Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

Moody, Danny M. wrote, in response so a drooling idiodicy by Mr. Burger:

> > these are non-controversial rights
> 
> Are they?  What does the 'right to safety' mean?  Safe from what? 
What
> does the 'right to prosperity' mean?	What is prosperity?  How are
> rights protected when there isn't a list of them written down
anywhere?

I've never heard of a right to safety.	It flies in the face of the
known fact that 100% of humans die.  You have to die of something.  It's
a fundamental law of nature.

As for prosperity, what nation believes this?  Since a Canadian wrote
it, I assume that's a claim that all Canadians are either rich or at
least comfortably middle class.  Refutation is left as an exercise for
the reader.

> > - but when you get Americans of a
> > certain type talking about rights, they start yammering about the
> right
> > to
> > own lots and lots of artillery

Yes, of course a hunting rifle is indistinguisable from a 155mm
howitzer.  Only if you're blind, deaf, and stupid as well.

> > - pardon, the "right" to bear arms, and
> > want to tie this into safety, etc etc. ("Yes, I can only be safe in
my
> > own
> > home if I own a big handgun that my 3-year old will blow his brains
> out
> > with!")
> 
> My, how ... *open minded* we are.  You have a problem with others
> thinking or acting differently?  Or do you just prefer to personally
> insult them by calling then 'nuts'?

He's implying everyone who owns a firearm is a lunatic.  An objective
comment would be that everyone who owns a firearm and fails to secure it
properly with small children in the house, probably shouldn't have bred
in the first place.  Thus we place the onus on safety and security of
firearms, rather than on an inanimate piece of metal.  After all, how
many people own power tools which could cut your three year old in
half?  We probably all drive cars, which items kill more people per year
in the US than firearms kill people in the US, Canada, and UK combined,
yet we don't condemn those who own them, simply those who use them in an
unsafe, reckless, or homicidal manner.
 
> ><unless all the gun nuts kill
> > themselves off in the 2nd ACW...This is without mixing religion into
> > things.
> 
> Again with the personal attacks.

Ah, now we've got all persons who have a religion (apparently including
Buddists and Hindus?) lumpin in with all gun-owners, who are all
"nuts".  This becomes a truly confusing little political manifesto if
one takes into account that secular humanism is as much based on
unwavering faith in certain premises as is Judaism or Christianity, and
could really be considered as much a religion as anything else.  We're
all nuts, so we all should be able to get along.

> >This way the gun nuts could keep their artillery in
> > administrations that had a majority of gun nuts, while the rest of
the
> > citizenry in other regions wouldn't bother with 'rights' like this.
> 
> Again with the personal attacks.  How civilized.

He's also switching back from citizen to subject.  Very important
distinction--one is a subject of a monarch, or one is a citizen of a
nation.

I think we can write this drek off as the ranting of a confused
Canadian, presumably their villiage idiot, who should be kept off
international forums until such time as he can express himself in a
rational manner.

John M. Atkinson