On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:49:39 -0400, Goedjn wrote:

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:33:14 -0400, mm
wrote:

On 6 Apr 2007 13:08:56 -0700, "dpb" wrote:


The lock itself is relatively cheap, granted. The rest isn't cheap at
all -- either in dollars or philosophical bent of continuing the
(started to say "drift", but it's long passed the drifting stage )
rush towards a nanny-state.

Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, and I can give you
many examples of how I hate that. Seat-belt laws, helmet laws for
non-children, anti-smoking laws for bars, anti-transfat laws.

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.


Actually, it's settled constitutional law that the state
doesn't HAVE to protect you from anyone.

I didn't say the Constitution required it in every case. I said it is
already the obligation of the state to protect us from others.

I hope you can see the difference.