A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 15-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, it's not. You don't understand the nature of rights or the function of
the Constitution. Rights are not granted by the Constitution, government
powers are limited by it.

If the constitution can be changed thru amendments, then the power is in
the hands of the politicians.

But the Constitution cannot be changed by amendments by politicians alone,
at least not directly. The process of amending the Constitution is a complex
and difficult one, deliberately. It requires a much closer tie to the people
than the enactment of any law, though it is subject to the representative
process. Keep in mind that what can be modified by amendment can be repealed
by amendment. The perfect example is Prohibition, which was repealed because
the people decided they didn't want it and they directed their elected
representatives to repeal it.

No constitution is cast in stone, not yours,
not anyone's.

True, but you fail to understand that the Constitution does not grant rights
to citizens. Those rights exist independent of and preexisting the
Constitution, and those rights will remain even if the entire Constitution
is repealed. It is up to the People to defend those rights, even against
their own representatives at need.

True, but it's extremely unlikely to be repealed,

Which contradicts your whining complaints about my supposed
misunderstanding of your constitution.

Unlikely is not the same as impossible. You still don't have
absolute freedom.

I never suggested that I did.


If those guns allow someone to overthrow the government, you
can't guarantee that the new goverment will be true to the original
constitution.

True. In fact, our Constitution holds within it the seeds of its own
destruction. It specifically says that it is the right of the People to
decide what form of government will best secure their liberties.

It could just as likely be overthrown by a bunch
of communists as by capitalists.

Well, while it's possible, it's actually extremely unlikely, given that it
would require the extermination of at least half of the population of the
country, who would likely fight to the death to prevent it.



More like 100-200,000.

Still a small fraction of 18 million.

The vast majority are doing nothing. In opposition is about
150,000 US and Brit troops. That's pretty close to one-on-one.

So what? The issue is whether a small fraction of the population who are
radical Islamists and supporters of Saddam dictate the will of the other 18
million Iraqis. The vast majority of those 18 million are civilians, not
soldiers or insurgents, and thus need do nothing. However, it should be
noted that hundreds of thousands of brave Iraqis who DO support the deposing
of Saddam and the move to democracy ARE doing something. They are enlisting
in the army, they are becoming police officers and elected officials, and
they are being killed every day by their "own people" for daring to support
democracy in Iraq. Millions more chanced death to go to the polls and vote,
and millions more chance death merely because they assist in the economic
and infrastructure recovery. Even workers in water and sewer plants, and
electrical workers are being killed by the insurgents because their work
proves the benefits of peace and democracy, while the insurgents want
anarchy and terror.

As time goes on, and as more and more Iraqis are killed by the insurgents,
support for them, and the concealment that comes with that support, will
disappear...and is disappearing today, and the insurgents will become
hunted, hounded outcasts and outlaws welcome nowhere and turned in by every
good, peace loving citizen. Then they will be exterminated and peace will
finally come to Iraq, through the everyday efforts of 18 million Iraqis
going about their daily business.

So, you're absolutely wrong in saying that the "vast majority are doing
nothing." By merely surviving, and by not taking up arms as insurgents, they
are doing a great deal, at significant risk to their own lives.


There is no National Guard in this country. It's a US thing.

Well, there you go. You're a slave who doesn't even know where to find the
arms needed to put down a tyrant. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

Just because there is no branch of the armed forces named "National Guard"
means nothing. We don't have a national police force called the FBI, nor
an intelligence agency called the CIA, nor a government called a Congress,
nor a lower house called a House of Representatives, nor states nor a lot
of other things you have in the US. We do have RCMP, CSIS, Parliament,
House of Commons and provinces. Different country, different names and
ways of dealing with it. It proves nothing.

It proves that you are slaves to those who do have guns.


We don't need guns, we got hockey sticks and we know how to use them.

Uh huh.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser