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

O'Regan Emlyn (
Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:54:51 +1000

Hey, this thread isn't META at all (although this comment is)...


> ----------
> From: Michael S. Lorrey[]
> Reply To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 June 1999 12:02
> To:
> Subject: Re: META: Not another flamewar (BUT RE: a bit of GUNS & a
> bit of (meta?) rhetoric
> "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