Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:50:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1150 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
[snip]
> > 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.
>
> I'm sorry, Ross, but I happen to believe that freemen bear arms and those
> that do not are lucky if they can escape fates like being forced into Nazi
> gas chambers. We disagree. I don't see you as short-sighted, just perhaps
> too idealistic and slightly misguided.
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
indicates there's always the possibility it will.
So the constitution would never have been ratified without the bill of rights,
but how many amendments have there been to the constitution? Amendment 21
repeals amendment 18! Laws change to suit the times.
> I believe in a govt. system that
> assumes the worst and hopes for the best in human nature. I hope that
> people will not try to rob, rape, or kill me and my loved ones; but if push
> comes to shove, I will defend myself with the arms I have the right to keep.
>
> Short-sighted? Tell it to the ghosts of dead jews from the holocaust. More
> arms in the hands of the right brave persons and the entire holocaust might
> have been averted.
And a greater one may have been created. Conjecture.
> When they tell you to go quietly, it is better to kick
> and scream.
Generalisation.
> Mind you, generally I am something of a pacificist. Just not when it comes
> to basic principles of freedom. Some things are worth fighting for even if
> I would prefer it if I didn't have to fight for them.
I think in regard to this, we may have similar views, though I don't (and have
never) considered myself a pacifist. I agree some things are worth fighting
for. Chances are I'd try to kill someone if I thought my life (or that of a
friend or family member) was in danger, and I had something deadly available. I
just don't see any personal need to have a lethal weapon available just in
case.
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
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
|
|
|
|
