alan
Member
OPINION RELEASE: [GunOwnersAlliance.com w/ Ask The Rabbi] Who Needs a Solution When Nobody Understands the Question?
----- Forwarded message from [email protected] -----
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:39 -0600
From: Gun Owners Alliance <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: [GunOwnersAlliance.com w/ Ask The Rabbi] Who Needs a Solution When
Nobody Understands the Question?
Chris W. Stark - Director
P.O. Box 16441
Colorado Springs, CO, 80935-6441
Office: 1-719-649-3835
http://www.GunOwnersAlliance.com
[email protected]
25 July 2005
++++++++++++++++++
Who Needs a Solution When Nobody Understands the Question?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are receiving this message because you requested our alerts.
Subscribe/UnSubscribe instructions near the bottom of the alert.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Help Support the work of Gun Owners Alliance! Contribute at
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Join.htm and help
pay the expenses of the "Ask the Rabbi" column!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This alert is located at http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_0370.htm
Copyright © 2005 by Rabbi R. Mermelstein.
Republication permitted only if this e-mail alert
is left intact in its original state.
A self-effacing yarn is told about a mythical 17th century Jewish
village in Chelm, Poland. The Jews of Chelm, while always trying to act
correctly within the exacting framework of the Torah, are still not the
swiftest on the uptake. Two Jews come before the town's rabbi for him to
sit in judgment over a business dispute. The elderly sage listens to the
argument of the first litigant and without hesitation pronounces,
"You're right!" The second Jew protests that the rabbi has decided the
case without even hearing his side of the story, which he then puts
forth in the clearest possible terms. After hearing the second Jew's
rebuttal the rabbi proclaims, "You're also right!" The rabbi's sexton,
whose main function is to clean and maintain the synagogue, overhears
the proceedings and exclaims "But Rabbi! They can't both be
right!" To this, the erudite spiritual leader intones "You're right,
too!"
As a hopelessly addicted reader of opinion and editorial pieces, I can
easily see a comical element of reality in the plight of the rabbi of
Chelm. While friends, co-workers, and several readers of our Ask the
Rabbi column have observed that my opinions are slightly to the right of
Attila the Hun, I possibly unduly flatter myself that I do make an
honest effort to read and understand arguments from both ends of the
political spectrum. I reason that 1) even a whining liberal can make an
occasional coherent point and 2) there's little harm in listening to
rants from an endangered species.
Where things become really confused for someone like me without a law
degree is when intricate polemics and doctrines are tossed about by
eloquent people with law degrees. Manipulative speech can be used
to convince some people of anything. Play some rousing portions from
Wagner's "Flight of the Valkyrie" in the background and watch the idiots
roil.
When citizens respond to a jury summons, the legal counsel for each side
may eliminate "for cause" any prospective juror if that person says or
otherwise expresses a bias against the attorney's case. This process is
called voir dire (pronounced vwär dîr'), an Anglo-French term meaning
"to speak the truth." A trial attorney, if he were to be candid (or
intoxicated), would concede that people perceived to be educated are
weeded out during voir dire. Last year in a Los Angeles Superior Court
room I was summarily dismissed by the defense counsel after stating
nothing more than my name, occupation, and marital status. Here's a tip
for getting excused from jury duty: Wear a black yarmulke in the
courtroom. Counsel never even asked if I had completed primary school
before agitatedly blurting "Don't get too comfortable, Mr. Mermelstein!"
The judge didn't utter a word of objection, and neither did I.
Persuasive arguments, and here we speak of arguments obviously without
merit, work best on those in the "Not Quite the Brightest Crayon in the
Box" segment of the population. I'm pretty sure this area is covered in
the law school curriculum. Sometimes racial profiling can be
complimentary and downright convenient!
For many years a battle has raged between advocates of civil liberties
and governments concerned with public safety. The arguments to and fro
go back a long time in American history.
The English wanted to disarm the Colonists in the name of public safety
(the Britons' safety).
President Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil
War, and even went so far as deporting to parts south of the Mason-Dixon
Line any Northerners who were too loudly sympathetic to the Southern
cause. This, too, was done in the name of the public good. If the
American Civil Liberties Union lawyers had been around while Lincoln was
suppressing dissent in the North, flagrantly violating the Constitution
and usurping the powers of Congress, every last liberal Ivy League law
louse among them would have keeled over in a collective and massive
cardiac arrest.
