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 / 21349
21348  |  21350
Subject: 
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:38:06 GMT
Viewed: 
2742 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
   Okay, fine -- if your point is that the purpose of a gun is to kill or destroy a thing, then that’s basically an undisputed fact.

That it is the only utility of the gun is a separate matter.

I still think that the gun’s power for destruction is the very reason some people are eating venison burritos while still others are quietly sitting peacefully in their homes. If you want to dispute that, go right ahead. But you will have to prove to me that a revolution can be fought without expressly lethal arms.

Again with the “Jeffersonian” speak. I would point out that Jefferson livd 200+ years ago and some of the ideas from that time may not be valid today. Again (and again and again) it is your national forces that’s protecting your ‘freedom and liberty’, not that gun locked up in a closet in your house. Your gun in your house isn’t protecting anyone. It’s giving you a false sense of security and giving a real object for those that steal to take, put on the black market, and, in the end, kill one of your fellow citizens.

Now come on. Pay attention. http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=21343

  
“Revolution fought without espressley leathal arms”? Well, in tin-pot dictator type countries, sure, arm the citizens and have your revolution.

Please get your facts straight. In tin-pot dictator type countries only the government and police have guns. That is why they can oppress and enslave their people.

   But we’re not talking about some backward country where the military is corrupt (and usually has approximately the same armament as the citizens). We’re talking about us here.

Exactly we have guns too.

   And in the in the 21st century, there are those countries that have risen to the point where guns in the hands of the citizen is becoming irrelevant and not needed.

If you don’t mind living without freedom in a tin-pot dictatorship.

   It’s the ‘evolution’ of society, and there will be those that cling to antiquated ideas because they don’t want to, or cannot see that times have changed. The power of law, the power of education, the ‘power of the people’ are now far superior to the power of the
   gun.

And where exactly do you think the ‘power of the people’ comes from.
  
  
Powell is over there talking about tank technologies, refusing to address the issue of whether a tank encased person must at some point leave the tank and therefore be susceptible to a bullet to the head. Maybe the tank can be attacked en masse, forcibly opened, and the persons inside killed. And, I am not myself opposed to the private ownership of some pretty nasty stuff -- stuff that could pierce armor. The invincible military and armaments argument is Powell’s straw man. I don’t buy it for one second. And sure, Canada is a great place and all -- but if things were to go south on y’all, I hope Powell would be the first to recall my warning about not giving up the guns. Gun use is a right and a duty -- talk to the Swiss.

For the regulated armed forces. For the ‘properly trained’. For those that are duty sworn to ‘protect and defend’. None of which encompasses your gun in your house. If things start ‘going south’ on any of us, again it’s not the gun in your house, it’s the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the Nimtz, and whatever satellites are circling the globe that are going to get our heinies out of trouble.

You still have not addressed the concept of a threat from within and the fact that several million armed citizens can easily overwhelm the military. Yes it would be bloody but it would be successful.
  
You talk of rights, you talk of duty, what of your duty to your fellow citizen who just got shot by a gun stolen from your house?

Again I direct you here. http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=21343

   What happened to his rights? Your duty is to your country and your fellow citizen. Keeping a gun in your house does not help either.

  
As Mike has pointed out, where people have lost their right to arms they can be herded like sheep and put on the train to the death camps. How can such people resist their armed masters?

And because you don’t have an answer to that, for me that ends the conversation -- I’m not saying that I won’t participate in it,I am just saying that I have never heard the point properly disputed.

And when it was found that the most poerful person in the *world* was facing charges, he stepped down from office without one shot being fired, without one gun to be seen. The power of law is what he followed. He didn’t need someone weilding a gun to make him walk out of that office.

So Nazi Germany before and during WW2 is not the same as, say, the US today.

Excuse me? If you honestly belive that could not happen if people had no means to stop it you are delusional. The US Gun Control Act of 1968 is almost indentical to the translated Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. That is a matter of public record.
  
  
And as I have said before, I am living in the U.S. -- where things are looking pretty weird to me right now. Not terrible, but weird (with special emphasis).

On this at least we agree. Be vigilant. Be pro-active. Be wary. There are tools at your disposal in todays age which are far superior to the gun. Start using them.

Your gun in your house will not take the weirdness out of your country. Ever.

I was going to sign off with that but just that line gots me ta thinkin’ (which is never a good thing...) That’s one of the bigger problems right there--“Oh I have my gun, so if things ‘go south’ I can rise up and join ‘the ol revolution’. Failing to consider that by participating in and helping society ‘before it goes south’ is a much better, and ‘more civilized’ option. Then again, I forget who I’m talking with--the US has always been more ‘reactive’ than ‘proactive’--like the kid, who, when sleighted, just lashes out at any convenient target.

Which always brings me back to the other idea--when you grow up, we’ll be here, waiting for you.

You are the one living in fantasy land where the government and police are uncorruptable. News flash, they are just a human as the rest of us. As such I do not trust them with being the only ones to have guns.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) I don't live "without freedom" or in a "tinpot dictatorship". Get over yourself. Face the facts--there are *democracies* that work without the citizens being armed. And yet you can't deal with that one. You;re doing an end-run around the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
 
(...) Again with the "Jeffersonian" speak. I would point out that Jefferson livd 200+ years ago and some of the ideas from that time may not be valid today. Again (and again and again) it is your national forces that's protecting your 'freedom and (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

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