["Ah! But that is exactly why you are so loveable, IMMHO, David."]
As I understand "Beloved" is the Hebrew translation of the name "David", it
seems we are both in agreement on the one essential point by which all
others pale: I am loveable.
Peace.
DC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Codrea (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Peter Mancus (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"Merrill Gibson (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?
> E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang
>
> Hi, David,
> Thank you for so generously allowing me more of your
> valuable time.
> >Jeez, I can't let this one go by...
> I thought so. "Don't you just love it when a plan comes
> together?"
> >First- I dropped that guy what-his-name from distribution
> because he wanted off.
> "A mind is a terrible thing to lose!"
> >Plenty of stuff on 14A by Kopel and Halbrook pointing out
> how 2A was integral to it, and how the incorporation doctrine flies in the
> face of its framers. We can speak theoretically of how it may not have
been
> properly ratified, but it is legally recognized in the here and now, and
> until it is overturned or repealed, it is something the AG, as you point
> out, is compelled to uphold.
> "(B)ut it is legally recognized in the here and now" - As is
> "compelling state interest". I get the impression, David, that you like
to
> "pick and choose" your principles of established law. I am afraid while
you
> can General Ashcroft can't.
> >I have never claimed to be a big Marbury fan- I merely
> cited one important quotation from it that had relevance to the topic.
That
> quotation could have come from Dred Scott as far as I'm concerned and it
> would still be true, even though the decision of that case was repellant.
> The problem with using Supreme Court decisions to make your
> points, David, is that when you cite one you really need to be prepared to
> defend it. Chief Justice Taney's decision in Dred Scott, for example,
would
> not have been possible but for the political compromise that was the U.S.
> Constitution. (See Dave Kopel's "Dread the Dred Scott Reference" at:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121400.shtml
> <http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121400.shtml> - for more
> information on citing the Supremes.) Once you have established an
> anti-Natural Right premise that man can be chattel, then any Court
decision
> is possible and likely, IMMHO.
> >Nowhere have I ever maintained that a felon should be able
> to use a gun in a crime and not get punished big time. This is a
> misinterpretation of my arguments, as my concern was for people like you
and
> I getting caught up in the enforcement of existing gun laws, which are and
> remain, as I pointed out earlier, EXISTING CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT laws. I
> didn't say PE WAS taking honest citizens off the street, I said that once
> you open the door to these kinds of laws, enforcement can reflect the
> policies of the administration in power, and that once you tolerate
> usurpations of power, important checks against abuse have been ceded.
> Never did I accuse you of such nonsense. I merely observed
> how you seemed to have no problem with "heat packing" felons. Obviously I
> see now that you would prefer that they must leave them home when they go
to
> work. Possibly I mistook your passionate attack against using the
existing
> the Federal Criminal Code's prohibiting felons from possessing firearms to
> mean more to you than it does. Of course this begs the question, "Can the
> government (Federal or State) prohibit felons from possessing firearms at
> all?" Exactly where do you stand, David, on the issue and why? If you
> agree that the State can and should, why not use such existing laws to
> separate these felons, who infringe on our rights, IMMHO, from society?
If
> not, than it logically follows that you favor the right of felons to "keep
> and bear arms", doesn't it? If there is a third (or more possibilities),
> please enlighten me. Oh, sorry, you did say you wouldn't be back, didn't
> you? I suppose this burning question will hang there unanswered for
> eternity.
> >Yes, we must have strong laws to punish violent criminals;
> I merely suggest that we can do this without violating the Constitution.
> For starters, we can all; be safer against predators if we repeal, instead
> of enforce, unconstitutional gun control laws, as all they do is make it
> safer for the criminals to operate- isn't that superior to eroding our
> mutual (and as you pointed out) inalienable rights?
> I agree. Strong punishment for irresponsible members of
> society after Constitutionally acceptable "due process". Repeal all those
> DUMB "gun control laws" that infringe on the right of "responsible" people
> "to keep and bear arms". Now, that agreed, exactly where do we differ
from
> the "gospel according to Moses"?
