Well my basic point is a disarmed populace (one that willfully puts itself so, no less) is just begging for dictatorship. Once you take people's power to resist away, you can then begin taking away anything you want. Let's not forget how far peaceful protests got people in China.

No need to explain yourself dude, i'm not gonna argue with you when firearms are involved, you are the master on that territory. :D

In case you didn't notice... i was just being sarcastic.... try to figure out why, if you got it right i'll buy you a beer. :D

Would it have anything to do with coming out of left field and slamming someone with a good post? I haven't posted here in ages, and chances are, I won't again.

No, it has something to do with Adolph and Josif. :D And that's the last hint you get.

Hey, Oblivion, I wasn't aware of that little factoid about Lenin. Thanks for the info.

I've never been a proponent of gun control, for a variety of reasons, but I do think the "armed populace" argument has become a little lame. Valid in 1781, yes, but the obvious gap in capabilities between the weapons the government can tote and the weapons the citizens can makes a Lockean "appeal to Heaven" a pretty hellish thing to envision... furthermore, the UK, Canada, Australia, and most countries I can think of off the top of my head with a British constitutional heritage have managed to avoid tyranny pretty well without having an armed populace. Not sure what that might indicate, exactly, but since the US's constitutional roots are essentially British, I think it tends to degrade the "we must be able to defend ourselves" argument a tad. (although events over the past couple of years are making me re-evaluate that judgement on a daily basis...)

-- Mal

Well, allow me to lay this one out in the frankest of terms. Firearms should NOT be banned! It's so simple, that your logic is clearly too short-sighted (not an insult, Einstein had short-sighted logic in politics as well) to see the ramifications of having a disarmed populace. In 1935, the US Congress passed the NFA, which set regulations on firearms. At that time, self-loaded rifles were viable for civilian use, in 1947, Kalashnikov produced a cheap, reliable, high quality weapon perfect for a soldier, the AK-47. The NFA got tightened. Now here we are. Only the elite few can own fully-automatic weapons, and even they have to jump numerous beauracratic hurdles. This 'sleek machines of death' thing doesn't apply. No, they aren't single shot, but how many self-loading carbines were around in 1781, firing cased metallic cartridges? The framers knew the ramifications of armaments would change, how they worked, how the government used them, etc. Why then should the civilian populace not retain the right to keep in that scale? The key reason why the term militias is used refers to what militias did. They were people's armies. In the event of a government becoming too tyrannical, these armies could overthrow that government and change things. If we are all carrying around flintlock rifles, we're kind of handicapped, aren't we? Government is far from perfect. It is an order of the paradigm of government that it be imperfect. Your notion that society has refined past the point of essential application is 1. Clear proof of political indoctrination 2. a notion used by three important leaders in history: Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Josif Stalin (incidentally, Lenin was in favor of an armed populace, in case someone like Stalin took over...). No society has a government too good that it can't get better, or become so foul that it needs replacement. Charleville muskets were sleek machines of death compared to british longbows back in the 18th century. A G-36 loaded with a Beta C is barely sufficient in that capacity. Another interesting point is the attempted ban on rifles firing the .50 caliber cartridge (a good hunting round) as they're afraid of the notion of 'voting from the rooftops,' which, as I've said, is just what the framers had in mind. Also, there was another time in American history wherein Gun control was considered a good idea. Reconstruction. The notion was that Freedmen shouldn't own guns 'for their protection.' Just a few thoughts, in an over protracted post. </font>[/QUOTE]WTF??

The party's over. The crowd's gone home. The horse was flogged to death last year. What's the point?

To quote a post from Animal, from seven months ago:

And necromancy stinks. Especially if it happens for all the wrong and useless reasons.

[ 05-23-2003, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

No.

Or India.

Now now Hugh, you said it yourself; no more flogging the dead horse. [img]graemlins/5bloodymurder.gif[/img] ;)