-Caveat Lector-
"Howard R. Davis III" wrote:
>
> -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.
Oh Howard you pick such unfortunate examples. The Soviets made short
shrift of the Hungarian Revolution.
> 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).
This is wishful thinking. It bears no resemblance to reality. The US
Government is the most powerful entity in all of history.
> 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.
Please stop. This is the natural evolution of money/power in ANY system.
This is Capitalism even if it is not by your ideal definition. This is it.
This is what it does. It's no secret.
> 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 behavior is due to the natural human tendency towards Elitism which
is nothing more than an human extension of anthropoid hierarchy.
Capitalism is the system invented by and for elites with excess capital.
Money gets power and power gets money. Both together keep the elites in
charge.
> 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.
Your concept of Liberty is like your concept of Capitalism.
> 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?
It's a question of priority. Revolution is theoretical. Gun violence is
immediate.
>
> > 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.
I apologize. I am speaking to you as representative rather than you
as Howard the individual. You ( all ) are not taken seriously by anyone
but each other and the politicians who represent some of you. I say this
not as much to put you down, as to make you understand that you don't
have John Q. Citizen on you side and you are loosing more fence sitters
every day.
Today, that awful establishment twat Elizabeth Dole came out
for restrictions on guns. She didn't do this for the hell of it. Her
pollsters see enough people on the right changing their attitudes about
the availability of guns. She is also setting a line of demarcation between
her and Baby Bush. This will be the " hot button issue " to turn out the
Republican vote. I hope she looses because I just can't stand her accent.
But the point really is the direction of the gun issue in politics.
The NRA
line of no give has brought you gun nuts to this. The NRA doesn't care
about you or rights. They are the political action arm of the US gun
manufacturers and they use the Second Amendment and suckers like you to
keep pushing their over saturation of their domestic market. You want to
get yourself killed for the gun manufacturers? If so, your are a fine
example of evolution in action.
>
> > 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).
And where will your women and children be? Fort Knox?
>
> > 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?
POPULATION!!!!!!
> 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?
The problem is the SECOND AMENDMENT and guns. Not the first amendment and
fake violence. Even if you got all worked up at an Arnold Schwartzeneger
and came out ready to kill. Without a gun, so what? The problem is that
guns are available to change this into a potentially lethal situation.
Besides, it easier to remove the hardware than to change society. So that's
how it can be done.
> 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
You are right! How about if you gun nuts get rid of violence in the media,
and we gun grabbers get rid of guns? What a fabulous idea. I have already
started on my end, why don't you guys get crackin'. America will thank us
for it.
Joshua2
>
> 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
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
