joe dees wrote:
No, but a supermajority is far more rarely incorrect than just a bare majority, or a minority (Bill Clinton, elected by a minority of the vote to the Presidency). Moreover the issue was whether my position was "skewed". Since you seem to be one of the liberal moral relativists, your judgement of what is skewed or not would relate to how I relate to the rest of the population.
> If it had been up to a majority vote, Jim Crow would still be law in many southern states,
not quite. If it were up to a majority of those who were previously able to keep the blacks off of the voting rolls it would be. Blacks are the majority or a near majority in many or most southern states.
> and Adolph's margin of victory in his election to chancellor was overwhelming. Automatic weapons did not exist when the framers wrote the Constitution, nor did rockets or nukes.
Actually, rockets were in existence (William Congreve's rockets were in common use among British detachments, which is where the "rockets red glare" phrase in our national anthem comes from), and 90% of all cannon in the US were privately owned.
> May I be so bold as to suggest that, had they, the Constitution itself would have pried them from the fingers of the general populace? If I can have a shotgun to bird hunt, a rifle to deer hunt and a pistol to protect my home, then I'm happy. The only reason anyone could justify having an Uzi, a Mac, an AR or an AK (fully auto), much less a 50-cal., is to protect themselves from the bad guys who have already bought them (and the gun manufacturers make them as easy as possible to buy, or to!
Yes, infortunately, the 'bad guys who have already bought them' are first and foremost opressive governments and the 'dirty tricksters' that run their security apparatus' and frequently go into private practice.
All automatic firearms models began life as the result of a government military procurement program. Who midwifed the threat?
> >
> >I'm surprised you haven't accused me of being a concentration camp commadant, or a pen pal of Hitler or Mussolini, but I'm sure you will in your reply. I will warn you in advance that part of my family is Jewish. The Nazis were able to exterminate the Jews so easily because it was against the law for Jews to own firearms in most european countries. Likewise, the Jim Crow laws worked so well in the South because blacks were not allowed to own firearms in most jurisdictions. Gun control laws have always been the first tool of the opressor when starting down the road to slavery and genocide.
> >
> That road was well traveled before guns ever existed. They are just another tool, which may be equally used to defend against or to perpetrate such atrocities. One can never legislate intent; one can only hope to limit weapons access to exclude the homicidal and the certifiably crazy, for they don't care where your nose is when they swing. One thing is for sure; if the tanks rumble down the street or the mortars start to fall, Zed and his varmint gun are going to be of little use, but we can't furnish every Tom, Dick and Zed with their own tank and mortar (nor would it be wise, or they'd get used to hold up convenience stores).
Zed don't need no tank or mortar Clem! All he needs is access to fertilizer and fuel to make anti tank mines when the gummint cums a callin'!
> >
> >The fact that the prosecution used the quote of Thomas Jefferson as evidence AGAINST McVeigh indicates how much our present government has betrayed the Constitution it is sworn to uphold and defend.
> >
> So you ARE in open revolt against the democratically elected government of the United States of America!
No I am not, but only because I don't see a legitimate insurgency in operation, and I would prefer to separate myself from the system rather than exert force upon the system.
As I said previously, my opinion of what he did was that his actions were a war crime and he deserves to be executed. That building was a legitimate target. Most of the people using it at the time it was attacked were not. I condemn his actions in the most extreme manner, but only because of the time of day he attacked it.
The situation is similar to situations that the French Resistance had in WWII. They sabotaged train tracks, usually hopefully when a train was going over them. Unfortunately, they had to find out in advance which trains were just munitions trains and which trains had wounded soldiers or civilian passengers. Attacking the first is a legitimate target, while the second is not and it would be a war crime to attack it.
> The answer is not to rebel against a democratic system - it is to encourage the more
> rational people to get off their bitching and moaning asses and use the system to vote in >saner policies and politicians.
First you decry that there are no acceptable Republicans anymore, then you say we must work through the system. If the system excludes those that represent your sentiments, then you have the Constitutional right to rebel against that government, by any means necessary. I want a system that knows inherently to stay away from my wallet. I shouldn't have to bribe some slimeballs to make sure it happens. I might as well pay taxes then.
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey, President
Lorrey Systems
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:mike@lorrey.com
------------------------------------------------------------
"A society which trades freedom for some measure of security
shall wind up with neither." -----Benjamin Franklin
"The tree of Liberty should be watered from time to time
with the blood of tyrants and patriots."
-----Thomas Jefferson
"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." -----US Constitution,
2nd Amendment
"You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead
hands..." -----Anonymous
"Once we got their guns away from them, taking their
money was REAL easy." -----Unknown North Korean
Commissar