I agree to most...

H

HankL

New member
Your web site I sent the following email after reading this http://homes.acmecity.com/rosie/awards/369/1plus1.htm is very nice! I could almost take the pledge. I am one of the most nonviolent people you would care to meet!
I smoked, and inhaled some rather fine herbs in the 60's and passed on that but I do know non violent.
I served in the U.S. Navy from 1970 to 1974 just because I could avoid the draft doing so. I enlisted! The military is not perfect by any means but it can do very little without consent in our country. The consent comes from the people? No, the consent comes from the elected juggernaut that we have created. I do suppose you vote?
I would also hopr that you would remember that if some wars were not fought the place we call The United States of America would still belomg to the real American people that we call Indians. If not for wars and battles, where might you be?
If you do not beleive in the Constitution of The United States of America, as it was written and not as interpreted by whomever want's you are very sadly mistaken. If you surrender all power to the government you will be a serf at first, perhaps well taken care of. Then you will either become part of the problem, an autocrat, or a slave!
Like I said, I am one of the most nonviolent people that you will ever meet and I own many firearms, reload ammunition, hunt on occasion, an very polite in public and frank among friends. Never been in a fist fight since 1972!

Please consider where freedom comes from!

Best Regards,

Hank Lampe

[This message has been edited by HankL (edited October 15, 1999).]
 
Hank,
I also agree with most of what they are saying. However, part of their info contained the following:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Many people misunderstand and misinterpret the second ammendment (sic) regarding the right to bear arms. The only interpretation that counts is the one by the Supreme Court. They declared the right to bear arms was a collective right not an individual right. This judgement (sic) has been tested in court and the original decision still stands-the constitution and the second ammendment (sic) do NOT endow each individual citizen the right to own a weapon.[/quote]

Oh, and here is "The Pledge"
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> The Pledge
Above all else, I will not seek to intentionally harm another human being.
I will choose words, not weapons, to resolve conflicts.
I will not tolerate violence in my home.
I will not tolerate violence directed towards a child.
I will not stay silent if violence occurs in my presence, I will speak out.
I will not support or participate in groups that advocate violence.
I will be an advocate for nonviolence in my community and nation.
I will not support war as a means to resolve conflict between nations.
I choose to be nonviolent.[/quote]

This pledge sounds like a great thing for a kid to take, until they are old enough to know that (in the words of Kenny Rogers,) "sometimes you gotta fight when you’re a man." (or woman) :)

I agree with you on the point of wars sometimes needing to be fought, but just like we do in our everyday lives, our elected officials should choose their battles more carefully. My main beef is the "I will choose words, not weapons, to resolve conflicts." This is fine for a kid in school, but what about when a BG comes in my house at night to kill my family? I guarantee you that I will be choosing weapons to resolve that conflict. Oh well, I guess that disqualifies me from taking the pledge.

The non-tolerance of violence is the best part of this.


------------------
RKBA!

"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." - Ramsey Clark

"Rights are liable to be perverted to wrongs when we are incapable of rightly exercising them." - Sarah Josepha Hale




[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited October 15, 1999).]
 
Blues Man, We are pretty close on this one.
The conflict which was going on during the time of my service is not what I had in mind when I said wars had to be fought from time to time.
I would use words to try to avoid a stiuation becoming a conflict. I am nonviolent but I carry in condition one.
Best regards to you Mr. Blues!
Hank
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And it's possible to live in a country where owning or manufacturing a gun includes responsibility, accountability and penalities if that gun is misused.[/quote]

Well, yeah. OTOH, who wants to live in the kind of hellhole where something some criminal you never met does is YOUR fault?

I didn't find the email address for these jackasses or I'd be telling them this instead of preaching to the choir, but the pledge is certainly amusing. I'm wondering whether anyone has noticed how stupid you'd have to be to pledge:
1. Never to act in a violent way and
2. To "speak up" (confront people who are behaving violently)
in the same breath! What exactly do these morons do when they "speak up!" and the BG turns on them (as he certainly will?) As a way to thin the herd it's OK, I guess, but don't try to get me on board! :)

------------------
Don

"Its not criminals that go into schools and shoot children"
--Ann Pearston, British Gun Control apologist and moron
 
Sigh...

Just makes me want to sing a round of "Kumbayah".


On the other hand...I need to kill me some ground squirrels :)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
The signer on the home page is 'Bouche'. Just struck me funny - didn't the French call the Nazi's something like 'le bouche'?

Anyway, this is more simplistic manure. TheBluesMan highlighted a part that always catches my eye re: the 2nd Amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, the only Supreme Court case directly on point was U.S. v. Miller (1939 - thanks, DC). That case is only about 4 pages long, and it clearly does not conclude the 2nd Amendment is a collective right. Instead, it spends a lot of time discussing the militia, and then points out that a sawed-off shotgun is not an appropriate weapon for a militia, to their knowledge. The anti's always love to act as though this is so clearly settled in their favor. BS

So, Hank - where did you find a link for email? I notice that the PTA and NEA manual links don't work - I'll bet those would be 'enlightening'.

