 | | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Of course they're still free... until someone comes and takes that freedom away. Then those "free" people might wish they had the means to keep that freedom. (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So Oslo is a bit like LEGOLand? Interesting! There are quite many toy shops (and almost all of them stock LEGO) in Oslo. My experience with other European capitals indicate that Oslo has more toy shops. But this may be related to my local (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) In a Pythonesque link, you cannot carry a Swiss Army knife into Legoland California. Even one with a brick seperator...? :-) Bruce (who had to leave his Master Tinker at Guest Relations) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Mike Petrucelli talked about the possibility of using a gun to shoot a politician who was threating to take away his freedom. (If I understood him correctly.) I don't have any statistical data for this, but I have a feeling that this kind of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) But according to the Constitution, it is the Court that is empowered to interpret the law. (...) I've had a small and far-too-late epiphany on this matter, or at least on how to articulate my feelings about it, so I think I might finally have (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, the original Presidential Oath of Office, according to the Constitution, is: I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Ah, the dangers of abridged source material. I found a more extensive discussion of that case at: (URL) appears that the case involved due process and the right to use one's property (in this case, residence) as one sees fit, as is spelled out (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, the NRA can hardly be taken as a bastion of objective reporting, so it's difficult to accept its pronouncements at face value. One could point out, for example, the NRA has perpetuated the lie that the 2nd Amendment says anything at all (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) What if a society is mature enough to decide that guns have no place in the community? Is that society no longer "free"? Scott A (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution." What does that mean? It seems self-evident and not something on which the court would need to rule. So I assume it means something more. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I hope for a good solid citation -- one that you would accept if our stances were reversed, not just some Newsweek opinion. The NRA tells us that those are made up by evil liberal-agendad politicians like Moynihan. Kleck and Kates (IIRC) (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Um, I was kind of playing, but what do you mean? I think the 2nd is pretty clear on the matter. The issue of how the Supreme Court has allowed the curtailing of our constitutional rights is interesting, but I'm not sure that I'm ready to (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, there is stuff that is covered by the federal government to make trade and travel amongst the many states more or less an easy thing -- one of the true limited purposes of the U.S. federal govt. I have no problems with any of that. But (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) The Federal system means that any precedent set in another state may affect our own laws--certainly, they will when we drive through, or relocate to, said state, and most American families are spread through many states. So I'd argue that it's (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Sorry, gotta nitpick: Canada and Australia had no violent rebellions against British rule, yet both became de facto independent by roughly 1900. [1] A failure to revolt against British rule would not have kept us under anyone's thumb, it (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Thanks for the suggestion. But if you're not interested in what happens in other countries, why should you worry about the laws in other US states? Maybe you don't? If you do, why should they worry about your opinion? They have their own laws. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I don't happen to care what happens in Australia. Is there some reason I should? Y'all should do as pleases Australians best. -- Hop-Frog (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: [massive snip] (...) Probably wouldn't exist as they currently are, no. Who's to say what society would be like without firearms (or the fists, rocks, and swords which preceded them). Doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well given that these particular reporters lean toward supporting gun control I would tend to assume the did their job (of being objective) by coming to the opposite conclusion. (...) anyway? (...) The SIRS are release yearly. 1 year ago is (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well I will admit that my statement was a bit "boneheaded" :-) What I was intending to convey was not what I typed. (Narf!) The US armed forces, the treasury, EPA, CIA, and FBI are some of the major organizations that are vital to the country. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, getting back to the main issue of this subthread... ...check out: (URL) looks like the government printing office to me, and should be reasonably authoritative. In "Miller" the court seems to be dancing around questions of what kinds of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Why not indeed? Beats the heck out of butting in on a technicality while skirting the main issue, which is what I'm doing! (...) Many who live elsewhere do regard ours as an amazingly libertine society (isn't that one of the reasons they hate (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I agree. You guys are heaps better off than us Aussies, just look at cheap LEGO availability 8?) ROSCO FUT .fun (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K beat-up
|
|
(...) You were lucky if that was the only problem you had to contend with. I was involved with the upgrade of a mainframe PIMS application, customised by the client from an OTS package, which needed major changes regarding data entry, reports, and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
|
"John Grubber" <jgrubber2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:GqCuAF.n30@lugnet.com... snip (...) Several of them are British. Hardly as you describe. Though many in the UK would say 'serve them right' lawrence (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) While Y2K deserved much of the concern raised, it really was overblown. I don't remember how many times I had to re-explain exactly what the Y2K exposure of our product was, and it was a minor problem in that the next time the machine booted (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I've read (and I'll try to find out where) that a gun in the home is X number of times more statistically likely to kill or injure a member of the household than it is likely to kill or injure an intruder. I'll try to find a web reference. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I've read (and I'll try to find out where) that a gun in the home is X number of times more statistically likely to kill or injure a member of the household than an intruder. I'll try to find a web reference. Dave! (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, not according to the 2nd Amendment, The Constitution in general, or in any litigation thus far brought before the Supreme Court. More specifically, the government's authority to regulate the ownership of arms by private citizens has (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Where would I find that stat? Chris (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So? Everyone has the right to own a jumbojet loaded with fuel, or surface to air missles (depending on your point) too. Chris (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Sort of. It (coupled with an assumption about the eating habits of other bad men(tm) ) demonstrates that the big bad men in the world are less likely to be vegetarian. Vote vegetarian! Chris (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
I'm sorta me-tooing, but hey, why not? (...) And our borders aren't 100% secure--and see what problems that wreaks? Imagine if we were fully balkanized--just look at the operation of the US under the Articles of Confederation if you want to see the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
|
(...) hasn't come up in this forum before. (...) treated fairly? (...) Dubya conveniently avoided having to worry about that distinction by not actually declaring war. The 'war on terror' is a colloquialism, a title for a foreign policy inititive (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
|
(...) They are human beings first. As far as I can see the whole issue is being undertaken for the benefit of US domestic opinion - which *appears* to largely support what is happening (the power of governing by focus group). I'm sure OBL is very (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
|
Given the amount of debate here following Sept 11th, I am surprised this hasn't come up in this forum before. Are the al-Qaida suspects detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base being treated fairly? And if the US is at war with terrorists, are they (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) He was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg, despite the relative majority vote, because other options were voided (other parties were unable to form stable coalitions or fronts against NSDAP). So, in a way he WAS elected. There isn't an (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) In fact, they do need the Federal government, and so do you. How secure would the commercial shipping infrastructure be if our borders were not secure? How secure would US commerce be without the backing of the full-faith-and-credit of the US (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) If I remember correctly from my school days, the 1932 vote in question earned the NSDAP around 37% of the votes, and Hitler was nominated chancellor with the help of some conservative politicians. I think there was also a later vote in 1933 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So why are you here moaning about gun control when "totalitarian factions in the US" are denying trial by jury to people? Is it because is not you or you family who is being held without charge? Scott A (24 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
