In a message dated 6/9/99 8:39:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joedees@bellsouth.net writes:
<< > > > a peaceful person needs to be free to work to support his life, and
he needs
> > > to be free to fight to defend it.
> >
> > No one needs to have weapons to kill people at a distance. The only
> > reason to have them is to protect yourself from people who have them.
> > Argh, shit, I'm being sucked into this stupid argument again!
>
> Its a matter of you refusing to acknowledge your own blind spots. Who
protects you
> from the government? From the criminals who do not obey your laws against
gun
> ownership? Get a new newscaster yet?
>
"Clem, get yer squirrel gun an' let's overthrow the gummint!"
Sheesh! Every time someone puts this specious reasoning forth, it
sounds more ridiculous (and don't bring the Swiss up; the main
reason the Reich didn't invade them was that the Swiss were hiding
their billions in stolen gold for them). >>
I missed the specious reasoning. I thought "Who watches the watchers?" was still quite a conundrum for any "-archy" or "-cracy" theory. Could you please show us why it isn't? (or what the real specious reasoning was, if I've misunderstood)
William