Subject:
|
Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:27:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1332 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> Right to bear arms - originally to allow the new populace to raise an armed
> force. Now used to equip any US citizen with lethal weaponry. Defended by
> lawyers, paid to nit-pick words written centuries ago.
Originally to produce a state where the citizenry would have it in their power
if they ever deemed it necessary to overthrow the governance by force. Now to
maintain (and try to get back to) a state where the citizenry would have it in
their power if they ever deemed it necessary to overthrow the governance by
force.
> Why? How does any of this benefit the society?
By placing the stewardship of freedom in the hands of the many, our freedoms
are less likely to be sold to the highest bidder.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
| (...) Ah, I get it. So, what you're saying, is that the whole democratic process is just for show. You place your vote, you elect your leaders, but at any time you can up arms as a mob and take them out again. Okay, sorry, that's unfair. Every (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
| (...) Erm - so that someone can nit-pick and flame me? I did write a load of stuff in reply to this, then deleted the lot. It just occured to me that I'd then have to spend the next year trying to explain 'irony'. What's the betting I have to anyway (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
