Matthias Julius wrote: > > 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. > So, because little Johnny *might* misbehave, the whole third grade is not allowed to attend the museum field trip. Yup, that's definitely the way to go. > >>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? > If I was in my home and some invader came in, I would not want to first find out what he was carrying and get a matching weapon. That is lunacy. I want to know that I can defend myself. Besides, how will make sure that noone has a gun? > >>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? > I don't think so. I mean, the founding fathers *created* the government, yet they still feared it. -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature