putnamd%atlodbs1 at DRAGON.COM
Wed Sep 27 08:59:14 MDT 1995
> How can it be circular? You must first disagree that you have the
> right to defend yourself, and to do this, you must deny that all specie
> have self-defense instincts. You must also, dis-establish the precepts
> of John Locke, upon whom much of the fundamental principles of
> philosophy of the founding fathers was based.
If I might add: I think Will is saying it is circular because if guns were
outlawed then there would not be any reason to have guns for self-defense.
Thus the circular reasoning that Will may be indicating.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Will, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Assuming (a dangerous thing to do) that is true the flaw in the arguement is
obvious. Since criminals disregard the law, by definition, they will still
be armed (gun, knife, baseball bat, etc.). As you so eloquently stated we have
a natural right of self defense. Even if the criminal has a weapon other
than a firearm, we still have the natural right to use firearms for defense.
If the criminal does have a firearm (what is to stop him) then that threat
requires at least a firearm for defense. It should then be clear that there is
no circular reasoning on this issue.
Dennis Putnam, Manager
Technical Planning and Services
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.
Opinions expressed are mine and should not be viewed as an official positon of
Hayes or its management.
More information about the Rushtalk