--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk > Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:34 AM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Women at Risk" > > Herbert obviously has a gun-control agenda and that's all very well and > good. But, hey, Timothy McVeigh had a great hatred for the U.S. Government > and he didn't use ANY guns in expressing that hatred....all he needed was > some fertilizer...and hundreds died. > > Guns are really beside the point. > > Where do you draw the line, Shemp? Automatic weapons? Assault rifles? > Bazookas? Suitcase nukes? The more powerful the weapon, the easier it is to > kill lots of people with it. Laws are meant to restrict individual liberties > to the extent necessary to prevent harm to other individuals. By that > definition, gun laws are too lax.
> +++ To the criminal element, laws are meaningless and only create more > burden for good citizens. > I assume it's illegal to buy all the components McVeigh used to build his > bomb, or at least it's necessary to show proof of why you need to buy them, > such as blasting caps. Would you agree that certain weapons should be > unobtainable, and/or that ownership of any weapon should require > registration at least as onerous as a driver's license? > Some very serious stuff can be made out of supplies found at the local supermarket and hardware store.
