Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 May 1999 15:11:15 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu[StopSpammers]
|
Viewed:
|
681 times
|
| |
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote:
>
> Good point, I think I will unsubscribe for awhile, since my view is
> unmovable.
For the record, I think that my beliefs are subject to change, but
others have tried to convince me and it hasn't happened on this issue.
> Most gun legislation is pointless and "fails the innocent." As long as
> guns exist, which I suspect will be forever, people will own and use them.
This is the key practical point, as far as I see it.
> It is unjust to allow one person to have a gun and another person not to
> have a gun.
And this is the key ethical point which stems from the point above. And
since both of these are immutable, how can it be argued?
> Whether it is legal or
> not, I will own a gun for the sole purpose of self protection.
It is legal and I'm sure always will be. I don't think we'll see an
amendment to abolish any part of the bill of rights.
> The NRA, although it is extreme,
That's funny, I think the NRA takes a fairly moderate stance, supporting
certain legislation such as background checks etc., that I do not. I am
an NRA member (five years now) but I still think they make a lot of
concessions to the gun control factions.
> It would be nice if I and the millions of
> people fighting against gun legislation could do something better with their
> money, like spend it on law enforcement, rather than protecting ourselves
> from useless, detrimental legislation.
Why does law enforcement primarily deal with after-the-fact
repercussions, rather than preventative measures? I know of several
instances in which potential future illegal actions were reported to
police and blown off because nothing had happened. I see this as very strange.
> I must say I fear my own government
> more than any kook with a gun, but I suppose thats because I have a defense
> for him. Whereas my only defense against my government is the sound minds
> of my countrymen, which is very unreassuring.
Exactly.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) I believe it has something to do with the fact that the police are only *supposed* to be involved in situations where a crime has been committed. No crime, no punishment. Can you imagine what would happen if citizens could be punished because (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| I just want to put my two cents on this one, whereas I will just keep my big mouth shut about the other threads... For what its worth, Mike Stanly seems to absolutely right! (again) Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Good point, I think I will (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
