Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:20:53 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net> To: cjclark@home.com Cc: Jamie Bowden <ragnar@sysabend.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Guns and freedom [Was: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD"] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003281837300.541-100000@acp.swbell.net> In-Reply-To: <20000327225620.C11538@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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: >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 Here, you're speaking from a lack of understanding. An "assault weapon" is a light weight, small caliber _select fire_ weapon designed for dynamic intrusion. They are designed to disable opponent and end the fight. Killing is not an issue. >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. And the lawyers don't know any better, either. Don't take my word for this; ask some of your active duty military friends. The lawyers are after fees, the politicians are after votes, but the GI just wants to come home. >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 You just refuted your own argument;) >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 That's partially a red herring. But, it can be used in a fight (hence arms) and who better to entrust the responsibility than a good man who has no desire to harm? Would you belive there could be an "accidental" discharge of anthrax? >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. Because of the freedom we've enjoyed, you have a perfect right to believe as you do and make the choices you see fit for you and your family. You have a right to misunderstand and I sincerely hope you never have to face a situation that changes your mind. Many others, though, have been willing to be conscripted as society's junkyard dogs to preserve your freedom to believe as you choose. Many of those died for that choice. Many who came home are alive today because of the weapons you see as of no use. They don't share your opinion. How can you possibly expect to proscribe someone else's freedom because you see no "legitimate reason" and and still expect to preserve your own? -- Jay 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.10003281837300.541-100000>