"Cybe R. Wizard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 01 May 2006 15:24:21 -0700 > Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Matthias Julius wrote: >> > The same is true for drugs and other controlled substances. Would >> > you vote making them freely available? >> >> I would, and have. Or rather, at the very least, decriminalized >> the ones that are criminalized now. Because "drugs" encompasses more >> than just the illegal ones I presume you're referring to. > > So would I. I believe that well-intentioned and law-abiding citizens > should be free to do/buy/possess whatever they wish as long as it > harms no one.
How do you recognize well-intentioned and law-abiding citizens? What makes this difficult is that people change. They buy a gun as a well-intentioned and law-abiding citizen in case they need to defend themselfes. Then a while later when they are upset or drunk they find they have a gun handy and do harm somebody else. A lot of such violent crimes are committed out of an emotional reaction. While taking away guns may not completely prevent all such crimes ti might make them less harmfull. Using a gun is too easy. > I can easily foresee a possible need for heroin or cocaine. Any > problem arises when one wishes to do unlawful things (things which > harm others). Why should the law-abiding pay for those who do not > wish to abide by the common rules of free men? for instance, if > some people use guns to threaten/harm others why would a government > disallow guns to the common free man who will only use them in > defense of his family and possessions? Maybe if noone had a gun to threaten you with you wouldn't need one to defend yourself? > Maybe so that same government could pass imminent domain laws to > take away legal possessions from that man? Fear your government, > any type of government. Isn't that a bit paranoid? Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
