shadow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > TP>> Incrementanlism is okay when you are incrementally going towards your > TP>> goal. Allowing police officers to be armed [off duty] while [other] > TP>> citizens still are not is not a step in the right direction.
> r> Why is it not? Before the step, X people are allowed to carry guns. > r> After the step, X + N people are allowed to carry guns, where N > 0. How > r> is that not a step in the right direction? >It drops you and me into 2nd-class citizen roles, or, "some are more equal >than others." So it's better for prohibitions to have no exceptions? That's nuts. Or is your problem the fact that it's gov't employees who'd be given the exemption? OK, what if instead a statute made it legal for all Chinese to carry guns without permits? Or all members of the Elks? Or all persons who do not have pets or children? In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
