Subject:
|
Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 04:22:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
141 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > 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.
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 (maybe they would to protect their markets!)? Or
would the government never actually move against the bulk of the populace
because such action would be (a) uneconomic and (b) less popular than the
war in Vietnam?
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
| (...) 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)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
