From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Mon Jul 07 1997 - 19:38:32 MDT
Hagbard Celine wrote:
>
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
>
> > If one applies the term self defense to mean protection of one's self,
> > property, and dependents from violators of ones rights, whether they be
> > individuals, gangs, mobs, or any level of government, then you are
> > exactly right.
>
> Unfortunately, according to current jurisprudence, self-defense carries
> with it an objective standard of reasonableness. The standard being,
> what would a normal, reasonable, and prudent person do under the same or
> similar circumstances. In this situation, a jury would look at the
> circumstances, decide what the threat of violence really was, decide
> what self-defense was necessary, what self-defense was unnecessary but
> justified, and then decide if the self-defense exceeded these
> guidelines. It's all annoyingly arbitrary.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Since Article Ten
> > defines the "militia" as any male between the ages of 18 and 40 (or is
> > it 45?),
>
> There is no Article 10. Goes only to Seven.
Of the US Code, not the Constitution.
>
> > and also states that local sheriffs are empowered to
> > temporarily draft from the militia pool for local law enforcement needs
> > (where the "posse" concept came from), it is apparent that the
> > constitution intended every member of the "militia" to have authority
> > and responsibility for law enforcement within the confines of their own
> > property and family.
>
> This is nowhere to be found in the copy I have, unless I missed it
> entirely.
Of these two statements, I meant article Ten of the US Code, not the
Constitution.
>
> > I find another funny parallel, in rural Washington State, every county
> > but I beleive King, Thurston, Pierce, and Snohomish have passed in the
> > past three years county ordinances requiring every homeowner to posess a
> > gun and ammunition.
>
> This seems as grave a violation of one's freedoms as to disallow gun
> ownership completely.
If they are legally bound to serve in the militia, then they are
derelict to not comply....being members of the militia, they are
nominally bound under the US Code of Military Justice, as the most
current national manifestation of regulations applying the old Rules of
War, which was an international multilateral treaty even before the
existence of our own country.
Even if you apply an anti-statist position, its still a violation of
natural law to not practice self defense, as stupidity is always a
capital crime...
--
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 - 14:44:33 MST