Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Sep 2002 21:40:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
866 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > Well you may call it yapping about the 2nd amendment but that is
> > a fundamental right. Without said right all other fundamental
> > rights are unenforceable. Let me put it this way (again); A
> > politician can not infringe upon the rights of the people so long
> > as the people can shoot said politician for trying.
> Aren't we a little more mature than this?
No! Mike is exactly right.
> I obey the law *because* it's the law, not because the cops have guns.
I can't say this nicely, so I'll just say it. That attitude makes you sound
like a goon. So things are made right merely by being law? Like when it was
legal to own people of recent African decent?
When my actions happen to coincide with the dictates of our law, I am not
obeying the laws either because they are laws or because the cops have guns.
It is generally because the laws (in those cases) are good or because it's the
only way to get things done due to bureaucracy. And when that's not the case,
I feel free to disregard the laws if I doubt that it will inconvenience me.
> It's the mature, 'evolved', inherently *right* way of doing things,
:-)
Uh hunh.
> If a law is unjust, then there are ways and means *within* the law to deal
Inadequate and largely inaccessible "ways."
> So you are part of a well regulated militia are you?
Yes.
> That's the only way you should have a gun
Spurious and false. The first clause of the amendment is not in any way a
directive, but something of an explanation. The second clause the directive
and all that needs to be "interpreted."
> if you're not part of the militia, then the 2nd ammendment doesn't apply to
you.
Luckily, we all are.
Chris (sorry I'm late)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Obeying the law as a general policy doesn't preclude civil disobedience to unjust laws. It needn't be all-or-nothing. (...) For me it's not the guns so much as the ticket books and handcuffs. :-) Actually, I obey most laws just because they (...) (22 years ago, 18-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) My attitude makes me sound like a goon? What kind of goon? A gun toting yahoo goon? You're right--there's no way to say this nicely--anyone who believes the brainless rhetoric that the NRA and Heston spout out of their mouths--'Outta my cold (...) (22 years ago, 19-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Aren't we a little more mature than this? 'He who carries the biggest stick rules the sandbox...'? I obey the law *because* it's the law, not because the cops have guns. It's the mature, 'evolved', inherently *right* way of doing things, such (...) (22 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 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
|
|
|
|
