On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 06:09:51 -0700, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in
reponse to Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com>:
> [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]
Joseph (JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com)