Subject:
|
Re: Swift was Right! (He just named the wrong people...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jun 2003 03:50:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2504 times
|
| |
|
|
> > 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.
No there aren't. Canada, Britian, and Austrailia all have civilians with
"hunting" guns. While those are not as effective for combat, they are still
useable in that fashion. Throughout history there is no such thing as a
democracy where only the government has guns.
> 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."
> > 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.
And what do you think prevents the government from outlawing voting, group
gathering, and the media.
> > 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.
Well obviously you have absolutely no knowledge of tactics if you believe that.
> 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.
No but they can stop the pilot from getting to the plane in the first place.
Besides even if they did get off the ground they would only take out a few
hundred thousand before they had to land and reload, where people could easily
take them out. While it would be extremely bloody in the end it would succed.
All of this is assuming that the Government managed to "take out" those in the
military that serve for their countrymen not the Government. If the Government
couldn't do that then it would be a far less bloody fight.
> 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)
Ok maybe you are missing something here. Revolution is the absolute last resort,
only after the other checks and balances in the system fail. (i.e. the
government declares voting illeagal) That has never happened yet and I hope it
never does, but I will not give up my right and duty to protect the last and
ultimate check against the government. You may think I am a gun-nut "clinging to
a security blanket" but I think you are delusionally idealistic and far too
trusting of the Government. Ever heard the phrase; "Give them a centimeter and
they'll take a kilometer"
[snipped the rest because the above paragraph covers it all]
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
