Re: Yeah, guns and guns and guns and guns

Joe E. Dees (
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 18:46:14 -0500

Date sent:      	Wed, 02 Jun 1999 16:35:33 -0400
From:           	"Michael S. Lorrey" <>
Subject:        	Re: Yeah, guns and guns and guns and guns
Send reply to:

> "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:
That is a BLATANT LIE. Nowhere in any of my exposition did I ever make such an absurd remark. I in fact NEVER MENTIONED DIVORCE AT ALL, and why should I?
>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 summarily be rescinded upon the serving of divorce papers or the issuance of a restraining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.
And I said that if there was credible evidence that one spouse would be predisposed to ignore such a restraining order placed against them on behalf of the other, only then should that spouse's name be added to a purphase-prohibited registry, until such time as it was judged that the one spouse was no longer a threat to the safety of the other. If we agree on this, what's your bitch? I see no nit to pick between your statement and mine, not even a gratuitous one.
> 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.
Official determination of sanity is a judicial matter, employing the sworn testimony of accredited and government-certified professionals and requiring a legal writ, and is fully appelable in court; of this I am certain (my ex-wife is a psychologist who was certified to make such determinations - it requires a master's degree in clinical, and frequent training updates). There is no unconstitutional delegation of power involved.
> 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.
All who have been convicted in a court of law of perpetrating an unprovoked physical attack upon another person. There is nothing ambiguous about it. The fact that you wilfully close your eyes is not evidence that there is nothing to see, and your self-serving protestation that you do not understand does not mean that a matter has not been sufficiently defined and/or explained.
> 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?
Once again trying to change the topic. My proposals are logical, rational, reasonable, limited and specifically targeted. Since you dogmatically oppose ALL such proposals, you dislike mine not because they do not make good sense or in spite of the fact that they do make good sense, but specifically BECAUSE they make good sense, and you are afraid that that will mean that they will be acceptable to the vast majority of logical, rational and reasonable people and thus are likely to be adopted. If you consider the federal government to be some ZOG monster to which you are unalterably opposed and that any actions whatsoever that it may entertain is automatically anathema to you, you have by your own willful, acknowleged and admitted self-definition excluded yourself and your knee-jerk extremist opinion from any serious discussion of the issues and ideas under consideration here.
> Mike Lorrey