... Any gambit to confiscate weapons has been made an order of magnitude more difficult by the Waco revelations. From the point of view of those of us who defend the second amendment, the timing is perfect. Bush campaign operatives, some of whom are close to the Texas investigation, aren't going to let this go away for quite a while.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 01, 1999

Answers

It's about time something went our way on that issue.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), September 01, 1999.

....unless the revelations wind up prompting some ne'er do well to take 'revenge' with an AK-47. That would have the opposite effect.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), September 01, 1999.

I've gotten the impression that the disclosure originated with the Texas Rangers -- am I wrong?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 01, 1999.

Tom -- yes. But there are other folks involved, too, especially at this stage of the process. Bush is moderately pro-second amendment and this will relieve pressure on him while putting some mud indirectly on Gore.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 01, 1999.

Unfortunately, the 2nd ammendment debate has devolved into whether we really need assault weapons to shoot squirrels. Or, we need to get rid of nasty guns to "save the children (sob, sniff, boo-hoo, snuffle)". Not many people are willing to argue the real meaning of the 2nd ammendment, which is that the people have the right to assault weapons, anti-tank weapons, whatever, to protect themselves from tyrants, both foreign and DOMESTIC. (Like maybe their own government(s).)

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 01, 1999.

A,

I am in agreement with you. The Constitution and the contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers are clear about this. There is no room for argument: when government violates the constitution, and attacks the people, the people have the right to defend themselves and restore Constitutional government. This is what the second amendment is for. The first amendment protects our tounge; the second, our teeth. Without these, and the full intention and abillity to use them if necessary, all the other checks and balances and limits on centralized power mean nothing. In the absence of these essential liberties, and the will to exercize them, tyranny is inevitable.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 01, 1999.

Whoa, I feel woozy after almost fainting...I agree with A too.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

Right On! A and Liberty

odd isn't it that the press won't admit that when the guns are gone, tyrannts always go after the 'presses' next...

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), September 01, 1999.

press? idgits

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 01, 1999.

The tyrants already have the presses, it seems. That's what they're using to go after our guns. Day after day, they inflate the scare stories and ignore the statistics that show private gun-ownership makes communities safer. And any Constitutional position (that guns are the "teeth" which underwrite the rest of the Bill of Rights)is tarred with the brush of "racist hate groups" and "right-wing terrorists." As long as people put up with this, they'll keep repeating it - until we're disarmed and the game is won. We need to speak out, no matter how unpopular it makes us. I believe that at this point, we have nothing to lose.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 01, 1999.

Mumsie: Is there hope for you yet? Now if you could just get over this "god" thing... :-)

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 01, 1999.

Liberty: Good point. I would add that there are essentially two "presses".
One comprises the NY Times, LA Times, Wash Post, all the major dailies, the wire services, and Time and Newsweek, etc. They are owned by the same people that run the country, so they aren't concerned with the First Amendment freedom of the press. This press are the rulers' mouthpieces (propaganda organs). They print all the news that they deem fit to print (and ignore, insofar as possible, the rest).

The second press comprises some of the smaller dailies, some of the weeklies, AND THE INTERNET. This second press is not (YET) beholden to the rulers, so it can tell it like it is. So note how freedom on the internet is under attack. (One of the main thrusts is, as always, "save the children [sob, snuffle, honk, sniff]" -- kiddie and adult porn, gambling, chemistry lessons, etc.)

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 01, 1999.

For political reasons, we'd have a lot less trouble defending our 2nd Amendment rights if we didn't exercise them by shooting up school children and fellow postal workers. Generically, do we deserve a privilege if we abuse it irresponsibly?

Certainly I agree with A about what guns are for, but this doesn't make me an apologist for the nutcases. And when there are too many nutcases, I really don't know what to do.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 01, 1999.

Flint -- there are always gonna be nutcases. The question is, is the nutcase gonna be able to take out six innocents, then wander around the countryside or city for a day or week, or is he gonna get blown away after getting "only" two, by one of the four he didn't get to yet, because one or more of those four was armed?

