From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Tue Jul 01 1997 - 08:54:37 MDT
Abraham Moses Genen erroneously and disengenuously wrote:
>
> ----------
> From: Michael Lorrey <retroman@tpk.net>
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: POLI: Hooray for the 10th Amendment
> Date: Monday, June 30, 1997 3:07 PM
>
> Michael Lorrey stated in part:
>
> Concluding their 1997 term, the Supreme Court Justices ruled 5-4 in
> favor of states rights proponents and against the Federal Brady Law.
> They ruled that federal law cannot commandeer the resources and time of
> state officials without compensation to administer the requirements of
> federal regulation. It is a usurpation of states 10th Amendment rights.
>
> Dear Fellow Extropians:
>
> It's usually a mistake to refer to any written decision of any appellate
> court (particularly the U.S. Supreme Court) without examining every nuance
> of the court's language.
>
> In this particular instance, the court ruled (only in part) that duties
> cannot be imposed upon the states without due and appropriate
> compensation.
>
> It is my understanding that the two or three rural sheriffs who brought
> this action were primarily funded in their initial litigation and appeals
> by the National Rifle Association. I think that most of us can understand
> that the leadership of the NRA
> would be quite interested in supporting such an action.
Especially when the ACLU, which is self charged with defending our
constitutional rights (supposedly all of them), refuses to come to the
aid of people whose 2nd amendment rights have been violated. They also
refused to involve themselves in this case, even though it was not a 2nd
amendment case, because it involved guns... talk about liberal
hipocrisy....
>
> The claim that many people are being improperly denied the right to bear
> arms seems more than slightly specious.
Hardly, when 60,000 people are wrongly denied access to guns, and only 7
people are prosecuted for attempted purchase? Specious?
The high court has ruled on this
> issue as well in great detail. They have concluded that the right to bear
> arms is not absolute and can be regulated by the Federal government, the
> States and and political subdivisions thereof.
There is a vast difference between regulating, and denying. They did not
include this in their decision , BTW, because they have recognised that
the 2nd amendment only applies to the regulation of the militia, not the
regulation of firearms. Where congress gets off with assault weapons
bans, etc. is in the interstate commerce clause.... Get your
Constitution straight...
>
> The need for firearms in our society seem questionable as well in many
> instances.
> The arguements as to the need for self-defense against predators in our
> society is best answered by having professionally trained law enforcement
> officials in each community.
Hardly, they are only there to catch the guy AFTER he has killed and
raped your family....That in is not self defense, it is law enforcement.
There is a big difference. Self defense is also recognised by the
supreme court as a 9th and 10th amendment right.
>
> I'm a bit dubious as to the need of hunters for many of the rapid fire
> arms that are readily available as well as the need for handguns. The
> collected cumulitive evidence indicates that most people who claim they
> need a handgun for self defense are usually incapable of using one under
> siuations of stress. They frequently end up shooting other family members
> or themselves.
Hardly, the most recent review of accident rates by the National Safety
Board shows that not only is the accident rate from firearms at its all
time historical low of .06 per 100,000 population (from a peak in 1904
of 3.4), but that this rate is lower than the accident rate in
automobiles, commuter and private aircraft, and even sitting on your own
toilet.... Don't be a vitcim of propaganda, get the facts first.
>
> It's possible that the issue of paranoia in our society is entering the
> minds of some of you, as well as the numerous psycho-sexual implications
> of gun collecting, so I'll let this issue ride while you digest and
> consider the bigger picture.
>
> For those who are sceptical about my motives. Yes, I am an occasional
> casual hunter. Yes, I use a single shot shotgun or a compound bow when I
> hunt. Yes, I've had to use deadly weapons in the distant past. No, I did
> not enjoy having to use them. The circumstances under which I was required
> to use weapons I'll leave to your fertile imaginings.
>
> A.M. Genen
So you admit you have a neurotic aversion to guns, which you refuse to
have treated?
--
TANSTAAFL!!!
Michael Lorrey
------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:retroman@tpk.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive
Agent Lorrey@ThePentagon.com
Silo_1013@ThePentagon.com http://www.tpk.net/~retroman/
Mikey's Animatronic Factory
My Own Nuclear Espionage Agency (MONEA)
MIKEYMAS(tm): The New Internet Holiday
Transhumans of New Hampshire (>HNH)
------------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/local/bin/perl-0777---export-a-crypto-system-sig-RC4-3-lines-PERL
@k=unpack('C*',pack('H*',shift));for(@t=@s=0..255){$y=($k[$_%@k]+$s[$x=$_
]+$y)%256;&S}$x=$y=0;for(unpack('C*',<>)){$x++;$y=($s[$x%=256]+$y)%256;
&S;print pack(C,$_^=$s[($s[$x]+$s[$y])%256])}sub S{@s[$x,$y]=@s[$y,$x]}
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:32 MST