Subject:
|
Re: The position of authority (was: Handgun Death Rate)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:08:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
187 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> I'm amazed by this lack of trust in the authorities. In the UK, we elect
> people to office. If they do a lousy job, we elect someone else next time.
The difference may be a matter of scale (The U.S. is much larger than the
U.K. both in size and population -- hence we are each of us less
represented, or more distanced, from our representatives esp. at the federal
level) and the fact that in the U.S. people are still trying to figure out
how their government works. Just offhand, I have no idea why so much of a
state's business is handled by the federal government when at least to me it
makes far more sense to handle many things at the state level, and sometimes
even at the county or city level. Since we aren't really sure who is
supposed to do what, we lavish all of the "possibly empowered" with tax
money so they can squabble over it all and accomplish nothing!
O, it's a lot of fun! ::image of the little Monopoly guy with the pockets
turned out of his pants here::
> All the posts here from opponents to US gun control seem to show you don't
> trust the government or its agencies one bit, so you stock arms to defend
> yourself. I have to admit the law on land seizure is shocking, and I'd be
> seriously worried - but why do you keep voting these people in?
Well, I'm with Christopher in this situation -- the people I vote for do not
win either. Could it be that voting Peace and Freedom, Green, Libertarion,
and otherwise independent is a factor? Hmmm...? FWIW, I didn't vote for
either Bush Jr. or Gore, but I still don't think Bush Jr. won the election
legitimately in any case. My votes might as well be cast for "neither of the
above."
We are supposed to have majority rule with minority rights -- but that last
part is only honored for what is legally termed a "belligerent claimant in
person" (i.e. you get your so-called rights only if you ferociously contest
for them in court, usually after you have taken a loss of some kind in terms
of freedom or loss of property, and probably requiring time and money of you
which you do not have). Guns are probably a reflexive attempt to avoid the
loss in the first place...but also a matter of duty, in my mind.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
