Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Treasonous Powermongers and Bawling Sheep

This is a continuation of a subject tangent from the "Why I Support President Bush" thread over in the Military forum. I didn't want to hijack that thread any further than I had already, so I decided to start a new thread here. This thread isn't (at least at this point) specifically 2A-related, but it does involve politics, which is why I chose this forum.

Here's the message to which I am responding:

Yeah--the volatility of that response is interesting: I didn't expect it. You must have touched a nerve that I wasn't aware I had.

Less your country than mine? Well, I can't make that determination without a couple of clarifications.

First of all, in what sense are we comparing ownership? I assume we're probably both citizens; in that sense it's our country equally. Have you ever fought, in the sense of actually risking your life, for the country (as opposed to the government, I mean)? I haven't; if you have, then in that sense it's more your country than mine.

What I meant when I said that it was me and people like me who inherited it from the Founders is that the Founders' main concern was not the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans, not maintaining a "social safety net," not "leaving no child behind," not "safe streets," and not any of the other political issues that we hear bandied about today, but individual liberty. That's what they were chiefly concerned with, and that's what I and my compatriots are chiefly concerned with today. The other two groups I mentioned are much more interested in replacing individual liberty with the comforts of socialism; therefore they are using the country bought by the blood of our Founders for a purpose they never intended. That's why I feel comfortable saying that I'm a better inheritor than they are.

The second clarification required is that of which of the three groups you belong to.

Are you a politician or a bureaucrat or otherwise employed by the government at federal, state, or local levels? Are you glad for zoning laws that keep strip joints and casinos out of your neighborhood? Are you a union member who's in favor of the "Buy American!" campaign? Are you in favor of government licenses for physicians and cab drivers and electricians and explosives manufacturers? Then there's a good chance you belong to the "treasonous powermongers" group, even if you've never considered it before.

Are you a scrupulously law-abiding citizen who does his level best to obey all the new laws as they come along, either because you think it's the right thing to do or because you're afraid of being arrested? Are you an NRA member? When you hear something like, "The damage done at the Pentagon on 9/11 was not caused by a Boeing 757," do you think, "More tinfoil hats!" instead of, "Hmm...I wonder why they'd say that?" When you hear that the Justice Department needs more wiretapping or search or arrest powers to deal with the threat of terrorism, do you feel safer and more protected? Do you think Bush's tax cut, accompanied by more deficit spending, is a good idea? Would you rather get a concealed-carry permit than carry illegally? If so, then there's a good chance you belong to the "bawling sheep" group--again, even if you've never considered it before.

And if you belong to either of those groups, then yes, I think my heritage in this country is greater than yours, in the sense I originally used the term. That doesn't mean I think you should move to another country (I'm a libertarian: I think you should make your own choices, and be stuck with the consequences of them); but it does mean that you're an obstacle between me and my objective, and for me to reach it means going around or underneath or through you. (Or converting you to my side and making you an ally instead of an obstacle.)

Does that help clear matters up?

I'll get back to you. Haven't got the time right now.

Thomas Paine strikes again.

I don't know that it goes very far in clearing anything up but it does define to some degree define the debate. Since for the most part your response was in question form I'll attempt to answer them one at a time.

"Less your country than mine? Well, I can't make that determination without a couple of clarifications."

Indeed you can't. In matter of fact, you have no standing to make any meaningful determination at all. What you can do is form an opinion. You're welcome to that.

"First of all, in what sense are we comparing ownership? I assume we're probably both citizens; in that sense it's our country equally."

I don't know that there's a valid comparison. I think that we can claim to be of our country or from our country; can claim citizenship of our country or to represent our country. There are many other things we can claim of ourselves from our country but I don't thing any sane human being, with out delusions of grandeur, can claim ownership of our country. To have a stake in it, yes. To own it out right, no. I think our country is more of an idea than an object that can be defined and that as such while we can claim ownership of the idea, our birth right as a citizen, our inheritance of a system of government created to protect our rights and our right to participate in that govenment but that to claim out right ownership of the country is just a bit much for any one individual.

"Have you ever fought, in the sense of actually risking your life, for the country (as opposed to the government, I mean)? I haven't; if you have, then in that sense it's more your country than mine."

