 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I think the "being necessary to the security of a free state" part covers that. [...] (...) As long as democratic institutions are still working then it isn't time for a revolution. But when the right to vote gets taken away (e.g. an election (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) You're right. One should try and change things from within the system. This is why those who don't agree with the current government and truly care about our nation are trying to work within the system. The purpose of enabling the free (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Punk!
|
|
(...) Yeah, I guess it was -- but that's misspelled, right? -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It should be noted that the 2nd amendment itself in no way addresses that its purpose is for the overthrow of the government or as a hedge against tyranny. (...) The "well-regulated militia" that opted to go its own way was the Confederate (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It depends what you mean by "fight". If it means oppose through force of arms, then you are correct. Obviously. If you mean only an armed population can rid themselves of a totalitarian regime, then I think you are wrong. Look at the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) I don't have a lot to contribute to this debate, but this idea is invariably introduced at some point, and it needs careful examination. The problem with the statistic you've cited is that it is *very* difficult to establish a causative (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) The United States is a democratic republic. Fine, no problem--never said it wasn't--I said the way to get things changed is thru democracy, the process in which the people *vote*. (...) "Government is not reason and it is not eloquence. It is (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Punk!
|
|
(...) Well I guess I've tipped my hand in another post in this thread - the first band I ever played in did mostly punk (or punky versions of non-punk), so I'm not quite as anti-punk as these 2 tips may suggest.... ROSCO (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Punk!
|
|
(...) Ummmm, wasnt that "bollocks"? ROSCO (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Punk!
|
|
(...) I guess we know who's in touch with *his* inner Angry Young Man! :-D Maggie C. (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) It's a Democratic Republic. There is a difference. (...) This is such a lame statement it barely merits response, I just wanted to call it to your attention. It's just as bad as: "America: love it or leave it." Too lame. (...) This is a fairly (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Like the Taliban controlled Afganistan for example. Never mind that the whole point of the MILITARY and POLICE carring guns openly was to make sure that the citizens were unarmed and in fear for their lives. There is a reason that the 3 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Some Oxford pics
|
|
Here's a scan of some of the unique elements from the Oxford Tank I've mentioned previously: (URL) well as a few snippets from the catalog that came with it: (URL) Dave! FUT OT.Clones (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, lugnet.build.military)
|
| |
| | Re: Punk!
|
|
(...) Eh? What kind of tips? Start with: The Velvet Underground Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music" Nico's "The End" New York Dolls Ramones Sex Pistols (esp. "Never Mind the Bullocks") Early Siouxsie and the Banshees ("The Scream", "Join Hands") Early (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) And in a fledging new democratic country, I can see why you would need that kind of ammendment. However, 1776 was a very long time ago. It's 2002. Your country has grown up into democracy and found out that--well looky that--it works without (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Quoteth Dave (...) and (...) and so many other locations--which part in my posting makes you think that *I* think the 2nd was written less than 20 years ago. If there's someone being misrepresented in this thread, I'm your guy. (...) And (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
Let me say it again, but more concisely: Only an armed population can fight back against a totalitarian regime. The 2nd amendment is meant to allow the population to be armed for just this reason. Yes, if democracy failed and a totalitarian regime (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
David: What William has stated is more or less the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, but it also goes back to feudal times. Freemen bear arms -- it's a right and a responsibility. Read "The Federalist Papers". If you disagree, fine. Just stop (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Punk!
|
|
(...) How come? I happen to like punk music! (*) :-P Pedro (*) I'm not a punk, though. (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Punk!
|
|
(...) Aw, Rosco, what's the matter? Not in touch with your inner Angry Young Man? ;p James (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
