 | | 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...(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?)
|
|
(...) 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?))
|
|
(...) 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: ??? (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: ???
|
|
(...) <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: ???
|
|
(...) 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: ???
|
|
(...) 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)
|