During the Reconstruction period in the post-bellum South many counties
chose to be "dry", prohibiting the sale of spirit beverages, for the
sake of public safety. Fears of violence, valid or otherwise, from a
sober ex-slave population were sufficient to keep white nerves on edge
without the introduction of an alcoholic catalyst to the equation.
In 1942 President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in the name of
public safety, authorizing the secretary of war to define military areas
"from which any or all persons may be excluded as deemed necessary or
desirable." The net result was the forced relocation of 112,000 to
120,000 Japanese living on the West Coast to Mojave Desert relocation
centers. 62% of the evacuees were American citizens. In the entire
course of the war, 10 people were convicted of spying for Japan, all of
whom were Caucasian. The US Supreme Court ruling (TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU
v. UNITED STATES) upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order
9066 in December 1944 reads in part:
"Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary
because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members
of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country.
It was because we could not reject the finding of the military
authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate
segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the
validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group."
This list of events demonstrating the willful invalidation of rational
thought is only partial at best, but the point being made is that the
legal minds behind them were anything but lightweights. And, of course,
they got away with it.
Perhaps the legal system, excluding absolute unalienable rights
identified by "the Right of the People" as in the Bill of Rights, is by
necessity a malleable tool to be altered when deemed necessary by a
majority of elected or appointed Government officials. (How is
that for open-mindedness?)
The ACLU and even many sane people are getting really nervous of late.
The reauthorization of 16 provisions of the Patriot Act that expire at
the end of this year, including the "library clause" that lets US
authorities get approval from a special court to search personal records
of terror suspects from bookstores, businesses, hospitals and libraries,
will slowly erode the freedoms we've come to take for granted, it is
argued. If Death Row inmates are released and pardoned after years of
incarceration based on newly perfected DNA testing, who can guarantee
that some harmless soul researching the manufacture of black powder or
smokeless propellants in a public library won't be swept up in a
hysteria induced government dragnet of suspected terrorists and held
without being charged under a suspension of habeas corpus?
On the other hand, whoever it was that coordinated and carried out the
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on
April 19, 1995 had to have learned how to construct a destructive device
capable of that magnitude of mayhem and property damage from somewhere.
The Internet was still in its embryonic stage at the time the bombing
was in its planning stages. Books about explosives, either from public
libraries or bookstores, were most likely the only reference materials
available. No chemist or demolitions expert was ever implicated in that
terrorist atrocity. Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted, and executed
for the crime. It was widely reported that McVeigh's favorite film was
the 1984 Patrick Swayze epic Red Dawn and one of his favorite
books was The Turner Diaries written by former American Nazi
Party scumbag William L. Pierce. The media didn't neglect to report
McVeigh's "obsession" with firearms, either. However, Timothy McVeigh
had no prior arrests or convictions for firearms violations.
Could the "library clause" of the Patriot Act be used to hold someone
for checking out Red Dawn, The Turner Diaries, or any number of other
films and books that promote hate with the simple expediency of a
library card? Presumably online booksellers could also be forced by
special court order to turn over records of sales made to "persons
of interest". The irony in a Justice Department statement that
it has never used the provision, but still needs it "just in case",
should not go unnoted. Internet privacy would be diluted under the
provisions of the library clause, too (Read "Google and the Big
Brother Nomination" at
http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2175251 ). Once
the legal apparatus to invade privacy is available, the abuse of that
apparatus is a given. It's only a matter of time. I respect just laws
and the people sworn to enforce them, but I also recognize human
fallibility and how it can act, with all the best intentions, to ruin
the lives of innocent citizens.
- From a legal layman's perspective, then, we have before us the quandary
of the rabbi of Chelm: Everyone is right-sort of. We allow the federal
government to operate in classic Kafkaesque fashion, indefinitely
holding people on unnamed charges. The only obstacle is finding five
Supreme Court justices or majorities of both Houses of Congress to issue
emergency findings for the immediate nullification of the Fourth, Fifth
and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. If this
is too much even for the most hardcore elements in Washington, perhaps a
Council of Literary Purity can be the 23rd agency consolidated into the
Department of Homeland Security. Experts from the nation's bastions of
truth and objectivity could decide which films and books American
citizens should be allowed to see. (College and university professors
need not apply!) It would be a criminal offense to publish anything
without the prior approval of the Council. Perhaps nullifying the First
Amendment alone would be simpler than nullifying three. George Orwell
had the prescience to foresee where we were headed; he was merely off by
about 25 years.
