Subject:
|
Re: National vote on handguns?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:29:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
732 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> So your contention is that anything and everything is great(!) if there isn't
> some reason that it isn't?
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 their lives. Perhaps the criminals would choose not to
risk their necks breaking into a home if they knew they may get blown away.
This is not a perfect solution, of course.
One LUGNETer was under the assumption that the criminals in Florida go after
vacationers because they don't have guns. And here I thought that it was
because most vacationers usually carry large amounts of cash? Maybe it's a
combination? The point is that criminals are not as stupid as we'd like them
to be and several factors will influence a criminal act.
> No. Ugly thought. Just like war.
And for you it's worth going to war, to kill your fellow Americans, IF the
majority of your countrymen don't want handguns in America? You truly
believe a pistol will make a difference against tanks, helicopters, jets and
guided missles? You truly feel that handguns are that effective and
necessary a weapon in a civil or guerilla war? The ONLY way for any side to
win a civil war is not to have one at all. I'm not talking about total
disarmament, I'm specifically addressing banning the weapons predominately
used in violent crimes against Americans. Something's gotta give.
> 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.
In your own mind maybe, but people have different views on this issue.
Personally, I find your view more paranoid than visionary.
> > 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.
Like I said, something's gotta give.
> > 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.
And voting is the key to honoring our freedom. It's what separates us from
the elitists and dictators. I'm saying let all American voters have a say on
the handgun issue, for or against, so that there's an accurate understanding
of what the people want for their country. If the people want handguns, then
that's fine with me.
> > The
> > NRA isn't protecting our rights. They're protecting the multi-billion $$$
> > gun industry in this country.
>
> Why do you think that?
Because it's a profitable industry, especially when the sabers on each side
of the handgun issue rattle a bit. Each time the "threat" of laws about
handguns loom, the sales go up. Part of having and selling guns is inflating
the need for guns, hence the paranoia about a bloody civil war in the near
future to "defend our Constitutional rights."
If (and I mean IF) there will be any sort of American civil unrest, or even
uprising against the government, it will most likely be about money (i.e.
taxes). The Revolutionary War was for such reason and so was the Civil War.
In fact, I cannot think of many wars, involving America or otherwise, that
weren't about money. We defend our pocketbooks very swiftly. That's the
X-factor as far as checks-and-balances with our government. Keep the people
fat and happy. I'm pretty sure the only reason G-Dubbya sent me a check was
to buy my vote next election year.
> > > 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.
And you couldn't help but be obtuse, eh?
> > 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...
So I say we should have a national show of hands, at least to reflect any
possible disparity between the laws we want and the laws we have.
> 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.
Well forgive me, your Highness!
Like I said, let everyone have say. No man is an island and there's a
difference between cooperation and self-deluded stubborness. In order to
function as a society, we must cooperate with each other and, within
accepted reason, make mutual sacrifices and compromises for the greater
good. You, of all people, should appreciate this notion since the contrary
of this notion (ignorance and non-cooperation) has been a thorn in your side
with regard to America's general attitude about human sexuality.
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
