Re: Re: wow - is a "shadow" politician still a politician?

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 9/4/07, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:

> A *disarmed* person can at least theoretically re-arm themselves by getting
> another weapon, and even in a war zone like Baghdad *still* has a 80% or 90%
> chance of being alive a year later.  A *dead* person is usually pretty much out
> of options and will *still* be 100% dead a year later.
>
> Conflating the two merely indicates you don't understand the very real
> distinction between them.

Are you pretending that makes sense, perhaps to satisfy some
egocentric, personal need to be superior and wrong at the same time?

You can only "re-arm" yourself if there are arms to be had - in the
case of a ban, there aren't. This would seem self-evident, I should
think, to most. The closest circumstance the world has ever seen of
this was when a class of people were disarmed. Since there were still
some guns around for the preferred class to use, the unarmed class was
able to arm itself...but it was too little, too late most would say...
WWII history is so educational when it comes to discussions such as
these.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.