Subject:
|
Re: Million Mom March
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 May 2000 20:00:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> Why should that be limited to man-portable weapons. I disagree. Since the
> ponit of the 2nd is clearly to keep the citizens armed to the point where they
> can reject the government, then all ordnance available to the government MUST
> be available to the citizens. I know that when we get touchy-feely with out
> emotional side, it seems like weapons of mass destruction should be
> prohibited, but I don't think that's in the spirit of the 2nd and its logic.
When the 2nd was written, cutting-edge weapons technology took about a minute
to load a single shot. Today, how long does anyone realistically think that
anything other than a phenomenally large group of organized, trained, private
civilians could stand against a no-holds-barred military force acting against
it? Perhaps we should check in with Mr. Koresh to see how effective he feels
such resistance to be.
Your assertion that everyone legally should have access to all weapons seems
unworkable. Do you suggest that my neighbor and I should be able to own
100-megaton nuclear warheads, in case the mayor gets a little too pushy? Much
to my surprise, I find myself in agreement with Larry (twice in one week!) and
the man-carryable limitation.
Certainly we should work to enforce the existing laws before penning a dozen
volumes of new ones, but given the ease with which two local (to Pittsburgh)
lunatics were recently able to go on shooting rampages, I don't see that
unlimited weapons access would really do anyone any good. Granted, these two
individuals were sick and therefore not representative of the vast majority of
gun owners who are sane, but it was bad enough that their legal access to
weapons allowed them to shoot about a dozen people--how much worse would it
have been if they'd been driving around in Constitutionally-guaranteed Abrams
tanks?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Million Mom March
|
| (...) they (...) What does this rebut? I hear people make arguments based on the idea that the founders didn't know what weapons would be like, but I never really get how that matters. The point is that the people must have access to weapons (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Million Mom March
|
| (...) Well, whenever anyone trots out the "but there are loonies out there with guns who shoot people" I trot out the example of the Texas McD massacre in which one victim, who lost her father or brother, I forget, but who got off scot free, said (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Million Mom March
|
| (...) carried (...) Why should that be limited to man-portable weapons. I disagree. Since the ponit of the 2nd is clearly to keep the citizens armed to the point where they can reject the government, then all ordnance available to the government (...) (24 years ago, 13-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
