From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Man==animal and dog stuff
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 04:30:12 GMT

In <1992Sep15.021339.7736@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

>>When your interpretation of
>>morality makes the laws I, and the majority of Americans, disagree with
>>yet must live under, you are a tyrant.

>I agree. So that's why I use gentle prodding and reasoning rather than
>laws.  But not from the likes of Pat Buchanan and George Bush. You
>either have their set of Family Values, or you are not an American.
>According to your statement above, if Pat Buchanan, or even George
>Bush, becomes president again, they would indeed be tyrants.

	I'm going to bust off on a political tangent here, so let's keep
it remotely civil.  First, I am an American, and have sworn to uphold the
Constitution above all other laws or orders (former Navy.  For the record,
the President swears the same sort of oath).  Now then...

	Yes, If Pat Buchanan or George Bush become President, _and if
they enact as law their morality_, then they will indeed be tyrants.
Luckily, the Congress is the only body than can write and pass Laws,
so I've some worries, but not from just one person.  Executive Orders
are still a vague area, being the force of law if they are implemented,
but a single court over-ruling can wipe them from the books.  I hope
they are never implemented.

	Speaking of which, one of my pet interests in shooting.  I own
a variety of shotguns, rifles, and handguns.  Many are black powder.
However, I've discovered the bans on sei-automatic weapons that are
replicas of military arms, sawed-off shotguns, and most other weapons
to be unconstitutional in light of all Supreme Court rulings and
available citations of the Founders.  This annoys the bejeebers out of
me, as I'm certain most others can understand.

	What it amounts to is this: somebody decides that I cannot judge
for myself the merits and demerits of a position or action, and then
decides to propose a law so as to protect me.  Meanwhile, the only
people contrary to this law either 1) don't particularly care what
this law is, or that it exists, or 2) already comply with most of it,
yet there is usually a provision that restricts them further despite
there being no need for it.

	Case in point: semi-automatic "assault rifles" have been banned
in quite a few municipalities, despite there being little to no evidence
of their being used in crimes of any sort.  They just look nasty, and yet
are probably safer to be shot with than my .30-30 Winchester varmint
rifle, my .50 Thompson black powder, my .45 black powders, or even being
cut by my Roman gladius.  So much for a need for these laws.  I'll ignore
the "cop-killer bullets" and other such hype in favor of asking you to
browse talk.politics.guns for a while -- the information, with sources,
is there for all to peruse.

	Another case in point: motorcycle helmet laws.  As I see it,
the state is telling me I have to wear a lid because if for my own
good, and the good of society.  Never mind that anti-helmet groups
have managed to find several flaws in the Hurt study that prompted
these laws, and never mind that there is even evidence to support the
idea that unhelmeted riders are less of a drain on the public coffers
than helmeted riders.  I wear a helmet and leathers at all times when
riding -- I don't need a law to convince me.  Likewise, I don't need
a law to tell me to wear a seat belt.  I wish for laws to protect me
from others only such that I have legal redress against violation of
my rights as a citizen, or such that I am granted opportunity to the
rights specified in the Constitution.  More than that is trying to
be my mother, not the government I grant a power to govern to.

	Anyway, you can see where this ties in with the AR debate.
To wit, for those who need it, I believe I am the best judge of my
abilities with a rifle or shotgun, so I don't wish or need a government
tlling me I cannot hunt deer with a particular rifle, nor do I wish or
need a government telling me not to eat meat because it might be bad
for my health or is immoral.  For crying out loud, Government, allow
me to make up my own mind!  If I'm wrong, I'll have social penalties.
This is peer pressure.  If it's a criminal act, likely the majority
of citizens feel it's a bad act and I'll be tried and convicted.  I
see nothing wrong with this.  The wrong starts when people are passing
innane laws designed to protect me from myself.  Better they should pass
laws that protect me from my government.  They did that with the first,
second, and fourth amendments; sadly, these are being run over as I
type this thanks to media inattention and the War on Drugs making the
trampling of my rights seem justifiable so long as a "Bad Guy" is
nailed for a crime that often doesn't cause harm to anybody.

	The government is not my caretaker, it is my entrusted
servant, and should always be mindful of this relationship.

	And yes, I am registered Republican.  Can you guess if
I've ever voted a strait ticket, or if I'm voting Libertarian?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>