[B5JMS] Gore's speech re civil liberty

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: pelzo63 at aol.com (Pelzo63)
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:30:50 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 34

<< First, the rights invoked refer specifically to "a well regulated militia." 
Anti-gun law advocates tend to omit that part of the sentence out, as you did
just above. >><BR><BR>

first, anti-gun advocates tend to claim that this is the only possible
interpretation of the 2nd amendment. the interpretation omitted is one where
the "well regulated militia" clause is designed to only be the most obvious of
many examples.

 << Second, most of what's been advocated is simple gun registration, which
dose
not interfere itself with the ability to keep and bear arms.
 >>

second, most of the patriot act is simple terrorist deterence. but it's not the
"most" that you're arguing against.  just like it's not the "most" iraqis, or
the "most" of the gun legislation.  it's the "few" bits that are really bad.   

<< Third, bear in mind that some of the Al Qaeda docs that surfaced during the
campaign refer to the fact that those working inside the US should purchase
guns legally, not buy them off the street, because they're so easy to obtain
here. The resultant theory is that good gun registration laws could help to
prevent the use of such guns by, say, terrorists. >>

i'm sorry, i forgot, remind me again how many guns were used in the combined
attacks of sept 11th? 

or the wtc attack of 93? 

or the OK city bombing? 

...chris



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:41:52 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 29

>i'm sorry, i forgot, remind me again how many guns were used in the
>combinedattacks of sept 11th? or the wtc attack of 93? or the OK city
>bombing? 

None.  But we're now in the grips of the pre-emptive administration, and guns
*have* been used to mow down whole schools, there has been talk among the
terrorists about the ease of getting guns here (so that puts it right on the
board), and if the DC snipers don't qualify as a form of terrorism then I don't
know what does.  So yes, it is an issue.

But to the point in general that you raise... here's some comedy for you.  When
the administration put out the list of things you can't carry onto an airplane,
they made sure that things like nail clippers were included (even though
nobody's used them yet in a hijacking) and left ON cigarette lighters, which
WERE used by the "shoe bomber," after pressure was placed by the tobacco
industry...which kinda makes you wonder where the administration's real
concerns are, doesn't it?

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)