Fools, and fewer guns == better? ( was blah blah blah )

Michael M. Butler (butler@comp*
Tue, 01 Jul 1997 20:16:00 -0700

>What I'm afraid of are all the
>fools who feel that they need them and who don't choose to understand what
>limited purposes firearms have.

A.M, you have my genuine thanks for skipping the verbal jousting and
speaking about the real issue. I'll drop the jousting too.

When I encounter such, I get angry, and I try to straighten them out.
Anger is, arguably, closely related to fear and powerlessness; I
acknowledge that.

Fools, we will have always with us, to paraphrase the New Testament.
But I know many honest, civil people, not fools; what of them?

>As far as I'm concerned, the less guns we have the better off we are.

If I were still jousting, I'd say something like:
Fine. Give up yours, I'll keep mine, the net reduction in number should be
a net gain for society... yes?

But I'm not jousting. So instead I'll say:
A.M., rest assured that I do not apologize for the actions of said fools. I
just resent being lumped in with them because I haven't proven to some
other fool that I can be trusted more than said fool trusts him/herself.

If I had a device that could instantly neutralize all firearms all over the
world--make them inert lumps of metal, permanently... I *might* push the
button that did it.

But I'd think really hard for a long time before I did. And I mistrust
anyone who tells me they would do it in an instant. How about you?

Center for Compassion and Liberty
(that's _and_, not one at the expense of the other)

BOUNCE WARNING: A simple reply to the above address will fail. If you wish
to send me a _noncommercial_ message, kindly substitute a hyphen for the