Let me see if I can parse this
Maybe I should diagram that sentence....

As I said, I'm a little up in the air on the body-armor issue, so let me use a different example that I and we are likely to have definitive views on.<ol type="1">
  • People ``stealing'' music might rip CDs
  • So make ripping CDs illegal
  • But empeggers rip their own CDs to make the music to which they own usage rights more accesible to themselves and no one else, which is certainly not illegal
  • ``stealing'' music is already illegal</ol>So why make ripping CDs illegal? Wasn't the illegality of ``stealing'' the music enough in the first place? Making ripping illegal is intended to compound upon ``stealing'' penalties. But it makes people who were infringing on no one else's rights criminals for no reason. And if the penalty for ``stealing'' music was not enough in the first place, then modify that law.

    On the other hand, handguns, for example, have no legitimate use outside of a firing range. In addition, making them illegal while in public stands the chance of preventing harm. So I cannot come up with a compelling reason that having a handgun outside a firing range (except for transport) should not be illegal. (I've got irrational problems with that argument, but it's a good counterpoint nonetheless. Also, this is not intended to start a gun control debate; it's just an example.)

    Edit: I just tried to diagram that, and it's very big. Nightmare, really. But rest assured that it's gramatically correct, even if it is impossible to read.


  • Edited by wfaulk (21/10/2002 10:04)
    _________________________
    Bitt Faulk