"Shane" wrote in message
...
Shane wrote:
I've sent three posts this morning - a response to Job, an
inserted oar to Patc, and the response I promised Figgs (in which
I now see I repeat quite a lot and its not quite as incisive as I
originally meant). The first two got through, the last hasn't
(I've reset the group twice). The last one gives my reasons for
no longer believing in a law passed here some years ago now,
allusions to which I've made before. The question is: who would
censor it? Because these days it wouldn't necessarily be MS and
such is precisely why I justified my current position on the
emotive subject. If this gets through and *it* hasn't I'll repost
it in various forms.
Shane wrote:
I'll send paragraph by paragraph and see which do and don't get
through.


Shane wrote:
2nd paragraph:

But the world over, people are lazy thinkers and don't look beyond
the first conclusion. So its like we're living in a world ruled by
children. And the politicians pander to them, of course.

There are Pro-gun lobbyists who deny irrefutable fact the way some
deny the Holocaust (another parallel!). Now, say they were at a
dance - and the polite thing to do was hand your firearm in at the
cloakroom. Handing it back at the end of the evening would be akin,
responsibility-wise, to giving back a drunk their car keys (I'm
drowning in parallels here!). There are certain rights that
conflict with other people's rights, aren't there. But those
Pro-gun supporters think theirs always comes first. Maybe that
comes in growing up in the mid-West, miles from anyone else and
they do still think they're on their own on the frontier.

I don't get your analogy. What "facts" are pro-gun lobbyists denying?
What is irresponsible about collecting guns at a dance and giving them back
when it's over?
I wouldn't give car keys or guns to a drunk. Otherwise, both are fine.

The right to bear arms is a conservative idea. The USA was founded by
generally conservative people, thus we also have laws against such things as
public indecency.
Owning a gun does not inflict on anyone else's rights, unless you illegally
use that gun against someone.
There are only 4 reasons to own a gun:
For self defense (generally only allowed as a last resort to stop someone
who is an imminent threat to life or property)
For revolution (also a last resort, as our first course of revolution is to
run for office or support someone else for office to change things "through
the system")
For hunting (not for handguns)
For collecting

Shane wrote:
Hmm. 3rd paragraph:

Anyway, I say yes to gun control. Because we're not living on the
frontier - or most of us aren't anyway. Maybe those in the rural
mid-west should just lobby to leave the Union - or stop pretending
to care about Americans rather than just America. However, handguns
are a fact of life. I say better to live with it, responsibly, than
to pretend they don't exist. They're like the atomic bomb, it would
be nicer if the technology had never been dreamt of, but it was and
they're here to stay.

Yes to gun control? To what extent?
I generally agree with laws requiring gun locks and gun purchase waiting
periods, and I'd have to disagree with any law preventing law abiding
citizens of legal age from owning guns.

In some ways we could imagine the world a better place without atomic bombs,
but in the right hands they are a good thing.
There have been several movies where nuclear weapons were used to save the
world from certain destruction.
If the US did not invent atomic bombs, Germany/Japan would likely have won
the war.
If the US did not have atomic/nuclear bombs, what would stop China today
from declaring war and conquering the world?

Shane wrote:
4th paragraph:

Meanwhile the US of course has the right to bear arms in the
constitution, a fact that has frequently been cited as the reason
they must be allowed to do so - to defend against tyranny from their
own government. Unfortunately the only ones who use that argument I
ever saw who would bear arms against the government - as opposed to
just letting freedom be encroached on out of existence - are the
crazies who do basically want to shoot the weak and anyone who tries
to protect them. The rest are just like the British citizens, who
can't help defining what is right as whatever the government of the
day tells them it is.

You define what is right as whatever the government tells you because that
is how democracy works.
If the government tells you something you don't like, you vote new people in
the next election to change it.
The government is also constrained by checks and balances.
Lawmakers and judges keep each other in check and overturn the other's
rulings if they conflict with the constitution.
If the system fails and the government gets out of the hands of the people,
then the people take up arms against it.

Shane wrote:
Hmm again. Not only has every thing but the first paragraph got
through so far, I just e-mailed the post to myself, so it wouldn't
have got through if it was, say, the British Government doing the
censoring.
Next paragraph:

Yes, the psychopaths and organised crime have so many guns that it
makes sense for anyone who doesn't think there'll always be a
policeman to protect you to have one to, but mostly they'll only
shoot you if you interfere with business. The crazies are, imo, a
better argument for having a gun yourself (if you're in the US. That
isn't really an issue here, nor presumably in Canada?).

You are a fool if you think a policeman will "always be there to protect
you".
Police will not be there unless you live right next door, or you live in a
place like New York City where there may be one or more police on every
block.
For most of us, it will likely take the police a minimum 10 minutes to get
there. If someone wants to shoot you or even stab you to death the police
will not likely be able to stop them.
The second part is the police may not be there to protect you even if they
are there. They may be dirty paid off cops, or they may simply be following
their government's instructions, which would mean the citizens must take up
arms against the police if the government gets out of hand.
Some towns in the USA even went so far as to make laws suggesting every head
of household should own a gun to deter criminals.
I think it might be a nice idea for every legal citizen of legal age to own
a gun, though some people should not be trusted with bullets.
If you're going to keep them from carrying an unloaded gun, you might as
well ban shovels and other such deadly objects.

6th paragraph:

However, here we're seeing the consequences of a politician banning
handguns. Whether he started out meaning well or was always a megalomaniac
is moot, the point is *we* need weapons to protect against tyrannical
government! Our freedoms are being removed piece by piece, relentlessly,
and
a police state being established. Someone wrote a letter (to the
Independent?) recently asking (something like) if when Blair is no longer
PM, will he continue to work for the Republican Party? That is not really
a
joke.

They banned handguns? Are you talking about Britain now? You seemed to be
talking about the USA earlier..
Surely every civilized nation should be opposed to bans on handguns.
It is tough to obtain automatic weapons and high caliber weapons.
Your average citizen is generally not allowed to own a tank.
If the government uses tanks against it's own people, we'll just have to
fight back with land mines and such.
Only children, criminals, and certifiably mentally unstable people should be
prevented from owning guns.