Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 04:53:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1455 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > I don't care if you own a gun--it comes with a free society. But don't
> > > think it comes from the 2nd. Here's the point: The 2nd says "In order to
> > > maintian a well regulated militia, people have the right to bear arms."
> > > (whatever, is close)
> >
> > No, not close, in fact completely wrong.
>
> Where you looking? I truncated, I didn't remember the *exact* quote, and I
> didn't want to go looking for it, but my original posting was written as a
> response to the explicit 2nd, and I paraphrased last time--sorry 'bout
> that--but now that you have it, *everything* I said *still* applies--Timmy
> and Melissa (age 5 and 4) are still *people*, and yet they're still not
> allowed to own guns...
Didn't we dispose of this red herring already? Really, it's rather tiresome
going round and round and round with you, you're displaying the Scott Arthur
nature here a bit... and it doesn't score you any points with the regulars,
you may want to stop.
Some sort of notion about who is an able bodied person of sound mind and
therefore a citizen seems pretty implicit to me.
If Timmy can demonstrate he's mature enough to vote intelligently and strong
enough to hold a gun I personally am OK with him having one. But I support
the state setting some guidelines similar to those that they impose for
entering contracts, such as using the age of majority
But that's it! If you're eligible for citizenship, you're eligible to (nay,
you have a duty to...) own a gun. That was the intent of the Founding
Fathers and nothing has convinced me that they were wrong. They are more
right than ever, we're in the grip of a particularly insidious tyranny today.
Taking courses, appearing before review boards, etc etc are all mechanisms
of restraint of this right to bear arms
The safety argument doesn't cut it unless you're going to require education
and licensing before you're willing to allow people to use kitchen knives,
hammers, screwdrivers, nail guns, chain saws and lots of other more
dangerous things.
I oppose apriori regulation of something merely because it's dangerous. Use
the dangerous thing, but if you're using it recklessly, expect to face the
consequences.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| Some questions from down under... In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) ...and do you therefore also have a duty to be part of a well regulated militia? (...) But couldn't they be seen also as a method of regulating the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Where you looking? I truncated, I didn't remember the *exact* quote, and I didn't want to go looking for it, but my original posting was written as a response to the explicit 2nd, and I paraphrased last time--sorry 'bout that--but now that you (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
