Re: Re Look out! long hair gun loon!

Randall R Randall (
Sun, 21 Dec 1997 18:48:18 -0500

On Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:49:39 -0500 Wayne Hayes <>

>It seems that your definition of "free" lies solely in the right to
>bear arms. I believe this is an extremely narrow view. Are the
>other freedoms I mention above worth nothing?

Without the right to bear arms, the rest of the rights are temporary, and
can be withdrawn at any time. As long as the citizens of a country are
militarily more powerful than the government, that government cannot step
too far out of line.

>Don't get me wrong. I don't believe, a priori, that gun ownership is
>bad. As I've said, I've been on a rifle team where strict safety
>procedures were taught. People on this list (including yourself)
>have complained how gun owners are often portrayed as madmen. Would
>you complain if, for example, the *only* law that stood between you
>and a gun was a requirement to take a safety course? Would that
>be an opprossive law leading to a state that is "obviously not free"?

Such a rule would eventually become oppressive, if only because the
government itself would in time determine the standards for *passing*.
Although such laws are often meant to be protective, they tend to become
a wedge for the introduction of more like them, at least in the US.

>[I'm trying to figure out if we're talking at cross-pursposes here,
>or if we really do have a fundamental disagreement about what

If you are free only with another's permission, then you are not free at

Dream if you will, but remember there are iron laws.--Johnny Clegg.