Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>]

Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> That's a bad analogy, Shea.  Speech can't kill people, while guns can.
> You can take back what you say, but if someone is killed, it can't
> be undone.  That, to me, says that guns, by their very nature,
> should be much more regulated.  The reasons for the 2nd
> amendment have long since vanished and I for one would
> much rather have guns disappear that have more of them
> around.

Actually it's a perfect analogy.  Speech, in the right (or wrong) hands, is
a far more powerful weapon than any firearm.  All things have consequences
and a single speech can result in consequences far worse than many people
can imagine.  Nations have been moved to war on the breath of a speech and
sometimes those wars aren't even just.

Oh, and Michael those people that pointed their guns at you and shot at your
house weren't gun rights advocates.  They were criminals.  There is a big
difference - they don't care what the law says so your argument about the
law is moot as they don't respect it to begin with.