🚀 go-pugleaf

leroyg@my-deja.com wrote in message <83orgo$cka$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <83nupr$bio$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
>  "Anarchometer" <anarchometer@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Having to register a gun does not mean that you cannot own it. It
>simply
>> >means that there is a better chance of keeping guns out of the wrong
>> >hands. Such an ability is also in the interest of the security of a
>free
>> >state, don't you think?
>>
>> No. Californians were told that they could keep SKSs if they
>registered
>> them.
>> The moment Gray Davis took over as governor, he immediately ordered
>the
>> confiscation of SKSs. We don't believe assholes who say they "only"
>want
>> registration. YOU might "only" want registration, but the guys in
>power will
>> use
>> that piece of paper to CONFISCATE. The NRA has been saying that for
>years,
>> and you pricks on the left have insisted you would never go so far as
>> actually
>> confiscating guns. Gray Davis EXPOSED your phony motives once and for
>all!
>
>
>Thanks for your kind words. It is nice to see that you are so civil
>about discussions.>>

I'm sure you were being sarcastic, which leads me to observe that
while you don't mind someone pulling a gun on ME to force me into
a cage for disobeying the letter of the "law" when it comes to my choice
of self-defense weapon, you wet your pants if I point out your hypocrisy
in less than flowery language. We're talking about my right to self-defense,
to protect my family, to survive. As long as I am doing nothong wrong,
no one, not even a snot-nosed dickhead in Sacramento with a control
fetish has the right to superimpose his morality over my best judgment.
You're going to say, "but what if it's the law?" I don't CARE what the "law"
says if it is immoral. And any "law" that gives some cop the mistaken
impression that he has a right to confiscate my guns is an initiation of
force against me, and bound to cause trouble. Answer this question,
please: Is any command inherently righteous by virtue of the fact that
it is made in accordance with the "law"?

Yes_ No__


 I said nothing about confiscating guns, but you are
>too interested in branding me a leftist liberal to notice that.>>

You didn't read what I wrote, then. I don't CARE what your motives are.
You DO support blind obedience to the "law", so when you say today
that you only want registration, and the next day someone else
passes a "law" that goes farther than that, i.e., confiscation, you WILL
support the new "law" over what you say today. That's a nice way of
saying you're just being disingenuous, at least, and in my judgment
dishonest about your real agenda.


>> >Again, having a right does not exonerate people from responsibility.
>> >Even though we have a right to free speech, we cannot say whatever we
>> >please,>>
>>
>> Don't you even see the bleeding   C O N T R A D I C T I O N    in your
>> own sentences???
>
>No. I don't. Everyone knows that totally unrestricted "free" speech
>although it is mentioned in the First Amendment, is rarely completely
>supported by legal decisions.


I don't CARE what "legal" decisions have been made by lawyers. At
one time slavery was "legal", so legality doesn't impress me as having
any bearing on morality. I don't usually bicker about what the "law"
says, but since you constantly bring it up, does the constitution mean
business, or were the guys who wrote it just kidding? What does the
phrase "NO LAW" mean to you? Explain how "Congress shall make
NO LAW . . .abridging the freedom of speech" can be interpreted to
mean, "Congress can make a law here and there, under special
circumstances, abridging the freedom of speech" ?


>> There is NO provision for registration in the constitution. If you
>insist on
>> calling "regulation of the militia" justification for registration,
>then
>> women
>> wouldn't be allowed to have guns, because the law (Title 10) defining
>the
>> composition of the militia doesn't include women. Obviously women have
>> the same right to own a firearm as a man does, therefore any argument
>> based on that "regulated militia" crap is bogus, unless you say all
>women
>> must turn in their guns.
>>
>
>We have been over what "well regulated" means, so I don't see why you
>are still arguing about it. Even if "well regulated" means "operating
>smoothly," as others have argued, you still have to explain why that
>same militia is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, under the power of
>the Congress.>>

The MILITIA is what is regulated. Women aren't IN the militia. And anyone
who is NOT in the militia is immune from congressional regulation of their
firearms. I'll ask you again, do women have the same right to own guns as
men do, in your opinion?

 Gun owners argue that if you have a freedom, some will
>abuse it. Well, if you have a governmental power, some will abuse *that*
>too, but it doesn't negate its usefulness. I think you're being
>inconsistent with your accusations of abuse of power.


I think you're thrashing about wildly trying to hit me with a canard because
your argument is based on a blind faith in the supposed legitimacy of the
"law" coupled with an appeal to fear of guns. In what way have I been
inconsistent in accusing Gray Davis of treachery, and evil motives?

-
>Leroy Gonzalez
>leroyg@my-deja.com
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.