If the above options are dismissed with "That dog won't hunt", there's
always the established precedent of mass deportation for suspected
persons. Refer to the aforementioned TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED
STATES: "It was because we could not reject the finding of the military
authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate
segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the
validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group."
The rabbi of Chelm was not a politician trying to please everyone to
retain his incumbency. The poor fellow, thrust into the unenviable
position of playing King Solomon, was simply inundated with too many
apparent truths argued too articulately.
In Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary under the entry for Truth,
Monsieur Francois Marie Arouet had this to say:
"Humanly speaking, let us define truth, while waiting for a better
definition, as a statement of the facts as they are."
Fair enough; what are the facts? There are people in our midst who wish
us dead for a multitude of fantastic reasons, and they themselves don't
mind dying if they can take us with them. Many of their leaders publicly
spew hatred and vituperation for all that modern Western civilization
stands for. American government, on a nonstop guilt trip for the sins of
the fathers, can do nothing substantive to rid our society of this
spreading cancer once and for all. Indeed, the contemporary functioning
of our legal system guarantees that TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED
STATES will never be in question again. The blueprint given to us by the
Founders does not address this contingency, just as it didn't address an
identical constitutional question in 1944, hence that greatest of all
documents lies somewhere between useless and open to groundless
legislation, eloquently written but devoid of merit, from the bench of
the Supreme Court with the concomitant rending of garments and cries for
reparations to the victims years after the fact. Oyez, oyez!
Until last week only airline commuters were subjected to what I consider
one short step short of a prison strip search. After the July 7th
detonation of three bombs in London's subway system and one bomb on a
bus, the wanton slaughter of 52 passengers and the injuring of 700 more
by homegrown rather than flown in Islamic lunatics, mass transit users
in New York City and New Jersey will be subject to random bag searches.
Those refusing to have their belongings inspected will be denied access
to trains and buses.
We are sliding down a slippery slope. How long until the powers that be
reinvent the Fourth Amendment to allow "safety searches" of individuals
and their belongings in their homes? What if the neighbors observed you
carrying your legally owned firearms to the car for an outing to the
shooting range and reported the incident to the authorities? You answer
the doorbell to be confronted by two or more uniformed officers who
inform you that they are just checking out the building for general
safety. What about a search warrant and probable cause, you ask? Public
safety is the search warrant and the probable cause.
America is fighting an offensive war overseas. Sadly, the nice man next
door may be planning mass murder right under your nose and all you can
do about it is wonder.
What is the solution? Choose one. They are all right.
Rabbi R. Mermelstein
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We send our alerts/newsletter out free of charge to all who request it.
Can you help with our expenses? Help Support the work of Gun Owners
Alliance! Suggested contributions? As an opener, the price of a box of
ammo ($15-$20). Contribute at http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Join.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A MUST READ! "Mermelstein's Guide to Metallic Cartridge Evolution"
This brand new book by Robert Mermelstein is all about the evolution
of cartridges over the past 150 years. This extremely interesting and
informative book tells you how some of the cartridges we use today
came about. If you are looking for a picture book, this book isn't
for you. There are no pictures except for the cover and quite honestly
none are needed. This 188-page book tells the stories of how cartridges
evolved from the early beginnings to the current cartridges available
today. Insight is given on why and how cartridges developed. This is
a must read for the shooter and handloader interested in how we got
to where we are today. Go to:
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_Mermelstein_book-01.htm
...or a direct link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972254420/gunownersalli-20
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Try searching our entire inventory of firearms related books! Go to:
http://www.GunOwnersAlliance.com/bookstore.htm The selection is BIG!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Copyright © 2005 by Rabbi R. Mermelstein. Republication permitted
only if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state. The
views herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any individual
or organization other than Gun Owners Alliance. For more information,
go to: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/sig.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to:
[email protected]
No subject line or message necessary.
