Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:36:03 GMT, John R. Carroll
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
Passing a bad law in the hopes of a SCOTUS reversal is a poor
strategy.
I'd agree with you in many, even most, circumstances but not here
because of the active and well financed nature of the gun lobby.
The reason the "gun lobby" is active and well financed, John, is
because
people like me actively finance it. It's not some nebulous entity,
it's
people who give a **** about the issues enough to give time and money
to
the effort.
Time will tell. Taking away the second would make the fourth pretty
useless though, wouldn't it.
Privacy is under attack by the executive branch today Dave. Not the
second.
Yes, I _UNDERSTAND_ that, John. Would you feel better about what you
see to be Bush's plan, if Clinton and friends had already succeeded in
disarming us?
No, I wouldn't, but the Patriot Act is up again for renewal next week and
unless I'm mistaken there is no legistlation on this terms calendar that
would involve a more direct challenge to either the 4th or 2nd than that
one. I don't think there is additional specific significant gun law coming
up at all.
I think this might be where we are disconnecting Dave. I'm concerned about
them all as well as you are but my priorities are set according to what is
going on right now - today - that might be influenced and not by what has
happened in the past or might happen at some point in the future after a
change in political alignment. I'd like this to sort itself out so that it
won't matter who's in office - they'll be screwed if they want to violate
anybodies rights. My entire view of government can be stated as "Get Out of
My LIFE", and you should feel free to add the expletive of your choice to
that. I don't want a Nanny State and I don't need another "Father". I have a
dad, he's dead and that is that, I've no need for an elected or appointed
substitute.
LOL yourself. "Turn them all in" is pretty damn clear to me.
Further,
you missed my point about "infringed". Even if she did mean just
those 17 models (which I don't believe given the context, and I've
read the
interview several times), it's on obvious step to the next which is
"Oh,
look, this one is functionally identical but doesn't have a (flash
hider / bayonet mount / whatever) and of course the intent of the law
was to
ban that, too. Oh, and look, Grandpa's 100 year old Browning fires
every time you pull the trigger, so that's functionally identical too,
and... and pretty soon, you're infringed into oblivion. Don't pretend
that wouldn't be the obvious tactic.
I do not think that there is even the slightest chance of that happening. I
agree that the tactic will be tried but I am certain it would fail.
It always has in the past. Think about this. The BMG has been on the list of
things to have banned here in California for years. What got the job done
was the BUSH administration's support of that effort on the basis of the
weapons possible use by terrorists.
You don't make a stray dog go away by only giving it a little steak.
I mentioned that regarding privacy rights and you shined it Dave.
The camel and tent flap analogy is the same thing.
And you keep missing my point that without the second, the fourth is
worthless. They're both important, and both under threat. If both
sides take away what they want, we're very screwed.
It's a matter of priorities Dave, not a basic dissagreement on principal.
First, I've pretty much dropped any party affiliation but I'm still
registered as a Republican. My office is in Jane Harmon's district
but live in one represented by the clones of B-1 Bob. My youngest
brother lives in what used to be Duke Cunningham's district as a
matter of fact and I have a longstanding business relationship with
one of the candidates for that seat, Allan Uke. I've contributed
the maximum to his campaign. Seems fair as he gave me all of the
bussiness I could handle and then some when I was starting out
years back.
Evasion noted.
I corrected what was your own false statement Dave. You said
something about "my party" if you will recall.
OK, whatever. The party of whose actions you don't seem to have a
problem with then. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, you know,
that whole thing.
The best thing about Democrats right now is Dean, Kerry and Pelosi - even
the Clintons although if Bill ran for the Presidency tommorrow he'd flatten
Bush. That isn't a partisan judgement Dave, it's the plain and amazing truth
in my opinion. As long as they represent the party they are all toast. You
can't possibly take that bunch seriously as they just aren't credible.
Bush and the neocon Republicans are an entirely different matter. They hold
and excercise the levers of power in both houses of Congress and the
Executive.You can't help but take that very seriously, and the difference
couldn't be more obvious.
Riiiiight. History doesn't matter, especially when it's
inconveniently
at odds with the point you're trying to make. Facts don't exist in
a vacuum, John, especially when we're talking current people in the
same jobs.
I don't see that we are at all. The jobs may be the same but they
have been significantly marginalized.
I see Clinton, Clinton, Kennedy, Boxer, Schumer, and friends to be
current threats to my rights. They don't stop being a threat just
because they're ineffective at the moment.
See above.
I think we just dissagree on these things Dave. I doubt that I could
influence you and you likely won't influence me. I can live with
that.
Fair enough.
It really is Dave. I'd like to see that our country remains one in which
that can be the case.
AFAIK we agree completely on that.
I could be wrong but I'll stick my neck out that far.
The US isn't a great county because you can succeed Dave, it's a great
nation, and to a certain extent unique, because you are allowed to fail and
learn from the excercise. That's why no one should ever give up all hope.
You can always brush yourself off and try again with greater wisdom and that
is really what's at risk.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com