 | | Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Dave Low
|
| | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek has been snipped... (...) Although Australia is a constitutional backwater (no bill of rights, still a monarchy etc) our High Court has come up with some interesting jurisprudence on this point. Rather (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) The only reason the 2nd might be ineffective against government firepower is that we have allowed the government to overly restrict the weapons an individual may possess. At this point, we better darn well hope that if the government goes on a (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | (...) Where would this end? Do you think it's reasonable that wealthy individuals or corporations should have tanks, fighter jets etc in their private possession? Or that they would actually bother to defend the "citizenry" against the government (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Realistically, what do you think the chances are of your government gonig on the "rampage"? Scott A (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I'm sure the Branch Davidians perceived a rampage to be in the air, and folks around Ruby Ridge might likewise agree that the guvmint sometimes forcibly oversteps its bounds. Dave! (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) It is all a matter of perception. (...) Ruby Ridge? (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) But can't you say that about everything in a debate of this sort? And if you're going to make a relativist claim like that, then you undermine your own stance, as well. I perceive a burglar entering my home, but he perceives himself as a (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I was using what you said... "Branch Davidians _perceived_ a rampage". It may have been their "perception" - but they have been wrong. (...) In either case, s/he'd be breaking the law. That, however, does not mean I have the absolute right to (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Oh. Well, you don't expect me to pay attention when I'm typing, to you? (...) I think you meant "they may have been wrong." Anyway, I'm not sufficiently well-versed in the Waco story, but there are many who identify the use of riot tanks as (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) In the UK, the "potential danger" is almost nil. If I killed him in anything other than strict self defense, I'd be of to jail. See: (URL) If that (...) If he does not have the right to sue in the US... why/how does it happen? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) That's quite amazing to me. Does he have to have a proverbial knife to your throat/bat to your skull before you're able to act, or is there some point at which his presence or actions are sufficient to infer forcible self-defense as an (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
