[henry quirk]

Ph45,

Leaving aside the irrelevant bias of your or my posts: you really mean to say that Jack’s use of ‘this’ or ‘that’ (his ease of use, his ease of acquisition) legitimately depends on what ‘the people’ have to say?

Jack may understand ‘the people’ will certainly try -- by way of the stick called ‘LAW’ (codified and sanctioned force) -- to, in his view, hobble him for the good of ‘the people’, but Jack may fundamentally disagree with ‘the people’s’ (shifty, shifting, capricious) wisdom and do as he can to navigate ‘round ‘the people’.

You might say this makes Jack a criminal.

Jack might say, ‘I’m okay with that.’

Stalemate.

*shrug*

#

Spexx,

I can’t see how a stop sign (one of several devices for regulating traffic) is in the same ballpark as saying, ‘No, Jack, because a whack of folks have done bad things with this item, you are not allowed to own the same kind of item, or, you must jump through all manner of legal hoops to get this item.’

#

Sam,

The Hebrews have a saying: ‘If you know someone is coming to kill you, get up early and go kill them first.’ Iran, N. Korea, and others have made ‘their’ intentions clear. I say, ‘kill them first’. In any event: if Jack buys a gun, the act (of buying) is not an active threat against any one, so, why should he be penalized for what he ‘might’ do?

#

“Spexx is gonna get buttfucked in the mouth, then shot.”

I want a DVD of that.