Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List |
Date: | Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:11:23 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
True to your word, Kyle, I'm one of those coast inhabitants who feels ok
about laws regulating the sale of weapons (though my forbears landed in
Minnesota). While I realize that one who is determined to obtain a gun can,
I think background checks, etc. make more determination necessary and
thereby save lives. Given that a rebellion of armed citizenry would be
quickly squashed in today's America, I have a hard time understanding the
relevance of arguments citing the importance of arms in protecting us from
our government. I'll admit my bias here toward non-violent means of bringing
change. And it's not too late for the vote. ;)
My $.02
Pam
> The difference lies not so much in whether one is "anti" or "pro" gun as
it
> is whether or not we feel comfortable with to nationalizing more and more
> aspects of our lives. I daresay that the Europeans and, for the most
part,
> individuals who reside on east and west coasts of the United States are
more
> comfortable with the notion of socialization than those of us whose
forbears
> desired to explore the "New World" further inland than Boston or San
> Francisco.
>
> A large element of our U.S. population is dependent upon the State for
their
> most basic of needs. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. What
IS
> wrong is when that becomes the desired norm. With that construct we get
> three basic factions: The group wishing to be "on the dole", the group
> wishing to "administrate the dole" (and its inherent power) and the third
> group, to which I belong, that maintains that the ideal is for me to take
> care of my own needs, IN AS MUCH AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. It is to this
> third group that the writers of the American Constitution were directing
> that document. It is this third group that sees the value of personal
arms
> as a viable defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well
> as understanding that there is a mandate for an armed citizenry to keep a
> government of, by and for the people from becoming a government by fiat
and,
> ultimately, jackboot.
>
> -Kyle
>
>
|
|
|