 | | Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Kirby Warden
|
| | | 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...(what if?) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) 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...(what if?) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) 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?) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) ...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?) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | | (...) 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...(what if?) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) 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...(what if?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: An armed society...(what if?) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) 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...(what if?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: An armed society...(what if?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) 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?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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...(what if?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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: An armed society...(what if?) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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: An armed society...(what if?) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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...(what if?) —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?)) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?)) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 gathering...?!? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 if?) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) 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?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) 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...(what if?) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | (...) 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?) —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | (...) 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...(what if?) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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?) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | ??? (was Re: An armed society...(what if?)) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) 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?)) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) 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: ??? —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | (...) 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: ??? —Kirby Warden
|
| | | | | | (...) <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: ??? —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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: ??? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: ??? (was Re: An armed society...(what if?)) —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
