![]() |
|
|||||||
| Image of the Day Images that will blow your mind - every day. [Blog] [RSS] [XML] |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#11 |
|
whig
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,075
|
Okok I値l stop the hyperbolic crap and try and keep this realistic. (as for debating quality that fark imagine of arguing on the internet is like...... comes to mind).
My guess is that I知 arguing with people from the 'small-government' school of thought. Call me insane but I知 willing to delegate things like law enforcement to the government we elect. This novel concept, properly implemented means I don't need to carry a loaded firearm, whether it be a glock or a minigun for my personal protection. Owning a firearm for recreational purposes I wouldn't have a problem with, there are many gun clubs here and they are thriving, but the the point is for sport only - not personal defence. The bill of rights is an amazingly socially advanced document, there is no question about that - in reality I壇 question just how well things like freedom of speech and freedom of associating actually exist but... Governmental control of these things is of course an icky issue however you look at it and there is always going to have to be a delicate balance drawn between the effectiveness of law enforcement, the freedom of the populace and the power of businesses. Some of the intelligence laws here (http://www.efa.org.au), are starting to lean toward the draconian - all in the name of the war on terror an issue that is starting to and will continue to generate ever-growing dislike but the gun control laws (admittedly passed in the wake of a slaughter committed by one man in Tasmania that would not have been possible without an automatic weapon) generated little concern outside the firearms community. The main argument against was farmers ability to effective control pests such as kangaroos, the issue was never one of positive rights. Abstract 'rights' while making you feel nice are kind of pointless unless they are useful for something. Correct me if I知 wrong but the original purpose of being able to own firearms was as a balance-of-power thing between the people and the state? Neither this or the need to be able to 'best' or 'match' the firepower of thsoe would do us harm is an issue here. I would hope an armed rebellion would not b necessary to keep a democratic system democratic (then again *thinks back* I could be wrong). Each nation has its own collection of political lobby groups and socio-political hang-ups, if a political here tried to be elected on a platform of 'lets bring god closer to the presidency' I doubt they'd do well at all. Here the government is actively funding stem cell research, despite the lambasting of the Catholic Church. The kind of militant support that the gun lobby has over there may be based on something solid, but from here with a reasonably effective police force and an extremely (by comparison to most) peaceful history, it seems outmoded and unnecessary. Sorry couldn't help this one We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. by George Orwell
__________________
Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain Last edited by jaguar; 06-09-2002 at 07:10 PM. |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|