Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:37:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
634 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Powell writes:
> (snippage of book suggestion, thanks, but I don't think we would have access • to
> a copy here in Newfoundland)
As a grad student, I had to occasionally request inter-library loans
internationally. It is no problem.
> > > I would say that of the 2 countries which are freer with weapons (Swiss and
> > > Israel), that it is _training_ that makes the difference.
> >
> > And you would say that why?
>
> Because, just like the NRA says, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
But virtually everyone over the age of twelve exhibits enough clue or
discipline not to shoot people at random, or for petty concerns. And my
favorite is 'guns don't kill people...bullets do!'
> In essence, we (Canadian Forces NCM's) are taught that: A-you point at it if
> you want to kill it
That's what we US yuppie brats learn from dad too.
> B-Point a weapon at someone (in the classroom) and you will
> be doing LOTS of pushups until you get the point
I was a student for quite some time, and I suspect the penalties would have
been considerably higher for me ;-)
> > I couldn't agree more. But, under the circumstances for which that's not
> true,how do you get them? The citizens of the US have the right to own
> machine guns, howitzers, tanks, etc so that if the gubmint gets upity, we
> can slap them down. Now, if the gubmint gets upity enough that they need
> to be slapped down, and we don't already have those weapons, do you
> suppose that said uppity gubmint is going to just let us have them?
> Bzzzzzt!
>
> Lets put it this way, how long would it take you to back off if I put 10 of
> your friends against a wall for you attacking a 'government officer'.
That would depend on what all was at stake. I would gladly allow you to kill
ten friends to prevent them from living as your slave. My preference would be
to shoot you in the head and slip into the bush.
> I am well within my rights to do so
Rights are a funny thing.
> Also, rest assured, as a tyrnical dictator, I would come up with some _really_
> inventive ways to make it nasty for anyone caught with a weapon!.
You can do only a little worse than kill me. Really. And you'd be dead for
trying to pull that guff against the armed populace of the United States.
> > In the US the entire citizenry is the military and the police. So there is
> > no such distinction between those groups and the public.
>
> Do you _really_ think that "Red Dawn" was practical???
Umm...this is a trick question. _Red Dawn_ was a movie. And not a great one.
But the main problem with it was that so few kids were involved. I do believe
that the public, armed, could repel any invasionary force.
The simple fact of the matter is that there are a hundred of us citizens for
every invading soldier that could possibly be mustered. So even if we lose
fifty people for every soldier that we take, we'll win.
> The military takes more than just being a warm body. To be effective, it
> requires tradition, and time. The day of the minuteman has passed, and had
> passed by the end of the ACW.
Nah. If the second were being honored in the US, that spirit and effect would
very much be alive today.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (snippage of book suggestion, thanks, but I don't think we would have access to a copy here in Newfoundland) (...) Because, just like the NRA says, guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is as harmless as any other 10 lb object, at least (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 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
|
|
|
|
