Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:57:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2676 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 points--“We want our guns therefore we justify our guns by
putting up falicious reasonings.”
| |
| |
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
|
And where exactly do you think the ‘power of the people’ comes from.
|
From the power of the vote, from the power to associate, from the “power of the
presses”. Today, not from the gun.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
No they can’t. What delusional dream world are you living in? Once again, the
gun in your house, and those ‘millions around you’ cannot stop the B1 from
dropping cluster bombs. So basically you have to trust that the checks and
balances in the system, that you’re all so in love with down there, actually
works, and that faith in the system is akin to faith that a buck is worth a buck
(hope I don’t have to rehash that it’s our collective faith that makes a dollar
worth a dollar)
It’s not germaine--because there are illegal activities going on in the rest of
the world does not give you the right to break the law and take away the lives
of those around you. What is required is more vigilance and better import
tracking. How about fixing the disease instead of getting rid of the symptoms.
“Because they have guns we must have guns, too!”? School yard shenanigans.
| |
| |
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.
|
I think there are laws on the books today that could be variations from the 10
commandments. Again, you’re justifying your “Chicken Little” attitude with non
sequiters and fallacies. So what if there are similarities b/w a law today and
a law from Nazi Germany. I wonder if Nazi Germany had speed limits on their
roads? “OMG!! We can’t have speed limits ‘cause then we’re the same as those
Nazis!!”
Grow up! put away your security blanket and dispense with the childish reasons
why you want to keep it.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Again I didn’t say they *weren’t*. What I did say, and have always said, that
our society (not other countries, mind you, but I’d say the US and Canada and
some others) is in a position where guns are not neccessary in the hands of the
citizen, and moreover, are actually a harm. You can’t refute that with *any*
sound idea. You resort to pointing at the past and pointing at ‘less civil’
countries so that you feel justified in owning your gun. Well, that’s the way a
child works--“Little Timmy has this! I want it to!!”
Grow up.
Dave K
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
