@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:I detest the idea of people carrying guns.
I believe u, but your emotions have no effect on the rights of people who carrry guns;
its like a
heckler's veto of the First Amendment.
Some Moslems were arrested a few days ago for attacking homosexuals, whose practices thay detest.
Do the Moslems have the right to make the homosexuals go straight, because of the detestation?
plainoldme wrote:I have never been in danger on the streets of Detroit or Boston although, in many ways,
I have greater potential of becoming a victim than other posters here, namely the men.
Women are generally advised against carrying either a gun
or a knife as such weapons have the potential of putting them in greater danger.
Yeah, by partisans of
your philosophy;
talk about
your priests preaching to your choir.
plainoldme wrote:Now, reading David's reply to porsche, I have the feeling that,
despite his claim to never want to violate the rights of others,
he would probably insist that I and every other member of this forum, carry a gun.
I joke about that; I 'd not do that,
the same as I 'd vote against forcing citizens to buy insurance or to wear seatbelts.
I respect freedom of choice in running your own life.
plainoldme wrote:I have tried to demonstrate that there is no need for a weapon.
But, David insists that people need one at all times.
No; people seldom need them, but like a fire extinguisher or like
the jack in your trunk, u don 't know in advance
when u will need it.
It better to
HAVE a gun and
NOT need it
than it is to
NEED a gun and
NOT HAVE it.
That can get very embarrassing.
plainoldme wrote:(My sons mock the fact that there is still a law in MA the dictates women
must be escorted to church by an armed man!)
In early America, in the same spirit as today 's mandatory seatbelt laws,
people were prohibited from going to church in an unarmed condition.
Apparently, thay were losing too many Christians on the way to church.
It was considered an
irresponsible thing to do, like playing Russian Roulette
(tho the commies did not invent that until 1917).
Walking around unarmed was taking unnecessary chances.
plainoldme wrote:I firmly believe that if two rights are in conflict one is not a right.
What about my right to walk down streets where no one carries a gun?
Such a right has never existed. U have no such right,
any more than u have a right that everyone who walks down that street votes the same as u do,
nor that thay all adopt your religious beliefs.
Every citizen has the constitutional right to be armed for self defense.
That right does not depend upon your emotions.
plainoldme wrote:Now, a coworker, an obviously gay man, told me today that one
of our customers threatened his life. The customer called the store
and told the young man that he would kill him if he could.
I suspect that David would say this man is obviously unbalanced
. . . but . . . imagine a cadre of glenn becks having assumed
authority over towns, even states. Would such duly elected authorities
praise this man because he is a homophobe
and see him not as a threat but as a upright citizen and allow him
not just to be free but to be free to carry a gun?
I don 't choose to predict human behavior; your guess is as good as mine,
but we know that Krystalnacht happened 2 nites after
the President of the Berlin Police announced that the Jews had been disarmed in compliance with gun control law.
plainoldme wrote:Had this customer been armed,
would my coworker be alive to tell the tale?
Yes, judging from his still being alive because the world is filled with many kinds of weapons, including guns,
and if someone is
SUFFICIENTLY motivated to do so, he
WILL succeed in an assassination with or without guns.
People did not wait until guns were invented to start killing each other.
I enjoyed your post, Plain.
U were much less savage or
frenzied than a few days ago.
Its a pleasure to talk to u now.
U are like another person, not savage
at all tonite. Thank u for your civility.
David
