[SpamCop-Social] Re: You too can be on the NRA Blacklist!
pete at heypete.com
Sun Nov 2 12:28:41 EST 2003
In article <Xns94278FDEDFEA7TheShrubIsAnAss at 188.8.131.52>,
Charles <8hmte5s02 at sneakemail.com> wrote:
> That's a very American attitude you have, there.
Perhaps. I am an American, and firearms have been part of our country's
culture since it's inception, and thus hold a certain place in society.
Indeed, there's a reason that the right to keep and bear arms is the
second amendment, and not the fourteenth or twenty-third. It shows that
the people who drafted the Bill of Rights held it to be a priority.
In many other countries, firearms do not have the same historical
significance as in the US.
Might I also point out that while I am an American, I'm most definitely
an opponent of The Shrub.
> It is not that simplistic, in the slightest. We are talking about
> the health, safety and longevity of society as a whole and guns are a
> threat to that health, safety and longevity.
I beg to disagree. Crime is a threat to the health, safety, and
longevity of a society of a whole. Guns are inert pieces of metal and
The primary purpose of a firearm is to propell a small piece of metal
(or other material) in a specific direction at speed. It is a persons
choice if they are going to use a firearm in a legitimate manner
(personal defense, hobby use, practicing at an appropriate range, etc.)
or an inappropriate use (crime, violence, etc.).
The thought that gun-related crime will disappear when law-abiding
citizens can no longer keep and bear arms is simplistic. Criminals
already know that their actions are illegal, yet that does not stop them
from violating the law. Making firearms illegal will not stop the
criminal use of firearms, it will only take away an effective deterrent
of crime for law-abiding citizens.
Crime's already illegal. Why not punish criminals for committing crimes,
rather than punish law-abiding citizens for possessing
firearms...something that in the US is legal.
> Part of living in society is doing things that are good for the whole
> and avoiding doing things that are bad for the whole. And making
> rules and punishments to attempt to enforce the view of what is good
> for the whole and what isn't.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your second sentence, but the first
sentence is indeed valid, however not in the respect that I think you
intend. In every case where a citizens right to keep and bear arms has
been restricted, gun-related crime has increased dramatically. In every
case when citizens are able to carry firearms, crime has dropped. Armed
citizens make an extremely effective deterrent against crime.
Simply surrendering our arms to the authorities, and relying entirely on
another entity (the police) to come and protect you when you call is
irresponsible. The courts have already decided that the police have no
duty to protect individuals, only the public at large. Also, what
happens if one is not able to summon the police before they are attacked
by the criminal? This happens frequently. In cases like this, armed
citizens are able to resist and repel their attacker and survive
(usually) unscathed. Unarmed citizens become victims.
Your suggestion of taking away firearms from law-abiding citizens would
serve only to harm society as a whole.
> And so, yes, of course I feel that guns should be restricted (your
> case) and that vehicle emissions should be reglemented (hello Heidi!)
> and that you should NOT be allowed to do whatever you frickin' please
> with your property (just because it's yours).
Why should I not be allowed to do what I want on my property, as long as
it doesn't affect others? For instance, if I were to engage in
explosives testing on my suburban property, that would affect my
neighbors. However, if I wished to engage in oral sex (which is illegal
in several states) in the privacy of my own home, why should I be
prohibited from doing so?
I agree with your statement about vehicle emissions -- I drive a hybrid
car that emits practically nothing. ;)
> If I may be so bold, and hoping not to cause the argument to
> degenerate into mere name calling, it does seem to me to be a selfish
> attitude on your part.
I'll try to keep ad hominem attacks out of my arguements, as I usually
do. I would hardly consider my opinion on firearms to be selfish. It is
part of the US Bill of Rights that citizens are permitted to keep and
bear arms. It does not require that people possess firearms, however.
Thus, if I choose to possess a firearm, that's my choice and I ask that
you (the royal "you") respect that. If you choose not to posses a
firearm, that's your choice, and I respect that.
I'm not a criminal, I don't intend to commit crimes. My reasons for
possessing a firearm are limited to personal protection, maintaining my
skill for military-related duties, hobby/sporting purposes, and to
exercise my constitutional right.
More information about the SpamCop-Social