Conscientious objection: we allow for it, the enemy does not

O

Oleg Volk

Staff Alumnus
Two towns, Kennishaw, Georgia and Virgin, Utah require every household to own a gun. Obviously, not everyone would be happy about these laws.

Surprisingly, the authors of the laws provide for such unhappiness:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Virgin residents who don’t comply will not be punished, the mayor said. Also, exceptions will be made for the mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious objectors and people who cannot afford to own a gun.
[/quote] http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/mandatoryguns001105.html

Now consider the laws prohibiting guns in the third-world occupied territories like Washington D.C., Chicago, New York City. Would they permit guns to those people whose conscience or religion require them to be armed?

"Don't make me laugh," you say? It's not a laughing matter. It is the basic difference between people willing to live and let live...and the scum who insist on controlling others without permission and with a cavalier, if not sadistic disregard for the outcome. Nurse Ratched, meet Sgt.York. Time for your lobotomy, Mr. York.

------------------
Oleg "peacemonger" Volk http://www.a-human-right.com


[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited November 11, 2000).]
 
hmm, now there's an idea...
"Owning a firearm is part of my religion, if you take it from me, I'll cry bloody murder because you're trampling my first amendment rights."

After all, haven't we all heard claims from the left about 'the church of the gun'?
 
The reason is simple. We believe in INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. They do not. My proof: look at what is going on in Florida. Their side believes in proper speech, proper thought, and proper actions. No dissent is allowed. We are slowly headed towards Orwell's vision...
 
WestTexas,

I must object to your final statement! :) Especially in the "heading towards" portion. It's here and doing fine. The beast just keeps growing until it is cut off from its life giving source. That would be us.

------

Oleg,

I really like that portion of the stated law. Otherwise, I would absolutely be against it. There are many religious folk in the country that are pacifists, and would be very much offended by requiring them to be armed.

Secondly, I am VERY MUCH offended that there are actually Amerikans today that are stripping us of liberty for the sake of their "feelings" towards arms. Especially when common sense, experience, and the constitution prohibit them from doing so. BTW, Claire Wolfe has your website as a link. Attaboy!

Regards,
MP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top