TR> TR> It probably would land you in jail,
TR> SK> And, as I said, I would still be true to my convictions.
TR> SK> Unjust laws SHOULD be broken.
TR> TR> and you wouldn't be doing anything noble or patriotic, just the
TR> TR> opposite.
TR> SK> In your less than reasonable, and reasoned, opinion.
TR>It would be the opinion of the people and the government of the
TR>people before  I was even born.
Some, perhaps even most, but not THE people. That's an absolute, and 
there are no absolutes.
TR> I've read the rest of your message,
TR>and it is obvious you  don't understand the basic concept, and that
TR>basic concept is a very old one.
I understand it fully.
TR>  Every citizen has a legal
TR>obligation to assist law enforcement in the time of  an emergency.
I think that it is a moral obligation, sure. But such things should be 
left to the individual. To impose threats of punishment is totalitarian.
TR>There is nothing Unconstitutional about this concept.
Of course the Constitution is a "living document". One that has been 
perverted. I'm speaking about what _I_ believe...not what you and the 
perverters of it believe.
TR> Using  your
TR>line of thought, it would be Unconstitutional to draft you for
TR>military  duty to protect our country from invading armies.
Well, I don't believe in the draft. Myself, I would rather 
not fight along side someone that doesn't wish to fight. 
During WW2 people were fighting, and even lying, to get IN the military.
Why? Because there was a just cause.
You surely don't think much of people. I do. I also think that FREE 
people are more apt to be responsive to the idea of defending their 
freedom than slaves would be. For slaves would only be fighting and 
dying to defend their masters.
So, in my mind, drafting people (and the sexist aspect of it only being 
men) is a perverted Constitutional form of slavery instead of freedom. 
TR> That would be
TR> commandeering  your very person and very likely put you in a
TR>position where you might be  killed, but that is not Unconstitutional
TR>either. 
And the enslavement of blacks was Constitutional. If I were alive in the
days of slavery...guess what? I'd say it was unconstitutional. 
The Constitution isn't a very difficult document...the Bill of Rights 
isn't either. Actually, they are "self evident". It's pretty damned easy
to see when they are not being followed.
TR>I won't be quoting any more  of your message because of your
TR>total confusion about this subject matter.
I have no confusion. You are just intolerant, or ignorant, of differing 
views.
TR>  Many things can be done
TR>in the time of an emergency if there are reasonable  grounds, all
TR>quite legal, all quite Constitutional, and all recognized by  most to
TR>be a civic duty if the situation ever arises.
Moral duty. And you can't mandate morality. Or, at least you shouldn't.
TR> I'll give you one more
TR>example below, but I probably won't waste much more of my time trying
TR> to explain this to you.
You don't need to "explain" anything to me. I know EXACTLY what you 
believe. It is you that are unable to grasp my mindset. I believe in 
freedom. I believe that reasonable people can see the evident basic 
rights that are the cornerstones of freedom. To pervert the Constitution
or Bill of Rights into tools of totalitarianism is wrong. And I won't 
abide by those perversions. I don't bow to masters, and I serve no man. 
This is obviously something you don't understand.
TR>There is a tornado, and your home is one of the few left standing in
TR>the  entire area. Many people have been killed, many have serious
TR>injuries, and  many have minor injuries. There are hundreds of people
TR>who need help as  quickly as possible. Chances are, the homes left
TR>standing in the area will be  used by various agencies for injury
TR>classification, field hospitals, temporary  morgues, distribution of
TR>equipment for volunteers, etc. Yes, your home could  and probably
TR>would be commandeered during this situation, with or without  your
TR>approval. This would be an obvious emergency which would qualify as
TR>reasonable grounds to use your home. This is a fairly severe example,
TR>but it has already happened numerous times. This commandeering would
TR>be quite legal  and Constitutional. Would you waste an officer's time
TR>in arresting you before  your home could be used to save lives? If
TR>so, you would not deserve to be  called a citizen.
Well, my point is...I WOULD volunteer my house. I don't need Big Brother
to volunteer it for me. Big difference.
You see, your mindset sets a slippery slope to totalitarianism. People 
have a right to disagree, also. To imprison people for 
disagreeing....just for disagreeing, is some sick stuff.
My belief's, as per law and justice are, if there isn't a victim..there 
is no crime...AND having ones basic civil, human, and Constitutional  
rights violated is a crime, even if a governmental entity does the 
violating...and calls it legal or Constitutional.
Stealing my car has a victim....me.
To sum up, the MAN should ASK not TELL. Because he works for me, I don't
work for him.
Giving away our freedoms and then using silly hypotheticals as reasons 
is like handcuffing someone and then telling them "I'm handcuffing you 
for your own safety". Sorry, I'd rather remain unshackled...and risk it.
---
þ CMPQwk #1.42þ UNREGISTERED HANDGUN COPY
---------------