Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:03:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
233 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> >
> > Clinton was just on TV not 15 seconds ago (11:20PM EST) saying how we need
> > these measures so that no more children need to die like that six year old
> > girl. Look, I have a six year old son and a four year old daughter, I cannot
> > fully imagine the utter anguish this mother must be feeling, but none of • these
> > measures would have prevented her daughter's death. The people who had that • gun
> > wouldn't have followed the rules - the gun was stolen for crying out loud.
>
> If the gun had a trigger lock when the thief found it, would he have stolen • it?
> He probably would have. It sure would have taken a lot more effort on his part
> to remove the lock and get the gun into working condition. I'm also assuming
> that he didn't know how a gun was to be treated since he left it loaded where • a
> 6 year old could get to it.
>
> > This ballistic fingerprint is, by their own admission, only effective if a
> > crime has already been committed.
>
> True, but it would help to bring the criminal to justice after the fact.
>
> > This is the kind of nonsense that frustrates so many.
> > And then some Congresswoman says that the NRA doesn't represent America, "we
> > do" speaking of herself and others on stage. Who does she think the members • of
> > the NRA are? They're the same citizens she claims to represent.
> >
> > We are all upset by the actions of such heartless killers, but this is not • the
> > answer. The fact is that if more people had guns there would be less such
> > incidents - the numbers don't lie. Criminals are basically cowards and prey • on
> > the weak. Too many restrictive laws will ensure that they are better armed • than
> > the good guys. And before anyone says that that's what the police are for -
> > they too can only act after a crime is underway - many people have been • killed
> > after calling 911 asking for help only to be told that they couldn't do
> > anything until a crime has been committed!
> >
> > These touchy-feely pure emotion liberal arguments are totally void of commom
> > sense and/or logic. This is the problem of being ruled by emotions. Doing
> > something is not always better than doing nothing, especially when we
> > incrementally loose our liberties.
>
> What liberties are we losing? Please enlighten me.
No need to be so smug.
For one, we lose the liberty of choosing what to do with the additional money
we are required to shell out - regardless of how small the amount. These types
of things are always done incrementally. Look at tobacco. It started with
warning labels, then "no smoking" areas in buildings and planes, then no
smoking at all in certain buildings or planes and now lawsuits. It doesn't
stop, as long as liberals think they can control your behavior and squeeze a
buck out of it. Now they're talking about taxing fatty foods(!) - oh, because
they care. Puh-lease, all they care about is manipulation and money. For the
whole seat belt thing read LarryP's posts. That started innocently enough.
First they said they wouldn't pull anyone over just for that, but now they say
they can and will. And what about that OSHA thing that almost happened. This is
where it always starts - and it ends in lost freedoms. Every penny we give away
in taxes is lost freedom.
Bill
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: Look at tobacco. It started with (...) At the same time, though, the supposition of courtesy is inadequate against the average smoker in my experience--sufficiently so that "no smoking" areas in (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) part (...) Smug? I didn't see any of my liberties being threatened. That was why I was asking. (...) The increase in price of a gun with a trigger lock would more than likely go towards defraying the gun manufacturers added cost of making or (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) gun (...) If the gun had a trigger lock when the thief found it, would he have stolen it? He probably would have. It sure would have taken a lot more effort on his part to remove the lock and get the gun into working condition. I'm also (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 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
|
|
|
|
