Subject: Re: [LPNY DISCUSS] how incredibly rediculous
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:33:01 -0400
To:        <lpny_discuss@yahoogroups.com>
From:     Bob Armstrong <bob@cosy.com>
On Fri, 30 May 2003 10:57:00 -0400, Blay Tarnoff wrote:
>=A0I think one could practically minimize the private ownership of=
 nuclear
>=A0weapons on the same theory that it could and should be illegal=
 to have a
>=A0loaded, cocked shot gun pointed at one's neighbor's house or a=
 bomb that
>=A0could blow up one's neighbor's house reset to detonate every=
 twelve
>=A0hours that gets reset every day when one comes home from work=
 and wakes
>=A0up in the morning. =A0There is a difference between owning a=
 weapon for
>=A0self defense and threatening one's neighbors and making them=
 live in a
>=A0constant well-founded fear of their lives.
>
>=A0Blay

 Yes .

 It is a distinction between weapons for personal defense and
 weapons for incapable of such use . The unalienable right is=
 the
 right to self defense .

 To repeat a historical note that I posted some time ago : The=
 first
 aid  US  gave Britain at the beginning of WWII was to send them=
 
 am million cosmolined leftover Springfields from WWI with about=
 10
 rounds apiece . The point was exactly that of the 2nd amendment=
 :
 if Hilter tried to cross the channel , he would be facing an
 individually armed population .  The Swiss thrive with the same
 philosophy . 

--=A0
=A0Bob Armstrong -- http://CoSy.com -- 212-285-1864
NEW : Newsletter : http://cosy.com/K/CoSy/NL200305.htm
Ultimate Computing Environment : =A0http://cosy.com/K/CoSy.htm=A0
A WTC vision : http://cosy.com/CoSy/ConicAllConnect/
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A02003/05/30 11:17:25 AM