Guns yet again (was Re: LBO = flame city? (was RE: Survivor!)

Gordon Fitch gcf at panix.com
Fri Oct 27 17:47:48 PDT 2000


kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net>
> >and further, you don't address the issue. do you really think it would be
> >a good idea to yank the 2nd thereby eroding all the rest?

Carl Remick:
> I don't care about Constitutionality. I care about mindset. *You* don't
> address the issue: Why the urgent need for guns? You want to hit a
> bull's-eye? Get a bow and arrow. You want to kill a deer? Get a bow and
> arrow. Easy access to guns means children dying from playing with firearms;
> it means minor domestic disputes escalating into homicides; it means
> trigger-happy homeowners blowing away family members mistaken as
> trespassers.
> ...

I think the basic reason for people to have guns is the same as the basic reason for them to have drugs, sex, rock'n'roll, cars, religions, and so forth -- they want to have them.

It's hard for to me imagine any argument against their freedom to do so which would not apply even more strongly to the agencies which would be required to deprive them of that freedom.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list