To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21226
21225  |  21227
Subject: 
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 13 Jun 2003 03:57:57 GMT
Viewed: 
896 times
  
*Ahem*
They did what they did because they had the means to do it. Read, guns.

But what was the motivation? All we know is what the Government tells us.

I failed to present in the previous examples a doubt that remains in my mind: >if
the purpose of gun ownership is protection agains the abuses of the >government,
how come they were never used for that purpose? Is it possible that to the
average citizen, who has only anecdotal interest in politics (when TV makes a
big case about some new law, for instance), the guns have long lost their
original purpose and become more like an appliance?

The creepy thing for me is that too many folks get carried away with their >guns
and start feeling that is the only way to solve their issues with the rest of >us
humans... as petty as they may be. And yet, noone can have a plausible reason
for armed uprising against the goverment.

So what is your recourse if the Government breaks the law? Besides so long as a
single manufacturer of guns exists on the planet, criminals will always have
them. The police actually stop criminals less than 0.01 percent of the time.
Mainly they investigate after the fact or are the criminals themselves.

Unless, of course, there is a real fear that you guys become a monarchy, or,
even worse, a *centralized* state?
;-)

10-12 years ago Canadian medical services and eqipment was equal or greater >>than
that of the US. Today they are a decade behind.  Seriously, when has any
government actually improved something by taking it over?

US Government in WW1, with trains? They wouldn't have worked properly >otherwise,
or so it is argued. And remember Mussolini's great deed of making the trains >run
in time!
I do understand why you claim that, what I probably would not do is such a >large
generalization.

Yeah that was too generalized, but for the majority of instances that is the
case.


I pay a "plane subsidy" (in taxes) so that the 300 residents in a remote
atlantic island can have the same access as I have to a doctor. Is that fair? >I
think it is - their access to ANY form of healthcare, free or not, is a >right.

I belive people are responsible for their own actions. If they choose to live on
that island they should be made to pay the cost.

Doubtful, but why does not being able to buy a DVD player for your TV >>warrent
sympathy anyway?

I don't know if that is what I reduce poverty to (not being able to buy "x"),
but since you chose to go that way...

Well that is what it means in the US. The only cases of starvation or true
poverty are either cases of abuse or self-imposed.

are there figures regarding the average
income of a "poor" family in the USA? And (being preciosist here :-) the
standard deviation of such figures?

Well I don't know the average income but I do know that "poor" people are ten
times more likely to be overweight in the US.

If some can't afford a DVD, some others can't afford to live in places with
proper air or access to green spaces - in a sense, I think those are also
indicators of poverty (they're probably included in some index of human
development, but it's not really the point)

And true democraty too.

So the US isn't even supposed to be a democracy were are supposed to be a
representative republic.

Ok. Though you do adhere to "democratic principles"... That's good, right? > :-)

In the current (as of 6/2003) definition, yes.

See, not everything is rotten! ;-)

Nah, just most of it! :-)

-Mike Petrucelli



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) Does it matter? (If you think so, why?) If all they had were motivation, they'd still be looking after the means to kill. Endlessly, or at least with a high chance they'd never actually "act". (...) I don't know if I can provide an answer to (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) So children living there are responsible for their parents choice of having a job there? If a little girl gets a fractured leg and her parents are poor, does this mean she is responsible and that she deserves not to be treated for her injuries (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) *Ahem* They did what they did because they had the means to do it. Read, guns. I failed to present in the previous examples a doubt that remains in my mind: if the purpose of gun ownership is protection agains the abuses of the government, how (...) (21 years ago, 13-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

161 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR