Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:56:20 -0500 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> To: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org> Cc: cjclark@home.com, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>, Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Guns and freedom [Was: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD"] Message-ID: <20000327225620.C11538@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003271929180.11936-100000@moo.sysabend.org>; from ragnar@sysabend.org on Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 07:36:23PM -0800 References: <20000327221634.A11538@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> <Pine.BSF.4.10.10003271929180.11936-100000@moo.sysabend.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 07:36:23PM -0800, Jamie Bowden wrote: > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Crist J. Clark wrote: > > :Even if you won't read it in that sense, it by no means says, "the > :right of anyone to keep and bear any darn weapon they could ever > :want." Personally, if you have not picked it up yet, I'm all for > :people bearing rifles, shotguns, and "sport" weapons, but handguns, > :assault weapons, etc. really serve no legitimate purpose in society at > :large and there is no reason that they cannot be tightly > :regulated. Rights in the amendments aren't absolute. We have free > > Tell me something; which gun exactly, isn't an assault weapon? I'm > curious, as last I looked any gun could be used for: sport, self defense, > hunting, murder, etc. You start banning 'assault' weapons (and let's be > honest, a chair is an assualt weapon if you're willing to bludgeon someone > with it), and pretty soon none are left. Are we, as a society only going > to allow plastic unsharpened knives in restaurants? Are we going to go > back to living in bare huts made of leaves because anything else is far > too dangerous? Are you getting the point yet? Oh please, not the classic logical fallacy of the "slippery slope." When I, and anyone else not engaged in warping another's argument, speak of "assault weapons" we are talking about firearms and ammunitions designed for military or police use and the specific purpose of injuring or killing human beings. I'm sure the lawyers in the legislature will be more than happy to define assault weapons in painfully precise and unfathomable legalese for you if that definition will not do. Yes, humans have and always will hurt, maim, and kill one another and no, they don't need guns to do it, but an AK-47 makes the job a lot easier. We do draw lines about such things. It is not legal for me to possess enough anthrax contagion to wipe out this half of New Jersey, and it should not be. What possible legit reason would I want any? 'Cause it might kewl to get the little kick out of being able to do it? I can't make bombs either, and they can be tons of fun. If I want a firearm that can mow down a good sized crowd faster than you can say "Charlton Heston," for what possible legitimate reason would I want it? 'Cause it might be kewl to take it to the range and pretend I could do it? That's not a good enough reason for me. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@home.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000327225620.C11538>