 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
|
(...) But doesn't it take some sensible level of safety (as opposed to absolute safety) to ensure the value of the "life" part of your rights definition? (...) Don't get me wrong: As long as X is NOT a basic human right, I am OK with X being only (...) (24 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) I strongly disagree. It is precisely this kind of knee-jerk, poorly thought out logic that leads us down the path of the destruction of our beloved republic. Protecting our civil rights, enumerated and unemurated in the U.S. Constitution and (...) (24 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Violence created by presence of guns? (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
|
|
(...) Violent crime involving robberies and non-domestic assaults are usually committed by people who are not likely to pick up and move to another state where concealed handguns are not allowed just so they can commit crime. You'd be very hard (...) (24 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Wow. That's something. He's even dead wrong on details; at least two of the hijackers *did* leave suicide notes, in the form of wills. Argue all you like about the justness of the US response and whether that's consistent with our message, but (...) (24 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) I do not have a cite for the bill numebr, but it is summarized here: (URL)Do you seriously want every bill that comes up that vaguely claims to be (...) Of course not, however, this bill is "terrorism" specific. (...) In actuality, the Money (...) (24 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
