Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:32:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
909 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > > Well, it'll be about time. I for one am sick of self-righteous and
> > > bigotted Christians persecuting everyone else, so if it takes a revolution
> > > to establish a state of true religious freedom, then I say get me my rifle!
> > > I apologize to the vast majority of Christians who are not self-righteous
> > > bigots.
> > >
> > > Dave!
> >
> > You really like the guns.
>
> No he doesn't! He's a namby pamby anti-gun leftist. :-)
:)
>
> > We laugh at the French 'cause it seemed that every other week for a while
> > they went thru a revolution, and yet, just below the surface of America,
> > there's another revolution just looking for a spark to start it. This is
> > not a good thing, btw.
>
> Yes it is.
Show me. Show me how people dying needlessly is a good thing. Show me how
a revolution would make the United States of America better right now. Show
me how not working within the system that you have set up down there, a
system, I may add, where no one has to die to get an idea across and no one
has to pick up a gun to kick the most powerful man out of office... show me
how a revolution, where there will be mayhem, death and anarchy... show me
how that's better.
>
> > Revolutions are for impatient people who want things their way and they want
> > it now, instead of working with the system to improve it from the inside.
>
> What if the system doesn't allow reform?
Again, show me how the United States 'Republic", as it stands today, doesn't
allow reform.
>
> > One of the problems with revolutions is that there will come a time when,
> > well 'we need another revolution 'cause of whatever...' It causes
> > instability, and you lose the foundational history of who you were before
> > the revolution to build on.
>
> The US is founded on the notion that recurring revolutions _will_ be needed.
> And I don't see how a revolution negate's previous history. It doesn't.
My point, parenthetical tho it was, was to show that if it isn't 'American',
it is somehow less important. Quick--first Canadian Prime Minister--when
did Canada become a country? What were the two first provinces? Honestly,
Canadians don't really pay too much attention to their own history, as the
CBC found out last year--a high percentage got these questions wrong. My
point is *not* answering the questions properly, it's the reverence that we
put on 1776 and George Washington, et al. Show me another country that
reveres their history the way the United States does.
Revolutions will be needed until such a time as a system is established that
can adapt to the changing times. As people change, their needs change, and
therefore the system has to adapt to those changes or be overthrown. If the
people have a democratic system, then it's the people who get to guide the
socity--therefore revolution is not needed once that democracy is attained.
"Power to the people!"--Guess what, you already have it.
>
> > If we look at it, whatever happened before 1776 is all nice to know for
> > history and such, but really has nothing to do with 'being American'
>
> False. We have a long rich tradition dependent on our previous histories. Our
> language, our law, our philosophy, our religion, our art, and everything is a
> continuous experience. It didn't all magically start in 1776.
See above and I did not say it magically start, I said it was less important
to American history, less revered.
>
> > Seriously, have your gun--it doesn't matter to me, just like others
> > 'unbelief' in God does not affect my belief in God. For me, just don't
> > equate the freedoms you enjoy today, and hopefully will continue to enjoy in
> > the future, are due to *your* having a .357 in the closet. You're free
> > today because the military is out in the world protecting your freedom,
> > because the police are patrolling the streets locally protecting your
> > freedom, and the people you voted into office are working politically to
> > protect your freedom (or should be anyway--if they aren't, you can vote 'em
> > out of office the next election :) )--it really has nothing to do with that
> > piece of steel in your house.
>
> I seriously hope that the number of citizens of the US who believe as you do is
> miniscule. Such a grave misunderstanding of the role of firearm rights in
> America seriously scares me.
I seriously hope that the number of citizens who worhip a piece of paper and
a hunk of metal, such as you do, is miniscule. Such a grave injustice to
your fellow person in Amerca seriously scares me.
Show me how you have 'more' freedom with that gun in your house. Sure, it
may assuage *your* fear of someone encroaching on your property, but what
does it do for your neighbour, who may or may not get shot with said gun?
30 thousand+ of your fellow citizens loat the freedom of living last year
due to gun related deaths. They can't get their lives back. Is the cost of
you owning your gun worth those lives? Is the cost worth one life?
Once again, thank God I'm Canadian.
Though, thanks for the great debate!
>
> Chris
Dave K.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 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
|
|
|
|
