|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Alan,
The quote that Rodney Grisham sent you was in all probability from one of my
many sig files and I feel obliged to answer your message. I will answer your
questions in line.
>
>>Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... etc.
>> -- Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
>
>First of all, what has this got to do with trading?
Read the quote carefully. It is about trading ... trading the rights of the
assaulted and for the rights of assailants and individual rights for state
rights.
If you need more about Beccaria, try these.
<http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/b/beccaria.htm>
<http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/beccaria/pubecon>
In his treatise, On Crimes and Punishments, he argues that slavery is a
better
deterrent of crime than criminal punishment if that is the objective to be
accomplished. Perhaps we should get rid of all the guns and make everyone a
slave to the state. No more assailants; only slaves. Not exactly a new idea.
>Secondly, in a private email, maybe someone can explain to me why it is that
>Americans (you are aren't you?) feel that they are still in the 18th century
>when it comes to the necessity of weaponry in everyday life.
Why don't you ask an Albanian refugee?
It is apparent you think our civilization has evolved. It has not. There has
not been a day when there was not a war being fought. If we could truly
evolve
into a peaceful state of cross-race harmony don't you think it would have
happened several thousand years ago? It did not, it has not and it will not.
In the USA we have more gun legislation in the last 60 years than in the
previous two hundred years and crime has not decreased. Gun legislation is
historically discriminatory. In those instances where towns required all
citizens to be armed, (towns in Ohio and Georgia), crime rates dropped upwards
of 90%.
>The reality is appalling. That 23 (or is it 26?) family members go down for
>every one "assailant" never seems to trouble anyone. Don't let fear and
>common sense stand in the way of the stampede to arms. I particularily like
>the anti gov't types who arm themselves with some guns and say that the
>gov't is out to get them.
>If that were true, one tommahawk and they would
>be vaporized along with their guns, but why apply logic?
How about logic and history. At no time in history when the right to bear
arms
has been taken away from a people did freedom last let alone exist.
It is refreshing however to hear you are pro Tomahawk but anti gun. Disarm
the
public then vaporize them. you logic is a bit emotionally unstable. Note well,
it is better to kill governments and not the public. The public pays taxes,
govenrments don't.
BTW, this has nothing to do with antigov. sentiment. If a criminal comes
to my
house, I want to protect myself with the same protection a policeman has.
Government cannot protect every individual from every assailant. They can only
count bodies and fill out paperwork afterwards.
>The irony that seems to escape most NRA members and wannabees is that the
>threat which you arm yourselves against is the threat you create by arming
>yourselves.
And we shouldn't concern ourselves about criminals or do you place NRA members
in that category as well? OR perhaps criminals are only in our imaginations
like the Holocaust?
>Where's John Wayne when you need him?
The American Movie Channel
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Second Amendment,
The Bill of Rights to the US Constitution, 1791
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand advantages for one
imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it
burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy, except for
destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. "
Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria
Charles Kaucher
|