Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 19:53:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
526 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > 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.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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?
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 version which you feel you can comply with. Now, if the
pressure were there to significantly change the constitution to something
you didn't agree with, what would you do? And, I think you answered this
point quite well already.
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
