Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 22:27:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
738 times
|
| |
|
|
Lee Jorgensen wrote in message <373C4173.E8AB1A57@uswest.net>...
>
>
> John Neal wrote:
>
> >
> > If I may jump in to interject my 2 slugs worth;-) I don't know if the
> > Constitution guarantees the right to possess *guns* per say, merely to • "bear
> > arms". Suppose technology creates a Star Trekkian phaser capable of • merely
> > stunning an attacker? How does that affect how we view killing? • *Everyone* would
> > be armed and capable to defend themselves against deadly force *without* • the use
> > of deadly force.
The Constitution does not specify which types of arms, but nowhere does
it say that *anything* is contraband to an American citizen. The government
was designed to allow total freedom for its people.
> What's to stop someone from stunning me first, then taking a rock and • killing me?
> Besides, in the great wisdom of our leaders, current stun guns are illegal. • (note
> heavy sarcasm).
> > Arm everyone with non lethal weapons, and crime *will* go down. Create a • stun gun
> > that works from a distance, give one to everyone, ban *all* traditional • firearms,
> > and see what happens:-)
Who is going to pay to arm everyone with non-lethal weapons? AFAIK these
handy stun guns are quite expensive. Not something the average joe would go
out and plop down two weeks salary for (assuming it were legal to do so),
given he already owns an adequate means of defense of his own choosing.
This seems similar to me to the automotive emissions tests used in some
states. The supposed reason for the emissions test is that if your vehicle
pollutes the air too much you can not use it. In reality, these states are
forcing people to spend their more money on a newer and *unecessary*
vehicle. I agree that there is an absurd amount of pollution, but as usual
the government is off target. In this case the little guys, average people,
instead of large industrial companies, the big guys, which pollute the air
much more, are paying the cost of cleaning the air (and not really affecting
the air, too). In fact, this can be taken even farther, where the indiviual
is being forced to support such large corporations by buying their cars and
also "paying the pollution fine" which is rightfully the corporation's.
> Taser. Currently banned in most locales.
> Then the current 'evil' of other countries could come in and take us over. • I don't
> see
> the type of technology that will allow for this anytime in the near future.
The technology already exists, although its rather expensive. The
military has a lot of neat toys they don't let us play with.
> Lee Jorgensen, Programmer/Analyst - Bankoe Systems, Inc.
--
Have fun!
John ( jdiri14897@email.msn.com ) remove NOSPAM:
John's Lego Web Trade Page:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA[cl,bf,cr,fm,bk+++ wp,dm,rk,df++ fk-]++++(6035)
SW,TR,old(456)+++ TO++ PI,SP+ DU--
#+++++ S LS¼ Hy? M+ A+++ LM-- IC12m
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) What's to stop someone from stunning me first, then taking a rock and killing me? Besides, in the great wisdom of our leaders, current stun guns are illegal. (note heavy sarcasm). (...) Taser. Currently banned in most locales. Then the (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
