🚀 go-pugleaf

I think you're trying to paint me as a one-dimensional anti-gun critic.
Truth is I actually agree with gun ownership to a limited extent. At one
point I did say that Australia is one extreme and certain States in the US
are another. There has to be a happy medium where people can own guns, but
aren't free to buy boxes & boxes of ammo, nor heavy (military) weapons.

Surely you agree that checks MUST be conducted into gun buyers. A gun is
simply a tool. It's how it is used that's the main issue. But of course most
of you seem to think it is a person's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (i.e. handed down
by God) not to have any government "invasion of privacy" in this respect.
That makes no sense to me. Who will check and how?

You obviously know little about politics when you refute my statements about
the modern State system. The simple fact is a State can only operate when
the monopoly of force is handed to the Police and the Armed forces. That is
the law. LA gangs are a good example of what happens when this goes wrong.
If a gang decides that you and your friends are dead, then what...are you
going to try to outgun them??

Also your right to own guns ends where my right to be afraid of your
intentions begins. I am not a meek individual and I fear few people. But a
gun gives even the weakest moron "confidence" to assert themselves and
that's frightening. Not everyone is educated or has good motives like you
(I'm assuming).


Dick <tjdick@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f1kp4$3bs$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Koroush Ghazi" <King_of_Kings@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > >> Whoa you've gone right off track. I'm the first to condemn
> > > >> so-called "social nannyism" because we experience it in
> > > >> Australia to a much greater degree than you guys do.
> > > >> But in modern society you implicitly give the monopoly
> > > >> of extreme force to the Police.
>
> WRONG!  You mean YOU do.  The USA does not work that way: this is
> government of, by, and for the people.  And there is NO Constitutional
> right to police protection!  There cannot be:  it cannot be guaranteed
> they will arrive in time to stop or deter crime.
>
>
> "Koroush Ghazi" <King_of_Kings@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > You don't have a choice. You live in a State which controls many
> > aspects of your life. You can pretend it isn't happening but it is.
>
> You're a hoot, Koroush.  A free state "controls many aspects" of one's
> life for the common good.  That does not mean it controls *every*
> aspect, banning and criminalizing personal freedoms and subjugating its
> people.
>
>
> "Koroush Ghazi" <King_of_Kings@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Who else but the police force will protect you?
>
> I protect myself!  In case of a violent crime, the police CANNOT get
> there until AFTER the crime has occurred.  "People have not only the
> right but the responsibility to protect themselves."  (A cop said that.)
>
> Last year an LAPD officer said to me, "We are hire from the human
> race," meaning they are, after all, only human.  More police = more men
> with guns on the street.  IMO, everyone deserves the same right to
> protect himself.
>
>
> > > >> Do you remember an incident in Hollywood a few years back
> > > >> when a couple of armed robbers were so well protected the
> > > >> police couldn't shoot them down?
>
> If you're referring to the North Hollywood bank robbery, the police
> killed one; the other killed himself.  They were "well protected"
> because they were well-armored, not well armed.  They moved sluggishly
> because they were wearing steel plates under their body armor.  The
> machine guns they had were ALREADY illegal, so any point you were
> trying to make with the above is feckless.
>
> That robbery was a good demonstration of:
> (1) how criminal minds do not obey prohibitions;
> (2) how existing gun laws are not enforced;
> (3) how ill-prepared the police were.  In the overwhelming majority of
> bank robberies (we should know in California), the robbers have left
> the scene by the time the police get there.  The police weren't
> expecting to find the robbers there, let alone see them saunter over to
> a car, get automatic weapons out of the trunk, and start spraying.  The
> robbers could have been stopped with head shots.  (LAPD motorcycle cops
> have been carrying shotguns with folding stocks since that robbery.)
>
> Koroush, why don't you go blame gays for AIDS and sexual crimes like
> child molestation and see how far you get?  The public has learned to
> leave them alone for behavior that is harmless to others.  Now leave us
> legal gun owners alone for the same reason.  Go after criminals.
>
>
> > Again, every citizen already subjugates the right to use extreme
> > force to the State.
>
> No, *you* do.  You're projecting your imagination onto others.  We
> still have government of, by, and for the people.  (Who is the gun
> banner from your country trying to rise in the UN?  Scary.)
>
>
> > The State structure evolved over many millenia...it isn't
> > perfect, but if you have a better alternative, please put it forward.
>
> We are living it now, thank you.
>
>
> > I don't think individuals taking the law into their own hands is a
> > solution because it depends on the mental stability of ever gun owner.
>
> Mental stability is not that much of a problem, despite the news
> business' hawking to the contrary.  Been to an art museum lately?  The
> valuable paintings are right there for all to see --and touch!  But
> *most* people have enough sense to not touch!  Responsible behavior is
> the only legitimate check on absolute freedom.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.