----- Forwarded message from [email protected] -----
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 05:17:39 -0600
From: Gun Owners Alliance <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: [GunOwnersAlliance.com w/ Ask The Rabbi] Who Needs a Solution When
Nobody Understands the Question?
Chris W. Stark - Director
P.O. Box 16441
Colorado Springs, CO, 80935-6441
Office: 1-719-649-3835
http://www.GunOwnersAlliance.com
[email protected]
25 July 2005
++++++++++++++++++
Who Needs a Solution When Nobody Understands the Question?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are receiving this message because you requested our alerts.
Subscribe/UnSubscribe instructions near the bottom of the alert.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Help Support the work of Gun Owners Alliance! Contribute at
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Join.htm and help
pay the expenses of the "Ask the Rabbi" column!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This alert is located at http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_0370.htm
Copyright © 2005 by Rabbi R. Mermelstein.
Republication permitted only if this e-mail alert
is left intact in its original state.
A self-effacing yarn is told about a mythical 17th century Jewish
village in Chelm, Poland. The Jews of Chelm, while always trying to act
correctly within the exacting framework of the Torah, are still not the
swiftest on the uptake. Two Jews come before the town's rabbi for him to
sit in judgment over a business dispute. The elderly sage listens to the
argument of the first litigant and without hesitation pronounces,
"You're right!" The second Jew protests that the rabbi has decided the
case without even hearing his side of the story, which he then puts
forth in the clearest possible terms. After hearing the second Jew's
rebuttal the rabbi proclaims, "You're also right!" The rabbi's sexton,
whose main function is to clean and maintain the synagogue, overhears
the proceedings and exclaims "But Rabbi! They can't both be
right!" To this, the erudite spiritual leader intones "You're right,
too!"
As a hopelessly addicted reader of opinion and editorial pieces, I can
easily see a comical element of reality in the plight of the rabbi of
Chelm. While friends, co-workers, and several readers of our Ask the
Rabbi column have observed that my opinions are slightly to the right of
Attila the Hun, I possibly unduly flatter myself that I do make an
honest effort to read and understand arguments from both ends of the
political spectrum. I reason that 1) even a whining liberal can make an
occasional coherent point and 2) there's little harm in listening to
rants from an endangered species.
Where things become really confused for someone like me without a law
degree is when intricate polemics and doctrines are tossed about by
eloquent people with law degrees. Manipulative speech can be used
to convince some people of anything. Play some rousing portions from
Wagner's "Flight of the Valkyrie" in the background and watch the idiots
roil.
When citizens respond to a jury summons, the legal counsel for each side
may eliminate "for cause" any prospective juror if that person says or
otherwise expresses a bias against the attorney's case. This process is
called voir dire (pronounced vwär dîr'), an Anglo-French term meaning
"to speak the truth." A trial attorney, if he were to be candid (or
intoxicated), would concede that people perceived to be educated are
weeded out during voir dire. Last year in a Los Angeles Superior Court
room I was summarily dismissed by the defense counsel after stating
nothing more than my name, occupation, and marital status. Here's a tip
for getting excused from jury duty: Wear a black yarmulke in the
courtroom. Counsel never even asked if I had completed primary school
before agitatedly blurting "Don't get too comfortable, Mr. Mermelstein!"
The judge didn't utter a word of objection, and neither did I.
Persuasive arguments, and here we speak of arguments obviously without
merit, work best on those in the "Not Quite the Brightest Crayon in the
Box" segment of the population. I'm pretty sure this area is covered in
the law school curriculum. Sometimes racial profiling can be
complimentary and downright convenient!
For many years a battle has raged between advocates of civil liberties
and governments concerned with public safety. The arguments to and fro
go back a long time in American history.
The English wanted to disarm the Colonists in the name of public safety
(the Britons' safety).
President Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus during the Civil
War, and even went so far as deporting to parts south of the Mason-Dixon
Line any Northerners who were too loudly sympathetic to the Southern
cause. This, too, was done in the name of the public good. If the
American Civil Liberties Union lawyers had been around while Lincoln was
suppressing dissent in the North, flagrantly violating the Constitution
and usurping the powers of Congress, every last liberal Ivy League law
louse among them would have keeled over in a collective and massive
cardiac arrest.
