In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Johan" wrote in message
...


Those are your fellow citizens, Gunner. They have as much right to
decide
what goes on here as you do.

Ed Huntress



No they do not.

Those are your fellow citizens, Ed. Do they have as much right to
declare that all persons named Ed Huntress or Gunner or John Husvar must
be hanged from light poles?

Well, yeah, actually, they do. In the end, it all depends on them having the
sense to use democratic rule in a sensible and reasonable way. When you
consider what they *might* do with it, you have to give them a lot of credit
in that department.

First, I apologize for responding harshly previously: You did not
deserve it.

Credit, too, the system of checks and balances that appears aimed
directly at preventing a tyranny of the majority. Some areas are
declared off-limits to federal government activity. Many state
constitutions also enumerate rights. Such enumerations are variably
honored, but that's their citizens' problems.

OK. Well, then whence this apparent distrust of the general populace
among so many Democrats and others left of GWB? (BTW, I'm a registered
Democrat, FWIW)

Wouldn't it be equally to their credit that owners of weapons with
large-capacity magazines so rarely use them criminally?

It appears to me that, if one can trust one's fellow citizens to that
extent, why distrust them owning weapons with 20 or 200-round magazines?
I don't own an "assault weapon," but I can see how militaria buffs or
people who just think it's fun to discharge a lot of ammunition in a
short time might want one.

Murderers and other violent criminals can usually acquire or construct
whatever kind of weapon they want anyway, up to and including truckloads
of ANFO.

The whole thing just reminds me of the old schoolteachers' tactic of
punishing the whole class so as to be sure they got the guilty party. It
was injustice then and it's not any more just for a government now.



How the Hell did you get out of my killfile anyway?

'Dunno. Maybe your computer sprung a leak?

Macs don't leak: They spew occasionally, but they don't leak. (Well,
maybe the new water-cooled ones; Could be.) There's just something odd
about a computer whose instructions include a warning about looking out
for leaking liquids.


I suppose now I have
to go make it a global kill.

There's an appropriate metaphor, all right.

Good'un! OK, maybe I was a little hasty; maybe even a lot hasty. I
apologize again.


snip


Why on God's green earth would anyone care what emotionally-driven
cowards, who can't seem to reason past tautology, think about your
choice of firearm. Why should anyone?

Maybe because they're pretty good at recognizing a nutball when they see
one. And they don't think that the idea of armed nutballs being allowed to
own massively destructive weapons is a good one. And *that's* because the
usual, after-the-fact approach we prefer to take regarding restraint tends
to result in bunches of people being shot to death, at random and often by
surprise.

I agree on the after the fact approach to restraint. Restrain the
perpetrator a posteriori. A priori restraint is virtually impossible,
not to mention being diametrically opposed to the concept of personal
liberty.

Freedom is dangerous and expensive, but I haven't found any system of
restrictive government that is less so.

But such incidents are so rare as to be statistically down in the noise.
With the "It bleeds, it leads" practices of many journalists, such
incidents are reported far in excess of their actual importance. If such
were occurring once a week, once a month, or even twice a year for
several years running, it might be right to be concerned. At the rate it
occurs now, broad-brush, punish everyone, legislation is just not
warranted. They're reported so sensationally, IMO, precisely because
they are so rare -- and horrific.

Nutballs will always be with us. There's no preventing them procuring
whatever weapon(s) they want for whatever purposes. If you can't trust
your citizens with arms, you can't trust them with anything more
important, a vote, for instance, or ideas.

The phrase: "So this can never happen again" simply burns me up it's
such transparent political pandering to the fearful. Not even the
harshest police states can guarantee that. A representative democratic
republic has no chance to prevent some occurrence of similar events.

If you can stand reading a comment about no weapons signs in CCW states:

The people who will obey the signs aren't the problem: The people who
are the problem won't obey the signs. -- Me.


It's one of those things that tests your principles. It's a question of
whether you think the Constitution is a suicide pact.

My principles are just fine. I expect the government to provide good,
reasonable legislation to punish wrongdoers while maximizing my personal
liberty unless and until I or another citizen commit an act that
measurably harms another citizen. Beyond that, I expect it to leave me
alone. One wag declared: "The government, in all its forms and sizes,
should keep its nose to Hell out of my bedroom, my liquor cabinet, my
medicine cabinet, and my gun rack." I generally agree, but might add
wallet. (Like that's ever going to happen!)

I, and no one else, can control others' fears or discomfiture. So long
as one does no physical harm, what matters it how many firearms with how
large magazine capacity he might possess? I know people who act deathly
afraid of bows and arrows, simply because they _could_ be used to do
harm from a distance. To be fair, those folks are emphatically
anti-hunting too.



"If nobody can get guns, then there won't be any gun crimes." Well, no
kidding! Welcome back to the age of biggest and strongest rules. I
suppose that's not so bad. After all, we now live in an era where them
as has the gold makes the rules, assisted by them as can convince the
population that a simple majority represents goodness, right, and truth.

Feh! Utter nonsense.

So, solve the democracy problem. Go threaten to shoot 'em if they don't do
things your way. Bring some 20-round magazines. They tend to impress.

Gratuitous, apparently intentional, misrepresentation of my stance, a
Red Herring.

Mr. Huntress, I've read your posts for a long time on m.s. and r.c.m.
That's just unworthy of you. C'mon!

I do, however, have a problem with pure democracy, that tyranny of the
majority thing I mentioned above.

The Fourth Box is the very last resort to accomplish a regime change.

Best,
Johan