Subject:
|
Re: The position of authority (was: Handgun Death Rate)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 22 Jul 2001 00:42:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
172 times
|
| |
|
|
Could you clarify this paragraph for me, please?
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> You say the arms are there to oppose an oppressive or corrupt government.
> You then say that you find the government oppressive and corrupt. But, you
> don't take up arms. I'm glad you don't, but given your own aguments, why
> not? I presume it's because you don't think they're bad enough to warrant
> it. So, the only other course open is to change things by political means.
> So, why not just forget about the guns?
This confused me. If the government currently is oppressive, but not bad
enough to actually rebel against, why would I want to give up my arms now? I
may well be working for political change, but what if things get worse
instead of better and I need to rebel? Don't I then have the harder problem
of securing arms illegally (if I gave them up) rather than just unlocking
them (if the right was retained)?
You need to realise that the argument that I need my arms as a check is, to
me, superior to any argument about how many people die accidentally or with
malice aforethought in the course of everyday life. I accept those losses,
just as I accept the loss of life due to automobile accidents, because the
freedom they grant is worth the losses. (In the case of automobiles, it is
freedom of movement, and in the case of arms it is the freedom,
fundamentally, to continue to be free).
So arguments that say that banning guns would reduce crime would carry no
weight with me even if they WERE true, which they aren't.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