During the Reconstruction period in the post-bellum South many counties
chose to be "dry", prohibiting the sale of spirit beverages, for the
sake of public safety. Fears of violence, valid or otherwise, from a
sober ex-slave population were sufficient to keep white nerves on edge
without the introduction of an alcoholic catalyst to the equation.
In 1942 President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 in the name of
public safety, authorizing the secretary of war to define military areas
"from which any or all persons may be excluded as deemed necessary or
desirable." The net result was the forced relocation of 112,000 to
120,000 Japanese living on the West Coast to Mojave Desert relocation
centers. 62% of the evacuees were American citizens. In the entire
course of the war, 10 people were convicted of spying for Japan, all of
whom were Caucasian. The US Supreme Court ruling (TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU
v. UNITED STATES) upholding the constitutionality of Executive Order
9066 in December 1944 reads in part:
"Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary
because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members
of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country.
It was because we could not reject the finding of the military
authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate
segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the
validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group."
This list of events demonstrating the willful invalidation of rational
thought is only partial at best, but the point being made is that the
legal minds behind them were anything but lightweights. And, of course,
they got away with it.
Perhaps the legal system, excluding absolute unalienable rights
identified by "the Right of the People" as in the Bill of Rights, is by
necessity a malleable tool to be altered when deemed necessary by a
majority of elected or appointed Government officials. (How is
that for open-mindedness?)
The ACLU and even many sane people are getting really nervous of late.
The reauthorization of 16 provisions of the Patriot Act that expire at
the end of this year, including the "library clause" that lets US
authorities get approval from a special court to search personal records
of terror suspects from bookstores, businesses, hospitals and libraries,
will slowly erode the freedoms we've come to take for granted, it is
argued. If Death Row inmates are released and pardoned after years of
incarceration based on newly perfected DNA testing, who can guarantee
that some harmless soul researching the manufacture of black powder or
smokeless propellants in a public library won't be swept up in a
hysteria induced government dragnet of suspected terrorists and held
without being charged under a suspension of habeas corpus?
On the other hand, whoever it was that coordinated and carried out the
bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on
April 19, 1995 had to have learned how to construct a destructive device
capable of that magnitude of mayhem and property damage from somewhere.
The Internet was still in its embryonic stage at the time the bombing
was in its planning stages. Books about explosives, either from public
libraries or bookstores, were most likely the only reference materials
available. No chemist or demolitions expert was ever implicated in that
terrorist atrocity. Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted, and executed
for the crime. It was widely reported that McVeigh's favorite film was
the 1984 Patrick Swayze epic Red Dawn and one of his favorite
books was The Turner Diaries written by former American Nazi
Party scumbag William L. Pierce. The media didn't neglect to report
McVeigh's "obsession" with firearms, either. However, Timothy McVeigh
had no prior arrests or convictions for firearms violations.
Could the "library clause" of the Patriot Act be used to hold someone
for checking out Red Dawn, The Turner Diaries, or any number of other
films and books that promote hate with the simple expediency of a
library card? Presumably online booksellers could also be forced by
special court order to turn over records of sales made to "persons
of interest". The irony in a Justice Department statement that
it has never used the provision, but still needs it "just in case",
should not go unnoted. Internet privacy would be diluted under the
provisions of the library clause, too (Read "Google and the Big
Brother Nomination" at
http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.php/2175251 ). Once
the legal apparatus to invade privacy is available, the abuse of that
apparatus is a given. It's only a matter of time. I respect just laws
and the people sworn to enforce them, but I also recognize human
fallibility and how it can act, with all the best intentions, to ruin
the lives of innocent citizens.
- From a legal layman's perspective, then, we have before us the quandary
of the rabbi of Chelm: Everyone is right-sort of. We allow the federal
government to operate in classic Kafkaesque fashion, indefinitely
holding people on unnamed charges. The only obstacle is finding five
Supreme Court justices or majorities of both Houses of Congress to issue
emergency findings for the immediate nullification of the Fourth, Fifth
and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. If this
is too much even for the most hardcore elements in Washington, perhaps a
Council of Literary Purity can be the 23rd agency consolidated into the
Department of Homeland Security. Experts from the nation's bastions of
truth and objectivity could decide which films and books American
citizens should be allowed to see. (College and university professors
need not apply!) It would be a criminal offense to publish anything
without the prior approval of the Council. Perhaps nullifying the First
Amendment alone would be simpler than nullifying three. George Orwell
had the prescience to foresee where we were headed; he was merely off by
about 25 years.
