Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:15:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2231 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> > > > 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.
>
> Well, okay. Are you hereby abandoning your previous arguments, in which
> you've asserted that increased gun control breeds increased crime? I just want
> to be clear on this.
Yes, but gun control does not reduce crime either.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> Right, but is it a sustained military action (a la Desert Storm Part Deux) or
> is it an episodic conflict? Do you see the difference?
If they could stop it through sustained military action, why didn't they?
>
> > > 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.
>
> Article I, Clause 15, says:
>
> [Congress shall have the power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to
> execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
>
> How does a militia of private citizenry function to suppress in
> insurrection, if it is the militia that's creating the insurrection in the
> first place?
Then the Government must have done something really stupid
> If you're called as part of the militia to put down the insurrection of your >best friend's militia, what do you do?
Make a choice?
>
> > > 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?
>
> See below, in which you sort of agree with me.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Do those exist, outside of science fiction?
Yeah I would say there is an extremely good chance it actually exists in orbit.
Is it really so far fetched? NASA shoots stuff off all the time. How often do
you hear of a shuttle mission?
> The orbital lens necessary to create a one-mile useful focal point would have >to be truly colossal!
No it just has to be a series of smaller fresnal (spelling?) lenses. (basicly
as special magnifying lens that has circular ridges to greatly increase
magnification over a much smaller area.) Obviously I don't know the specifics
but it probably wouldn't have to be more than 3 or 4 times the size of the
hubble telescope.
>
> > 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.
>
> Why stop there? There's nothing inherent in your argument to favor one
> kind of overkill weapon versus another. What does man-portability have to do
> with it?
Anything man-portable can not be misused in an extreme fashion by one crazy
person. However when hundreds and thousands of people organize together they can
form a successful force to deal with any illegal government activites.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
