Words don't exist without people either. I understand the "dangerous people" versus "dangerous guns" argument. One of my favorite lines is "guns don't kill people....I do." But when we are talking 1st amendment versus 2nd amendment, we are talking about people exercising their right to free speech (and assembly and religion) and people exercising their right to keep and bear arms. You could argue that the "keeping" part is passive, but the "bearing" part? No so much. Its people with guns and people with words.
I'm not arguing that weapons are inherently dangerous. They aren't. In very rare situations they could go off in a fire, etc, etc, but those are totally fringe events. I'm talking about the relative utility and danger of people with words versus people with guns. I still support the right of people to have and use guns. But I think it is ludicrous to argue that that is not fundamentally more dangerous than people having and using words. Judah On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Scott Stroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But a gun by itself is merely a paper weight. It is not until we introduce > a human does it become dangerous. The same thing can be said for just about > any 'weapon'. > > How many people have died from gunshots where a person was not handling the > gun when it went off (or just before it went off to cover incidents where > someone dropping a gun may have caused it to fire)? > > I am not saying that there is not a problem, btu maybe the problem is not > with tool, but those who wield them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280032 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
