Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:28:04 -0600 (CST) From: Jay Nelson <noslenj@swbell.net> To: Mark Ovens <mark@ukug.uk.freebsd.org> Cc: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org>, Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10003251636040.3883-100000@acp.swbell.net> In-Reply-To: <20000325214724.B234@parish>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Mark Ovens wrote: [snip] We may be getting carried away, here;) >> 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? If Oswald made that shot, he was a better man than most of the military snipers I've known -- who were smart enough to get out alive. >> 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 Has that fear, in any way, diminished? >probably making it effectively mandatory) so that people could be >conscripted literally at a moments notice (cavalry rides into town, That's what it _still_ is. >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. Bull. It's _absolutely_ no different. Title 10, section 311 USC _clearly_ defines who is militia and what their obligations actually are. I can speak from experience about being conscripted on a moment's notice. And I'm on the hook until age 64. I think you watch too many movies;) >> As an example, just look at what is happening in Australia. They >> systematically disarmed their citizens, first going after "assault" From last reports, only 40% went along with it. I hope those numbers haven't changed. The 60% who kept their guns don't seem to have caused any trouble;) >> 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. History repeats itself:) >That's an extremely cynical view. I don't know about Australian gun >law, perhaps someone from Oz would like to comment. It's not cynical -- it's history. Read English history from the Third Crusade on. Hell, for that matter, read world history from 1958 on. The illusion that we are somehow different than past generations is a fatal mistake. In the manorial tradition of both England and the US, I have no doubt that HRM would conscript you in a heartbeat and throw you into some "social" campaigne where the enemy sees things quite differently -- and you will now be totally unprepared. The US managed to train Desert Storm troops in a matter of weeks on everything _except_ how to shoot. Illusions go to hell when you face an armed opponent who doesn't share your beliefs. >> 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. Only a tyrant would disarm the populace. Even Machiavelli advised against it. >The argument "criminals will always have guns" is, IMHO, a very lame I don't think it's lame -- it's what we are seeing;) >one. Certainly hardened "professional" criminals will always be armed, ... Who sell them to the soon to be hardened criminals who face no restraint? So, then, we rely on the local constabulary who don't want the get hurt any more than do we? Sounds like a losing proposition to me. >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 The _only_ restraint against the "casual" violence (I have no idea what that oxymoron means) is to have an armed populace. You have to raise the cost of entry beyond acceptable limits. >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. So, then, any other weapon would have been acceptable? Or, perhaps the 8 year old got the gun from a "hardened" criminal and _knew_ no one could defend against him? The argument is specious and recursive. Explain that to the 8 year old's classmate who died because no adult could stop it. This debate won't be resolved on this forum. All I can tell you is this: I will never again gamble my life for someone who was willing to be disarmed. History convinces me otherwise. -- 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.4.05.10003251636040.3883-100000>