From: Saracen Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 8 Oct 92 12:32:34 Subject: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW UpdReq A brief note on Guns first... I take it from the tone of this post, that you feel that the NRA is a group of those Liberal-Left Intelligensia, since they support waiting periods, child and adult education of the safe use of firearms, and licencing of firearms (although they want the funding to do the licencing so that the right to bear arms is not restricted by those who are using firearms because they can not afford food for example). They run ads on television aimed at kids to show them what to do if the find a gun. Yup, the NRA sure sounds like some of those horrible liberals who refuse personal responsibility. I have been watching this thread for a while...I just wonder what sort of a kick -you- get out of it. I would like to see some of your sources for your saying that censorship, or freedom of religion exist as you seem to think that they do. Censorship- (these are all a little out of date...couldn't afford modern case books) but try reading Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 226 (1973) Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971) (the above are all on obscenity) Times Film Corp. v. Chicago 365 U.S. 43, 81 S.Ct. 391, 5 L.Ed.2d 403 (1961) Grayned v. Rockford 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972) Greer v. Spock 424 U.S. 828, 96 S.Ct. 1211, 37 L.Ed.2d 505 (1976) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation 438 U.S. 726, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073, (1978) Freedom of Religion- Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed.2d 244 (1879) (on polygamy) Cantwell v. Connecticut 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940) "The [Constitution] forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any forms of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose can not be restiricted by law. [Free exercise] embraces two concepts, -freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things the second cannot be." Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963) (These cases were commented on in -Constitutional Law- and -Constitutional Rights and Liberties- from the American Casebook Series) This might keep you busy for a little bit... Ann 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Serpens Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 8 Oct 92 21:47:36 Subject: Re: GUNS AND COMMON GOOD UpdReq Mikey - You're good, I grant you that. I bet you are fast with a gun. Really fast, right. High scores on the range. And all it takes for anyone to be just as good at firearms combat is the hundreds of hours of practice, reasonable reflexes, and the mental set (innate or acquired) that makes someone a competent fighter. Then, all things being equal, they *might* be able to deal with an armed confrontation and protect themselves effectively. We probably agree it would be a good thing if more folks were in fact capable of self protection (armed or unarmed). I must admit to disliking guns becuase, while I can probably kill or incapacitate you with most form s of hand-to-hand weaponry, I am not trained with guns and so if you have a gun and I don't, all that time and effort on my part is nullified (not entirely, but unarmed gun defenses are tricky, and saved for desperte situations). Weapon controls and the delegation of armed response to a law enforcement arm of the community derives, at its best, from the desire (weak, effete, no question) of the citizenry not to have to spend the time required to become competent at armed combat (or unarmed, or whatever - take your pick). The problem that arises when government, an excellent servant but a terrible master, seeks to insure its longevity by monopolizing force, is one of the great dangers of government (the other is economic monopoly, and taxation, which is another thread in itself). However, it rather galls me that you sit there, fat dumb and happy, and tout that all those who propose weapon controls are (what was it...oh yes, ) "egalitarian cowards." Many are victims of violence, or survivors of the victims of violence. Their very natural very human, response, is to wish to remove the tools of violence from general circulation. I am not sure if this is the "egalitarian" or "cowardly" part of their nature. Certainly, the punishment for violent crime should approximate the pain caused by the crime itself. This should obtain whether weapons are subject to control or not. But making weapons easily available that allow an ill-trained, but well-alienated little creep inflict massive damage on an equally ill-trained public seems to invite difficulties. Isn't California one of those amusing states where it is illegal to own certain "martial arts" weapons, like nunchaku (which take, what 2-3 years to learn to use without hospitalizing oneself?) but guns are in K-mart? Don't you love irony like this. Paul PS - actually, I assume you are either adept at unarmed combat, or that your tone on these echoes is much more abrasive than you dare use face to face, or that your nose has been broken numerous times, since I have rarely encountered anyone on the Nets (save One, as those of us who recall the incomparable Maroney will attest) who manages to combine the cut direct, the personal insult, the non sequitur, and the false premise in combination quite so offensively as you. Have a day. PRH 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Sea Queen Area: THE_OASIS To: Michael Lee 9 Oct 92 01:05:24 Subject: Re: FASCISM U.S.A. UpdReq > Also that "third world" country your talking about happened to > _invade_ > and _destroy_ a sovereign nation, and was intent on invading another > one > A sovereign nation to the US, maybe, but not to Iraq. In Iraq schoolbooks, Kuwait is still called Province 19, because up until 25 or 30 years ago, it WAS part of Kuwait. Kuwait was no more a sovereign nation to Iraq, than the Confederacy was to the United States. Iraq looked at Kuwait in much the same way the North looked at the South. Their further intentions were speculative at best, mostly because there was no opportunity to see how the League of Arab Nations (not to mention OPEC) wuld have reacted. And had Iraq tried to build nuclear reactors, I have no doubt that Israel would do what it did in Iran. Remember? before "Chicken George" did something. It's not as if Bush woke up > one morning as said "What a bueatiful day for a bombing." > > No, it takes months of PR work to psyche the masses up for bombing civilians. >TM> Ahhh, if that was all there was to Gay rights, I'd agree whole-heartedly. >TM> The problem is that the _radical_ gays and their sympathizers (ACT UP! >TM> Queer Nation, etc.) are dedicated to offending the most people they >TM> possibly can. It goes beyond tolerance and mutual respect. The radical >TM> gays have no respect for anyone who doesn't believe the way they do. > Just what is it that "radical" gays BELIEVE that is so offensive or threatening to you? That they ought to be free to love and express love to whomever they choose? There's a subversive idea if I've ever heard of one! :) Isn't it more that the "radical" gays ore more vocally angry at having their rights legally trampled on? It's bad to be oppressed and repressed in this society, but it's even worse if it pisses you off and you actually SAY so! Ask any woman. Women who are vocal for changes in their lack of rights are called "radical feminsts", "bitches", "feminazi".... etc. because they forget to be "ladylike" when they have had enough. I see the same attitudes toward outspoken gays. "We're sorry things are unfair, but don't get in my face and expect me to do anything about it. It's not my problem, so just go over there (wherever THAT is) and be quiet, and if you do, then MAYBE we'll work on it." I can't understand why any one would get angry at such a patronizing, condescending attitude..... can you? GDC> Like I said; when legislation does not work, then one has to do >GDC> whatever they can to get their point across. Shock has a tendency >GDC> of making people pay attention. When the system fails you, what do >GDC> YOU recommend? > > Hence Queer Nation. That is exactly their point. I reject the notion that the system failed. The "system" is not > designed > to please every single interest group that demands attention. The > "system" > is made to please the majority of people. > > Nonsense. The system is set up to please the people whom the politicians represent. Their "constituents". The people who contribute to their campaign, (which is predominantly the SIGs and PACs), the folks who phone bank, knock on doors, canvass for signatures, etc. We do not have a democracy (thank the fates!), and representation of the majority is not a given. Nor is it necessarily a good thing. Civil Rights was a VERY unpopular idea, but our representatives knew it was fair and just, and shoved the idea down some very uncooperative throats! > > ACT UP! says it's dedicated to AIDS awareness. What they are > dedicated to is the superority of the Gay lifesyle. BULLSHIT! Paranoid, Homophobic bullshit! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718