Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:46:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
720 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > > I never, ever said anything about rifles and shotguns. By all means, it
> > > would be great if every American had one in the home as a last measure of
> > > home defense.
> >
> > Why would that be great?
>
> Why wouldn't it?
So your contention is that anything and everything is great(!) if there isn't
some reason that it isn't?
> > > In the event of another American revolution, a rifle would be
> > > a far more effective weapon on the battlefield than a pistol.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Are you clairvoyant or is this your self fulfilling prophecy?
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 and a faction of the
populace would have to be like, you can make certain inferences. I don't have
a crystal ball, just a brain.
> > We need those SMGs so that we can get into camps where the soldiery is • sleeping
> > and mow them down en masse before they have time to respond.
>
> Lovely thought.
No. Ugly thought. Just like war.
> > So that if a revolution ever did happen, the gubmint could quickly scoop all • of
> > these kinds of weapons up. Are you kidding?
>
> As if it it would happen that way.
It always has before. Why wouldn't it? If you were going to secure an area
where there were lots of armed folks, and you had a list of which ones were
armed...wouldn't they merit 'special attention?' Of course they would. It's
just basic common sense.
> I can be just as clairvoyant on this issue as you.
I'm sure you can see how making reasoned predictions is different than making
wild speculations about everything that _could possibly_ happen. Both have
their place, to be certain, but I wasn't leaping to unsubstantiable
conclusions.
> Maybe government officials trying to scoop them up would get
> blasted before they made down the street.
Certainly some would. But maybe not enough. The concern about government
registration is very real.
> Maybe the government would use
> helicopter gunships, then rifles and pistols would be a non-issue.
I'm sure that if such a resistance is mounted, they will. The only hope for
the guerillas will be strike and fade tactics that just cost the military too
much, particularly on the public support front. But we weren't talking about
small arms, we were talking about machine guns. And even still, rifles are an
appropriate defense against gunships if that's all you have.
> This is the time we live in and we can avoid a future
> revolution by paying more attention to where our laws are coming from.
Or by honoring freedom.
> The
> NRA isn't protecting our rights. They're protecting the multi-billion $$$
> gun industry in this country.
Why do you think that?
> > We're not going to fall for that.
>
> Who is we?
I, and everyone else in the US who won't play the registration game. I thought
that was obvious from the context, sorry.
> > You just go ahead and pass your little laws if that will make you feel safer.
>
> Whatever, bubba.
:-)
I see that you have lost whatever ability you had to discuss this rationally.
> I, Dan Jassim, am not making or passing any laws here,
> little or otherwise. If anything, I'm suggesting that the people of this
> country should ALL have a say on the matter, regardless of whether they
> support or oppose handguns and automatic weapons.
And I'm pointing out to you that whether or not you and your alleged majority
would pass such restrictive laws...
> > we're not giving up our weapons.
>
> Who is we? Has this become a "we" versus "them" thing? Who is "them?"
As above, we includes me, and everyone else who isn't willing to surrender the
right to bear arms completely without regard to what laws are passed. I
consider such laws inferior to what I know is right and I reject that they hold
sway over my actions. And I'm not the only one.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) 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)
|
110 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
|
|
|
|
