Things of Interest

alan

New member
In the Gun News Digest, Winter 1999-2000, there are several interesting pieces. One that particularly caught my attention started on page 8, and is entitled NICS Update. At some length, it treats the lies, the double talk and the flat illegalities perpetrated by DOJ(FBI) and the sitting administration, re this NICS operation.

It also makes mention of all the information about YOU, that resides in various data bases or data banks, information that might be good, bad or indifferent. Information that travels hither, thither and yon, without your knowledge or control, let alone consent.

It makes interesting, likely disturbing reading, given that the folks involved in and with this NICS program are the same folks that gave us, Ruby Ridge, Waco and god knows what else.

See also on guns.com, under General Discussion, see a post entitled Adm. Moorer On China In Panama.

Recently, the admiral commented on the potential for trouble involved in Chinese penetration of Panama, and The Canal. Admiral Moorer might well have made some serious points.

I wonder, as did another poster, as to how come he was so late in going public with his concerns, but that might be another matter.

Even more interesting is the following. As memory serves, a few years ago, Amiiral Moorer, in another public statement mentioned that Americans might have to give up some of their constitutional rights, in order to attain some unspecified "greater good".

You have exactly one guess concerning which constitutional rights the admiral referred to, re Americans having to give up some. You guessed it, they were SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

Now then, the writer wonders as to why the admiral is so concerned with one particular set of problems, while at the same time, he is so dismissive of another set of problems.
 
Hold on now, didn't that Admiral, on the very day he enlisted, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution?

Hmpf.

jth

------------------
Exodus 22:2 -- Biblical precedent for home defense.
 
Ulfilas:

At some point, I'm sure the admiral did. So did Clinton, likely Reno also. What do sworn oaths have to do with anything, at least by the lights of some people.

By the way, re Moorer's statement on constitutional rights, I said "as memory serves". My memory for some things is pretty good, though not perfect. I could be wrong, as it was several years ago, however I definately recall writing to the admiral, re his remarks. Never had any reply, and my letter was not returned.
 
alan, you are treading near a point that I find very interesting.

Some people in the RKBA debate are simply pacifists ... a goodly number of them, as far as I can tell. Another group in the anti-self defense movement apparently is comfortable with governmental control of all force, but is not tolerant of any civilian control of force. Those are the ones that really chap my backside.

I find it contradictory that they can believe in a strong national defense, but they fail to see the parallel with a strong, or even existent personal defense. Their faith in a centralized government is disturbing, myopic and contrary to so many lessons of history.
 
Jeff Thomas:

I suspect that some of the folks you mentioned are charter members of The Flat Earth Society too, and or that one would find them amongst that group of literatti that cannot quite believe that 2 plus 2 equal 4.
 
alan, you're warming my heart again. One of the tools I now use with people is exactly that - the 'flat earth'. When they pompously sniff, and state with finality that it is 'obvious' that no one needs a gun, or that you would be more likely to kill yourself than a BG, I ask them to look outside. Takes them aback every time. They'll ask my point, and I'll state that it is 'obvious' to any fool that the earth is flat. They'll usually snort or chuckle, and then I'll tell them that part of being an adult is searching for truth and logic, and often those are not so obvious.

And, if they want to get past their 'flat earth' perspective, then perhaps they should stop being a gun bigot. They should have some respect for a philosophy of self defense, and they should do some reading and real thought concerning the subject. Some of them will start to actually think about it, and others won't. The ones that won't are just too damn low in IQ, or too damn stubborn in their thought processes from my perspective. They are worth no more time. Perhaps someday they'll wake up.
 
Back
Top