Re: Claire rips Rosie a new one!

[bearbvd@domain.elided (Greg Hermann)]

>Wow.
>
>By the responses you would think Rosie suggested that Jeeps are better
>than IHs or that she was going to put a chevy 350 in her travelall. My
>personal belief is: if someone wants a hand gun (or heroin, or some
>other fun and dangerous thing etc..) let them have it; just don't bring
>them into my house. I must concede that I don't see how her views can be
>viewed as treasonous. I think it would be a bad thing for pro-gun
>activists to deny someone's right to express their opinion. We have the
>Rosies and the Rushes. Somewhere in between has to lie some sanity.
>
>Majority rule is great unless you ask 4 wolves and a sheep what they
>should have for dinner.
>
>Peace,
>Eric (doning my asbestos underware) Hegstrom
>
Eric--

Below is the url for a site which has the test of (federal) Judge Sam
Cummings recent decision in re the Second Amendment.

<http://www.tsra.com/Emerson.htm>

Thank God we still have a few true patriots among the feds!

Beyond that--if you do go to that site, I think you will find many
quotations included in Judge Cunnings' decision which are taken from the
various founding fathers which express far more eloquently than I ever
could hope to why I believe that Rosie has advocated treasonous actions.

Also--please note that those same founding fathers expressed respect and
made allowances for those who hold such gentle views of life as yours. And
I try to respect the kind of views which you appear to hold as well.
Despite the fact that I think that it is hopelessy naive to think that our
liberties could ever survive on such presumptions of good faith! Any more
than I would expect a bag full of money to sit on a street corner for long!

But--I also believe that anyone who questions, or fails to understand how,
the bedrock principles which have allowed our country to help liberty
propogate through more of the world, and which have enabled us to help
major parts of the world wiggle out from under the heel of a jackboot
several times over--is at best ungrateful or uneducated, is treasonous if
fully educated, and worst of all--is being disrespectful of the gift of
liberty which was bequeathed to them by those who have fought, sacrificed,
suffered, and died so that all such as you and I could be free to express
their thoughts on such matters!

Immediately after the Columbine High tragedy, my cousin's son (who is a
grad student at U Va) , and who has opinions similar to yours, said to me,
speaking in favor of more restrictions on guns, "The threat of violence in
society is unacceptable." The problem with his statement is that it is
about as logical as saying "Fires/accidents (you pick the word) are
unacceptable." The fact is--violence, accidents, fires, whatever it is that
one wishes might not happen are an integral part of life! Violence, however
despicable it might be, is part of the human condition and nature, and is a
permanent part of life and society.  The very best we can do is to try to
discourage and minimize it. We have no choice in that matter. And if we are
naive about that fact, we will soon become the victims of more of it! There
are, and always will be, those among us here who would take advantage of
weakness.

So--in my mind, it is one thing for you to say that you do not believe in
participating in violent acts, and do not wish to have the tools of such
acts in your home. But--it is quite another thing for you or anyone else to
try to tell me, or anyone else, that we should all foolishly and naively
follow your ideas into inevitable slavery! If you or those who profess to
hold your views (many of whom I do not trust at all) try to impose them on
me, or upon this country I assure you I will spit in your eyes before doing
my best to throw you into the ocean to see whether you are able to swim
elsewhere! And, yes, I would happily die trying! Which is not saying that I
mind letting those of you who have genuine feelings of gentleness come
along with the rest of us to enjoy our freedom.

Do not be telling me that your approach seems to work for the Europeans! We
have had far more practice at maintaining liberty than they have, In fact
we virtually invented it over their rather strenuous objections! We have
bailed them out of a number of messes created by their refusal to
understand that liberty must be guarded jealously, and also must
occasionally be irrigated with the blood of patriots in order to survive.
And--I believe that, for the past fifty years, Europeans have TAKEN and
ENJOYED a free ride because they knew that we understood that we would have
to defend them in order to protect the principles of liberty which are dear
to us. Truly parasitic behavior in my mind!

So--I would never presume to bring anything into your home against your
wishes--but do not ever presume to ever tell me what should or should not
be in mine--in fact--do not ever even presume to ASK what is or is not in
mine!

Peace only comes through strength--

If you doubt this--answer honestly to yourself whether you would, in a face
to face debate situation, be more likely to make a smart mouth comment to
Hillary Klinton or Governor Ventura??

Regards,

Greg