Why I'm not a Libertarian

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adad

New member
This topic started in another thread but it was a bit off-topic, so I'm giving it a thread of its its own. Here was my reply that started it:

------------

Pornography has always been stigmatized. It has always, until very recently, been found almost exclusively in sleazy out-of-the way places. Buying it at the local convenience store is the aberration, not the other way around.

I don't think the founders of our Republic saw any contradiction in censoring such materials and the right to keep and bear arms. I don't either. That's why I'm not a Libertarian.

If we can't make the simple distinction between the necessary, God-given right to self-defense afforded by the most efficient personal weapons available -- guns -- and the "freedom" to engage in what are universally considered to be vices which erode the stability of our communities, then we've lost the war already.

It should be obvious: an increase in the number of folks who choose to engage in vices which have lost much of their old stigma will inevitably lead to more social break down resulting in more violence. This will only increase the cry of the naive and easily-swayed to rid their streets of guns to "make them safe."

I really don't believe the pornographers, casino operators, drug dealers and pimps are on our side.

----------

In response, Rosco P. Coltrain replied:

-----------

adad,
Since you just fired off a full magazine of informational blanks, I thought I would inform you of several points.

Denmark has the most lax laws with respect to pornography, and as a result the lowest rates of sex crime in any western nation.

The freedom of speech is the freedom to say what is unpopular. The founding fathers were clearly opposed to censorship.

What you may call a vice might be part of my religion. Most Christian churches serve alcohol. The Catholic church organizes gambling events. The Mormons used to officially practice polygyny untill the federal government wrongly stepped in. Southwestern american-indian mystics used to consume peyote for spiritual enlightenment, untill the DEA wrongly stepped in.

You speak about god in your post. Is religious freedom important to you? Or is it just YOUR god that is important?

----------

So that's how it got started. I'll follow this post with my response to Mr. Coltrain.

------------------
Wound ballistics is the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles:
Wound Ballistics

Great daily commentary from a thoughtful Christian perspective:
Daily Commentary
 
Christianity was "stigmatized" for quite some time, until a Roman emperor finally converted.

artwork (of which photography is but one facet) involving the nude human form is not "universally" considered a vice, except by puritans. from Rubin to Renoir, the female form and artwork depicting it has been appreciated by folks from all walks of life, from royalty and elected heads of state, to middle class white collar workers and businessmen, to the working classes.

you know, Germany tried to 'clean up" their society and we know what that led to. and history also tells us what happened with the Puritans who settled in New England. in the process of "rooting out vice" they ended up torturing and murdering people who were no threat to society. this is the innevitable outcome of allowing government to enforce morality. the Spanish Inquisition is yet another example.

in my workplace, its kinda funny; the managers who are avowed churchgoers are the ones who are habitual liars and have poor personal ethics, whereas the guys who go to the strip clubs do better work, are honest, and have better work ethics.

serious crime in America is due to three factors; the influence of moral relativity as expoused by the leftist intellectual establishment, the corruption of the criminal justice system, and the replacement of personal ethics with social conformity.

America is different than any other country, in one essential aspect; when a person's behavior does not directly impact others, that person has a right to be left alone (paraphrasing the classic quote from Supreme Court Justice Brandeis *).

personally, I think tobacco addicts are a menace to themselves, their children, and society at large; my tongue-in-cheek solution is to round 'em up, put them in prison camps, and use electroshock therapy until they mend their ways. after we take care of smokers, we can then go after drinkers, fat people, gays, lesbians, polygamists, Jews, Moslems, Catholics, etc. we'll get around to you, eventually. ;)


here are some quotes which may provide perspective on liberty and the role of government:

* The right most valued by all civilized men is the right to be left alone. - Justice Louis Brandeis

What government is best? That which teaches us to govern ourselves. - Goethe

The chief enemy of creativity is 'good taste.' - Pablo Picasso

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. - Justice Louis Brandeis (Olmstead v. US, 1928)

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - Abraham Lincoln

The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. - John Stuart Mill

Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. - John Hay, 1872

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. - H. L. Mencken

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - Mencken

A man that is ashamed of passions that are natural and reasonable is generally proud of those that are shameful and silly. - Lady Mary Wortley Montagu

Puritanism -- the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. - H. L. Mencken

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. - George Washington

Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. - H. G. Wells
 
Mr. Coltrain:

I'd be careful about throwing about statistics about the laws and rates of crime in other countries vs. the United States. Note how often such "information" has been used against gun owners without regard to the many factors involved. I cannot respond any further to your claims about the laws and crime rates in Denmark since you give no support for your statement. Please give me an authoritative reference and I will gladly research your claims and respond.