> >Personally, I think your wife OUGHT to be able to have a
> firearm on school grounds, and concealed on her person,
> While my wife at one time taught(?) infants in a Day Care
> School, its my daughter-in-law, who teaches in a inter-city public school,
> that I am most concerned about in regards to the so-called "Safe Schools
> Act". This Christmas I got her petite Berretta small caliber pistol for
> self-defence. I advised her to carry it (if possible) and worry later
about
> "being judged by 12, instead of being carried by six". Interestingly,
the
> Federal "Safe School Act" was properly disposed of by the Supremes
> (over-reaching commerce clause application instead of 2nd Amendment, but
it
> works for me). The Florida statute cover the same issue is still in
affect.
> However, juries and judges in Palm Beach County (believe or not), where
both
> my daughter-in-law and I live have had enough good sense to "jury nullify"
> this State law in cases involving obvious self-defence situations.
> >and that it should be able to hold more than 10 rounds and
> be semiautomatic, and even be newly purchased even though it is on a
federal
> "ban" list.
> Absolutely! I feel "Full Auto" (a.k.a. real "Assault
> Rifles" and "Trench Brooms") and "crew served" weapons are not
> "unreasonable", as well. After all, just how are we propose to
effectively
> operate under a Congressionally granted "Letters of Marque and Reprisal"
> (U.S. Constitution - Article I Section 9 Paragraph 3) if our privately
owned
> vessel don't "sport" privately owned "crew served" weapons? (See:
> http://hartungpress.com/news/columns/baldwin/letters_of_marque_clause.htm
>
<http://hartungpress.com/news/columns/baldwin/letters_of_marque_clause.htm>
> - for the 2nd Amendment implications.)
> >I think she ought to be able to have a gun even if she got
> in a fight and was convicted of misdemeanor assault.
> Here we might find some disagreement, as I am not so sure
> that certain irresponsible conduct might not limit the exercise of rights
in
> specific cases. You seem to be ready to disconnect responsible behavior
> from the "right to be armed". I am not ready to go so far. I believe
that
> a "blanket recognition" that the rkba can be suspended for persons that
> demonstrate irrational or irresponsible behavior is possible. This could
> possibly reach the level of "compelling state interest", IMMHO. Would I
be
> upset if such laws, especially any Federal laws, should be over-turned or
> legislatively repeal? Most likely not. However, I believe all "Civil
> Rights" require a moral people to exercise them responsibly.
> >These are existing gun laws, and if she violates them, they
> can carry federal penalties. I don't want to infringe on her right to
keep
> and bear arms, nor allow the feds to have that power, especially when the
> proscription against them doing this could not be more clear.
> Well the School thing is pretty much a State concern now.
> That said, I too believe in an "unalienable right to keep and bear arms"
as
> long as it is done responsibly by responsible people. James Madison would
> agree with me on this, David, I think.
> >Can you guarantee that Project Exile can NEVER be abused to
> do this?
> I note with sadness you ignored my challenge to show
> evidence of government abuse in existing "Project Exile" efforts. Instead
> you have elected to challenge me to "prove a negative". Which, of course,
> is quite impossible, as I am sure you are aware. While I understand that
> "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and that the Russians
> (Chinese?) might in fact be coming, I do not plan on leaving work today
and
> going home to load-up my "trusty .06" and head for the beach with my
> entrenching tool.
> Truthfully, David, I think your animosity towards "Project
> Exile" appears to bordering on real paranoia. You being an "inmate" of
> California I can possibly understand why. Can governments abuse their
> power, sure, it happens all the time. However, carrying this logic to
YOUR
> CONCLUSION I guess we need to disband our armed forces because they may be
> (have been) "used to abuse" by our evil government.
> I believe a corollary (possibly posed by Sarah Brady) to
> your above challenge, David, might be - "If the government lets the People
> keep and bear arms, can you guarantee the People will NEVER abuse this
> right?"
