Freedom of speech

[B5JMS Poster]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: "Shaz" <hypatia at Dial.pipex.com>
Date: 21 May 2000 19:15:35 -0600
Lines: 79


"Von Bruno" <vonbruno at aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000521145019.11825.00000769 at ng-mb1.aol.com...
> "You mean like Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, England, France...."
> jmsatb5 at aol.com
>
> Well, from what I understand the "free speech" in other countries is
generally
> not as comprehensive as it is in the US. In Quebec, Canada, don't they
restrict
> such things as the use of English?

I can't speak for Canada, but having lived in the US for three years I can
assure you the UK has at least as much freedom of speech as you have.

> Also, wasn't the second amendment put into the US Constitution primarily
to
> address the concerns of the populace that if they supported the Colonies
> independence from England that they might eventually fall prey to an
oppressive
> type of government?

Sad that it was felt necessary, really. Sounds like the writers of that
Amendment didn't trust their fellows to behave themselves.

> Part of this countrie's uniqueness lay in the fact that it was born of the
> premise that its government would generally be guided by, and responsive
to,
> the will of it's citizens. IOW, the right of the people to own arms is
just as
> much a constitutional "checks and balance" as the "seperation of powers."

And England is the same. As is Denmark, Sweden, France, etc. etc. etc. We,
too, have elections and our representatives are as representative of us as
yours are of you. But we don't need to carry guns to prove the point.

> The degree of "freedom" enjoyed by a people has always been predicated on
their
> determination and vigilance in protecting and preserving it. Never has it
been
> assured by laying submissively, unquestioningly, at the feet of the State.

And you think that's what we do? And, pardon me, but apart from the
occasional political assassination, carried out AGAINST the will of the
people (or did everyone approve of Kennedy's murder? Or Lincoln's, come to
that) when have you used those weapons as a political edge? When have you
needed to rise up and tell your govt. by force of arms that they're wrong?
>From what I can see you do it the same way we do: you vote. Do you really
believe the fact that the people can own a gun bothers the govt. when it
comes to ruling?

> All, of course, in my humble opinion. Peace. :)

Von Bruno, with all due respect, your grasp of the political life of
countries other than your own is poor. The fact that I do not believe in gun
ownership (especially hand guns) does not make me frightened of my govt. The
fact that in the US people can and do own and sometimes carry guns sure as
hell makes me frightened of some of them. On two occasions while living in
the US I came within a few yards of getting shot by someone. One was a guy
picking a drunken fight with his wife (I lived three doors down and he was
firing the weapon all over the place without regard to where he was aiming
it, be it in the air or at a window in another house); the other was a drug
dealer and I happened to be innocently walking home at the wrong place and
the wrong time. I'm with Paul, I know which system I prefer and which makes
me feel safer. I have a lot more to fear from some idiot who has a gun than
I have from my govt. Can you imagine the devastation at the last
anti-capitalist demonstration if any of the people there had been wielding
firearms?

Sorry, but it seems to me the arguments of the NRA and the rest are total
bull. If the people of America are so frightened of their govt. and their
law enforcement agencies that they feel the only way to protect themselves
is to own a gun, then I feel sorry for you. You certainly have less freedom
than we do.

Shaz




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 21 May 2000 23:30:09 -0600
Lines: 21

People who cite the 2nd Amendment tend to forget the first part of it, which
refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.  

At the time when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as an
American army.  People would work as farmers or silversmiths or merchants, and
would participate as members of a militia in case of problems from the British
or any other invading force from the OUTSIDE.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)




-***
-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages go to the list maintainer,
-*** <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply elsewhere, adjust
-*** the "To" field.  See http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ezk/b5jms/ for all
-*** other information about this list.