Subject:
|
Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:58:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
671 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 and the ‘Red Coats’ marched around in proper rank and file (easy to
be pegged off--sometimes those Brits...) is not the point. The point is that it
was a legitimate army composed of soldiers, under the command of your CNC. It
wasn’t a guy here and a guy there with a gun in their houses waiting for 7-8
generations for something to happen so that they could get out the guns and
start an insurrection.
Just as the civil war was--the armies of the north against the armies of the
south. Both armies under command of whichever leaders. Which does not equate
at all to your gun in your house, today.
| |
| |
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?
|
I’m saying that people who go around saying ‘out of my cold dead hands’ and
‘brain lead’ is a yahoo, incapable of making Just decisions where the safety and
security of themselves and their fellow citizen is concerned. We’ve covered the
brutal viloent deaths by other means in a previous conversation, but to
reiterate--I was appalled when that husband was run over by his wife repeatedly.
That said, cars are not made with the intent to kill. Guns, however, are. We
stop the 11 thousand deaths, and we work on stopping the other violent related
deaths as well. It comes with education and change in mindset. Neither of
which can occur with Heston, Koresh, et al, are brainwashing subsequent
generations with “cold dead hands” rhetoric.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I don’t have all the answers, but if I can help stop the needless violent deaths
of 30 people a day, I’d say ‘Let’s work on that, and as well, work on fixing
other things”
However, repeatedly banging your headd against the wall of ignorance is bound to
cause a rise in the expatiation.
| |
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!!! :-)
|
Eeep! Was he sober? Ouch!
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
I agree with everything above. It’s hard to discuss the emboldment of criminals
if htere are no guns around, like the classic Simpsons ep. with Kang and the
other one walking around with planks with sticks. There are legitimate issues,
but one issue isn’t ‘protecting our freedom’. But I point to other countries
who don’t have this love affair with the gun as examples. Crime is lower,
violent gun related deaths are lower per capita. Like cigarettes, if you don’t
have access to ‘em, you can’t die from ‘em.
We start with the generation today--there may have been thousands of ‘Galaxy
Explorers’ sold when they first came out, but try to find one today. Things
deteriorate, things get lost or broken. If guns were no longer sold to the
public starting today, the number of guns in the populace would be much less in
one genration than it is today. But that’s a pipe dream. Easier would be a
change in mindset.
I know that there were a few ‘gun drives’ in Ontario recently, where you were
able to turn over your guns to the authorities. Caused a bit of a stink by a
*very* few number of individuals who thought their rights were being infringed
on. But many many guns were turned over and destroyed. It’s still relatively
early to see if that had any impact on gun related crimes, but my constant
reading the paper and watching the news, I’ve noticed no discernable raise in
the crime rate. Only time will tell. Then again, most Ontarians don’t go thru
life with the ideal “if they come for my gun, they better get used to lead in
the brain”
| |
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).
|
Not irrefutable, but very good reasons for better gun laws. Hitting over the
head comes after many posts bashing against the same flawed rhetoric.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
