Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 19:30:38 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@ctp&NoMoreSpam&.iwantnospam.com
|
Viewed:
|
988 times
|
| |
|
|
The LP had a pretty good PR release recently. Paraphrasing... suppose
other amendments were as watered down as the 2nd? Each of these is a
parallel to a existing law that regulates the acquisition or ownership
of guns. Fortunately, each is currently sarcastic rather than true.
You can have free speech, but only the kind you get when you stand on a
box. If you want to use a concealed loudspeaker you have to get 3 judges
and a sheriff to sign a permit. Unless you're their friend, or a public
figure, they won't sign it. There is no appeal. As for publishing a
newspaper, forget it. That level of speech is too dangerous to allow an
individual citizen to control, only the military should have access to
newspaper presses and broadcasting. If you want to play with TV, join
the army.
You can have freedom of religion, but only once a month. After all, who
needs to go to church, pray, or even think about God more than once a
month anyway?
You can go to your friend's house any time you want but only if you
first pass an instant background check.
You are free from illegal search and seizure, but only if you register
one month in advance that you want to exercise your right, and it's only
good for one search. All the others are OK.
You don't have to testify against yourself if you don't want to but
first you have to pay a tax to the BATF that is 10 times the actual
value of your testimony. If you can find the form to pay it on. The BATF
stopped issuing permits in 1934.
The police are under no obligation to protect you. If you dial 911 and
they don't feel like coming out, they don't have to. You can't sue them
for not doing their job no matter how outrageously malfeasant they are,
you have no right to police protection. If you get hurt by a robber,
tough luck. But if you shoot him, he can sue you.
Oh wait, that last one isn't sarcasm, that's the way things are already.
Make sure you shoot to kill, it will be a lot less paperwork for you.
Sigh.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) What does "well regulated" mean, in the context of the Second Amendment? Seriously. "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." Steve (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) I agree wholeheartedly here ... I don't _NEED_ a gun currently, however if I want to purchase one, why do I need to wait up to 30 days now? Also, the Congress elated me, and is now disappointing me. The gun legislation that is being pushed (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
