Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] OT: In Florida, shoot first, ask questions later

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brian Godfrey <bjgodfrey AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] OT: In Florida, shoot first, ask questions later
  • Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:48:52 -0400

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
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page