You state that the "founding fathers were clearly opposed to censorship." What document, written by the founding fathers, supports this claim? Citing the Freedom of Speech guarranty in the 1st Ammendment in the Constitution's Bill of Rights isn't proof of your broad claim. The United States Supreme Court certainly doesn't agree with your interpretation (see quote from Roth v. United States, below).

Also, your statement is not qualified in any way, so it seems to imply that the founding fathers would be opposed to *all* censorship of *any* kind. I find this ridiculous. Its impossible to imagine George Washington, for example, being unwilling to censor images of orgies or beastiality.

I think the following quote from Roth v. United States (the full text can be found here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&invol=476 ) states my position well:

---------

The dispositive question is whether obscenity is utterance within the area of protected speech and press.8 Although this is the first time the question has been squarely presented to this Court, either under the First Amendment or under the Fourteenth Amendment, expressions found in numerous opinions indicate that this Court has always assumed that obscenity is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 736-737; United States v. Chase, 135 U.S. 255, 261; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497, 508; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 322; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 716; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572; Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 158; Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510; Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266.9 [354 U.S. 476, 482]

The guaranties of freedom of expression10 in effect in 10 of the 14 States which by 1792 had ratified the Constitution, gave no absolute protection for every utterance. Thirteen of the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel,11 and all of those States made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes.12 As early as [354 U.S. 476, 483] 1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish "any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon" in imitation or mimicking of religious services. Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, c. CV, 8 (1712), Mass. Bay Colony Charters & Laws 399 (1814). Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offenses.

In light of this history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. This phrasing did not prevent this Court from concluding that libelous utterances are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266. At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, obscenity law was not as fully developed as libel law, but there is sufficiently contemporaneous evidence to show that obscenity, too, was outside the protection intended for speech and press.13 [354 U.S. 476, 484]

The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. This objective was made explicit as early as 1774 in a letter of the Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Quebec:


"The last right we shall mention, regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs." 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 108 (1774).

All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests.14 But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. This rejection for [354 U.S. 476, 485] that reason is mirrored in the universal judgment that obscenity should be restrained, reflected in the international agreement of over 50 nations,15 in the obscenity laws of all of the 48 States,16 and in the 20 obscenity laws enacted by the Congress from 1842 to 1956.17 This is the same judgment expressed by this Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572:

". . . There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene . . . . It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.

--------

Sorry for the long quote, but it addressed the issue so well I thought you'd want to see the whole thing.

As far as your list of things on which groups disagree, I think its safe to say that just because people disagree about an issue doesn't mean there is no answer. Because we may disagree about the number of chairs in a room, it doesn't follow that there are no chairs.

Also, I fail to see your point in some of your examples. You'll have to explain how they support your position.

As for mentioning God in my post -- suddenly I'm against freedom of religion by mentioning God? I'm afraid the founders would be extreme fundamentalist bigots by your standards. They mentioned God a lot.

BTW: I mentioned God in my original post when I said, "God-given right...." I'm curious, if you don't get your rights from God where do they come from? If its society, then society can change its mind. I don't think I'd want to stake my claim to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms on the whims of society.

------------------
Wound ballistics is the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles:
Wound Ballistics

Great daily commentary from a thoughtful Christian perspective:
Daily Commentary

[This message has been edited by adad (edited February 10, 2000).]
 
Ivanhoe,

Funny you mention "moral relativity" as the first item on your list of factors which have lead to the "serious crime in America." Based on your response to my original post, I'd have said you were a moral relativist. Tell me, from where do you get the objective, non-relativist morals you uphold?

BTW: you state that "this is the innevitable outcome of allowing government to enforce morality." All good laws are based on a true moral principal. For instance, its immoral to purposely kill an innocent human being, so we have laws that make such killing illegal. If it weren't the case that laws were based on morals, by what standard could you judge the law? How could you say the "Jim Crow" laws of the South were "bad" or that the laws against Jews in Hitler's Nazi Germany were "wrong?"

------------------
Wound ballistics is the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles:
Wound Ballistics

Great daily commentary from a thoughtful Christian perspective:
Daily Commentary

[This message has been edited by adad (edited February 10, 2000).]
 
