Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:41:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1551 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > 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.
>
> 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 in the former category.
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 said things are changing.
> > Why do I think this likely? Because I just don't see enough people who are
> > willing to stand up and defend their rights and the rights of others.
>
> Maybe that's because most of us don't see those rights as being
> under assault? This, even though we do understand those rights
> just as fully and completely as you do?
Yes, ignorance is bliss.
> > Not too long ago I saw a video about several *conspiracies*. Mentioned was
> > the seizure of properties (as highlighted in drug enforcement laws). Here
> > are a few cases that were noted...
>
> I'd like a citation. Name of the video, company that distributed,
> et cetera. Just because it's on film doesn't mean it's true. Video
> is an amazingly effective propaganda tool, because it doesn't have
> room for full citations or retracing of research, and hey, I SAW IT,
> AND VIDEO DOESN'T LIE.
Do a bit of searchin for search and siezure, confiscation, drug enforcement
law... the video had many conspiracy ideas, most of which were certainly
arguable. I only sited the drug enforcement because I had not known before
how long these laws have been in effect. I have done some research on the
matter but not enough to confidently send other people through the same
trail that I have gone. The laws are real, the examples on the video were
certainly dramatized, but the facts are there none the less. Do some
searching yourself.
> And isn't it also possible that these people aren't telling the whole
> truth about what they were doing and the grounds of the forfeiture?
> People often go looking for principles that will defend them and ways
> to bend the truth when they want to secure a favorable outcome--even
> if that means testifying to said same on film (though not under oath).
It doesn't take a lot of effort to find other examples. The laws are on the
books. They are enforced with a vengence because the authorities want to
get paid. I didn't need the video to tell me this. I already knew about
these laws. Didn't you?
> One of my biggest problems with lots of Americans these days is an
> inability to think critically, which I think is a very serious problem.
Thinking isn't enough. Do some active research yourself. Any sites I may
be able to give you will only be suspect because we already don't agree.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Apparently all three cases are perfectly legal. More frightening still is
> > the lack of public scrutiny. Worse, if Joe Patriot speaks up, he may be
> > branded a conspiracy nut-crack. And while Joe Patriot may have some vocal
> > support, he will likely stand alone as no one else seems to think there is a
> > problem worth getting worked up over.
>
> Because there may, in fact, be no real problem--only an anomaly.
> Sure, it's a problem for the principals (not "principles") involved,
> but again it is not a symptom of a systemic failure. Human beings
> are human beings, and some are bad or corrupt.
>
> > The fact that these search and seizure laws are even in existence simply
> > shows the apathy of American citizens.
>
> What laws? Which ones? The ones that the video claims exist?
> Law can always be bent badly by bad enforcers of that law.
The search and seizure law as applied to drug enforcement is not being bent.
It
> happened to minorities for *centuries*.
It has never been legal in this free society until recently.
Misuse of the law by
> self-interested agencies or individuals is as old as time itself.
This law is not being misused. Just the people's trust.
> The thing that makes the conspiracists so wacky is that they
> detect some kind of goal or pattern behind it that's somehow
> newer or more sinister.
The laws are not made up from some whack job of a conspiracist. The goal or
pattern is the need for more money, which allows for the means of greater
control. Control is power.
>
> > Therefore I don't think it will be too long before guns are illegal.
>
> Sorry. I can't agree, not even 5%.
>
> best
>
> LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
