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

[Michael Czeiszperger <michael AT czeiszperger.org>]

On Apr 26, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Shea Tisdale wrote:

> I don't think we have a common goal on this.  I seek to expand the  
> rights of
> citizens to own firearms and use them in lawful manners.  And I  
> believe you
> seek to restrict the rights of citizens to own them.  Am I not correct?

I think we both believe there are some weapons which are too dangerous  
for the society as a whole for individuals to own.

> However the *how dangerous* argument is not really something I can get
> behind for use in attempting to determine whether something should be
> illegal or not in our current society.

So you wouldn't mind if your neighbor had a nuclear weapon?  Or was  
sitting on enough explosives to blow up a town?  Or a biological  
weapon?  As a general rule wouldn't you say that something which could  
kill everyone on a block in a matter of minutes should be illegal?

I find the libertarian arguments that government has no role in  
regulating citizens to be non-practical.  There's just so many  
practical areas in which society, by which I mean the general consensus  
of the citizenry, has come to the conclusion that we're going to have  
certain rules to minimize loss of life.

________________________________________________________________________ 
_________
Some try to achieve immortality by performing grand deeds or the  
accumulation of
great wealth. On the whole I prefer to achieve immortality by not  
dying. -- Pratchett
        -- michael at czeiszperger dot org, Chapel Hill, NC