Date sent: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 06:46:24 -0700 (PDT) From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: email@example.com Subject: Re: WEAPONS: Non-lethal protective technologies? Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Chuck Kuecker [email@example.com] wrote:
> >Generalization time: why not prevent anyone from Joe Dee's prohibited list
> >from having ANY form of weapon in public - violation to result in at least
> >a mental evaluation, at worst removal from society?
> Because it will leave those people defenceless and over time it will be
> exploited to remove weapons from the hands of everyone outside the
> government? Joe, for example, has told us that all Republicans should be
> disarmed, as in his opinion they're all mad..
Besides being a liar (on another point), you are also a humorless moron who could not recognize the canine jaws of sarcasm if they bit you in the gluteus maximus.
>. who gets to decide what
> counts as a felony, what counts as abuse, and what counts as madness?
The appropriate authorities, of course (which you, being one of those outlaws who have guns, refuse to accept). Note that I am not saying that you're an outlaw because you have a gun (if indeed you do); merelt yhat your refusal to accept legitimate legal authority brands you as one.
> There are two stable situations with weapon ownership: either anyone can
> own and carry anything they like (the traditional American ideal), or we're
> all locked away in padded cells under continual surveillance for our own
> safety (the British ideal). Any attempt to create an intermediate state
> will fail, with society heading towards one of the extremes; this is why
> we can't have a 'reasonable compromise' on this issue.
You sound exactly like the antiabortion extremists. There is a vast middle ground, and the fact that you deny its existence and demand to cast everything in absolutistic dualist terms reveals nothing about future societal options and everything about your own cognitive limitations.