Re: Don't Forget Peter Jennings'... Flaw

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:09:51 -0700, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in reponse to Joseph :

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This Digest does not exist to serve as > a mouthpiece for CDT or for that matter, _any of Usenet_. Usenet is > so nineteen-sixtyish it is not funny. It might have been a cute and > quaint thing back in the 1980's or even the 1990's, but this is 2005 > for god's sake. Only a ... well ... Usenetter would pay any attention > to the load of crap coming out of that network most of the time. > And although you (obviously!) do not believe in the Second Amendment > to the US Constitution it _is_ one of our rights (not privileges) as > citizens here.

Well, despite what you say you believe anyone (evidently) who has an axe to grind can have their say about anything. And it also appears that telecom doesn't have anything to do with CDT or Telecom Digest any longer and is only a place where any lugnut can spew his opinion never mind that it doesn't have any tangental relevance to telecom at all.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think what I shall do is start an adjunct digest; I shall call it SOCIETY Digest or SPAMMER Digest or even maybe ADJUNCT Digest or as a last ditch thing, maybe TOWNSON Digest. (All those words) Digest have _seven letters_ just like 'TELECOM', ergo I won't even have to re-write all the 1960-ish scripts I use to put it out each day, especially since the onset of my beloved Deseased Brain I have lost the ability and patience to write shell scripts anyway other than changing a few print statements to my liking. I'll add a few Google Adsense messages on the web version just as I do with telecom and collect on the revenue from the clicks there. That's all that really matters for most of us web publishers on the net these days anyway is the Google Scorecard isn't it?

To answer your question bluntly and succintly (and with this benediction I hope and pray this thread soon comes to a close without having to rudely toss many of the messages on same) I _firmly_ and _strongly_ support the US Constitution the way it is written. I do wish that those guys in the 18th century, Adams, Jefferson, et al had been able to tell the future, or been as succinct at times in their writings as I attempt to be with mine. (snore!). Especially, a wee bit more laborious in writing numbers one and two. Break up one to be more plain about religion and speech and in the case of two, to be more precise about terms like 'well regulated militia' and re-ordered their punctuation a bit differently, removing any and all doubt about each of those two Amendments. Both of them (one and two) give us much grief when there are court battles about them.

My opinion: if number two means what many claim it means, that a 'well regulated militia' refers to the National Guard or the military service in general and this 'well regulated' National Guard or military has a right to bear arms but the rest of us ordinary citizens do _not_ have such a right, then I would have to say that is the one item in the Bill of Rights which allows the _government_ (as opposed to regular citizens a 'right'). The National Guard or the Army does not have to get permission (in the form of a constitutional amendment) to 'bear arms'. Think about it that way; the entire Bill of Rights was written to provide we the people with certain rights; does it make sense that the second amendment is an exception to that, and it (second amendment) is to give the government 'rights'? The government does not need protection from the people; the people are the ones needing protection. So why would the Bill of Rights grant the 'right to bear arms' to its own agencies (National Guard and Army, etc). A 'well regulated militia', IMO, refers to _law abiding_ citizens who wish to arm themselves.

Now if 'well regulated' equals 'law abiding' (instead of equalling 'a government agency' as the government claims) then we have problems. Far too many of us are not 'well regulated' in that sense; we grow angry or we get drunk or we otherwise break the law and take our host- ility out on police officers and other more 'well-regulated' citizens. Does it seem a bit odd that the New York Times constantly chatters about 'gun control' yet the late publisher of that journal used to always get chauffered to work each day carrying a gun in his suit pocket or briefcase? Many people think that 'gun control' should apply to everyone else _except for themselves_. I can trust me, but I can't trust you, that sort of thing. And you never hear of the ACLU taking on a Second Amendment case; they seem to be happy with the status quo also.

I personally am frightened of guns. I do not want one in my house; I grow ill when I have touched a gun in the past; but I certainly would not restrict the right of _other folks_ to have them and use them as needed, but the government does just that. The regulations on gun ownership and use in the USA are so restrictive that about all I can say to anyone who has a _legitimate, bonafide need_ to ever use a gun in the protection of their property or life or family's lives, etc, do what you need to do but then _destroy the gun and ditch it totally_. Do not let the gun stand in the way of detirmining who the true villian was; the person who made the use of the gun necessary. And do not ask me for support of some crackpot notion from John Birch and all that rot. President Bush is strongly in favor of 'gun control', and that should give you something to think about. PAT]

Reply to
Loading thread data ... Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.