Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 21:58:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
854 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher L. Weeks wrote in message
<373C485D.E0DE68AA@cclabs.missouri.edu>...
> Steve Bliss wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 May 1999 22:55:23 GMT, cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com (Mike Stanley)
> > wrote:
> > Having said all that, I don't understand the psychology of being able to
> > murder someone. Go ahead, call me a wimp, but I can't imagine killing
> > someone. OK, I can imagine it, but I can't imagine actually doing it.
>
> Good. That's the way you're supposed to be. It should be traumatic to
> kill someone even in self defense. I am easily willing on a
> philosophical level to defend myself with leathal force, but I assume it
> will be a traumatic event.
Probably so, but less traumatic than being shot or worse, killed. Thats
the how I feel about it - I don't want to be killed or even shot. Anyone
want to argue with that?
But trauma has nothing to do with the reason why gun control is wrong and
why the Columbine shootings should have absolutely no affect on any laws,
local, state or federal.
In the United States, an intentionally free country, every person is
given rights by the Constitution and also given freedom. By the intention
of the politicos who wrote the Constitution and who founded this country, we
are to be a free people - we have liberty, unlike those in any other nation.
The sole purpose of our government is to guarantee the liberty and right of
the citizens. This means an individual has the freedom to do whatever he
likes. Rights, not needs (two entirely different things) were established
for every man in the United States that are meant to protect him from all
others (individuals, any groups of individuals and the individuals who make
up the government). As the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are
written, each individual has total liberty as long as his actions do not
impose on the rights of another Laws are made to enforce the rights of
citizens (the people), and for no other reason. To be sure that one man
does not violate another's rights (break the law) we have, in the
Constitution, instructions for a legal system which devises punishments for
those who break the law.
Having the "right to bear arms" simply means having the right or freedom
to own any tools needed to protect one's self from any other. Any other
being an individual, a group of individuals, including any individual/group
of individuals within our own or any other governments. It is a right, a
freedom which can not be taken away (Constitutionally).
Why we have this right. If any person attempts to or does impose his
will on another by using force of any kind, such as a fist, a big stick, a
gun, a bomb, a missile or any type of weapon it is WRONG. Using force on
another is wrong because it causes one man to do that which he does not want
to do - it infringes his own liberty - he is not acting freely. That is
wrong, or unjust, or broken, or evil. No matter how much it occurs, in this
country or any other, and no matter the scale, it is wrong. This is not
debatable. Without the (what the individual deems necessary) means to
defend one's self, a man can not be certain that he will always be able to
act according to his own free will, which he has the right to do. As with
any other rights we have, to take away this right is wrong. To impose
restrictions on this right is wrong. I hold these truths to be self
evident, as did the intellectuals in America in the late 18th century. Some
things change, some never should. Thanks
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) So, should we assume that taxation, in any form other than optional user fees, by your definition is evil? (If so, we agree.) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: New Web Page
|
| On Fri, 14 May 1999 21:58:19 GMT, John DiRienzo uttered the following profundities... (...) There's that word, Constitutionally, again. Used as though it was without flaw, without error, a holy scripture as though written by god(s) (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) That's what they say on the news...I guess it must be true. Why can't they make the numbers reflect that then? Verrrry interestingk. How would this training prevent crimes of passion? (...) Really? So saving ten and losing one isn't a good (...) (26 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
