Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 May 1999 22:03:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
943 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 1999 14:53:43 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following
profundities...
> Richard Dee wrote:
> >
> > (When considering flameage in your replies, remember I am
> > actually half-American, by way of my father).
>
> How would that change anything?
It wouldn't generally, but might temper the reaction of "stupid
bloody foreigner!" That could instead be "half-stupid, half-
foreigner!"
<snippage>
A desire to understand the feelings of people, and debate them
has caused incredible reaction!
Many of the points you have raised have been raised elsewhere,
and would refer you to those other posts. (Not yet posted!
Give me a chance! 2 of them are detailed, half-way finished
drafts, and will be posted tomorrow, time permitting.)
Though you were the only one to respond to the Indian part.
I realised that I had snipped the part about your neighbourhood.
I hope that nothing bad comes of you and yours, should your
suspicions prove true of some of the locals and their "friends."
> > What real justification?
>
> I'll still stand by the 2nd Amendment, though it appears you'll be
> misrepresenting it shortly.
Probably! Its been more than 12 years since I was in US High School.
> > When was the Constitution written, 1789? 210 years ago! What
> > was life like then? Then, you could argue that justification
> > existed. "Hostile" natives, the need to hunt for much of the
> > food to be consumed, etc.
>
> In addition to the natives, there were soldiers of other nations about,
> and we would have had to wait longer to declare independence from the
> tyranny of King George. (Actually, I'm partially joking, I mostly think
> our revolution was a silly petulant knee-jerk tax revolt, but I wasn't
> there, and I've profited from it, so I don't complain too much.) I
> think there was lots of reason (inarguably) for firearms to be
> commonplace at the time.
But somewhat less-so justification now, or more so? Discounting the
personal protection element. (A point which I *might* concede to having
*possible* justification, in light of how heavily armed criminals and
neighbours are).
>
> > ("Hostile" natives. Hmmmmm, a group
> > of people, though not recognised as being part of the nation,
> > excersising their democratic rights, both in what would later
> > be defined in international law, and what would then have been
> > their constitutional rights, to protect their homes, culture,
> > and way of life, from what was then a far more hostile and
> > powerful foe.
>
> International law doesn't hold water since it wasn't around, and they
> didn't have constitutional rights because they weren't in-group, just
> like the slaves.
Yes, I know, for the time period, hence "what would later be defined in.."
Failing hopelessly in bringing attention to the fact that the
Indians, like the slaves, were regarded as being sub-human, but unlike the
slaves, were presented as being "unable to provide anything useful
to American society, and as such, should be exterminated." (A misquote
from a news article regarding the Indian "problem," attributed to some
government official in the 19th century whose name I can't remember.
(Probably so minor to be completely insignificant, but then again, maybe
someone more significant, I don't remember)). An attempt to point
out the fact that the West (UK, US, French, others), today's "Global Police,"
are as guilty of the same crimes they are trying to right in the present,
that they had committed in the past.
> > Sound familiar? A nation being invaded for nothing
> > more than profit, or to conduct "ethnic cleansing." Oh the irony,
>
> Of course, I don't think anyone would dispute that this was why the
> British sent colonists there - and all over the world.
Colonialism as it was then, I would hope with our "more evolved sensibilities,"
today, wouldn't happen. Though I don't have *that* much faith in human
nature. Our history isn't so clean, either. During the crusades, we
slaughtered more Jews than Arabs, and later at home. We brought to
the world the concentration camp during the Boer war. And the
"resource exploitation" of colonialism didn't just stop at raw
materials. Slavery, slaughter, etc......
>
> > when the US government should decide to send in Apache helicoptors,
> > to protect the Kosovans. Sending in a piece of military hardware
> > to protect a group of people from "ethnic cleansing," named after
> > a group of people "ethnically cleansed" by the owners' recent
> > ancestors!) Back to the story.....
>
> I guess that is mildly amusing :-)
Does anyone hate the term "ethnic cleansing" as much as I do? What
seems to be an attempt at making a nicer term for genocide is in
itself racist and derrogatory! Suggesting that there is recognition
of the fact that a particular group is in anyway dirty! Let's not
try to be so nice about something so horrid.
> > What justification is there today for gun ownership? None, really.
> > How many people are shot in their homes by hostile invaders? I
> > would suggest (I have no *evidence* to support the notion) that
> > more people are shot accidentally, or by other members of that
> > household, then by outsiders.
>
> What if I cited lots of numbers suggesting you were wrong? I've done
> this for people before, but the typical response is "Oh yeah, but those
> are your numbers, I could find equally significant studies on the
> opposite side" (but of course they've never produced them) or "Yeah,
> yeah, yeah, anyone can make numbers say anything...don't you know you
> can't trust studies."
I would be interested to see them. I am, after all, interested in the
debate, and would like to draw more informed conclusions.
"I have no *evidence* to support the notion....." Stating that that which
followed was a supposition. Crime figures for the UK would suggest that that
supposition had some validity, but probably not so for the US.
And yes, I could say that any study can be presented in such
a way as to say whatever the commissioner of the study wanted
to, but I won't. I don't have any evidence for either, and would
welcome the chance to draw a conclusion from some evidence.
Conflicting studies can be used to form a vague middle ground, though.
How about we each find conflicting studies,
analyse the two, and derive a conclusion from both that might be
more "correct?" There might be enough conflicting points in direct
opposition that cancel each other out, and that left over might just
be the right answer. Where might I find some.
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
For the best Lego news, visit: http://www.lugnet.com/news/
Need instructions for a model? http://www.kl.net/scans/
_____________________________________________________________
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) You know, I don't get that. I've seen lots of newsgroups explode into US v. Canada or US v. UK debates, and its always so silly. Ultimately, you get a tiny little say in what goes on in your government and I get a tiny little say in mine, but (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) How would that change anything? (...) OK, I'll bite :-) (...) Absolutely. 100% (...) I don't want to call them insignificant, but I think that due to the way you've phrased the question, the only answer I can give is Yes. I think that the RKBA (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
