On 03-Dec-04, [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. r>>> How is that not a step in the right direction? s>> It drops you and me into 2nd-class citizen roles, or, "some are more s>> equal than others." r> So it's better for prohibitions to have no exceptions? That's nuts. The only rights we have are the ones we're willing to fight for. r> Or is your problem the fact that it's gov't employees who'd be given the r> exemption?... What do you call a state wherein only police can be armed? A police state? r> ... OK, what if instead a statute made it legal for all Chinese to carry r> guns without permits? Or all members of the Elks? Or all persons who do r> not have pets or children? Unacceptable. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
