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

Michael S. Lorrey (
Tue, 08 Jun 1999 09:09:41 -0400

"Joe E. Dees" wrote:

> Date sent: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:02:51 -0400
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
> > "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?
> >
> It is not an either/or. In fact, the legal possession of firearms would
> once again become a matter of personal pride, for it would be prima
> facie evidence of adulthood, nonaggrsesion and sanity.

Good, then stop making all other gun owners but your own superior self look like a bunch of nuts.

> >
> > 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.
> >
> I thought that you were eliding your true feelings on the issue when
> you denied believing in universal mandatory gun ownership. BTW,
> the Constitution says people should have the right to keep and
> bear since a well-regulated militia is necessary; not that
> membership in it is mandated for every citizen. The people I want
> to see on a purchase-prohibited registry are not people I'd like to
> have at my shoulder when things got busy, nor would any
> professional soldier want to serve with them.

As elucidated in numerous Supreme Court rulings, felons, children, etc are not part of the body politic in toto. Stop fabricating labels and jumping to conclusions.

> >
> > 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.
> >
> I am a military veteran, as you should remember.

As I am aware. I know what you swore to defend.

> >
> > 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."
> >
> You believe not in Athens, but in Sparta.

Since Athens, a pure democracy, descended into chaos and anarchy amid corruption and scandal, while Sparta, a constitutional republican/monarchy, not only won the war but prospered thereafter, by the evidence it is a better model of the two. The Roman Republic is even better, so stop trying to bait and switch, as you are wont to do frequently. Have you read Pournelle's Falkenberg novels, esp. those dealing with the planet Sparta???

> >
> > 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 measures I have profferred are logical, rational, reasonable,
> specifically targeted and limited in scope and range. You may not
> LIKE the fact that they make eminent sense, as this fact grates
> against your own irrational quasireligious prejudices, but yet they
> do to many rational people, here on this very list and elsewhere.

On the contrary, I stated that those measures that pass constitutional muster and limit gun ownership among those that are a danger to the Republic and its Citizens are fine and acceptable to me. If you want additional groups added you must go through the Constitutional Amendment process to add them. Stop LYING.

> You have, at least, come clean and admitted that you oppose
> denying children, violent criminals and the mentally incompetent
> free and unfettered access to the means to efficiently commit long-
> range mass homicide, because that is what you just UNDENIABLY
> said.

NO I DID NOT. You have just come clean and shown you are an out and out liar. How you could jump from my statement to your conclusion shows a Goebbels-like ability to lie through your teeth.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >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
> >
> >