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and they cannot be repealed or removed by government on a wholesale basis.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If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, the right to keep and bear arms does not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

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

But you keep ignoring the _fact_ that your government and any government
can restrict rights. That is a fact. Your government has restricted
the rights of blacks, Indians, women and others in the past and still
can't muster full freedom for all citizens.

As long as you can't guarantee that your government will never change
rights, you will never be absolutely free. A few fat men with guns
notwithstanding.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

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.

But you keep ignoring the _fact_ that your government and any government
can restrict rights.

Only by force if the citizenry will not obey. And yes, it is true that any
"government" (comprised in this case of a group of people who claim power
and have force available to back up that claim) can "restrict rights," just
as the National Socialist Party did in Germany in the 1930s, provided that
they have the forces available to accomplish that task in the face of
resistance by the citizenry. So what? You state the obvious while ignoring
the equally true fact that no such tyranny can prevail if the people being
oppressed resolve not to be oppressed and have sufficient arms to put down
the attempt at tyranny.

That is a fact. Your government has restricted
the rights of blacks, Indians, women and others in the past and still
can't muster full freedom for all citizens.

Hogwash. Every citizen in the US is as "fully free" as any other. Even Ward
Churchill.


As long as you can't guarantee that your government will never change
rights, you will never be absolutely free.

We can guarantee that. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

A few fat men with guns
notwithstanding.

110 million households with more than 360 million guns is anything but "a
few fat men with guns."

As a testament to the willingness of average, law-abiding armed citizens to
put themselves at risk to defend others, you might want to check out the
example of 52 year old Mark Wilson, an armed citizen who happened to be
present when David Arroyo Sr. murdered his ex-wife. Wilson fired on Arroyo
when Arroyo began shooting at his ex-wife with a semi-automatic rifle
outside a county courthouse. Unfortunately for Wilson, Arroyo was wearing
body armor, and Wilson, along with Maribel Estrada, the ex-wife, were
killed. Deputies later killed Arroyo during a car chase.

Had Arroyo not been wearing body armor, which is the case with most deranged
shooters, it is possible that Wilson could have ended the attack right then
and there.

Disrespecting law-abiding armed citizens by calling them "fat men with guns"
is both petty and mean-spirited. It's my guess that had YOU been standing
next to Estrada when Arroyo began shooting, you would have been ****ing your
pants and praying that someone, ANYONE with a gun would come to your
defense. Whether you believe it or not, I would have done the same thing
Wilson did, even if it meant getting killed in the process...and even if you
were at risk. You see, unlike you, I am not a coward, and I am willing to
put my life on the line to protect others.
--
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 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Only by force if the citizenry will not obey.

And if the citizenry decides to obey, you are up the creek.
I keep pointing that out and you keep ignoring it.

Every citizen in the US is as "fully free" as any other.

You guys couldn't pass the ERA even though equivalent rights
exist in other countries' constitutions. You are restricting
gay rights in most states and even your president was asking
for an amendment to gaurantee the restriction of such rights.
You are still living in a fantasy world.

We can guarantee that. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.

Unless those guns are used to reduce freedom.

You should get your head out of your ass, there's a real world
out here.

Mike