Subject:
|
Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 04:05:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
205 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Low wrote:
> I'd assert that all people have several universal and inalienable human
> rights. Certainly most are political, arguably some are economic, I doubt
> whether any are ballistic. Personally I think the second amendment is
> ineffective against government firepower -- or maybe not: who won the war on
> drugs?
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 rampage, that enough of the
military don't agree that we gain some comparable firepower.
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
| 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 (...) (24 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
