Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [DebunkCreation] Re: Landmark US library set to close

Expand Messages
  • Torfinn ├śrmen
    ... Okay. Thanks for the answer. ... So, in other words, if other people s safety is endangered by the procurement of such a dangerous weapon, then these
    Message 1 of 174 , Jul 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      > Yes.

      Okay. Thanks for the answer.

      > Now, just for example, if the individual in question did not take
      > adequate precautions to shield his/her neighbors from the radiation
      > generated by his/her assembling of such a complex weapon, I also would
      > have no objections to him/her being held *fully* legally accountable for
      > such an obvious violation of his/her neighbors' rights to pursue their
      > own lives in reasonable safety.

      So, in other words, if other people's safety is endangered by the
      procurement of such a dangerous weapon, then these people's right to
      safety has priority over the bomb owner's right to have this particular
      weapon for self defense? Or would this not be preventive, but only
      retroactive with him/her being held responsible only after his weapon has
      already caused harm to his neighbours?


      Cheers
      Torfinn
    • cftbq
      Of course not--as should be obvious. The whole concealed carry flap is an irrelevant detail, and a distraction from the main issue. If you have to seek a
      Message 174 of 174 , Jul 19, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Of course not--as should be obvious. The whole "concealed carry" flap is an irrelevant detail, and a distraction from the main issue. If you have to seek a "why" for this particular wrinkle of the ongoing legislative issue, it can be mostly found in the desire of at least some of the voters of the various states to find some way to counteract the out-of-control fanaticism of the federal government.
        As always, note the larger picture, which gun prohibition proponents would rather not have brought up side-by-side with these points: Government agents have been free, and feeling perfectly free, all along, to carry concealed weapons, in all 50 states--including states like Colorado, whose state constitution *explicitly* bans the carrying of concealed weapons. They didn't have a big public debate leading up to passing a statute giving themselves this option; they just started doing it and, in essence, telling anyone in the public who might object: "What are *you* going to do about it?"

        --P

        --- In DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <susanstanko@...> wrote:
        >
        > Susan: That's why 49 states have concealed carry laws? Because it is so difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns?
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.