Re: Guns and Slaves
Joe E. Dees (email@example.com)
Fri, 28 May 1999 18:29:17 -0500
Date sent: Thu, 27 May 1999 19:20:47 -0500
From: Chuck kuecker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Guns and Slaves
Send reply to: email@example.com
> At 05:43 PM 5/27/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >Date sent: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:05:15 -0700
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >From: James Rogers <email@example.com>
> >Subject: Re: Guns and Slaves
> >Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> At 03:31 PM 5/27/99 -0500, Joe Dees wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Do you feel that the prohibition against owning a thermonuclear
> >> >weapon, or Anthrax bacillus, or Sarin, or C-4, or Botulinin toxin, or
> >> >even a submachine gun, renders you a slave? Then you have a
> >> >pretty stultified and monochromatic view of what freedom's all about.
> >> It doesn't render you a slave, but it makes you an easy mark for those that
> >> would enslave you.
> >Slavery is illegal here.
> So is murder, rape, drug use...what is your point?
Slavery takes a large and generally unconcealable support system.
> >> The difference between a free man without a means to defend himself and a
> >> slave is vanishingly small; they are separated only by random circumstance
> >> that neither control.
> >The difference between a free man and a dead one is one person
> >with a gun who shouldn't have it.
> Perhaps in the case of a free criminal who kills an unarmed man with his
> illegally obtained weapon. What about the man who defends his life and wins
> against the same criminal?
it is better that the criminal not have the gun so no one gets shot.
At least make it harder for him. As for the person who is NOT a
violent criminal, mentally defivcient and/or deranged, a spouse
and/or child abuser, or a child, I have no problem with them having
guns. I DO have a problem with morons arguing against a position
I did not take.
> Chuck Kuecker