Re: META: Not another flamewar (BUT RE: a bit of GUNS & a bit of

Michael S. Lorrey (
Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:02:51 -0400

"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> If
> you are in favor of ANY such measures, please enunciate them
> and your willingness to work for passage of them. Your comments
> concerning mandatory gun ownership, except for those who would
> be willing to stigmatize themselves in a manner not unlike those
> who refuse to pray or stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in school,
> from this very post, are below.

As opposed to gun owners being stigmatized? As a veteran, I know which I prefer. Let the treasonous little pricks get a taste of their own medecine. Like it or not, we are ALL part of the militia. It says so right there. Are you conscripted to vote, to speak, to freely associate, to serve on juries, to be judged by your peers? If you were born here, you take it for granted, maybe you weren't told or taught about those things. If you immigrated, you were definitely taught these things as part of your citizenship naturalization. Your freedom of choice with the 2nd amendment is whether or not to be a Concientious Objector. You can keep your status private for all I care.

yeah it sucked you got drafted and sent to Nam, but hey, if you wanted to be a citizen, you did it, didn't you? You didn't run off to Canada, so you weren't totally against the idea of America, but if you didn't have the desire and the guts to be a CO, you picked up a rifle and did your dirty work just like everyone else. You risked getting killed or wounded like the rest of us. I personally don't care if you do your service to your country in the Marines or the Peace Corps, but I beleive to the core of my being that we will only remain the nation we are so long as all give something of themselves to their country, and follow the old Roman Republic maxim of "come home with your shield or on it, or don't come home at all."

The only measures I support are already in place, and have passed constitutional muster. Those statutes that don't should no longer be considered by rational Americans.

> >
> > > >The concern about proper training is a valid
> > > > one that even the founding fathers recognised, which is why
> the term "well
> > > > regulated" is in the 2nd amendment, which in that day and
> age meant well trained
> > > > and skilled. Its IMHO everyone's constitutional DUTY to learn
> to responsibly use
> > > > weapons because of this, unless they have a religious type
> of reticence against
> > > > violence even in defense, as is provided for Conscientious
> Objectors, then they
> > > > are exempted.
> > > >
> > Mike Lorrey