"An armed society is a polite society."

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 01, 1999.

The second amendment is not a privilege but a right. It was (I believe) conferred, in principle, by God Himself, but it was certainly operationally conferred by the founders AS a right.

Confusing the necessity for punishing evildoers with the obligation of protecting rights is a common problem in our culture.

-- BigDog (BigDog@Duffer.com), September 01, 1999.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX

WED, SEPT 01, 1999 20:51:44 ET XXXXX

FEDERAL MARSHALS IMPOUND WACO EVIDENCE AT FBI

Late Wednesday, the Justice Department sent federal marshals to the headquarters of the FBI to impound new, previously undisclosed evidence relating to Waco!

The evidence includes audio tapes of conversations between agents giving okay to use gas...

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 01, 1999.

It appears the FALN terrorists and murders have realized the fruits of all the sacrifices Americans have made to protect our system, while our own women and children are slaughtered for disagreeing with it. There will be Hell to pay someday soon!

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), September 01, 1999.

Flint,

Generically, do we deserve a privilege if we abuse it irresponsibly?

That's where you're mistaken. Gun ownership is not a privilege, it is a Right (with a capital 'R'). Just because some people spew hate speech do we ban all free speech? No. We tolerate hate speech, even protect hate speech, while we simultaneously denounce it.

The cost of our Freedom, of our Liberty, is the misuse of Rights by some members of our society. The anti-gun groups love to point out that some 40 people a day are killed by guns (more than 1/2 are suicides by the way). Well, that also means the approximately 249,999,9960 remaining guns under private ownership in this country were NOT used to kill anyone. The vast majority of people who own guns do not "abuse it irresponsibly."

There will always be ways for people with evil intent to carry out their deeds. Taking away guns from law-abiding people will never change that.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), September 02, 1999.

"Late Wednesday, the Justice Department sent federal marshals to the headquarters of the FBI to impound new, previously undisclosed evidence relating to Waco!"

This was covered on Nightline tonight. VERY interesting!

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), September 02, 1999.

A...:)...

Sorry, no can do! Searched and studied before making my leap of faith. How about a truce anyway? We God worshippers are not all bad ya know. Just think, if you have a True believer on your hands, they won't want to lie, cheat or steal from you (or sleep with your woman). I promise not to thump you. Will you stop bashing?

Comrades for Freedom?

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 02, 1999.

A wrote>>". (One of the main thrusts is, as always, "save the children [sob, snuffle, honk, sniff]"

Too bad "the children thumpers" didn't make it to Waco.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

Note to self- I am not cpr. I do not post to myself.

In some small defense of Liberty I post this cut and paste. Liberty sujests the freeper site. I have been reading lucianne a bit. Well off I go and guess what I found. Something that makes me all teary and think about my daughters and damnit folks just plain makes me angry.

To all you gun grabbers out there, WARNING THIS MAKE MAKE YOU FEEL.

"This is Julie

Politics/Elections Opinion Keywords: SECOND AMENDMENT, 2ND AMENDMENT, GUN, BUSH, CRIME Source: Witness for the Right - RKBA Writings (vanity) Published: 9/2/99 Author: Bill Kelly (wftr) Posted on 09/02/1999 00:16:34 PDT by wftr Hi, cmon in. I need to show you something.

This is Julie...... Yes, she is very pretty when she sleeps. Can you believe she worries about her weight? ...... I know. Its crazy.

Dont worry about making noise. First, she sleeps like a log. Between being a full-time nursing student and working at a halfway home for people with disabilities, she stays very busy. Secondly, if we could wake her now, maybe she could stop ,,,,, well ,, youll see.

No, dont worry. Im okay.

Well, you see. Right now, her phone line is being cut. This trailer actually belongs to her brother-in-law. He lived here as a bachelor. When he married her older sister, they moved to an apartment. They plan to build a house on this land someday, but ,,,, well ,,, they might change their mind.

