A Little Inspiration

Thus spake "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> :

>Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:NNs1h.10324$Bs.1355@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
>>I came across this today. I've seen it before, but I forgot about it.
>>Perhaps by sharing it, neither I, now those that read it, will forget about
>>it again.
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> Robert A. Heinlein wrote this item in 1952. His wife, Virginia Heinlein,
>> chose to read it when she accepted NASA's Distinguished Public Service
>> Medal on October 6, 1988, on the Grand Master's behalf (it was a
>> posthumous award). Mrs. Heinlein received a standing ovation.
>>
>> This I Believe by Robert A. Heinlein
>
>snip "feel good" propaganda
>
>Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction?
>

And a damned fine one. Among his many attributes. He was also a
social critic.
--
dillon

If you can't figure out how to unmunge my
address, email me and I'll explain it.

Dillon Pyron wrote

>>Didn't Heinlein write science-fiction?

> And a damned fine one. Among his many attributes. He was also a
> social critic.

And a damned fine one.

If you're interested in some his works, email me privately.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SzK1h.44489$Zn1.29408@bignews2.bellsouth.net. ..
> Greg Mossman wrote
>
>> If "government" says they're illegal, they can confiscate them. That's
>> exactly what happened in New Orleans. You may take a stand against
>> government, but don't be surprised if you're imprisoned or killed in the
>> process.
>
> If I say it's legal, I can shoot you. That does not mean it really is
> legal.

Sure it does. For instance, it says you can shoot me if I'm a felon fleeing
the scene of a crime or if I'm about to shoot someone else or if I'm
escaping prison. Take the latter. What if I'm imprisoned illegally and try
to escape. Then you can "legally" shoot me, right? What's the difference?

> The ultimate arbiter is the people of the United States. When actions of
> the government, including the Supreme Court, are sufficiently onerous, we
> are expected, and authorized to, correct the problem by whatever means may
> be necessary. Until that point, the Supreme Court has the delegated
> authority to make the decision.

Good luck with your authorized "correction". How do you know when the
authorization takes effect? If I think that today's government is
sufficiently onerous, can I take over the governor's mansion and kick
Arnold's ass without repercussion?

>> Congress can say and do all it wants, temporarily. Plenty of things
>> Congress says and does are later deemed unconstitutional.
>
> You mean like infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, right?

Not that one. It's been tested and the Supreme Court has denied that
there's an individual right. If you don't like it, you're authorized to
start an armed insurrection. I'll watch for you on CNN.

>> Or, as in this case, we'll simply undo it in another week. The Democrat
>> congress will declare guns to be a militia right, not an individual one,
>> and that will settle the matter, right?
>
> The precident has been established. The language is clear and has been
> tested by the courts. It ain't all that easy.

Huh? What courts?

As far as I know, only one circuit court has found there to be an individual
right. The other 7 or 8 circuit courts that have weighed in have reached
the opposite conclusion. The only Supreme Court decisions touching on the
matter imply that there is no individual right. What "established clear and
tested precedent" have you been smoking?

>> When the Supreme Court deems the Second Amendment as protecting an
>> individual (and unlimited) right, then I'll take your word
>> for it. Until then, there is no such individual right.
>
> When the Supreme Court says it's not an individual right, then you may
> have a leg to stand on. Until then, it stands as the Constitution is
> written.

Established, clear, and tested precedent:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this
time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within
judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military
equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Unless there's a reasonable relationship between the firearm bearing and the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, there's no right to
the weapon. And since the National Guard stands in as the militia today,
there's no right to weapons outside of the National Guard.

Don't you think that, if the Second Amendment were any constitutional
barrier, that any gun control laws might be stricken as unconstitutional?
Certainly the largest lobbyist in the world, the NRA, can afford the
attorneys to bring the challenges. Where are the Supreme Court cases
upholding your version of the Second Amendment and overturning the strict
gun control laws of California and New York? Cite?

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:12kesc7g6e7jc1@corp.supernews.com...
> "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message
> news:70a8b$4547516f$1860878d$8846@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
> > Did they have a warrant "describing the place to be searched, and the
> > persons or things to be seized."?
>
> Do we still need that after the Patriot Act? If not, we'll simply amend
the
> Patriot Act. "All those possessing firearms are deemed to be terrorists."
> There, that should do it. Now we can legally lock them up in Guantanamo
as
> enemy combatants without access to the judicial system, so whether or not
> the search was legal will never be litigated.
>
>

Yes, you still do, IIRC.

