Date sent: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 09:55:55 -0400 From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com> Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com To: extropians@extropy.com Subject: Re: Non-lethal protective technologies? Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>
> > Date sent: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:53:06 -0500
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
In a democracy, as I have previously stated, we can enforce our
definitions by choosing the definers with our popular vote, so your
tactic of arguing against an A to which you cannot rationally object
directly by raising the slippery-slope straw man spectre of an
unacceptable B must fail on that account. It is a more productive
political tactic to ensure that the mainstream position is reasonable
than to isolate yourselfl on the extreme and subsequently lose all
influence from there.
>
> Joe, you always seem to be big on security. Please show me where in either the
> Constitution or the Declaration of Independence that says that there is some
> inalienable right to security? Freedom is decidedly NOT security, and our country is
> not meant to give anybody security. We can drag out the famous Ben Franklin quote
> about freedom versus security if you want, to show the founders intent.
>
You place absolute value on freedom and none on security, rather
than finding the empirical blend which gives us the greatest
practically achieveable combination of both? Such a position is
irrationally absolutist and extremist on its face.
>
> I don't want ANY security from the government, I am quite capabile of providing my
> own. Government too often views any security power as the power to protect you from
> yourself.
>
Well, I view selectively keeping firearms out of the hands of violent
criminals, kids and the certifiably insane to be in my best security
interest, and that is the position I am prepared to lobby for, and I
am equally prepared to lobby against anything that would prevent
the rest of us from possessing and purchasing firearms. Your
security is nil when an armed nut has your back.