Subject:
|
Re: Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:00:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1213 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> 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.
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 perfectly, but pretty well.
> Every country can do that.
Every country could do it if they had a way. But they don't. And because of
that people the world over live in absolutely deplorable conditions because
they are essentially helpless to do anything about it.
> 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.
Well, that is the single strongest difference about the United States from the
rest of the world, in my opinion. It would be the enumerated constitution, but
the second amendment is what allows us to protect it.
> 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).
Never yet. The Civil War is a good example of why we should have guns, but of
course you're right. The south did fail to secure their freedom from the
tyrany of the north. (But of course, we do recognize that the north had
superior fire power. The national arsenal was not evenly distributed.)
> For this you endure the huge number of
> gun-related deaths on your streets?
No. We endure a trifling few.
> I would consider that a high price to pay.
So? I do not. I have a friend who was shot. That doesn't change it. It is
absolutely worth that risk in order to secure our way of life.
> > > 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?
I do.
> And since
> the voting public buys into it every time, what do you propose to do about
> that? Overthrow the populace by force too?
Educate them. I think that a successful revolution would go a long way toward
such education. And after a point, there isn't anything that can be done. But
when, periodically, things get bad enough, we can oust the government and build
a new one. It is a cyclic process, not an event.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
