"Leon" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:140620091728347964%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

Who, in your opinion, should be allowed to decide whether or not a
legally available item should be in the possession of any particular
individual?

As a further exercise, what legally available items should be in
that decision tree?

I never said it would be easy to decide where the dividing line
should be. To me it is common sense that should dictate it. Go see
Gran Torino, and decide who should or should not have had weapons.
To me it seems easy. I for one should not have dangerous stuff,
because I'm a hot head. And because the only experience with "fire
weapons" that I had was at a carnival when I was 16.


Just watched Grand Torino about 1 hour ago. If the police did not
have so many ridiculous protectionism laws to have to tip toe through
to keep from violating a murderers rights perhaps they could work on
the real problems more efficiently. Perhaps if we ere not becoming so
defenseless there would not be so much crime. Trying to protect the
public from itself results in more crime.

If you remember in the movie, Clint Eastwood was not killed until he
was defenseless, when he carried a gun he was on more equal ground.

He felt at the end that he was near the end of his life. To be able to
get the gang members in jail he sacrificed himself, in full knowledge of
what was going to happen. Nothing in that movie said that shooting was
good. Standing up for oneself and others when being harassed or worse
was all he did.

I sure hope that it will be a long time before we all need to carry
concealed guns in order to feel safe.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid