From: Karee Swift (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Dec 19 2000 - 23:33:08 PST
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Matt Jensen <mattj@n...> wrote:
> My line is right after "boards, ". I didn't mention free
> mentioned public safety. I will trust you to be responsible enough
> healthy food, but I won't necessarily trust people to make up their
> public safety rules and be self-enforcing. Experience tells me
there is a
> certain percentage of people who can't be trusted with our safety
> this. They *can* do whatever they want on their own, if it doesn't
> an impact on me.
how far do you stretch the 'impact on you' . Ithink this is extremely
naive. By your logic, they could endanger themselves with drugs,
promiscuous sex, having children, randomly using knives while
cooking, and without backing up or clarifying your statement, they're
impacting you in some way (taxes, hogging medical services, breathing
air, etc). Carrying a gun is -not- making up a public safety rule,
baby. USING A gun against an individual to shoot them down IS. Lets
get that shit straight ok?
I think there are a certain number of individuals who can't be
trusted to make decisions for this country, but they still get
elected. I don't htink the argument extends to guns, but
unfortunately it seems like at the behest of preventing those who are
unsafe in one way (gun owners) you give a huge ammount of latitutde
to an equally repugnant/stupid/unsavory group of characters at the
other end (law enforcement, politicians, bureocrats).
> Regarding "cell phones, guns, computers, [and] skate boards", I
> support a law restricting people from using X while also engaging
> while in public. X = (cell phones | guns | computers), and Y =
Ok. They try this. There simply isn't a human alive that can think of
all the possibilities by wihch a gun can be used, and tehreby write
into law exceptions. They make generalities, and its the
generalities that hurt. (Examples for those of us who don't believe
me -- DMCA, Hate crimes legislation -- I use these because I'm too
tired to go find an appropriate gun law to prove the same point)
> them. Then, what deterrent incentive is there for a law-abiding
> buy one of these illegal cell phone guns? None. But there's still
> incentive for criminals to get them (illegally).
Ok, first off, people have justifiable reasons for owning guns. Hey..
maybe they just wanted it because it looked cool and techy. I used
to carry one of those nifty little bustier knives around -- still do
in fact, and use it for opening oranges. While the length is
technically illegal (in terms of concealing) I don't own it simply
because its an illegal item. I own it because it slices oranges well
and generally is useful. Others may want the phone for legitimate
(albiet james Bond inspired) self-protection. While Ryan asserted
a .22 won't do any real killing, it can still hurt. Pft.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 19 2000 - 23:38:46 PST