On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>:If they truly believe in getting rid of guns, why don't they start with the
>:guns of their body guards?
>
>They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in
>getting rid of OUR guns.
I think there is nothing much wrong in that. The problem is not the guns of
a select few who can have real use for them and whose use of weaponry is
tightly watched. The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to
grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their
toes. Somewhat like the situation with drugs - no problem if 10% of the
population does something sometime, a big problem if 90% does everything all
the time.
>"police" who care not if they have the right house, or even the "right" to
>"search" in this way; "forfeiture laws" which allow the state to take
>whatever they want, WITHOUT ANY FORM OF DUE PROCESS; etc..)
Are you talking about the same liberals as the original poster?
>Throughout history, every dictatorship has practiced arms [gun]
>confiscation and regulation in order to impede reactionary / revolutionary
>backlashes from their crimes - from Ceasar through Hitler, Stalin, and
>Clinton.
On the other hand, everyday drive-by shootings and such aren't exactly
pointed towards the powers that be.
Sampo Syreeni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university