If the above options are dismissed with "That dog won't hunt", there's
always the established precedent of mass deportation for suspected
persons. Refer to the aforementioned TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED
STATES: "It was because we could not reject the finding of the military
authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate
segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the
validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group."
The rabbi of Chelm was not a politician trying to please everyone to
retain his incumbency. The poor fellow, thrust into the unenviable
position of playing King Solomon, was simply inundated with too many
apparent truths argued too articulately.
In Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary under the entry for Truth,
Monsieur Francois Marie Arouet had this to say:
"Humanly speaking, let us define truth, while waiting for a better
definition, as a statement of the facts as they are."
Fair enough; what are the facts? There are people in our midst who wish
us dead for a multitude of fantastic reasons, and they themselves don't
mind dying if they can take us with them. Many of their leaders publicly
spew hatred and vituperation for all that modern Western civilization
stands for. American government, on a nonstop guilt trip for the sins of
the fathers, can do nothing substantive to rid our society of this
spreading cancer once and for all. Indeed, the contemporary functioning
of our legal system guarantees that TOYOSABURO KOREMATSU v. UNITED
STATES will never be in question again. The blueprint given to us by the
Founders does not address this contingency, just as it didn't address an
identical constitutional question in 1944, hence that greatest of all
documents lies somewhere between useless and open to groundless
legislation, eloquently written but devoid of merit, from the bench of
the Supreme Court with the concomitant rending of garments and cries for
reparations to the victims years after the fact. Oyez, oyez!
Until last week only airline commuters were subjected to what I consider
one short step short of a prison strip search. After the July 7th
detonation of three bombs in London's subway system and one bomb on a
bus, the wanton slaughter of 52 passengers and the injuring of 700 more
by homegrown rather than flown in Islamic lunatics, mass transit users
in New York City and New Jersey will be subject to random bag searches.
Those refusing to have their belongings inspected will be denied access
to trains and buses.
We are sliding down a slippery slope. How long until the powers that be
reinvent the Fourth Amendment to allow "safety searches" of individuals
and their belongings in their homes? What if the neighbors observed you
carrying your legally owned firearms to the car for an outing to the
shooting range and reported the incident to the authorities? You answer
the doorbell to be confronted by two or more uniformed officers who
inform you that they are just checking out the building for general
safety. What about a search warrant and probable cause, you ask? Public
safety is the search warrant and the probable cause.
America is fighting an offensive war overseas. Sadly, the nice man next
door may be planning mass murder right under your nose and all you can
do about it is wonder.
What is the solution? Choose one. They are all right.
Rabbi R. Mermelstein
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We send our alerts/newsletter out free of charge to all who request it.
Can you help with our expenses? Help Support the work of Gun Owners
Alliance! Suggested contributions? As an opener, the price of a box of
ammo ($15-$20). Contribute at http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Join.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A MUST READ! "Mermelstein's Guide to Metallic Cartridge Evolution"
This brand new book by Robert Mermelstein is all about the evolution
of cartridges over the past 150 years. This extremely interesting and
informative book tells you how some of the cartridges we use today
came about. If you are looking for a picture book, this book isn't
for you. There are no pictures except for the cover and quite honestly
none are needed. This 188-page book tells the stories of how cartridges
evolved from the early beginnings to the current cartridges available
today. Insight is given on why and how cartridges developed. This is
a must read for the shooter and handloader interested in how we got
to where we are today. Go to:
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_Mermelstein_book-01.htm
...or a direct link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972254420/gunownersalli-20
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Try searching our entire inventory of firearms related books! Go to:
http://www.GunOwnersAlliance.com/bookstore.htm The selection is BIG!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Copyright © 2005 by Rabbi R. Mermelstein. Republication permitted
only if this e-mail alert is left intact in its original state. The
views herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any individual
or organization other than Gun Owners Alliance. For more information,
go to: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/sig.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to:
[email protected]
No subject line or message necessary.