At 12:00 AM -0500 1/15/03, e-gold Discussion digest wrote:
Todd,
Ohhhh. OK. Then you are one of these "Armed Revolution" nut cases?
*When you have no facts, the easiest thing is to attack the "enemy" by calling names. It's always easy to see whether a man is using reason: he has no need to derogate his opponent with name calling.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you attempting to lump me into some sort of category? If so, speak more about the nature of this category.
*That would call for rational thinking and I've found that those opposed to personal freedom, and the right to directly defend and take resposibility for it, do little rational thinking. The entire pitch is one of emotions, similar to 2 year old tantrums. "Because I say so," seems to be the rationale.
Let's get it out in plain english, Ragnar. This thread is about whether citizens should carry guns to shoot the police,
*Now *there's* a piece of rationality. Note how citizens carrying weapons are automatically lumped in with criminals who want to shoot police, thereby assuming all citizens are potential murderers. What weird thinking.
Citizens should, if they like, carry guns to defend themselves against the initiation of force.
*For what it's worth, a blue uniform and 9mm pistol do not automatically make the wearer just, rational or anything else. This country, and virtually all others, is rife if examples of police who have consistently abused their authority, committed crimes. Let's not make the assumption that all "authorities" are doing "right." We all know better, especially on this list.
If the law calls for the initiation of force for no good reason, then I see no moral reason why people should not defend themselves. Do you? Some people have a very low tolerance for subjugation. Others tolerate it well. Some welcome it. Which category are you in?
*Excellent questions. especially if
chances are good that you would prevail in court, or at least receive a light punishment for whatever it is that the cop is arresting you for.
*I'd agree here. My sister, an attorney, told me that in the many years she'd been in the court system, one infallible rule she discovered was that every police officer is willing to lie in order to get a conviction. Repeatedly, when dealing with a criminal, the cops involved would walk into her office and ask, "What do you want me to say?" Don't bet that a court is going to be any more "just" than a cop might be. Yes, there are many good judges who truly care about the law. There are, too, many corrupt ones who will throw an innocent man in jail because he's the wrong color, the wrong race, and justify himself when he looks in a mirror. Remember, if you will, that in many places in this country, judges are elected in the political system. 'Nuff said.
... the Jews in Germany in 1939 should have shot every Nazi that came into their gun sights. I, for one, would not have called that immoral. Apparently, you would?
*The Jews in Poland didn't do too bad a job of doing just that. Armed with only a few pistols, they held off an entire German Army for over six months. *My experience with these folks is that none of them have read history. Not even recent history. The entire history of the human race is one of the uses of violence, most often by the "authorities" who held the most weapons. There wasn't much of it that was very pretty. Eric -- --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
