[Vision2020] self-govenment

[Joshua Nieuwsma]

--0-1407589902-1052955883=:66458
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I agree, it is a very hard question. And one which I am sure I don't know the best answer for. But in my reading, and talking with others, and from just thinking about it, it seems that there shouldn't be any limitation on what sort of weapon an individual can own, except, as I already referenced, in the case of purely offensive weapons like the nuclear bomb or an EMP bomb or the like.
Consider that in the War for Independence a good majority of the cannons were supplied by private individuals who owned their own armories. If current laws had been on the books back then, there would have been no free America.
Also, obviously most people, even if armored tanks or anti-tank weapons were available, wouldn't use their right to buy them.
And of course if they were on the market, the price would be very high, and so most couldn't afford it anyhow. 
But alot of this is assuming that the communities would return to the concept of personal responsibility, with consequences for actions, not for ownership. That is, in my opinion, the underlying theme of self-government that needs to be continually pointed out. 
None of these freedoms can work without responsibility being placed on the right individuals. Which is why there is a tradeoff between government and freedom. The more that the government does for you, the less you are responsible for. 
And the less you are responsible for, the less you get to decide on your own. And the fewer decisions you actually make for yourself, the fewer freedoms you have.
 
I'd agree, by the way, a 12 gauge shotgun is very intimidating. But considering the fact, like you pointed out, Mr. Hansen, that most criminals have assault weapons, I do think that there is a good argument to be made that assault weapons are good defense weapons. 
At least then you have firepower equal to the intruders. There is nothing worse than being outgunned.
And of course another argument for high-powered assault rifles is the defense against the government. Not to bring up conspiracy theories or the like, but governments in the past have been known to attack their citizens. 
I think of Communist governments especially, and the Nazis, and the Turks, all of whom basically disarmed their citizens over a period of 10 years or so and then attacked them for purposes of control. The turks killed over 250,000 Kurds after disarming them through mandatory disarmament programs.
The government really has no good reason to regulate concealed weapons, or to regulate automatic 50 cals as opposed to bolt-action ones. Just punish those who kill or maim using them. Establish once again the age-old principle of responsibility for actions. Legislate the action, not the object.
 
-joshua nieuwsma

thansen@moscow.com wrote:
It is a tough question whether or not to legalize fully-automatic assault 
rifles. Maybe legalizing these weapons would be the answer to the "control" 
question. But using "defense against burglars/intruders" does not hold water. 
I seriously believe that a 12-guage shotgun is alot more intimidating to an 
intruder than any rifle. If we were to legalize fully-automatic rifles, then 
why not light anti-tank weapons? Should a line be drawn or not?

Tom
Hansen

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
http://www.fsr.net/



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
--0-1407589902-1052955883=:66458
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<DIV>I agree, it is a very hard question. And one which I am sure I don't know the best answer for. But in my reading, and talking with others, and from just thinking about it, it seems that there shouldn't be any limitation on what sort of weapon an individual can own, except, as I already referenced, in the case of purely offensive weapons like the nuclear bomb or an EMP bomb or the like.</DIV>
<DIV>Consider that in the War for Independence a good majority of the cannons were supplied by private individuals who owned their own armories. If current laws had been on the books back then, there would have been no free America.</DIV>
<DIV>Also, obviously most people, even if armored tanks or anti-tank weapons were available, wouldn't use their right to buy them.</DIV>
<DIV>And of course if they were on the market, the price would be very high, and so most couldn't afford it anyhow. </DIV>
<DIV>But alot of this is assuming that the communities would return to the concept of personal responsibility, with consequences for actions, not for ownership. That is, in my opinion, the underlying theme of self-government that needs to be continually pointed out. </DIV>
<DIV>None of these freedoms can work without responsibility being placed on the right individuals. Which is why there is a tradeoff between government and freedom. The more that the government does for you, the less you are responsible for. </DIV>
<DIV>And the less you are responsible for, the less you get to decide on your own. And the fewer decisions you actually make for yourself, the fewer freedoms you have.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I'd agree, by the way, a 12 gauge shotgun is very intimidating. But considering the fact, like you pointed out, Mr. Hansen, that most criminals have assault weapons, I do think that there is a good argument to be made that assault weapons are good defense weapons. </DIV>
<DIV>At least then you have firepower equal to the intruders. There is nothing worse than being outgunned.</DIV>
<DIV>And of course another argument for high-powered assault rifles is the defense against the government. Not to bring up conspiracy theories or the like, but governments in the past have been known to attack their citizens. </DIV>
<DIV>I think of Communist governments especially, and the Nazis, and the Turks, all of whom basically disarmed their citizens over a period of 10 years or so and then attacked them for purposes of control. The turks killed over 250,000 Kurds after disarming them through mandatory disarmament programs.</DIV>
<DIV>The government really has no good reason to regulate concealed weapons, or to regulate automatic 50 cals as opposed to bolt-action ones. Just punish those who kill or maim using them. Establish once again the age-old principle of responsibility for actions. Legislate the action, not the object.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>-joshua nieuwsma</DIV>
<DIV><BR><B><I>thansen@moscow.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">It is a tough question whether or not to legalize fully-automatic assault <BR>rifles. Maybe legalizing these weapons would be the answer to the "control" <BR>question. But using "defense against burglars/intruders" does not hold water. <BR>I seriously believe that a 12-guage shotgun is alot more intimidating to an <BR>intruder than any rifle. If we were to legalize fully-automatic rifles, then <BR>why not light anti-tank weapons? Should a line be drawn or not?<BR><BR>Tom<BR>Hansen<BR><BR>---------------------------------------------<BR>This message was sent by First Step Internet.<BR>http://www.fsr.net/<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><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.
--0-1407589902-1052955883=:66458--