Yeah, the trailer is pretty old. Her brother-in-law couldnt have gotten enough to make it worth selling. It wouldnt have rented for enough to make it worth the hassle of dealing with renters. When she finished her freshman year in the dorms, he offered it to her rent- free. Her dad built the deck in the back. He built it in sections back home and hauled it up here in his truck. He and her brother-in- law assembled it.

It works pretty well for her. Shes about twenty minutes from campus and fifteen minutes from work. She never had the time, money, or inclination to join a sorority. Even regular apartment life can have more distractions.

You heard that? Yeah, so did I. Julie did too. See? Shes stirring; opening her eyes.

The guy who cut her phone lines just broke in the back door. It really didnt make that much noise. The doors on these trailers arent very solid. The one bad thing about the deck is that it gave him a little more solid footing when he did it.

Hes walking into the living room pretty carefully. Hes not really worried, hes just spent so much of his life sneaking around that hes always a little stealthy.

Yep, her eyes are wide open now. Shes not certain whether she heard something or whether she just had a dream. Yeah, her teeth are chattering a little.

He sees the extension cord running from the socket to the lamp over her favorite chair. Thats where she likes to sit when she reads. The lamp cord didnt reach any outlets from that corner. Hes unplugging the lamp, but he decided just to jerk the cord from the wall.

Yep, she heard that. Shes picking up the phone, but theres no dial tone. He already took care of that. She sits up in bed. Unfortunately, her cell phone is in the kitchen with her purse. It might not matter. The real phone would have instantly told the police where she was, and they could have been here in ten minutes. With the cell phone, she would have to give the address. Speaking clearly when youre this terrified isnt easy. Maybe the police would get here and maybe they wouldnt.

She wishes she had listened to her father. He wanted her to bring a gun. He taught her to shoot a couple of years ago, and she knows how to handle his old .38 pretty well. Still, she refused to bring a gun.

You see - Julies only 19, and the federal government has now made it a crime for 19-year-olds to have a gun. No, she realizes that if she kept quiet about it shed probably never be caught or never prosecuted if she were caught. However, she believes in obeying the law, and she doesnt want to take a chance on having a criminal record.

The guy walking down her hall with a knife in one hand and the extension cord in the other is 19 also. He cant legally own a gun either, but that wouldnt stop him. The only reason he doesnt have a gun is that he doesnt need one for what he has in mind.

According to our government, Julie can have a gun in two years. Unfortunately, ,,,,, no, I shouldnt say that. It isnt a matter of "fortune," "luck," "chance," or anything like that. This situation resulted from a deliberate decision by our government.

What I was going to say was that Julie doesnt have two years. She has about forty horrible minutes.

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

Governor Bush, You have fifty million dollars in your campaign account. You have a roughly ten-point advantage over your likely opponents in most polls, and most polls underestimate Republican presidential candidates. Im not a member of the "rabid right," but Im a solid conservative. I dont think that youre "just like Gore and Bradley" as some people claim. Instead, Im looking very hard for reasons to like you. Im looking very hard for reasons to be encouraged by your popularity.

My question is why can you not spend a little of your popularity to defend the Constitutional rights of someone like Julie? I realize that people in your position seem to live in terror of Katie Couric putting on her little frowny face and pouting about how you oppose "reasonable gun control." However, your popularity would be a potent weapon against her little frowny face. You will not persuade the stupidest of her fans, but if you would explain how more gun control would only hurt the innocent, many Americans would stop, scratch their heads, and say, "You know, that guys right."

In late May, I wrote in my website commentary, Voting Our Embarrassment, that conservatives are tired, frustrated, and embarrassed. I said that you must not embarrass us either in office or on the campaign trail. You might get our votes anyway. You would at least stand for Julies rights after she turned 21. Bradley or Gore would leave her permanently at the mercy of her attacker. In 96, many of us voted our hope that somehow Clinton would be defeated. As I said above, Im trying very hard to like you, but it is getting harder and harder to argue against those who will vote their embarrassment in 2000.

Bill Kelly Witness for the Right http://members.aol.com/GP100SS/

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.