Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jul 2001 14:48:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
494 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > > By the way I'd support a significant change to the 2nd. It needs to be
> > > > reworded to be clearer.
> > >
> > > Would you support a rewording that was in opposition to your
> > > interpretation of the amendment and to your interpretation of the original
> > > authors' intent?
> >
> > 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 support some, and actively work to oppose some.
> >
> > My fundamental point here, which I haven't seen any discussion on, is that
> > I'd rather see clarity and strict interpretation, and working for change
> > openly, than what we have now, which is flawed, because it's not an open
> > process.
The below is a good question but does not address the question I raised above...
> 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?
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 legal sense) to all other laws which are subordinate. If
the process changes the constitution such that I found it morally
unacceptable I would have to reevaluate whether i could continue to reside
in the US, because I do not accept unconditional majority rule. If the
constitution were amended to require me to stay against my will, rather than
to emigrate, at that point I would be forced to take up arms (illegally, I
suppose) to make my escape.
> If it meant giving up your unconditional requirement to arm
> yourself, would you accept that decision, or would you claim you have the
> right to ignore the ruling and arm yourself anyway, despite your then
> minority status? You cannot guarantee that the result of such a process
> would be in your favour, but if you refuse to consider an unfavourable
> outcome, and would refuse to abide by it, there is no point in starting.
This is incorrect. There are many sheep-citizens who *do* agree to
unconditionally abide, and improving clarity would benefit them no matter
what I chose to do myself. I feel for the sheep, even if I am myself not one
of them, and want their condition improved.
It sounds like you're arguing against clarity because one person somewhere
might not agree to go along? Or are you arguing against clarity because you
like things ambiguous so that pull and cronyism and bribery are more
important than the rule of law? Or something else?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
