Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

Umm, guys?

Could be please be careful about what we start around here?  I believe
we
are all pretty much rational adults who can hold a reasoned conversation
-
but let's not drag out another name-calling gun-control debate online,
OK?

A point was made that having the current British style weapon
restrictions
would not go over with a great many Americans, and that some guaranteed
right would need to exist in this area.  I agree.  Mark has now shared
with
us some eloquent <?> thoughts that many Americans share on the matter,
as
well as a wry commentary on the status of personal freedom in European
politics.

Mark, I think there are several Europeans on the list that have
demonstrated that they do not fall into the category of thinking
themselves
'serfs', any more that many of us Americans.  Derogatory comments about
Europeans in general are not a good way to get your point across. 
Please
beware ofgeneralities that could lead to a flame war.  For what it is
worth, I agree with you about gun control and many other issues (I have
read your homepage).

For those on either side of the ideological camp interested in a
thought-provoking, well-reasoned article (with a pro-gun viewpoint), I
heartily recommend  "Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing
Weapons
Teaches About the Good Life" by Eric S. Raymond (quite a prominent
member
of the Open-source software movement, BTW) The article can be found at
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

Anyway, I don't want to stifle conversation.  I believe that brian's
post
is over a week old, maybe a bit more - and Brian quickly apologized for
phrasing his comments in a way that got others riled...I thought the
resultant feud had died - please leave it there...

Jared Noble

"Mark A. Siefert" <cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu> on 12/30/98 02:30:31 PM

Please respond to gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

To:   gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the
structure

Brian Burger wrote:

> these are non-controversial rights - but when you get Americans of a
> certain type talking about rights, they start yammering about the
right
to
> own lots and lots of artillery - pardon, the "right" to bear arms, and
> want to tie this into safety, etc etc. ("Yes, I can only be safe in my
own
> home if I own a big handgun that my 3-year old will blow his brains
out
> with!")

     You mean like the "right" to defend yourself against the
individual's
two greatest enemies:  Criminals and The State... as if there is really
a difference.

> Most of the rest of the world doesn't think this way (thank god) so
our
> universal NAC rights have hit a snag...unless all the gun nuts kill
> themselves off in the 2nd ACW...This is without mixing religion into
> things.
>

     That's because the rest of the world respects freedom the same way
most
people respect dog shit.  America is, or at least it was supposed to be,
the first society that put the freedoms of the individual first.  Most
of the population of this dirty little mud-ball still believe the notion
that the government is always right, even when they are slaughtering
this week's political or ethnic scapegoat.  Europe is perhaps the best
example.  The Old World still believes that they are loyal surfs (or
"subject") to the local lord of the manor (i.e. bureaucrats, ministries,
kings, prime ministers, dictators), whom they count on them for
protection (i.e. censorship, state controlled economies, jack-booted
border guards, GUN CONTROL!!!).  Feudalism didn't die, it just got
re-named "social democracy."

--
Good Day....

Mark A. Siefert,
A sovereignty onto himself.

E-MAIL: cthulhu@csd.uwm.edu		WWW: http://www.uwm.edu/~cthulhu
========================================================================
=