From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul McDermott has a restricted understanding of "corrupt", a word which does
not necessarily refer to any simple exchange of money for services rendered.
Or perhaps he's just being disingenuous.
It's a truism to say that politicians "always seek votes and popularity",
something about which we do not need to be reminded. The point at issue is
how far they go.
Why does Mr McDermott seek to excuse the handgun ban, I wonder? It was a
wicked piece of political chicanery, corruptly engendered (corrupt =
"depraved, infected with evil, perverted" - Shorter OED; "depravity" = moral
corruption, wickedness...) because it was not, and rationally speaking could
not be, designed to improve public safety by reducing the incidence of armed
crime, as quite a few Parliamentarians now openly admit; rather, it was
blatant electioneering by politicians, emotive propaganda, and another step
towards civilian disarmament, towards which the police & civil service have
been working for decades.
And it was cynical, too ("distrustful or incredulous of human goodness and
sincerity"...) because they knew what they were doing was wicked and
dishonest, but knew also that the spasm of anti-gun hysteria generated by the
news media would mask their dishonesty, and that the media would never let
the facts get in the way of a good drama, and that most people wouldn't care
a toss anyway - and they didn't care.
As to the "majority" business, it seems that McDermott hasn't read my posting
carefully, or hasn't understood it. To put things another way, (a) there is
no evidence that the 1997 Act expressed the will of the majority; and (b)
even if there was a majority in favour of a handgun ban, what difference
should that make? Some CS contributors have an admirable appreciation of
constitutional matters, and they have given the rest of us an excellent
education; so there is no excuse for anyone to imagine naively that democracy
(in a sophisticated nation of 56 million or so, as opposed to an ancient
Greek city-state...) simply means a show of hands. If 65 percent of those
polled think shoplifters should be summarily crucified, do we do it? Hardly.
This is not just about getting our toys back. The right (I use the word
"right" advisedly) of the citizen to be armed is fundamental to any society
which calls itself free, and history shows that only un-free societies have
tried to abrogate this right. Let's not connive at our own serfdom.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