And, I too can pretty much take the pledge. I'm nonviolent, I believe in settling any dispute nonviolently - personal or political. When the other guy clearly is taking it to a physical level, well then that is when the gloves come off. I see nothing inconsistent between self defense and nonviolence. Unless, of course, you equate nonviolence with pacifism.

That is the problem in many of these conversations. The anti's are actually preaching pacifism, but they don't want to admit it because they know that most logical human beings won't buy that foolishness. They simply try to avoid proceeding down the natural path of their own 'logic'. Sigh ...

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited October 16, 1999).]
 
Jeff...

1939 not 1948. And yes, Miller doesn't even specifically address issue individual nor collective rights. In fact, because it was primarily about categorizing a particular weapon as "military arsenal inclusion"...it actually then therefore lends considerable support to individual rights in possessing military style weapons...i.e the dreaded assault rifles :) In literal and rational interpretation Miller really isn't bad in the general context...just specifically wrong about shotguns.

Read this:
The miscontruction of US v Miller http://www.2ndamendment.net/2amd4.html

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Oh, and I almost missed it! The now infamous Kellermann study [Arthur L. Kellermann et al, 'Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home', New England Journal of Medicine, (October 7, 1993): 1084-91]:

"Guns in the home for protection are more likely to be handguns, found in a home with children, and stored loaded and unlocked. As a result, a gun in the home for protection is rarely used for this purpose and is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self defense." [emphasis added]

Dr. John Lott comments on Kellermann's results in 'More Guns Less Crime':

"Possibly the best known paper was done by Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors, who purport to show that 'keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide.' The data for this test consists of a 'case sample' (444 homicides that occurred in the victim's homes in three counties) and a 'control' group (388 'matched' individuals who lived near the deceased and were the same race as well as the same age range). After information was obtained from relatives of the homicide victim or the control subjects regarding such things as whether they owned a gun or had a drug or alcohol problem, these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide was correlated with the ownership of a gun.

There are many problems with Kellermann et al.'s paper that undercut the misleading impression that victims were killed by the gun in the home. For example, they fail to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases could it be established that the 'gun involved had been kept in the home.' [emphasis added]

Lott goes on to explain flaws in the statistical methodology.

But, read that again, as a layman. They tell us that 'you are 43 times more likely to be killed by the gun in your home than you are to use that gun for defense ...', yada yada yada. But, the study they rely upon only had 8 out of 444 cases where that actually occurred? More bovine fecal matter.

[For those lurkers who would scoff at this citation of Lott (because he clearly has an opinion on the subject contrary to Kellermann's), I challenge you to investigate the Kellermann study. However, I know most of you won't - it's too handy as propaganda, and who cares if it's true, right?]

Hank, sorry to go off on this, but I'm so tired of this BS ...

Regards from AZ

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited October 16, 1999).]
 
Jeff, the email link is in the "other stuff" area. No problems here with your going on! It would be like the pot calling the kettel black! I guess we can still use that old phrase in polite company.
In any case, my email to this person has neither been answered or returned.
Hank
 
I couldn't sleep, its 5:30am and I've been up an hour and a half and am going back to bed, so my sense of humor is a little odd this morning. This "non-violence" pledge (personally, I haven't been in a fight for a long time and I avoid provoking them, but...) has prompted some politically incorrect humor. In one of my favorite sci-fi writers books (one of the Retief series by Keith Laumer), one of the aliens makes a casual comment about, "...there ain't no one as peaceful as a dead troublemaker." Its always stuck in my mind.

------------------
Dorsai
Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys.
-- Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
 
I'M tired of the antis talking of miller, hell Jack Miller and Frank Layton did not even show up, "This lack of appearance, and therfore a lack of brief on behalf of the defendants, appears to have beeen a fatal injury to the Second Amendment; citations given by the court concerning the Second Amendment is a list that only the U.S. Attorney could have provided, for only the decisions that took the most hostile view towards the RKBA were included: Aymette v. state 1840, Presser v. Illinois 1886,Fife v. state 1876, City of Salina v Blaksley 1905, People v. Brown 1931, State v. Duke 1875, and State v Workman 1891. Robertson v. Baldwin 1897 was also cited, with no apparent awareness that, contrary to the note in which it appears, it has nothing to do with the militia" Clayton E Cramer.

[This message has been edited by oberkommando (edited October 18, 1999).]
 
Well, I hope that if one of these induhviduals is standing in line at a bank or convience store, that the bad guy robbing the place listens to their bleating and walks away without harming anyone.

I always ask the question, would you defend yourself if you were being attacked or raped?

If I get a negative answer I ask, would you defend your child if they were being attacked or raped?

That usually gets them angry...

------------------
Peace through superior firepower...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
 
That is such an incredible lie. If you read the government's brief in US v. Emerson, even they (implicitly) concede that the right would be Mr. Emerson's if the weapon had been shown to be reasonably useful to a military/militia. It is emphatically not a "collective" right; and no supreme court case has ever so held (though a few rogue appellate judges have basically held this).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top