-Caveat Lector-
nurev wrote:
>
> >
> > "Howard R. Davis III" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On several occasions Nurev has threatened his critics with a future
> > > revolution of the people. He seems to enjoy fantasizing about a future
> > > revolution against the "capitalists" who he seems to fear will take over
> > > the government.
>
> I'm not threatening revolution. I am saying that the natural outcome
> of
> Capitalism is concentration of wealth. The natural outcome of the
> concen-
> tration of wealth is poverty for most people. The natural outcome of
> poverty
> is social disintegration. The natural outcome of social disintegration
> is
> dictatorship. And the natural outcome of dictatorship is revolution.
>
> I don't want ANY of these things to come about. But any fool can see
> that
> those situations would be infinitely more deadly if they occurred in a
> country with free access to millions of guns.
>
> (They haven't already?) Yet here he wants to take away
> > > their guns. What kind of sense does that make?
>
> Right! Like you gun loonies are really going to stop tanks with your
> 9mms
> and your shotguns.
During the Hungarian revolution many Russian tanks were taken out with
"Molotov cocktails". Tanks are not necessarily unstoppable. Also, TOW
missiles might become readily available if a civil war were to erupt.
However, as I am sure you realize, a well armed citizenry would be
impossible to stop even if the opposition had help from outside forces
(as they probably would). Your scenario of revolution becoming an
inevitable outcome of the concentration of wealth is true. However, you
keep calling this "capitalism". Free market capitalism does not lead to
a concentration of wealth. It is only when capitalists are able to
control the government and use its powers to limit competition that
great concentrations of wealth are really possible. Read some of the
other articles that have appeared on this list about the Mellon family
or the Roosevelt family and you will see that their great wealth was
derived in large measure through the power of government. These efforts
to amass great wealth were empowered by the creation of laws to the
benefit of these elite. This is not a result of the liberty I and others
you so often demean advocate, but rather is a result of the growth in
government powers which you certainly do not seem to deplore. If this is
to lead to a revolution, as you seem to believe, why do you want the
people to be disarmed while the government (which you know is under the
control of the elite you seem to deplore) is so well armed?
> Who the hell do you think you are impressing? No
> one
> takes you clowns seriously except your own delusional selves.
So I am a clown and delusional? Please try to control yourself when
addressing me.
> Waco was
> very
> well armed remember?
No, they were not. There is evidence that many of the guns were placed
in the building after the fire. And, even if they did have many guns,
half of the people there were women and children (and, of course, they
were in a flimsy easily torched wooden building).
> The only thing that could have saved them was an
> outcry
> from all of us. Do you guys think there will be an outcry from the
> rest of
> your fellow citizens when we all decide through the political process
> that
> we no longer want guns in the general population AND YOU WON'T COMPLY?
>
> Get real. This society is too sick to have easy access to guns.
> Period.
If this society is too sick to have easy access to guns then one must
ask the question: Why is it too sick now when 200 years ago the leaders
of our country thought the opposite? I suggested the possibility of
modifying the First amendment to disallow the portrayal of violence in
the media. (It seems that the present interpretation of the 1st
amendment to allow these portrayals is fairly recent, as well). You
agreed with me that the portrayal of violence in the media is bad and
that you don't allow your children to watch it. However, you did not
agree that the first amendment should be limited. Why not? We have had
gun control for over thirty years. During that same period of increasing
control of guns we have also seen a great increase in the portrayal of
violence in the media. It seems only reasonable to me to believe that a
decrease in the portrayal of violence would have a more beneficial
effect than any increase in gun control could possibly have.
Howard Davis
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
