Subject:
|
Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:13:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
670 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
The point is that we don’t live the same way today as we did in ‘76. And we
don’t live in the civil war era. And, again, both condtions were war-time
scenarios, and, again, both times there were armies involved. THe civil war
was the army of the north against the army of the south. The armies were
made up of people who lived at home. Members of your armed forces today do
not live at home, they live at West Point (or other places of billet).
|
And if there was a revolt today against Dubya, why do you think it would not be
a war time scenario, or that the opposition wouldn’t form into an army? Or that
the armed opposition wouldn’t have come from home?
And the point was that you kept harping about 1776 and saying that that was it
for armed insurrection on a massive scale, and I was pointing out that you were
wrong.
| |
How does the civil war and the war of independance justify your gun in your
house today? It doesn’t. Not even close. Society has grown up since then.
We learned and evolved and understand that in todays age a gun in a house in
America offers no protection from tyranny. We don’t hide behind obsolete
ideals that may have worked 200 years ago, and we certainly don’t condemn our
fellow citizens to brutal violent deaths just so we can be a gun toting
yahoo.
|
An individual gun, no. A collective set of guns, yes. Are you saying that in
the 21st century people are incapable of forming a new organization? Are you
saying that anyone who own a gun is a “yahoo”? Are you saying that brutal
violent deaths are the sole purvey of handguns?
| |
| |
| |
Saying you need guns in your homes in the 21st century because your
forefathers needed guns in their homes the 18th century is ludicrous. But
| |
| |
| |
you mentioned that below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
No, I didn’t say that. I left the door open to being able to say it,
however. :-)
|
|
| |
I interpreted it that way :)
|
Oops, over-snipped and had to re-insert the proper two previous responses, which
will probably misalign. Anyway, you may have actually deduced correctly, in
which case then I must be playing the devil’s advocate, presumably because I
feel that you are playing the classic strident angry young man who thinks he has
all the answers and this is my way of getting you to try and slow down a little.
But then again, maybe I’m just leaving the door open to saying that. :-)
| |
| |
I have a one word rebuttal for myself if I was to say such: Dubya. This is
a guy who can convince himself of anything and actually believe it, a
dangerous capacity sor self-delusion.
|
I, as you know, am the biggest Dubya fan in Canada. I really really
feverently hope that in 2004 he gets himself reappointed--I mean elected. I
really really hope that no one investigates that esteemed leader and set in
motion the same thing that got Nixon ousted!
|
See Richard’s remarks concerning Teddy Kennnedy being one of the few people
actually making sense. Scarey!!! :-)
| |
| |
I think what I am trying to say is that the subject is less cut and dried
than you are trying to make it out to be.
|
|
| |
But it’s not as idealistic as some others are saying--If you could prevent
the deaths of 11,000 of your fellow citizens per year, wouldn’t you try?
What could possibly stop you from that goal?
|
I know the argument that is coming from the other principle in this discussion,
so let me state the concerns I imagine he will raise. 1) There is no guarantee
that the deaths wouldn’t happen in another format - knife murders are generally
considered to be more brutal (OJ’s wife, Tate-La Bianchi murders). 2) There is
no guarantee that the murder rate actually won’t go up because of emboldened
criminals (I might be afraid of a little old lady with a gun, but less afraid of
a little old lady with a knife). 3) Stopping gun sales would be hard enough,
but getting rid of all that exist simply impossible (this is not so much an
argument in favor, but bowing to the reality of the trap that is already in
place). 4) I don’t trust Dubya’s administration in the slightest (well, that
one is my own). 5) Changing the Bill of Rights is an extremely difficult
proposition (as it should be).
There are of course, counter-arguments: many criminals will be less likely to
take violent action when it requires them to get up close and personal to do it
- guns make it easier and more impersonal. The drying up of the gun supply
would not take place overnight, but down the road - you have to start somewhere.
Dubya’s excesses will come to roost and he’ll find he peaked to soon on the war
issue just like his daddy. Columbine would be harder to escalate to the
catastrophe it was with knives or clubs. But are these things guarenteed? No
(well, I inserted the Combine thing after I typed the no). I can see you (or
myself) arguing for them, but I don’t think they are cut and dried irrefutable
arguments (i.e. they are going to be things you have to convince people of, not
hit them over the head with).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) Wasn't it a massive insurrection against a tyranny? Didn't the newly started country raise a rather large army to ward off the Brits? Wasn't it, then, really, an army against an army? Whether you Yanks partook in gurrilla warfare in the woods (...) (21 years ago, 19-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) This is not a small thing. See these newsbits: An open invitation to election fraud (URL) Not only is the country's leading touch-screen voting system so badly designed that votes can be easily changed, but its manufacturer is run by a (...) (21 years ago, 23-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) The point is that we don't live the same way today as we did in '76. And we don't live in the civil war era. And, again, both condtions were war-time scenarios, and, again, both times there were armies involved. THe civil war was the army of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
