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

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

> The whole argument trying to link free speech and firearms is a red
> herring meant to scare people, which is evidenced by the fact you
> didn't address my arguments about the current perfectly reasonable
> limits on speech.  There's a huge difference between the lawful
> expression of one's opinion, and slander, threats, harrassement, and
> intimidation.

And there is a huge difference in the lawful activities of a law abiding gun
owner and those of a criminal.  But you seem to equate the two as if simply
by owning a gun I am therefore more likely to kill someone with it.  Which
is equivalent to saying that by exercising your rights to speech you are
more likely to slander, threaten, harass or intimidate someone.  Which is
not the case in either situation.  

> 
>   If you are going to argue that there should be no limits on speech,
> then you're going to have to address why slander, threats of bodily
> harm, harassment and intimidation should be legal.

I'm not so sure the current limitations on speech are perfectly reasonable.
Do you agree with keeping protestors miles away from recent events like The
Republican National Convention, The WTO meetings, etc.?  I don't.  But as I
stated some people would be glad to see those rights eroded more.  I think
they have already been eroded too much.  And I think that gun ownership by
law abiding citizens has been as well and that the Florida law is a step in
the right direction.

> If you're going to argue there should be no limits on the ownership of
> weapons, then you're going to have to address why people should be
> allowed to own rocket propelled grenade launchers, tanks, and nuclear
> weapons.

And this isn't a red herring designed to a) divert attention from the
original discussion and b) scare people about gun-rights?  Exactly how did
you get from me pointing out the law as it stands to some argument over
owning mortars and nuclear weapons?  You posted that people aren't allowed
to own them and I corrected you.  And that is somehow me advocating for the
ownership of everything else you mentioned - I think not. The slippery slope
of gun-rights...we'll go from personal ownership of firearms to ownership of
tanks and nuclear weapons...if that isn't a scare tactic I don't know what
is.



> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> michael at czeiszperger dot org  |  "Kindness knows no shame"
> Chapel Hill, NC USA              |      -- S. Wonder
> 
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers