 | | Re: An armed society...
|
|
I'm sorta me-tooing, but hey, why not? (...) And our borders aren't 100% secure--and see what problems that wreaks? Imagine if we were fully balkanized--just look at the operation of the US under the Articles of Confederation if you want to see the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) While Y2K deserved much of the concern raised, it really was overblown. I don't remember how many times I had to re-explain exactly what the Y2K exposure of our product was, and it was a minor problem in that the next time the machine booted (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K beat-up
|
|
(...) You were lucky if that was the only problem you had to contend with. I was involved with the upgrade of a mainframe PIMS application, customised by the client from an OTS package, which needed major changes regarding data entry, reports, and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I agree. You guys are heaps better off than us Aussies, just look at cheap LEGO availability 8?) ROSCO FUT .fun (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Heh. Sorry, I'm so used to subsuming Oceana into the Western European cultural ecumene that I'm doing it geographically too. :) LFB (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Why not indeed? Beats the heck out of butting in on a technicality while skirting the main issue, which is what I'm doing! (...) Many who live elsewhere do regard ours as an amazingly libertine society (isn't that one of the reasons they hate (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, getting back to the main issue of this subthread... ...check out: (URL) looks like the government printing office to me, and should be reasonably authoritative. In "Miller" the court seems to be dancing around questions of what kinds of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: [massive snip] (...) Probably wouldn't exist as they currently are, no. Who's to say what society would be like without firearms (or the fists, rocks, and swords which preceded them). Doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I don't happen to care what happens in Australia. Is there some reason I should? Y'all should do as pleases Australians best. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Thanks for the suggestion. But if you're not interested in what happens in other countries, why should you worry about the laws in other US states? Maybe you don't? If you do, why should they worry about your opinion? They have their own laws. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Sorry, gotta nitpick: Canada and Australia had no violent rebellions against British rule, yet both became de facto independent by roughly 1900. [1] A failure to revolt against British rule would not have kept us under anyone's thumb, it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) The Federal system means that any precedent set in another state may affect our own laws--certainly, they will when we drive through, or relocate to, said state, and most American families are spread through many states. So I'd argue that it's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, there is stuff that is covered by the federal government to make trade and travel amongst the many states more or less an easy thing -- one of the true limited purposes of the U.S. federal govt. I have no problems with any of that. But (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution." What does that mean? It seems self-evident and not something on which the court would need to rule. So I assume it means something more. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) What if a society is mature enough to decide that guns have no place in the community? Is that society no longer "free"? Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Ah, the dangers of abridged source material. I found a more extensive discussion of that case at: (URL) appears that the case involved due process and the right to use one's property (in this case, residence) as one sees fit, as is spelled out (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, the original Presidential Oath of Office, according to the Constitution, is: I do solemnly swear/affirm that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Of course they're still free... until someone comes and takes that freedom away. Then those "free" people might wish they had the means to keep that freedom. (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
Hi everyone, Just an aside: No matter how well-written a .o-t.debate post is, is it really appropriate to go about highlighting it for the front page, given the number of people who studiously avoid and abhor this forum? (Yes, I know that 9/11 was (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Strange that you view that as an eventuality rather than a possibility. I prefer life in a society where we are able to take the decision to live largely without guns. Earlier, somebody said they needed a gun for protection from the big bad (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Yes, it is an eventuality. History repeats itself. Slavery in America would have been far different (and purhaps nonexistent) had the Africans been armed. The Jews may have avoided the Holocaust. An entire nation may not have been (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) But we need guns to prevent crime, right? Oh, wait... According to (URL)Most people took multiple precautions during the last year to protect (...) So it's a good thing we need to protect ourselves from the Guvmint--otherwise we wouldn't have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
With every gun debate I see/read, it seems to me more people would rather live unarmed. I seems likely to me that, within my lifetime, guns will be outlawed from private citizens. Why do I think this likely? Because I just don't see enough people (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) You are noting the difference between the "holding" in a decision, and what is termed "obiter dictum." ob·i·ter dic·tum, pl. ob·i·ter dic·ta. 1. an incidental or passing remark, opinion, etc. 2. Law. an incidental or supplementary opinion by a (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, in terms of Constitutional interpretation, it *is* the supreme word on the matter, until either congress legislates a higher law or another case before the Supreme Court results in an overturning of Miller. (...) Here's the text: (URL) I (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) abridged citations, right? I am just not wasting my time picking apart the wording and finding facts and figures to contradict yours -- I know they exist. We aren't going to settle this discussion in any way by arguing over statistics. BTW, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) My point is that it's one thing for an author (not you, but the guy who put up that site) to cite an anecdotal and misrepresentational summary of a ruling, and it's quite another to post a link to an entire argument and highlight certain areas (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) To do otherwise means you have to take on BY CHOICE the life forced upon Frodo and Sam Wise in LOTR -- to risk everything at each new moment striving for freedom. It's so much easier to build a series of temporary autonomous zones, and just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Actually, you would be missing the "duty" part of my argument in this little debate. But whatever... To fully understand the historical context of this debate, it is my opinion that those on the side of gun-control should read William (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I think discounting the possibility of change is short-sighted. The world changes. Laws change. Governments change. People change. Maybe this hasn't changed in a long time, but the fact there's a significant opposition to it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) This could be the case, but it could also be the case that people think the need for such a right has passed. I would think it would take either a consititutional amendment (no easy thing) or a series of presidents that had a litmus test on (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) And a Lugnet contributor and featured guest of BricksWest is proof that it IS possible to win against the government after one of these outrageous confiscations... Frank (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | "facts" (was Re: An armed society...)
|
|
(...) <snip> I've been thinking about "facts" lately. Specifically statistics, polls, charts/graphs...etc. If pro gun advocates use "facts" to show the need for guns, anti-gun advocates can show just as many "facts" to show the uselessness of guns. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Be sure to thank the media for setting the people straight on the matter. (...) President Wilson managed to sign into law the Federal Reserve as well as the 16th Amendment. (...) The individual cases are not conspiracies unto themselves. The (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Nonsense. (...) What about the native americans, were they not armed? (...) Not me personally. The community I live in. (...) Democracy is the limit. In the UK governments have fallen due to protests, not armed rebellion. When will the USA (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So, if I understand your implication, you're saying that taking safety measure X is dumb if it is less helpful than safety measure Y. Right? Inherent in that idea is that only one safety precaution is appropriate, right? So if I surveyed (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) ...and then use it as an excellent selling point on his website! ;) best LFB (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) What does it mean to "live unarmed?" I'd wager that living armed can vary--if you have a handgun locked away somewhere in the home, that's very different from "packing" 24/7/365. I'd bet that the vast majority--more than 95%--of gun owners fit (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) What's the difference if the gun is at home or at a person's side, they are still armed to protect themselves. As the law stands people still have the right to arm themselves, which is what the gun debate is all about to begin with. I simply (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Here you are being a fool. The Native Americans were lulled into a trust with the colonies. As time wore on, they began to depend on European lifestlyes, including hunting with rifles. Later as conflict grew, their population was largely (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So the oppressors had better weapons? Hmm, does your big bad government not have better weapons also? (...) They were armed. It is you who think that arms can protect you against a well trained force - I'm not so sure. (...) You mean France? (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) But we all know that Gamers (weird) can't be affected by the Secret Service (government) - it was a foregone conclusion. Fnord. Bruce (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Well, what do you expect? They put together a step-by-step manual of how to hack into every computer on the planet. Naturally the Secret Service had to take steps. Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) For those keeping score at home, Kirby just stated in writing that his understanding is based on ignorance. Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what your point is or how you can draw that conclusion (I already addressed your "liberal media" comment - did I miss the reply?). (...) Well, you lost me again. What does that have to do with gun control? And passing a (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Does Charles the First count as a fallen government and parliment as an armed rebellion? :-) Was America part of the UK and did the UK government (locally) fall because of the rebellion or was it never in power? Bruce (not being particularly (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) So let's see, people who don't come to the same conclusion as you do, given the same evidence, are ignorant? No--rather, I'd argue that you've determined the "truth"--or the end conclusion--before you went out looking for evidence. I'm still (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) No. In the British context, the Government is the Prime Minister and the Secretaries he or she assembles. The Monarch is, well, the Monarch. And it's not an armed rebellion, it was a Civil War. ;) (...) No. "United Kingdom" refers only to (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | ??? (was Re: An armed society...(what if?))
|
|
(...) LFB, Kirby is a little too conspiracy prone for my taste also (really, it's his one obvious debate flaw), but that doesn't mean that he is wrong -- the fact is, Kirby is right in most of the broader strokes of his statements, even if he screws (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ??? (was Re: An armed society...(what if?))
|
|
(...) Hey, I resent that. I can be just as annoying and fierce privately as publicly. Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: ???
|
|
(...) I hope that my rail against the intentionalist part of his statements doesn't come across as a "hunky-dory" sense of complacency. If you look at the end of my other message, you'll see the point--there are problems, and they DO need to be (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Bruce, I agree with your take on why the laws were placed. However, I do think that a conspiracy evolved. Law enforcement's most important lobby is the continuation of the War On Drugs. Not because it's the right thing but because if we quit (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "facts" (was Re: An armed society...)
|
|
(...) In an attempt to get closer to the "truth," what else would you suggest? (...) Everyone likes facts that agree with them and discard facts that disagree. Everyone. I find myself doing the same when reading the gun stats cited by Dave! And I'm (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) They were. And in general, one injun vs. one settler and I'd bet on the injun. The problem is that they were locally massively outnumbered. (And not organized on the larger scale, of course.) (...) This is the traditional way that Britain (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) The advantage of having a regular army have been proved in WW2. Otherwise, how could Britain have resisted? In comparison, the US took a lot of time to turn the tides of war, and I'd bet a considerable amount of time between Dec '41 and '43 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) the (...) Dunno about LFB, but I think the destruction of the Aussie aboriginals was more related to power & bigotry than economics. ROSCO (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) I wouldn't call that a "conspiracy". They don't have to be clandestine to lobby for the continuation of the "war on drugs", in good or bad faith. I'd just as soon see the drugs legalized and have the drug dealers and drug-law enforcers put out (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) In a sense, they're the same thing. You can't occupy land that someone else is living on. But the introduction of money taxes-- thus requiring colonial peoples to earn money, and thereby alien- ating them from the land and subsistence--was the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) chance (...) the (...) Well, for a start, anyone who happens to be shooting at me. Even if they're doing it in support of a nation-idea against which I am fighting. (...) So no nation would gain by taking the goods of another? I don't see that (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) For one semester in 1988, I was playing with being a criminal justice major. It ended up being really dull, so I moved on to several other major fields. But in that process I determined that there are cops who know what's going on and why (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ??? (was Re: An armed society...(what if?))
|
|
(...) Well I am certainly glad you did. You explained much that I know to be true, (and a good bit that I did not) but could not convey as effectively as you. Writing is just not my strong subject. (barring fiction of course :-) ) (...) Amen. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) the (...) Prior to WWII Germany was in debt to france for reparations from WWI. It was also in the midst of a huge economic crisis. It was literally cheaper to burn money than it was to buy coal. -Mike Petrucelli (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) …sounds like globalisation to me? ;) (...) Orginisation is also a factor. (...) I think the last people to invade the UK were the Vikings. But Scotalnd has been invaded a few times since then. But then so has England. ;) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ???
