>At 4:30 PM -0800 2/11/00, Matthew Gream wrote:
>
>>If you were to read the sentence that follows the one you quoted, you would
>>find that I say "however, until such time" to acknowledge two things.
>>Firstly, that an ideal society takes time to reach (if at all reachable),
>>and secondly, that when an ideal society is reached, it needs to prevent
>>itself from slipping back to a non-ideal society.
>
>I understood your point. And I still think your point is pernicious.
>
>The very notion of "perfection means rights won't be needed" is what is
>pernicious. Seen frequently in the gun debate. ("If we lived in a perfect
I would agree with your position on this.
>society, guns would not be needed and there would be no need for the Second
>Amendment.")
In an ideal society, neither guns, nor the second amendment
*would* be needed.
Guns would not be "needed" for defense or protection because
those situations wouldn't come up.
The Second amendment wouldn't be needed because there would
be no government to take the guns away, and society would
recognize--without any coercion--not only the right to the means to
self defense, but all other rights.
To use another line of attack on this that might make what I
am trying to say more clear--In the "Perfect World", there would be
no need for a spare tire, but that doesn't mean that spare tires
would be outlawed.
Of course, the perfect society is like the perfect
gun--different to each person.
--
A quote from Petro's Archives: **********************************************
If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret
the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
