RE: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
Has anyone commented on the notion that gun control only keeps guns out
of law-abiding citizens? This idea that you can take guns away from
everyone hasn't been proven to work anywhere.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Julius [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:50 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
> "Cybe R. Wizard" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Mon, 01 May 2006 15:24:21 -0700
> > Steve Lamb <email@example.com> 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,
> >> 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?
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact