Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]

Joe E. Dees (
Thu, 27 May 1999 14:51:54 -0500

Date sent:      	Thu, 27 May 1999 18:35:21 +0100
Subject:        	Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
From:           	"Craig Dibble" <>
Send reply to:

> wrote:
> ----------
> > The things we talk about routinely on this list
> > will be demonized and restricted just as much as guns if we let the control
> > freaks have their way.
> Quite.
> >>2) Have you pro gun activists got any idea how completley mad you sound to
> >>non Americans?
> >
> > Odd. I know plenty of non-Americans who are also pro-gun activists, or at
> > least sympathisers; most of them are irate gun-owners disarmed by good old
> > Tony Blair. Modern anti-gun Brits, of course, would have sounded completely
> > mad a century ago when anyone could carry a gun -- and many did -- and the
> > government's ideal was a rifle in every home to protect against invasion;
> > a policy whose end would have proved fatal if Hitler had a clue about war.
> Ok, maybe that was a bit harsh, but it was more the dogmatic refusal to
> accept there may be alternative view points I was alluding to
> >>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.
> >
> > So the government employees who swore to uphold the Constitution are free
> > to ignore it at will when they see fit?
> No, of course not....
> >>As such, situations have arisen
> >>which the constitution was never designed to contend with and it has had to
> >>be modified.
> >
> > Indeed. So all the anti-gun fanatics have to do is repeal the Second
> > Amendment; the mechanism is quite clearly elaborated in the Constitution,
> > they just have to do it. They refuse, and prefer just to ignore it...
> >
> My point exactly.
> >>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.
> >
> > I'm curious as to how anyone can rationalise ignoring the very law that the
> > US government was created under whenever they see fit? You'd be happy if
> > T.B. just declared himself dictator and refused to hold any more elections
> > because the British 'constitution' is outdated?
> Again, no, of course not, but a system must be able to change as needs
> arise, and the process of change must be open to reasoned debate. Clinging
> to an outdated system and/or refusing to allow for the possibility of change
> can only end up doing harm. If we can't or won't allow the systems under
> which we must live to evolve, how can we hope to step up the evolutionary
> ladder ourselves?
Evolving is the LAST thing people of the radical right-wing ilk wish either themselves or this great country to do.
> >>As for the merit of this discussion on the list, is it something along the
> >>lines of:
> >>*I'm looking to the future, but I'll shoot you if you get in my way.
> >
> > Yeah, Joe is pretty fanatical about disarming us at gunpoint, isn't he? Why
> > is it that the disarmers are so desperate to kill anyone who disagrees with
> > them?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> Craig Dibble.