Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:07:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
943 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > *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.
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 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?
I don't know if I can provide an answer to that... {why} would a government
break the law, if they're in a position to make new ones? :-)
> 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.
You can't prove that. And I think you're wrong, or else you're living in a real
creepy environment...
> > 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.
What if they were born there... don't they have a right to live in their
homeland? Come on!
> > > 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.
And how many of those are there?
I think you're deliberately choosing to ignore a population that does not fit
your view of the poor...
> > 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.
That hardly proves anything. Overweight people also tend to die of heart
diseases a lot more than skinny ones.
> > 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! :-)
Aren't you being pessimistic? Relax... chances are that you won't ever have to
revolt against the government: for every thing they do which you dislike, you
can always come up with something they can't bear, and the balance is guaranteed
in the long run - life would be so boring otherwise! :-D
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
