Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:09:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
394 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > > Wrong. I'm protecting the constitution from you. And I'll win or die.
> >
> > Spot on. Those that sacrifice freedom for peace shall have neither.
>
> Strange, but my idea of freedom is not living in constant fear of being
> shot.
Conveniently, we don't live in such fear.
> That's why each of you wants a gun - to defend yourself against all
> the others who have guns.
Thanks for telling me my mind. But it turns out that you're wrong. I want,
regardless of what others have, the maximally effective death-flinging device.
I want that so that I am prepared for whatever situation arises. I have many
tools in my shed, so that I can fix many situations. Firearms (though not
actually in my shed) is one class of these tools.
> It doesn't even occur to you that everyone else
> wants a gun because they don't trust you with one either. It's a culture of
> incredibly selfish paranoia. There's anything noble about it.
As an outsider, you just don't understand. In the same way that I don't
understand your stance. Seriously, I just don't get it. I can't imagine what
you're thinking to be willing to trade away your future for some imagined sense
of peace. Especially given that you probably live in a more dangerous place
than I do.
> The constitution was written in a completely different time, when arms were
> muzzle-loading muskets and rifles - about as effective as throwing a knife,
> but much longer to prepare a shot.
Blah, blah, blah. First, muskets shoot farther than knives...but that's
trivial. The point of the second amendment is as real today as it was when it
was written. We are supposed to be able to revolt. That's all there is to it.
> These were highly conspicuous when carried in the street,
But not when stored in the bottom of a hay wagon so they could get through the
King's lines.
> There's nothing noble in taking regulations for a standy
> militia and twisting the meaning to justify these escalations in civilian
> armament.
We are all a part of the militia and to be so without weaponry is foolish and
irresponsible. Americans have not only a right to bear arms, but in my opinion
a responsibility so that they are capable of defending what they hold dear. I
haven't been to a range in almost two years, so now that I'm thinking about it,
I guess I'll go shoot today. Thanks for the reminder.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <<We are all a part of the militia and to be so without weaponry is foolish and irresponsible. Americans have not only a right to bear arms, but in my opinion a responsibility so that they are (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Strange, but my idea of freedom is not living in constant fear of being shot. That's why each of you wants a gun - to defend yourself against all the others who have guns. It doesn't even occur to you that everyone else wants a gun because (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 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
|
|
|
|