You seem to be somewhat confused here since you seem to be trying to think of and speak of our country and our govenment as two seperate entities. A person as well versed as yourself should know that as a citizen of voting age you are a part of that government that you seem to hold in such high contempt. When the Founders that you keep refering to created our system of govenment they also created a new country and vice versa. Our country wasn't born in 1775 at Lexington and Concord nor in Philidelphia in 1776. It may have been conceived then but what followed was a rather lengthy gestation period prior to its birth with the adoption of the United States Constution. You and I and every other citizen of voting age are a part of that govenment. Whether or not your opinions or ideals will always prevail and whether or not you always agree or approve of the final output doesn't change the fact that you're a part of the process. Therefore, as a citizen of this country and as a participating member of its govenment, yes I actually risked my life for it on a more or less continuous basis for a period of eighteen months and later for occasional shorter periods of time. Strangely enough, perhaps, I don't feel that that makes it any more my country than yours.

"What I meant when I said that it was me and people like me who inherited it from the Founders is that the Founders' main concern was not the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans, not maintaining a "social safety net," not "leaving no child behind," not "safe streets," and not any of the other political issues that we hear bandied about today, but individual liberty. That's what they were chiefly concerned with, and that's what I and my compatriots are chiefly concerned with today. The other two groups I mentioned are much more interested in replacing individual liberty with the comforts of socialism; therefore they are using the country bought by the blood of our Founders for a purpose they never intended. That's why I feel comfortable saying that I'm a better inheritor than they are."

Actually, the Founders main initial concern was something much more mundane than that. Economics. Fortunately they eventually rose above that. If you'll remember, they felt that they were being unfairly and excessively taxed. They were perfectly happy being Englishmen, they just wanted a voice in what they were taxed on and/or the amount of the tax. It wasn't until their government (yes, you can seperate the two as they were subjects of their government rather than participants) attempted to infringe on their right to bear arms (a right granted by the English Crown, not recognised as being granted by a higher power) that the spark of rebellion was struck at Concord. "By the rude bridge that arched the flood, their flags to April's breeze unfurled, there the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard 'round the world." Even then it took the Founders well over a year of acrimonious debate before they finally stood for independence. That it was not a unanimous decision is evidenced by the fact that during and after the rebellion somewhat less than one half and somewhat more than one third of the population of the colonies left for England, Canada, and other English colonies rather than remain in a state of rebellion against what they considered their legitimate government. Fortunately those who remained and became the Founders realized that with their newly won rights came responsibilities and after the shooting stopped and the smoke cleared they attempted to create a form of govenment which would protect those newly won rights. The first time they failed. During their second attempt, while they may not have been particularly concerned with the balance of power between the Democrats and Republicans, they were certainly concerned with the balance of power between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists; the embryonic political parties of the day. And while they were indeed concerned with individual liberty I would submit that they were even more concerned with forming a viable system of national govenment; something that the Articles of Confederation was not. They were pragmatists who realized that without a viable and functioning system of govenment individual liberty was a moot point. Without a strong govenment to defend their newly won liberty they were at risk of losing it and without a govenment that the people would support and participate in it wouldn't be strong. They also understood and realized the necessity for compromise. They realized that if they did not overcome their differences their efforts would be in vain. Therefore they each to some degree compromised their indivdual principles in order to come to agreement. What resulted was not perfect, but it was the best that they could agree on. Bottom line is that the United States Constitution is not a statement of absolute principles and liberty but protected their principles and libertys with the best compromise that they could agree on. Someone who believed above all else in securing the "Blessings of Liberty" had to give a little to those who felt that it was paramount to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare" and anything else that those involved in creating that document felt was worth including. If being pragmatic and compromising was good enough for the Founders of this country then its good enough for me. Anyone who expects to stand on absolute principle and expects to completely overcome strong and determined opposition is a fool. The Founders knew it and I know it. Does that mean that I'm satisfied with the present state of our country. No! What it means is that I know that as long as we continue to argue amoung ourselves and point our fingers at each other and keep beating our chests as we tell each other "I'm a better American than you are" we are allowing those who have turned our country in a direction that we vehemently oppose to continue in that direction unchecked. We don't have to agree completely with each other to work toward a common goal but we do have to work together in order to achieve it. Anyone who understands and believes that is following in the foot steps and the spirit of the Founders. Anyone who believes that they are the only ones who are capable of understanding and promoting what the Founders intended this country to be and are not willing to work with others who don't kowtow to their delusional self proclaimed immaculate understanding of what the Founders intent was are working in the spirit of their oppressor. In other words, if you don't play well with others you suck and you're not a good inheritor.

