"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> Date sent: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:53:06 -0500
And I have said that they are not totally unreasonable, but only as I interpret them
to be, if I get to decide who fits your definitions. The problem with these sort of
restrictions is that as other governments have demonstrated in the past, such
restrictions can be redefined by any legislature, or tyrant, or judicial activist,
to mean whatever they want them to mean, which IMHO is the best reason not to have
such restrictions in the first place. I personally would rather live with the low
risk of possible criminal activity against me that I know I can defend against, than
to live under a system where there is absolutely no protection against a tyrannical
government enslaving some or all and committing genocide against the evil minority
of the day.
> To: extropians@extropy.com
> From: Chuck Kuecker <ckuecker@mcs.net>
>
> > A straitjacket might work for the Black Belt... :)
> >
> > We've come full circle - now I am back where I started, with the opinion
> > that the Second Amendment means what it says.
> >
> > We need to control VIOLENCE, not weapons. If HCI spent 10% of the money
> > they are getting from that Cheryl Wheeler anti-gun song that's playing
> > around, maybe someone could research the real causes and recommend some
> > real actions.
> >
> I have recommended some real actions which, if taken, would help
> to alleviate the very real problem. One of the best ways to control
> violence is to keep weapons out of the hands of people who have
> been reasonably identified, based upon their history, as
> predisposed to violence.