 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) No, it does not imply either of those things. I'm shocked, just shocked, that you would not be able to read my words and derive the clear meaning they contain. But oh well. The constitution suffers from lack of clarity in many places, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) Would you support a rewording that was in opposition to your interpretation of the amendment and to your interpretation of the original authors' intent? (Assuming, of course, that any rewording was accomplished through legal and proper (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) I support clarifying the meaning. Maybe the best way is to compose several alternative replacements that have different meanings (but all of which are clear in *what* they mean) and see which one survives the process. I'd actively work to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) Don't be shocked Larry, just read your own words: "Ignore it, interpret it in direct conflict with what the founders intended(1)?" Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) From a UK perspective, I see nothing wrong with laws slowly changing to mirror changes in society. In the US it would be very hard to ban guns overnight. They way to remove the risk caused by guns to Joe Public is to slowly tighten access to (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) But the fundamental question is, if something contrary to your personal view is chosen at the end of the legal process by a majority decision, would you abide by it? If it meant giving up your unconditional requirement to arm yourself, would (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) The below is a good question but does not address the question I raised above... (...) This is a good question... it gets to the root of, does one accept unconditional majority rule? The constitution is a fundamental document, superior (in the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) If you still thought you were right, and the state allowed criticism, another option could be to stay and try to persuade others your view for correct. But where would you go if you were to leave the USA in the manner you describe above, which (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) How unconstitutional that would be. -) (...) If you still thought you were right, and the state allowed criticism, another option could be to stay and try to persuade others your view for correct. After all, if you were to flee, you would (I (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) Sure, but in the mean time you'd be supporting evil. Some people seem to find that unacceptable. The best short term option would be to stay, breaking the law, and look for ways to change the system or better places to go. (...) That's the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
(...) Something else. I'm not arguing agaainst clarity. I think it would be great for all concerned to clarify the constitution. But you're assuming that a process which had the task of reviewing and amending the constitution would end up with a (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
Thanks for the clarification! :-) (...) If I left you with the impression that I am making that assumption, I was unclear and I apologise because I really did not intend to say that. I realise there is a risk in any journey that you may not end up (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
