Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:39:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1451 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > There are times when people used guns
> > > against agents of the government productively.
> >
> > Example? And could you clarify "productively"? I can't think of any in
> > recent years that ended rosily for the private citizens, but maybe I'm missing
> > something.
>
> Well, it all does hinge on how you'd mean "productively." I'd claim that
> the defenders at Ruby Ridge defended themselves productively. But, I think
> that even though I think their use of arms probably increased the casualty
> rate. No one would know of the Weavers' injust treatment if it hadn't
> turned into a blood bath.
>
> I guess the Branch Davidian massacre could be cited, but it seems less clear
> cut somehow.
>
> And I knew this guy Alex back in St. Louis who forced a cop at gunpoint, so
> the story goes, to stop beating a black loiterer in what is widely assumed
> to be a racially motivated incident.
>
> As someone else (Mike P?) cited, the mere knowledge (of policy-makers) that
> so many of us are armed is productive routinely. They can push us slowly,
> but if they push too far too fast, we will snap and start firing. So they
> only push slowly.
>
> Chris
**Alert** I used 'your' many times in the following post--they are not
directed at Chris at all--just wrapping up, I hope, in one complete posting
a bunch of different points made in this thread. If you could read the
words, "you" or "your" as a general non-specific person, for sometimes I
used 'your' in the context of "All of America--your country" or 'you' in the
context of "those who own guns--you gun owners"--none of this is directed at
any specific individual here.
\end **Alert**
And yet many "democratic republics" around the world get along just fine
without their citizens being armed. But that's not you so moot point.
See, it's the line 'we will snap and start firing' that just presents to me
a vivid image of a goon.
Maybe Nixon was a 'bad' example for me to use, for I was showing you the
power of the law in one specific instance--an instance that I thought would
drive home my point about not needing guns--but look at it this way if you
don't like the Nixon example--You guys down there have elections every
couple of years--you vote for judges, congressmen, senators, what-have-you...
I once saw one of your voter sheets for a Chicago district--it was huge,
with alotta names for a variety of different political offices (heck, you
may even vote for your dog catcher--I don't know...)
And when the ballots are cast, and the votes are tallied, and some seats
stay the same whilst others have to be vacated by the loser, the losers
leave office. Why? Ask *any* one of them--heck, look as far back as you
can--see if *any* of them left their seat bacause they were afraid they
might get shot if they didn't. I bet all the money in my pocket against all
the money in your pocket that not one of them left the office because they
thought they might get shot if they didn't.
They left because the voters, the citizens, the power of democracy, told
them it was time to get out, and they left--peacably and without incident.
In my remembered lifetime, you have had Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and the
last one to leave was Bubba. They all left office when it was their time to
leave as mandated by *law*.
I would hazaerd a guess that public officials are more scared about getting
shot whilst being in their "democratically elected office" and one of you
"goons" who has a gun in his or her house decides that "we will snap and
start firing", a la JFK, Reagan, whatever...
I don't care if you own a gun--it comes with a free society. But don't
think it comes from the 2nd. Here's the point: The 2nd says "In order to
maintian a well regulated militia, people have the right to bear arms."
(whatever, is close)
Folks say the first part is just an explanation. I say "People" includes
Timmy and Melissa--kids are people too, y'know! But do they have the right
to own a gun? No, they do not. Why? They are not part of a 'well
regulated militia'. So the first part is not only an explanation, it is
also part of the equation as to who can have a gun. So Joe Schmoo in New
Hampshire, John Doe in Alaska, Larry, Chris and Richard in Anywhere USA--are
they part of a well regulated militia? Well, if they're part of the armed
services they are--the armed services is well regulated, the police are
quite well regulated, heck--I'd accept the national guard and say they're
quite well regulated (don't forget the word 'militia' at the end). If you
wanted to set up a course every Tuesday evening for two months, in which it
is taught how to properly maintain, lock up, and use a gun, offered by a
bonafide *regulated* chapter of whatever 'militia' (i.e. Police Services
and/or National Guard or whatever), and you have to pass a written test and
sign a contract saying you understood the 'well regulated' regulations, and
a certificate is given out at the end of the course to those that pass and
only with that certificate could you purchase a gun (after being vetted, of
course), I'd even accept that--it's all part of being 'well-regulated'.