> >If so, I will surrender on this point and shut up. I know
> that NRA INTENDS that PE will only affect "those people", but you have
> failed to demonstrate how NRA will have any say in the matter should
> political power shift dramatically to the Democrats.
> Well I truly appreciate your concession. As for the NRA
> having a say should the power shift, I think your efforts to undermine the
> NRA may be your self fulfilling prophesy (fantasy?). Keep trying to
weaken
> the NRA and you may one day be able to say - "See, Neal, I told you so,
> those Socialist are in power and all our rights are history." Personally,
> while they may have some warts, I believe that the NRA is best and "Most
> Effective and Influential" game in town when it comes to protecting my
> "right to keep and bear arms."
> >And I totally reject your assertion that "my" fight (where
> the heck did you get THAT impression?) against Project Exile is either
> hopeless or useless, especially judging from the gun rights leaders who
have
> signed the denouncement statement on keepandbeararms.com.
> https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=720
> <https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=720>
They
> represent some of the finest intellects and activists in the rkba
community,
> and you cannot ignore them or their concerns if you hope to be either
> effective and innovative. Why on earth would you want to?
> I get the impression, David, of the "circled firing squad",
> actually. Even the founders where sometimes wrong, my friend. I submit
as
> proof the Constitutional's enshrining of the institution of "slavery". I
> don't ignore you or them, David, and I do respect all your opinions. I
just
> believe you (and they) have been blinded by a paranoia that might be
> justified, however, I see no proof of the any alleged abuses forthcoming.
> Can "Project Exile" be useful in our on-going struggle to "secure these
> rights"? Yes, I truly think so. As a matter of fact - rather than
continue
> our dialog where I ask you questions you wont answer, and you ask me
> questions that no one can answer, possibly an essay extolling the virtues
of
> "Project Exile" is in order.
> >Here's the problem, Neal- there ain't no light at the end
> of this tunnel. There will be more back-and-forth and more debating, and
> more time composing answers and rebuttals and counter-arguments and
> "gotcha's", but I don't see either one of us budging from our original
> stance.
> I suppose I could continue spending time each day on this
> doing point-counterpoint with you, but I don't see where it's gonna get
us.
> It takes time away from too many other things that I have already
> prioritized. So I hope you understand that I need to back off of this- I
> think I was pretty up front about that from the start. I don't think
anyone
> can accuse me of ducking anything, but I'd appreciate it if we could just
> agree to disagree on this and call a truce.
> Ah! David, I empathize with your problem - "So much
> ignorance and so little time." I guess you're right - honest and open
> debate never settled anything. Just look how badly those dastardly
> "Federalist Papers" mucked things up for us.
> I think the problem might just be our separate perceptions
> of the "glass". I see it as "half-full". While you, my friend, see it as
> "half-empty" (or maybe "completely empty"?). I suppose this defines the
> perspective of the "Classical Liberal" versus the "Libertarian". Oh Well!
> Such is life. I just hope you feel, as do I, that despite our
disagreement,
> we remain friends dedicated to my grandkids' freedom.
> >Feel free to have the last word on this, but I just GOTTA
> drop this for now.
> "Feel free" - as in: "By your leave?" I was going to
> anyway, but then I guess I am "stiff-necked and ornery" as well. :-)
> >p.s.- not "Dave"- call it a snotty affectation on my part,
> but I just never cared for it...:-)
> Sorry, I had no idea. You should have mentioned it sooner.
> No offense intended. "Snotty affectation" - COOL!
> >p.s.s.- the following from Merrill Gibson addresses
> "compelling state interest"- it is on topic, and this you'll like, Neal,
it
> defends Ashcroft's position. Merrill makes some good points-
> Thanks, it is indeed excellent. Not Ashcroft's position,
> David - the CORRECT position.
> >I ain't totally on board with it, but that's probably just
> because I'm so stiff-necked and ornery.
> Ah! But that is exactly why you are so loveable, IMMHO,
> David.
> Keep the Faith,
>
> Neal
> <<...>>
> Neal J. Lang (Signed)
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
