Re: Yeah, guns and guns and guns and guns

Michael S. Lorrey (
Wed, 02 Jun 1999 16:35:33 -0400

"Joe E. Dees" wrote:

> I'm quite willing to debate. Have you read over my limited,
> reasonable, rational and logical suggestions yet?

The main areas I have objections to:
a) divorce proceedings: You still assert that a person's 2nd amendment rights should summarily be rescinded upon the serving of divorce papers or the issuance of a restraining order. These are prior restraints which are most abhorrent to any constitutional scholar or federal judge. Only if multiple non-circumstantial peices of evidence of violent behavior toward the spouse or children are submitted should any restraining order be grounds for restriction of constitutional rights.
b) your dependence upon a non-governmental authority which is not restrained under public review and representation to determine the sanity of an individual is as abhorrent as putting such power in the hands of the government. this is clearly an unconstitutional delegation of power.
c) you have yet to state what classes of violent criminals are in fact excluded. You have made a rather vague and easily manipulated statement.

You say that my own positions are that of an outlaw. Well, they may be those of an outlaw as perceived by a government that no longer respects the constitution, but I consider such a government to itself be an outlaw and not deserving of my respect or obedience. Tell me, under what conditions do YOU consider a government to be an outlaw government?

Mike Lorrey