"The second clarification required is that of which of the three groups you belong to."

Ok, here we go.

"Are you a politician or a bureaucrat or otherwise employed by the government at federal, state, or local levels?"

Yup. You figure out which.

"Are you glad for zoning laws that keep strip joints and casinos out of your neighborhood?"

Nope.

"Are you a union member who's in favor of the "Buy American!" campaign? "

Union member? Yup. "Buy American." Only if it's the most suitable and the best value for the money.

"Are you in favor of government licenses for physicians and cab drivers and electricians and explosives manufacturers?"

Not necessarily.

"Then there's a good chance you belong to the "treasonous powermongers" group, even if you've never considered it before."

Gosh golly, maybe I'd better look in the closet and try to dig out my black shirt. Or maybe a gray one will do since I'm not totally corrupt. Actually, while I'm not sure about treasonous, it would seem to me that you're the powermonger amoung us. After all, you seem to be the one who feels that you have the power to determine who amoung us is what and/or worthy.

"Are you a scrupulously law-abiding citizen who does his level best to obey all the new laws as they come along, either because you think it's the right thing to do or because you're afraid of being arrested?"

I doubt I'm anymore law abiding than the next person and I'm not particularly fond of any new law that doesn't repeal an existing one. I'm not particularly afraid of being arrested but I am deeply concerned about being prosecuted, being disenfranchised and being incarcerated. That would kind of take me out of the equation wouldn't it? While you may look forward to that, I don't.

"Are you an NRA member?"

Yup.

"When you hear something like, "The damage done at the Pentagon on 9/11 was not caused by a Boeing 757," do you think, "More tinfoil hats!" instead of, "Hmm...I wonder why they'd say that?""

I think the crowd that thinks "Hmm....." etc. would be more likely to wear tinfoil hats than those who understand that inanimate objects don't cause anything, although they can be expressions of bad taste.

"When you hear that the Justice Department needs more wiretapping or search or arrest powers to deal with the threat of terrorism, do you feel safer and more protected?"

Not particularly, although while I am concerned about the ramifications of it I'm not particularly paranoid either. Do you think there's a microphone under every Bush? Gosh, that must be uncomfortable!

"Do you think Bush's tax cut, accompanied by more deficit spending, is a good idea?"

I think Bush's tax cut will increase revenue just like Reagan's did. Not sure why you don't approve of it since you continually refer to taxes as money taken at gun point by the govenment. The only reason we have deficit spending is the continuation of umpteen hundred and 22 unnecessary programs that won't be cut until we care more about what govenment takes from us than about what govenment does for us. So I guess my answer would be, yes; and no.

"Would you rather get a concealed-carry permit than carry illegally?"

Actually, up here we call them licenses rather than permits. Absolutely. Having said that, that doesn't mean that I haven't carried illegally in the past or that I wouldn't in the future if I felt the need was great enough. This is, however, one of those instances where given the choice I would prefer to remain within the law. See reference to disenfranchisement and incarceration above.

"If so, then there's a good chance you belong to the "bawling sheep" group--again, even if you've never considered it before."

Well gee willikers! I guess I should just head on down the chute to get sheared. Again, about the only one I hear bawling is poor little Barak. You keep carping and carping about how you're the only one who really cares and the only one who really knows what the words mean and the only one who really knows how bad the big bad govenment is etc......

"And if you belong to either of those groups, then yes, I think my heritage in this country is greater than yours, in the sense I originally used the term. That doesn't mean I think you should move to another country (I'm a libertarian: I think you should make your own choices, and be stuck with the consequences of them); but it does mean that you're an obstacle between me and my objective, and for me to reach it means going around or underneath or through you. (Or converting you to my side and making you an ally instead of an obstacle.)"

Well, as I said in the beginning, you're welcome to your opinion. Here's mine. As long as you keep bringing up the same arguments as the Montana Freemen, the Michigan Militia and all the other little "true believer" groups out there it's no wonder some people might think you need a tinfoil hat. You're the obstacle because every time you beat someone over the head with your version of the way things ought to be you undermine the credibility of the rest of us with the people we need to win over to our side. Instead of making statements and throwing digs just to get a rise out of people why don't you do something constructive? You don't have to completely agree with someone to have him for an ally. We both have about the same objective and we both need each other to get there. The difference is that I recognise it and you don't

"Does that help clear matters up?"

