Re: [GUNS] Re: Better people
Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:42:18 EDT

In a message dated 6/9/99 8:39:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

<< > > > a peaceful person needs to be free to work to support his life, and he needs
> > > to be free to fight to defend it.
> >
> > No one needs to have weapons to kill people at a distance. The only
> > reason to have them is to protect yourself from people who have them.
> > Argh, shit, I'm being sucked into this stupid argument again!
> Its a matter of you refusing to acknowledge your own blind spots. Who
protects you
> from the government? From the criminals who do not obey your laws against
> ownership? Get a new newscaster yet?

"Clem, get yer squirrel gun an' let's overthrow the gummint!" Sheesh! Every time someone puts this specious reasoning forth, it sounds more ridiculous (and don't bring the Swiss up; the main reason the Reich didn't invade them was that the Swiss were hiding their billions in stolen gold for them). >>

I missed the specious reasoning. I thought "Who watches the watchers?" was still quite a conundrum for any "-archy" or "-cracy" theory. Could you please show us why it isn't? (or what the real specious reasoning was, if I've misunderstood)