 | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | (...) T-H-A-N-K-S (...) Let the people speak and see where ALL of the American public stands on the issue. It will serve as evidence of what American's believe is the right thing to do. It can go either way as far as I'm concerned but let everyone (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Still not being clear enough, I guess. The point you're failing to grasp is that the constitution would need to be amended before you could have a referendum that stuck. You can't just have a referendum on any old subject and have the outcome (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | The point I would like you to grasp, Larry, is that laws and rights about handguns and automatic weapons are currently controlled, for the most part, by the lobbyists and politicians in Washington D.C., not by the Joes and Janes in Anytown, U.S.A. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) Why would that be great? (...) We wouldn't have battle fields. We would have the ugliest guerilla war in history. And pistols would be awfully important because they're easier to conceal when you're approaching a small group of cops. (...) We (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | (...) Why wouldn't it? (...) Are you clairvoyant or is this your self fulfilling prophecy? (...) Lovely thought. (...) As if it it would happen that way. I can be just as clairvoyant on this issue as you. Maybe government officials trying to scoop (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) So your contention is that anything and everything is great(!) if there isn't some reason that it isn't? (...) Neither. It's common sense. If you look at how war works today and consider what a war between a faction of our national government (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | (...) No, you asked why I said it "WOULD be great" so I'm posing the reverse. Obviously defense is a "great" reason for having a rifle or shotgun in the home, hence it would be "great" if all Americans had them as the last measure in protecting (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) It's not the system I prefer for our laws about ANYTHING, Dan, and you know it, or you would if you were paying attention. So you can skip the soapbox parts about how bad the government is, because I'm already convinced our current system is (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | | Number one: I am not blowing hot air. Number two: I am not confused about the electoral college. I was, however, hasty and unspecific in that post but I hope I've clarified to your satisfaction. Number three: Regardless of how detailed or unspecific (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —James Trobaugh
|
| | | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: <big snip> (...) No, the only ones who "deserve" a say *ARE* the ones that show up on election day. I think the rule should be changed about who can vote anyways. I think if you don't pay taxes, you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Fair enough. (...) Let it slide. (...) You've said this before, and it's true, there is no doubt about that. But it's not relevant unless the goal in posting is, merely by posting, to effect this change. I don't see posting that way, but (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) I think I disagree, though I'd invite anyone to convince me. I think we should do away with all our laws, start over, and put everything up for straight democratic vote. And each and every law/issue would need 75% in favor in order to pass. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I like the part about doing away with all our laws and starting over. There is a part of _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ where the professor is lecturing the constitutional convention and he is urging them to think out of the box on government (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I asked about this before: (URL) I wanted to clarify your answer. Specifically, would you support "starting over" with new laws even if those laws ultimately conflicted (perhaps diametrically) with your own views? And, in addressing the 75% (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I support the process, but reserve the right to bolt if I don't like the outcome... (...) This is my problem with this proposal as well. I think you have to have basic rights that are much harder to revoke than just majority rule. I've said it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) "Bolt" in what sense? "Support(ing) the process" entails living with the outcome (though I can understand moving to a different country). (...) Ancient Greece. Good example of the tyrany of the majority. I'm with you on this one. (...) And (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) In the "leave" sense not the "bolt action rifle" sense. If we get an actual majority to vote themselves bread and circuses in a fair and honest way, they are welcome to their little experiment, I'll vote with my feet. But what we have now, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat also covers some of this. For the full text of this AMAZINGLY concise and excellent work, see: (URL) I am sorry to go all "Scott Arthur" on y'all, but some of you really should read some of the primary texts (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) good to know of an electronic source. Bastiat is cited by a lot of other freedom thinkers. One issue that some will have is that his derivation of *why* people have the rights they do is pretty weak. I know it always comes up here if you just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, every argument can be beaten down to some foundational principle that is a mere assertion that some may not agree with. I am not sure I have ever seen a philosophical argument that didn't ultimately break down that way. I'd be well (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Right. One good thing Scott did, long ago, was provide a link to David Friedman's(1) site, which among many other good things, provides a good example of how natural rights don't always work out, and then demonstrates how you can use a cost (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I know this was a throw-away comment, but... One could be against the notion of ownership and still be reasonable in owning stuff under our current system. I know someone who thinks that we should accept that we are at best stewards of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You know, I am willing to go a fair way down that road with your friend. Thinking of ourselves as stewards of things is not at all a bad idea. Welcome to the lending library of the flesh... -- Hop-Frog (anyone want my froggy skin when I am (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | OK, Rich, send me all your Lego ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | OK, Rich, send me all your Lego. After all, you don't OWN it ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) This does not make 100% sense to me - getting rid of a lot of laws only to referendum them back. Why not just Constitutional-ise referenda, and use them to remove/add laws? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) should (...) order (...) The reason that I think it makes sense is that if it took 75% of the people to agree, most of them wouldn't be voted back in place. We would have the obvious victimizations illegal and some meta-organizational issues (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, the reason it *doesn't* make sense is that you require a 75% consensus. In a group of just 12 people it's hard to get 75% agreement on what kind of pizza to get; do you honestly expect that *any* issue, when put before a vote by the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) to (...) Sure. I don't want to invest a lot in defense of this system that I created in four seconds while reading the note before, but I do actually think that part of it has merit. I'm sure that 75% of us would agree that stealing and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) PS, what on earth makes you think I don't grasp this? Not just for handguns either, but for just about everything. (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
