F. Leon Wilson writes:
> In The United States, it is clearly stated that not everyone/anyone
> can grow up to become President.

It is clearly stated in the constitution.  You have to be a US citizen
by birth and at least 45 years of age, or was it 35?  I assume that is
what you mean by clearly stated.

> That is a long exposed myth.

That isn't a myth.

> Ask any Black person or woman in America.

Race has nothing to do with the law.  Black people can be president.
Had General Powell run, he may well have won.

> > Guns extend, with purpose, human capacity and possibility - the
> > impossible but conceivable becomes the possible, the totally do-able.
> > Guns only exist for this.
>
> So does spears, slingshots, knifes, bow-and arrows and rocks.  Guns
> are designed to shoots bullets that can cause great bodily harm
> and/or death to humans.  So what?
>
> Don't I have the right to use any tool or object to my desire?

You do if it is legal.  If it is made illegal, then you don't, unless
you are basing your right on the responsibility to engage in civil
disobedience when a law is wrong.  Guns could reasonably be made
illegal.

> >Guns remove many obstacles - it's hard to kill a bunny or a person
> >with your bare hands - the bunny must be caught, the person must be
> >overwhelmed, along with any revulsion we may feel in the intimacy of
> >slaughter (would Marian Morrison, aka John Wayne, have bested a bunny in a
> >fair fight?) 'Fear no man, what ere his size, just call on me, I'll
> >equalise'. - yep, totally benign.
>
> You have missed the point.
>
> Is killing for a purpose wrong?

Killing for a purpose does not address the issue of morality.  It
isn't *even* wrong.  Killing for a purpose, without addressing the
issue of right or wrong, simply avoids the question.  Killing your
neighbor for the purpose of stopping him from using his lawn mower on
Sunday morning is most certainly wrong.  Remember that your list is a
Chomsky list, not a Rand list.  Chomsky is not an objectiivist, is he?

> >A progressive constitution, a living constitution, should need very little
> >in the way of enforcement.
>
> You are dreaming.

No, he has been to Norway.

> There is always going to opposition to any organization until human learn
> to live within their circles and not try to extend/expand their influence
> out side their circles.  The United States should be composed of numerous
> "constitutions" to accommodate the diversity of its people.  Yet, there is
> one group of people who choose to dominate all other groups under the
> auspices of a constitution.

I agree that the US is too big for its constitution, but that doesn't
mean there is "one group of people who choose to dominate all other
groups under the auspices of a constitution." What group are you
talking about?  The NRA?

> There is a problem in your basic understanding of what has happen on this
> planet and why things remain the way the do.

Give us your view of that.

> > There's a problem, however, in taking a constitution from a bygone age
> > and trying to force the contemporary psyche into abiding by it.
>
> The problem is not the age; it is the thinking of those who have benefited
> for the unjust actions of those true outlaws.  Collectively, those people
> had no sense of correctness or justice.  They established a form of
> supremacy based on their wants and desire and brutally murdered all that
> opposed.

Be specific here.  What exactly are you talking about?

> > At the level of the State, I think that a reasonably enlightened approach
> > is in the example provided by the Swiss constitution - for example,
> > nothing is 'enshrined' or beyond reach - today's people are free(ish) to
> > reconstruct the principles and laws governing their public space in
> > accordance with their own judgment, not the judgement of some ancient
> > paradigm.
>
> There are too many problems with the statements you just made.  The Swiss
> constitution is no different from the United States or the South African
> constitutions.  They are all designed to keep the power and control in the
> hands a  small circle of people.

In the Swiss system, everyone votes on laws.  That's different.

> And guns (killing) were and are their primary ways of keeping that
> control.

The primary way of keeping control is by killing with guns?  Most of
the people in America, Canada, NZ, Norway, are *not* obeying laws out
of fear for their lives.  I think you're out of touch today, Leon.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701