From: mark@unicorn.com
Date: Wed Jun 02 1999 - 07:46:24 MDT
Chuck Kuecker [ckuecker@mcs.net] wrote:
>Generalization time: why not prevent anyone from Joe Dee's prohibited list
>from having ANY form of weapon in public - violation to result in at least
>a mental evaluation, at worst removal from society?
Because it will leave those people defenceless and over time it will be
exploited to remove weapons from the hands of everyone outside the
government? Joe, for example, has told us that all Republicans should be
disarmed, as in his opinion they're all mad... who gets to decide what
counts as a felony, what counts as abuse, and what counts as madness?
There are two stable situations with weapon ownership: either anyone can
own and carry anything they like (the traditional American ideal), or we're
all locked away in padded cells under continual surveillance for our own
safety (the British ideal). Any attempt to create an intermediate state
will fail, with society heading towards one of the extremes; this is why
we can't have a 'reasonable compromise' on this issue.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:56 MST