Re: [GUNS] Re: Better people

dwayne (
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:33:04 +1000

"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> dwayne wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Life is individual. Death is individual. Noone has as much to lose from dying
> > > as the person who would be dead. Every person must be free to defend their
> > > life. If your neighbors possession of gun(s) bothers you, then perhaps you
> > > ought to *get over it*. I'm not willing to let myself be killed, stolen from,
> > > wounded, etc, because you feel unsafe due to my gun(s).
> >
> > My neighbours don't have guns. No one I know has a gun. I live in a
> > country where guns are banned. I like it here. I think anyone who wants
> > to live in a country where everyone has guns is mad.
> So said the sheep to the mountain goat. You do know policemen? Military personnel?
> Your government representatives? They all have guns, and are in a position to tell
> you how you can live your life. You have no guns, and therefore cannot resist what
> they tell you. There is one word to describe such a society: fascism.

Jesus what a load of something I'm not allowed to mention.

So tell me, Mr Superman Lorrey with your World Famous LorreyDrive: how the hell do YOU with your Big! Manly! Testosterone-Oozing! Guns! plan to keep the government at bay? Do you brazenly watch kiddie snuff porn and ingest drugs while listening to Hakim Bey read the communist manifesto, proud and secure in your knowledge that you can keep these dastardly forces of oppression from the door?

This is so much complete toss. you maniacs rant and rave about freedom! and liberty! and strength! and yet you are under the thumb of the country which imprisons more of it's own than everyone else aside from Russia, and you are scheduled to pass that figure in October.

So I ask you again: how have *your* guns prevented government oppression? How *will* your guns prevent government oppression. do you really think you have enough firepower to hold off a military force? Sure the swiss own guns, but they have military weapons: you guys don't.

> > 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?

The laws, the army and the police. What on earth makes you think that we could hold off the govt? Do you think you and your gun-totin' mates can hold of yours?

> From the criminals who do not obey your laws against gun
> ownership?

Um, what makes you think that criminals would defend the people against the govt? Or are you engaging in yet more sophistry?

If it comes down to having to build weapons to defend myself from the govt, I can assure you I will build something a hell of a lot more powerful than a rifle, because I'm aware of something you seem to be ignorant of: rifles won't stop tanks and fighter aircraft. Until then I will quite happily live in my safe, peaceful, disarmed community.

> Get a new newscaster yet?

Why do you ask this? Last I checked transmissions work just fine.

> "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
> - General John Stark

Yeah, right, it's easy to spout gibberish like this with an army at your back.



"the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection
into our dimension of something much larger and