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I think you've read me wrong. I don't fear a "systemic failure" (I assume you mean the collapse of society?) What I fear is the *enslavement* of our society. At many levels we are already slaves. So long as we depend upon (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) As further clarification, it might be useful to distinguish between the Foucault's-Pendulum-style Conspiracies and simple two-guys-working-together conspracies. The former generally cannot exist in its described form, since it demands far too (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) not (...) [snip] (...) In our nation (and every nation?) those with the power of wealth have a large amount of power over the laws of the land. They wield this power to assure that they keep their wealth. What degree of conspiracy is going on? (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) In what way are you asking? Do I think that a number of corporations are working independently, but simultaneously, to further their own wealth? Certainly, and the factions of each company are likely "conspiring" to achieve that end. Are (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) The Templars, indeed. It was the Hospitalars, but the money was provided by the Gnomes of Zurich. Fnord. (...) To actually address Chris' question back up at the top: as few as two. But conspiracy is usually defined as having some illegal (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) I'm not convinced that the distinction between the two is as clear as our language makes it seem. And anyway, my personal (patently predjudiced) experience suggests that those drawn into law enforcement tend to occupy both niches. (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Like any self-respecting and haughty high-born conspirator, I much prefer the term "great unwashed" to "the sheep." So let's go with that please. (...) Actually, I think existence of such is mandatory, but you say unlikely, how fascinating. (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Maybe I am sticking my nose where it does not belong, but I find it unlikely that countries with insurmountable debt are the only countries that would be inclined to invade other countries. As I understand it, prior to WW2, most nations were (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Can we go with hoi polloi? (...) That *is* fascinating--on what is that belief based? And where the heck have you been? I haven't seen you on OT.Debate in like a year?! Dave! (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ???
|
|
(...) Actually, given the basis of the USA as constituted--its core principles--I'd argue that enslavement would, in fact, constitute the collapse of our society. (But I did read you in the "enslavement" sense, actually.) But it would require some (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Baaa!! (...) I like what CJ Creig said in WW once, and can't remember exact wording but here's paraphrased... "I take comfort in the fact that once 2 or more people know something, it's impossible to keep it a secret for an extended period of (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Dave! Is this the semantic game AGAIN?! Man, you love to talk about words... Maybe we just need another word for what happens -- maybe the word "conspiracy" is insufficient to describe observed phenomena. I keep thinking about chaos theory, (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Hmm... Alanis Morisette => Some Retail Saint Maybe she's part of the plot to rework the commerce system with all that crazy monopoly money. Of course, Alanis Morisette also => Smartie Toenails. Hmm... And, now that I think of it, "Dave Thomas (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: ???
|
|
(...) I think I want some clarification here-- society forces its members to abide by its rules, written, spoken, inferred, whatever. It's the nature of a society. And as the society grows, it becomes harder to avoid. But isn't part of that reason (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Sorry, occupational hazard (English major)... The killer is that, the word does have an unfortunate overlap into two related but distinct applications, so it's tough to keep them separate. (...) I'll buy that. (...) I thought they bumped the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) OTOH, that person can think of you as a dangerous threat to his/her lifestyle. PLUS there is the chance you or that person are the villain, but cannot realize it due to strong conviction in your/his/her own ideals (i.e., "I'm right because I (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) I think that should be ammended to government can't be any smarter than the dumbest person (or sheep if you prefer) you let participate (vote) in it, but that doesn't sound very supportive of democracy, does it? However, it does explain a lot. (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I'm quite glad you dropped in. A debate isn't a debate unless different viewpoints are expressed, right? :-) (...) Agreed, for the generality of cases. (...) Perhaps you are neglecting the importance of the markets open for each country: (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?))
|
|
(...) exploit (...) I'm not sure if this was tongue in cheek or not, but just in case... In this segment of my note, the sheep were not the conspiracy nuts, they were the masses of people who, not knowing how to take advantage of the system (and (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) And they'd be right. (...) No. If we accept that the notion of a villain is self-defined, then we are both our nemises villains. It's not like in comic books where some people are bad and some are good. Most people think they are good (even if (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?))
