('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:54:19 -0500
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: Extremism
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>Joe Dees wrote:
>>
>> >Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:49:41 -0800 (PST)
>> >From: Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
>> >From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
>> >
>> >>Non-extremists have a goal. They pull in one direction until the
>> >>goal is reached. Then they stop. They have logical criteria and
>> >>stop when the objective goals have been achieved.
>> >
>> >Then by your defination my fellow NRA members and I are non-
>> >extremists. We have a goal, a simple one. That is to see that our
>> >constitutional rights granted under the 2nd Amendment are restored
>> >and that no further infringement takes place.
>> >
>> >Period.
>> >
>> And does "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" apply to children? To violent criminals? To Certified lunatics or the mentally incompetent? I don't even see the most rabid anti-abortionists driving around with bumper stickers declaiming that "you can have my fetus when you pry it from my cold dead womb"!
>
>Because, Joe, anti-abortionists are not against them being forcibly
>aborted, they are against other people aborting their own unborn
>children. It is they who are seeking to restrict the legally recognised
>civil rights of recognised citizens (unborn children are not citizens of
>anywhere).
>
The point is that extreme 2nd amendment nuts put no limits on 'shall not be infringed', neither age nor criminality, nor insanity.
>
>If children were allowed to be taught responsible gun use as my father's
>generation was, my friend John Mahoney and his parents would still be
>alive today, so don't even try to pretend that you are a defender of
>'the children'.
>
Gun safety classes taught the Golden boy how to pick off his fellow children carefully, from the prone position he and his friend established at the treeline on higher ground.
>
>Schools have become combat zones specifically because
>legally carried guns are banned from their premises. Those deaths are on
>YOUR head.
>
Don't EVEN go there! There was an armed guard at Littleton, Colorado, who ran like hell.
>
>Our workplaces have become combat zones because too many
>companies prohibit employees from carrying legally permitted firearms to
>work, as the Wakefield shooting demonstrates. Those deaths are on YOUR
>head.
>
If everyone at work carried guns, there would be MORE shooting, NOT LESS, because the people perpetrating the shootings are enraged enough to not care that they will die (and they frequently do, by their own hand) - thus the element of deterrence is largely absent. People frequently snap at work, and someone gets shouted at, or punched; if the snapper were packing, someone, or several, would get shot - instantly, without a moment's thought, and without the victim having a chance (no time) to draw their own weapon to defend against a split-second surprise assault. You are thinking of the guns as defence; the headlines show that they are used to attack, and the more guns permitted at work, the more attacks we would have. But you will thoughtlessly go with your extremist herdly sheeple party line, not thinking things through, and not seeing, or caring, that there are damned good reasons not to have every frustrated and highly pissable stock clerk and secretary strapped.
>
>The fact is, Joe, that bad things happen. Criminals, guess what? They
>don't obey laws. They don't obey laws against murder, so they certainly
>are not going to obey laws against obtaining guns illegally. All we can
>do is allow law abiding people to do is adequately protect themselves.
>States that do this have far lower crime rates than those that don't.
>Period. End of story.
>
In fact, there have been a lot of road-rage shootings lately. One thing you are missing is the propensity for an available firearm to turn a law-abiding citizen into a felonious murderer. Some people who blow their tops and would otherwise give people the finger are blowing them away instead. I know; for you, these are acceptable lossess - in fact, you would find NO losses UNacceptable in your heedless pursuit of your extreme agenda.
>
>BTW: Once more: are you related to Donna Dees-Thomases, founder of the
>million mom march and sister-in-law of the power couple that are
>Clintons biggest backers?
>
No, I am not, so far as I know. Are you related to Peter Lorre (and added a Y)? You seem creepy enough to me.
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:17 MDT