RE: GUNS: Re: Self Defense

From: denis bider (
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 21:01:23 MST wrote:

> In addition, one of the powers we hold to ourselves is
> the power to collectively throw out the entire executive
> and legislative branches of our government, if they do not
> please us, and install different ones on a periodic basis.

(Which you only do in theory, but never in practice. You have two parties
that always remain the same. Either one of them always wins. In fact, right
now you have the son of a former president be your chief. Nepotism? No, not
entirely. But you didn't really have a choice. You only choose the party;
the party chooses its own candidate. Your country is actually a monarchy,
only you don't see it, because the two families in charge trade places every
few years.)

> But please understand that we shed a great deal of blood
> and lost many lives establishing this government and this
> country on the basis we prefer and when these arguments
> arise we ask ourselves one question: if we, the sovereigns
> of the nation, aren't allowed to defend ourselves and our
> nation then who has a better right?

Your argument was very well thought out, and very well executed. I thank you
for it, because I think you've voiced the concept very clearly - more
clearly than anyone else in this thread, I think.

Nevertheless, your argument was an emotional one. It was your response to my
original statement, which was:

<< So, I don't think America's aversion against banning guns has any
rational structure at all. >>

The statement is true. America's aversion against banning guns does not have
a rational structure. What it has is an emotional structure, and a very
strong one.

Also, I gathered the impression that you think I don't grok what democracy
is in the first place. We have one here, and I think we the citizens have
more or less the very same powers you have over there. It's only our
background that is different.

In particular, judging by the emotions in your message, I'd say you have
much more "Nationality Education" than we have here. Unless you somehow
manage to be several hundred years old, you didn't actually shed blood
yourself for the system you live in; someone else gave you the impression
that the system is worth a lot. (I agree, it is.) But that's called
indoctrination, and it is a method for the government to implant seemingly
correct, but subtly mistaken ideas into the minds of their people. We've had
quite enough of that here between 1945 and 1990. [So now I'm having none of

- denis

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:21 MDT