The following quote is from a statement written by Benjamin Franklin which was read at the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

"I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

I think this sums up my position well. I just hope and pray that we're not there yet.

[This message has been edited by adad (edited February 10, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by adad:
All good laws are based on a true moral principal. For instance, its immoral to purposely kill an innocent human being, so we have laws that make such killing illegal
[/quote]
All human legislation, whether good or bad, is based on politics. Some of this legislation does indeed conform to moral principles, but some does not. In cases when something immoral is politically advantageous to those in pwer, the law allows it. That explains "Jim Crow" and other immoral laws.

Adad, I understand your views about pornography. I have three small children and I shudder at what they are exposed to in our society. But I don't think any government bureaucrat should decide what published material is "right" or "wrong" for me to see. I prefer to make those choices for myself, and to give my children the moral training that will enable them to make good choices also.
 
adad, Libertarians don't necessarily condone drugs or porn or any of those other "evil" things.

We believe that the individual has the responsibility to determine whether those things have a place in his own life. Not some pointy-headed gummint pencil-pusher. If you don't like porn, that's fine, don't look at it or buy it. But you DON'T have the right to restrict others from looking or buying.

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
I am not a Libertarian with a big L because I disagree with the party on some economic issues. However, I am libertarian in my philosophy and I totally agree with Coinneach. Advocating freedom of choice for everyone is NOT the same thing as advocating the choices they may make. Life has consequences for actions. If you drown yourself in pornography and frequent prostitutes, you will wind up isolating yourself from REAL women and REAL relationships. If you abuse drugs, you will harm your health and be unable to attain a good job. Those are real consequences and are very good reasons not to abuse drugs, bury yourself in porn and habitually frequent prostitutes. However, simply because something is bad for you doesn't mean we need the government to ban it. That is not the purpose of the government of a free country.
 
Adad,

Your question, "...if you don't get your rights from God where do they come from?", is a good one.

But if you DO get your rights from God, how do you know what they are? How do you know that any given list of rights came directly from God? It seems to me that God-given rights are as subject to social interpretation as any others.
 
Ditto what Coinneach said. adad - Please do an Internet search on the Kama Sutra and the sexually explicit art work on Indian temples. They don't appear to be sleazy or in out of the way places. My take on this is that some people make sex look bad just like some people make guns look bad.

John
 
I was not trying to start any flames by the post I made. I just get tired of all the Kristians stepping on the first amendment in the name of their religion. Why is it that religious freedom is only important if you are a Kristian? Is not my god or godess just as worthy as yours? I do not want this great nation to become like Britain where the Druids are forbiden to hold their religious services at stonehenge, a Druidic temple, because big government said it was a national monument and that their practices were offensive to the Kristian religion.
 
Why I AM a Libertarian:

I like the idea of being able to live as I choose, as long as I don't hurt anyone. As for the morality issues that some have expressed, I say this:

Live your own life. Do not try to save my soul, or make me into a better person, unless I ask for your help. I will afford you the same courtesy.

Is that too much to ask?
 
This Lib says "do whatever you want but harm no one else."

In other words, leave me alone to do my thing and you feel free to do yours.
 
Rosco, please email me.

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson
 
adad,

you really are doing a good job convincing me to vote libertarian.

[This message has been edited by needanak (edited February 10, 2000).]
 
I hope this is relevent to the topic. If not, then maybe the moderators can open a new thread or whatever. This does invoke a lot of discussion and thought. It did to me anyway.

I was talking to a professed Libertarian on certain issues of laws, rights and such and his stance, was that any law that did not deal directly with the the protection of ones life, property, health, or wellfare, was a "bad law". Key word here being "directly". He says he truly believes in a completely free state. He says that most laws are inacted now for the sole purpose of generating monies for in the way of fines, or seizures of property, etc for the govt. power. He gave many examples of this, but I'll just give you the two that seemed the most "radical" to me.

