[on the subject of celebrity liberals]
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
> >They [obviously] don't believe in "getting rid of guns": they believe in
> >getting rid of OUR guns.
Sampo Syreeni writes:
>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.
And who will "select" the few to be permitted to have guns? (And what
"real use" do they have for them that others do not?)
> The problem is in having everybody from toddlers to
>grannies packing heat and using it when somebody steps on their
>toes.
No one's advocating giving guns to toddlers, but why should ordinary
grannies not be permitted to protect themselves as the Rosie
O'Donnells can?
> 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.
What "problem" do we have with drugs (apart from the fact that using
them makes one highly susceptible to persecution by various law
enforcement agencies)?
> >"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?
Of course. The liberals who surround themselves with armed bodyguards
are the same ones giving money and public support to the liberal
gun-control politicians. And these politicans, while trying to take
away guns from the rest of us, are giving more and better weapons to
the jack-booted federal "law enforcement" agencies. They are also
increasingly attempting to bypass those inconvenient trials, search
warrants and other protections we have developed ("no need for a
trial, they're obviously guilty or we wouldn't have accused them").
> >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.
Perhaps, but the potential for mass murder is much lower with
everyday drive-by shootings than it is with gun-grabbing government
despots. All the drive-by shootings in history together barely add
up to an average day under Hitler or Stalin.
- GH
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
