🚀 go-pugleaf

George Worley wrote:

> In article <35B9FC7F.52CA@swbell.net>, tracey12@swbell.net says...
>
> > Some people will misuse cars, trucks, knives, explosives,
> >guns, etc.  But that is the price of freedom. WE have to realize this
> >fact. That, in we are to maintain control of our government, we must be
> >well armed.
>
> This is total bull shit.  The threat of armed citizens isn't what
> keeps America free.

THAT is total bullshit.  The armed citizen IS what keeps America free.  As Chairman
Mao said, "Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun."  He was right.

>  It is how many people believe in the ideals of
> the US Constitution that is how we maintain control over our
> government.

Yes it is, but if they still want a Constutional Republic as we know it, and some
dictator wannabe wants a dictatorship and has a few generals on his side, he will
likely get his way, because the people won't be able to bring any counter force to
bear unless they are armed.


>  It is what the voters say just about every November not
> guns.

And if they decide to cancel the elections?  What are you going to do about it
without the means to resist it (force of arms?)

>  Our government doesn't fear guns... look at Waco... look at the
> siege in west Texas and look at Ruby Ridge.

Look at the Citizens Militias that have sprung up because of these incidents, and
look how the government has taken great pains to not do that again, as evidenced by
the "bend over backwards" treatment of the Freemen standoff.

>  All examples of our
> government not fearing guns.  I admit that our government didn't
> handle most of these case properly but never the less the government
> didn't fear guns.

The government, or more properly those who would illegally expand government
authority most certainly do fear and respect our 200 million guns.  They'd be fools
not to.

Did you notice during Ollie North's testimony during Iran Contra that he related how
he was asked to formulate a plan to declare martial law, collect up all the guns,
and take over the government?  He said his report stated that it couldn't be done
because of the large number of privately owned firearms.

More recently, Bill reportedly asked the Pentagon how he could forceably remove all
guns from private ownership.  The Pentagon gave it to the War College to work, they
researched it, and essentially said, "Such an illegal order would be refused by the
USMC as well as the elite units and the reserves and National Guard.  There are only
440,000 men in uniform in at the moment, and if this were tried, 2.5 million
civilian combat veterans would defeat the US Army in 6 weeks."


> You need to wake up in smell the roses as there might not be any roses
> left in the near future because of wackos like you that don't believe
> what reputable scientists telling people about the destruction of the
> Earth's environment.  We cannot destroy the delicate balance between
> nature in man.  It has been proving that most of man's breathable air
> comes from the tropical rain forest

Ahem - how come the encyclopedias keep saying that most of our oxygen comes from
phytoplankton in the oceans, then?

Now, those forest _are_ responsible for the removal of a very large amount of CO2
from the atmoshphere, which is supposedly the prime mover for another round of
official panic about another ecological disaster.  What's needed is probably to
introduce a commercially profitable bio-mass energy conversion scheme to the
Brazilians that would use some sort of plant that grows fast and produces lotsa
cellulose that can be processed into diesel and alcohol and/or simply burned for
fuel.  Like kudzu.

> but we do nothing to stop the
> destruction of the rain forests of the world



> >They do fear a public that is highly armed and willing to shoot to maintain
> >their God Given, Constitutionally Recognized Rights.
>
> Here we go with the GOD GIVEN RIGHTS... The rights of the US
> Constitution are not GOD GIVEN, the are only given by the people of
> the land that hold this document dear to their hearts

The Constituttion doesn't GIVE rights.  It merely affirms pre-existing rights of
man.  If the Constitution didn't affirm them, people would still have their rights,
only they would be abridged by the government.  The rights exist independent of
governement.

> The 2nd Amendment only
> gives you the right to own and carry guns.

It affirms that right...

>  Our forefathers when the
> wrote this probably was not referring to weapons of mass destruction
> like AK-47's and other assault rifles,

No, the FF's meant pistols, rifles, cannons, and all the instruments of war.  The
idea has been changed somewhat to being construed to mean only weapons that can be
carried and fired by one person and which are directed at a specific target.  This
would leave out mines and bombs.

> these type weapons were made
> for only one purpose -- to kill another human being

Some folks just need killing.

> and at last check
> murder was still illegal in all 50 states and all of the commonwealths
> like Puerto Rico.

Murder is not the only activity that results in the killing of a human being.  There
is self defense and the defense of others.  Or would you, standing in close
proximity to a mugger that was beating the life out of your
mother/wife/daughter/sweetheart NOT pull the trigger of an available firearm and
thus take a life to save a life?

> >Aside from the fact that many people stop would-be attackers, theives, rapists,
> >murderers with their personal weapon,
>
> The statics for this would amaze you... more people get killed with
> their own weapon then prevent the crime the first place.

That is a gun-phobes often repeated nonsense.  It is completely untrue.

> >our real goal is to maintain a balance of power between the electorate and the
> >elected.
>
> Your goal to kill not maintain a balance of power.  GUNS do not do
> this.  Violence never lead to anything except blood shed.

It lead to the formation of this country.

> >For we all have seen how dictators and thugs rule over people throughout
> >history past when the citizens of a nation have no weapons to use against them.
>
> No one in the past has had a governmental system like ours most
> governmental systems has been taken over by who has the most power and
> the poor and infirm suffer.  History should have taught you that
> violence isn't the answer and a cure all to all that is wrong with the
> current situation.

If you look at history, you see that in almost every case, violence IS the answer.
They're called wars, and they settle things quite emphatically.

> >We The People would have no rights without guns to enforce them.
>
> Our rights are due to our system of government not guns.

Our system of government INCLUDES guns in the hands of citizens as a check against
governmental tyrrany.  YOu don't have to believe it, but that's the way it is,
anyway.

> >  We The People had better fear the government that fears our guns!
>
> Our government doesn't fear guns,

No, they fear 50 million people with 200 million guns...

> I am for the 2nd amendment.

Bullshit...  Not with that attitude you don't.

DPH