It shouldn't be easier to get a gun than getting a car--with a car you have
to show valid license and insurance before you take it off the lot--once you
show me how there is at least that kind of regulation before getting a gun
in all states, I'll accept that and go on my merry way.
In a 'concept sense', the moment you have to 'invoke' the 2nd is the moment
the 2nd, and all other United States laws, is null and void--not worth the
paper it's written on--so pull out your gun and start shooting, 'cause there
will be no laws to stop you. The constitution was written to be a guiding
principle for the United States of America, a democratic republic, a free
nation--take away the democracy, take away the USA.
I will be the first to admit that I'm an idealist--I believe in the power of
the people. I believe in the inherent goodness of at least 50.1 percent of
the population and that, given the information needed to make an informed
decision, that 50.1 percent of the people will do the right thing. And if
the 'underdog' gets overlooked because 50.1 percent of the voters don't know
that 10 folks out of 1 million people have this disease which requires
intense medical treatment, well then thank God for socialism (and the
generous contributionsof certain individuals and sometimes the insurance
company (if you can afford it) for you in the states).
I also believe that when certain laws were made, that the most powerful tool
at their disposal was a gun. In 2002, a gun doesn't even come close to
being powerful in this society.
You cannot have it both ways--you cannot uphold the ideals of democracy and
say at the same time, 'if they don't listen to me I will shoot them' for
that's *not* democracy, that's tyranny.
Threats and intimidation fail to work. A commecial I saw whilst watching
the local Fox affiliate in Buffalo (prob'ly watching the Simpsons or
something intelligent like that) made the point clear (almost brought me to
tears--one commercial--I'm a pretty sensitive guy... but you didn't have to
know that...)
Anyway, the scene is AnyStreet in AnyWhere USA, a row of houses...the voice
over starts by saying something like "the terrorists wanted to change our
way of life on September 11..."scene fades, and comes back up with every
house on the street with an American flag waving from it. "Well they did
change it..." goes on the announcer.
I was moved.
Anyway, neither here nor there. Bottom line is have faith. Have faith in
your fellow person. Have faith that they will do the mature thing and do
what's right for his or her fellow person.
The other stuff people were trying to get me to swing at were all different
topics and if you want to go into the problems of democracy, and trying to
arrive at a solution for said issues, I'm all for that.
If you think that the military are not out there defending your country, and
the police are not defending your way of life--you're forgetting that these
institutions are run by people. Peope who happen to be your brothers and
sisters, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters. It
gets 'all the news' when a black kid gets beat up by 'bad' cops. Those cops
will be held accountable. Sure there are some bad apples, but how many
times have you met a good police officer? How many police officers do you
have in your country? Work at getting the one bad officer out of the entire
orchard--don't sit there and point "There! There's why I need my gun--that
bad guy right there!" What about the thousands of officers doing the right
thing every day? 'Nuff said.
These people in the 'militia' grew up in your country and want to see your
country continue being, what I facetiously said earlier but I say now with
all due respect, "the light of democracy". They're out there, putting their
lives on the line for your country. Don't ever say to me that these people,
these sons and daughters of your own country, are dieing stupidly and
belittle their efforts by saying 'oh, another branch of the ACLU' My God
man, they're fighting out there and dieing--are you getting it yet? What
are you doing? "Oh, I have a gun in my closet, in case a situation arises
which hasn't happened since 1776 but it just *might*, so I'm doing my part."
Delusional arrogant elitist xenophobic gun happy goons... ;)
(and I've lowered myself to the name calling, but boy it felt good for a
second... ;) )
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Well, it all does hinge on how you'd mean "productively." I'd claim that the defenders at Ruby Ridge defended themselves productively. But, I think that even though I think their use of arms probably increased the casualty rate. No one would (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
