical proportions with nothing but a fertile imagination.

25 posted on 01/09/2013 7:36:03 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gandalf_The_Gray

RE: First of all I did not say that weapons “are harmful only if evil people use them”, I said that weapons are inanimate objects and do not possess free will.

I see no contradiction between saying: “weapons are inanimate objects and do not possess free will.”, and saying: “Weapons are harmful only if evil people use them”. Inanimate objects cause harm ONLY when evil people use them.

In fact BOTH ARE STATEMENTS OF FACT. And oh, I did not say that you said it, I am only making a logical extension of the statement: “weapons are inanimate objects”.

RE: My original point was if you had a basement full of dynamite and didn’t use it (being the nice guy that you no doubt are) no one would know but you, so who cares what you are sitting on?

My main concern is POSSESSION and PURCHASE of dynamite.

Isn’t it a violation of the second amendment to restrict its possession and purchase? Isn’t it a form of “bearing arms”?

To be consistent, if we should be allowed to use semi-automatics because the second amendment guarantees us this, I see no reason why the second amendment should limit the idea of “bearing arms” ONLY to semi-autos and lower forms of weapons.

The term “arms” is a broad category and would include other forms of arms such as -— Bazookas, Automatics and Dynamites.

RE: If you really want to cause a lot of damage to a lot of people just clog the storm drains of the underpass on a rainy night, you still don’t need dynamite.

I agree, but why stop at clogging, why not make it spectacular and use dynamite? And more importantly, why is purchasing dynamite as a law abiding citizen heavily controlled ( dare I say illegal )?


26 posted on 01/09/2013 9:05:13 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The term “arms” is a broad category and would include other forms of arms such as -— Bazookas, Automatics and Dynamites.

You argue that arms such as "Bazookas, Automatics and Dynamites" should be allowed which implies that they are not "allowed". I'm not quite sure what you mean by "allowed" but such are available for civilian purchase and use. The process for purchase and use of NFA items (fully automatic weapons, short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors and destructive devices) involves filing an ATF Form 4 with a $200.00 check for the excise tax. There are more steps involved but if you have a clean record (you are not a raving lunatic) you will be able to complete your purchase.

As for explosives, you will need to apply for a blasting license which will allow you to purchase explosives and use them for legitimate purposes (clearing land, building demolition, quarrying, or mining).

ATF or more correctly BATFE, is charged with oversight of both of these areas of commerce. They will want to keep track of what you purchase, where you plan to use it, where you plan to store it before use. They will audit your inventory to assure that your purchase is not being diverted to illegal use. In essence, you can buy (and I have bought) items such as you describe. The BATFE exists to make sure that you don't run off the rails and use or allow others to use those items for illicit purpose.

If those restrictions are not to your liking you can always "go dark" and try your hand at converting semi-auto weapons to full auto. It's not as easy as the anti-gun crowd seems to think but it is possible. Just don't get caught as the fines and guaranteed prison term will ruin your day.

If you want to try your hand at chemistry and "home brew" some explosives "Under the radar". You are going to need concentrated sulfuric and nitric acids at a minimum. Since the Feds monitor "precursor" chemicals (war on drugs) you're going to need a a business to cover for the purchase, I'd suggest electroplating as acids are used in the process. There are books written specifically on the production of explosives. I suggest that you study the process before attempting to brew up a batch, as it is likely that you will blow yourself to itty bitty pieces because of poor temperature control. If chemistry is not your cup of tea you could try stealing explosives from a quarry or other place where they are used. I would point out that "powder magazines" are probably more secure than bank vaults because of BATFE oversight.

Patience grasshopper, all things are possible with time and money. You need a license to drive a car too, that doesn't mean you can't drive without one, it just means you shouldn't. All things are legal until you get caught.

Regards,
GtG

PS I bought a dozen sticks of dynamite, caps and fuse at a lumber yard in northern Wisconsin back in the '70s. The paperwork took about 5 minutes. I was clearing a road to my cabin. Times have changed (and not for the better!)

27 posted on 01/10/2013 12:07:18 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

During my ccl course, the instructor told a tale of a old woman student who showed up with a inoperable .38 revolver. He fussed at her about having a broken firearm and how it doesn’t do any good. She answered that it did. Some obamabot tried to break in her house and she aimed it at him, rocked the hammer back and the guy left quickly.
She told him that the gun worked.

Way back in time, my great grandmother ran off some theives with a 1911. It was during the depression and two bums were trying to steal food from her. She shot 4 rounds at their feet then warned them that the next rounds would turn them into girls.

This sort of thing happens way more often that anyone knows.
I have pulled a handgun twice in the last 10 years which headed off very bad outcomes. Only had to show it.
Looking down the barrel of a .357 mag will get someone’s attention.


28 posted on 01/10/2013 12:32:30 PM PST by Texas resident
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson