Date sent: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 09:55:55 -0400 From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com> Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Non-lethal protective technologies? Send reply to: email@example.com
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> > Date sent: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 21:53:06 -0500
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > From: Chuck Kuecker <email@example.com>
> > > 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
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.