|
|
Posted by afn03488 on 04/21/07 04:07
On Apr 19, 6:04 pm, imorf <i...@iformRemovethis.com.au> wrote:
> Indeed.
> They should force all gun owners to at least join and participate in a
> militia (since that is what their constitution is referring to).
Please explain to me why "A well beaten egg white being necessary
for the preparation of a good meringue, the right of the people to
keep and raise chickens shall not be infringed", means that I may
only raise chickens if I beat egg whites. Why can't I raise chickens
just to pluck and fry them?
This is just part of the crap that outlawing guns will prevent crime.
You in Australia should be learning this first hand by now. Laws
don't prevent crime; they cannot. Laws define crimes and prescribe
the punishment for their commission. The simplest way to eliminate
crime is to repeal all laws. No law, no crime. This is unacceptable
to me, and probably to you also.
Murder is universally a crime; there is already a statute in Virginia
proscribing it. That law did not prevent 32 murders. What is idiotic
is the notion of banning private ownership of guns will prevent
violence. At Virginia Tech, and at Luby's, there was an existing
ban on firearms. If the victims had carried their own weapons
in violation of this ban, FEWER people would have died. Florida
and Texas have already discovered their adoption of concealed
carry has resulted in the decrease of armed robbery. Kleck
discovered that burglars fear encountering an armed householder
more than encountering the police. As Hienline put it, "In a fully
armed society one is either very polite or very dead." Banning
guns does not protect the general public; it only protects those
willing to violate the ban from those who won't.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|