Comments on: Freedom behind bars

By: Anthony Gregory

Anthony Gregory — Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:10:55 +0000

Thanks for the kind words, everyone. I don’t quite recall saying that “mob rule” should determine whether someone can own weapons that are “too deadly.” That is, in fact, how it works now — democracy is simply mob rule.

But I do consider nuclear weapons to be per se aggressive, or at least to constitute the threat of aggression, like pointing a gun at everyone within a certain radius. What I do not favor is using the state to disarm people of anything. And I don’t believe the state should have any weapons that private individuals aren’t allowed to have.

By: Yaman

Yaman — Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:09:26 +0000

If anybody doubts the grave danger posed to our society by the dissemination of drugs, please, please: you must watch Reefer Madness and remind yourselves.

By: Mickey Klein

Mickey Klein — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:43:16 +0000

Private ownership of nuclear weapons is absurd, but Gregory’s argument on drug laws is sound. Its obvious how weapons possession can threaten public peace, but what about heroin use?

By: IconoclasticGoat

IconoclasticGoat — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:48:56 +0000

The Second Amendment doesn’t say “except for thermonuclear weapons,” Donald. Don’t let liberals destroy your freedom to own as many megatons as you can get your hands on.

By: Donald

Donald — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:00:07 +0000

Is this the same Anthony that had longish black hair? I talked to that guy on Sproul once. He was certifiable. He believed that citizens operating by mob rule should determine if a neighbor has a weapon that is too deadly to be in the hands of a citizen. He took this rule up to and including nuclear arms.

But I don’t disagree with the general premise of this article.