On 9/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A *disarmed* person can at least theoretically re-arm themselves by getting > another weapon, and even in a war zone like Baghdad *still* has a 80% or 90% > chance of being alive a year later. A *dead* person is usually pretty much > out > of options and will *still* be 100% dead a year later. > > Conflating the two merely indicates you don't understand the very real > distinction between them. >
Are you pretending that makes sense, perhaps to satisfy some egocentric, personal need to be superior and wrong at the same time? You can only "re-arm" yourself if there are arms to be had - in the case of a ban, there aren't. This would seem self-evident, I should think, to most. The closest circumstance the world has ever seen of this was when a class of people were disarmed. Since there were still some guns around for the preferred class to use, the unarmed class was able to arm itself...but it was too little, too late most would say... WWII history is so educational when it comes to discussions such as these. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
