Re: [Fwd: WHY GUNS? -- by L. Neil Smith --]

Michael Lorrey (
Mon, 22 Dec 1997 19:35:35 -0500

Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > Subject: WHY GUNS? -- by L. Neil Smith --
> > Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 00:57:20 -0500
> > From: "L. Neil Smith" <>
> > Subject: Please Pass It On ...
> > People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue
> > thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've
> > chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to
> > focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably
> > demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is
> > made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
> [....]
> > Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every
> > issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is
> > use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their
> > empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you.
> > And that, of course, is why they hate it.
> Ignoring the argument about guns, I find this attitude frightening and
> cultish. Ignore all fact, don't do any research, just make all your
> decisions based on a single binary question. At lease religious
> fanatics have to interpret their beliefs. This sort of commandment
> requires no thought at all.

What, because it doesn't allow the voter to be hypnotized by meaningless
BS? It really doesn't matter what issue you think of. Ask them what they
think about pot legalization, or the right to take vitamins, or the
right to expose oneself to all of the nastiest pornography one can find
on the internet. The reason he uses this is because a) since the 2nd
amendment IS a part of the constitution, and a well defined part at
that, if the elected representative has already sworn to defend and
protect the Constitution in his previous inauguration, then he either a)
is lying to you when he/she says they are against guns, or b) made a
fraudulent statement when they swore their oath of office. If he or she
is a newbie, and signs a pledge to oppose the 2nd amendment, then they
could be sued for making a false oath when they are sworn in. This is
actually rather briliant, and I am surprised that this issue has not
been raised in court to fight the election of anti-gun representatives.

			Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------	Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering
How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?