From: EWyatt794@aol.com Date sent: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:42:18 EDT Subject: Re: [GUNS] Re: Better people To: firstname.lastname@example.org Send reply to: email@example.com
> In a message dated 6/9/99 8:39:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org 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
The only way to overthrow the government, and the way it is periodically done, is by means of popular vote.