About Us

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:36 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Weiser says:
================
...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to
be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever.

=================

You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that
there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in
stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions.

So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher"
right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to
deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't.
Which is it Scott?

frtzw906

That's what it all comes down to for gun nuts. The right to carry a gun is
more important than ANYTHING.

Pert near. For, without the right to keep and bear arms, one is a slave to
anyone with a gun and the willingness to use it. Without the ability to
defend one's other rights by force of arms, one's other rights are exercised
at the mercy of those in power.

I just know I will regret this, but have you heard of the concepts of police
and armed forces?

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:36 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Weiser says:
================
...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to
be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever.

=================

You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that
there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in
stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions.

So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher"
right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to
deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't.
Which is it Scott?

frtzw906

That's what it all comes down to for gun nuts. The right to carry a gun is
more important than ANYTHING.

Pert near. For, without the right to keep and bear arms, one is a slave to
anyone with a gun and the willingness to use it. Without the ability to
defend one's other rights by force of arms, one's other rights are exercised
at the mercy of those in power.

I just know I will regret this, but have you heard of the concepts of police
and armed forces?

Yup. When was the last time that the police were around to prevent a crime?
You do know that the police are, first and foremost, a reactive
organization, not a protector, don't you?

As for the armed forces, they are not the police and have no place enforcing
law, and they are one of the threats against which our society chooses to be
armed.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:06 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:36 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Weiser says:
================
...what IS for everybody is the right to CHOOSE to be armed, or not to
be armed. That is something that NO ONE has a right to deny them, ever.

=================

You're contradicting yourself. Not too many days ago you asserted that
there is no "right" for gays to marry gays. You were quite clear in
stating that it was up to the state to make such decisions.

So, how exactly is this behavior -- the carrying of guns -- a "higher"
right that NO ONE (I'm assuming, not even the state) has the right to
deny? Either the state has the right to govern behaviors or it doesn't.
Which is it Scott?

frtzw906

That's what it all comes down to for gun nuts. The right to carry a gun is
more important than ANYTHING.

Pert near. For, without the right to keep and bear arms, one is a slave to
anyone with a gun and the willingness to use it. Without the ability to
defend one's other rights by force of arms, one's other rights are exercised
at the mercy of those in power.

I just know I will regret this, but have you heard of the concepts of police
and armed forces?

Yup. When was the last time that the police were around to prevent a crime?
You do know that the police are, first and foremost, a reactive
organization, not a protector, don't you?

If you mean do I realize that a police officer is not hiding in the closet
of every home, yes.

As for the armed forces, they are not the police and have no place enforcing
law, and they are one of the threats against which our society chooses to be
armed.

Great.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview	W. Watson	General	0	November 14th 04 10:05 PM

Menu

About Us