Words are for Sucks - la "defensa" no es igual a la "matanza"

["Daniel J. Temmesfeld" <dtemm@yahoo.com>]

Geez... "defense" can mean "protecting."  Guns can be a
"viable/practicable" method of "defense/protecting" one's
self *without* killing.  Guns are quite "capable" of 
protection *without* killing, *regardless of* the widely
perceived reason for existence and/or creation.

Equating "defense with a gun" as meaning "killing being
the only option" is what *I* believe to be a major
problem in the States (and the world) relating to guns.
Our *perception* of absolutes is what is shaping the way
that the tools are used.

A gun is a tool.  It can be used effectively to do many
things.  Killing is one of them.  It *doesn't have to be*
the only option.  Absolutes are a narrow way to think
about things (call that the ex-Cedarville student in me).

I'm officially quitting this conversation (for now),
especially since we generally agree, but we're going down
the path of silly semantics arguments that completely
*lead away from* the points I made in my first post:

 1 The assumption that someone who doesn't want a gun in
   their home is "adamantly opposed" to the 2nd Amendment
   is a bad assumption.  I won't ever own a gun.  I don't
   begrudge others.  It's their right.

 2 It's my right, too; but a "right" doesn't equate to a
   "must."

 3 I'd still wager that [guns are] definitely not the
   *BEST* option.

mi amigo de los árboles no tiene un pájaro,
Dan

np: opeth - orchid


---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/