"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 1999, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > ... which is why the schools are all gun free zones these days (they
> > didn't used to be),
> Ah yes, lets give the teachers guns so they can defend themselves
> from the students. Or were you suggesting that the students have
> them so they can take out their aggressions with lethal weapons
> instead of the more common fists? I'll suggest a compromise --
> Rules of engagement of the royalty -- if you feel insulted you
> slap the other persons face with a glove and then cross foils
> after class....
One more example of the liberal inability to think. When my father was in school, he belonged to the school rifle team, and toted his own rifle on the school bus every day to and from school. He kept the gun in his locker. This was standard procedure. He would frequently go hunting after school with friends. (Keep in mind that this happened in Lowell, Massachusetts, not up here in NH).
Just recently a government study showed that children who are raised in homes where guns are commonplace, where the children are trained from an early age in their safe use, wind up not only being LESS LIKELY to be injured or killed by guns, but less likely to commit the sort of school killings we are seeing lately, than the general student population.
And yes, allow teachers to carry concealed weapons if they teach in circumstances where the school administration is not taking an active role to remove threatening students from the premises.
> > You should only be a citizen if you
> > actually know, understand, and ACCEPT the values and mechanisms by which
> > our government operates. Take the same vow to "protect and defend the
> > Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign AND
> > domestic," that immigrants and military officers and enlistees take.
> Now here, Michael does take up an interesting point. Reviewing an
> old post involving how to "Own your Name" using the uniform commercial
> code (a very complex post to be sure), I did some investigation into
> citizenship. Two things seem to be true:
> (a) That children when they "Pledge alliegence to the flag of the
> United States of America" clearly have no understanding of what
> this *really* means [so it is brainwashing].
I knew what it meant because my parents explained it to me.
> (b) U.S. Citizens appear to be free to "renounce" citizenship
> at any time to a "representative" (Judge/Immigration officer?)
> of the United States.
> Two questions arise.
> (1) Has (a) ever been tested under the kind of "informed consent"
> principles that govern medical procedures.
> (2) If you execute (b), and become a stateless citizen, are you
> still able to legally work in the U.S. (or must you obtain
> a Green Card)?
You can legally work, you just can't work for a corporation that has placed itself in a position of tax liability to the government, unless you obtain a green card. You can work for yourself, or for others, or for businesses that have not incorporated themselves.
> Then of course, the question for all the "Libertarians" out there
> is, if you object to government so much, why haven't you executed
> plan (b)? If you were to execute (b), is there a country that
> is preferable to declare oneself a citizen of?
Because most American libertarians are of the opinion that it is not us who are in non-compliance, it is the US government that is in non-compliance with the Constitution. We are still citizens in a country ruled by a treasonous government.