Date sent: Fri, 28 May 1999 05:44:04 -0700 (PDT) From: mark@unicorn.com To: extropians@extropy.com Subject: Re: Property Rights Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> Joe E. Dees [joedees@bellsouth.net] wrote:
> >Lemme get this straight: you WANT the above people to have
> >guns?
>
> Just like the typical anti-gunner, I ask a direct question, you ignore it.
> Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the Federal government can
> ban gun possession (or nuclear weapons possession, for that matter) by
> any of these groups?
>
I ask again the questions YOU are trying like hell to ignore: Do you
really WANT violent criminals to be armed? Do you want the
insane packing concealed on our streets? Do you want kids with
Glocks proliferating on our schoolyards? If so, WHY?
>
> Answer: it doesn't. The Federal government cannot legally pass any law
> restricting possession of weapons of any kind. State governments could,
> at least prior to the 14th Amendment, since when it's been a more open
> question.
>
Then this is a grave error which demands immediate rectification,
for obviously no individual should be allowed personal
thermonuclear weapons for home protection. Or would you even
disagree with this?
>
> Whether or not I want them to have guns is irrelevant; the Federal
> government has no legal power to prevent them. None. State governments may
> or may not, but they're currently relaxing gun laws while the Feds are
> strengthening theirs. Odd that, isn't it?
>
Then the legal power needs to be obtained to prevent them, in the
best interests of all of us.
>
> >Then yours would definitely be taken away,
>
> See Joe, just like the typical anti-gunner you start off saying you'll only
> ban gun ownership for criminals and children, and then we discover that
> opposing your laws will also be taken as grounds for being disarmed. What
> was that about our silly "slippery slope" argument?
>
If you are a member of into the previously named high-risk groups
(violent criminals, the mentally deficient and/or deranged, spouse
and/or wife abusers, and children), hellyesforDAMNEDsure! BTW,
in which of these categories do you fit? That ain't no slippery
slope, that's common sense (something you seem to be lacking
when your emotions are engaged by this issue).
>
> >because you
> >are clearly one deranged fuckwad!
>
> Well, as they say, it takes one to know one, eh Joe? BTW, I don't own any
> guns; while I'm seriously thinking of leaving soon -- partly because I'm
> fed up with the violence here -- I'm probably in the Benighted Kingdom
> for another year or two, and the slippery slope of disarmament is almost
> complete over here, from "we have to register guns to reduce crime rates"
> (actually so they could confiscate guns from commies come a revolution,
> but that wasn't publically acknowledged 'til decades later) to banning
> almost everything.
>
> That said, I'm about to pick up an air assault rifle and probably a couple
> of other airguns before they ban them too; I have to admit, I find creeping
> through woods shooting at people with a fully-automatic air rifle a lot more
> fun than shooting paper targets with a bolt-action .30 caliber. Shame they're
> not much good for self-defence.
>
Enjoy your games, just don't kill people for real unless attacked by
them.
>
> >You took leave of your reason long ago;
>
> You projecting again, Joe?
>
No, just evaluating.
>
> >other countries
> >haven't had 2nd Amendments, so you can't in good conscience
> >use them as feasible models
>
> Huh, what? You think the Feds will suddenly slap their foreheads, say "Oh
> damn, we forgot the 2nd Amendment, we'd better repeal all those gun laws"
> and that will be that? They're ignoring it, just as they have been for
> decades now, and they will continue to do so.
>
The types of weapons allowed to the general populace SHOULD
BE circumscribed; I see no reason for anyone to have a mounted
50 cal. machine gun gracing their lawn.
>
> >"Promote the general welfare" basically means to maximize the
> >perpetuation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within the
> >general populace;
>
> Bzzzzt... wrong, try again.
>
In your opinion, which I do not share.
>
> >I note that the first of these is life, which a bullet
> >to the head or heart irretrievably abridges.
>
> Indeed. That's why we want to give people the tools they need to defend
> themselves against violent criminals. Try living in a disarmed country for
> a while, Joe, and you'll understand why gun ownership is so important.
>
Brits are much less likely to be murdered in their own country than
US citizens. Simple, cold, hard and distasteful (to you) fact.
>
> Mark
>
>