Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:47:25 +0000 From: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net>, Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <20000325214724.B234@parish> In-Reply-To: <38DD2C3F.3F17470B@gorean.org>; from Doug@gorean.org on Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 01:14:39PM -0800 References: <38DB8D34.1A750C81@originative.co.uk> <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003241806320.805-100000@acp.swbell.net> <20000325104927.B234@parish> <38DD2C3F.3F17470B@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 01:14:39PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Mark Ovens wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:07:47PM -0600, Jay Nelson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Paul Richards wrote:
> > >
> > > >Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > > In one word: tyranny.
> > > >> >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >Ok, not the best example. I guess the handguns law is a better one since
> > > >it's now illegal to have a handgun in the UK even if you bought it
> > > >before the law changed.
> > > >
> > > >Everyone here who had one was required to hand them in when the law came
> > > >in to effect.
> > >
> > > I hope they weren't foolish enough to actually hand them in.
> > >
> >
> > Most of them did (there was a compensation scheme). The big difference
> > of course is that over here most people realize that there is no real
> > justification for *any* civilian, except farmers, to own firearms (we
> > don't have grizzlies and rattlesnakes, so walking in the hills is
> > safe).
>
> Actually what you have is a population that has been deluded into
> believing that the purpose of "civillians" owning firearms is to protect
> them from nature, as opposed to protecting them from their government.
Hmm, so IOW Lee Harvey Oswald was exercising his right to protect
himself from JFK's government?
> Just imagine how much easier the brits would have had it if those pesky
> (american) colonialists had not been armed. If you read the early
> writings of the american founding fathers they are very clear on this
> point.
IIRC, the "right to bear arms" dates back several hundred years
(Pre-Civil War?) when the US government obviously needed an army but
didn't want a large standing army for fear of the possibility of being
overthrown by it so they granted the right to bear arms (in reality
probably making it effectively mandatory) so that people could be
conscripted literally at a moments notice (cavalry rides into town,
sergeant walks into the saloon, "you, you, and you; you're in the army
now; don't forget your gun"). That's a whole lot different to keeping
a .357 Magnum stuffed in the waistband of your 501's nowadays.
>
> As an example, just look at what is happening in Australia. They
> systematically disarmed their citizens, first going after "assault"
> weapons, then handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. All with perfectly
> reasonable sounding arguments about how much safer they would be. Now
> that the citizens can't fight back they are slowly but surely turning it
> into a police state. Draconinan censorship of the internet, and other
> extremely distasteful laws are being passed willy-nilly.
>
That's an extremely cynical view. I don't know about Australian gun
law, perhaps someone from Oz would like to comment.
> The only thing anti-gun laws do is lull the simple into a false sense
> of security. Criminals will always have guns. Disarming the law abiding
> populace only serves the goals of tyrants.
The argument "criminals will always have guns" is, IMHO, a very lame
one. Certainly hardened "professional" criminals will always be armed,
but they have channels of supply. What strict gun laws do prevent is
the casual armed crime, e.g. where kids can get their dad's handgun
from a drawer at home. The recent tragic case over there when the 8(?)
year old shot and killed a class-mate couldn't have happened with
UK-type gun laws.
>
> Doug
> --
> "So, the cows were part of a dream that dreamed itself into
> existence? Is that possible?" asked the student incredulously.
> The master simply replied, "Mu."
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
--
Seminars, n.:
From "semi" and "arse", hence, any half-assed discussion.
________________________________________________________________
FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org
My Webpage http://ukug.uk.freebsd.org/~mark/
mailto:mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org http://www.radan.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?20000325214724.B234>