<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valkenar:
I'd also be happy to start a thread generally about government.
Socialism need not figure into this debate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Finally we arrive at the heart of the matter. This debate has always been about socialism (ie. communism, totalitarianism, modern American liberalism). Guns are simply an essential means to the ultimate end: The discouragement and prevention of socialism.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Completely disagree. I wonder if you are reading the link that I posted... Bastiat asserts that every individual has the natural right to defend, even by force, his life liberty and property. Bastiat's view of a just and enduring government is one where government augments (but never diminishes) the individual right of defense.A ban on guns is inline with the government's function as Bastiat puts it.
Regardless of the original posting and premise, the true focus of this thread (and any others where individual freedoms, liberties and Rights are targeted for destruction) should be: How much individual power (physical and intellectual, when suffused throughout the population) is necessary to guarantee that government will forever be the servant and never the master of the People?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Thank you. Apology accepted.I'm sorry, that was an honest mistake that I didn't even realize I had made until you pointed it out. I wasn't intending to call you "Panthey."
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
If you "limit" a right out of existence, then you have, in truth, taken that Right away. Regardless of the "reasonable" propaganda of the gun grabbing socialists, the facts are clear (and their own internal memos, as well as a few very public "slips of the tongue" prove) that their goal is completely and totally disarming all American citizens. In that regard no creeping limitations are "reasonable". The gun grabbers have already broken their "just this one last law" promise for over 65 years, why should we believe that another restriction on top of the over 20,000 already on the books will make one whit of difference to the criminals who (by definition) ignore those other 20,000+ laws? It won't! Because it's not about criminals, it's not about safety, it's about sweet-talking the lawful citizens of this country into putting the handcuffs on.I don't think I've made that clear at all. I think that's something that you've drawn from my words which isn't there. I'm not saying I have a right to take away any of your rights. All I'm saying is that since it's understood that some limitation is acceptable (in the case of nukes) that it is reasonable consider what the extent of that limitation should be.
It's obvious that we both agree that suitcase nukes are overkill (please excuse the pun) in the cause of keeping government under control. So the question becomes, how much firepower in the hands of We, the People is sufficient to prevent government from devolving into tyranny.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I'm not interested in getting into a contest over how far I am willing to go to defend my beliefs.
Even if I were, how does my willingness to die for my beliefs affect in any way the correctness of those beliefs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because ideas survive and evolve Darwinistically.

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 03, 2001).]