|
|
(...) Yeah, it was intended as more tongue in cheek than it came across--I was in part alluding to my recent calls for other additions to the Godwin list. "Petty and annoying" was a poor word choice... Dave! (23 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
|
(...) Maybe not. If you want to see the best the world of conspiracy theory has to offer, a good start is: (URL) Everything from alien intervention to New World Order Quadrant Sign Code! Fun for all! (The rest of the site is a hoot, too.) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) :-) That can be interpreted in different ways... I'll go with the funny one. (...) They have to do with the law. The law is a sort of a commitment, it intends to define good and bad so that we can act accordingly. It sometimes fails, but heck, (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
First, I don't intend to troll, but it has been a long time since I participated here, and so I am finding it hard to recognize the limits of acceptable behaviour here. (...) It took me 27 years to realise that during the cold war the Russkies (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) This was fine. Don't profane and don't attack people and I think everything else just falls into place. (...) I hold various opinions that I "know" are right and they are in opposition to my society (or at least the vast majority of it). (...) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Those who think they can draw faster? ROSCO (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I guess I was being too simplistic. How about when everyone carried onboard defense-ware that would automagically compute threats and attacks and either alert you to them or respond with massive lethal destructive force? And what if that were (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) If you mean no "bombs" were dropped, I agree. On every other level is was a disaster. Its legacy lives on throughout the developing world today. Calling it a "cold" war is a complete misnomer. Perhaps of OBL had a few nukes, 911 would never (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Why would it be preferable, in this hypothetical example, to be ruled by machines than governed by humans? Dave! (Only half kidding... After all, we cannot allow a mine shaft gap.) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So is "developing world." In fact, most people's conditions are becoming worse instead of better--and following a Western prescription for proper development is the crux of the problem. But I would argue that there is only a correlative (and (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) A simple question then: Did the cold war encourage poverty and war in (say) Africa? (...) Cold war : A state of rivalry and tension between two factions, groups, or individuals that stops short of open, violent confrontation. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed gathering...?!?
|
|
(...) Wargamers do not exist in the current version of the game, so I can pencil in whatever I want. :-) (...) At the time I originally read this, no. We get back from the Dominican Republic (arrrr, I gotta be finding the maritime museums thar) the (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) What do you mean exactly with "encourage"? IMO, the conditions for the present overabundance of conflicts in Africa has more to do with the Berlin Conference than it has to do with the Cold War. This period only enhanced pre-existing rivalries (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) And I'm not sure that the Cold War encouraged poverty and war in most of Africa, though it may have informed or triggered specific points of instability (a la Nasser). But I don't think the presence of that particular arrangement of world (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So was I 8?) (...) That'd be kewl. (...) end (...) However, western media was always pointing out how far we were ahead of the russians, and I've no doubt they were saying exactly the opposite. Who has greater abilities (or fire-power) doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) So the support we gave to tin-pot dictators around the world just because they were willing to fight local communists had no real outcome? (...) We shall have to disagree. "Cold" infers not battle took place - hundreds of thousands (millions) (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I think the "West" would have continued to exploit Africa even if the CW had not happened. However, I think the CW did have a significant effect there... and continues to do so. Where did our superfluous weapons go when the CW ended? (...) (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) It did have a real outcome. My point is that such an outcome would probably have happened anyway. The majority of the CW "hotspots", where the two ideologies reached the point of conflict, had pre-existing tensions; they would have resulted in (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Or worse, if either side can win and lose at the same time (destroying and being destroyed). (...) Good point. Just imagine the present day US president were in office in 1962, and his Soviet counterpart were Yeltsin. Brrr... :-/ (...) In a (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Former Yougoslavia. Chechnya. The streets of "Anytown, USA". The Middle East. Taiwan. The Russian mob (no kidding, a month ago a whole bunch of russian military arms was found in a house in the Algarve, owned by russian mobsters. Scary!). And (...) (23 years ago, 29-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
