Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General |