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

[Brian Godfrey <bjgodfrey AT gmail.com>]

I thought you could own tanks and such.  I mean people have WWII P-57
Mustangs, Jeeps and lord knows what else.  More then anything it just
becomes cost prohibitive to own such machinery.  That and I think it's
not so easy to obtain the munitions needed for said devices.

On 4/26/05, Shea Tisdale <shea AT sheatisdale.com> wrote:
> > 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
> 
> ---
> 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
>