While I do not agree with the tactics that he used, McVeigh is correct that the government is out of control. Just the other day, the senate passed a law that prohibits gun groups from talking about how an incumbant representative has voted on issues in the past; 60 days before the election. This bill has now been introduced in the house to be voted on.

Not only does this bill take away their right to free speech, it takes away the right of every American to free speech. This would be the first of many bills to restrict our freedom. What are they afraid of, how they voted gets brought up. If they do not like how they voted on some bills, then they should have voted differently. Covering it up does no good. What is next, not allowing us to hear about bills until they are signed into law?

As I said before. I do not agree with the tactics that he used and I would never consider doing anything like that. But the government misleads us each and everyday. They hide things from us that make them look bad and try to control us as much as they can. Rather then making laws that coincide with our rights, they try to chip away at them a little bit at a time. If they can silence certain groups, what is next, the media? So much liberty.

Lance

"Give me freedom or give me death."

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lanbrown
[B]Cthree,

Do what Mingster would, take some valium and you won't care.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh....l.statement.gif

and as all good martyrs, he goes away leaving a written manifesto for the next generations to worship him...
One more proof that this is useless.
Victim's families' thirst for blood and revenge is left unsatisfied, since he didn't die crying and begging for pardon, and instead of rotting in a cell for the rest of his life, he goes away in all of his splendor, proud and defiant.

 

Pump up the valium?

 

there's no punishment that would have fit his crime that would also be constitutionally permissible. let's just be thankful that this world is rid of him. I just get worried that all the media coverage for the past days, weeks, months, will serve to glorify him in some fertile sick minds. In some respects the media should have made him a non-story, a nobody, but they have to sell commercial time and the public eats this kind of sh*t up.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lanbrown
[B]While I do not agree with the tactics that he used, McVeigh is correct that the government is out of control.

 

It was brought to my attention by the GOA in their monthly newsletter. The GOA has been known to be very accurate and does not distort facts to get what they want. It should be on their site, www.gunowners.org The bill is s.27 and is called "campaign finance reform."

The government does many things that is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if it is state or federal, it is all the same. In Michigan, you have a few counties that are trying to file a suit on the new CCW bill that passed last year and goes into effect in July. They say they do not have the staff to handle the requests. Why did they wait less than a month before the law goes into effect? They do not like the law and they wait until the last minute to stop it. They lost in the congress, and they will try to win in court.

Lance

 

Lance,

Thanks for pointing me to the website. A couple of things that the site left out, that I believe are important, about the Bill. First, this bill has been proposed many many times and has yet to be signed into law. Second, this bill is absolutely not targeted at gun groups, but political groups in general. Third, the bill contains a rider that states if any part of the bill is struck down as unconstitutional, then the remainder of the bill is struck as unconstitutional. Knowing a bit about the subject, I suspect its a safe bet that the bill is unconsititutional, but probably not for the same reasons you would think.

There are already limits on our free speech that I think all of us would agree are appropriate: On the extreme is the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. This is clearly an imposition on free speech, but would we really want to lift this ban? Additionally, if we want to hold a rally downtown, we have to get a permit. This too is a restriction on free speech. The Supreme Court has justified such restrictions based on a "time, place and manner" test. That is almost all speech is allowed, but we are going to control it to ensure that there is no danger to public safety. I am sure that this bill would attempt to squeeze in under that test. Frankly, I don't believe that test will work in this case and therefore the bill will not stand muster.

I share your frustrations with the imposition of others judgements (through the guise of the federal, and state governments), and agree with the statement that "our system is the worst in the world, other than everyone else's." Sometimes the wheels turn slowly, occaisionally they turn the wrong way, but its still a pretty amazing society we have built with so many differing entities and cultures.

Just my $.02.