Subject:
|
Re: Iraq (was Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:58:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1046 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
Easily seen thru the gun debate--“Guns solve problems” Hey, when that crook
is dead at your doorstep, I guess it’s difficult to argue that
rationale--problem solved--I wasn’t robbed! However, looking past the
‘immediately fixed problem’ we see a larger picture of even bigger problems
associated--why was there a crook in the first place? Drug habit? Too poor
to afford food for family? And the otehr fallout of having guns in the
house--Few weeks back, adn I refrained from posting it--he was 4 years old
and he shot his sister dead and wounded another.
|
Crappy parents raise stupid kids.
| |
It was probably a legally
obtained gun. I don’t know, nor does it matter--if there was no gun, she’d
still be alive. This isn’t a ‘few eggs being broken to make something
better’, this is thousands of deaths per year. It hasn’t been proven, nor
can it be imho, that if you don’t have your gun, that your elected leaders
would become tyrannical.
|
Well throughout history we have yet to see a country prove otherwise. Oh
wait, that’s not proof?!
| |
I’ve pointed to instances in recent history and I
see with my own eyes elections happening in democratic countries all over
the world, and I don’t see, nor hear of the need for, guns.
|
You know you still have not replied to
this
-Mike Petrucelli
|
You didn’t say anything new in there at all, Mike. Lets have a looksee--
“
Are you joking? “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.” What the heck do you think it says? Well allow me to translate this
into modern day English for you. “A well regulated militia...” “Every able
bodied citizen...” ”
And we’ll start disagreeing right here. Show me how an abled bodied citizen
constitutes a “well regulated militia”. Show me how a bunch of able bodied
citizens constitute a ‘well regulated militia” when they are not part of any
regulated military forces.
Since you’re into defining things your way, let’s look at the definition of
“well regulated” and “militia” in this context. Well regulated--under the
purview of officers, regimented, trained and certified. None of which is the
lone gunman in his house. Militia--a military force. Again, does not include
you and your gun in your house.
“
“being necessary to the security of a free state,...”
”
Sure armed forces are there to secure a free state. I haven’t said that
scrapping of the army, navy, air force, marines would be a good thing. On the
contrary, I support the troops--the work that they do is what is actually
protecting our freedoms. I’d like cites that say the same for your gun in your
house. But there aren’t any or you would have rolled them out by now. You
don’t have one shred of proof that can equate guns in homes with defending
democracy, not one cite showing that guns in homes preserve freedom. I have
shown many cites to the contrary--first, guns aren’t needed in homes to preserve
democracy, vigilant people are needed to preserve democracy. Second, people’s
freedoms are ended at the point of a gun in the thousands.
“
“for the purpose of preserving the democracy,...” “the right of the poeple to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” ”
I have the right to jump off a cliff and kill myself--suicide isn’t against the
law--how can it be? I have the right to marry whomever I choose, though if I
don’t choose wisely I’d end up miserable. There are many rights open to us on
account of the freedom we have. I don’t dispute your right in your country to
own a gun. Legally you are allowed ot walk into a gunshop and, with a little
bit of paperwork and hopefully a security check, purchase a gun.
“has the right to own weapons.” This is backed by all of the historical
refrences which Hop-Frog already sited.
Again not refuting. If you drop the first part about the well regulated militia
out of your arguement, for you are not, and therefore the first part doesn’t
apply, then we can go on.
But the bigger issue is, should you? Should you own a gun? I have shown that
guns are, in fact, a detriment to your society today. You have not shown that
guns in the hands of the private citizen is good for society. You have ‘faith
based’ reasoning to justify your ownership, vis a vis the politicians in America
will turn tyrannical, with no concrete evidence supporting said claim.
“
You keep stating that we are ignoring 30 people dying a day. We are not ignoring
it we simply recognize that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not
stop those 30 deaths a day. Punish the lunatics that commit the crimes not the
inantimate object they happen to use. The only way to make your assertation that
‘removing guns will reduce crime’ true is to remove every gun from the face of
the planet, including those owened by the various militaries and police forces
of the world. Good luck with that. ”
And you keep ignoring the fact that guns in law abiding homes kill people. Take
away the guns and the criminals (and the kids and the jilted lover, etc.) can’t
get at ‘em. I think that the armed forces have tighter security such that guns
getting into the hands of the ordinary citizen is much reduced from these
venues. It’s not a valid arguement and we’re back to 5 year old logic--“If
timmy can get his hands on a gun, I should have the right to get my hands on a
gun.” forgetting the simple fact that timmy has relatively no chance to acquire
a gun smuggled out from armed forces, and that you have a high chance of getting
a gun at the local gun store--a gun that can then be used to justify Timmy
actually going out and getting one of his own.
“
You keep appealing to the “power of the vote” and you seem to be ingoring where
that power is derived from. ”
I don’t see guns voting, I see people voting in Amewrica--more later but boss
wants a ride to pick up his vehicle :)
Dave K
You keep giving numerous examples of instances where everything worked as it
should ‘without guns.’ Yet you ingore the fact that the people had the ability,
if it would have been required.
You keep reciting phrases out of context like “outta my cold dead hands” and
“brain lead.” Yet you ignore the fact that those statements are made in defence
of freedom and the democracy that preserves it. If you are unwilling to kill to
protect your freedom that is fine. No one is requiring you to keep a gun or kill
to protect your freedom. What I can’t figure out is where you get off telling
people they shouldn’t reserve the right to kill to protect freedom just because
it is unlikely that we will ever need to resort to such desperate measures. Did
it ever occur to you that the reason it is extremely unlikely that we will have
to resort to such measures is simply because we do have the ability to do so? Of
course for some odd reason you actually believe that the military is somehow in
a position of god-like superiority and we don’t have the ability to do so, when
in fact the military could easily be neutralized by an overwhelming force in its
own bases on American soil. (That is a worst case senario mind you, in all
likelyhood if things got that bad, the military would be busy fighting itself.
Either way its presence is irrelevent.)
I am going to take a wild guess and say your going to ignore all that and just
think I am a ‘gun totin yahoo.’ I wonder if you realize that we are technically
arguing for the same thing; protecting the innocent and preserving our rights
and democracy.
-Mike Petrucelli
”
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
220 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
|
|
|
|
