Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:18:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1863 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > Ask David Koresh how useful his small-arms weaponry was against the ATF.
>
> But again, this is just anecdotal. What of the lessons taught by the Warsaw
> Ghetto? One gun against many.
>
> The purpose of keeping arms is hopefully cumulative amongst many partipants,
> not just a few lone nutters. In quantity, many rifles make a militia.
> C'mon, Dave! Bring it!
Heh. Our last gun control exchange ended with us becoming pals. Who knows
what would happen next?
You're 100% correct that my examples were anecdotal, which was kind of my
point, too. You're also right that a quantity of rifles makes a militia, but
doesn't that run the risk of might-equals-right? Granted, the current President
has clearly demonstrated his adherence to that philosophy, but I don't agree
with him.
The story you've related about your family's experiences in Argentina is
horrific, and I have no business addressing it, other than to say that it's
monstrous and indeed would very likely have gone differently if your father, or
his friends, or his community had been armed. When did all of this transpire,
by the way?
I guess the difference, for me, is that our government is just designed
differently from that of Argentina. Of course, corporate and religio-societal
interests have worked themselves into positions of undue power and influence,
but I don't know that private guns would have prevented that or could now undo
it. Not without lots of innocent blood being spilled, at any rate.
So where's the balance? We've all heard the oft-quoted (and just as
oft-misquoted) bit about sacrificing freedom for liberty and deserving neither,
but I don't know that it's a black-and-white issue. I certainly admit that I
don't know where the balance point is, but it must be somewhere between an armed
free-for-all and a totalitarian state.
Not much of an answer, I know. I honestly believe that at least some of the
people lobbying for increased gun control are doing so out of a sincere and
legitimate concern for public safety. I imagine also that some people wish to
increase gun control for exactly the reasons that Mike P has put forth. I also
believe that some allegedly pro-freedom groups like the NRA are primarily
interested in their own financial gain and political power, though the majority
of NRA members almost certainly are not motivated toward such goals.
So I'll fall back on my basic platform, which is this: I certainly don't mind
gun ownership, but I can't accept flawed reasoning to support it[1].
Dave!
[1] Not that your reasoning here is flawed, but many pro-gun arguments [2] are
pretty messed up
[2] And, admittedly, anti-gun arguments.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
