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

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:lists@julius-net.net] 
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:50 PM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: 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?
> 
> Matthias
> 
> 
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 
> 



Reply to: