 | | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) In a sense, they're the same thing. You can't occupy land that someone else is living on. But the introduction of money taxes-- thus requiring colonial peoples to earn money, and thereby alien- ating them from the land and subsistence--was the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) I wouldn't call that a "conspiracy". They don't have to be clandestine to lobby for the continuation of the "war on drugs", in good or bad faith. I'd just as soon see the drugs legalized and have the drug dealers and drug-law enforcers put out (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) the (...) Dunno about LFB, but I think the destruction of the Aussie aboriginals was more related to power & bigotry than economics. ROSCO (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) The advantage of having a regular army have been proved in WW2. Otherwise, how could Britain have resisted? In comparison, the US took a lot of time to turn the tides of war, and I'd bet a considerable amount of time between Dec '41 and '43 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) They were. And in general, one injun vs. one settler and I'd bet on the injun. The problem is that they were locally massively outnumbered. (And not organized on the larger scale, of course.) (...) This is the traditional way that Britain (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "facts" (was Re: An armed society...)
|
|
(...) In an attempt to get closer to the "truth," what else would you suggest? (...) Everyone likes facts that agree with them and discard facts that disagree. Everyone. I find myself doing the same when reading the gun stats cited by Dave! And I'm (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Bruce, I agree with your take on why the laws were placed. However, I do think that a conspiracy evolved. Law enforcement's most important lobby is the continuation of the War On Drugs. Not because it's the right thing but because if we quit (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So, if I understand your implication, you're saying that taking safety measure X is dumb if it is less helpful than safety measure Y. Right? Inherent in that idea is that only one safety precaution is appropriate, right? So if I surveyed (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just when I thought Pennsylvania couldn't get stupider...
|
|
(...) Hey, hey, hey! *California* is weird, not Pennsylvania. I corrected the subject line. Bruce Staples Center, Downtown La-La land :-) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ???
|
|
(...) I hope that my rail against the intentionalist part of his statements doesn't come across as a "hunky-dory" sense of complacency. If you look at the end of my other message, you'll see the point--there are problems, and they DO need to be (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just when I thought Pennsylvania couldn't get weirder...
|
|
(...) gotta' go see if anyone has posted this to alt.fan.harry-potter yet...the guys'll love it! (Yeah, I hang out there too...wanna' make sumpthin' of it? I'll stick a wand up your nose!) Matt (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Just when I thought Pennsylvania couldn't get weirder...
|
|
(URL) Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | ??? (was Re: An armed society...(what if?))
|
|
(...) LFB, Kirby is a little too conspiracy prone for my taste also (really, it's his one obvious debate flaw), but that doesn't mean that he is wrong -- the fact is, Kirby is right in most of the broader strokes of his statements, even if he screws (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I meant to comment on this yesterday but didn't get around to it. You appear to be very fond of this quote; in looking for your post I searched for "+Brady +socialist" and found that you've previously cited the quote another two times. Three (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) No. In the British context, the Government is the Prime Minister and the Secretaries he or she assembles. The Monarch is, well, the Monarch. And it's not an armed rebellion, it was a Civil War. ;) (...) No. "United Kingdom" refers only to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) So let's see, people who don't come to the same conclusion as you do, given the same evidence, are ignorant? No--rather, I'd argue that you've determined the "truth"--or the end conclusion--before you went out looking for evidence. I'm still (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Does Charles the First count as a fallen government and parliment as an armed rebellion? :-) Was America part of the UK and did the UK government (locally) fall because of the rebellion or was it never in power? Bruce (not being particularly (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
|
(...) Probably. I suspect you mean, "are they being treated legally?", to which I would answer, probably not. (...) Interesting gray area. In the conventional sense, I would think not - but they would then have the rights of any accused criminal (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Enron and the CA Power Crisis Connection...
|
|
(...) Not at home because: (assume smiley-faces everywhere) Bush: Talking with press about how Enron ripped off his Mother-in-Law (c'mon, we all wish our mother-in-laws a little misery, Bush knew what he was doing!) Cheney: In bunker to avoid (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what your point is or how you can draw that conclusion (I already addressed your "liberal media" comment - did I miss the reply?). (...) Well, you lost me again. What does that have to do with gun control? And passing a (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) For those keeping score at home, Kirby just stated in writing that his understanding is based on ignorance. Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Well, what do you expect? They put together a step-by-step manual of how to hack into every computer on the planet. Naturally the Secret Service had to take steps. Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So the oppressors had better weapons? Hmm, does your big bad government not have better weapons also? (...) They were armed. It is you who think that arms can protect you against a well trained force - I'm not so sure. (...) You mean France? (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) But we all know that Gamers (weird) can't be affected by the Secret Service (government) - it was a foregone conclusion. Fnord. Bruce (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Here you are being a fool. The Native Americans were lulled into a trust with the colonies. As time wore on, they began to depend on European lifestlyes, including hunting with rifles. Later as conflict grew, their population was largely (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) What's the difference if the gun is at home or at a person's side, they are still armed to protect themselves. As the law stands people still have the right to arm themselves, which is what the gun debate is all about to begin with. I simply (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Bwaaa! You just made my day, Fredrik. LFB (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) In no.* groups, we have a rule which goes: Whenever the Hitler name is mentioned, the thread is decleared dead. This is called "to hitle" a thread. :) Fredrik (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) What does it mean to "live unarmed?" I'd wager that living armed can vary--if you have a handgun locked away somewhere in the home, that's very different from "packing" 24/7/365. I'd bet that the vast majority--more than 95%--of gun owners fit (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) And don't forget, the 2001 equivalent of the H-bomb: "Osama bin Laden." best LFB (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) ...and then use it as an excellent selling point on his website! ;) best LFB (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
|
(...) Because that is what the media and the focus groups want. :=\ Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
|
"Simon Bennett" <simon.bennett@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:GqFsCC.Mvy@lugnet.com... (...) And further more, why was the American citizen who was captured with the al-qiada taken to Washington, and not to Cuba? So suddenly it is one rule for (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Nonsense. (...) What about the native americans, were they not armed? (...) Not me personally. The community I live in. (...) Democracy is the limit. In the UK governments have fallen due to protests, not armed rebellion. When will the USA (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
|
(...) As an aside to begin with I am concerned that no Americans have responded to this thread. Possible reasons for this are: They have not seen the pictures we have and so do not think the prisoners are being mistreated. They have seen more (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Enron and the CA Power Crisis Connection...
