|
|
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Yes, it is an eventuality. History repeats itself. Slavery in America would have been far different (and purhaps nonexistent) had the Africans been armed. The Jews may have avoided the Holocaust. An entire nation may not have been (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) This avoids Dave!'s point: the "liberal media" mantra is just that. It's a cheap label that intends to dismiss criticism of anything conservatives support as biased. Some, of course, is biased in the liberal direction. But some is biased in (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Strange that you view that as an eventuality rather than a possibility. I prefer life in a society where we are able to take the decision to live largely without guns. Earlier, somebody said they needed a gun for protection from the big bad (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| Hi everyone, Just an aside: No matter how well-written a .o-t.debate post is, is it really appropriate to go about highlighting it for the front page, given the number of people who studiously avoid and abhor this forum? (Yes, I know that 9/11 was (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
| (...) Yes, but that is just about the only thing they can say about the issue. Interestingly, I heard Rumsfeld say quite clearly yesterday that they were "terrorists". Comments like that should help make in future jury impartial... not! Scott A (24 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
