Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:28:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1669 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > So the oppressors had better weapons? Hmm, does your big bad government not
> > have better weapons also?
>
> That's the whole point of my participation in debates on the second. They
> aren't supposed to! The common man and the regular soldier are supposed to be
> equally well armed. (Except of course, for the fact that we aren't supposed to
> have regular soldiers.)
The advantage of having a regular army have been proved in WW2. Otherwise,
how could Britain have resisted? In comparison, the US took a lot of time to
turn the tides of war, and I'd bet a considerable amount of time between Dec
'41 and '43 (North African landings) was spent on training. Less time to
react means usually less damage done, right?
> > > I can't believe you insinuated that the Native Americans had an equal chance
> > > just because they had a few rifles and bows.
> >
> > They were armed. It is you who think that arms can protect you against a
> > well trained force - I'm not so sure.
>
> The difference is that in any plausible (which I know is the point of
> contention) revolutionary scenario, The People would not be outnumbered by the
> villains. The Native Americans were.
The Villains are part of The People. How can you tell one from the other?
> > You mean France? They are welcome to invade, I love their cuisine. But it is
> > just not going to happen. If I were a paranoid fantasist I might worry about
> > it. But I am not, so I don’t. How about you?
>
> Because it was so long ago that one European powerhouse invaded another?
I guess not. The truth is such an invasion is no longer needed, since no
benefits would be felt: the markets are already open, the people have free
movements, the laws tend to be equalized... generally countries invaded each
other expecting to profit from it, and right now no positive outcome would
be possible for either parties involved - therefore, any invasion is pointless.
> > > Protests will not falter the U.S. govenment.
> >
> > That is your problem. I suppose partly a product of the fixed term presidency?
>
> I think partly.
>
> > > Ironicly, I find that more
> > > preferable to your "we will give up if they protest" type of government.
> >
> > Why? Your government should serve you. If they don't, send them packing.
>
> Well, with that I hope we all agree.
At least I do.
We did that here last month, "kicked" the PM out of office 'cause he was
doing *nothing* in the past 2 years. The downside is that we have no
government for the next 6 months... but then again, considering all parties
up for election, it seems almost preferable that way. <Sigh!> :-(
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) chance (...) the (...) Well, for a start, anyone who happens to be shooting at me. Even if they're doing it in support of a nation-idea against which I am fighting. (...) So no nation would gain by taking the goods of another? I don't see that (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) They were. And in general, one injun vs. one settler and I'd bet on the injun. The problem is that they were locally massively outnumbered. (And not organized on the larger scale, of course.) (...) This is the traditional way that Britain (...) (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
|
|
|
|
