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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:50 PM > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract] > > "Cybe R. Wizard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Mon, 01 May 2006 15:24:21 -0700 > > Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