The first example is drunk-driving laws. Why should anyone be arrested while driving intoxicated when they haven't harmed anyone or anything? Why should that in itself be a crime? To generate money, of course. Think of all the jobs created by this. The police, of course to start out with. Got to have more police out there to patrol against this type of thing. Then come the lawyers. You have to have one in order to keep you from losing everything you own or ever hoped to. Then come all of the Judges to levy the very heavy fines that you're going to get anyway. Even with the lawyer at you're side. It would be much worse without him. Then the Judge sends you to some kind of "re-hab" or class for the next nine months, that you are required to pay for. All of those instructors of these classes are put to work and are paid for their services by you. You hired them! All of this and you haven't actually hurt anyone. Oh but it's to save lives you say. It's not about money at all. Its to get all of these dangerous drunk drivers off of the road. Well, if saving lives is the motive behind this then let the punishment for killing someone while driving drunk be so severe that it would be up to and including a charge of pre-meditated murder. With the sentense of course being execution! With all of this in mind. Would anyone even remotely consider driving drunk if this were the law?

The next one is speed limit laws. If you drive 80 in a 55 zone, who have you harmed? But its more of the same as in the above example if you're caught. Heavy fine, possible court date,etc. If however you are responsible for an accident while you are speeding then you should have to make restitution of the highest depending on what the damages were. Again, in the case that you have caused a fatality, then punishment would be severe!

I, myself see lot of holes in this way of thinking. I don't drink and drive and I don't condone those that do. But still, when I think about this it does make sense in a lot of ways. Think about all of those other laws that don't even have a slim chance of hurting someone else, have the same results of making someone a little or a lot of money.

------------------
Proud,dues paying,member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
 
I hope this is relevent to the topic. If not, then maybe the moderators can open a new thread or whatever. This does invoke a lot of discussion and thought. It did to me anyway.

I was talking to a professed Libertarian on certain issues of laws, rights and such and his stance, was that any law that did not deal directly with the the protection of ones life, property, health, or wellfare, was a "bad law". Key word here being "directly". He says he truly believes in a completely free state. He says that most laws are inacted now for the sole purpose of generating monies for in the way of fines, or seizures of property, etc for the govt. power. He gave many examples of this, but I'll just give you the two that seemed the most "radical" to me.

The first example is drunk-driving laws. Why should anyone be arrested while driving intoxicated when they haven't harmed anyone or anything? Why should that in itself be a crime? To generate money, of course. Think of all the jobs created by this. The police, of course to start out with. Got to have more police out there to patrol against this type of thing. Then come the lawyers. You have to have one in order to keep you from losing everything you own or ever hoped to. Then come all of the Judges to levy the very heavy fines that you're going to get anyway. Even with the lawyer at you're side. It would be much worse without him. Then the Judge sends you to some kind of "re-hab" or class for the next nine months, that you are required to pay for. All of those instructors of these classes are put to work and are paid for their services by you. You hired them! All of this and you haven't actually hurt anyone. Oh but it's to save lives you say. It's not about money at all. Its to get all of these dangerous drunk drivers off of the road. Well, if saving lives is the motive behind this then let the punishment for killing someone while driving drunk be so severe that it would be up to and including a charge of pre-meditated murder. With the sentense of course being execution! With all of this in mind. Would anyone even remotely consider driving drunk if this were the law?

The next one is speed limit laws. If you drive 80 in a 55 zone, who have you harmed? But its more of the same as in the above example if you're caught. Heavy fine, possible court date,etc. If however you are responsible for an accident while you are speeding then you should have to make restitution of the highest depending on what the damages were. Again, in the case that you have caused a fatality, then punishment would be severe!

I, myself see lot of holes in this way of thinking. I don't drink and drive and I don't condone those that do. But still, when I think about this it does make sense in a lot of ways. Think about all of those other laws that don't even have a slim chance of hurting someone else, have the same results of making someone a little or a lot of money.

------------------
Proud,dues paying,member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D Roberson:

All human legislation, whether good or bad, is based on politics. Some of this legislation does indeed conform to moral principles, but some does not. In cases when something immoral is politically advantageous to those in pwer, the law allows it. That explains "Jim Crow" and other immoral laws.

Adad, I understand your views about pornography. I have three small children and I shudder at what they are exposed to in our society. But I don't think any government bureaucrat should decide what published material is "right" or "wrong" for me to see. I prefer to make those choices for myself, and to give my children the moral training that will enable them to make good choices also.[/B][/quote]

You confuse the process of creating new laws (politics) with the basis for valid laws. If you follow the arguments used in the (political) process we follow to create laws, you will hear moral language from beginning to end: "ought", "should", "should not", "bad", "good", etc.

Since we live in a Republic with democratically elected representatives (thanks to the forsight of our founding fathers), you needn't worry about a "government bureaucrate" deciding "what published material is 'right' or 'wrong'" for you to see. Our laws are enacted based on the votes of our representatives (assuming, of course, that they do not violate the U.S. Constitution, which obscenity laws do not as was pointed out above in the quote from the U.S. Supreme Court).

Its not my kids I worry about. I teach them right from wrong and protect them from morally corrupting influences, which will, hopefully, prevent them from getting involved in the vices I mentioned above. Its the group of young men who have filled their minds with pornography that I worry about, young men who will gang rape my daughters if given the opportunity.

We all live in the same pool of water: society. Our actions affect that pool of water whether we like it or not. Ask people who live around perfectly legal pornography ("adult") stores whether it affects their neighborhood or not.

------------------
Wound ballistics is the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles:
Wound Ballistics

Great daily commentary from a thoughtful Christian perspective:
Daily Commentary

[This message has been edited by adad (edited February 10, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by adad (edited February 10, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T-Rex:
Why I AM a Libertarian:

I like the idea of being able to live as I choose, as long as I don't hurt anyone. As for the morality issues that some have expressed, I say this:

Live your own life. Do not try to save my soul, or make me into a better person, unless I ask for your help. I will afford you the same courtesy.

Is that too much to ask?[/quote]

The founding fathers had similar concerns about religious freedom, T-Rex. That's why we don't have a state *supported* religious organization.

I don't recall trying to "save your soul." I am just describing what laws are: they reflect a decision by our representatives that a law restricting some type of immoral activity will promote the common good of the community.

You might be hung up on the term "immoral" thinking that I am advocating the passing of laws which reflect my religious beliefs. Religion is only one of many sources for our moral judgements.

I doubt many in the Sierra Club, for instance, would rely upon the religious belief system of most of the world's major religions when making their moral judgements (or they might -- it doesn't matter). Like this one, for instance: "Its wrong for humans to disturb the habitat of cute, fuzzy little wild animals, so all vehicles should be banned from all Federal land... unless you're in the Sierra Club, of course, because we're only there to save their furry little hides.") You may or may not agree with their moral judgement and you may or may not agree that the common good of the community would be best served by a law based on this moral judgement, but that's not the point. The point is, it is a moral judgement. All laws imply a moral judgement of one kind or another, regardless of how that judgement was arrived at.

Other, more sophisticated legal-types may come up with other definitions for laws: it has certainly been popular in the academic community for over a hundred years to try to justify human laws in some way which eliminates the need for moral justification. But its obvious now, perhaps with hindsight and a little less faith in the nobility of man brought on by two unimaginably brutal world wars, that moral language is unavoidable in law because that's what it is whether we like it or not, regardless of the tortured logic we use to try to hide it.

So to clarify my original point: you may or not agree with the moral judgement that "permits *should not* be granted to groups wishing to conduct 'peacful public orgies involving consenting adults' because it is not in the best interests of the community to allow such a gathering." And, by the way, that judgement may or may not come by way of religious doctrine. If enough of our representatives vote for such a law, they are endorsing the view it is in the best interest of the community to use governmental power to enforce that moral judgement.

------------------
Wound ballistics is the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles:
Wound Ballistics

Great daily commentary from a thoughtful Christian perspective:
Daily Commentary

[This message has been edited by adad (edited February 10, 2000).]
 
Final thought for now, then I gotta get back to work:

The anti-gun owners are using this very same legal philosophy to take away our guns, which is why it is so important to counter it. If the criteria for making something illegal is just that it "hurts somebody," then we've lost the war already. All they have to do (and they are doing it -- and doing it well, I might add) is convince enough of the masses that "guns hurt people" and, voila, you have a justification for taking "everyones'" guns (except the criminals, of course).

The other philosophy, that the right to "own and use the most effective personal weapon available for the protection of myself, my family and others" is a God-given (inalienable) right which the U.S. Constitution does not grant but merely recognizes, is the only long-term, sound foundation for our right to keep and bear arms.

Its that simple.


------------------
These guys are doing what we've wanted all the other gun-advocacy groups to do for years: making a difference. http://www.citizensofamerica.org/

Wound ballistics is the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles:
Wound Ballistics

Great daily commentary from a thoughtful Christian perspective:
Daily Commentary

[This message has been edited by adad (edited February 10, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top