> To support my point I state this: The guy I was just referring to who
> stated he would rather kill a police officer (who most likely has a wife
> and family) or other law enforcement officers than have his gun taken
> away SHOULD have his license revoked for saying that and have his
> weapons taken away as he is talking like a potential killer and is
> clearly a threat to the general public from my perspective.
First they argue that they only want to take guns from criminals and
dangerous psychotics, now you recommend removing rights for thought
crimes and /potential/ criminals? Do you honestly believe that your
broad knowledge of psychology and extensive interview with this man
qualifies you to make the judgment that he is unfit to exercise the
same rights you and I have? In my judgment, he merely said that he
was willing to use those rights for precisely their intended purpose,
i.e., to defend himself from those (such as the police) who invade
his home with the intent to forcefully deprive him of his rights and
the means to exercise them. I'd have no problem at all with having
this man as a neighbor or business associate; he speaks his mind and
is willing to stand up for what's right. And I have nothing to fear
from him because I have no desire to interfere with his choices. I
wouldn't buy a used bike for $10 from Sarah Brady or her followers--
they've shown that they clearly lack the personal integrity to be
trusted with anything, least of all my life and liberty.
Peace is not a goal that can be worked toward; justice is the goal,
and peace is the natural consequence of justice.
Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
Peace is not a goal that can be worked toward; justice is the goal, and peace is the natural consequence of justice.