"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...

Ed Huntress wrote:


Not being able to defend yourself is the most dangerous position
one can be in.


It's not only dangerous, it undermines some social relationships and
attitudes that I consider to be important.


Now there is the bigest danger of the currnt liberal political
policy in this country. Think about what you just wrote there
Ed. (please no "knee jerk" reactions)
...lw...


Think about what, Lew? You may have read that backwards. I'm strongly in
favor of the right to defend oneself with a gun. And as for social
relationships (I've expressed this here before, so apologies for the
repetition), my feeling about the 2nd Amendment is that it's our unique,
if sometimes symbolic, expression that the ultimate power belongs in the
hands of our citizens.

As for self-defense, my attitudes are similar to those written by Jeffrey
Snyder in "A Nation of Cowards." I'm in favor of it.

--
Ed Huntress
BUT BUT your comments on the recent election and the candidates
dosen't seen to support that, in view of the record of the
contestants. ?????
...lew...

Do you mean to say that you would choose a president based on a couple of
statements or votes he made while a state legislator? Does that mean you're
in favor of McCain's amnesty plan for illegals?

Obama is unlikely to do much, if anything, about gun control. And when he
does, he'll be up against a Congress that will be very wary of doing so
itself. When you look at the problems facing this country and their relative
significance, in light of the S.C. ruling in the Heller case, this issue
fades into second-tier status.

There are bigger fish to fry, and I don't think that McCain, with his poor
knowledge of economics and his immersion in the Republican economic bushwah
that got us where we are now, is up to the job. Obama more likely is.

--
Ed Huntress