I don't know. Does it?
[color:"blue"] [/color] [color:"blue"] [/color] [color:"blue"] [/color]

I love this, could you both giveyour thoughts on the 2nd Amendment on this foum? BOBBALEE

Thank you for taking the time to write such a long message. I appreciate it.


We can certainly continue this discussion if you like, but it may well turn out to be fruitless. The probability is high that we're operating from such wildly different fundamental premises that it'll be almost impossible for our arguments to address one another.

For example, I don't believe you should be eligible to vote, because you have a conflict of interest that places you directly at odds with the average citizen. A bigger government means less liberty for the people, but more power and money for you. I also don't believe that people who accept unearned money from the government (unemployment, welfare, disability, etc.) should be eligible to vote. Even among the productive classes, I'm not a fan of universal suffrage.

It may turn out that the gulf between us is too wide to shout across.


Keep in mind that you were the one who first started talking about ownership. I was merely discussing philosophical inheritance. I agree that arguing over ownership is a little awkward; I'm perfectly happy to stop if you are.


No, I meant to speak of them as two separate entities. On the other hand, when you talk about every citizen of voting age being a part of the government, you sound as innocent and naive as ConradCA does when he says that our government officials are bound by the Constitution.

The vote in America means less and less every year--in large part because too many of the wrong people vote. (Also because not enough of the right people vote, and because voter fraud is not only rampant but endemic to the process. But those are topics for another thread.) I still vote in every election, for what it's worth, but I may soon decide that it's not worth the trouble.

You're part of the government, but I'm not.


Thanks for the history lesson. I realize that the Founders didn't instantly come up with the Declaration and the Constitution on the spur of the moment, that there was a process of philosophical and political growth involved. But it seems uncontroversial that they eventually decided that individual liberty was the most important thing to fight for, and that the other good things were "Blessings of Liberty" that would come along with it. Patrick Henry isn't famous for saying, "Give me lower taxes or give me death."


But the distinction is an important one. The Democrats and Republicans of today are most concerned with how to steal more of my money and spend it on things I oppose without making me quite angry enough to come after them with blood in my eye. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, were most concerned with choosing the most effective way to preserve individual liberty from an encroaching government.


It's interesting to speculate about what the Founders' reaction would have been to such a collectivist interpretation of their work.


Now who's the one with the high blood pressure? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Absolutely, I have that power. It's called the power of discrimination, and all the best people have it. Political correctness notwithstanding, it's a good thing to be discriminating.


It's not really all that complex. If taxation is theft, then it's theft whether it's a heavy tax or a light tax. Bush's tax cut has in no way affected the fact that the government is doing the same thing that it would throw you and me in prison for if it found us doing. My objection is not a quantifiable one, it's a qualitative one.


No, I'm pretty sure I've always also mentioned people like me. There are others. Not that it matters, of course. A lie doesn't get any truer if 280 million people believe it, and a truth doesn't get any less true if 280 million people deny it.


Thank you.


Who said anything about overcoming? I'm not interested in political success; I'm interested in the truth. Politics and truth have always been mortal enemies; there is no reason to believe that a position with factual and moral superiority will ever gain political superiority, and every reason to believe that it won't.


No, I think our objectives are different, and significantly so.

You strike me as the sort of person who would say that if you live in a state where all concealed carry is illegal, then a concealed-carry-permit law is a step on the way to Vermont carry. But I would maintain that it's a step in exactly the opposite direction.

You strike me as the sort of person who would say that we need to band together and make the government less oppressive. But I would maintain instead that the government needs to be made irrelevant (at least in vast part), and that can only be accomplished individually, as a person realizes that one has whatever liberty one is willing to take, regardless of what the government says.

To put it another way, you strike me as the sort of person who hasn't reached the Declaration of Independence point in his own life, and is still doing his level best to work out a tolerable arrangement with King George. But I've already reached the end of that process and have seen that it's futile. Therefore, I'm not interested in helping you continue your own search for a tolerable arrangement, and as long as you keep seeking it you're no help to me either.

