Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 16:05:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1354 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > My point being that to consider it "a necessary evil and be done with it"
> > > discounts the possibility of it ever changing, and that would be pretty
> > > short-sighted, even for US citizens.
> >
> > Head-on disagreement here. I think it would be short-sighted for anyone not
> > bearing arms to think of themselves as being free. It is said that "freemen
> > bear arms" because it is both a freedom and duty of one that wishes to
> > remain free.
>
>
> 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
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.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
179 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
|
|
|
|
