From: Jeff Bone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 08:22:16 PST
> And this tact if followed through on will effectively circumvent the 2nd
> amendment. Would I own a gun if it caused my insurance to be 10x, 100x, 1000x
> more than it is? Probably not, couldn't afford it.
The 2nd amendment guarantees *absolutely nothing* about *affordability* of gun
ownership. It just says you have the right to own one. Now, think about it:
wouldn't you rather have that right, and have it be very expensive, than not have
it at all?
> Allowing more tort (does
> that make sense?) to suppress 'undesired' behaviour (not just gun ownership)
> is repression. Where will it stop?
Look, clearly there are only three possibilities in this whole social control
experiment. (1) Give up --- anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing! I'm in favor
of this one. (2) Onerous prophylactic law, which is ineffective, expensive, and
leads to huge government. (3) Onerous punitive law, has its own downsides.
Assuming most folks just aren't grown up enough to handle (1) the I would prefer
(3) and then (2) in that order. Wouldn't you?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 08:28:04 PST