Subject:
|
Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:14:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1365 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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 country can do that. It's just that no other country thinks
it's worth having a gun in every household on the off-chance they might want
a revolution.
How many times has this happened anyway? The War of Independence and The
American Civil War (during which, incidentally, the uprising _failed_ to
overthrow the governance by force). For this you endure the huge number of
gun-related deaths on your streets? I would consider that a high price to pay.
> > 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.
Not so far apparently - how much money gets thrown around at election time?
You don't think that posts of governance are, in a sense, bought? And since
the voting public buys into it every time, what do you propose to do about
that? Overthrow the populace by force too?
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
| (...) Democratic election is not just for show. It is a first attempt at getting things right. And we have 200 years of showing that it works out pretty well. (There have been some roadbumps along the way, but that's true for everyone.) Not (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
