Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]

Joe E. Dees (
Fri, 28 May 1999 19:51:20 -0500

Date sent:      	Thu, 27 May 1999 23:09:39 -0400
From:           	"Michael S. Lorrey" <>
Subject:        	Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
Send reply to:

> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > (without
> > life, freedom does not exist).
> Without freedom, life is not worth living.

Does being free demand that one be free perpetually carry the means to commit mass murder-at-a-distance, any time, at a moment's notice, even if one is underage, a violent criminal, or certifiably insane? What does this say about the right to life, or even the freedom, of those unknowingly around such a person?
> > >
> > > Attacking my means of protecting my life is no different from
> > > attacking my life, and should be met with the same resistance.
> > >
> > If you're the attacker, you should expect the same; if you're likely
> > to be an attacker, you shouldn't own a gun.
> You are defining defending oneself against a confiscatory opressive government as
> attacking? I make the same warning: Anyone, I mean ANYONE, who tries to come and
> confiscate my guns will not live to see the sun set. That will not be an attack, it
> will be a defense, and an effective one. Confiscating guns not only violates the 2nd
> amendment, but the 4th, 5th, and 9th.
If you belong on the above list and are unwilling to relinquish your gun, then I fervently hope that the same can be said of you (I mean the part about not living to see the sun set), for the self-defence of all of us. Confiscation of means of mass murder held by the insane, underage or violent criminals is the only way to prevent them from oppressing and killing others. If they would rather die before they relinquish their weapon, it can just as certainly be removed from their dead body. I am not advocating that anyone not belonging to the above categories who possesses a gun should have to relinquish it, so go suck that straw man's dick somewhere else.
> Moreover, on your inclusion of spousal/child abusers in your confiscatory regieme, what
> standards will you have of what abuse is as well as what the burden of evidence and
> standards of due process will be? As they stand now, the abuse regs are very weak and
> do not give very good protection to the accused.
I have given those in another post; conviction should be sufficient, as well as provisional confiscation while court proceedings are pending or underway, or if a peace bond has been granted and the person has shown a willingness to disregard such orders. Did this strike a personal nerve, Mike? Conservative authoritarian types DO have the highest rates of such abuse.
> Mike Lorrey