|
|
[Now that I have likely pissed off my pal Dave! and made strange bedfellows with conspiracy freak Kirby, I thought I'd try to change the direction in debate with this bit of information jerky. Have fun chewing.] Y'know, I was just mulling over the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) amen (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Be sure to thank the media for setting the people straight on the matter. (...) President Wilson managed to sign into law the Federal Reserve as well as the 16th Amendment. (...) The individual cases are not conspiracies unto themselves. The (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Wouldn't it be nice if Americans woke up before they have to learn the hard way. Well Thomas Jefferson at least knew that we would one day reach the point where the Declaration of Independance would need to be re-issued. It is nice to know (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> (...) I am SO glad someone FINALLY brought this up! The Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment were beget by President Wilson. Mr. Wilson was heavily influenced by a friend of the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "facts" (was Re: An armed society...)
|
|
(...) <snip> I've been thinking about "facts" lately. Specifically statistics, polls, charts/graphs...etc. If pro gun advocates use "facts" to show the need for guns, anti-gun advocates can show just as many "facts" to show the uselessness of guns. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Definitions (was: An armed society...)
|
|
(...) In a way that's my point, ultimately one has to admit that one knows precisely what a word means and stop playing the semantics game. The semantics game is almost endless if the point is to NEVER reach accord. My point was to show that there (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Definitions (was: An armed society...)
|
|
(...) Hmmmf. Doesn't that definition also depend on the meaning of "citizen"? ROSCO (nit-picking again) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) And a Lugnet contributor and featured guest of BricksWest is proof that it IS possible to win against the government after one of these outrageous confiscations... Frank (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Since this has evolved into a gun control debate, I thought the original message should be returned to. "An armed society is a polite society," is the quote used often by gun advocates to somehow indicate that politeness-by-threat is somehow (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) This could be the case, but it could also be the case that people think the need for such a right has passed. I would think it would take either a consititutional amendment (no easy thing) or a series of presidents that had a litmus test on (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I think discounting the possibility of change is short-sighted. The world changes. Laws change. Governments change. People change. Maybe this hasn't changed in a long time, but the fact there's a significant opposition to it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I have posted about the Ashwander Doctrine before -- read it and connect the dots, pretty please. (URL) the record, I am not exactly a card-carrying NRA kinda guy...I barely care what they do. (...) No, taxation is Constitutional because of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Actually, you would be missing the "duty" part of my argument in this little debate. But whatever... To fully understand the historical context of this debate, it is my opinion that those on the side of gun-control should read William (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Then it's odd that the NRA, the most vociferous and organized proponents of so-called gun rights, has never brought a case successfully before the Supreme Court, despite numerous opportunities to try. You are of course correct regarding the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) To do otherwise means you have to take on BY CHOICE the life forced upon Frodo and Sam Wise in LOTR -- to risk everything at each new moment striving for freedom. It's so much easier to build a series of temporary autonomous zones, and just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Dave, your post is too full of errors to take on as a whole so I picked just this one spot. I think it is also an erroneous statement. I could certainly mount arguments that would show that the second amendment is indeed a protection to keep (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) My point is that it's one thing for an author (not you, but the guy who put up that site) to cite an anecdotal and misrepresentational summary of a ruling, and it's quite another to post a link to an entire argument and highlight certain areas (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) abridged citations, right? I am just not wasting my time picking apart the wording and finding facts and figures to contradict yours -- I know they exist. We aren't going to settle this discussion in any way by arguing over statistics. BTW, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, in terms of Constitutional interpretation, it *is* the supreme word on the matter, until either congress legislates a higher law or another case before the Supreme Court results in an overturning of Miller. (...) Here's the text: (URL) I (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, the obvious source is by Kellerman and Reay: "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60. Gun apologists cite poor methodology (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) You are noting the difference between the "holding" in a decision, and what is termed "obiter dictum." ob·i·ter dic·tum, pl. ob·i·ter dic·ta. 1. an incidental or passing remark, opinion, etc. 2. Law. an incidental or supplementary opinion by a (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Can we amend that rule so that the first mention of "Big Brother," "jackbooted thugs," or "brave new world" in any non-literary context is likewise a forfeiture? Dave! (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
With every gun debate I see/read, it seems to me more people would rather live unarmed. I seems likely to me that, within my lifetime, guns will be outlawed from private citizens. Why do I think this likely? Because I just don't see enough people (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) But we need guns to prevent crime, right? Oh, wait... According to (URL)Most people took multiple precautions during the last year to protect (...) So it's a good thing we need to protect ourselves from the Guvmint--otherwise we wouldn't have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) We don't have to look much further than the last U.S. Presidential election to find confirmation in that! (...) Rule Number 1 of political debates: He Who Mentions Hitler First Loses! :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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. (23 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 (...) (23 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) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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, (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 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. (...) (23 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) (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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. (...) (23 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 (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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. (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 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 (...) (23 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 (23 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 (...) (23 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. (...) (23 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! (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Where would I find that stat? Chris (23 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 (23 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 (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