Dennis

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mTy1h.49678$vi3.33239@bignews3.bellsouth.net. ..
> Greg Mossman wrote
>
>>> Like most attorneys, Greg posts whatever he thinks he can get away with.
>>> Often it's fiction, like when he said he could get a conviction of the
>>> kid that defended his mother, but more often, it's any distortion and
>>> misdirection he thinks he can get away with. You can't blame him, it's
>>> an occupational hazard.
>
>> Replace attorney with government employee and you have the reason why
>> this country is going to shit. What's our crime rate doing? Our budget?
>> Our unemployment? Our health care? Our education?
>
> Thanks for the excellent example of what I said.
>
> By far, the majority of government employees have nothing to do with
> criminal issues. They don't investigate, arrest or convict those that
> violate the law. On the other hand, a substantially higher proportion of
> the attorneys in the country do deal with crimes, specifically defending
> those that have comitted them. Between the attorneys and the judges, who
> are also attorneys, they manage to get a substantial number of those
> arrested by those government employees who are engaged in law enforcement
> either acquitted

You mean the innocent ones or are you suggesting that arrest by the
government is proof of guilt?

snip

Thus spake "Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> :

>"Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in message
>news:70a8b$4547516f$1860878d$8846@KNOLOGY.NET.. .
>
>> Did they have a warrant "describing the place to be searched, and the
>> persons or things to be seized."?
>
>Do we still need that after the Patriot Act? If not, we'll simply amend the
>Patriot Act. "All those possessing firearms are deemed to be terrorists."
>There, that should do it. Now we can legally lock them up in Guantanamo as
>enemy combatants without access to the judicial system, so whether or not
>the search was legal will never be litigated.
>

You won't catch me arguing for the legitimacy of the PATRIOT Act.

So, what's your defense?
--
dillon

If you can't figure out how to unmunge my
address, email me and I'll explain it.

Lee Bell wrote:

>
> If you're interested in some his works, email me privately.
>
> Lee

Whatcha got?


--
“TAANSTAFL”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
__________________________________________________ __________________________

>> By far, the majority of government employees have nothing to do with
>> criminal issues. They don't investigate, arrest or convict those that
>> violate the law. On the other hand, a substantially higher proportion of
>> the attorneys in the country do deal with crimes, specifically defending
>> those that have comitted them. Between the attorneys and the judges, who
>> are also attorneys, they manage to get a substantial number of those
>> arrested by those government employees who are engaged in law enforcement
>> either acquitted

> You mean the innocent ones or are you suggesting that arrest by the
> government is proof of guilt?

I mean those that are guilty, but get off on technicalities. I mean those
that are guilty but buy their way our of convictions. I mean those that are
guilty, but have the funds to hire top quality attorneys who, knowing their
guilty, get them off anyway. I mean those that are guilty, but get off
because prosecuting attorneys don't always do their job well. I mean those
that are guilty, but either get off or get a lesser sentence because some
attorney arranged a plea bargain. I mean those that, because they are not
adequately dealt with the first time, are free to commit crimes a second,
and third time.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the decision makers in a court
of law. Failure to convict only means they're not convicted. It does not
make them innocent, or even not guilty, in reality.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:VNU1h.50451$vi3.940@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>> By far, the majority of government employees have nothing to do with
>>> criminal issues. They don't investigate, arrest or convict those that
>>> violate the law. On the other hand, a substantially higher proportion
>>> of the attorneys in the country do deal with crimes, specifically
>>> defending those that have comitted them. Between the attorneys and the
>>> judges, who are also attorneys, they manage to get a substantial number
>>> of those arrested by those government employees who are engaged in law
>>> enforcement either acquitted
>
>> You mean the innocent ones or are you suggesting that arrest by the
>> government is proof of guilt?
>
> I mean those that are guilty, but get off on technicalities. I mean those
> that are guilty but buy their way our of convictions. I mean those that
> are guilty, but have the funds to hire top quality attorneys who, knowing
> their guilty, get them off anyway. I mean those that are guilty, but get
> off because prosecuting attorneys don't always do their job well. I mean
> those that are guilty, but either get off or get a lesser sentence because
> some attorney arranged a plea bargain. I mean those that, because they
> are not adequately dealt with the first time, are free to commit crimes a
> second, and third time.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the decision makers in a
> court of law. Failure to convict only means they're not convicted. It
> does not make them innocent, or even not guilty, in reality.

I agree with you but how do sort the ones you mentioned out from the truly
innocent. The judicial system here in Australia is not perfect either
seemingly "guilty" people get off and innocent people do get convicted (
probably why I am against the death sentence as it is kind of permanent when
you find you have made a mistake ) but it is probably the best we have.

dechucka wrote

>> Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the decision makers in a
>> court of law. Failure to convict only means they're not convicted. It
>> does not make them innocent, or even not guilty, in reality.

> I agree with you but how do sort the ones you mentioned out from the truly
> innocent.

If there were a way to know for sure, there would be no need for a judicial
system.
We'd just shoot the guilty ones and be done with it.

You do several things:
1. You start with a job evaluation system focused on the quality of the job
done and not the number of arrests or convictions obtained.
2. You hire people based on characteristics most likely to lead to that
result.
3. You train people to work towards knowledge of whether a crime has been
committed and of who knew they were committing one at the time.
4. Whenever a crime was committed, but it's not apparent that it was
deliberate, you work toward reversing the effects rather than punishing
those unintentionally responsible.
5. When you know the crime was deliberate, you apply the penalties
established for the crime without exception and without mercy so that others
will think twice before making you investigate another crime of the same
type.

You pray . . . a lot.

Lee