Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:26:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1122 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > Thank you for your opinion, but I'd rather consider it an unnecessary evil and
> > > do something about it.
> >
> > I don't happen to care what happens in Australia. Is there some reason I
> > should? Y'all should do as pleases Australians best.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. But if you're not interested in what happens in
> other countries, why should you worry about the laws in other US states?
> Maybe you don't?
The Federal system means that any precedent set in another state
may affect our own laws--certainly, they will when we drive through,
or relocate to, said state, and most American families are spread
through many states. So I'd argue that it's a bad comparison because
what happens in states X and Z may indeed affect me as a USian in
state Y personally. It would be like suggesting that people in
Queensland have no stake in what goes on in NSW, which would of
course be silly.
(I'm of the opinion that USians should pay more attention to the
world outside the US than we do, but not because it should serve
as a precedent.)
> If you do, why should they worry about your opinion? They have their own
> laws. Still covered by the same constitution, but that doesn't mean they
> have to agree with it.
Again, the Federal government can overturn State law when it
conflicts with precedent set, and the Federal government can in
fact give mandates to the States. (States also have their own
constitutions--but they are subordinate to the Federal one.)
States also tend to look at success stories from within the
US to formulate solutions to their own problems, so what happens
in one State can affect others that way too.
Not that you should care how the US works internally, of course,
but I wanted to point out that the example isn't quite applicable.
It does make me ask, though, is the federal government that weak
over there compared to local entities?
> My point being that to consider it "a necessary evil and be done with it"
> discounts the possibility of it ever changing, and that would be pretty
> short-sighted, even for US citizens.
Not so much a "necessary evil," but an ingrained piece of habitus
that simply isn't going anywhere. It would be like doing away with
the belief that democratic society is a good idea--it's theoretically
possible, but generation after generation have decided and, occasionally,
shown that they want it. The continuing debate over what it means to
bear arms and what sort of arms those should be is a sign to me that
everything's fundamentally OK.
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Thanks for the suggestion. But if you're not interested in what happens in other countries, why should you worry about the laws in other US states? Maybe you don't? If you do, why should they worry about your opinion? They have their own laws. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 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
|
|
|
|
