Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:35:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: cjclark@home.com Cc: mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (Mark Ovens), noslenj@swbell.net (Jay Nelson), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Guns and freedom [Was: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD"] Message-ID: <200003280035.RAA06519@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <20000326015310.A846@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> from "Crist J. Clark" at Mar 26, 2000 01:53:10 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> And for those who are defending themselves from the Feds, ask that > crew at Waco or Ruby Ridge how well that works. If you're a small > group and the gov't wants you, it don't matter how many guns you > have. There were injustices and abuses of power there, but the guns on > either side did not help at all. Actually, the Waco incident was initiated by BATF after the Branch Davidians purchased of a 50 caliber machine gun. Considering that the government brought in an M-1 Main Battle Tank, I suspect that the Branch Davidians were under-unarmed. The Ruby Ridge incident was initiated over a short-barrelled shotgun, which was, in fact, not illegal, since it was grandfathered, having been manufactured prior to the weapons being made illegal (and "ex post facto" rises once again). In both cases, it was gung-ho law enforcement that resulted in the incident blowing all out of proportion. > Personally, I'm not afraid of the > Feds turning all bad on us because (a) they just are not that smart or > have the vision (remember a President only serves 8 years max, if he > can't disarm enough before his term is up and declares martial law, > why start the process?) to plan something like that and (b) I know too > many military people and they are the most patriotic bunch around > and are not about to be part of a military state (and would not be > tricked into it because of (a)). The Chinese military involved in that "little incident" with the students were probably thought of as a patriotic bunch, as well. One of the main merits of the U.S. Military is the oath they swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Unites States. They swear allegiance to an ideal, not a man or a government. Vietnam has taught us that not all U.S. military people will refuse an illegal order. It's a lesson we seem to need to relearn at intervals, that "just following orders" is insufficient excuse. It seems to be part and parcel with being human and having military organizations. > One of the things the Founding Fathers > did get right (even if some ammendments about bearing arms were > written too vaguely), give Congress the purse strings. I don't find it vague: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Even putting aside the tyrrany argument about "regulate", and whether the militia should be accountable to an ideal or to a government, regardless if that government becomes an oppressive regime... "shall not be infringed" is pretty unambiguous. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003280035.RAA06519>