Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:04:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2025 times
|
| |
|
|
> > You are absolutely right Dave! The statistics do not show any positive or
> > negative one way or the other for or against gun control. The funny thing is
> > that only further increases my belief that gun control is all about
> > Government control over civilians.
>
> Well, okay. But in that case you need to jettison your argument that
> increased gun control leads to (or causes) increased crime.
That is pretty much what I just said.
>
> > > In any case, small-arms fire is irrelevant to a concerted modern
> > > military as anything except an annoyance.
>
> > How about we ask the PLO, or the IRA.
>
> I'm not sure that I recall a sustained conflict between the full might of
> the military and either of those organizations, though I'm aware of ongoing
> combat between small groups of each. Am I incorrect?
Well the Israelis are using tanks and helicopters.
> Anyway, Hop-Frog has rightly called me on my own use of anecdotes, but I
> haven't penned my reply to him yet!
>
> > Really? As per the US constitution it was intended that the Government not
> > have any weapons and that the citizens were the military in the form of a
> > self-regulated militia.
>
> The Consitution also allows the government to assemble forces to put down
> uprising and insurrections.
No, the constitution allows the government to call on the people when
neccessary.
> How do you propose that the government accomplish
> this, lacking any weapons? Also, I have never heard a convincing refutation
> of the fact that high-tech weapons of time were single-shot muzzle loaders and
> dangerous and unwieldy cannon.
So?
> Do you think that the letter-of-the-law trumps
> the facts of advancing weapons technology? If so, I disagree with you, but I
> admit that you're not alone in your view. Still, I have never heard a
> convincing argument that a madman with a nuke would be deterred by a sane >person with a nuke.
Nukes are overrated. One of those defense satellites that works like a giant
magnifying glass would better. They only burn a ~1 mile diameter and do not
create all that unneccessary radiation.
Anyway, I don't think nukes, tanks, planes, satellites, etc. should be in the
hands of joe anybodys. However anything man-portable, including those designed
to stop the vehicles, should be.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