I do understand, though: back when I was still a conservative, I also thought that it was silly for libertarians to argue with conservatives.

It's a little wordy for my taste.

Now if THAT isn't the pot calling the kettle black! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Rick

ROFLMBO!

Good one. Very nicely done. Touche.

Barak, well said. As I could not express my views any better than you (and probably not nearly as well), I am content to merely read them as you express them.

The points on which we disagree are very minor, but one would be the use of state issued CCW licenses. Although I agree that the exercise of a liberty requires no permission from the government, I am content to avoid trouble for myself by obeying the law, so long as it does not actually stand in the way of the exercise of my rights. I respect your view, however, and consider it to occupy the higher moral ground. High ground, however, sometimes draws enemy fire, which I am content to avoid where possible. Keep talking, though. We need to hear this stuff.

Thank you for the encouragement.


The line of thought that convinced me out of that position (I used to hold it as well) started with the famed Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court decision that said (among many other things) that laws repugnant to the Constitution are void.

Since regulation is a kind of infringement, the government has no Constitutional power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. That means all laws containing such regulation are void. (You and I probably agree perfectly up until this point; but I decided to strike out a little farther and see what I came up with.) If the law is void, then police have no authority to enforce it. And police who employ force without authority are no better than armed thugs.

A concealed-carry license is a tradeoff. On the minus side, you give up money, liberty, and privacy. On the plus side, you're (more likely to be) safe from having your weapon confiscated and being arrested when you're stopped by police--or, in this case, armed government thugs.

All this, when dumped into the hopper and vibrated with corncob media for long enough, evaluates to the following: applying for a concealed carry license amounts to exchanging essential liberty for temporary safety.

And that's why I can't countenance it, at least not for myself. Everyone must, of course, make his own decisions.

I tend to agree with barak, but will expand on his remark to say that I think it means what it says.

Of course he holds the higher moral ground! He's arguing pure philosophy while I'm discussing reality. Morals and successful politics seldom co-exist. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In Texas it used to be a misdemeanor to "unlawfully carry" a pistol. It is now a felony, a bill signed into law by GWB. He also signed the concealed carry bill into law, making him the darling of conservatives. Now you get a license or your weapon is confiscated if you are caught exercising a right affirmed by the constitution. And don't forget the betrayal of principle of his father. He joined the NRA to garner the vote of the membership, and it worked. Once in office he ruled by fiat, a kingly right. He stopped the manufacture of full auto weapons for civilians, a crime fighting measure. HA HA.
Why do I or you have to have governmental authority to defend a life given to me not by the government, but by my creator? I can still carry a rifle so I do, but to carry a pistol outside my property puts me at risk of having to hire a lawyer to defend my very right to live, if threatened by the occasional deranged criminal. Or maybe I should just rely on the police to protect me.
BOBBALEE <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

We don't. We have the right to provide for our own self defense.

The legislator who votes for an anti-CCW bill, the executive who signs it into law, the cop who arrests you for violating it, the lawyers who stack the jury against you using voir dire, the judge who lies to the jury about their power and their duty to judge the law as well as the defendant--they're all simple thugs. The only difference between them and petty street muggers is that their crime organization is much bigger and more powerful.

You stay out of the clutches of the government the same way you stay out of the clutches of any other criminal organization.


You take a risk every time you get in your car; every time you go to work; every time you eat something; every time you go hunting or fishing or shooting or whatever your particular hobby is. Living free, by your wits, has always been and will always be fraught with risk--the same way it's more dangerous to be a 14-point whitetail buck than it is to be a domestic dairy goat.

Your freedom is defined by the degree to which you're willing to live as a free man, not by the government or any of its laws.

Some laws are good, of course (they were mostly made before 1912). But they're good not because the government made them, but because they protect people's fundamental rights.

Living free may well get you imprisoned or killed by the government, while living as a slave is much safer. Now, as ever, you must decide for yourself whether you more highly value freedom or safety.

http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm

it appears if Bush really is for some gun control
checkout the link.


(Monday, April 14, 2003) -- In a surprise move this past weekend, the Bush administration announced its support for keeping the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban on the books.

The law, which bans common household firearms, is set to expire in September, 2004. But the Knight Ridder news agency had a startling revelation for readers on Saturday.

"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The "current law" McClellan was referring to is the ban on semi-automatic firearms and magazines (over 10 rounds) which was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and then-Representative Chuck Schumer of New York.

The ban narrowly passed in both houses and was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

Most bad legislation lives on forever. But in an effort to corral fence-sitters in Congress, Senator Feinstein inserted a "sunset" provision into the bill. This provision means that the ban expires in ten years -- specifically, in September of 2004.

At the time, the sunset provision didn't seem like much of a victory. But it soon became clear that this provision would be our best hope for repealing the notorious gun grab. Recently, it was beginning to look like gun owners would have a better than average chance of winning.

Until the announcement this past weekend.

The White House's statement means that people will not be able to rely upon a presidential veto if Congress musters enough votes to extend the ban in the near future.

Despite the fact that both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans, the majority of Congressmen are either fence-sitters or anti-gun.

It is quite possible that the gun grabbers can get 51 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House to reauthorize the semi-auto ban and make it permanent.

This makes the recent announcement all the more distressing. But Bush's position is not written in stone -- at least not yet.

Because the above quote was not made by the President himself or by his primary spokesman, Ari Fleischer, there is still some "wiggle room" that will allow the President to reverse course and do the right thing.

THAT IS WHY IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT EVERY GUN OWNER WRITE THE PRESIDENT AND URGE HIM TO REMAIN TRUE TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH OF OFFICE.

George Bush is President today because gun owners went to the polls and voted for him over Al Gore in 2000. Pro-gun voters delivered three key Democratic states -- Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas -- and with those states, the victory went to Bush.

This would be a horrible mistake if the President were to turn his back on gun owners and take a page out of the Clinton-Gore playbook. Perhaps this statement over the weekend was a "trial balloon." We can only hope so. If it was a trial balloon, then we need to "shoot it down" in a hurry.

It is absolutely vital that we succeed in inundating the White House in opposition to this ban. This unconstitutional law must be repealed. Otherwise, it will be used as a precedent to ban even more guns.

It shouldn't, but it continues to surprise me when people are taken aback that a [insert heavenly chorus and soft angelic light here] Republican! politician could possibly support gun control. Especially if he's promised ahead of time that he won't.

The relevant attribute to consider is not that he's a Republican, but that he works for the government, and the government must disarm us, sooner or later, if it is to safely implement its future plans for us. The government can get only a finite amount bigger and more powerful and more oppressive before people with guns start potting politicians, and they understand that. Sometime between now and then, those people with guns have to go away, one way or another. Time is growing shorter and shorter, especially with all the new oppressive measures that have been powered by the War On Terrorism; somebody has to do it, and soon.

Letting the Assault Weapons Ban sunset would be a move in exactly the wrong direction at just the wrong time. Standard-capacity Glock magazines are now closing in on $200 apiece; if the Assault Weapons Ban sunsets, they'd instantly be manufactured by the millions and their price would drop back down to $12.95 or whatever they're charging for the reduced-capacity ones now. Congress might succeed in banning them again, but this time the industry would have learned from the last time, and we'd be awash in the things. Same with flash suppressors and folding stocks and all the rest of it.

(Admit it: many of you were counting on it to sunset with a Republican in the White House, weren't you? And you were planning to stock up on all the things it prohibited as soon as that happened, before the next ban came through, right? Do you think you were the only ones who thought of that?)

It would be such a heavy blow to the government's disarmament program to let the ban sunset that it simply can't be allowed to happen, regardless of who's in the White House at the time. Sure, it might have been part of the Democrat plan to schedule it to sunset with a Republican in office (it was a pretty safe bet that a Republican would follow Clinton), and they might have figured that Republican outrage could amount to an easy ride back into the White House; but people who get distracted by petty party politics like that are missing the bigger picture.

Write letters if you want to; there are certainly worse things you could be doing with your time. But you need to understand that those letters will be treated the same way you treat letters from Sally Struthers about starving kids in Africa when you're unemployed in the middle of winter and the gas company is threatening to shut off your heat. Maybe Bush wishes he could do something for you; but there's just no way it can realistically be permitted to happen. To the contrary, a massive letter-writing campaign will merely alert the government to the fact that its remaining window may be smaller than it thought, and disarmament efforts will need to be stepped up a bit.

Barak, keep up the good work/word. I don't agree with everything you write, but I agree with most of it.