[Vision2020] self-govenment
Joshua Nieuwsma
joshuahendrik@yahoo.com
Wed, 14 May 2003 16:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
--0-2063239351-1052954213=:66254
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I, on the other hand, do favor legalizing assault rifles. And keeping 50 caliber rifles legal. And making all automatic guns legal. Who is to say that one caliber or speed of firing is safe and another is dangerous?
And besides almost every caliber bullet pretty much guarantees serious injury or death (except perhaps the 22).
Just like who is to say one drug is reasonable to use (like marijuana) and another is too dangerous for human consumption? Personal responsibility again!
As Mr. Hansen just pointed out: "It is virtually impossible to control the black market."
So why aren't you in favor of legalizing assault rifles, Mr. Hansen? Since the law does no good anyhow!
It's just a waste of lawbook space and another petty thing to tie up the courts. Why should certain guns be illegal?
If someone uses a gun to kill someone, don't outlaw the gun, punish the person. And yes, this does sound like the "people kill people" thing. Because that is quite right. Someone chose to pull the trigger, whether consciously or not.
If consciously, it is murder of some degree, if accidentally, it is involuntary manslaughter. Though I think there probably ought not be varying "degrees" of murder. Murder is murder, plain and simple. Why distinguish between premeditated and a sudden flareup of temper?
To begin outlawing things just because they can be potentially dangerous (as opposed to outlawing atomic bombs from personal ownership since they are clearly designed for offensive warfare only) is wrongheaded.
Anything can be potentially dangerous. Maybe we should outlaw climbing mount everest to save those poor idiots who keep killing themselves on the ascent.
Or maybe we should outlaw spelunking, since people die in caves.
Or maybe we really need to consider outlawing all knives, including the plastic serrated edge ones from picnic baskets. Those things are sharp, you know.
But seriously, the best way to control gun use or drug use or alcohol use or poison use is to put limitations upon its use, not to outlaw the object itself.
Criminals that murder people with guns should be executed.
Criminals that use knives should be executed.
Criminals that use clubs should be executed.
Criminals that just use their hands and are under the influence of heroin or some other drug should be executed.
Criminals that rob stores using guns to threaten, but do not shoot them, should lose their weapons.
But in none of these cases do guns themselves need to be outlawed, just like marijuana doesn't need to be outlawed. And besides, as Mr. Hansen pointed out, outlawing guns hasn't worked anyhow.
But if someone under the influence of marijuana hits a pedestrian, and kills her, then that someone should be treated the same as the person using the gun.
Legislate actions, not substances, as John said. The subject of this thread is "self-government" and it seems to me that self-government isn't achieved until people accept responsibility for their own actions and allow responsibility to be placed upon others instead of defending the murderer because he was drunk and "didn't know".
-joshua nieuwsma
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-2063239351-1052954213=:66254
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>I, on the other hand, <EM>do</EM> favor legalizing assault rifles. And keeping 50 caliber rifles legal. And making all automatic guns legal. Who is to say that one caliber or speed of firing is safe and another is dangerous? </DIV>
<DIV>And besides almost every caliber bullet pretty much guarantees serious injury or death (except perhaps the 22).</DIV>
<DIV>Just like who is to say one drug is reasonable to use (like marijuana) and another is too dangerous for human consumption? Personal responsibility again! </DIV>
<DIV>As Mr. Hansen just pointed out: "It is virtually impossible to control the black market."</DIV>
<DIV>So why aren't you in favor of legalizing assault rifles, Mr. Hansen? Since the law does no good anyhow!</DIV>
<DIV>It's just a waste of lawbook space and another petty thing to tie up the courts. Why should certain guns be illegal? </DIV>
<DIV>If someone uses a gun to kill someone, don't outlaw the gun, punish the person. And yes, this does sound like the "people kill people" thing. Because that is quite right. Someone chose to pull the trigger, whether consciously or not.</DIV>
<DIV>If consciously, it is murder of some degree, if accidentally, it is involuntary manslaughter. Though I think there probably ought not be varying "degrees" of murder. Murder is murder, plain and simple. Why distinguish between premeditated and a sudden flareup of temper?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To begin outlawing things just because they can be potentially dangerous (as opposed to outlawing atomic bombs from personal ownership since they are clearly designed for offensive warfare only) is wrongheaded. </DIV>
<DIV>Anything can be potentially dangerous. Maybe we should outlaw climbing mount everest to save those poor idiots who keep killing themselves on the ascent.</DIV>
<DIV>Or maybe we should outlaw spelunking, since people die in caves. </DIV>
<DIV>Or maybe we really need to consider outlawing all knives, including the plastic serrated edge ones from picnic baskets. Those things are sharp, you know.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But seriously, the best way to control gun use or drug use or alcohol use or poison use is to put limitations upon its use, not to outlaw the object itself. </DIV>
<DIV>Criminals that murder people with guns should be executed. </DIV>
<DIV>Criminals that use knives should be executed. </DIV>
<DIV>Criminals that use clubs should be executed. </DIV>
<DIV>Criminals that just use their hands and are under the influence of heroin or some other drug should be executed.</DIV>
<DIV>Criminals that rob stores using guns to threaten, but do not shoot them, should lose their weapons.</DIV>
<DIV>But in none of these cases do guns themselves need to be outlawed, just like marijuana doesn't need to be outlawed. And besides, as Mr. Hansen pointed out, outlawing guns hasn't worked anyhow.</DIV>
<DIV>But if someone under the influence of marijuana hits a pedestrian, and kills her, then that someone should be treated the same as the person using the gun. </DIV>
<DIV>Legislate actions, not substances, as John said. The subject of this thread is "self-government" and it seems to me that self-government isn't achieved until people accept responsibility for their own actions and allow responsibility to be placed upon others instead of defending the murderer because he was drunk and "didn't know".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>-joshua nieuwsma</DIV><p><hr SIZE=1>
Do you Yahoo!?<br>
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com">The New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-2063239351-1052954213=:66254--