Subject:
|
Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:46:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1133 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> David Koudys wrote:
> > Constant avoidance of the truth does not make the truth go away. A citizen
> > cannot purchase an F22. A citizen cannot have at his or her disposal an ICBM.
> > A citizen can only have, at best, a gun. This makes the differntial rather
> > large. It's the truth of the matter, and, again, parenthetical, but still a
> > valid point. Giving everyone access to fighter jets and nuclear missles won't
> > be the answer, either. A weapon in the hands of a citizen is a placebo (in
> > America), and won't solve the problems facing your country. Guns are a large
> > contributing factor of the problems in your country. Larger weapons will just
> > equate to larger problems--i.e. more people dead or maimed.
>
> However, fighter jets and ICBMs don't "hold" territory. Just look at
> what's going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine for examples of what
> an "armed" citizenry might be able to do to resist oppressors.
And I mentioned that in other countries, an armed citizenry is needed in order
for them to make it to the end of a day. Are you saying that America is on par
with Afghanistan? That you face the same problems?
>
> > True in 1776, not so much today. Do you carry your sidearm to the voting booth?
> > Do you need to force someone to let you vote with the business end of a gun? I
> > reiterate, Nixon left, without one gun being shot, without one gun being
> > displayed, without *any* threatening action other than the power of the people.
> > It's what happened and all your talk of guns had *nothing* to do with it.
>
> Right now the situation is not such that we have to cary our sidearm to
> the voting booth. That doesn't mean that the existence of said weapons
> is not guaranteeing that freedom.
Cites please. Show me at anytime in your personal voting history that said
weapons were needed to conduct your voting process.
> I don't see the cops in my apartment complex on a daily basis, however,
> I'm confident their existence has something to do with the fact that my
> apartment has not been broken into.
Again, as I mentioned before, that's what the cops are armed to do. And to
protect your 'freedom of democracy' your armed forces are trained and outfitted
to give said protection. Your gun in your house is not adding to the
'protection of democracy in America'. Rather, chances are your gun in your
house will end the life of a family member or a fellow citizen--what about their
right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'?
>
> > Yes, the armed forces will combat such oppressors. 'Cause that's what they're
> > suppose to do. That's what they're trained for. That's why you have taxes--to
> > pay for the educaiton and enhancement of your combat forces. Again, the truth
> > is your gun in your house does not contribute *in any fashion* to the protection
> > of your country. Guns in homes either do nothing, or are used against family
> > members, or are stolen to be used in crimes against your fellow citizen. These
> > are what your guns in your homes end up doing. Stop pseudo-rationalizing your
> > desire to retain a gun in your home. If you want to keep your gun, just say
> > that. I don't care if oyu have a gun in your house--just be honest about it and
> > realize that, truthfully, it's not there for all your 'high falutin' ideals'
> > 'cause you're just deceiving yourself. You sound like a smoker rationalizing
> > his cancer stick. All the slick talking in the world isn't going to change the
> > truth.
>
> I'm not sure what the armed forces will do. Personally, I actually
> suspect that many of them would turn against the government if things
> got out of hand. On the other hand, history has shown many occaisions of
> the armed forces blindly following leaders orders and shooting when not
> remotely necessary.
All too true. Checks and balances are suppose to be in your system so some
general can't suddenly go on a rampage and overthrow the gov't.
>
> It's actually more of a problem with the cops. They shoot when not
> necessary, and then get all fired up when the citizens want a review of
> their actions.
Again true--there are problems with the system. Does having a gun in your house
help? Does going out on a crusade against the wrongdoings in society and
shooting at 'bad cops' help?
>
> > So long as you are a citizen in a democracy your vote can never be denied. And
> > that, again, has nothing to do with a gun. "Hey Mike, we won't let you vote in
> > this election!" "Yeah, I'll just go get my gun and we'll see about that!" Both
> > sides of that scenario are ludicrous, don't you think?
>
> How can you say that? Actually your right. As long as your a citizen of
> a democracy you will have a vote. The problem is when the leaders decide
> it's not a democracy anymore. What magical mystical force is preventing
> the leaders from declaring the experiment in democracy over?
The magical mystical force that's been supposedly working since 1776. The
magical mystical force that lead to Nixon leaving the white house. The magical
mystical force that's supposedly the 'bright and shining example' to the world.
It's supposedly your #1 claim to fame.
>
> > No, as stated, it comes from, well, the people. "We the people..." It didn't
> > say "We the people who happen to own guns..." or "We the people who like
> > shooting at folks when things don't go our way..." I don't know every second of
> > every moment of MLK's life, but from what I know, he never carried a gun and he
> > did more for your country than most anyone else in your history. Why? Because
> > he knew the power of the people--a fact that you seem to blatantly ignore so you
> > can hold on to your little security blanket. Security blankets are for 5 year
> > olds. Grow up and face the truth.
>
> Well, the "we the people" who wrote our constitution were pretty well
> armed, and were in the process of kicking the pants of the oppressors.
> MLK did nothing in comparison to the founding fathers. MLK was a very
> good man, but what he did only worked because of the foundation laid 200
> years ago.
And we're back to the oppressors from 1776. It's amazing how you justify your
actions today by saying 'that's what we did back then'. Your very own rationale
we should go back to candles for lighting and dirt streets and outhouses. Stop
appealing to 1776 as the reasons for why you want to do what you do today. Does
your rationale work today? Emphatically, as shown with all the examples given,
no! You're not battling England anymore.
The foundation was laid with the blood of the fathers and framers who stood up
to the tyranny of the king. They needed their arms to defeat the oppressors,
who, again, had basically the same arms. What are you standing up for? Look
around you--your fellow citizens are living under the fear of the gun. How many
of your fellow Americans have to get shot before you come to your senses. What
has to happen in your society before you realize that the power of the gun in
your house is only in the taking away of life from those around you.
America 200 years ago was fundamentally different than America today. It has
evolved beyond the point of needing guns in the hands of the citizens to protect
itself. Your vote has more power than your gun. It's called democracy and it
works. How do I know? 'Cause I see other countries where guns aren't used and
yet somehow democracy works there.
>
> Frank
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) Explain the Civil War (from {either} vantage point). (...) That is an extremely false analogy - is Frank saying that we need to have flintlock rifles and muskets? No, so where does this stuff about candles and dirt come in? Technological (...) (21 years ago, 17-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) My vote has no power at all. The power of the people is derived from their status of being collectively stronger than the military forces of the government. I seriously doubt that will ever need to be used, but so long as the government has (...) (21 years ago, 17-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) However, fighter jets and ICBMs don't "hold" territory. Just look at what's going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine for examples of what an "armed" citizenry might be able to do to resist oppressors. (...) Right now the situation is not (...) (21 years ago, 17-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
111 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
|
|
|
|
