From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Mar 28 7:50:44 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from moo.sysabend.org (moo.sysabend.org [209.0.55.68]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E024F37BF9A for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:50:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ragnar@sysabend.org) Received: by moo.sysabend.org (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 72FBB7583; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by moo.sysabend.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0D51D89; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:52:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:52:20 -0800 (PST) From: Jamie Bowden To: cjclark@home.com Cc: Terry Lambert , Mark Ovens , Jay Nelson , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Guns and freedom [Was: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD"] In-Reply-To: <20000327225620.C11538@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> Message-ID: Approved: yep X-representing: Only myself. X-badge: We don't need no stinking badges. X-obligatory-profanity: Fuck X-moo: Moo. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Crist J. Clark wrote: :On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 07:36:23PM -0800, Jamie Bowden wrote: :> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000, Crist J. Clark wrote: :> 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. Fallacy? If it's such a fallacy why did the folks who founded the US go out of there way to make it a difficult slope to start down? You may dismiss it all you wish. I believe history would bear me out on this. Once you start giving up rights and priviledges to authority, you do not get them back without extreme measures. Now, let me ask you another question. What's the difference between a Winchester .30 cal. semiautomatic rifle that holds multiple rounds, and a Chinese SKS 7.62mm semiautomatic rifle that holds multiple rounds? Other than the fact that one looks like you're "assult" weapon poster child, very little. The Winchester's easier to scope up for better accuracy. So clarify for me, other than twisted semantics, what's the difference? :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. Fine. Don't own a gun. I don't own a gun. I haven't fired a gun in several years now, but that gives me no right to tell other people they don't get to have one. Guns are dangerous. Guns can be used for a multitude of purposes. Guns are not the root of the problem here. Trying to claim all handguns are strictly for police or street thugs is going to get you some mighty funny looks from the fine folks at Ruger(sp?), who make the nicest target shooting handguns out there. You claim that banning certain types of guns is an acceptable compromise. I say prove it, since I can use an 'approved for target or hunting' gun to shoot you just as easily I can use an 'assault weapon' to do it. Jamie Bowden -- "Of course, that's sort of like asking how other than Marketing, Microsoft is different from any other software company..." Kenneth G. Cavness To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message