Re: Guns [was Re: Property Rights]

Brian D Williams (
Thu, 27 May 1999 07:39:25 -0700 (PDT)


From: "Craig Dibble" <>

>A couple of points I'd like to raise here:

>1) What possible extropian/ transhumanist merit can this pointless
>slanging match have? It seems to be being conducted between sides
>who are *Never* going to find a common ground and who are getting
>more abusive as the thread continues.

Actually those of us who are pro-choice have argued quite rationally, and avoided name calling. The extropian merit is that we argue that certain rights are individual, not subject to government regulation, but personal responsibility.

>2) Have you pro gun activists got any idea how completley mad you
>sound to non Americans?

To be quite honest, I couldn't care less. We are no ones subjects, and never will be again, unlike my northern Irish cousins.

I believe the right to defend oneself is an individual right, not subject to compromise. Anyone who believes differently is welcome to try and argue this with the Kosovar Albanians.

>I'm probably going to provoke more rancid vitriol and get shot
>down in flames for saying this, but just because something is
>written in your precious constitution or your bill of rights does
>not mean that it is the be all and end all, that it is simply the
>only thought worth entertaining and no alternatives shall be
>brooked. If this were the case, can you explain to me exactly why
>there are so many, or indeed *any* ammendments to your
>constitution? I can think of one answer to this: Because it is
>imperfect. It was a hashed up solution to the problems of the time
>and no clear thought was given to its long term consequences. As
>such, situations have arisen which the constitution was never
>designed to contend with and it has had to be modified. It is in
>no way set in stone. Times change, and laws must change with them.
>To advocate extropian beliefs on the one hand, and dogmatic
>adherence to a quite clearly imperfect constitution on the other
>hand seems somewhat at odds to me. But excuse me if I am stepping
>on your constitutionally protected toes here, I mean no harm, I'm
>just curious as to how you can rationalize this.

You haven't provoked me at all. Of course the Constitution is not written in stone and of course it is subject to change. The point we are raising is that many of the 20,000 gun laws in this country violate our rights as defined in this document that is the basis for our government/society. This by definition is injustice and we are fighting to rectify it.

The anti-gun folks could properly try and repeal the second amendment, but they know the possibility of doing this is near 0.

>*Well, shucks ma, the end times are a-comin', let's arm ourselves
>to the teeth and head for the hills.

This is not irrational emotional provokation at all, no not at all. <sheesh>

Member, Extropy Institute
Member, Life Extension Foundation
Member, National Rifle Association

Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBN01YeXsfmVh/uI7xAQGRdwP8CaPfCb0q5JgBPuGERRZ4ggMuPY5Wmdeo w5jZJyyn6peGVNDjPXyL0zxybFvvpCLhaWOtBXj+yRnizxf0MM+RvWzkrAXZq+1+ yYFaFFWQAYreuOXg1zZ4MB2twibWJBa1y8flTChtTG8TGzKLhr0Y90nyHzNpPEiS nbLJzT+dx18=