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 Keep in mind that what can be modified by amendment can be repealed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 The perfect example is Prohibition, which was repealed because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is repealed.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True, but it's extremely unlikely to be repealed,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

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I never suggested that I did.

On the contrary - you keep insisting that Americans are free because
of their constitution and that everyone else is a slave. In fact,
the constitution does not guarantee freedom. it only provides for
it as long as there are enough people to defend it. People change.
There used to be widespread support for kings and queens and people
fought to the death to defend them. Now some defend constitutions.
American is not the first example of democracy - democracy has been
known to disappear in the past.

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

We are not slaves to anyone and we have a constitution that protects
us as much as yours. The pen is mightier than the sword and always
has been.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I never suggested that I did.

On the contrary - you keep insisting that Americans are free because
of their constitution and that everyone else is a slave.

No, Americans are free because they have the right to keep and bear arms,
not because of the Constitution.

In fact,
the constitution does not guarantee freedom. it only provides for
it as long as there are enough people to defend it.

Precisely correct, which is why the Framers were careful to limit the power
of government to disarm the people, in order that the people would always
have in their possession the arms needed to overthrow a tyrant, should one
arise.

People change.

True, but rights don't.

There used to be widespread support for kings and queens and people
fought to the death to defend them. Now some defend constitutions.
American is not the first example of democracy - democracy has been
known to disappear in the past.

Indeed. Democracy is a very bad thing in its pure form, which is why it
tends to disappear. Our unique addition is the representative system and the
system of checks and balances, along with a resolve to ensure that all
citizens be sufficiently armed so as to dissuade the disappearance of our
system.


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

We are not slaves to anyone and we have a constitution that protects
us as much as yours.

As you so aptly said just above, "democracy has been known to disappear in
the past." The question is not whether you have a constitution, it's whether
you have the physical power to enforce the protection of your rights offered
by a constitution. If you don't have that power because you have allowed
your government to take away your fundamental human right to keep and bear
arms, and you have allowed the government to control, restrict and deny you
arms, then you have no power whatsoever other than that which your
government allows you to exercise. Unlike the US, your government does not
require (though it may, for a time agree to) the consent of the governed.
All it takes is one demogog or a corrupt military and you'll be living under
a military junta just like Burma or any other banana republic because you do
not have the arms required to overthrow a tyrant and retake your nation.
That is a simple fact that applies to every single nation on the planet that
denies its citizens arms...for whatever purportedly altruistic reason.

The pen is mightier than the sword and always
has been.

It's only mightier than the sword when there are sufficiency of swords
available to defend the ability of the pen to write. Absent that protection,
the pen just gets driven into your ear canal with a mallet and your body is
dumped into a mass grave along with the rest of the
"counter-revolutionaries." Just ask the Cambodians.

If you don't seize and vigorously defend and exercise your human right to
keep and bear arms, you are a slave to those who do have arms. There is no
doubt whatever about it.

--
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

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, Americans are free because they have the right to keep and bear arms,
not because of the Constitution.

They only have that right because of the constitution. Take that
away and their "right" goes with it. Rights are accorded by those
in power, whether by might or by vote.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

No, Americans are free because they have the right to keep and bear arms,
not because of the Constitution.

They only have that right because of the constitution. Take that
away and their "right" goes with it. Rights are accorded by those
in power, whether by might or by vote.

I've told you several times that you are incorrect. You are now willfully
refusing to recognize reality.

Once mo "Rights" are not granted by the Constitution. Rights exist as an
inherent part of one's humanity, even without the existence of government,
and they cannot be repealed or removed by government on a wholesale basis.

All the Constitution does is CONSTRAIN government power and authority.
Nothing more. The 2nd Amendment forbids government to infringe on our right
to keep and bear arms. That is all.

If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the right to keep and bear arms does not
cease to exist. The only thing that changes is to what degree the government
might be authorized to infringe on that right. And the point of an armed
citizenry is to ensure that even with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment,
government would be unable to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms,
because the citizenry would view such an infringement as a usurpation of
power and a tyrannical act, and would use the arms they have, in exercise of
the right, to put down the rogue government that presumes to usurp power and
infringe on our rights, thus restoring the 2nd Amendment and putting
government back in its place.

The right to keep and bear arms that each and every citizen on the face of
the planet has CANNOT be removed by anyone, except as a result of some
malfeasance on the part of a particular individual that makes him/her
untrustworthy and a danger to society. No blanket infringement of the RKBA
is permitted, and the use of force is authorized to prevent such
infringements.

--
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

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Once mo "Rights" are not granted by the Constitution. Rights exist as an
inherent part of one's humanity, even without the existence of government,
and they cannot be repealed or removed by government on a wholesale basis.

Sophistry.

Your rights may be deemed to exist independent of any government or
document, but in real terms, you cannot enjoy those rights unless
you are permitted to by governments and/or the majority and/or
the tyrants that hold power. Individuals have nothing that can
control this. Only civilizations do.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Once mo "Rights" are not granted by the Constitution. Rights exist as an
inherent part of one's humanity, even without the existence of government,
and they cannot be repealed or removed by government on a wholesale basis.

Sophistry.

Truth.


Your rights may be deemed to exist independent of any government or
document, but in real terms, you cannot enjoy those rights unless
you are permitted to by governments and/or the majority and/or
the tyrants that hold power. Individuals have nothing that can
control this. Only civilizations do.

This demonstrates the depth of your misunderstanding. The whole point of our
2nd Amendment and our very system of government is that the government does
not "permit" anything. We, the People, empower representatives and
bureaucrats to exercise strictly limited authority on a limited number of
subjects. All else is reserved to the people themselves. If these
bureaucrats transgress, we remove them from office. If they don't want to
go, we use force to remove them.

The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the People, as a
whole, ALWAYS have sufficient arms to achieve that end at necessity.

Thus, the People do have something to "control" tyranny, including the
tyranny of the majority, should peaceful means fail. That is precisely and
exactly what the Framers intended.

--
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