[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]

"Cybe R. Wizard" <cyber_wizard@mindspring.com> writes:

> On Mon, 01 May 2006 15:24:21 -0700
> Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org> wrote:
>> Matthias Julius wrote:
>> > The same is true for drugs and other controlled substances.  Would
>> > you vote making them freely available?
>>     I would, and have.  Or rather, at the very least, decriminalized
>> the ones that are criminalized now.  Because "drugs" encompasses more
>> than just the illegal ones I presume you're referring to.
> So would I.  I believe that well-intentioned and law-abiding citizens
> should be free to do/buy/possess whatever they wish as long as it
> harms no one.

How do you recognize well-intentioned and law-abiding citizens?  What
makes this difficult is that people change.  They buy a gun as a
well-intentioned and law-abiding citizen in case they need to defend
themselfes.  Then a while later when they are upset or drunk they find
they have a gun handy and do harm somebody else.  A lot of such
violent crimes are committed out of an emotional reaction.  While
taking away guns may not completely prevent all such crimes ti might
make them less harmfull.  Using a gun is too easy.

> I can easily foresee a possible need for heroin or cocaine. Any
> problem arises when one wishes to do unlawful things (things which
> harm others). Why should the law-abiding pay for those who do not
> wish to abide by the common rules of free men?  for instance, if
> some people use guns to threaten/harm others why would a government
> disallow guns to the common free man who will only use them in
> defense of his family and possessions?

Maybe if noone had a gun to threaten you with you wouldn't need one to
defend yourself?

> Maybe so that same government could pass imminent domain laws to
> take away legal possessions from that man?  Fear your government,
> any type of government.

Isn't that a bit paranoid?


Reply to: