From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:55:47 GMT

In <BxJ3o4.6w8@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Isn't it also wrong to harm policemen who are charged with the 
>rl> responsibility of upholding the law?  Let's suppose, once again, 
>rl> that legislation were eventually passed that would outlaw private 
>rl> ownership of guns.  Would you surrender your guns in such a case?  

>>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Are you kidding?  For me, the succinct word is "never."

>Please be more explicit.  Are you declaring that you would violate the
>law in such a case?

	Yes.  Such laws are not constitutional and, therefore, illegal.
I swore to protect and defend the Constitution, not your or anybody else
reading this, and that I shall do despite being out of the service.  In
addition, as Amy Carter found out, disobeying one law is legal so long
as a greater law is being upheld.  By the time the government thinks
they can outlaw guns and make the world safe, that government is
showing evidence that it is due for overhaul.  Whether this be by the
ballot box, the soap box, the jury box, or the cartridge box can only
be answered after the first three have failed.

>rl> Or, are you going to tell us, once again, that the cops would 
>rl> have to "pry them from your cold, dead fingers"?  

	They probably will.  I have no delusions on the cops mustering
superior firepower, nor have I delusions that I would win a firefight
against a police team.  However, this doesn't mean I have to go about
shooting every policeman in sight just to enforce my views.  There are
other way of avoiding the law, and of opposing the government, besides
spraying lead into convenient targets.

>ds> As I, as a law-abiding citizen and, inherent in that claim,
>ds> a hunter and not a poacher, see it, there is no reason to disarm 
>ds> me.  

>So you say, but the folks who burn down research labs might argue 
>that there's no reason for such research to continue, yet surely 
>you would not argue that their personal convictions give them the 
>right to ignore the law.  My question is this: If gun ownership 
>were illegal, would you kill policemen sworn to uphold the law?  

	You missed it, Russ.  The police swear to uphold the law.
Given that the second amendment to the Constitution is above any
local or state law, they cannot take guns and still be upholding the
law.  Note also that I've sworn to defend the Constitution against
all enemies, *foreign or domestic.*  That includes the police, the
government, the military, and the people should it become necessary.
You'll just have to trust me to have the judgement to not shoot
those who don't require or deserve it, Russ.  For the police, I'd
have to say that illegal attempts to confiscate my guns will be
ignored or met with court action.  Should they turn violent, they
will be met with force.  This would require that they act illegally,
but I sincerely hope this never becomes the case.

>ds> ... Cop killers deserve to die.  
>Interesting.

	What's so interesting about this?  I admit a no-knock search
(which is illegal) is not what I was referring to here, but I see
no problems with saying cop-killers deserve to die given that the
cops were acting legally according to the law of the land.  If they
were not, I have no problems with the cops suffering.  It's not a
case of favoring the cops or citizens, it's a case of favoring the Law.

>ds> AR arsonists merely deserve to suffer a long, lingering death 
>ds> at the hands of a fellow inmate in the state pen.  I consider 
>ds> this sort of thing "justice," if not "societal evolution."

>Do all arsonists deserve such a death?  Or just AR arsonists in
>particular?

	All.  Have you ever fought a fire?  I mean a fire, not the
shack next door burning happily while you stand by with a garden
hose ready to extinguish those sparks and embers that might drift.
Arson kills people, destroys property, and is never justified.  I
exempt a deliberate burning of one's own property, such as my
burning the corn crib rather than tear it down, but I trust we
are in agreement over what arson is and is not?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals